US vs. THEM
JOCKO
with the US vs. THEM mentality perpetuated by
the boomers.
Even though I began this item with an "attack" on
boomers, I don't think my existence is predicated
on the actions of others. But I do see boomers
doing this often--them vs. The Establishment,
vs. Non-Rock-and-Rollers, vs. Gen-X, vs. non-politically
correct--the list could go on ad infinitum.
Any thoughts on this? I would be particularly interested
in the how we view ourselves.
----------------------------------------------------------
Imagine a clever saying here...and maybe a picture.
Martin Joseph Craig
not fit their "ideal" . . . This stems [I think] from the
Marxist idealism they originally embraced in t/ 1960s. In
my opinion, they will deny, or contradict any notion that
confirms reality . . . for they live in a constant meta-
idealism. Historically, we can trace their idealism [and
its negation mechanism] from the Berkeley revolt, to t/
Chicago incident, Kent State, Disco, Wall Street [Junk
Bonds], to t/ current denial of "individualism" in t/ neo-
liberal cry for "universalism." I am speaking very general
here, and I hope your own thoughts can illuminate the pic-
ture I'm tying to "point" towards.
Gen-X [which needs to drop this name ASAP] will [is] very
concerned w/ reality. From environmental issues to polit-
ical ethics [t/ lack thereof]. Gen-X will, end-up counter-
ing t/ BB's idealism, w/ a realism t/ likes America hasn't
seen since shorlty after t/ Revolution..... T/ important
question, is how harsh will Gen-X be when it begins to seize
contorl of the political, economic, and social apparatus'?
David A. Kaye
: But I do see boomers : doing this often--them vs. The Establishment, :
: vs. Non-Rock-and-Rollers, vs. Gen-X, vs. non-politically : correct--the
: list could go on ad infinitum.
Considering that I'm a boomer and I'm here and I'm pointing out all the
similarities we have, while YOUR group of Generation-Xers are trying to
convince me how different you are from my generation, I think that some
serious examination is needed.
Carl Beaudry
> Considering that I'm a boomer and I'm here and I'm pointing out all the
> similarities we have, while YOUR group of Generation-Xers are trying to
> convince me how different you are from my generation, I think that some
> serious examination is needed.
OK here it is. You wrote:
> My whole point this past week or two has been that it is not possible
> to define a "generation" except by arbitrary means such as census
> data.
Strictly speaking this is not true. It is quite possible and even
common to "define" cultural terms in less precise ways. For example,
the terms: 'blue-collar'; 'conservative'; 'genteel' and 'stylish'
all carry distinguishable meanings absent a mathematically precise
and exhaustive definition.
The words in this newsgroup didn't come from Plato's ethereal
cave, nor need they be subject to some sort of social science
definition to be meaningful. Its cultural commentary not algebra.
For further reference, see Louis Armstrong's explanation of
what 'Jazz' was.
> The term "Baby Boom" is the result of this arbitrary cutoff.
The term predates the post WWII baby boom generation. It is used to
describe any relatively sudden increase in birth rates. One of which
happened after WWII. Another is currently underway.
> Since people in the "Generation-X" group do not want to be considered
> as overlapping the well-defined "Baby Boom" then we must figure that
> Gen-X starts right after BB leaves off.
Only if you are employing some kind of mathematical set theory. It
seems to me to be more accurate to say there are cultural tendencies
which imperfectly vary with birth year. But they are nevertheless
measurable and real.
I believe that the maxim that "individual tendencies always outweigh group
norms" is the best way to explain it without disputing the existence of
more than one group norm as you do.
I think the JFK test is pretty reasonable. Couple it with:
"Did you grow up with ANYONE who EVER trusted the president?"
and you pretty much have the GenX ethos right there.
> I see very little to distinguish "Generation-X" as unique. I have
> answered every proclamation of uniqueness with a description of
> another time when things were the same.
Homo habilis also had 5 fingers and toes and used tools. But that's
not quite equivalence.
You have cited individual examples of cynicism and nihilism in the
preceeding generation, as well as made references to someone
somewhere making loud intentionally agressive music. All this proves
is that the medium of human expression changes very little over time.
Profound, that is not.
The declining opportunity and dismal statistical prospects of
people born from 1960-1980 is the point here. Yes, there have always
been some people dissatisfied with professional opportunities
after college. It is much worse now. Look at the numbers.
A paralell: There have always been people shooting each other, but the
epidemic of handgun deaths is quite real too. It's a question
of degree and group tendencies. And this is the first group of Americans
whose economic prospects do not match that of their parents.
> For the life of me I can't think of why there is such an attempt to
> distinguish the largely indistinguishable.
Probably it's aversion. This group knows what it does not like.
Might I posit that the 'melting pot' of individual differences
which informed public opinion from roughly 1948-present is something
that is not broadly trusted by Xers. To us it is a form of cultural
imperialism funded with money stolen from the future.
There is a big difference between the elimination of group
distinctions in a drive toward cultural universalism and the
tolerance and appreciation of those differences as the
conflict-starting fuel of innovation, art and expression as well
as repression and violence.
Your attempt here to whitewash over real, perceptible cultural changes is
itself very indicative of this universal 'inclusion' approach. The
fact that YOU cannot perceive the differences might just be the point
here. GenXers do not expect anyone to want to be as we are. And
it's not from 'poor self-esteem,' it's a dignified appreciation
of diversity without any desire to reduce or eliminate it.
Belief in some kind of cultural convergence is just another version
of 'the end of history.' And history hasn't ended with the cultural
ascendence of the post war baby boom.
Just because every generation considers the previous one to be
a walking fossils dig does not make any of them wrong.
SCA...@wsuvm1.csc.wsu.edu
a need for younger people to forge some sort of identity with each other
and make sense of the world - especially when faced with the horde of older
people who control everything, make all the rules on principles, ideas, and
concepts which no longer seem valid. Each generation is unique. Is it really
so hard to see us explore our world, ourselves, and our experiences without
having some patronizing older voice chiming in and telling us how wrong we
are about everything? Is it really necessary to crash this newsgroup and
start defining things for us? You are attacking some generalizations and
stereotypes made about boomers, perhaps rightly so in some circumstances.
But the lines have been drawn. Your generation was much more willing to
embrace causes as "right" or "wrong," and moralize than we are. Your
generation had the luxery to be idealistic - and idealism fosters dichotic
thinking much more than cynicism (which marks this generation).
Jane
David A. Kaye
: Is it really
: so hard to see us explore our world, ourselves, and our experiences without
: having some patronizing older voice chiming in and telling us how wrong we
: are about everything?
But you may notice that I'm only chiming in on two claims -- one is the
mistaken notion that the Baby Boomers are/were come homogenous lot, and
the other is that the Generation-Xers are experiencing something somehow
worse than has ever gone on before. You have NOT seen me criticize
music, art, body manipulations, poetry, magazines, ideals, goals, or
anything else of Generation-X -- and I won't.
: Is it really necessary to crash this newsgroup and
: start defining things for us?
Sorry, but I'm not crashing anything. This is a public forum. If you
want a private forum, start a mailing list.
David A. Kaye
: Your attempt here to whitewash over real, perceptible cultural changes is
: itself very indicative of this universal 'inclusion' approach.
I spent a lot of years working toward fulfilling a vision of a unique
queer culture. I'd been doing this since about age 16.
Then sadly, one day about 3 years ago I realized that it didn't exist
separate and apart from society at large. True, there were goals we had
which were important to us (but not to non-gay people), but by
hightlighting those differences instead of ways we could work together we
were causing rifts among our own ranks and precipitating a backlash
against us in cities and towns across America.
I looked around and saw that while we'd succeeded in putting some
non-discrimination laws on the books, I saw that this queer culture we
had defined had been turned into yet another marketing device. There
were all-gay boat cruises, gay skin magazines featuring ideal-looking
guys few of us could hope to emulate, companies striving to grab our
dollar, people with homes in Aspen wearing red ribbons at the Academy
Awards, but still doing business in Colorado. (There's a boycott on.)
After lots of discussions, consciousness-raising, soul searching, some of
us came to the conclusion that the very act of defining a unique queer
culture made it easy for others to feel they'd done their part for the
revolution by wearing their cute little pink triangle. It put them at
ease and we backslid further than before there even was a gay movement.
But, things aren't any better than they were in the 1940s. In fact,
they're worse. By defining us as a group we've called attention to
ourselves and singled ourselves out for physical attacks, and attacks
against us at the ballot box. Before the gay movement began we did not
need gay street patrols because we weren't visible enough to stir anyone
to attack us.
Does any of this make sense? Does this make it a little clearer about
where I'm coming from? If not, this will be my last post here.
Brian K. Yoder
>I spent a lot of years working toward fulfilling a vision of a unique
>queer culture. I'd been doing this since about age 16.
Why? Who cares? It seems to me that the only good reason to have
special cultural institutions, symbols, etc. is so you can find mates
and so forth (since gays are a minority in most places, they need to be
able to find one another). That would seem to be a rather simple matter
not requiring a separate culture in general.
>Then sadly, one day about 3 years ago I realized that it didn't exist
>separate and apart from society at large.
That's because homosexuality is a sexual thing. Other areas of life
have relatively little to do with it.
>True, there were goals we had
>which were important to us (but not to non-gay people), but by
>hightlighting those differences instead of ways we could work together we
>were causing rifts among our own ranks and precipitating a backlash
>against us in cities and towns across America.
That is an important point. I'm not gay. I don't really care what you
do in bed or whom you do it with. I have no problem with you doing it
in my neighborhood (heck, I live in West Hollywood which is one of the biggest
gay areas in the country). So what is the problem? Why am I constantly
accosted by people trying to make it clear that they are so different?
There isn't an "oral sex culture" or a "female superior culture" or a
"doggie style culture", so why make such a big deal about being gay?
Just chill out, do what you want to do and leave me alone. Believe it
or not, I really don't care to know the details of your personal life.
>I looked around and saw that while we'd succeeded in putting some
>non-discrimination laws on the books, I saw that this queer culture we
>had defined had been turned into yet another marketing device. There
>were all-gay boat cruises, gay skin magazines featuring ideal-looking
>guys few of us could hope to emulate, companies striving to grab our
>dollar, people with homes in Aspen wearing red ribbons at the Academy
>Awards, but still doing business in Colorado. (There's a boycott on.)
As I said, I can see a purpose for social venues which will allow gays
to find one another, and that's what these marketing things are up to
for the most part. Why do you have a problem with that? They are
apparently services in demand.
>After lots of discussions, consciousness-raising, soul searching, some of
>us came to the conclusion that the very act of defining a unique queer
>culture made it easy for others to feel they'd done their part for the
>revolution by wearing their cute little pink triangle. It put them at
>ease and we backslid further than before there even was a gay movement.
I don't think I have to "do my part" for a revolution. I just want to
mind my own business and stay out of yours. Why are you so unhappy with
that? I just don't find your private life as fascinating as you do.
I don't plan to wear any little pink triangles or little red ribbons.
I have more important things to do with my time.
>But, things aren't any better than they were in the 1940s. In fact,
>they're worse. By defining us as a group we've called attention to
>ourselves and singled ourselves out for physical attacks, and attacks
>against us at the ballot box. Before the gay movement began we did not
>need gay street patrols because we weren't visible enough to stir anyone
>to attack us.
Well, if you go out of your way to single yourself out and advertize your
personal life, it is no surprise that idiots will pay more attention to
it than if you just lived your life and abandoned the activist nonsense.
--Brian
--
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Brian K. Yoder | "Wise men are instructed by reason; men of less |
| byo...@netcom.com | understanding, by experience; the most ignorant by |
| US Networx, Inc. | necessity; and beasts by nature," --Cicero |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
Jym Dyer
> relatively little to do with it.
=/= That's absurd. The presumption of heterosexual pair-
bonding saturates our culture, and thus our lives. From laws
to insurance policies to the covers of most magazines to the
plots of most fiction.
=\= On the other side of the coin, gay culture is so much more
than "a sexual thing." Heck, I'm not even gay and I dig lesbian
and gay culture. I think it's friendly, fun and fascinating.
> Why am I constantly accosted by people trying to make it clear
> that they are so different? There isn't an "oral sex culture"
> or a "female superior culture" or a "doggie style culture", so
> why make such a big deal about being gay?
=/= Mostly you are "accosted" by people trying to let it be
known that they exist in a society that insists they don't.
=\= That there are no cultures for the sexual positions you
list simply underscores that there's more going on than just
"a sexual thing." Imagine that.
> I just want to mind my own business and stay out of yours.
=/= You're lucky to have the privilege to do so. If society
were busy telling you you didn't exist, you'd be singing a
different tune.
<_Jym_>
Guru Aleph_Null
[Digitally reformated for better clarity:
M-x query-replace<CR> t/ the
M-x query-replace<CR> w/ with ]
> The BB Generation continues to negate any "idea" that does
> not fit their "ideal" . . . This stems [I think] from the
> Marxist idealism they originally embraced in the 1960s. In
> my opinion, they will deny, or contradict any notion that
> confirms reality . . . for they live in a constant meta-
> idealism. Historically, we can trace their idealism [and
> its negation mechanism] from the Berkeley revolt, to the
> Chicago incident, Kent State, Disco, Wall Street [Junk
> Bonds], to the current denial of "individualism" in the neo-
> liberal cry for "universalism." I am speaking very general
> here, and I hope your own thoughts can illuminate the pic-
> ture I'm tying to "point" towards.
>
> Gen-X [which needs to drop this name ASAP] will [is] very
> concerned with reality. From environmental issues to polit-
> ical ethics [the lack thereof]. Gen-X will, end-up counter-
> ing the BB's idealism, with a realism the likes America hasn't
> seen since shorlty after the Revolution..... The important
> question, is how harsh will Gen-X be when it begins to seize
> contorl of the political, economic, and social apparatus'?
The 'Generation-X' name is going to stick, its already been bestowed,
and it has been somewhat accepted. It doesn't really matter what the
name is. A rose by any other name...
Us Xers who can read and write and think and communicate, are going to
have to fight for those who would rather sit idly-by pounding on their
Sega machine. I hope that we can break the series of self-serving
politics (which has happened twice in the last two generations...) by
remembering what those previous generations did while trying to right
the wrongs we've seen.
What do you say the first thing we Americans need to do is to repair
the erosion of the US Constitution? (And remembering that Usenet is an
international medium, what is there to 'whine' about outside of the
United States? :)
One possible social change I can see happening with the popularity of
computer networks is the end of hire-fire employment: Everyone
advertises what they can do or want done, and "work" is sold like a
commodity, accounting for what needs to be done, how long it will
take, what kind of travel, and bartering... Instead of a different
hired-job every 6 months, then quitting or getting fired (like most
slackers do), everyone becomes a "contractor", selling what they can
do best when they want to. Being yourself becomes your job--something
that a lot of slackers would like--not being a corporate-automaton for
N-hours at N-dollars. Coalitions can be formed with people with
similar interests and abilities so instead of competeting they form a
guild and can pool resources for big "jobs."
--
---------------------------------------- m i s s i n g
Simon "Guru Aleph-Null" Janes | d a r k
<s...@ukelele.gcr.com> | m a t t e r
The Biochemical Madman of Borneo | i s i n t h i s . s i g !
Brett J. Kottmann
>In article <2cskv8$n...@crl.crl.com> d...@crl.com (David A. Kaye) writes:
>>I spent a lot of years working toward fulfilling a vision of a unique
>>queer culture. I'd been doing this since about age 16.
>Why? Who cares? It seems to me that the only good reason to have
>special cultural institutions, symbols, etc. is so you can find mates
>and so forth (since gays are a minority in most places, they need to be
>able to find one another). That would seem to be a rather simple matter
>not requiring a separate culture in general.
Oh I don't know. It's a lot more like having an Italian or
Polish club. Not so much separate as merely gathering with
one's own when you feel like it.
>>Then sadly, one day about 3 years ago I realized that it didn't exist
>>separate and apart from society at large.
>That's because homosexuality is a sexual thing. Other areas of life
>have relatively little to do with it.
Nor should it be totaly separate. We are all, after all humans.
Maybe the problem isn't defining the culture, but finding a base
where you feel comfortable and society feels comfortable.
For example, you pointed out that the pink triangles have become
a be-all and end-all for some people. Yet that's just a symbol.
It doesn't define the culture. Part of the problem is pointed
out by the previous poster:you're organizing along lifestyle
choices, and not ethnic, cultural etc. lines. So after the pink
triangle, what is there to say?
I think what you are looking for is a tolerant society more so
than a gay society. After all, once you go beyond the sex
thing, you're back into the usual breakdowns: Italian, Irish,
African, likes football, likes The Cure, hates blue houses, etc.
Brett
JIM...@nuacvm.acns.nwu.edu
s...@ukelele.gcr.com (Guru Aleph_Null) writes:
>
>What do you say the first thing we Americans need to do is to repair
>the erosion of the US Constitution? (And remembering that Usenet is an
>international medium, what is there to 'whine' about outside of the
>United States? :)
>
>One possible social change I can see happening with the popularity of
>computer networks is the end of hire-fire employment: Everyone
>advertises what they can do or want done, and "work" is sold like a
>commodity, accounting for what needs to be done, how long it will
>take, what kind of travel, and bartering... Instead of a different
>hired-job every 6 months, then quitting or getting fired (like most
>slackers do), everyone becomes a "contractor", selling what they can
>do best when they want to. Being yourself becomes your job--something
>that a lot of slackers would like--not being a corporate-automaton for
>N-hours at N-dollars. Coalitions can be formed with people with
>similar interests and abilities so instead of competeting they form a
>guild and can pool resources for big "jobs."
>
a la _Sim Society_ or something, but in order for anyone to accomplish
somthing of this magnatude today would require the virtual dismantalling of
the current corporate base. A coalition of programmers for instance might as
well become a company because no one is gonna hire a hodge podge group of
people over a seemingly well organized company. It doesn't matter that the
group may be better organized than the company, it just is not gonna inspire
confidence in potential clients. Never mind competing with large to huge
corporations.
Forming a guild would necessitate that a considerable majority of the
"craftsman" join else it would be like being in a union of 10 people out of a
work force of 100,000. No one will pay you any heed. Now, if you could get
every Xer in the Big Consulting and Accounting firms to quit their jobs and
accept this new form of employment, maybe you have something there.
Jim
_/ _/ _/_/_/_/_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/_/
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/_/
_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/
_/ _/ _/_/_/_/_/ _/_/ _/ _/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ _/ _/
SCA...@wsuvm1.csc.wsu.edu
>
>: Is it really
>: so hard to see us explore our world, ourselves, and our experiences without
>: having some patronizing older voice chiming in and telling us how wrong we
>: are about everything?
>
>But you may notice that I'm only chiming in on two claims -- one is the
>mistaken notion that the Baby Boomers are/were come homogenous lot, and
>the other is that the Generation-Xers are experiencing something somehow
>worse than has ever gone on before. You have NOT seen me criticize
>music, art, body manipulations, poetry, magazines, ideals, goals, or
>anything else of Generation-X -- and I won't.
>
conveniently cut out was about the Us vs. Them mentality. Yes, what
we're experiencing on the domestic front is worse than you ever had to
when you were our age.
>: Is it really necessary to crash this newsgroup and
>: start defining things for us?
>
>Sorry, but I'm not crashing anything. This is a public forum. If you
>want a private forum, start a mailing list.
the plague. I don't even know why you are trying to "enlighten" us - the
spirit of your posts go against the grain of this newsgroup, so don't
expect people to even listen to you.
Jane
>
Carl Beaudry
> I spent a lot of years working toward fulfilling a vision of a unique
> queer culture. I'd been doing this since about age 16.
> ....we were causing rifts among our own ranks and precipitating
> a backlash against us in cities and towns across America.
Are you seriously suggesting that it was better to say nothing and
allow puritan America to go on believing that what you do is
heinous, perverted and sinful? Not to mention making it illegal?
Pain is part of the price for speaking the truth in public. That's
one generational difference: we assume that we will be punished for
speaking out, we are not surprised by it if it happens.
You're not forced to be out about anything. And no one here is making
a career move by pointing out the mistakes which preceeded us. And we
aren't getting famous. Nobody wants to hear it. That's why we're on
UseNet and boomers are writing in Newsweek.
What we're doing is just speaking our minds. We don't expect a medal
for it. And we don't expect anything to change for the better on
account of what we say. We have gotten mighty accustomed to the
futility of protest. We expect derisive flames just like those given
to anyone who says uncomfortable things in public.
> I looked around and saw that while we'd succeeded in putting some
> non-discrimination laws on the books, I saw that this queer culture
> we had defined had been turned into yet another marketing device.
At least you had some political success to show for it. We are being
"defined" and marketed to without legal consideration by the
budgetary authorities of contemporary society. Perhaps "No
commercialization without remuneration" is a more appropriate
rallying call for GenXers.
You may have noticed a conspicuous lack of logos in this
group. That omission is not accidental. We can barely agree on
the name, let alone something as major as T-shirt designs.
> After lots of discussions, consciousness-raising, soul searching,
> some of us came to the conclusion that the very act of defining a
> unique queer culture made it easy for others to feel they'd done
> their part for the revolution by wearing their cute little pink
> triangle. It put them at ease and we backslid further than before
> there even was a gay movement.
That's why everyone here is so suspicious of any kind of organized
movement. This is NOT a national movement. We're just a lot of folks
who were screwed in the same way. (No pun intended) To put it simply,
and with no intention of being a generational spokesweasel, just pay
back the debts and we'll do the rest. That's just about the only
political issue that we seem to agree about here. We don't
expect it to happen, but we don't want to pay for anyone else's party
either.
Apart from that, we are about as unified as beach sand. We don't want
to be led. We want to be ourselves and to make fun of other people's
mistaken notions that we fit into some kind of marketing stereotype.
When we parody GenXers it's a JOKE. Splitting into factions is not
considered a problem here.
Probably the only unified response that you'll get from this
group is a resounding "zzz" as soon as anyone says: "lets mobilize
and be visible."
> But, things aren't any better than they were in the 1940s. In fact,
> they're worse.
I disagree. From a purely legal perspective, many laws against
homosexuality have been stricken or have fallen into disuse since the
40s. Yes, there are still really stupid examples to be found to be
sure. But, on balance, there is more and not less tolerance for gays
IMHO.
But even if you WERE right. That's simply a good argument against
foisting some kind of high profile political movement. It may be that
the ONLY reward for agitation is retribution. If so, you won't see
that around here. We don't march, we type.
> By defining us as a group we've called attention to ourselves and
> singled ourselves out for physical attacks, and attacks against us at
> the ballot box.
Well, we were attacked at the ballot box long before we singled
ourselves out. And come to think of it, so were gays--a problem with
your theory.
But in our case, the attack started in the sixties when they started
hacking early education funding. As a generation, we responded in our
own native subtle way by whining to our parents for more highly
sugared cereals. Perhaps our intuitive sarcasm eluded you at the
time.
And while I'm on the soapbox, I should point out that GenXers are
much more tolerant of gays and other out groups than our elders.
You've already heard from the conservative 'wing' of this newsgroup
and no one there has any problem with homosexuality. The only
problems they had were with the idea of turning it into a political
agenda. Contrast that with Pat Buchanan and Newt Gingrich or the
Colorado state government.
Most of us hetero Xers have gay friends and don't really think much
about it in political terms. But we don't assume that we know what
it's like either.
As far as being attacked in person, regrettably in this country,
violence is the price of being different. And I doubt that there
are proportionally more attacks against gays now than in the 40s, but
rather more reports of the same old level of violence.
Plus there seems to be more violence of every sort now. If anything,
as a proportion of ALL assaults, hate crimes against gays are
probably lower. In any case, I doubt that it's because gays are
politically active. But rather because they are there. Knuckle
draggers don't need a manifesto to split heads.
The point is that it is now socially UNacceptible to discriminate
against gays, though the reality lags considerably. But look at the
economic picture. Gay men are proportionally better off than heteros,
education and income-wise. You can't say that about GenXers.
> Does any of this make sense? Does this make it a little clearer
> about where I'm coming from? If not, this will be my last post here.
Yes. But being a member of another out group is not an automatic
membership in every out group. To put it another way, what reaction do
you suppose I would get if I posted a gay wannabe message to
alt.sex.motts? I would be righteously ridiculed.
