Blunting the tip is a term coined by Ian D. McLean¹ to refer to a specific form cultural appropriation wherein one demographic asserts that the differing political philosophy of a second group is in fact a slight variation on the first group’s own philosophy rather than a direct challenge or outright rejection of their own philosophy. It was first used in reference to Sara D. Luterman’s (aka. Crosswords’s) claims that rolequeerness “is [not] threatening to binary [BDSM power] roles any more than queerness is threatening to binary sexuality or genderqueerness is threatening to binary gender”² and subsequently adopted by other rolequeer theorists in other conversations to refer to the same behavior.³

The process of “blunting the tip” has these signature characteristics:

• Group A’s assertions are in some (often direct) tension with Group B’s competing assertions.
• Group A claims that Group B’s assertions are a subset of Group A’s own philosophy.
• Group A intentionally re-defines Group B’s assertions in ways that support, rather than undermine, their own political stances.
• Group A discards or ignores Group B’s statements that Group A’s interpretation of Group B’s statements is incorrect.

Blunting the tip is closely related to what some rolequeer writers have termed “de-fanging,” and somewhat resembles Christian irenicism, but carries a connotation of intentional subtlety. The most useful strategic response to “blunting the tip” is sharpening the blade.

See also¶

• List of political design patterns and anti-patterns
• "Dominant" is not a legitimate rolequeer identity

References¶

¹ Ian D. McLean: On Rolequeerness

² Ms. Crosswords: On Rolequeerness

³ Maymay: Dissecting ‘A Brief, Mostly Sane Definition of Rolequeerness,’ which is not actually a definition of rolequeerness