The point that you don't seem to be getting is that harm can be done (an insult) without it having been intended and without the person who made the statement, committed the act, etc ...needing to be labeled as "bad," "sinful," "in the wrong" etc...
Oh, I do get that point very, very well. And I agree with it.
The point I think you're missing is that when we say "you insulted Bob" we almost always mean it as a bad, or wrong, or not nice thing. Saying that you insulted someone is not a values-neutral concept.
At least within the context of this discussion on this thread, that was clear, at least to me. It was clear that people were saying that not inviting the black person to your party, even if you didn't intend to harm or insult them thereby, was a bad, or a wrong, thing to do.
If we had been discussion value-neutral acts, I would not have worried about the point as I have. If saying "you insulted X by not inviting them to your party" were said with total value neutrality, without any sense that the inviter did anything wrong or offended good taste or anything like that, we would have a very different situation. But that was not the background of the discussion.
So while I get you point perfectly, I don't think it applies to this discussion. |