All anyone here is saying is remember that you're a tourist. But for
one, I'm glad that you're here. Welcome to the future. If you're
scared, then you've got the right idea.
--Carl
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"A passionate timultuous age will overthrow everything, pull
everything down; but a revolutionary age that is at the same time
reflective and passionless leaves everything standing but cunningly
empties it of significance."
--Kierkegaard
Jym Dyer
> Why am I constantly accosted by people trying to make it clear
> that they are so different?
=o= Instead of complaining about it, why not try to understand
it? Maybe then you'll find the answers to your other questions
(and recognize the hidden wrong assumptions in them).
=o= Perhaps you should also examine why you find it offensive
for people to flaunt their sexuality. Is that their problem
or is it yours?
<_Jym_>
Brian K. Yoder
>> homosexuality is a sexual thing. Other areas of life have
>> relatively little to do with it.
>=/= That's absurd. The presumption of heterosexual pair-
>bonding saturates our culture, and thus our lives. From laws
>to insurance policies to the covers of most magazines to the
>plots of most fiction.
Huh? Most fiction not about homosexuality doesn't mention it, but so what?
Minorities (in whatever characteristic) should not be surprised if they
aren't portrayed as the norm. They aren't. What is the big problem?
As for insurance etc. I suppose that homosexuality impacts on these things,
but this is still a minor part of life. Your career, your taste in art,
your non-romantic friends, and so forth really have (or should have) very
little to do with your sexual habits.
>=\= On the other side of the coin, gay culture is so much more
>than "a sexual thing." Heck, I'm not even gay and I dig lesbian
>and gay culture. I think it's friendly, fun and fascinating.
I have some nice gay friends too, but so what? What is their "culture"?
Actually, I find some aspects of what passes as "gay culture" and "gay
activism" rather distasteful. Given your political and social views
your attitude doesn't surprise me though, Jym.
>> Why am I constantly accosted by people trying to make it clear
>> that they are so different? There isn't an "oral sex culture"
>> or a "female superior culture" or a "doggie style culture", so
>> why make such a big deal about being gay?
>=/= Mostly you are "accosted" by people trying to let it be
>known that they exist in a society that insists they don't.
Geez. Can you find me even ONE person with a functioning brain cell
who thinks that gays don't exist? There are a bunch of people out there
who think that gays are evil, and more who think that homosexuality is
"icky" (including me), but I don't think that anyone thinks that they
don't exist.
>=\= That there are no cultures for the sexual positions you
>list simply underscores that there's more going on than just
>"a sexual thing." Imagine that.
They are also not stigmatized. If everyone thought that "people who
like it doggie style are sinners" then they'd probably band together for
support and socialization too.
>> I just want to mind my own business and stay out of yours.
>=/= You're lucky to have the privilege to do so. If society
>were busy telling you you didn't exist, you'd be singing a
>different tune.
But society doesn't tell gays that they don't exist. Sometimes it tells
them that they are disgusting or evil, but not that they don't exist.
So are going to go on the record as saying that my wanting to just leave
people's sexual activities private matters of no concern to me is wrong?
Do you really think that I need to give gays my approval to do as they want?
wes...@artex.waisman.wisc.edu
>David A. Kaye wrote:
>You're not forced to be out about anything. And no one here is making
>a career move by pointing out the mistakes which preceeded us. And we
>aren't getting famous. Nobody wants to hear it. That's why we're on
>UseNet and boomers are writing in Newsweek.>
>I disagree. From a purely legal perspective, many laws against
>homosexuality have been stricken or have fallen into disuse since the
>40s. Yes, there are still really stupid examples to be found to be
>sure. But, on balance, there is more and not less tolerance for gays
>IMHO>
>But even if you WERE right. That's simply a good argument against
>foisting some kind of high profile political movement. It may be that
>the ONLY reward for agitation is retribution. If so, you won't see
>that around here.
>> By defining us as a group we've called attention to ourselves and
>> singled ourselves out for physical attacks, and attacks against us at
>> the ballot box.
Oh my god! Corret me if I'm wrong, but in this response to David Kaye,
you sounded a lot like Brian. Carl, don't shake the foundation of this
group. We like the cold war, and we now have real life experience of how
boring post cold war is. But, albeit in a nicer way, this sounds like
what he basically said.
Carl Beaudry
> Oh my god! Corret me if I'm wrong, but in this response to David Kaye,
> you sounded a lot like Brian. Carl, don't shake the foundation of this
> group. We like the cold war, and we now have real life experience of how
> boring post cold war is. But, albeit in a nicer way, this sounds like
> what he basically said.
Um, I'm not quite sure what the cold war has to do with this, I was talking
about gay rights. I think I must be missing something somewhere.
Perhaps I was less than clear. I was trying to make the point that he was
wrong in two different ways and perhaps things got a little confused. I
apologize. I was questioning Davids disillusionment by saying that he
should have expected retribution while at the same time I was arguing that
expressing a distinct gay culture has improved their situation.
I was saying that gays had a harder time in the 40's than they do today. I
really think that they did vis-a-vis violence and legal sanctions.
Personally, I think that gay activism HAS paid off. But beyond that, I was
also making a conditional argument that even if it didn't, that is no
reason to avoid expressing a distinct cultural viewpoint--just a reason to
protect yourself and be wary.
I quite disagree with the "do what you want but don't do it here" sentiment
that Brian was expressing in his retort. Conversely, I was arguing that you
can't achieve anything worthwhile by social protest without pissing people
off, and in this country, violence is a predictable result. I wasn't
defending the torch-wielding mob, but I was recognizing it.
I hope this clarifies things. But now I'm curious about the cold war thing.
What was with that?
--Carl
Brian K. Yoder
>=o= Let me take another tack on this.
>> Why am I constantly accosted by people trying to make it clear
>> that they are so different?
>=o= Instead of complaining about it, why not try to understand
>it? Maybe then you'll find the answers to your other questions
>(and recognize the hidden wrong assumptions in them).
OK, I'm trying to think of why I should care what other people do in bed...
...no big earth shattering reasons why I should care come to mind. Perhaps
you can suggest some.
>=o= Perhaps you should also examine why you find it offensive
>for people to flaunt their sexuality.
It isn't flaunting sexuality to bugs me, it is all of this political stuff
and "cultural" stuff. I just get tired of people pointing to sexual preference
as such an important deal. It seems like the same error as the Jesse Helms
crowd which claims that homosexuality is a big deal and that it is bad.
>Is that their problem
>or is it yours?
Such as? My lack of interest in their personal lives? Herhaps they should
also wear little signs making it clear to everyone what color their
underwear is, what their mother's maiden name was, and what they ate
for breakfast this morning. My lack of interest in this seems to be quite
justified. What should I do about these things? Am I to approve or disallow
these activities? Should I be keeping score? Why won't they just leave
us alone and do their thing in peace?
Dave Mooney
want to prejudge the verisimilitude of the article based on the author, but
it took me about seven seconds to realise that
In <byoderCG...@netcom.com>,
(it was) byo...@netcom.com (Brian K. Yoder) (who) writes:
> In article <Jym.23Nov1993.0923@naughty-peahen> Jym Dyer <j...@remarque.berkeley.edu> writes:
>>> homosexuality is a sexual thing. Other areas of life have
>>> relatively little to do with it.
>
>> =/= That's absurd. The presumption of heterosexual pair-
>> bonding saturates our culture, and thus our lives. From laws
>> to insurance policies to the covers of most magazines to the
>> plots of most fiction.
>
> Huh? Most fiction not about homosexuality doesn't mention it, but so what?
> Minorities (in whatever characteristic) should not be surprised if they
> aren't portrayed as the norm. They aren't. What is the big problem?
The question isn't whether they're portrayed as 'the norm', the question
is whether they're portrayed at all, and in the times that they are
portrayed, whether the portrayal bears any resemblance to real life. I
assert that this is not the case. When I go out with my friends, there
are straights, gays, lesbians, and bis in the crowd in varying proportions.
When I turn on the TV, I see happy white heterosexual couples, dysfunctional
white heterosexual families (except on Fox, where it's dysfunctional *black*
familes (expect for the Simpsons, who are yellow)), randy single heterosexual
males, randy single heterosexual females, et cetera ad nauseum. In the
cases where a homosexual appears on a show, it's usually in the context of
some sort of preachy public service announcement ("Oh dear, Maurice, the
token gay character who appears on this one episode, went and had
unprotected sex down at the bath house and now he's going to die of AIDS.
Now you kids remember: no glove, no love. Now let's all watch home movies
together as a happy heterosexual family,")
Since homosexuality is maginalised in our culture, whenever a gay person
or couple is portayed in the popular culture (TV, magazines, etc), the act
of portrayal immediately becomes political. When Bobby and Suzie go to the
movies together, we see it as two people going to the movies togehter. When
Bruce and Dougie go to the movies together, it becomes A Gripping Portrayal
of the Homosexual Human Condition in the 90's to the progressives and Another
Example of the Liberal Communist Attack on the Sancitity of the Family to
the conservatives. Neither extreme is particularly palatable to me. I want
to see the popular culture reflect the reality of the real culture, and to
spare me the hangwringing in the process.
dave
--
Dave Mooney d...@vnet.ibm.com
"Mumble mumble mumble..." -- Michael Stipe
Brad Shapcott
>were busy telling you you didn't exist, you'd be singing a
>different tune.
What's more, being marginalized is a step *up* for homosexuals from their
treatment one or two generations ago.
> <_Jym_>
"I'll take 'Historical Myopia' for 200, Alex."
--
______ Recognizing the power of the erotic within our lives
Brad Shapcott _\ / can give us the energy to pursue genuine change
_\ \ / within our world, rather than merely settling for a
. . . \/\/\/ shift of characters in the same weary drama. - Lorde
Sheilagh M.B.E. O'Hare
Guru Aleph_Null <s...@ukelele.gcr.com> wrote:
>do best when they want to. Being yourself becomes your job--something
>that a lot of slackers would like--not being a corporate-automaton for
>N-hours at N-dollars. Coalitions can be formed with people with
>similar interests and abilities so instead of competeting they form a
>guild and can pool resources for big "jobs."
I like the guild idea. Anyone out there hassled thru SCA stuff? It's
really neat to see five or so people sit down and work on brewing about
200 bottles of beer.. the stuff coming out of the household that I'm
part of (House Foamadh, foamadh is gaelic (i think) for the condition of
being drunk and leaning slightly to the left, but not quite falling over.
I dont know if there is a term for leaning to the right thusly) anyway,
the stuff coming out of this hosuehold is pretty good brew, plus some
flavored fruit ciders.. I'd love to find someone who has a darkroom and
wants to lease me some time in it, or collect people with various art
supplies and set up a studio that is sort of cooperative in letting all
memebers use the equipment, but materialistic in that those who own
X drawing board can take it with them if they leave the cooperative;
that way, people have to want to be in this or that group of equipment
users, but they arent losing what they consider to be their investment..
If i go traveling around the country, and anyone out there has a color
scanner, I'd be happy to suck up and be sweet if i could use it if I'm in
town.. or let anyone who needs what supplies i have use them, if they come
down here.. sort of goofy, but I want a darkroom, a silver smithing setup,
various machining parts.. strange ideas..
cheeelagh
Stephen M Conley
mar...@bashful.cc.utexas.edu (Sheilagh M.B.E. O'Hare) writes:
[deletia -- short attention span]
> I'd love to find someone who has a darkroom and
>wants to lease me some time in it, or collect people with various art
>supplies and set up a studio that is sort of cooperative in letting all
>memebers use the equipment, but materialistic in that those who own
>X drawing board can take it with them if they leave the cooperative;
>that way, people have to want to be in this or that group of equipment
>users, but they arent losing what they consider to be their investment..
>
>If i go traveling around the country, and anyone out there has a color
>scanner, I'd be happy to suck up and be sweet if i could use it if I'm in
>town.. or let anyone who needs what supplies i have use them, if they come
>down here.. sort of goofy, but I want a darkroom, a silver smithing setup,
>various machining parts.. strange ideas..
>
>cheeelagh
I've had film ideas bouncing around in my head for some time (nothing
terribly expensive), but thanks to OSU's closing of the Photography and
Cinema department it would be rather difficult to do much without making a
few investments. Still, I have plans. I live in a neighborhood of
creative types so it's pretty easy to find a friend of a friend of a
friend who has some equipment they'll let you use.
What sort of projects did you have in mind, Sheilagh? I guess now would
be as good a time as any to start this "guild". Actually, I don't think
"guild" is the right word, since it implies a monopolization of a certain
trade. But let's see who's out there...
Steve
--
steveconleyprodukt 1993 sco...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Life is short. Slack hard. Finger for PGP public key block.
Ian Williams
Currently I'm setting up a darkroom in my house in Chapel Hill, trying to
get running water up into the attic, and will have enough random computer
scanning stuff to put out an alternative to "The New Republic" if I have
to. Plus, living a block from a university that doesn't lock all its
doors, it is easy to "borrow time" on machines that the undergrads from
Rocky Mount don't know how to use.
Anyone who wants to come to Chapel Hill and help
set up this kind of stuff is more than welcome. We even have a daybed.
-Ian
--
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
internet: laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Stephen M Conley
>When I turn on the TV, I see happy white heterosexual couples, dysfunctional
>white heterosexual families (except on Fox, where it's dysfunctional *black*
>familes (expect for the Simpsons, who are yellow)), randy single heterosexual
>males, randy single heterosexual females, et cetera ad nauseum. In the
>cases where a homosexual appears on a show, it's usually in the context of
>some sort of preachy public service announcement ("Oh dear, Maurice, the
>token gay character who appears on this one episode, went and had
>unprotected sex down at the bath house and now he's going to die of AIDS.
>Now you kids remember: no glove, no love. Now let's all watch home movies
>together as a happy heterosexual family,")
I don't mean to sound like some Boomer telling you to stop
whining, but honestly... Instead of just bitching about it, why don't you
*do* something about it? We're supposed to have 500 channels soon, Dave.
I *think* there might just be a demand for new, original material that
will grab viewers, and "marginal" groups like GLB folks will become (I
hate to say it, but...) target markets! So get cracking, man! Put a
production team together and produce the pilots for "Domestic Partnership
with Children", "Joanie Loves Sally", etc.
The problem isn't "society's view of homosexuals". The problem is
that there are only four networks and they're all going after the
mainstream American audience. There's much more diversification with
cable (a black TV channel, a science fiction TV channel, etc.), and when
the number of channels goes up to 500, I would be very surprised if we
*didn't* see "GLB-TV" (heh, no pun intended) or something similar.
>Since homosexuality is maginalised in our culture, whenever a gay person
>or couple is portayed in the popular culture (TV, magazines, etc), the act
>of portrayal immediately becomes political. When Bobby and Suzie go to the
>movies together, we see it as two people going to the movies togehter. When
>Bruce and Dougie go to the movies together, it becomes A Gripping Portrayal
>of the Homosexual Human Condition in the 90's to the progressives and Another
>Example of the Liberal Communist Attack on the Sancitity of the Family to
>the conservatives. Neither extreme is particularly palatable to me. I want
>to see the popular culture reflect the reality of the real culture, and to
>spare me the hangwringing in the process.
From what I've seen, it's the gay and lesbian filmmakers who are
the worst about doing this. Many of their films are *about* being gay,
*about* their conflict with society. There's nothing wrong with this, and
it can make a great topic for a film, but it does seem to be precisely
what you're talking about. If you want this to change, I suggest you talk
to these people first.
On the other hand, I know of at least one lesbian cinema student (my
roommate) who hates "issue" films and would love to work on the kinds of
things you're talking about. I'm sure there are plenty of other people
who feel the same way.
GLB people aren't the only ones alienated by the big television
networks. Until FOX came along, black people were just as marginal. And
look at our generation's Great Quest for a Decent Radio Station. Same
sort of thing. If it wasn't for the FCC, we wouldn't have as much to
whine about. :)
Stephen M Conley
>
>Currently I'm setting up a darkroom in my house in Chapel Hill, trying to
>get running water up into the attic, and will have enough random computer
>scanning stuff to put out an alternative to "The New Republic" if I have
>to. Plus, living a block from a university that doesn't lock all its
>doors, it is easy to "borrow time" on machines that the undergrads from
>Rocky Mount don't know how to use.
>Anyone who wants to come to Chapel Hill and help
>set up this kind of stuff is more than welcome. We even have a daybed.
>
Sounds like a hell of a start! What are your plans?
Usenet
>In article <CGyK6...@ukelele.gcr.com>
>s...@ukelele.gcr.com (Guru Aleph_Null) writes:
>
>>
>>What do you say the first thing we Americans need to do is to repair
>>the erosion of the US Constitution? (And remembering that Usenet is an
>
>Do you mean that literally or figuratively?
>
Figuratively, there's no stopping the effect of erosion on US soil. :)
Literally, year by year, law enforcement is cutting corners off
people's rights in the name of "the law." I think we just scored a
big win, I saw on the front page of the Post that a court over-turned
the FCC regulations on "obscenity" broadcasted between 6am-12pm.
>>international medium, what is there to 'whine' about outside of the
>>United States? :)
>>
>>One possible social change I can see happening with the popularity of
>>computer networks is the end of hire-fire employment: Everyone
>>advertises what they can do or want done, and "work" is sold like a
>>commodity, accounting for what needs to be done, how long it will
>>take, what kind of travel, and bartering... Instead of a different
>>hired-job every 6 months, then quitting or getting fired (like most
>>slackers do), everyone becomes a "contractor", selling what they can
>>do best when they want to. Being yourself becomes your job--something
>>that a lot of slackers would like--not being a corporate-automaton for
>>N-hours at N-dollars. Coalitions can be formed with people with
>
>Wouldn't that be M-hours and N-dollars? :')
>
You're right. Er.. better make that N-hours for M-dollars to fit with
the usual practice of index variables arranged in alphabetical order.
>>similar interests and abilities so instead of competeting they form a
>>guild and can pool resources for big "jobs."
>>
>This sounds good if you're planning on building a society from the ground up
>a la _Sim Society_ or something, but in order for anyone to accomplish
>somthing of this magnatude today would require the virtual dismantalling of
>the current corporate base. A coalition of programmers for instance might as
>well become a company because no one is gonna hire a hodge podge group of
>people over a seemingly well organized company. It doesn't matter that the
>group may be better organized than the company, it just is not gonna inspire
>confidence in potential clients. Never mind competing with large to huge
>corporations.
At the beginning, no, no one is going to do trust a guild for
multimillion dollar projects that may require lots of government
intervention (permits, inspections, etc..), because guilds are what
that is all about. Guilds are about getting people with skills they
enjoy working for people who need those skills executed on a project
that they need done. They aren't "centrally controlled" (Sim Society)
so they can follow tangents that corporations wouldn't even approve.
It doesn't requiring dismantling the corporate base, because its much
more like entrepreneurs getting together with the Small Business
Association and forming their own tiny companies-- the difference
being that the guild is more specific than the SBA for helping out
people in the same field.
Potential clients that need an army are going to go straight to
whoever's got the most advertised most successful army. Potential
clients that need something done are going to look around where they
live to keep "money in the neighborhood" and perhaps a good price on
the job before they go out of their way to some company to to it.
Wouldn't you rather have a neighbor who was known to be able to do
good plumbing work do it than have to hire some Johnny B. Quick
contractor to get the same work done--at a probable higher cost.
Guilds initially aren't competing with the international corporations,
they're competing with each other to work locally with local people.
Guilds aren't going to be doing any multimillion dollar projects, but
they may put people who work for corporations out of work (one such
guild that I can name, which hasn't even called itself a guild, nor
even accepts payment for what it does, would be the Linux
developers--- who have put out a killer Unix implementation for the
i386/i486 IBM clones that puts the corporate Unixes to shame, many
people are getting disgusted and switching OS's...) by competing with
those corporations. Guilds won't have much middle-management or red-tape.
>Forming a guild would necessitate that a considerable majority of the
>"craftsman" join else it would be like being in a union of 10 people out of a
>work force of 100,000. No one will pay you any heed. Now, if you could get
>every Xer in the Big Consulting and Accounting firms to quit their jobs and
>accept this new form of employment, maybe you have something there.
I'm borrowing a word ('guild') that I think that has fallen out of use
and redefining it. [If you can think of a better name, please post
it--whoops.. I just thought of one: slackiety? :)] My 'guild' isn't a
union that is concerned with one single contract for an occupation
that is mostly "assembly line/busy work", its more like a club of
entrepreneurs who may or may not actively participate. (i.e. they may
be members of other guilds and do other things) These entrepreneurs
largely being those people who do one-off projects. No one is being
forced to stay in a guild (no 'scabs' and other such nasty social
stigmas) and they can start up their own with their own standards of
practices if they want. Its not going to suddenly "go national" and
suddenly everyone abides by their rules, its going to start out local
and slowly build. No one initially will pay you any mind, but after
you get a few regular clients who like your business, your 'guild'
gets a better image.
The guild sets its policies about standards of operations, individuals
sell their ability to handle projects, picking up other guild members
for help as needed (negotiating pay and other administrivia like
taxes...). The people who best organize projects quickly gain a
following and a rep and get more business. No advertising, just
word-of-mouth promotion and an association with the guild along with
the "commodity" selling of projects and skills. Networking. Clients
can check with the guild to see if the person really is with the guild
and get other opinions of how they work from people who do the same
kind of work or have worked with the person under consideration.
Instead of working for a McJob, people can sell their skills without a
lot of advertising or fuss. If the system were around now, I could
sell skills as a LaTeX'er, Unix administrator, programmer, tutor,
possibly a librarian, possibly a technical writer, and possibly an
editor, even though I don't have a BS degree in any of the related
fields. Those are things that I know I can do, but I can't find a job
that would let me do all those things without it becomming monotonous.
I could just pick interesting things (after all, you always work
better on something that is interesting) as they come up. Will any
corporation give me that kind of job satisfaction? (If there is, drop
me mail. :)
Dave Mooney
> In article <CH09x...@hawnews.watson.ibm.com>
> d...@vnet.ibm.com (Dave Mooney) writes:
>
> I don't mean to sound like some Boomer telling you to stop
>whining, but honestly... Instead of just bitching about it, why don't you
>*do* something about it? We're supposed to have 500 channels soon, Dave.
>I *think* there might just be a demand for new, original material that
>will grab viewers, and "marginal" groups like GLB folks will become (I
>hate to say it, but...) target markets! So get cracking, man!
It wasn't my intention to whine... I'm sorry if it came across that way.
I was intending to respond to some statements Brian Yoder made that didn't
jive with my view of the world. Now, as to having *me* produce something,
well, I wouldn't wish that on any of you, not even Brian. On the other
hand, if you and Sheilagh need someone to help suck back some of that
tasty homebrew while you're working on *your* magnum opus, give me a call.
I'll even be your key grip. :-)
> The problem isn't "society's view of homosexuals". The problem is
> that there are only four networks and they're all going after the
> mainstream American audience. There's much more diversification with
> cable (a black TV channel, a science fiction TV channel, etc.), and when
> the number of channels goes up to 500, I would be very surprised if we
> *didn't* see "GLB-TV" (heh, no pun intended) or something similar.
Stultifying homogeneity among the major media, now there's something we
can agree about. I don't see the 500-channel future as being much of a
solution, though. Instead of three major channels broadcasting a bland
Wonder-bread sameism to everyone, we'll have 500 channels broadcasting an
admittedly more diverse (and potentially more accurate) view of the world to
an increasingly fragmented audience. I'm still haven't entirely decided
what I think about all this, so don't take this as being a fully formed view
of the situtation, but I can't help noticing that having 500 channels split
along various demographic lines is segregationism of a sort. If we have
the Black Channel talking to black people, the Gay Channel talking to gays,
The Sun Always Shines on TV Channel for lovers of early-80's music, then I
think we'll end up with various subcultures knowing even less about each
other than they do now. "Since They (for some group) have Their own TV
channel now, we don't have to worry about targeting any of our stuff at
Them". I'm one of those sorts who thinks that we need to understand both
what we all have in common as well as how we all differ if we're going to
survive. I see TV today as providing a warped version of the former view
and the 500-channel world as potentially providing an extreme version of
the latter. But then again, I don't know. I'm trying to write down my
thoughts here as they pop into my head and to make them seem at least
borderline coherent... I'd like to explore this a bit further, but I'd
like to think about it a bit first.
