Reading back, I think I may have made some unjustified assumptions (and also phrased my comment confusingly). I understood LW to be saying that hate speech could/should be treated like physical violence in this context because it is equally reprehensible – which is how Appiah seems to understand LW's words – but looking at the letter again, I suppose it could be that LW is instead linking the two as equally harmful.
Either way, I 100% agree with you that LW's heart is in the right place and his intentions were good.
(Also, for goodness' sake, no one, especially here, should expect you to be "neutral"!)
I do think it's weird that Appiah suddenly introduced the concept of "dignitary affront" without really going into what that means? Why use the term at all? It's not helpful outside a specialized context, and can be actively misleading – without an adequate explanation, it sounds like Appiah is minimizing the severity of the hate speech, when he seems to be trying to do the opposite.
ETA: Realized I was once again unclear, whoops. I meant that I initially read LW as thinking hate speech, like physical violence, was sufficiently bad behavior by patient to justify refusing/discontinuing care, while LW could just as easily have meant hate speech, like physical violence, was sufficiently harmful to care providers (i.e., the nursing staff) to justify refusing/discontinuing care. I think Appiah went with the first reading in his response, but as you point out the second is just as plausible, and makes me even more sympathetic to LW (even though I still agree with you that LW would not have been in the right to refuse care if the patient hadn't stopped harassing the nursing staff).
ETA 2, because I can't stop thinking about this: I think my initial response to the letter was very much dominated by my reaction to LW's statement that "there is a very real possibility that [the patient] could have died from her infection" if she didn't (a) seek and (b) obtain care (incl. IV antibiotics) elsewhere (and what if she continued that abusive behavior at another hospital?). I'm not a medical professional, but it's always been my understanding/assumption as a layperson that the wellbeing of the patient (esp. in a life-or-death situation) is the overriding concern. (Incidentally, I really appreciated your discussion of your own professional experiences!!!) In retrospect, I think that led me to view LW in a less favorable light, when LW's instinct to protect his coworkers is commendable.
ETA 3 (minoanmiss I am SO sorry for the state of your inbox): Appiah's (or his editor's) choice of title for the column is also really questionable. It's not about the patient being a bigot, it's about the patient actively harassing LW's coworkers.
no subject
Either way, I 100% agree with you that LW's heart is in the right place and his intentions were good.
(Also, for goodness' sake, no one, especially here, should expect you to be "neutral"!)
I do think it's weird that Appiah suddenly introduced the concept of "dignitary affront" without really going into what that means? Why use the term at all? It's not helpful outside a specialized context, and can be actively misleading – without an adequate explanation, it sounds like Appiah is minimizing the severity of the hate speech, when he seems to be trying to do the opposite.
ETA: Realized I was once again unclear, whoops. I meant that I initially read LW as thinking hate speech, like physical violence, was sufficiently bad behavior by patient to justify refusing/discontinuing care, while LW could just as easily have meant hate speech, like physical violence, was sufficiently harmful to care providers (i.e., the nursing staff) to justify refusing/discontinuing care. I think Appiah went with the first reading in his response, but as you point out the second is just as plausible, and makes me even more sympathetic to LW (even though I still agree with you that LW would not have been in the right to refuse care if the patient hadn't stopped harassing the nursing staff).
ETA 2, because I can't stop thinking about this: I think my initial response to the letter was very much dominated by my reaction to LW's statement that "there is a very real possibility that [the patient] could have died from her infection" if she didn't (a) seek and (b) obtain care (incl. IV antibiotics) elsewhere (and what if she continued that abusive behavior at another hospital?). I'm not a medical professional, but it's always been my understanding/assumption as a layperson that the wellbeing of the patient (esp. in a life-or-death situation) is the overriding concern. (Incidentally, I really appreciated your discussion of your own professional experiences!!!) In retrospect, I think that led me to view LW in a less favorable light, when LW's instinct to protect his coworkers is commendable.
ETA 3 (