Is it ok to become an "ist" when you are fighting an "ism"

[jorno67]

It seems more and more these days (even here on DU) that people become just as big of an "ist" (if not bigger) in the opposite position than the "ism" they are against.

That can't be good, right?

Feel free to read into this what you want (or not) if you get a tingle of anger about it then it most likely applies to you and your position. If not...carry on.

[seabeyond]

1. "ist? as in individualIST? explain, then i will feel free to

go from there. but not gonna read into something i dont know what you are saying. not my style

[jorno67]

3. it's not about specific "ist" or "ism"

it's about what we allow ourselves to become when fighting for our causes.

[Old and In the Way]

2. I agree.....more or less. nt

[montanto]

4. Not all "ists" can fight "isms."

A pugilist can't fight a schism.

[jorno67]

5. but a pugilist is a part of pugilism...

[montanto]

6. That would lead to infighting.

[montanto]

7. thus another schism.

[jorno67]

10. Damn!!!

[slackmaster]

8. Not every -ist has a corresponding -ism.

For example, there are bigamists but there is no such thing as bigamism.

There is bigamy, or the broader term polyamory.

[jorno67]

9. true that!

I guess the two obvious examples where this occurs are sexism and racism.
I didn't mention them by name as I don't want the discussion to become about sexism and racism; but rather how some people become what they are against(racist or sexist) when fight against racism and sexism.

[justiceischeap]

11. I think part of the problem is some people think they're making a joke

about the "ism" and don't realize that they're joking makes them look like an "ist." Then, when someone points out they sound like an "ist," they get defensive because there's no way they are an "ist" and how dare you call me an "ist" for joking about the "ism."

[LanternWaste]

12. I simply got a tingle of confusion

"if you get a tingle of anger about it then it most likely applies to you and your position. If not...carry on...."

I simply got a tingle of confusion based on your general statement and concluding with a self-serving implication that anyone who may disagree is guilty of your vague and unnamed sin.

However, I imagine you'll rationalize a self-validating conclusion from that also, yes?

[jorno67]

13. Oh no...sorry

i did not mean that line to come off as self serving at all - I wish I were a better writer! I meant it to say the people who get angry or defensive about this type of thing are most likely the ones who need to take a step back and see how far they are in it...after all we should be for everyone rights, yes?

also from post #9 to clear it up some...

I guess the two obvious examples where this occurs are sexism and racism.
I didn't mention them by name as I don't want the discussion to become about sexism and racism; but rather how some people become what they are against(racist or sexist) when fight against racism and sexism