>> I want
>> to see the popular culture reflect the reality of the real culture, and to
>> spare me the hangwringing in the process.
> From what I've seen, it's the gay and lesbian filmmakers who are
> the worst about doing this. Many of their films are *about* being gay,
> *about* their conflict with society. There's nothing wrong with this, and
> it can make a great topic for a film, but it does seem to be precisely
> what you're talking about. If you want this to change, I suggest you talk
> to these people first.
I read a comment today. "There have always been two approaches. You
emasculate the fact that you're queer and let your writing compete with
everyone else's; or you build the walls higher around your ghetto and work
within it." It's a false dichotomy, but it seems to be close to what we're
talking about here. I think that things are starting to change here
somewhat... but your comments are still true.
> On the other hand, I know of at least one lesbian cinema student (my
> roommate) who hates "issue" films and would love to work on the kinds of
> things you're talking about. I'm sure there are plenty of other people
> who feel the same way.
OK, then she's on the project, too. Now, how to get us all to Ohio?
> GLB people aren't the only ones alienated by the big television
> networks. Until FOX came along, black people were just as marginal. And
> look at our generation's Great Quest for a Decent Radio Station. Same
> sort of thing. If it wasn't for the FCC, we wouldn't have as much to
> whine about. :)
I move that we declare Florida to be the most grim radio wasteland in North
America. All I have found on any of my trips to The Gunplay State have
been Jesus stations by the dozen, Rush Windbag, and Menudo. I didn't even
try to find anything alternative, but I couldn't even find NPR, Classic
Rock, or C&W, any of which I can handle when pressed. I managed to find
some incredibly interesting radio north of Lake Superior at one in the
morning, yet have never heard anything non-stomachchurning in Florida.
Peter Dubuque
No, the problem *is* society's view of homosexuals. Having 500 channels
won't do a damn bit of good if every time you show two men making any kind
of physical contact, the religious right gets thousands or millions of
constituents to write to the show's advertisers threatening to boycott if
they don't drop their support immediately.
Stephen M Conley
Good point, there. I keep forgetting that the religious right is
a part of society, or that they are capable of writing letters.
Nevertheless, I think the lack of television alternatives amplifies the
impact of the religious right *WAY* beyond anything it would be otherwise.
The religious right does not seem to be concerned with advertisers
in gay magazines, such as "Out", even though many of those advertisers
are mainstream companies selling mainstream products, and some of the ads
are somewhat homoerotic (Banana Republic's ad, for instance, show's two
men cuddling).
Here are some advertisers in the August/September 1993 issue of
"Out". * = homosexual content (in some form or other)
Banana Republic*, Fris Vodka, Miller Lite*, Asahi Beer, BBC
Classical Music Service, Benson & Hedges, Paramount Pictures, Virgin
Atlantic Airways, Absolut Vodka, Tanqueray, EMI Records...
I haven't heard of any serious effort on the part of the religious
right to do anything about these advertisers, even though surely they
purchase products from many of the same companies (certainly Phillip
Morris!).
Of course, very few people in the religious right have ever read
gay and lesbian magazines (hell, I only had this example because of my
roommate), so they probably just don't really know or care. In a world of
500 television channels, I think they would be too busy watching Pat
Robertson complaining about homosexuals on XIAN-TV to really notice the
boy-meets-boy and girl-meets-girl stories on GLB-TV.
Guru Aleph_Null
>In article <2d0l9d$6...@bashful.cc.utexas.edu>
>mar...@bashful.cc.utexas.edu (Sheilagh M.B.E. O'Hare) writes:
>[deletia -- short attention span]
>What sort of projects did you have in mind, Sheilagh? I guess now would
>be as good a time as any to start this "guild". Actually, I don't think
>"guild" is the right word, since it implies a monopolization of a certain
>trade. But let's see who's out there...
Just looked up the "formal" definition of 'guild': a corporation or
association of persons having similar pursuits or interests, formed
for mutual aid, protection, etc.; especially, such an association of
artisans or merchants in medieval times*. Hey, somebody did say, we are
entering a new dark ages, so 'guild' fits perfectly. :)
> Steve
----
* From my ratty Reader's Digest Great Enclclopedic Dictionary circa 1966. :)
--
.---------------------------------------. Michael Jackson has been abducted
|Guru Aleph-Null s...@ukelele.gcr.com|% by the aliens, they're going to
`---------------------------------------'# make several thousand clones of him!
%#######################################% Its the end! Run for the hills!
Jym Dyer
> Such as? My lack of interest in their personal lives?
=o= If you're so uninterested, why do you bother to complain
about it, at length?
<_Jym_>
Stephen M Conley
d...@vnet.ibm.com (Dave Mooney) writes:
>sco...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley) writes:
>> I don't mean to sound like some Boomer telling you to stop
>>whining, but honestly... Instead of just bitching about it, why don't you
>>*do* something about it? We're supposed to have 500 channels soon, Dave.
>>I *think* there might just be a demand for new, original material that
>>will grab viewers, and "marginal" groups like GLB folks will become (I
>>hate to say it, but...) target markets! So get cracking, man!
>
>It wasn't my intention to whine... I'm sorry if it came across that way.
>I was intending to respond to some statements Brian Yoder made that didn't
>jive with my view of the world. Now, as to having *me* produce something,
>well, I wouldn't wish that on any of you, not even Brian.
Now, now, let's not pick on Brian too much. His only serious flaw is his
use of the traditional Objectivist strategy: arguing from the weakest
ground possible. Much of what he says has value (aside from comments like
"icky", of course).
>On the other
>hand, if you and Sheilagh need someone to help suck back some of that
>tasty homebrew while you're working on *your* magnum opus, give me a call.
>I'll even be your key grip. :-)
Sheilagh and I are working on a magnum opus? You know anything about
this, Sheilagh? Are we behind schedule? Me, I vote for a .357 magnum
opus!
>> The problem isn't "society's view of homosexuals".
Actually, I take this back. It's definitely part of the problem. But the
way the media currently work is what prevents the expression of alternate
views. The industry is configured to appeal only to the "mainstream".
>> The problem is
>> that there are only four networks and they're all going after the
>> mainstream American audience. There's much more diversification with
>> cable (a black TV channel, a science fiction TV channel, etc.), and when
>> the number of channels goes up to 500, I would be very surprised if we
>> *didn't* see "GLB-TV" (heh, no pun intended) or something similar.
>
>Stultifying homogeneity among the major media, now there's something we
>can agree about. I don't see the 500-channel future as being much of a
>solution, though. Instead of three major channels broadcasting a bland
>Wonder-bread sameism to everyone, we'll have 500 channels broadcasting an
>admittedly more diverse (and potentially more accurate) view of the world to
>an increasingly fragmented audience.
It's certainly not _the_ solution. Having 500 channels will not
automatically make is better informed. In fact, it might make some of us
less informed than we were before (watching nothing but the "Pat Robertson
Channel" or the "Bill Clinton Channel", for instance). However, it's so
hard for small groups who really do have something to say to get their
messages out with the current situation that I think it's safe to say more
media variety is a step toward finding a solution.
>I'm still haven't entirely decided
>what I think about all this, so don't take this as being a fully formed view
>of the situtation, but I can't help noticing that having 500 channels split
>along various demographic lines is segregationism of a sort. If we have
>the Black Channel talking to black people, the Gay Channel talking to gays,
>The Sun Always Shines on TV Channel for lovers of early-80's music, then I
>think we'll end up with various subcultures knowing even less about each
>other than they do now. "Since They (for some group) have Their own TV
>channel now, we don't have to worry about targeting any of our stuff at
>Them".
That is a potential risk. However, I think it's more likely that with
fierce competition, networks will go out of their way to bring in as many
viewers as they can. Perhaps a given network will only target itself
toward one or two groups, but it's a lot less likely to alienate anyone
than the current networks are.
>I'm one of those sorts who thinks that we need to understand both
>what we all have in common as well as how we all differ if we're going to
>survive. I see TV today as providing a warped version of the former view
>and the 500-channel world as potentially providing an extreme version of
>the latter. But then again, I don't know.
Perhaps so, but if we're getting our entire world view from TV, we're in
trouble no matter what.
****
>> From what I've seen, it's the gay and lesbian filmmakers who are
>> the worst about doing this. Many of their films are *about* being gay,
>> *about* their conflict with society. There's nothing wrong with this, and
>> it can make a great topic for a film, but it does seem to be precisely
>> what you're talking about. If you want this to change, I suggest you talk
>> to these people first.
>
>I read a comment today. "There have always been two approaches. You
>emasculate the fact that you're queer and let your writing compete with
>everyone else's; or you build the walls higher around your ghetto and work
>within it." It's a false dichotomy, but it seems to be close to what we're
>talking about here. I think that things are starting to change here
>somewhat... but your comments are still true.
>
>> On the other hand, I know of at least one lesbian cinema student (my
>> roommate) who hates "issue" films and would love to work on the kinds of
>> things you're talking about. I'm sure there are plenty of other people
>> who feel the same way.
>
>OK, then she's on the project, too. Now, how to get us all to Ohio?
Ack! What project?! What have I been "volunteered" for this time? ;)
>> GLB people aren't the only ones alienated by the big television
>> networks. Until FOX came along, black people were just as marginal. And
>> look at our generation's Great Quest for a Decent Radio Station. Same
>> sort of thing. If it wasn't for the FCC, we wouldn't have as much to
>> whine about. :)
>
>I move that we declare Florida to be the most grim radio wasteland in North
>America. All I have found on any of my trips to The Gunplay State have
>been Jesus stations by the dozen, Rush Windbag, and Menudo. I didn't even
>try to find anything alternative, but I couldn't even find NPR, Classic
>Rock, or C&W, any of which I can handle when pressed. I managed to find
>some incredibly interesting radio north of Lake Superior at one in the
>morning, yet have never heard anything non-stomachchurning in Florida.
Seconded. All in favor?
Stephen M Conley
You're both being ridiculous.
Jym: Brian is not complaining about their personal lives. He
is complaining about GLBs telling him about their personal lives
when he doesn't believe that those details are in any way relevant
to him or how he should interact with anyone, regardless of their
sexual orientation.
He may very well be wrong, but he is not guilty of homophobia, so
quit trying to start a witch hunt.
Brian: I would imagine that at least part of the reason GLB folks
are "in your face" about their sexuality is that they've had to
live in a society that condemns them and how they love eachother.
They can either hide, or be blatant and try to change things. When
you consider that gay teenagers have the highest suicide rate in
the country, I'd say their actions are justifiable.
Brian K. Yoder
>In article <Jym.27Nov1993.2101@naughty-peahen>
>Jym Dyer <j...@remarque.berkeley.edu> writes:
>>>> Is that their problem or is it yours?
>>> Such as? My lack of interest in their personal lives?
>>=o= If you're so uninterested, why do you bother to complain
>>about it, at length?
>Jym: Brian is not complaining about their personal lives. He
>is complaining about GLBs telling him about their personal lives
>when he doesn't believe that those details are in any way relevant
>to him or how he should interact with anyone, regardless of their
>sexual orientation.
>He may very well be wrong, but he is not guilty of homophobia, so
>quit trying to start a witch hunt.
Thanks. Actually, this witch hunt atmosphere is kind of annoying too.
To make any complaint about anything having to do with gays (or any other
"victim" group) makes one an Archie Bunker to people like Jym.
>Brian: I would imagine that at least part of the reason GLB folks
>are "in your face" about their sexuality is that they've had to
>live in a society that condemns them and how they love eachother.
>They can either hide, or be blatant and try to change things. When
>you consider that gay teenagers have the highest suicide rate in
>the country, I'd say their actions are justifiable.
I can understand why that happens (and I think that you are right about
the cause in general), but that still doesn't make such activities any less
annoying. What I would recommend is that rather than cowering in the
closet or getting "in your face", they would just be cool and do their thing.
Another phenomenon at work out there among liberal gays is unrelated
to the phenomenon above though, and that is the "victimization" of
homosexuality, that is demanding special political status for the group,
and the creation of "group representatives" who claim to speak for the
group somehow. That's something I'm unequivocally against, and for reasons
unrelated to homosexuality. I'm against it when whites, blacks, chicken
farmers, and steel workers try to do the same thing.
David A. Kaye
: .... and that is the "victimization" of
: homosexuality, that is demanding special political status for the group,
: and the creation of "group representatives" who claim to speak for the
: group somehow. That's something I'm unequivocally against, and for reasons
: unrelated to homosexuality. I'm against it when whites, blacks, chicken
: farmers, and steel workers try to do the same thing.
Don't tell me, let me guess. You're not black, gay, a woman, Native
American, or part of any other minority. Right? You're white, straight,
well-educated, grew up in a middle class or upper middle class family,
and can go back to your parents if necessary, because your parents didn't
kick you out of the house for being gay. Right?
I've been quietly watching this thread, noting the arrogance with which
you claim victimization in regard to being part of Generation-X, but
clearly don't see that there are plenty of people around who clearly HAVE
been victimized -- these people you don't want to see.
Sean Captain Napalm Conner
>In article <CH0xt...@hawnews.watson.ibm.com>
>d...@vnet.ibm.com (Dave Mooney) writes:
>>sco...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M Conley) writes:
>>> The problem is
>>> that there are only four networks and they're all going after the
>>> mainstream American audience. There's much more diversification with
>>> cable (a black TV channel, a science fiction TV channel, etc.), and when
>>> the number of channels goes up to 500, I would be very surprised if we
>>> *didn't* see "GLB-TV" (heh, no pun intended) or something similar.
>>
>>Stultifying homogeneity among the major media, now there's something we
>>can agree about. I don't see the 500-channel future as being much of a
>>solution, though. Instead of three major channels broadcasting a bland
>>Wonder-bread sameism to everyone, we'll have 500 channels broadcasting an
>>admittedly more diverse (and potentially more accurate) view of the world to
>>an increasingly fragmented audience.
>
>It's certainly not _the_ solution. Having 500 channels will not
>automatically make is better informed. In fact, it might make some of us
>less informed than we were before (watching nothing but the "Pat Robertson
>Channel" or the "Bill Clinton Channel", for instance). However, it's so
>hard for small groups who really do have something to say to get their
>messages out with the current situation that I think it's safe to say more
>media variety is a step toward finding a solution.
>
I happen to live in an area of the US with (probably) the most broadcasting
and radio stations (18 broadcast stations alone, 28 AM stations, 33 FM
stations) and it's still all crap, only more so 8-)
>>I'm still haven't entirely decided
>>what I think about all this, so don't take this as being a fully formed view
>>of the situtation, but I can't help noticing that having 500 channels split
>>along various demographic lines is segregationism of a sort. If we have
>>the Black Channel talking to black people, the Gay Channel talking to gays,
>>The Sun Always Shines on TV Channel for lovers of early-80's music, then I
>>think we'll end up with various subcultures knowing even less about each
>>other than they do now. "Since They (for some group) have Their own TV
>>channel now, we don't have to worry about targeting any of our stuff at
>>Them".
>
>That is a potential risk. However, I think it's more likely that with
>fierce competition, networks will go out of their way to bring in as many
>viewers as they can. Perhaps a given network will only target itself
>toward one or two groups, but it's a lot less likely to alienate anyone
>than the current networks are.
>
I can see the 500 channels going in one of two directions:
1) diversification ala USENET, with the "Left Handed Males of Genera-
tion-X Channel", or the "Myoptic Computer Hacker's Channel" 8-)
2) More of the same ol,same ol, like the radio situation here where
I live (more on that later ... ), more stations, less choice ...
I can hardly see the 500 channels being balanced. What does it even mean
to be balanced? More choice is nice, but is 500 too much? Try to imagine
the various USENET groups "advertizing" for readership. At least, MY mind
boggles at the thought ...
>>> GLB people aren't the only ones alienated by the big television
>>> networks. Until FOX came along, black people were just as marginal. And
>>> look at our generation's Great Quest for a Decent Radio Station. Same
>>> sort of thing. If it wasn't for the FCC, we wouldn't have as much to
>>> whine about. :)
>>
>>I move that we declare Florida to be the most grim radio wasteland in North
>>America. All I have found on any of my trips to The Gunplay State have
>>been Jesus stations by the dozen, Rush Windbag, and Menudo. I didn't even
>>try to find anything alternative, but I couldn't even find NPR, Classic
>>Rock, or C&W, any of which I can handle when pressed. I managed to find
>>some incredibly interesting radio north of Lake Superior at one in the
>>morning, yet have never heard anything non-stomachchurning in Florida.
>
>Seconded. All in favor?
> Steve
You got my vote. I live in South Florida (defined as the area of Florida
south of Lake Okeechobee, along the east coast (Okay, from Jupiter to Florida
City with those with road maps 8-), and like I said, we have something like a
gazillion radio stations, but just about no choice. For example, the entire
list of radio stations we have (just the discription of what they are):
AM
560 Talk/Sports
610 Talk/Sports
640 Religion/Talk
710 Spanish/Talk
740 Money/Talk
790 Nostalgia Music
850 Easy Listening
900 Religion
940 24-hour news
980 Motivational/Health
1040 Urban Contemporary
1080 Variety
1140 Spanish News/Talk
1170 Caribbean
1220 Latin Pop
1230 News/Talk
1290 News/Talk
1320 Variety/News
1340 Talk/Nastalgia Music
1360 Variety
1380 Religious
1400 Talk
1420 Big Band
1470 Urban Contemporary
1490 Talk
1520 Religious
1580 German, Italian
1600 Urban Contemporary
FM
88.5 Alternative
88.9 Community Radio
89.3 Religious
89.7 Religious
90.3 Religious
90.7 Public Radio
91.3 Public Radio
92.3 Latin Pop
92.1 Easy Listening
92.7 Rock
93.1 Classical
93.9 Jazz
94.3 Oldies
94.9 Classic Rock
95.5 Contemporary
95.5 Urban Contemporary
97.3 Adult Contemporary
97.9 Adult Contemporary
98.3 News/Tropical Pop
98.7 Classic Rock
99.1 Urban Contemporary
99.5 Spanish Music
100.7 Contemporary
101.5 Adult Contemporary
102.7 Oldies
103.5 Album Rock
104.3 Adult Contemporary
105.1 Urban Contemporary
105.9 Oldies
106.7 Adult Contemporary
107.5 Latin Pop
107.9 Country
Gee, 61 stations, and most of it is crap. The ONLY alternative radio
station in the ENTIRE SOUTH HALF of the state is 88.5 FM, run out of a
HIGH SCHOOL, with a 7am-7pm broadcast time that you can barely get outside
a 20 mile range. I'm sure there's some alternative shows on some of those
stations, but man, only 1 dedicated to it, but man, those Boomers sure have
the area covered 8-|
-spc ("TV is a medium. It's not rare, and it's not well done."
-- atribution lost )
Okay, I feel better now ...
Brian K. Yoder
>Brian K. Yoder (byo...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: .... and that is the "victimization" of
>: homosexuality, that is demanding special political status for the group,
>: and the creation of "group representatives" who claim to speak for the
>: group somehow. That's something I'm unequivocally against, and for reasons
>: unrelated to homosexuality. I'm against it when whites, blacks, chicken
>: farmers, and steel workers try to do the same thing.
>Don't tell me, let me guess. You're not black, gay, a woman, Native
>American, or part of any other minority. Right? You're white, straight,
>well-educated, grew up in a middle class or upper middle class family,
>and can go back to your parents if necessary, because your parents didn't
>kick you out of the house for being gay. Right?
It really is irrelevant what my personal past is, arguments are true or false
regardless of who makes them.
In answer to your questions though, I'm a straight white male from a lower
middle class family which I can't "go back to". Are you of the opinion that
straight white upper middle class males should shut up because they know
nothing about life?
>I've been quietly watching this thread, noting the arrogance with which
>you claim victimization
Arrogance? I have complained a little bit about the fact that I am being
taxed to death, but I have never even implied that Xers should be officially
labelled a "victim class" which would allow us special government treatment.
There are a few here who love to complain about things too much, but such
folks make the same kind of mistake as the militant gays. I must say though
that compard to racial and sexual groups, Xers here do a lot less of it.
>in regard to being part of Generation-X, but
>clearly don't see that there are plenty of people around who clearly HAVE
>been victimized -- these people you don't want to see.
Sigh. If you want to know what I "want to see", why don't you ask me rather
than assuming you know it based on your prejudices about what you think
my sex and race are?
Sheilagh M.B.E. O'Hare
>this, Sheilagh? Are we behind schedule? Me, I vote for a .357 magnum
>opus!
Magnum?
Opus?
But, but.. (whine) I don't *like* Tom Selleck! Penguins, however...hmm..
anyway, I'll be thinking how I can get out to either steve's area or ian's
area, when in the future that might be, what little film ideas I have, etc..
and about 500 channels--y'all are missing the picture: most folks I know
who will be using that 500 option are the *Channel-surfers*.. they'll be
gleaning all sorts of weird culture, and those who live in their cultural
worlds without recourse to variety will be burdened with continuing those
cultures.. multicultural isnt best when it's an evening & averaging of all
cultures, it's best when it's a clear view into some other worlds so that
people know more of the strangest things..
ca-chunk
sheil
Carl Beaudry
> But let's see who's out there...
Well, I've got some photographic and darkroom equipment, lots of computing
hardware, layout and image/text scanning toys to bring to the party. No
video or motion picture stuff, but pretty good audio tools and plenty of
attitude.
Not to mention safe havens for world-weary travellers in a toy village that
is within drive-by shooting range of Philadelphia and and hour or so from
NYC.
Personally, I'm fascinated by the photographic potential of urban decay.
--Carl
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Theres some kinda Buick left in a stream
...it used to be somebody's dream....
--Adrian Belew
Stephen M Conley
>
>: .... and that is the "victimization" of
>: homosexuality, that is demanding special political status for the group,
>: and the creation of "group representatives" who claim to speak for the
>: group somehow. That's something I'm unequivocally against, and for reasons
>: unrelated to homosexuality. I'm against it when whites, blacks, chicken
>: farmers, and steel workers try to do the same thing.
>
>Don't tell me, let me guess. You're not black, gay, a woman, Native
>American, or part of any other minority. Right? You're white, straight,
>well-educated, grew up in a middle class or upper middle class family,
>and can go back to your parents if necessary, because your parents didn't
>kick you out of the house for being gay. Right?
I hate this kind of argument. It's just total trash. Please
don't insult the intelligence of the readers of this newsgroup by posting
crap like this.
>I've been quietly watching this thread, noting the arrogance with which
>you claim victimization in regard to being part of Generation-X, but
>clearly don't see that there are plenty of people around who clearly HAVE
>been victimized -- these people you don't want to see.
What a yawn. Please present logical arguments next time, and
maybe someone will care about what you have to say.
David A. Kaye
: >well-educated, grew up in a middle class or upper middle class family,
: >and can go back to your parents if necessary, because your parents didn't
: >kick you out of the house for being gay. Right?
: I hate this kind of argument. It's just total trash. Please
: don't insult the intelligence of the readers of this newsgroup by posting
: crap like this.
It's not crap when someone IS kicked out of the house for being gay. On
the irc chat channel 2 nights ago I talked with yet ANOTHER guy who was
kicked out of the house for being gay -- he was thrown out at age 14 by
his "god-fearing" parents in Texas. Forced to fend for himself he turned
to prostitution in the next major city, Dallas, and became hooked on
painkillers. He is now (at age 20) trying to get his life together, but
having a hard time of it because he has no education and no job
prospects. So, he still hustles to make some kind of living. He has
enrolled in a community college (which is probably how he got onto
Internet) and at least he's trying to get things together. People like
you and Brian just DON'T know where gaypeople are coming from, have NO
concept of what it is to be hated by family, and yet, from your
comfortable middleclass vantage points whine about what the older
generation is supposedly doing to you. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT SUFFERING IS.
: steveconleyprodukt 1993 sco...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
: Life is short. Slack hard. Finger for PGP public key block.
Ohio State, eh? And, I'll just bet that Daddy is helping with the
expenses, isn't he.
Carl Beaudry
> : >well-educated, grew up in a middle class or upper middle class family,
> : >and can go back to your parents if necessary, because your parents didn't
> : >kick you out of the house for being gay. Right?
