[JadeNB]

> I don’t want to offend anyone, and I’m saying this with absolute care and humility… but if only they hadn’t had that much stuff then they would have had an easier time evacuating their homes and focusing on making sure their families are safe.

I've never understood these "I'm not a racist, but"-type comments. This is offensive, and does not demonstrate care and humility. Someone who learns from such a tragedy principally that others shouldn't have so much stuff is, I think, learning the wrong lesson.

EDIT: To be clear, I don't mean that I don't understand the purpose of the disclaimer, but rather that, if not always then at least in a modern rhetorical environment, it seems like a poor way of achieving its goal. For example, if the author correctly recognises that his statement sounds offensive, and absent care and humility, why not explain why he thinks that perception is incorrect, rather than trying simply to deny it by fiat?

[ggreer]

From Scott Alexander's post, The Eighth Meditation on Superweapons and Bingo[1]:

> But why would someone use "I'm not racist, but..."? It sounds to me like what they are saying is: "Look. I know what I am saying is going to sound racist to you. You're going to jump to the conclusion that I'm a racist and not hear me out. In fact, maybe you've been trained to assume that the only reason anyone could possibly assert it is racism and to pattern-match this position to a racist straw man version. But I actually have a non-racist reason for saying it. Please please please for the love of Truth and Beauty just this one time throw away your prejudgments and your Bingo card and just listen to what I'm going to say with an open mind."

> And so you reply "Hahahaha! He really used the 'look I know what I'm saying is going to sound racist to you you're going to jump to the conclusion that I'm a racist and not hear me out in fact maybe you've been trained to assume...' line! What a racist! Point and laugh, everyone! POINT AND LAUGH!"

Poor reactions to such disclaimers have gotten so bad that I'm now seeing disclaimers referencing that fact. "I know racists say, 'I'm not racist but...', but in this case..."

Most often, people who use such disclaimers really aren't racist. Or if they are, it's by accidental ignorance, not purposeful maliciousness. In any case, it's more productive to respond with civil discourse rather than claiming offense and biting their head off.

1. http://squid314.livejournal.com/329561.html

[JadeNB]

> Most often, people who use such disclaimers really aren't racist. Or if they are, it's by accidental ignorance, not purposeful maliciousness. In any case, it's more productive to respond with civil discourse rather than claiming offense and biting their head off.

I don't believe that I bit anyone's head off (but maybe you weren't claiming that I did).

As for a claim of accidental ignorance, I don't buy it in the context of the "I'm not racist, but …" disclaimer. If you are aware enough of how you sound to say that, then it seems too much to claim that any actual racism is accidental.

In fact, what I meant to say here was not that racist-sounding remarks are always racist and should never be heard, but rather that someone who wants to say something that sounds racist, but that he thinks isn't, had better explain why it isn't rather than just asserting that it isn't.

[itsybitsycoder]

I agree with you in general, but specifically, how is this statement offensive? It seems pretty obvious to me that if someone has less stuff, they won't have to spend as much time taking care of said stuff, and that some people may make some bad calls to care for their valuable stuff in an emergency situation instead of focusing solely on their own safety or their family's safety. We see it so often that it needs to be mentioned in fire safety drills that you shouldn't dawdle around in a burning building to collect your stuff, and that you hear of people in evacuation areas staying behind because they don't want to leave their homes.

I was reading a book the other day about a guy who chose to sell most of his possessions and live in a van with his wife, and he had several stories of being able to simply drive away from emergency situations, where the people with more stuff were (or felt) stuck and had to suffer through it. He drove away from power outages, flood areas, fire areas, etc. For this and other reasons, he felt a lot happier and safer than when he lived a life with a lot more stuff.

[JadeNB]

I am not disputing (or asserting) its factual accuracy. However, if I had lost my home or loved ones, then I would find it offensive to be told that it was because I had too much stuff.

[mcone]

This is an example of "procatalepsis" or "prolepsis" [1], a rhetorical device that is often used to try to defuse criticism. Authors often use this to try to slip something controversial by their readers [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procatalepsis

[2] http://www.theguardian.com/media/mind-your-language/2015/apr...

[JadeNB]

It's interesting; I hadn't known the word 'prolepsis' but recently encountered it in another context, in which it was defined quite differently as "the representation or assumption of a future act or development as if presently existing or accomplished" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prolepsis). Is one of these references in error, or is the same word used to describe two very different rhetorical devices?

[chipsy]

You're right that it's poor rhetoric. "Oh Woe" flagellation doesn't fit well in self help writing.

The ancient way of fitting a potentially offensive statement in is to write it esoterically, so that only the people who really want to analyze get the message. The modern way is to call everything a positive, I think.

[JadeNB]

> The ancient way of fitting a potentially offensive statement in is to write it esoterically, so that only the people who really want to analyze get the message.

I'm not sure that I understand this. Are you referring to some older equivalent of dog-whistle rhetoric (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics)?