Your more specific wording also inserts terms that weren't there. That's what including subtext does.
Wrong wording on my behalf.
I meant it inserted terms that weren't there, based on your
projection, while ignoring the point.
Anyway, this all side-steps the fact that your example isn't a good one to demonstrate your otherwise valid point. A good example would be the following statement:
"A 2D object is possible."
Unlike the previous examples, this one avoids reference to the speaker (no "I made..." or "in my lab..."). In such a case, yes, the difference in the message between speakers is subjective. Though I'd argue that it's not as hard and fast a distinction as one might think, considering that we communicate more information than is contained in our literal words. In daily life, we depend on doing so. And keep in mind that in the situation under discussion, the message isn't a literal one.
That depends on how you define "communicate". We attempt to transfer information by being as clear as possible (unless our purpose is not to do so, like some theists here have done and still do), but different meanings are perceived by the listener depending on who the speaker is, who they appear to be, and the way in which they say things, than by what they're actually saying. And this is just based on the speaker; the listener's own biases also take precedence over what the speaker says.
Do they? Do you have a quote?
It's hyperbole that led to a fallacy
. Ignore it.
So, objecting to a white pride celebration, while not objecting to a black pride celebration, is discriminatory? Well, yeah. It discriminates based on facts.
Different intents and means. "White pride" celebrations are conducted by white supremacists and probably feature hate speech. "Black pride" celebrations are not conducted by black supremacists and probably do not feature hate speech.
This, of course, according to what I recall reading on the subject.
If someone wanted to organize a "White pride" celebration without hate speech, and without all the "whites are better" sentiment, among other things, I'd let them. I wouldn't join them, mainly because I think such things are frivolous, but I'd support their right to do so.
What you're doing is saying that men can't wear shirts like Dr. Taylor's because it "sends the wrong message" (id est
: you're discriminating against someone wearing whatever they want because others might get the wrong idea, rather than whether or not that idea is even legitimate), and because he's a man, rather than a woman. You're not discriminating because it's sexist ("discrimination levels" don't vary depending on who's doing it; a black person calling a white person the c-word is just as bad as a white person calling a black person the n-word), but your discrimination itself is
Okay, but according to what you're saying, it seems like the latter person in my example really should have a point. After all, the men in Iran shouldn't be discriminated against just because of how they were born. It's not their fault they have privilege. Why should the women in Iran get considerations that the men don't? Discriminating between them based on who has a history of oppressing whom would be sexist, according to the principles you've laid out.
The issue here isn't that women are getting rights equal to men. Men do have privileges women don't have, and it's a good thing that the inequality is being fixed (albeit slowly). However, as you yourself mentioned, a woman doing this exact same thing in this exact same situation would not
be considered as sexist (and that's only if it would be considered sexist at all). That
is what the issue's all about - men being discriminated against because they did something that's only wrong for them to do solely on the basis that they're men
Also, I suggest reading the article I linked. It's some good perspective.
I was unaware that was directed at me. I'll read it when I get back from college. I have a test today.
If you like, I'll keep my eye out.
That'd be great.