> : I hate this kind of argument. It's just total trash. Please
> : don't insult the intelligence of the readers of this newsgroup by posting
> : crap like this.
David A. Kaye wrote:
> It's not crap when someone IS kicked out of the house for being gay....
> People like
> you and Brian just DON'T know where gaypeople are coming from, have NO
> concept of what it is to be hated by family, and yet, from your
> comfortable middleclass vantage points whine about what the older
> generation is supposedly doing to you. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT SUFFERING IS.
Sniff. Sniff...smells like flames to me....
David is right about this one. We breeders are whining over there on
another thread about the prospect of being accused of sexual harassment for
saying the wrong thing to a female coworker and these people face getting a
punch in the jaw every time they ask someone out on a date. And talk about
becoming pariahs? Good god! It's nolo contendere in the social angst
department, friends.
As far as 'In your face' sexuality is concerned, how is that anything more
than exercising free speech? They aren't breaking down your door to hold a
gay pride march in your living room. If you don't like it--don't watch. As
if heterosexuality isn't in everyone's face too. (Not that I'm complaining
about that....)
And I still haven't seen anything more than rhetoric about the alleged
'special privleges' that homosexuals are seeking. From what I know of the
state and local ballot iniatives, Brian should be opposing all of the
antigay bills on purely objectivist/libertarian grounds. Yet he seems more
icked-out than concerned about other peoples rights.
Gays just want to be able to live in your neighborhood, get jobs that
they're qualified for and raise children if they so desire. What is so
'special' about those privliges? And don't say 'quotas' without the proof.
As far as groupthink and visible spokespersons are concerned, the gay
community is no more homogenous (no pun intended) than GenX. (And they have
much worse taste in music, IMHO.)
It doesn't sound to me like David is whining about anything except being
beaten up and thrown out of the house for being gay. That's a pretty fair
gripe. Does *anybody* think this is a cool way to treat children?
David A. Kaye wrote:
> Ohio State, eh? And, I'll just bet that Daddy is helping with the
> expenses, isn't he.
This, however, is pretty presumptuous and deserves to be flamed, IMHO.
--Carl
Brian K. Yoder
>Stephen M Conley (sco...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
>: >well-educated, grew up in a middle class or upper middle class family,
>: >and can go back to your parents if necessary, because your parents didn't
>: >kick you out of the house for being gay. Right?
>: I hate this kind of argument. It's just total trash. Please
>: don't insult the intelligence of the readers of this newsgroup by posting
>: crap like this.
>It's not crap when someone IS kicked out of the house for being gay.
That's not the point. The point is that your method of argumentation is
both inappropriate since you don't know what my experiences are, and it
basically assumes that unless one is gay, one can't possibly uncerstand
and should just shut up. If you think I really can't understand then just
leave me alone and stop complaining that I can't realize this. Of course
I CAN understand, but if you think I can't then it is no use for you
to continue trying to make me understand you.
>On
>the irc chat channel 2 nights ago I talked with yet ANOTHER guy who was
>kicked out of the house for being gay -- he was thrown out at age 14 by
>his "god-fearing" parents in Texas. Forced to fend for himself he turned
>to prostitution in the next major city, Dallas, and became hooked on
>painkillers. He is now (at age 20) trying to get his life together, but
>having a hard time of it because he has no education and no job
>prospects. So, he still hustles to make some kind of living. He has
>enrolled in a community college (which is probably how he got onto
>Internet) and at least he's trying to get things together. People like
>you and Brian just DON'T know where gaypeople are coming from, have NO
>concept of what it is to be hated by family,
Really? I hate to get into my personal experiences since they have nothing
to do with the general case, but just to prove you wrong, I'll show you
how much you are mistaken. When I was growing up I had a cousin who
lived just beyond the woods behind my house. We were born three weeks
apart and had many of the same interests and he was probably closer to me
than my own brother. When he was a teenager he came out and was for a time
shunned by most of the family (since then I think everyone has come to accept
him though). I was quite surprised to discover this about him although in
retrospect it made a lot of sense. I saw this process in real life and
I think it gives me about as much personal perspective on this sort of
thing as one can have without either being the gay son, or being the
parent. That said, I really don't think that this makes me especially
qualified or unqualified to discuss this issue. I find it quite distasteful
to have to have you judge my arguments on either my personal experiences
or on whether I have related those stories to you or not.
>and yet, from your
>comfortable middleclass vantage points whine about what the older
>generation is supposedly doing to you. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT SUFFERING IS.
You don't know anything about us, and it is not necessary to have lived
a rotten life to understand what suffering is. Chill out.
>Ohio State, eh? And, I'll just bet that Daddy is helping with the
>expenses, isn't he.
I can't politely explain what I think of people like you. To judge someone
harshly because you think his parents might have enough money to send him to
college is every bit as reprehensible (and actually moreso) than judging
someone harshly because he is gay. Worse yet, you don't even know if that
is true. You really should reconsider your bigoted attitude.
Stephen M Conley
>>Sheilagh and I are working on a magnum opus? You know anything about
>>this, Sheilagh? Are we behind schedule? Me, I vote for a .357 magnum
>>opus!
>
>
>Magnum?
>Opus?
>But, but.. (whine) I don't *like* Tom Selleck! Penguins, however...hmm..
>
>anyway, I'll be thinking how I can get out to either steve's area or ian's
>area, when in the future that might be, what little film ideas I have, etc..
Hmmm, this is starting to look like it might actually happen or something.
I guess that means we should figure out what we're going to do, and what
we'd hope to accomplish by doing it.
So, uhhhh...
I don't think we should make stuff that sucks. Huh-huh, huh-huh.
Anybody have anything they'd like to add?
Okay, okay, seriously. I have a few ideas but I think we need a better
idea of who's interested and when they can work, and what sort of work
they'd like to do. Anyone who thinks they might be interested, please
email me. Ideas are best kept out of the public eye while they're still
in the formative stage.
Stephen M Conley
>Stephen M Conley (sco...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
>
>: >well-educated, grew up in a middle class or upper middle class family,
>: >and can go back to your parents if necessary, because your parents didn't
>: >kick you out of the house for being gay. Right?
>
>: I hate this kind of argument. It's just total trash. Please
>: don't insult the intelligence of the readers of this newsgroup by posting
>: crap like this.
>
>It's not crap when someone IS kicked out of the house for being gay. On
>the irc chat channel 2 nights ago I talked with yet ANOTHER guy who was
>kicked out of the house for being gay -- he was thrown out at age 14 by
>his "god-fearing" parents in Texas. Forced to fend for himself he turned
>to prostitution in the next major city, Dallas, and became hooked on
>painkillers. He is now (at age 20) trying to get his life together, but
>having a hard time of it because he has no education and no job
>prospects. So, he still hustles to make some kind of living. He has
>enrolled in a community college (which is probably how he got onto
>Internet) and at least he's trying to get things together.
A really terrible story, I agree. It makes me angry that things like this
happen, and if I could change the whole world this is the first thing I
would fix. But WHAT THE HELL does this have to with the fact you are
using an ad hominem argument? You even go on to do it again:
> People like
>you and Brian just DON'T know where gaypeople are coming from, have NO
>concept of what it is to be hated by family, and yet, from your
>comfortable middleclass vantage points whine about what the older
>generation is supposedly doing to you. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT SUFFERING IS.
How the *fuck* do you know what I know and don't know? How do you know
what "class" I'm in, or for that matter just what my sexual orientation
is? You've got a lot of nerve to come here and tell me who and what I am,
when you *don't* know the first thing about me. Maybe I have a pretty
damn good idea of what suffering is. Maybe I've never suffered a moment
in my life. Either way, it doesn't change the fact that you are full of
shit and can't post a logical argument to save your life.
>: steveconleyprodukt 1993 sco...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
>: Life is short. Slack hard. Finger for PGP public key block.
>
>Ohio State, eh? And, I'll just bet that Daddy is helping with the
>expenses, isn't he.
"Daddy" is a racist, illiterate, alcoholic old man who doesn't help me
with shit and couldn't if even he wanted to because he spends too much
money on booze and whores. There, have I caughed up enough lung for your
satisfaction, Mr. Consciousness?
Steve
--
Stephen M Conley
>David A. Kaye wrote:
>> : >well-educated, grew up in a middle class or upper middle class family,
>> : >and can go back to your parents if necessary, because your parents didn't
>> : >kick you out of the house for being gay. Right?
>
>Stephen M Conley wrote:
>> : I hate this kind of argument. It's just total trash. Please
>> : don't insult the intelligence of the readers of this newsgroup by posting
>> : crap like this.
>
>David A. Kaye wrote:
>> It's not crap when someone IS kicked out of the house for being gay....
>> People like
>> you and Brian
ATTENTION!!! DON'T LUMP ME IN WITH BRIAN! GOT IT?!?!
>> just DON'T know where gaypeople are coming from, have NO
>> concept of what it is to be hated by family, and yet, from your
>> comfortable middleclass vantage points whine about what the older
>> generation is supposedly doing to you. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT SUFFERING IS.
Clue: I am not middle class. I live well under the poverty line.
Not that it makes *one iota* of difference when it comes to what's right
and wrong, or whether or not I know what suffering is. Also, if you will
please cite the article in which I "whine about what the older generation
is doing" to me, I would really appreciate it, because to the best of my
knowledge I have posted no such article.
>
>Sniff. Sniff...smells like flames to me....
>
>David is right about this one.
Just in case it hasn't been made clear by my previous articles on the
subject, I do *not* agree with Brian on the issue of gays being "in your
face" about their sexuality. I have no problem with it. I think all
aspects of healthy sexuality (and that includes homosexuality) are
beautiful and should be celebrated. I just hate ad hominem arguments. I
find them obnoxious and insulting regardless of the sexual orientation of
the people who spout them.
And I do not think he is "right about this one". People suffer for other
reasons besides their sexual orientation, though I'll certainly agree that
gay people suffer more for theirs and that it is unjust that they do so.
However, as I recall this whole discussion started when David brought up
his sexual orientation to show how much of a victim he is. Mark this
whole thread as unread and read it. It used to be the "US vs. THEM"
thread, and now it's the "You're not as much of a victim as I am" thread.
Okay, David, you are more of a victim than any of us are. Congratulations,
the whole universe treats you like dirt. Now, just what do you think it
entitles you to and how on earth does it relate to *this newsgroup*?
David, let me hand you a clue. Nobody, and I mean nobody, on this
newsgroup is saying that homosexuals haven't suffered unfairly. You're
just using your "victimization" (at, I might add, the hands of *your*
generation much more than ours) to guilt-trip us into letting you call us
whiners. I'm not impressed, and I'm not guilty, either.
Steve
--
Brian K. Yoder
>David A. Kaye wrote:
>> It's not crap when someone IS kicked out of the house for being gay....
>> People like
>> you and Brian just DON'T know where gaypeople are coming from, have NO
>> concept of what it is to be hated by family, and yet, from your
>> comfortable middleclass vantage points whine about what the older
>> generation is supposedly doing to you. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT SUFFERING IS.
>As far as 'In your face' sexuality is concerned, how is that anything more
>than exercising free speech?
I fully support the right of gays and anyone else to say rude and annoying
things, but that doesn't mean that I have to like it.
>They aren't breaking down your door to hold a
>gay pride march in your living room.
Well, given that I live in West Hollywood, it's not far from what they do, but
if that's what they want to do, of course they have a right to do so (well,
manybe not in my living room ;-).
>If you don't like it--don't watch.
I try not to make a bigger deal out of it than necessary, but there is a lot
of pressure to take special notice of homosexuality. As I said before, I'm
really not interested in what these people do in their bedrooms. I
know that many of them can't believe that I'm not fascinated by their private
lives, but it is true.
>As if heterosexuality isn't in everyone's face too. (Not that I'm complaining
>about that....)
I would say it is just more commonly assumed. A big poster of a beautiful
woman is more saying "I'm sexy." than "I'm straight.".
>And I still haven't seen anything more than rhetoric about the alleged
>'special privleges' that homosexuals are seeking.
How about the various demands for appointing gays to government offices,
quotas in various political group (like the Democratic party), laws
against private discrimination against gays (one could be rejected from renting
an apartment because I'm male/straight/whatever but not because one is gay).
So far, most of such demands have not been met, but that doesn't mean they
aren't asking.
>From what I know of the
>state and local ballot iniatives, Brian should be opposing all of the
>antigay bills on purely objectivist/libertarian grounds.
As I said, I'm an Objectivist, not a Libertarian. Anyway, I *DO* oppose
anti-gay bills (if that is indeed what they are), although I have never been
in a position to vote for or againt one so the point is pretty moot.
>Yet he seems more
>icked-out than concerned about other peoples rights.
WHere do you get that from? For the most part the real problems gays have tend
to be more social than legal. Family problems, and social ostracism are big
problems. Discrimination on the part of the government is a relatively
minor issue by comparison. I have not heard many complaints about the police
not pursuing people for beating up gays or whatever. WHere did you get the
idea that I'm opposed to equal rights for gays?
>Gays just want to be able to live in your neighborhood, get jobs that
>they're qualified for and raise children if they so desire. What is so
>'special' about those privliges?
Nothing. What makes you think I have a problem with it? I just said that
the gay movement is annoying with its "in your face" attitude. As I mentioned
before, I live in a very "gay" part of Los Angeles. If gays bothered me
I would have chosen to live somewhere else. It is folks like ACT UP,
Queer Nation, etc. that I am talking about, not the nice couple down the
street.
>And don't say 'quotas' without the proof.
Do you deny that various gay groups are demanding quotas?
>As far as groupthink and visible spokespersons are concerned, the gay
>community is no more homogenous (no pun intended) than GenX. (And they have
>much worse taste in music, IMHO.)
That's true. Yet another reason to be annoyed by those who claim to
speak for the whole "community".
>It doesn't sound to me like David is whining about anything except being
>beaten up and thrown out of the house for being gay. That's a pretty fair
>gripe. Does *anybody* think this is a cool way to treat children?
That's fine, I think it is pretty rotten too. So? I have had some bad things
happen to me in my life too, but I doubt you are likely to be interested in
them, and I don't feel a burning need to tell you about them either.
I could post the gory details of my sexual exploits too, but to what end?
What's the point in it? Why should you care?
>David A. Kaye wrote:
>> Ohio State, eh? And, I'll just bet that Daddy is helping with the
>> expenses, isn't he.
>This, however, is pretty presumptuous and deserves to be flamed, IMHO.
Inded, it is kinda funny coming from someone who whines about ME being
a bigot!
David A. Kaye
: is? You've got a lot of nerve to come here and tell me who and what I am,
: when you *don't* know the first thing about me. Maybe I have a pretty
: damn good idea of what suffering is. Maybe I've never suffered a moment
: in my life. Either way, it doesn't change the fact that you are full of
: shit and can't post a logical argument to save your life.
The logic is this: You can't condemn gay society in a cogent way unless
you have experienced it -- because you simply don't know where we're
coming from and why our gay social structure evolved the way it has.
There are REASONS, but you don't know about it because you're not gay.
HOW THE WHITE BOY'S SCRIPT WORKS:
Are you gay? Are you a middleclass or upper middleclass straight white
boy whose parents are helping to pay your way through school OR NOT? I'm
40 years old and have been a gay activist since my teens. I've seen your
attitude repeated so often that I can recite the script by heart.
The current chapter of the script is that you're all offended that I made
the crack about your dad paying for your schooling -- my indicating in an
indirect way that you have lived a fairly sheltered life.
So, the last page was this: You told me that I can't know whether you're
gay or straight or what social class you are. Next page: I ask you to
tell me. That's what I just did. Next page, you tell me it's not
important and refuse to answer my question -- or you tell me that you ARE
everything I say you are and still say it's irrelevant. Another scenario
is that you make up something, but I think you have better morals than that.
The next (and possibly final) page is that you refuse to discuss this with
me anymore, which translated means: I was right about your class,
sexuality, and your lack of experience in gay life, and you don't want to
admit that there's a segment of the world out there that you know nothing
about.
David A. Kaye
: However, as I recall this whole discussion started when David brought up
: his sexual orientation to show how much of a victim he is.
No, if you'll remember, I started this thread when I said that I have lots
of disagreement with the grouping of "gay men and lesbians" because it has
caused our community to become stratified. My whole argument in the
month I've been in this newsgroup is that we should try to share our
experiences and erase some of those lines we draw among ALL groups.
I pointed out that the fictitious "Generation-X" class is serving only to
DIVIDE us as people. All along I've tried to bring up the SIMILARITIES
of people across generational lines. I tried to use the EXAMPLE of a gay
movement as a sort of step backward in our socialization because of that
VERY attempt to create a fictitious "gay community" class.
My comments were not about victimization at all -- I am not a victim.
Some friends of mine are, and they GOT that way by people singling them
out for discrimination, beatings, whatever. SINGLING THEM OUT AS A
DIFFERENT CLASS FROM THEMSELVES. That's the whole point. This is the first
thing Hitler did. He singled out the Jews as a separate group, not as a
part of the community.
As to your calling yourself "low income" -- sorry, that is not your
social class. Your class is your upbringing; this is irrespective of how
you choose to live today. I know that you're at least middle class if
not higher because you had the time to get a full education -- it shows
in your use of words and your spelling. If you were truly lower class
you'd have had to drop out of school and help support your family. Your
style of writing would be entirely different.
Peter Dubuque
>>And I still haven't seen anything more than rhetoric about the alleged
>>'special privleges' that homosexuals are seeking.
>How about the various demands for appointing gays to government offices,
>quotas in various political group (like the Democratic party), laws
>against private discrimination against gays (one could be rejected from renting
>an apartment because I'm male/straight/whatever but not because one is gay).
>So far, most of such demands have not been met, but that doesn't mean they
>aren't asking.
>>Gays just want to be able to live in your neighborhood, get jobs that
>>they're qualified for and raise children if they so desire. What is so
>>'special' about those privliges?
>Nothing. What makes you think I have a problem with it? I just said that
>the gay movement is annoying with its "in your face" attitude. As I mentioned
>before, I live in a very "gay" part of Los Angeles. If gays bothered me
>I would have chosen to live somewhere else. It is folks like ACT UP,
>Queer Nation, etc. that I am talking about, not the nice couple down the
>street.
>>And don't say 'quotas' without the proof.
>Do you deny that various gay groups are demanding quotas?
Brian, you're confusing the POV of radical groups like Queer Nation and
ACT UP with the gay rights movement as a whole. I will grant that they
are most certainly the most vocal groups, but they no more speak for all
gays than the KKK speaks for all whites. The problem with these groups is
that people see them in the media and assume that what they demand is what
the entire movement is about. If you ask most gays what they think gay
rights should be, you will generally hear answers like the right to live
where they want, the right to hold a job without having to be afraid of
being fired if anyone finds out they're gay... perhaps the most 'radical'
of all the demands of mainstream gay culture is domestic partnership laws,
which grant long-term gay couples the same legal rights as married
couples. Society rewards long-term, stable relationships among
heterosexual couples by granting certain privileges to married people.
Long-term monogamous gay relationships [there are more of them than most
people are led to believe] are denied those privileges, and the partners
must pay taxes, purchase health care benefits, etc. at the same cost as
single people. Anti-gay rhetoric will have you believe that gays don't
need *special* economic rights because their earning power as a group is
higher than straight people, but in general, these added economic burdens
more than swallow up the difference.)
Groups like Queer Nation and ACT UP do have their own radical agenda, and
most of the excessive demands you cited are part of this agenda. Such
demands *should* be rejected, just as demands for quotas for racial or
ethnic groups should be. But the demands of the *queer rights* movement
(as opposed to the gay rights movement--since the radical ones are the
only ones who actually use the word "queer") should be seen for what they
are--representative of a small segment of gay culture--and should not be
seen as a pretext for legislation preventing the honest addressing of real
economic and social injustices.
Just my opinion...
--
________________________________________________
This is a test of our high-pitched, whiny sound.
________________________________________________
Carl Beaudry
> ATTENTION!!! DON'T LUMP ME IN WITH BRIAN! GOT IT?!?!
> I just hate ad hominem arguments. I
> find them obnoxious and insulting regardless of the sexual orientation of
> the people who spout them.
I wasn't really intending to group you in with Brian, but unfortunately
when I reread my post it kinda looked that way didn't it?. I'm sorry about
that. It's just that I could see where David was going with his argument
and I didn't think that it was purely a 'you don't know anything if you
haven't suffered like me' kind of claim.
I interpreted what he said as an attack on Brian for only caring about the
rights of people like himself. And further, that Brian was only selectively
*aware* of injustice because of his background. Possibly, I just see
everything as a rhetorical means of attacking Brian. :^) But for whatever
reason, that's why I thought his dig at your .sig line was dismal too.
But I disagree with your argument about the sociodemographics of the
claimant being irrelevant. It's not irrelevant, But it's not definitive,
either. Sometimes it's a pretty good explanation for the gaps in people's
knowledge. But for the record, I'm pretty close to being everything that
David accused Brian of being in the sociodemographic realm. (Though I doubt
'upper-middle-class' describes my upbringing--we hugged the median pretty
tightly from the 'south' side.) Not that that should be surprising. So go
figger.
> Also, if you will
> please cite the article in which I "whine about what the older generation
> is doing" to me, I would really appreciate it, because to the best of my
> knowledge I have posted no such article.
Well *I* have, and you should too. It's a fair gripe.
> Okay, David, you are more of a victim than any of us are. Congratulations,
> the whole universe treats you like dirt. Now, just what do you think it
> entitles you to and how on earth does it relate to *this newsgroup*?
>
> David, let me hand you a clue. Nobody, and I mean nobody, on this
> newsgroup is saying that homosexuals haven't suffered unfairly. You're
> just using your "victimization" (at, I might add, the hands of *your*
> generation much more than ours) to guilt-trip us into letting you call us
> whiners. I'm not impressed, and I'm not guilty, either.
Please lump me in with Steve on this line of reason. Except that I don't
know enough about David's personal plight to certify it's authenticity.
Even bleeding hearts have to have some proof in this cynical day and age.
--Carl
Carl Beaudry
> I pointed out that the fictitious "Generation-X" class is serving only to
> DIVIDE us as people. All along I've tried to bring up the SIMILARITIES
> of people across generational lines. I tried to use the EXAMPLE of a gay
> movement as a sort of step backward in our socialization because of that
> VERY attempt to create a fictitious "gay community" class.
I fail to understand what is 'fictitious' about either community/class
(gays or GenX.) They are both different experiential bases which have some
correlating tendencies within the groups. There is some overlap too.
And how can you possibly argue that people cannot understand gay folks who
have not experienced life in the same way while at the same time claiming
that the group distinction is fictional?
This is muddled in-group thinking if I've ever read it. And need I point
out in which generational community it is commonly found?
> As to your calling yourself "low income" -- sorry, that is not your
> social class. Your class is your upbringing; this is irrespective of how
> you choose to live today.
BZZT! Wrong answer. Social class is defined by a mental framework of
values, aspirations and interpreted experiences that relate to a persons
sense of community. Economic class is purely income defined. Socioeconomic
class is the conceptual overlap between the two, which historically has
been much greater than it is today.
> If you were truly lower class
> you'd have had to drop out of school and help support your family. Your
> style of writing would be entirely different.
There is a difference between economic class and social class. Being
imprecise about this underpins your difficulty in understanding the
generational distinctions. And today, people in the lowest economic class
do not *necessarily* have to drop out of college to earn a living. Though
many do.
--Carl
Carl Beaudry
B> Brian K. Yoder wrote:
C>And I still haven't seen anything more than rhetoric about the alleged
C>'special privleges' that homosexuals are seeking.
B> How about the various demands for appointing gays to government
B> offices,
How is that not free speech? You can say that we shouldn't
appoint a particular gay person to a particular office, But they have
every right to be 'in your face' on the other side. It's just debate.
B> quotas in various political group (like the Democratic
B> party),
There are none. But even if there were, what
possible objection could you have to this kind of free private
association? Isn't exclusivity allowed in your ideal Objectivist
society?
B> laws against private discrimination against gays (one could
B> be rejected from renting an apartment because I'm
B> male/straight/whatever but not because one is gay).
It's not clear that *any* demographic restrictions are allowable
under the Fair Housing Act, though I have heard of restrictions
against children being upheld in local courts. but the law hasn't been
fully tested.
But I know of *nowhere* where straight adult white males cannot rent
or own homes. Your inference to the contrary may explain why people
seem to be constantly 'misunderstanding' you. Why *do* you infer
otherwise?
B> So far, most of
B> such demands have not been met, but that doesn't mean they aren't
B> asking.
Possibly because most of the demands are for *equal* treatment which
presently they are not receiving. Only a few fringe groups want
anything other than that. And I haven't seen them specifically cited,
I'm only inferring that there are extremists out there. Nonetheless,
Peter's analogy to the Klan is quite apt.
C>From what I know of the
C>state and local ballot iniatives, Brian should be opposing all of the
C>antigay bills on purely objectivist/libertarian grounds.
B> As I said, I'm an Objectivist, not a Libertarian. Anyway, I *DO*
B> oppose anti-gay bills (if that is indeed what they are), although I
B> have never been in a position to vote for or againt one so the point
B> is pretty moot.
Well, what do you think of the Colorado ballot initiative that David
was complaining about? Considering the number of such actions
nationwide, all led by people claiming to oppose 'special privleges,'
you may get the chance to vote on one soon.
C>Yet he seems more
C>icked-out than concerned about other peoples rights.
B>WHere do you get that from?
I get it from your defensive inference that someone is trying to take
a privilege from you and give it to someone because of their sexual
preference. The apartment example you cited above is exemplary
of this type of complaint.
If you know of a law that is unjust in this regard, then *cite it*
instead of assuming that we 'know' that there are many such
laws. I haven't heard of any. Please forgive my ignorance.
Now I don't think you're a homophobe, but you seem to 'talk the talk'
pretty well. I'm just trying to keep (other) people from needlessly
flaming you. No, you don't have to thank me.... :^)
B> For the most part the real problems gays have tend to be more social
B> than legal. Family problems, and social ostracism are big problems.
B> Discrimination on the part of the government is a relatively minor
B> issue by comparison.
May I infer from this that you don't want the government enforcing laws
against gender-preference discrimination? (You can't say that I didn't
ask before firing up the napalm)
If not, shouldn't someone be able to refuse to sell or rent you an
apartment because you're not gay?
B> I have not heard many complaints about the
B> police not pursuing people for beating up gays or whatever.
Two words: Harvey Milk.
B> WHere did you get the idea that I'm opposed to equal rights for gays?
I got it from your interpretation of laws preventing discrimination
against gays as somehow establishing an unfair special privledge
without any specific legal interpretation to support the claim.
What laws and what 'special privleges' are you talking about?
I also get it from what I take to be your belief that *any* such laws
would be beyond the legitimate purvue of government. The denial of
equal protection is the same thing as opposing equal rights.
C>And don't say 'quotas' without the proof.
B>Do you deny that various gay groups are demanding quotas?
Yes. No one is demanding gay quotas in civil service or private
sector hiring practices.
Requests for Presidential appointments are not the same thing as
hiring quotas. To say that they are is to say that there is a 'quota'
for a member of the military to be chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff or for a doctor to be Surgeon General. It's a *political*
qualification, which is not the same thing as a professional one.
So asking for a gay AIDS czar is *not* a quota, given the
demographics of who is affected. Similar political qualifications
exist throughout *any* representative democracy. Why was Al Gore
considered to be an innovative choice for VP? Not because he was a
white male, but because he was another southerner. Clinton chose to
ignore the political qualification of finding a geographic ticket
balancer.
So you'll need to come up with a better example.
But anyway, you did it. I knew that you would. You said 'quotas' without
proof. You asked me to *disprove* it first, which is a *fair* (though
imperfect) indicator of where your assumptions lie on this issue.
Your ideology is showing and it's not Objective.
--Carl
David A. Kaye
: And how can you possibly argue that people cannot understand gay folks who
: have not experienced life in the same way while at the same time claiming
: that the group distinction is fictional?
Because, I'm talking about gay people as part of the overall society. I
have a few things in common with other gay men, though not many. I am
attracted to guys and have been involved in the gay political movement.
Other than that and being human I have little to share with them. I was
not discriminated against (to my knowledge), nor was I kicked out of my
home when I was little. Howerver, there are lots of gay men who were.
Even so, this, of itself sets only a particular way of looking at the
world. It is not (in my opinion) reason enough to create a separate class.
: There is a difference between economic class and social class. Being
: imprecise about this underpins your difficulty in understanding the
: generational distinctions.
Economic class is income-defined; you're right. I don't believe I made
reference to economic class. I made reference to social class, which is,
as I've stated, determined by one's upbringing -- the social status of
the person's parents.
Stephen M Conley
>Stephen M Conley (sco...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
>
>: is? You've got a lot of nerve to come here and tell me who and what I am,
>: when you *don't* know the first thing about me. Maybe I have a pretty
>: damn good idea of what suffering is. Maybe I've never suffered a moment
>: in my life. Either way, it doesn't change the fact that you are full of
>: shit and can't post a logical argument to save your life.
>
>The logic is this: You can't condemn gay society in a cogent way unless
>you have experienced it -- because you simply don't know where we're
>coming from and why our gay social structure evolved the way it has.
>There are REASONS, but you don't know about it because you're not gay.
Don't put words in my mouth. I have never condemned gay society! I have
said *nothing* against it. Or is condemning *you* the same as condemning
gay society? You are a fool. The only thing I said was that your
argument was ridiculous.
FOR THE RECORD: I am not now condemning, nor ever have condemned, nor
ever shall condemn, gay society. In fact, I rather like gay society.
However, I am now condemning, and have condemned, and shall condemn,
David Kaye, as an individual, for putting words in my mouth, using
personal attacks to try to prove points that he can't demonstrate
logically (not because they can't be demonstrated, but because *he*
can't demonstrate them), and for invading GenX space and turning it
ugly.
>HOW THE WHITE BOY'S SCRIPT WORKS:
Racist pig. Yes, you!
>Are you gay? Are you a middleclass or upper middleclass straight white
>boy whose parents are helping to pay your way through school OR NOT? I'm
>40 years old and have been a gay activist since my teens. I've seen your
>attitude repeated so often that I can recite the script by heart.
["script" deleted]
How many young gays and bisexuals have you closeted forever with this
"script" of yours? How many have decided not to become "gay activists"
because they disagree with the politics of the glb movement's
self-appointed leaders? *I* know quite a few who've stayed far away from
any sort of gay/lesbian/bisexual organization precisely because of people
like you.
HOW THE AGING-BOOMER-WHO-WANTS-TO-JUSTIFY-AD-HOMINEM'S SCRIPT WORKS:
Right now we are in the chapter where you are setting up a straw man
argument by asserting (QUITE falsely) that I am condemning gay culture.
If you will bother to go back and *READ* my articles, you will find that
at no point have I done any such thing. I condemned *YOU* for posting an
idiotic, transparent ad hominem attack on Brian. I never said Brian was
*right* (and I clarified that I disagree with a number of his statements),
but you have chosen to ignore that. You will continue to ignore what my
beliefs actually *are* on this issue, because you want to win a personal
victory over *me*, regardless of what I actually *believe*.
You have also set a trap for me, and a very clever one it is. I must
either come out publicly as gay or admit that I am straight. Now, let's
take a look at this up close:
Possible case #1: I am gay, I come out, you look like an idiot.
Possible case #2: I am gay, but I am not ready to come out, because I
have friends/relatives who read USENET and I'm afraid of them finding out.
The result is that you "win" (yay, congratulations!), but the various gay
movements all lose because of how much further this would drive me into
the closet, your "victory" doing unknowable psychological damage.
Possible case #3: I am bisexual. Or are you one of those aristo-gays who
thinks that bisexuals don't really exist? Anyhow, suppose that this is
the case. If I am bisexual, does that make my statement that your
argument was unacceptable false? Does bisexuality give me this alleged
"gay insight" that, you claim, transcends logic? Or do I have to give up
motos forever to be privy to this magickal third eye?
Possible case #4: I am straight, but have gone through confusion about my
sexual orientation in the past, have dealt with fear of parents,
relatives, etc., tried to get an understanding of "gay culture", and have
had some homosexual experiences. Now, if I answer "straight", you will
immediately assume that I'm some hetboy who thinks gays are "icky" and who
really doesn't know anything, but is that a fair assumption to make?
Possible case #5: I'm a clueless hetboy, and you could jeer at me
accordingly, reinforcing my alleged dislike of gays and making me avoid
them in the future.
I'm sure there are plenty more that we could all think of if we sat down
and tried. The point is, none of these has anything to do with my ONE AND
ONLY CRITICISM of you: (drum roll...)
You used an ad hominem argument!!!
David, clue time: I've said very little else in this whole debate. You
don't know what my opinions on these issues are. Anti-gay? Pro-gay?
Ambivalent? -- YOU DON'T KNOW! So stop trying to tell me what my
opinions are, okay? Stop flaming me for opinions I do not even *have*,
and have certainly not posted to this newsgroup.
Clue #2: If Brian had made an ad hominem argument, I would have flamed
him just as bad. Worse, actually, since he claims to be an Objectivist
and they're supposed to know better. This has nothing to do with "gay
issues". Nothing. Zero.
You piss me off because all of your arguments center around personal
attacks. It ruins the friendly tone of this newsgroup (as you can see --
granted, my flames didn't help). You are a hostile, obnoxious boomer,
who seems to be interested in little else but finding new and interesting
ways to tell us what a bunch of whiners we are, under the guise of
concern over gay issues.
As for your little question, please reread the possibilities I have
listed above and think about the position you may have put me in.
Stephen M Conley
I want people to read this again. As you can see, David is not
talking about straights not understanding what it's like to be gay. No
one has claimed otherwise. I'm sure it's pretty obvious to anyone that
straights don't know what it's "like" to be gay, men don't know what it's
"like" to be women, whites don't know what it's "like" to be black. And
vice versa. I don't think anyone disagrees with this. I certainly don't.
David is using this statement as an ad hominem argument against
Brian's opposition to a given set of laws. I'm defending Brian because
since laws affect all of us, all of our opinions are legitimate and worthy
of consideration regardless of individual demographics placement. Whether
I agree or disagree with Brian is unimportant here. Furthermore, David
was using this to tell us what a bunch of whiners we are, and I'm just a
little sick of hearing that.
Carl Beaudry
> Carl Beaudry (bea...@cc.swarthmore.edu) wrote:
>
> : And how can you possibly argue that people cannot understand gay folks who
> : have not experienced life in the same way while at the same time claiming
> : that the group distinction is fictional?
>
> Because, I'm talking about gay people as part of the overall society. I
> have a few things in common with other gay men, though not many.
As opposed to considering the differences that GenXers have with respect to
the overall society?
There are approximately 4 trillion of them plus interest.
I'm afraid that it just doesn't play both ways. Like it or not, there *are*
different group norms which, though they are not defining characteristics,
are nonetheless legitimate cultural schisms. Reduced to biology, everybody
is meat. But that is the only universal human condition that I can think
of.
People begin to become different from the moment that they are amputated
from their mothers. There is nothing wrong with that.
> : There is a difference between economic class and social class. Being
> : imprecise about this underpins your difficulty in understanding the
> : generational distinctions.
>
> Economic class is income-defined; you're right. I don't believe I made
> reference to economic class. I made reference to social class, which is,
> as I've stated, determined by one's upbringing -- the social status of
> the person's parents.
Disagree. You are not determined by your upbringing. Influenced, yes--but
not determined. I'll stick with the "mental framework of values,
aspirations and interpreted experiences that relate to a persons sense of
community" definition that I put forth previously.
The difference is that to some extent you can choose your social class. I
was criticizing the confusion of social class with economic class in your
earlier post. The 'quit school to support family' notion you were using is
what I believe to be mistaken. Stephen's family situation would not
necessarily affect his writing unless he allowed it to happen.
In fact, among the economically worst off GenXers, family ties are
frequently less pressing than on the rest of us becasue they frequently
would not care to spend time with their missing biofolks much less quit
school to support them. I'm afraid that your concept of generational
poverty is a bit dated here.
--Carl
Christine Delaney
>
> Stephen M Conley (sco...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
>
> : However, as I recall this whole discussion started when David brought up
> : his sexual orientation to show how much of a victim he is.
>
> No, if you'll remember, I started this thread when I said that I have lots
> of disagreement with the grouping of "gay men and lesbians" because it has
> caused our community to become stratified.
I also recall major "victim politics" in your original posting.
I would back up Steve.
> My whole argument in the
> month I've been in this newsgroup is that we should try to share our
> experiences and erase some of those lines we draw among ALL groups.
But group therapy for the assimilation of Gen-X is *not* the purpose
of this group. We are not the Borg. We are not an extension of
Codependent's Anonoymous. We are a group of diverse folks with cultural
tendencies providing a
common ground. We are not interested in eroding that common ground
to the point that we dazedly return to the Boomer-Wannabe Category. Some of
us want to build on it. And if that amounts to drawing lines, well, then
there it is.
> I pointed out that the fictitious "Generation-X" class is serving only to
> DIVIDE us as people.
{Ranting mode on}
We are not fictitious. If that is your premise, please unsubscribe.
Maybe it hasn't occurred to you yet, but many of us enjoy the lines that
have
been drawn. For God's sake, how many of us spent years trying to find a
generational identity? We couldn't relate with the boomerosity
surrounding us. The Sixties were shoved down our throats as some kind of
nirvanic, societal ideal, subtly accentuating the so-called poverty of our
existences. Many of us felt no sense of community at all until we
discovered the Gen-X concept.
And then, some of us (oh, hell, Chris ... just
say it --- I) found out there *are* folks out there who are like me. There
*are* people who are as cynical and (many boomers would say) sick as me.
There are folks that didn't go to Woodstock and ... yet ... my god, have a
musical heritage that didn't revolve around Rolling Stones Overdose (tm).
So. I guess I *like* the division and find attempts to minimize it a threat
to my new-found community.
Don't construe my remarks to mean I want nothing to do with boomers and
would
like to highlight differences and isolate myself from the majority of the
planet. This is not what I mean. Hell, this isn't what *anyone* in this
group
means, near as I can tell. But I do resent the implications of
minimization your posts regularly contain. Maybe *that* is why folks in
this group have been less than receptive to your posts.
{Ranting mode off -- maybe}
> All along I've tried to bring up the SIMILARITIES
> of people across generational lines.
No one here is stupid enough to believe that as human beings we don't
possess similarities that cross generational lines. But we want to study
and enjoy the similarities among Gen-Xers. We are struggling with an
internal
group definition of Gen-X.
> I tried to use the EXAMPLE of a gay
> movement as a sort of step backward in our socialization because of that
> VERY attempt to create a fictitious "gay community" class.
Ideas such as gay culture or Gen-X are not considered to be absolute
but neither are they nonexistent. The fact is, there are very strong "gay
communities" around the country. In fact some of my
closest friends are very active in the local gay community.
It is not fictitious and using your sexual preference as an authoritative
podium from which to declare it nonexistent is ... well, ludicrous.
The Gay Community is defined by the expereinces of the members of that
group.
Folks I know in the Gay Community are struggling with a self
classification.
A group's self-classification is always important. Don't minimize
it by erasing very real lines.
The only commonality I can see between the Gay Community and Gen-X is a
similar
struggle to internally define the group.
> My comments were not about victimization at all -- I am not a victim.
> Some friends of mine are, and they GOT that way by people singling them
> out for discrimination, beatings, whatever. SINGLING THEM OUT AS A
> DIFFERENT CLASS FROM THEMSELVES. That's the whole point. This is the first
> thing Hitler did. He singled out the Jews as a separate group, not as a
> part of the community.
Now you are talking about external definitions of groups. How Hitler
defined
Jews has *nothing* to do with how Jews define themselves. Hitler's
definition
was absolute. The assholes who beat your friends for being gay were
"absolutely" defining the Gay Community. I am sure that neither Jews nor
Gays would agree with the absolute definitions offered by these twisted
humans.
But ... just because external definitions of groups are pretty nasty
business,
that does not imply that there is something wrong with an internally
defined group. That's what we are doing here.
> As to your calling yourself "low income" -- sorry, that is not your
> social class. Your class is your upbringing; this is irrespective of how
> you choose to live today. I know that you're at least middle class if
> not higher because you had the time to get a full education -- it shows
> in your use of words and your spelling. If you were truly lower class
> you'd have had to drop out of school and help support your family. Your
> style of writing would be entirely different.
Ha!!!!!! You are now engaging in the very crime of which you accused
Hitler.
You are externally defining a group. Tsk.Tsk.
On second thought, don't unsubscribe. Your ill-considered arguments help
me clarify what I think.
Christine DelPrete-Delaney | <Insert Generik Standard Disclaimer>
cdel...@novell.com | <Insert Generik Insightful Fraize >
Carl Beaudry
> As you can see, David is not
> talking about straights not understanding what it's like to be gay. No
> one has claimed otherwise. ... I don't think anyone disagrees with this.
> I certainly don't.
Actually, I think *David* is disagreeing with it. He seems bent on trying
to erase the distinctions between generations, though not those between
gays and straights. Personally, I think he just feels old.
> David is using this statement as an ad hominem argument against
> Brian's opposition to a given set of laws.
Yeah, except for the fact that Brian isn't really criticizing any existing
laws, but rather his *fear* of laws which don't and won't exist.
I think that your previous post got caught in the crossfire of people such
as myself who think that Brian is hiding his preoccupation with his *own*
self-interest behind the thin philosophic facade that self-interest is
good. This is a rather common criticism of Objectivists, no?
So an attempt to criticize an Objectivist who is not in favor of equal
protection for everyone in all cases is fair game. I took David's post as a
criticism of Brian's internal inconsistency as much as an ad hominem
attack. But you're right, in retrospect it was purely an ad hominem.
So to that extent, I have to defend Brian too.
[Sound of washing hands many times with caustic residue left on typing
fingers]
But your legitimate criticism of David's ad hominem doesn't erase the fact
that an essential component of the Objectivist agenda is to define away
human tragedy when it results from private cruelty (as opposed to
government cruelty which it terms 'tyranny.') There is a necessary myopia
inherent in Brian's position that the government should not right
prejudicial social wrongs. And criticism of that myopia is fair game, IMHO.
> I'm defending Brian because
> since laws affect all of us, all of our opinions are legitimate and worthy
> of consideration regardless of individual demographics placement.
That's unquestionably true, but David is correct when he observes of Brian
that he:
>>clearly don't see that there are plenty of people around who clearly HAVE
>>been victimized -- these people you don't want to see.
Brian *is* willfully myopic in that respect. Much like Chad who is more
concerned with male-bashing than sexual harassment (might as well let
everybody flame in on this one...)
You are absolutely right about the ad hominem argument being loathsome. But
in this case, it seemed to have been offered in the context of delineating
a selective perception of observable facts--namely societal victims in need
of some kind of redress, which was linked to Brian's own situation.
> Furthermore, David
> was using this to tell us what a bunch of whiners we are, and I'm just a
> little sick of hearing that.
Agreed. David doesn't seem to get the fact that there is more than one kind
of raw deal out there. In his way he is as myopic as Brian, but without the
philosophic veneer.
BTW, I thought your response on the other thread about the 'White Boy
Script' was brilliant. Very well said. Keep 'em coming!
--Carl
Jym Dyer
=/= I can be ridiculous. Doesn't mean I'm wrong.
>> He is complaining about GLBs telling him about their personal
>> lives . . .
=\= "Their personal lives" is not an objective phrase; it
presumes that what they're saying is private and uninteresting.
Whether it's private is their own choice; whether it's uninter-
esting is not for anyone to say on the behalf of everyone else.
> Thanks. Actually, this witch hunt atmosphere is kind of
> annoying too. To make any complaint about anything having to
> do with gays (or any other "victim" group) makes one an Archie
> Bunker to people like Jym.
=/= My point is that I don't really believe anyone is forcing
anything on you. I've been in West Hollywood. I walk through
The Castro several times a week (West Hollywood to the Nth
degree). I don't see anybody forcing anything on anyone.
=\= Sure, there are people wildly and openly gay, and who are
flamboyant about it. So what? Why do you care?
<_Jym_>
Brian K. Yoder
>C> I previously wrote:
>B> Brian K. Yoder wrote:
>C>And I still haven't seen anything more than rhetoric about the alleged
>C>'special privleges' that homosexuals are seeking.
>B> How about the various demands for appointing gays to government
>B> offices,
>How is that not free speech? You can say that we shouldn't
>appoint a particular gay person to a particular office, But they have
>every right to be 'in your face' on the other side. It's just debate.
Of course they have a right to say such things, that doesn't mean that I have
to agree or like it. You seem to have a hard time distinguishing the
difference between my saying that I don't like something or disagree with it
and my wanting to have the the government censor it somehow. There are all
kinds of things I disagree with, and I don't plan to explain each time I point
one out that I don't want to see them censored. It would be a waste of space
to repeat that over and over when it should be obvious that it is my position.
>B> quotas in various political group (like the Democratic
>B> party),
>There are none. But even if there were, what
>possible objection could you have to this kind of free private
>association? Isn't exclusivity allowed in your ideal Objectivist
>society?
There you go again, the Democratic party can do anything it wants, it can
advocate any position it likes, and it can appoint anyone it wants according
to any criteria it desires, but a great many of those choices would be
unwise and downright reprehensible. The democratic party advocates a LOT
of policies I disagree with (with the gay thing being a trivially minor
one, and in fact the Republicans are even worse in general on this particular
issue), but I fully support its right to advocate those thing and
carry out those internal policies.
>But I know of *nowhere* where straight adult white males cannot rent
>or own homes. Your inference to the contrary may explain why people
>seem to be constantly 'misunderstanding' you. Why *do* you infer
>otherwise?
My point is not that it is hard for me to find a place to live, it is that
laws should be applied evenly without regard to things like race, sex,
and sexual preference. Whether such individual laws cause me problems
isn't particularly relevant.
>B> So far, most of
>B> such demands have not been met, but that doesn't mean they aren't
>B> asking.
>Possibly because most of the demands are for *equal* treatment which
>presently they are not receiving. Only a few fringe groups want
>anything other than that. And I haven't seen them specifically cited,
>I'm only inferring that there are extremists out there. Nonetheless,
>Peter's analogy to the Klan is quite apt.
And I agree with it. The analogy with the Klan is a good one. I think the
KKK is a bunch of annoying (and perhaps dangerous) boobs. That in no
way implies that I have anything against white people. How many times do I
have to repeat that I am talking about the activists and not the gays
themseves?
>C>From what I know of the
>C>state and local ballot iniatives, Brian should be opposing all of the
>C>antigay bills on purely objectivist/libertarian grounds.
>B> As I said, I'm an Objectivist, not a Libertarian. Anyway, I *DO*
>B> oppose anti-gay bills (if that is indeed what they are), although I
>B> have never been in a position to vote for or againt one so the point
>B> is pretty moot.
>Well, what do you think of the Colorado ballot initiative that David
>was complaining about?
I really have not followed the story very closely and I have not read the
text of the initiative, but from what little I have heard my impression
is that it is not actually anti-gay and only makes special treatment for
gays illegal. Of course I think that a lot of the people who voted for it
did so because they were anti-gay, and a lot of the reaction against it
arose from the (reasonable) fear that actual anti-gay legislation and
social sanctions might be on the way in the wake of the initiative. Would
I have voted for it had I lived in Colorado? I can't say without reading it,
and if there was even a small item of anti-gay law in there, I would vote
against it. I just don't know if that is or isn't the case because both
sides of the argument have been screaming at one another unreasonably and
as I pointed out before, I don't spend much time worrying about what other
people do in bed.
>Considering the number of such actions
>nationwide, all led by people claiming to oppose 'special privleges,'
>you may get the chance to vote on one soon.
Well, we'll see. Given the neighborhood I live in, I doubt there will
ever be anything local which has even a hint of anti-gay law. If anything
it is more likely that they'll put some "gay" seats on the city council.
>C>Yet he seems more
>C>icked-out than concerned about other peoples rights.
>B>WHere do you get that from?
>I get it from your defensive inference that someone is trying to take
>a privilege from you and give it to someone because of their sexual
>preference. The apartment example you cited above is exemplary
>of this type of complaint.
Isn't that what the extremists are asking for? I hear such demands all the
time.
>If you know of a law that is unjust in this regard, then *cite it*
>instead of assuming that we 'know' that there are many such
>laws. I haven't heard of any. Please forgive my ignorance.
As I said, most of such proposals die, but I hear them all the time.
>Now I don't think you're a homophobe, but you seem to 'talk the talk'
>pretty well. I'm just trying to keep (other) people from needlessly
>flaming you. No, you don't have to thank me.... :^)
Gee...thanks.
>B> For the most part the real problems gays have tend to be more social
>B> than legal. Family problems, and social ostracism are big problems.
>B> Discrimination on the part of the government is a relatively minor
>B> issue by comparison.
>May I infer from this that you don't want the government enforcing laws
>against gender-preference discrimination? (You can't say that I didn't
>ask before firing up the napalm)
I think that in government hiring, they should be scrupulously anti-
discriminatory (though without quotas). As for private hiring, this again
falls into the category of my opposing something but not wanting to see the
government ban it. I think that people who refuse to hire people because of
their sex or race are quite wrong and morally reprehensible too, but I think
they should be free to do as they choose.
OK flame away.
>If not, shouldn't someone be able to refuse to sell or rent you an
>apartment because you're not gay?
Yes you should. I just don't want to see that (or the opposite) put into
law. Such choices are private, just as private as whom you choose to sleep
with. I oppose government intervention into whom I choose to rent an
apartment to for the same reasons as I oppose government intervention into
your choice of sexual partners.
>B> I have not heard many complaints about the
>B> police not pursuing people for beating up gays or whatever.
>Two words: Harvey Milk.
Did the police not investigate that case? I find that very hard to believe.
I didn't really follow that story either, but you aren't honestly saying
that the police ignored the case because he was gay are you? If that indeed
happened, I would agree that it would be a big problem worth addressing
vigorously.
>B> WHere did you get the idea that I'm opposed to equal rights for gays?
>I got it from your interpretation of laws preventing discrimination
>against gays as somehow establishing an unfair special privledge
>without any specific legal interpretation to support the claim.
>What laws and what 'special privleges' are you talking about?
There are a lot of reasons someone might not want to deal with someone else.
Some are legitimate and others aren't. In the realm of private business
and personal relationships I don't think the government has ANY role in
passing laws to force us to be "nice" to anyone or do business with anyone.
That is NOT because I don't like gays, or whatever group happens to be
complaining at the moment (and as I said, I really have no gripe with
people being gay, it' really not a big deal one way or another) it is that
I want to keep the government out of my business and everyone else's too.
If the government passes a law requiring that people rent apartments
regardless of the sexual preference of the renters (a policy I would
follow myself without the law by the way) then it is establishing the
principle that it has the power to tell me with whom I may associate
and under that terms. What happens in a few years when President Robertson
decides to pass the poosite law requiring that "No apartment building
accomodating children can also be inhabited by gays."? I'll oppose that
one too and on the same grounds, not just that I don't like the rule but
that it exceeds the proper limits of government control.
My ancestors were Germans. There are some people out there who have hard
feelings for Germans for one reason or another and wold not want to rent an
apartment to one. I think that's a pretty stupid attitude, and it is not one
I share, but i think such people shoul be free to be wrong and stupid.
There are also certain people who think that all whites are devils (look at
Louis Farakahn's followers). Although I think such people are wrong and evil
I think they have a right to hold those ideas and take any peaceful action
which is consistent with them (like denying me an apartment). I even think
that the KKK has a right to exist and its members have a right to hire or
rent to whomever they like. One does not have to agree with someone or like
what they do to recognize their rights.
Now, if a law is passed saying "You must ignore homosexuality in hiring and
renting." that gives them special rights not applicable to say, whites and
Germans. Such a law would be both unfair special treatment and an unfair
intrusion into the private lives of bigots. Remember, bigots have rights too.
>I also get it from what I take to be your belief that *any* such laws
>would be beyond the legitimate purvue of government. The denial of
>equal protection is the same thing as opposing equal rights.
Yes, that is exactly true.
>C>And don't say 'quotas' without the proof.
>B>Do you deny that various gay groups are demanding quotas?
>Yes. No one is demanding gay quotas in civil service or private
>sector hiring practices.
Ummmm. Maybe you have not been hearing the demands of the Queer Nation folks.
>Requests for Presidential appointments are not the same thing as
>hiring quotas.
Really? What they are doing is saying "Don't just go find the best people you
can, go for the best GAY person you can.". I don't really care whether the
appointees are gay or not, and neither should Clinton. It is just as morally
retrograde to appoint someone because he is gay as to refuse to appoint
someone because he is. In both cases it involves paying too much attention
to an irrelevant characteristic.
>To say that they are is to say that there is a 'quota'
>for a member of the military to be chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
>Staff or for a doctor to be Surgeon General. It's a *political*
>qualification, which is not the same thing as a professional one.
But an understnding of medicine bears directly on ones ability to understand
certain medical issues. Being gay gives one no special insight into being
Fed Chairman.
>So asking for a gay AIDS czar is *not* a quota, given the
>demographics of who is affected.
There is at least some legitimacy for such a request, but I do think it is
a bit of a slap in the face of all of the dedicated non-gay folks fighting
AIDS because it implies that they somehow don't know or care as much about
AIDS as a gay person.
>Similar political qualifications
>exist throughout *any* representative democracy. Why was Al Gore
>considered to be an innovative choice for VP? Not because he was a
>white male, but because he was another southerner. Clinton chose to
>ignore the political qualification of finding a geographic ticket
>balancer.
Yeah, so? Do you expect me to defend the choice of Al Gore as VP?
Just because it is a common practice doesn't mean that it is the best
state of affairs. While it is true that this gets more votes, I would
evaluate it as a less insidious version of the same idea that causes
some people to vote for candidates of their own race. Just because it
is common doean't mean it is good.
>So you'll need to come up with a better example.
>But anyway, you did it. I knew that you would. You said 'quotas' without
>proof. You asked me to *disprove* it first, which is a *fair* (though
>imperfect) indicator of where your assumptions lie on this issue.
>Your ideology is showing and it's not Objective.
And that ideology is that? The fact is that there are all kinds of
activist groups out there demanding special treatment. Do you not recognize
that this is the case? Your premise seems to be that if one recognizes
and opposes such unfair demands, one must be opposed to equal rights for
the groups supposedly represented by those groups. Is that in fact your
position? If it is, we need to talk.
Brian Upton
|> Stephen M Conley (sco...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
|>
|> : >well-educated, grew up in a middle class or upper middle class family,
|> : >and can go back to your parents if necessary, because your parents didn't
|> : >kick you out of the house for being gay. Right?
|>
|> : I hate this kind of argument. It's just total trash. Please
|> : don't insult the intelligence of the readers of this newsgroup by posting
|> : crap like this.
|>
|> It's not crap when someone IS kicked out of the house for being gay. On
|> the irc chat channel 2 nights ago I talked with yet ANOTHER guy who was
|> kicked out of the house for being gay -- he was thrown out at age 14 by
|> his "god-fearing" parents in Texas. Forced to fend for himself he turned
|> to prostitution in the next major city, Dallas, and became hooked on
|> painkillers. He is now (at age 20) trying to get his life together, but
|> having a hard time of it because he has no education and no job
|> prospects. So, he still hustles to make some kind of living. He has
|> enrolled in a community college (which is probably how he got onto
|> Internet) and at least he's trying to get things together. People like
|> you and Brian just DON'T know where gaypeople are coming from, have NO
|> concept of what it is to be hated by family, and yet, from your
|> comfortable middleclass vantage points whine about what the older
|> generation is supposedly doing to you. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT SUFFERING IS.
1. Gay people have no monopoly on family strife. I have gay friends
who get along quite well with their parents. I have straight
friends who haven't spoken to one or another of their parents
in years.
2. Your argument _is_ crap and here's why: You assume that because
a person has a certain economic background or a certain sexual
orientation they are incapable of understanding your situation.
Using stereotypes to attack those who disagree with you is
just as underhanded and wrong when you do it as when Sam Nunn
does. If you have a point to make, let it stand on its own
merits and leave off the ad hominem attacks.
|> : steveconleyprodukt 1993 sco...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
|> : Life is short. Slack hard. Finger for PGP public key block.
|>
|> Ohio State, eh? And, I'll just bet that Daddy is helping with the
|> expenses, isn't he.
I'm putting myself through grad school. My parents haven't supported
me for ten years. Pick on me, big guy.
--
+-----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Brian Upton | "Bear up bison, never say die!" -Shonen Knife |
| UNC Chapel Hill | |
+-----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
Erich Schwarz
>
> Stephen M Conley (sco...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
>
> : However, as I recall this whole discussion started when David brought up
> : his sexual orientation to show how much of a victim he is.
>
>
> social class. Your class is your upbringing; this is irrespective of how
Uh, as I recall, it went like this:
Somebody implied that, because Stephen Conley wasn't agreeing with a
rather militant Gay Power position, therefore Stephen must be getting money
from home.
Stephen said: (I'll paraphrase) "Gee, that's funny. I *don't* get
money from home. At *all*. Never have, either. How kind of you to
inaccurately ad-hominem me, though."
You said: "As to your calling yourself "low income" -- sorry, that is
not your social class. Your class is your upbringing; this is irrespective
of how you choose to live today blah blah blah blah."
Somehow it seems to me that you are totally irrelevant.
The *point* is that one cannot just assume (self-pleasurably) that
anybody who takes a non-extreme-left-wing political position is therefore
the heir to broad acres. Stephen isn't.
Please note that I have taken no position on who is *actually* right in
this debate, nor do I want to--debating The Future of the Entire Human Race
for the Next 100 Billion Years with Rick Healy is hard enough.
But I would like to suggest that this entire business of disqualifying
people from debate because, for some mystical reason, they aren't
"proletarian" enough is really not a rational criterion for an Internet
thread.
Most of us here are better off than average educationally, being on the
Net and all.
Most of us here have also suffered in *some* way.
[Victim mode on:] I've dislocated my kneecap, not once but several
times. Have *you*? Do you know what that feels like? Not so wonderful,
let me tell you. I also nearly got my head beat in one night in Boston
because three guys on drugs *thought* I was gay. So ... have I established
my right to be a logical statement generator now? [Victim mode off.]
If we're going to have an argument, let's argue about ideas, not about
one another's spiritual qualifications to engage in rational discourse.
Unless rational discourse isn't really the goal?
--Erich Schwarz / schwarze...@starbase1.caltech.edu
Brian K. Yoder
>>> He is complaining about GLBs telling him about their personal
>>> lives . . .
>=\= "Their personal lives" is not an objective phrase;
Really! I can't believe that you actually believe that.
>it presumes that what they're saying is private and uninteresting.
>Whether it's private is their own choice; whether it's uninter-
>esting is not for anyone to say on the behalf of everyone else.
Did you ever get cornered somewhere by a little old lady who is bored and
lonely and just HAS to tell you the names of her children, what she ate for
dinner, how she takes out the trash, where she buys her Geritol, and on and
on? Did you find it boring? Annoying? Sure you did, and it was because
those were things of private cncern to her which had nothing to do with you.
Are you seriously saying that there is no difference between interesting
and private boring facts/conversation?
>> Thanks. Actually, this witch hunt atmosphere is kind of
>> annoying too. To make any complaint about anything having to
>> do with gays (or any other "victim" group) makes one an Archie
>> Bunker to people like Jym.
>=/= My point is that I don't really believe anyone is forcing
>anything on you. I've been in West Hollywood. I walk through
>The Castro several times a week (West Hollywood to the Nth
>degree). I don't see anybody forcing anything on anyone.
I am not talking about what I see driving down Santa Monica Blvd. Seeing
guys holding hands is no big deal, it is the political types who insist that
sexual orientation is a big deal and that I need to "take a stand". Other
than my general position that the government should stay out of people's lives
I really have little more to say about it. This thread is a perfect example
of what I am talking about. There are a number of people here who want to
make me out to be some kind of bigot just because I am annoyed by radical gay
groups.
>=\= Sure, there are people wildly and openly gay, and who are
>flamboyant about it. So what? Why do you care?
I don't, what bothers me is that so many people think I should (and that
they should too).
Brian K. Yoder
>> David is using this statement as an ad hominem argument against
>> Brian's opposition to a given set of laws.
>Yeah, except for the fact that Brian isn't really criticizing any existing
>laws, but rather his *fear* of laws which don't and won't exist.
Actually, it was against people who whine about wanting such laws.
>I think that your previous post got caught in the crossfire of people such
>as myself who think that Brian is hiding his preoccupation with his *own*
>self-interest behind the thin philosophic facade that self-interest is
>good. This is a rather common criticism of Objectivists, no?
Actually, this is the first time I have heard that particular criticism.
How does a thing hide behind a "thin facade" of itself? Maybe I am
misunderstanding your criticism.
>So an attempt to criticize an Objectivist who is not in favor of equal
>protection for everyone in all cases is fair game.
If that were in fact what my position was, you would be right to criticiz me
for it. What did i say that indicated that I wasn't in favor of equal
protection?
>But your legitimate criticism of David's ad hominem doesn't erase the fact
>that an essential component of the Objectivist agenda is to define away
>human tragedy when it results from private cruelty (as opposed to
>government cruelty which it terms 'tyranny.')
On the contrary, the Objectivist ethics examines in gory detail what kinds of
tragedy and cruelty can result from private action and discusses how a rational
person should deal with such things. We just don't see the job of the
government as trying to eliminate all tragedies and all cruelty. Here again
we see the that you can't distinguish between my wanting the government to
stay out of something and my not thinking that thing is desirable. Those
are two completely separate issues.
Regarding the particular issue at hand, of course I don't think that parents
should cruely shun their gay children, or that landlords should refuse to
rent to gay couples. Why do you think that such a position is incompatible
with not wanting to have government pass laws about how parents can
treat their adult children and whom landlords may rent apartments to?
I see those positions are quite compatible.
>There is a necessary myopia
>inherent in Brian's position that the government should not right
>prejudicial social wrongs. And criticism of that myopia is fair game, IMHO.
I think that is our actual area of disagreement, so let's focus on that
rather than all this other nonsense about whether or not I'm gay, whether
my daddy paid for my tution, and whether I think sodomy is "icky". Far from
being myopic, I think that keeping the government out of our private matters
is the best way to allow social prejudices to work themselves out, and
the best way to allow each of us to have the autonomy to live a good life.
If the government is allowed to scrutinize the details of your personal
life and make such choices for you, what is to stop it from making choices
for you which you DON'T like? Laws such as those against abortion, drugs,
homosexuality, pornography, etc. have nothing to do with protecting the
rights of anyone, and have everything to do with people forcing you to do
what THEY think is good for you. The fact that I don't like laws against
those things has nothing to do with whether I think that it is good to
take drugs, read porno, sleep with people of the same sex, or whatever.
>>>clearly don't see that there are plenty of people around who clearly HAVE
>>>been victimized -- these people you don't want to see.
>Brian *is* willfully myopic in that respect.
What do you mean? Do you seriously think that I don't realize that a lot
of people are cruel to gays? That some people like to beat them up for fun?
That there used to be a lot of laws that were blatantly unfair to them?
That there are still a few? I know that all of these things are true, but
none of these facts have much to do with the discussion we have been
having.
>You are absolutely right about the ad hominem argument being loathsome. But
>in this case, it seemed to have been offered in the context of delineating
>a selective perception of observable facts--namely societal victims in need
>of some kind of redress, which was linked to Brian's own situation.
What do you mean by "redress"? Some goon beats up a gay guy and somehow I
am responsible for redressing that grievance? What did I do? Why blame
me? If you can track down the goon who did it, you have my permission to
throw the book at him. Just don't toss it my way. I had nothing to do
with it.
Part of what bothers me about your comment was calling those affected "societal
victims". Why do you blame "society" rather than the perpetrators? Such
crimes or poor judgement are matters of individual choice not "societal
victimization". Why do you want to let the goons off so much? Why do you
want to blame innocent bystanders? Heck, people are always blaming me for
things done by other people before I was born because of my race and sex.
Do you think that it is my respnsibility to offer "redress" so such abuses?
Carl Beaudry
C>Brian is hiding his preoccupation with his *own*
C>self-interest behind the thin philosophic facade that self-interest is
C>good. This is a rather common criticism of Objectivists, no?
B> Actually, this is the first time I have heard that particular
B> criticism. How does a thing hide behind a "thin facade" of itself?
B> Maybe I am misunderstanding your criticism.
No, you've heard it before. Certainly here if nowhere else. By claiming
that unrestrained pursuit of self-interest is good, you deny responsibility
for the aggregate negative consequences of unfettered private abuses.
This is true with or without the INEVITABLE private corruption of the
government.
It is also in addition to claiming to have a pricipled objection to
governmental redressing past wrongs, by simply claiming that the past
injustices could never have been justified under the rubric of enlightened
self interest. All this while ignoring the present day benefit accrued to
people such as ourselves from past averice, greed and cruelty.
Capish?
C>So an attempt to criticize an Objectivist who is not in favor of equal
C>protection for everyone in all cases is fair game.
B> If that were in fact what my position was, you would be right to
B> criticiz me for it. What did i say that indicated that I wasn't in
B> favor of equal protection?
For clarity's sake, I'm keeping that on the other thread. So please
answer it there. But in short, by opposing laws prohibiting
gender-preference discrimination, you deny equal protection under law
to gays.
C>an essential component of the Objectivist agenda is to define away
C>human tragedy when it results from private cruelty (as opposed to
C>government cruelty which it terms 'tyranny.')
B> you can't distinguish between my wanting the government to
B> stay out of something and my not thinking that thing is desirable. Those
B> are two completely separate issues.
B> ...
B> Why do you think that such a position is incompatible
B> with not wanting to have government pass laws about how parents can
B> treat their adult children and whom landlords may rent apartments to?
B> I see those positions are quite compatible.
It is the separation of those issues that constitutes 'defining away'
private cruelty as being non-criminal. By trying to stop a representative
government from assuring free passage and association via
anti-discrimination
laws, (such as in Colorado) you deny equal protection under the law.
B> Far from being myopic, I think that keeping the government out of our
B> private matters is the best way to allow social prejudices to work
B> themselves out, and the best way to allow each of us to have the
B> autonomy to live a good life.
This is an act of faith. There is no rational or historical basis for
this assumption. If someone questions it, a government has no
legitimacy over that person. All rational argument must stop there.
The rest is RealPolitik--which is the framework that I've been using
all along.
B> If the government is allowed to scrutinize the details of your
B> personal life and make such choices for you, what is to stop it from
B> making choices for you which you DON'T like?
Constitutional checks and balances, and beyond that the physical
ability of an aggrieved people to overthrow or change it.
C>Brian *is* willfully myopic in that respect.
B> What do you mean? Do you seriously think that I don't realize that a
B> lot of people are cruel to gays? That some people like to beat them
B> up for fun? That there used to be a lot of laws that were blatantly
B> unfair to them? That there are still a few? I know that all of these
B> things are true, but none of these facts have much to do with the
B> discussion we have been having.
As I said, to deny equal protection under the law.....
B> Part of what bothers me about your comment was calling those affected
B> "societal victims". Why do you blame "society" rather than the
B> perpetrators?
To the extent that each person depends upon the government for protection
and are not protected, it is society's fault.
B> Heck, people are always blaming me for things done by other people
B> before I was born because of my race and sex.
B>Do you think that it is my respnsibility to offer "redress" so
B>such abuses?
Yes. I have never been unclear about that.
On the contrary, you are denying responsibility for fixing things which you
are obliged on the basis of your privleged position to fix.
Hense the blame.
--Carl
Carl Beaudry
> {Ranting mode on}
>
> We are not fictitious. If that is your premise, please unsubscribe.
>
> Maybe it hasn't occurred to you yet, but many of us enjoy the lines that have
> been drawn....We couldn't relate with the boomerosity surrounding us.
> The Sixties were shoved down our throats as some kind of
> nirvanic, societal ideal, subtly accentuating the so-called poverty of our
> existences. Many of us felt no sense of community at all until we
> discovered the Gen-X concept.
>
> And then, some of us (oh, hell, Chris ... just
> say it --- I) found out there *are* folks out there who are like me. There
> *are* people who are as cynical and (many boomers would say) sick as me.
> There are folks that didn't go to Woodstock and ... yet ... my god, have a
> musical heritage that didn't revolve around Rolling Stones Overdose (tm).
>
> So. I guess I *like* the division and find attempts to minimize it a threat
> to my new-found community.
>
> Don't construe my remarks to mean I want nothing to do with boomers and would
> like to highlight differences and isolate myself from the majority of the
> planet. This is not what I mean. Hell, this isn't what *anyone* in this group
> means, near as I can tell...
I think we have FAQ list potential here.....
Why *is* it that harmony and homogeneity are taken to be synonyms? I must
have missed that episode of 'Grammar Rock(tm)'
--Carl
Stephen M Conley
>In article <2dhue2$j...@crl.crl.com>, d...@crl.com (David A. Kaye) wrote:
>>
>> Stephen M Conley (sco...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) wrote:
>>
>> : However, as I recall this whole discussion started when David brought up
>> : his sexual orientation to show how much of a victim he is.
>>
>>
>> As to your calling yourself "low income" -- sorry, that is not your
>> social class. Your class is your upbringing; this is irrespective of how
>> you choose to live today [etc.]
>
> Uh, as I recall, it went like this:
>
> Somebody implied that, because Stephen Conley wasn't agreeing with a
>rather militant Gay Power position, therefore Stephen must be getting money
>from home.
Actually, I haven't agreed or disagreed with most of what David
Kaye has posted. However, it seems that speaking against one gay person
(on a matter totally unrelated to sexuality) is the same as speaking
against all gay people, or so David seems to think. Now that's a tough
union! I wonder what my roommate will think when she learns that I have
spoken against the debating tactics of the Great Leader of the Movement.
Is she loyal enough to The Cause to slit my throat in my sleep?
Brian K. Yoder
>B>Brian K. Yoder wrote
>C>Carl Beaudry wrote:
>C>Brian is hiding his preoccupation with his *own*
>C>self-interest behind the thin philosophic facade that self-interest is
>C>good. This is a rather common criticism of Objectivists, no?
>B> Actually, this is the first time I have heard that particular
>B> criticism. How does a thing hide behind a "thin facade" of itself?
>B> Maybe I am misunderstanding your criticism.
>No, you've heard it before. Certainly here if nowhere else. By claiming
>that unrestrained pursuit of self-interest is good, you deny responsibility
>for the aggregate negative consequences of unfettered private abuses.
That is an argumenht I have heard before, but it is just as mistaken as ever.
Your accusation raises a number of rather unrelated issues which I will
try to untangle.
1. I don't deny that people are responsible for their own private actions.
What I deny is that we all hold some kind of "collective guilt" for the
private actions of others. Do you think that you bear some responsibility
for my being rude to girlscouts selling cookies?
2. What exactly do you mean by "private abuses"? Private abuses of what?
I certainly think that it is possible for people to do terrible and stupid
things in their private lives. People can cruely dump boyfriends and
girlfriends, they can waste money on self-destructive things, they can
be rude, and they can be disagreeable. Of course these things are bad,
why? BECAUSE they are against self-interest. What kinds of "private
abuses" are you talking about which don't fit into the "self-destructive"
kinds of categories as I mentioned, and also don't fall under the
categories of fraud, theft, assault, or threats of force? You seem to
have the odd opinion that there are "abusive" activities which are bad
and yet not contrary to self-interest. Could you give me a few examples
of what these "abuses" are?
3. Your implication is that (again) because I don't want the government to make
any of my personal choices for me, I must not have any moral objection
to any private actions. I think you know better than that. I have all
kinds of objections to all kinds of private actions. I just don't think
that the government should be dictating what my private activities should
be. To be opposed to something and to favor laws against it are two
completely different things.
>This is true with or without the INEVITABLE private corruption of the
>government.
What does one have to do with the other? I think you really need to read the
first few pages of "The Virtue of Selfishness" because you clearly don't
understand what the Objectivist notion of self-interest is. What does
moral evaluation of private actions (or lack of it) have to do with
whether government is corruptable?
I should note that the possibility of government corruption is yet another
reason we should keep the government out of as many areas of our lives as
possible. Such a limited form of government also minimizes the temptation
for people to corrupt the government.
>It is also in addition to claiming to have a pricipled objection to
>governmental redressing past wrongs,
What I oppose is the redress of long past wrongs against long dead people
by long dead people by means of forcing unrelated representatives of the
"oppressors" to compensate the unrelated "victims" by an endless succession
of demands. I fully support the redress of past wrongs by the perpetrators
for the benefit of the specific individuals who were wronged. Do you not
recognize that these are different things?
>by simply claiming that the past
>injustices could never have been justified under the rubric of enlightened
>self interest. All this while ignoring the present day benefit accrued to
>people such as ourselves from past averice, greed and cruelty.
SO you seriously think that you are better off because of past violations of
rights? Do you really? It is pretty obvious to me that the massive death
and destruction caused by the Civil War, the titanic waste of time and
human energy caused by slavery and later racially discriminatory laws, and
other such abuses were BAD things for me. If you think you are better off
because of such abuses (perhaps you have different ones in mind? You really
should give some examples of what you are talking about.) you are
entitled to that opinion, but it is not mine.
Do you think that I can or should somehow accept the guilt for the sins of
people who happen to have looked a little bit like I do? That is quite
thoroughly racist.
>C>an essential component of the Objectivist agenda is to define away
>C>human tragedy when it results from private cruelty (as opposed to
>C>government cruelty which it terms 'tyranny.')
>B> you can't distinguish between my wanting the government to
>B> stay out of something and my not thinking that thing is desirable. Those
>B> are two completely separate issues.
>B> ...
>B> Why do you think that such a position is incompatible
>B> with not wanting to have government pass laws about how parents can
>B> treat their adult children and whom landlords may rent apartments to?
>B> I see those positions are quite compatible.
>It is the separation of those issues that constitutes 'defining away'
>private cruelty as being non-criminal.
OK then, explain to me why "private cruelty" should be considered criminal.
Should you go to jail if you engage in such "cruel" behavior as denying
your parents grandchildren and sending them into depression? Or cruely
spurning a lovesick suitor? Or wasting your inheritance on a frivolous
vacation? Disappointing all of your relatives by being gay? Before we
can get much further, you need to be a bit more clear about what kinds of
"private cruelty" you think ought to be considered "criminal" and why.
I should point out (again, since you STILL don'[t seem to get it) that I
am oppoto various kinds of private cruelty, but I don't think that my
every moral judgement should be made into a law which people are forced to
adopt against their will.
>By trying to stop a representative
>government from assuring free passage and association via
>anti-discrimination
>laws, (such as in Colorado) you deny equal protection under the law.
The connection between you are trying to draw between myself, that law,
free passage rights, and equal protection under the law are not at all clear.
Just listing those subjects in a sentence hardly consttutes an argument.
I won't bother trying to make your argument for you in order to reply to this
snippet of your stream of consciousness.
>B> Far from being myopic, I think that keeping the government out of our
>B> private matters is the best way to allow social prejudices to work
>B> themselves out, and the best way to allow each of us to have the
>B> autonomy to live a good life.
>This is an act of faith.
No it isn't. If you treat people like children who are to be ordered around
by big brother, they can react in only a few ways, they can either obey
in which case they are not really making moral choices, they are just pawns
in a power game, or they can rebel against being treated as serfs. Neither
is particularly good. It i not a matter of faith to say that people who
can (and must) make decisions for themselves will be better decisionmakers
than either oppressed serfs, or their government keepers.
>There is no rational or historical basis for
>this assumption.
On the contrary, history is full of examples of it. Do you seriously look at
the course of history and not see a direct correlation between individual
freedom and social wellbeing and material prosperity? Do I really have to give
you a list of examples? I think you are just being difficult here.
>If someone questions it, a government has no
>legitimacy over that person. All rational argument must stop there.
>The rest is RealPolitik--which is the framework that I've been using
>all along.
I don't see what you are trying to say here.
>B> If the government is allowed to scrutinize the details of your
>B> personal life and make such choices for you, what is to stop it from
>B> making choices for you which you DON'T like?
>Constitutional checks and balances, and beyond that the physical
>ability of an aggrieved people to overthrow or change it.
But how should YOU (or the aggrieved people) decide what the government
should or shouldn't do? Is any choice just as good as any other?
>C>Brian *is* willfully myopic in that respect.
>B> What do you mean? Do you seriously think that I don't realize that a
>B> lot of people are cruel to gays? That some people like to beat them
>B> up for fun? That there used to be a lot of laws that were blatantly
>B> unfair to them? That there are still a few? I know that all of these
>B> things are true, but none of these facts have much to do with the
>B> discussion we have been having.
>As I said, to deny equal protection under the law.....
When have I done that? Give me one example! You are just building strawmen
here.
>B> Part of what bothers me about your comment was calling those affected
>B> "societal victims". Why do you blame "society" rather than the
>B> perpetrators?
>To the extent that each person depends upon the government for protection
>and are not protected, it is society's fault.
In such cases (such as in the bad old days when only certain races or
sexes could take cases to court for example) then it is the GOVERNMENT
which is at fault (since it is not doing its job) as well as all those who
support such policies. I think your focus is more on trying to pin
some kind of responsibility for racism and other injustices on people
who have not done anything wrong, amd I right? Perhaps you could
give me some examples if you mean something else?
>B> Heck, people are always blaming me for things done by other people
>B> before I was born because of my race and sex.
>B>Do you think that it is my responsibility to offer "redress" so
>B>such abuses?
>Yes. I have never been unclear about that.
>On the contrary, you are denying responsibility for fixing things which you
>are obliged on the basis of your privleged position to fix.
What a crock. First of all, you are making a lot of unwarranted assumptions
about how "privileged" my position is. Second, you have not yet explained how
it is that I acquired an obligation to "fix" anything on the basis that I have
received these "privileges". In cases where "fixing" such problems will
benefit me such "fixing" can be justified on the basis of self-interest.
You are however talking about something else...self-destructive "fixing"
which in fact makes me less well off than I was before. So don't give me an
example of self-beneficial "fixing". What you have to explain is why I should
(for some reason you can't seem to explain) act self-destructivelyin such
a pursuit.
>Hense the blame.
So you blame me for not accepting a responsibility for doing what you want me
to do. Who are to to order me around and force unchosen responsibilities on
me?
Dave Mooney
> But in short, by opposing laws prohibiting
> gender-preference discrimination, you deny equal protection under law
> to gays.
Ug. I can't swallow this, Carl. I think that it's perfectly proper to
ensure that the *law* treats everyone equally regardless of sexual
orientation, but I don't think that that necessarily means that the law
should ensure that people and/or businesses provide the same services for
everyone. So if some guys decide to go out and do some 'queer rolling',
and some redneck judge lets them off because 'those gays need to be shown
that we don't like their type in this town', then by all means, we should
claim discrimination because there is a double standard under the law. On
the other hand, if I'm a redneck and I decide that I'm not going to serve
any gays at my restaurant, then that is my decision. It may be reprehensible
and morally wrong, and you and your friends have every right to march up
and down on the sidewalk, calling me all sorts of nasty names, but I don't
agree that the government should have the ability to *force* me to serve
somebody that I don't want to for whatever obscure reason I choose. Equal
protection under the law is not the same as equal treatment from everyone.
dave
--
Dave Mooney d...@vnet.ibm.com
"Everyone on earth wants to be Canadian" -- Douglas Coupland
rick healy
.In <beaudry-02...@beaudry.swarthmore.edu>, bea...@cc.swarthmore.edu (Carl Beaudry) writes:
.> But in short, by opposing laws prohibiting
.> gender-preference discrimination, you deny equal protection under law
.> to gays.
.
.Ug. I can't swallow this, Carl. I think that it's perfectly proper to
.ensure that the *law* treats everyone equally regardless of sexual
.orientation, but I don't think that that necessarily means that the law
.should ensure that people and/or businesses provide the same services for
.everyone. So if some guys decide to go out and do some 'queer rolling',
.and some redneck judge lets them off because 'those gays need to be shown
.that we don't like their type in this town', then by all means, we should
.claim discrimination because there is a double standard under the law. On
.the other hand, if I'm a redneck and I decide that I'm not going to serve
.any gays at my restaurant, then that is my decision. It may be reprehensible
.and morally wrong, and you and your friends have every right to march up
.and down on the sidewalk, calling me all sorts of nasty names, but I don't
.agree that the government should have the ability to *force* me to serve
.somebody that I don't want to for whatever obscure reason I choose. Equal
.protection under the law is not the same as equal treatment from everyone.
.
.dave
.
What if includes excluding people with curly hair? Seems obscure at first...
-Rick
---
Richard J. Healy
<cd...@nasagiss.giss.nasa.gov> or <ri...@lamont.ldeo.columbia.edu>
William Derth Adams
I think part of his confusion comes from not having seen the wording of
most sexual orientation equal opportunity clauses: the standard formulation
is to include homosexuality, bisexuality and -heterosexuality- in the
term "sexual orientation". A "sexual orientation" EO policy protects
straight people, too.
Carl Beaudry
> Carl Beaudry writes:
> > But in short, by opposing laws prohibiting
> > gender-preference discrimination, you deny equal protection under law
> > to gays.
>
> Ug. I can't swallow this, Carl. I think that it's perfectly proper to
> ensure that the *law* treats everyone equally regardless of sexual
> orientation, but I don't think that that necessarily means that the law
> should ensure that people and/or businesses provide the same services for
> everyone.
Well there is a bit of a difference between providing the same services
regardless of other factors and hiring people regardless of those factors.
Presently, businesses can choose their clientele much more restrictively
than they can choose their employees.
I agree. A corporation has no business discriminating on any basis but
performance in the hiring of employees. That will still allow some unfair
discrimination but the cost of correcting it would be impossible to
justify.
And personally, I think there should be some exclusivity allowed in
choosing corporate clientele. But a corporation should *pay* for the
privilege in the form of higher taxation and licensing fees, or be forced
to serve all takers.
It's only fair that a business which provides lesser value to a community
by being exclusive while enjoying the full protections of the government
should pay the difference in higher taxes.
As I said on the other thread: Being considered a corporation is a
privelege--not a right.
--Carl
Erich Schwarz
bea...@cc.swarthmore.edu (Carl Beaudry) wrote:
> I just want to take part of his income and give it someone
> that Brian doesn't think he has personally harmed. I also want to make sure
> that everyone has the same opportunity to live in Brians apartment as
> he does.
And I want to take part of your income and use it to build a
self-sustaining, technocratic/aristocratic republic in outer space. It's
for the greater good of the long-term future of humanity. Huh? You don't
*want* to? But you *ought* to! It's for the Cause! Why, what a selfish,
amoral dead weight you are!
[About 50% ;-) ]
--Erich Schwarz / schwarze...@starbase1.caltech.edu
Stephen M Conley
Chicken butt.
Steve
who really just can't stand all this talk of
earth-shattering moral issues anymore because
nobody ever actually *wins* and nothing ever
gets decided
Brian K. Yoder
>Bryan K. Yoder wrote:
>For the record, Brian is against discrimination and past injustice.
>He just doesn't want the government to do anything about it.
Quite true. I should also add that I PERSONALLY am interested in doing
things to help eliminate such problems now and in the future.
>And by way of disclaimers, it should also be noted that I am
>personally in no clear way bound to act rationally as I frequently do
>not. Furthermore, I *may* be willing to lie, cheat steal and abuse
>people to sustain my unilateral advantage.
If that is the case why would yo expect any sensible person to either
believe anything you say or cooperate with you in any common effort?
>I have previously owned up
>to this quite atavistic morality so it is clearly worth noting that
>Brian is altogether more ethically inclined than I am. The question
>is really which of us is more like everybody else....
Why is that of any interest? If in fact more people are unethical liars
cheaters, and abusers like you claim to be does that mean that it is
somehow right or better to be that way?
>But here Brian uses the ancient sophistic (I mean this in the literal
>sense) trick of defining enlightened self-interest as favoring
>whatever is ultimately good. As opposed to what is good for that
>individual. Brian denies the distinction--in theory anyway. And he is
>certainly in favor of whatever is good. He seemingly cannot help it.
Of course I can "help it". I could choose to do all kinds of self-destructive
things like lying, stealing, taking drugs, beating up gays, etc. Please
note the distinction between "self-interest" and "doing whatever you want
to do", they aren't the same thing since not everything you might want
to do is actually good for you.
>But by making this claim he makes it impossible to dispute his
>empirically fallacious view that allowing the strong to unabashedly
>*continue* to abuse the weak
What do you mean by "allowing" the strong to abuse the weak? Is that really
how you see the issue? First of all, I don't see this as a "strong vs. weak"
issue, it is certainly possible for the "weak" to abuse ther "strong" too.
Regarding what will be "allowed", I agree that in a police state there might
be fewer vices of various kinds, but I contend that such a "cure" is worse than
the disease.
>without government intervention will
>somehow bring about the ultimately optimal result without calling
>into question Brian's own motives for advocating such a position.
What do my motives have to do with it? I think that the empirical evidence
is undeniably on my side. When people are left to their own devices AND
prevented from using force and fraud against one another things work out
quite well for both "the strong" and "the weak".
>In short:
> Either, one can claim that redress for abused members
> of society is good for the whole society in which case
> Brian says that laws are unnecessary because people
> can be convinced to do it on their own and that he would
> be for it too
That's not my position.
> or
> One can claim that redress will benefit only *part* of
> the society at the expense of another but that there
> is a moral imperitive to do it anyway, in which case
> Brian says that he doesn't like your morality and
> that it's not his fault that people suffer and that he doesn't
> want you to impose your grubby beliefs on him. (Oh yeah
> and keep your hands out of his pants--not because he is
> homophobic--but because that's where his wallet is.)
Actually I want to see you keep your hands out of ANYTHING in my pants.
The above paragraph really isn't my position either. I think that the
whole idea of classes of people redressing grievances of other classes
is flawed at a very fundamental level. Individuals may commit crimes
and if they do they should be punished. If the individual has been
dead for 100 years you really can't go after those who look like him
on the grounds of anything like justice.
>My claim must therefore be that Brian is corrupt. There is no
>logical alternative.
Disagreements aside, I don't understand how you reached that conclusion.
>It is true by definition, (as is his notion of self-interest.)
I think you are confusing "self-interest" with "doing whatever Iwant to do".
>1. Brian says that he favors the protection of individual rights.
True enough.
>2. Past and present rights of property and association among others,
> have been violated.
That is true, and in the case of long past violations I don't think anything
can or should be done to address the problems. After all both the perpetrators
and the victims are long dead. In terms of present (or recent) violations
of rights I think the government SHOULD get involved. The cases we have
been focusing on here have for the most part NOT been violations of rights,
but rudeness and poor judgement.
>3. Brian favors no *specific* form of redress and resists all attempts to
> provide it via the government.
Not at all! I am FULLY in favor of having the government go after those
who violate the rights of others for ANY reason. What I am opposed to is
two things:
a. Punishing innocent people for the crimes of others who happen to be in
the same racial or sexual class. There are people out there who want to
do this on the basis of either the older "Some blacks are dishonest therefore
blacks don't deserve equal consideration." or the newer "White straight
males beat up gays therefore straight white males don't deserve equal
consideration." kinds of group discrimination.
b. Government action to redress actions which are not violations of rights.
Some people are rude, some use poor judgement, some are downright hostile
to others for silly reasons, but while many such actions are quite odious
and I am willing to take private action to combat them, I don't think it
appropriate forthe government to be legislating such private matters as
whom I employ, who I choose as my friends, what I think of my neighbors,
and so forth.
>4. Redress has not been forthcoming sans coercion--the abuse continues
> and compensation has not been paid.
You are lumping together violations of rights (such as guys who beat up gays
or burn crosses in someone else's lawn) with rude or unenlightened behavior
(like refusing to hire someone because of his race, which I should add is
not at all limited to white employers). I think that government action is the
proper way to combat the former and private action is the proper way to combat
the second.
>Thus:
>5. Brian does not really favor the protection of other people's individual
> rights. And he is not what he claims to be.
Sorry, that does not follow. Not only do I favor the protection of individual
rights, I favor the use of government force in doing so. I just don't think
you have a right to be liked by your neighbors. You have a right to have them
not beat you up and to have them not defraud you.
>Since Brian is avowedly against such abuses, as are presumably all of
>the people who are *continuing* the pattern of abuse, it must
>not really be abuse, according to Brian's logic.
Again you misunderstand what I mean by "self-interest". I certainly think that
bigots are immoral and not acting in their self-interest whether they think
they are or not.
>Or it must be the
>fault of the government. But not of corrupt individuals, since by
>definition, they do not exist.
But there ARE corrupt individuals, in fact you claim to be one of them!
By claiming as I have previously that "Bigots have rights too." I am not
claiming that such people are not morally corrput, I am claiming that
even people who are wrong have rights. Have you ever heard of the concept of
legislating morality? Do you think it is a good idea? Does opposition to
it mean that one doesn't dislike immorality?
>It is not in their self-interest, you
>see. So they must just be misinformed.
You must take one of two positions here then:
1. It is actually good for someone to be a racist/sexist/gaybasher but we
should not act for our self-interest.
2. It isn't actually good for someone to be a racist/sexist/gaybasher but the
racist/sexist/gaybasher doesn't realize it.
If you don't like my contention (#2) then you must accept #1, right?
>Why this distinction matters
>in the face of such continuing centuries old patterns of abject abuse
>and cruelty is unfathomable to me or to the aggrieved.
Why it matters is that according to your apparent support for contention #1
the bigot actually SHOULD continue being that way and he should fight against
any efforts toward reform. According to contention #2, bigotry is bad and
all that is necessary is to get people to see it. #1 is a PRO-bigotry
position!
>It is *impossible* to dispute the self-assuming logic that
>people will figure out and do what is ultimately best without
>imputing that anyone who buys that claim has other motives for holding
>the position.
What do my motives have to do with this? Maybe I don't understand what you
are trying to get at.
>That is what is wrong with tautological claims.
But my claims are NOT tautological! Again this gets to your misunderstanding
of the difference between self-interest and doing what you want.
>It is also unsurprising that Brian has chosen to give a little sermon
>here about theoretical Randianism in lieu of my empirical challenge
>on the other thread with respect to modern specifics.
What empirical challenge? Are you saying that you have no particular theories
about justice, ethics, and so forth? It is only through proper theoretical
understanding that we can deal with empirical questions.
>Self-assuming theory is easier than unpleasant circumstances facing
>women, minorities and gays in 20th century America.
That is a non-sequitor. Try again.
>Brian also seems to think that I am interested in winning some kind of
>hypothetical dispute about the nature of the ideal state or something.
I am not talking about hypothetical matters, I am just using something more
than a knee-jerk method of understanding problems and the proper way to solve
them. You are applying a theory of social organization too, and that is
"If you see something you don't like, have the government pass a law against
it.". There are lots of flaws with that theory and I have been pointing
them out. Do you claim to not be applying any particular notion of what
the government is for or what its proper role is?
>In fact, I'm just trying to convince him either that *laws* requiring
>bigots to respect the rights of minority groups are in his rational
>self interest.
But I DO favor laws requiring bigots to respect the *rights* of minority
group members. What I oppose is laws which require bigots to be nice to
them because that is a private matter the government has no business
intruding on. If you take the position that the government SHOULD be poking
its nose into private matters then on what grounds would you oppose
the government passing laws against other private matters like whom you
may sleep with? What if such intervention is approved of by 51% of the
population? Would democratic principles dictate that the government
outlaw homosexuality in such a case? That is where your principles would
lead you.
Or are you unprincipled and inconsistent?
>Or even possibly that he may have *no choice* but to provide redress.
I may have no choice, but in that case I am being wronged every bit as
mush as the the "oppressed classes".
>And that his complaining should not be of much concern either to the
>aggrieved segments of society, nor to myself--an admittedly corrupt
>member of the all too human race.
In other words, "I am corrupt and immoral and you had better do as I order
you or I will kill you.". At least you are honest.
>And just so everyone can see that I have not misrepresented but merely
>summarized Brians position, please note the following from Brian's
>previous post.
>> In cases where "fixing" such problems will benefit me such "fixing"
>> can be justified on the basis of self-interest. You are however
>> talking about something else...self-destructive "fixing" which in
>> fact makes me less well off than I was before. So don't give me an
>> example of self-beneficial "fixing". What you have to explain is why
>> I should (for some reason you can't seem to explain) act
>> self-destructivelyin such apursuit.
>BZZT tautology alert! If it's good, Brian is for it as it's in his
>self-interest. (But Brian hasn't found an abuse worth correcting yet.
>I wonder why.)
Where do you get the idea that I think there are no abuses worth correcting?
That is certainly not true and you ought to know better.
>And:
>> So you blame me for not accepting a responsibility for doing what you
>> want me to do. Who are to to order me around and force unchosen
>> responsibilities on me?
>And this completes the circle folks.
What circle? You are pretty clearly advocating a system whereby immoral
bullies such as yourself pile unchosen responsibilities on others and
force them to comply with whatever your wishes may be. That is the
principle of dictatorship and the end of individual freedom to control his
own life. How can you write such things? How can anyone not be frightened
by such threats to our freedom?
Carl Beaudry
[a nice little treatise about stuff that I didn't really say much
about deleted.]
I was talking here about ad hominem attacks.
Parenthetically, it should be noted that the issue we were making
reference to was redress to victims of social injustice: gays, women,
racial minorities, etc. As is usual with Randiose manifestos, the
specifics get lost in the rhetoric.
For the record, Brian is against discrimination and past injustice.
He just doesn't want the government to do anything about it.
And by way of disclaimers, it should also be noted that I am
personally in no clear way bound to act rationally as I frequently do
not. Furthermore, I *may* be willing to lie, cheat steal and abuse
people to sustain my unilateral advantage. I have previously owned up
to this quite atavistic morality so it is clearly worth noting that
Brian is altogether more ethically inclined than I am. The question
is really which of us is more like everybody else....so give me the
moral low ground if you're keeping score. I am just trying to pull
Brian down to my level. (Really I am *so* transparent.)
But here Brian uses the ancient sophistic (I mean this in the literal
sense) trick of defining enlightened self-interest as favoring
whatever is ultimately good. As opposed to what is good for that
individual. Brian denies the distinction--in theory anyway. And he is
certainly in favor of whatever is good. He seemingly cannot help it.
Well, how neat. No wonder I sound like a devil's advocate :^)
But by making this claim he makes it impossible to dispute his
empirically fallacious view that allowing the strong to unabashedly
*continue* to abuse the weak without government intervention will
somehow bring about the ultimately optimal result without calling
into question Brian's own motives for advocating such a position.
In short:
Either, one can claim that redress for abused members
of society is good for the whole society in which case
Brian says that laws are unnecessary because people
can be convinced to do it on their own and that he would
be for it too
or
One can claim that redress will benefit only *part* of
the society at the expense of another but that there
is a moral imperitive to do it anyway, in which case
Brian says that he doesn't like your morality and
that it's not his fault that people suffer and that he doesn't
want you to impose your grubby beliefs on him. (Oh yeah
and keep your hands out of his pants--not because he is
homophobic--but because that's where his wallet is.)
My claim must therefore be that Brian is corrupt. There is no
logical alternative.
It is true by definition, (as is his notion of self-interest.)
1. Brian says that he favors the protection of individual rights.
2. Past and present rights of property and association among others,
have been violated.
(See the other thread--'Why Brian K. Yoder is tragically misunderstood'
--or assume that we are talking about something big like the invasion
of North America by European settlers. Or slavery.)
3. Brian favors no *specific* form of redress and resists all attempts to
provide it via the government.
4. Redress has not been forthcoming sans coercion--the abuse continues
and compensation has not been paid.
Thus:
5. Brian does not really favor the protection of other people's individual
rights. And he is not what he claims to be.
This is the one and only sense in which I was defending David's dismal
little ad hominem attack.
Since Brian is avowedly against such abuses, as are presumably all of
the people who are *continuing* the pattern of abuse, it must
not really be abuse, according to Brian's logic. Or it must be the
fault of the government. But not of corrupt individuals, since by
definition, they do not exist. It is not in their self-interest, you
see. So they must just be misinformed. Why this distinction matters
in the face of such continuing centuries old patterns of abject abuse
and cruelty is unfathomable to me or to the aggrieved.
This is why ad hominem arguments become so common when arguing with
(alleged) Randians. It is *impossible* to dispute the self-assuming logic
that
people will figure out and do what is ultimately best without
imputing that anyone who buys that claim has other motives for holding
the position. That is what is wrong with tautological claims.
It is also unsurprising that Brian has chosen to give a little sermon
here about theoretical Randianism in lieu of my empirical challenge
on the other thread with respect to modern specifics.
Self-assuming theory is easier than unpleasant circumstances facing
women, minorities and gays in 20th century America.
Brian also seems to think that I am interested in winning some kind of
hypothetical dispute about the nature of the ideal state or something.
In fact, I'm just trying to convince him either that *laws* requiring
bigots to respect the rights of minority groups are in his rational
self interest. Or failing that, I am trying to convince the newsgroup
that he is as corrupt as I have already admitted that I may be.
Or even possibly that he may have *no choice* but to provide redress.
And that his complaining should not be of much concern either to the
aggrieved segments of society, nor to myself--an admittedly corrupt
member of the all too human race.
I don't think that he quite gets that I am about as interested in his
personal opinions about racism and sexism as he is in David's sex life.
Go figger. I just want to take part of his income and give it someone
that Brian doesn't think he has personally harmed. I also want to make sure
that everyone has the same opportunity to live in Brians apartment as
he does.
[More unpleasant things which Brian is against deleted]
And just so everyone can see that I have not misrepresented but merely
summarized Brians position, please note the following from Brian's
previous post.
> In cases where "fixing" such problems will benefit me such "fixing"
> can be justified on the basis of self-interest. You are however
> talking about something else...self-destructive "fixing" which in
> fact makes me less well off than I was before. So don't give me an
> example of self-beneficial "fixing". What you have to explain is why
> I should (for some reason you can't seem to explain) act
> self-destructivelyin such apursuit.
BZZT tautology alert! If it's good, Brian is for it as it's in his
self-interest. (But Brian hasn't found an abuse worth correcting yet.
I wonder why.)
And:
> So you blame me for not accepting a responsibility for doing what you
> want me to do. Who are to to order me around and force unchosen
> responsibilities on me?
And this completes the circle folks.
--Carl
Carl Beaudry
> Steve
> who really just can't stand all this talk of
> earth-shattering moral issues anymore because
> nobody ever actually *wins* and nothing ever
> gets decided
Sorry about all this. But I'm doing the best I can to keep it entertaining
and at least somewhat generational, and failing that, to keep it away from
the lighter portion of our programming. I guess that I would hate to see
this group turn completely to fluff. I mean, weve already *got* television.
--Carl
Dave Mooney
> I think part of his confusion comes from not having seen the wording of
> most sexual orientation equal opportunity clauses: the standard formulation
> is to include homosexuality, bisexuality and -heterosexuality- in the
> term "sexual orientation". A "sexual orientation" EO policy protects
> straight people, too.
Au contraire. The infamous Colorado amendment 2 reads "[blah blah blah]
homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation [blah blah blah]". Heterosexuality
isn't mentioned anywhere.
> [much deletia]
Please do cut out the parts of the posting that you aren't responding to.
Those of us on the wrong end of slow lines will thank you.
Stephen M Conley
Don't get me wrong, Carl, I'm not saying, "Ouch, my brain hurts, I don't
understand!" It's just that when you've seen enough political debates on
the net, you start to get a feel for when it's going somewhere and when
it's not. But things have taken an interesting turn, so do keep on with
it. I guess I just have a chronic fear of seeing this group get torn up
in political flame wars.
Steve
Leeroy F Cotton
>and about 500 channels--y'all are missing the picture: most folks I know
>who will be using that 500 option are the *Channel-surfers*.. they'll be
>gleaning all sorts of weird culture, and those who live in their cultural
>worlds without recourse to variety will be burdened with continuing those
>cultures.. multicultural isnt best when it's an evening & averaging of all
>cultures, it's best when it's a clear view into some other worlds so that
>people know more of the strangest things..
>
>ca-chunk
>sheil
Time for the money point of view...what's offered on those 500 channels
will depand upon which target markets look good as a viewer
audience. I'm not looking for an inner city community channel with
neat production values unless govt pays for it. My bet is there
aren't 500 or so primo target market groups out there so some programming
is gonna converge in content (copy this, copy that).
But hey, I could be wrong, I would never have guessed at the
existence of some of those PACs in Washington D.C. Seeing a culture
on tv is one thing, years of familiarity is quite another. Why shouldn't
we opt for the latter, at least we wouldn't have to rely on someone
else's imagery.
Lee Cotton
lco...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
"soon to be an applied social studies planner...what happened
to C&RP?"
Jonathan Priluck
>I would be interested in a thread which deals
>with the US vs. THEM mentality perpetuated by
>the boomers.
>
>Even though I began this item with an "attack" on
>boomers, I don't think my existence is predicated
>on the actions of others. But I do see boomers
>doing this often--them vs. The Establishment,
>vs. Non-Rock-and-Rollers, vs. Gen-X, vs. non-politically
>correct--the list could go on ad infinitum.
>
>Any thoughts on this? I would be particularly interested
>in the how we view ourselves.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------
>Imagine a clever saying here...and maybe a picture.
27 years old and tough as nails! You want to know how we (I) view
my/our-selvss? Self-reliant, loyal to true freinds, thoughtful, seasoned,
outsiders. I think we have a great deal more power than any of us suspects.
I think that we are going to be taking over *very* soon. I think that two
X'ers back to back can take on a whole room full of boomer and come up
smiling. I think that ethics are the foundation of life and that adversity
builds character. I think we are dangerous; and generous. I think that the
rot which infects most of our society has found no foothold in our
generation, and that we are the most educated and thoughful generation ever
to walk the face of the earth. I think we are blessed, and as soon as we
realize it, as soon as we recognize our twisted gift, we will emerge and
claim our rightful place in society and in history. That is what I think;
WHAT DO YOU THINK!
The Inventor
--
* Jonathan Aerospace Materials Corp., 41 Naples Road, Brookline MA 02146 *
* Tel (617) 731-3637, Internet: jam...@world.std.com *
* Developers and future manufacturers of Lattice Block Materials ... *
* the world's strongest and lightest materials. *
Jonathan Priluck
>In article <2cr8pc$4...@crl.crl.com>>>JOCKO (mlaf...@TIGGER.STCLOUD.MSUS.EDU) wrote:
>>
>>: But I do see boomers : doing this often--them vs. The Establishment, :
>>: vs. Non-Rock-and-Rollers, vs. Gen-X, vs. non-politically : correct--the
>>: list could go on ad infinitum.
>>
>>similarities we have, while YOUR group of Generation-Xers are trying to
>>convince me how different you are from my generation, I think that some
>>serious examination is needed.
>>
>>
>
>I don't know why you're even bothering, David. For some reason, there is
>a need for younger people to forge some sort of identity with each other
>and make sense of the world - especially when faced with the horde of older
>people who control everything, make all the rules on principles, ideas, and
>concepts which no longer seem valid. Each generation is unique. Is it really
>so hard to see us explore our world, ourselves, and our experiences without
>having some patronizing older voice chiming in and telling us how wrong we
>are about everything? Is it really necessary to crash this newsgroup and
>start defining things for us? You are attacking some generalizations and
>stereotypes made about boomers, perhaps rightly so in some circumstances.
>But the lines have been drawn. Your generation was much more willing to
>embrace causes as "right" or "wrong," and moralize than we are. Your
>generation had the luxery to be idealistic - and idealism fosters dichotic
>thinking much more than cynicism (which marks this generation).
>
>
>
> Jane
>
>
>
Jane,
Maybe he dosn't wan't to go away because he has finally found a
newsgroup brimming with intelligent conversation and well founded opinions.
What do you think :^) ??
Jonathan Priluck
>In article <1993Nov22.1...@news.unomaha.edu> tha...@cwis.unomaha.edu (Martin Joseph Craig) writes:
>
>[Digitally reformated for better clarity:
> M-x query-replace<CR> t/ the
> M-x query-replace<CR> w/ with ]
>
>> The BB Generation continues to negate any "idea" that does
>> not fit their "ideal" . . . This stems [I think] from the
>> Marxist idealism they originally embraced in the 1960s. In
>> my opinion, they will deny, or contradict any notion that
>> confirms reality . . . for they live in a constant meta-
>> idealism. Historically, we can trace their idealism [and
>> its negation mechanism] from the Berkeley revolt, to the
>> Chicago incident, Kent State, Disco, Wall Street [Junk
>> Bonds], to the current denial of "individualism" in the neo-
>> liberal cry for "universalism." I am speaking very general
>> here, and I hope your own thoughts can illuminate the pic-
>> ture I'm tying to "point" towards.
>>
>> Gen-X [which needs to drop this name ASAP] will [is] very
>> concerned with reality. From environmental issues to polit-
>> ical ethics [the lack thereof]. Gen-X will, end-up counter-
>> ing the BB's idealism, with a realism the likes America hasn't
>> seen since shorlty after the Revolution..... The important
>> question, is how harsh will Gen-X be when it begins to seize
>> contorl of the political, economic, and social apparatus'?
>
>The 'Generation-X' name is going to stick, its already been bestowed,
>and it has been somewhat accepted. It doesn't really matter what the
>name is. A rose by any other name...
>
>Us Xers who can read and write and think and communicate, are going to
>have to fight for those who would rather sit idly-by pounding on their
>Sega machine. I hope that we can break the series of self-serving
>politics (which has happened twice in the last two generations...) by
>remembering what those previous generations did while trying to right
>the wrongs we've seen.
>
>What do you say the first thing we Americans need to do is to repair
>the erosion of the US Constitution? (And remembering that Usenet is an
>international medium, what is there to 'whine' about outside of the
>United States? :)
>
>One possible social change I can see happening with the popularity of
>computer networks is the end of hire-fire employment: Everyone
>advertises what they can do or want done, and "work" is sold like a
>commodity, accounting for what needs to be done, how long it will
>take, what kind of travel, and bartering... Instead of a different
>hired-job every 6 months, then quitting or getting fired (like most
>slackers do), everyone becomes a "contractor", selling what they can
>do best when they want to. Being yourself becomes your job--something
>that a lot of slackers would like--not being a corporate-automaton for
>N-hours at N-dollars. Coalitions can be formed with people with
>similar interests and abilities so instead of competeting they form a
>guild and can pool resources for big "jobs."
>
>--
>---------------------------------------- m i s s i n g
> Simon "Guru Aleph-Null" Janes | d a r k
> <s...@ukelele.gcr.com> | m a t t e r
> The Biochemical Madman of Borneo | i s i n t h i s . s i g !
Contracting! It is the way. We are already seeing it here in Boston,
everyone I know in GenX who is doing reasonably well owns a trade and
contracts by the job. I am a master carpenter and I do it; it's a good
life!
Sandy Weber
>In <2dopdk$c...@aludra.usc.edu>, wad...@aludra.usc.edu (William Derth Adams) writes:
>> I think part of his confusion comes from not having seen the wording of
>> most sexual orientation equal opportunity clauses: the standard formulation
>> is to include homosexuality, bisexuality and -heterosexuality- in the
>> term "sexual orientation". A "sexual orientation" EO policy protects
>> straight people, too.
>Au contraire. The infamous Colorado amendment 2 reads "[blah blah blah]
>homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation [blah blah blah]". Heterosexuality
>isn't mentioned anywhere.
Um..I may be confused, but doesn't the Colorado ammendment specifically
LIMIT homosexual rights, not provide them with equal opportunity? Forgive
me if I've had my head in the ground for so long that I missed them
passing an EO policy, but my impression was exactly the opposite, that
Colorado made any EO policy based on sexual orientation illegal....which
would explain them not listing heterosexuals. If someone could set
me straight (was the to-do I heard about a repeal of the above-quoted
"ammendment 2", for instance?), I would appreciate it. Thanks.
-Sandy
Steve Conley
Jonathan Priluck <jam...@world.std.com> wrote:
>
>27 years old and tough as nails! You want to know how we (I) view
>my/our-selvss? Self-reliant, loyal to true freinds, thoughtful, seasoned,
>outsiders. I think we have a great deal more power than any of us suspects.
I'll buy that for a dollar.
>I think that we are going to be taking over *very* soon.
*BZZZT!* Take over what? 7-11?
>I think that two X'ers back to back can take on a whole room full of
>boomer and come up smiling.
Take them on at what?
>I think that ethics are the foundation of life and that adversity
>builds character.
Um. Okay, maybe.
>I think we are dangerous; and generous.
Uh... Okay...
>I think that the rot which infects most of our society has found no
>foothold in our generation,
*cough* Oh, really, this is too much. You're making us sound like Baby
Boom Junior. Personally, I'd rather *be* the rot that infects this
society. This Great Moral Crusade makes me want to blow chunks.
>and that we are the most educated and thoughful generation ever
>to walk the face of the earth.
Ahhh, sorry, I'm a bit slow tonight. This article is a *joke*! Okay!
Hahahahaha! FUNNY! You really had me going!
>I think we are blessed, and as soon as we
>realize it, as soon as we recognize our twisted gift,
as soon as we open up our hearts, and our wallets, and let a little of the
Good LORD inside,
> we will emerge and claim our rightful place in society and in history.
Yes! ASSISTANT MANAGER!!! Oh, I have SEEN the LIGHT!
>That is what I think; WHAT DO YOU THINK!
I think the fries are ready to come up.
Steve
--
st...@bronze.coil.com
Jonathan Priluck
Not just the fries. The fries AND the Big Macs ;^)
SCA...@wsuvm1.csc.wsu.edu
jam...@world.std.com (Jonathan Priluck) writes:
>
>In article <16C8ED14A...@wsuvm1.csc.wsu.edu> SCA...@wsuvm1.csc.wsu.edu writes:
>>d...@crl.com (David A. Kaye) writes:
>>
>>>
>>>JOCKO (mlaf...@TIGGER.STCLOUD.MSUS.EDU) wrote:
>>>
>>>: But I do see boomers : doing this often--them vs. The Establishment, :
>>>: vs. Non-Rock-and-Rollers, vs. Gen-X, vs. non-politically : correct--the
>>>: list could go on ad infinitum.
>>>
>>>Considering that I'm a boomer and I'm here and I'm pointing out all the
>>>similarities we have, while YOUR group of Generation-Xers are trying to
>>>convince me how different you are from my generation, I think that some
>>>serious examination is needed.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I don't know why you're even bothering, David. For some reason, there is
>>a need for younger people to forge some sort of identity with each other
>>and make sense of the world - especially when faced with the horde of older
>>people who control everything, make all the rules on principles, ideas, and
>>
>>
>> Jane
>>
>>
>>
>
>Jane,
>
> Maybe he dosn't wan't to go away because he has finally found a
>newsgroup brimming with intelligent conversation and well founded opinions.
>What do you think :^) ??
>
>The Inventor
>
>
Jane
JIM...@nuacvm.acns.nwu.edu
s...@ukelele.gcr.com (Guru Aleph_Null) writes:
>Take This Job
>And Love It...
>(...Well, At Least Try to Learn From It)
>
>----not going to quote the whole article, its about 111
>column-centimeters long, so I'll just quote one-liners out of context
>like contemporary Boomer Tabloid Media. Heh heh.
>
>The Twentysomething's First Job Out of College Blues:
> I got a McJob, Mama/
> even though I got a college degree.
>
>``We're getting jobs that chimps could do. It's as though our college
>degrees don't mean anything.'' -- Ivy League grad
>
>baby busters...are the second largest group of young adults in the
>U.S. history; they are also, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor
>Statistics, better educated. But the outlook isn't good, says the
>Bureau: College-educated folk will be competing for lower tier jobs
>well into 2005.
>
I heard on the news yesterday that job prospects for college grads are gonna
be up in the coming year. They said about 1.1%. I'm not sure what that
translates to in actual numbers, but it is encouraging because job prospects
were taking a nose dive since my 3rd year in college (circa 1990). Now, does
that mean that everyone who graduated bt/1990-1993 are still SOL because
they're no longer on campus to be hired through the Career and Placements
Offices? Or is everyone recently graduated gonna benefit from this?
Jim
Erich Schwarz
bea...@cc.swarthmore.edu (Carl Beaudry) wrote:
> Sorry about all this. But I'm doing the best I can to keep it entertaining
> and at least somewhat generational, and failing that, to keep it away from
> the lighter portion of our programming. I guess that I would hate to see
> this group turn completely to fluff. I mean, weve already *got* television.
So does that mean I get to involuntarily tax you in order to build the
Galactic Empire? I hope so.
--Erich Schwarz / schwarze...@starbase1.caltech.edu
Samual Lee
> And ya know what?
>
>
> Chicken butt.
Y'know why?
Chicken thigh!!!
-- Sam (Zeke for Short)
Carl Beaudry
> So does that mean I get to involuntarily tax you in order to build the
> Galactic Empire? I hope so.
If you can steer it through Congress--you betcha!
But the 'technocratic/aristocratic republic' part needs some heavy
elucidation in order to pass it, IMHO. There's some constitutional problems
with the idea too.
Plus, your pitch had better fit into the limited attention spans of a
media-addled generation. I just couldn't follow that extinction thread very
well. Maybe if you had an animated spokes-character like maybe ...Alfie the
Alien?
Just trying to be helpful...
--Carl
Dave Mooney
X-Newsreader: IBM NewsReader/2 v1.00
Lines: 19
In <2e0jmo$e...@news.u.washington.edu>, po...@hardy.u.washington.edu (Sandy Weber) writes:
> Um..I may be confused, but doesn't the Colorado ammendment specifically
> LIMIT homosexual rights, not provide them with equal opportunity? Forgive
> me if I've had my head in the ground for so long that I missed them
> passing an EO policy, but my impression was exactly the opposite, that
> Colorado made any EO policy based on sexual orientation illegal....which
> would explain them not listing heterosexuals. If someone could set
> me straight (was the to-do I heard about a repeal of the above-quoted
> "ammendment 2", for instance?), I would appreciate it. Thanks.
You're right, Amendment 2 wasn't an Equal Opportunity thang... it was an
Unequal Discrimination thang that mooted EO based on sexual orientation.
Daniel B Case
>I heard on the news yesterday that job prospects for college grads are gonna
>be up in the coming year. They said about 1.1%. I'm not sure what that
>translates to in actual numbers, but it is encouraging because job prospects
>were taking a nose dive since my 3rd year in college (circa 1990). Now, does
>that mean that everyone who graduated bt/1990-1993 are still SOL because
>they're no longer on campus to be hired through the Career and Placements
>Offices? Or is everyone recently graduated gonna benefit from this?
I'm not holding my breath. I've heard that one too many times by now.
Daniel Case State University of New York at Buffalo
Prodigy: WDNS15D | GEnie: DCASE.10
Ceci n'est pas une pipe
V140...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu dc...@acsu.buffalo.edu
Guru Aleph_Null
>my/our-selvss? Self-reliant, loyal to true freinds, thoughtful, seasoned,
>outsiders. I think we have a great deal more power than any of us suspects.
>I think that we are going to be taking over *very* soon. I think that two
>X'ers back to back can take on a whole room full of boomer and come up
>smiling. I think that ethics are the foundation of life and that adversity
>builds character. I think we are dangerous; and generous. I think that the
>rot which infects most of our society has found no foothold in our
>generation, and that we are the most educated and thoughful generation ever
>to walk the face of the earth. I think we are blessed, and as soon as we
>realize it, as soon as we recognize our twisted gift, we will emerge and
>claim our rightful place in society and in history. That is what I think;
>WHAT DO YOU THINK!
Sounds like a plan.
Big feature in the Washington Post's Style section today:
Page C5, Tuesday, December 7, 1993
============================= Style Plus ===============================
Coping
------
Take This Job
And Love It...
(...Well, At Least Try to Learn From It)
----not going to quote the whole article, its about 111
column-centimeters long, so I'll just quote one-liners out of context
like contemporary Boomer Tabloid Media. Heh heh.
(Hey wow, I just released that I haven't heard one thing about Pearl
Harbor today... did I just ruin the streak for you?)
The Twentysomething's First Job Out of College Blues:
I got a McJob, Mama/
even though I got a college degree.
``We're getting jobs that chimps could do. It's as though our college
degrees don't mean anything.'' -- Ivy League grad
baby busters...are the second largest group of young adults in the
U.S. history; they are also, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, better educated. But the outlook isn't good, says the
Bureau: College-educated folk will be competing for lower tier jobs
well into 2005.
>The Inventor
--
.---------------------------------------. ``Whoah! Another liberal teenager!
|Guru Aleph-Null s...@ukelele.gcr.com|% Boy I hate these people...''
`---------------------------------------'# -- Donahue
%#######################################% Dec 1 1993
Carl Beaudry
favorite cartoon philosopher friends--no not Ren and Stimpy, but the
similarity *is* uncanny isn't it?
I'm trying to summarize the argument in lieu of answering all the
rhetorical questions Brian put forward. I trust that Brian will point
out my omissions and errors. But the pitch is pretty oblique. This
is an argument without enough shared premises for it to be considered
rational discourse, IMHO. It is much better suited to a bar than to
Usenet.
It should also be noted that while it is doubtful that I am using the
third person by accident, it is *not* based on the dubious assumption
that anyone else is following this thread--but it is a clue as to
what I'm up to though.
Anyway, Brian gave the only answers possible within his nice little
ethical system. They are clear and obvious to everyone who agrees with
his premises. So my unsophisticated rejoinders must certainly seem
uncivilized, but crash the party I must.
Bored already? try the.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VERSION FOR THE ATTENTION SPAN-CHALLENGED:
Brian's narrow and restricted notion of property rights (that the
present owners should have total control over everything they own)
must be imposed by force upon those of us who don't agree with it
just like that oh-so-oppressive welfare state.
Also, state power can only be limited by concensus since any law or
constitutuion can be changed and the fact that we have coercive laws
is de facto evidence that there is no such concensus. And there never
has been the kind of absolute limit that Brian favors anywhere.
Furthermore, anyone whose situation is not like Brian's would be
foolish to believe that he would take care of their interests without
the force of law, *regardless* of what he says. There is no reason to
trust him particularly given the moral absolutism of his rhetoric
and in view of his whining about being oppressed by obviously less well
off minority groups and women. Not to mention the historical record of
sweatshops, goon squads, ethnic war zones, pollution and corruption
which caused people to pass all those laws in the first place.
His rhetoric of freedom is a chump's promise just like the Bolsheviks.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, if anyone out there has too much free time, read on. I'm
answering these circular arguments with as much entertainment value
as I can muster....
ANSWER KEY:
B>Brian wrote it
C>Carl wrote it
(Solutions to odd-numbered problems are in the teachers guide edition.)
To make it easier, I've divided it into sections so that people
can scan only the bits they care about.
[sound of 1100 people hitting the 'Next Thread' key.....]
I. JUST SO WE KNOW WHAT KIND OF CRETINS WE'RE DEALING WITH
C>I *may* be willing to lie, cheat steal and abuse
C>people to sustain my unilateral advantage. I have previously owned up
C>to this quite atavistic morality so it is clearly worth noting that
C>Brian is altogether more ethically inclined than I am.
B>If that is the case why would yo expect any sensible person to either
B>believe anything you say or cooperate with you in any common effort?
B>...does that mean that it is somehow right or better to be that way?
Well it seems that Brian, among others, *can't* trust me. But
fortunately the feeling is mutual. We disagree about too many
fundamental things. Like what constitutes rights, which rights we
have, from what source they derive, and possibly even if there ever
was such a band as Kajagoogoo.
In short, there is not much to base a social order upon. So anyone
who deals with either of us had better be able to back up their
demands with some influence if you know what I mean.
Brian also disagrees with other people about what constitutes an
unfair benefit derived from the violation of peoples rights--past or
present. As far as some people are concerned, Brian is an accessory
after-the-fact to the crimes of his ancestors and to those present
day scoundrels who treat him better than others because he is an SWM.
But Brian doesn't see anything wrong with the state allowing that.
And as far as Brian is concerned, it's pretty clear that I am an
unprincipled ne'er-do well who wants both his money and his apartment.
(Well maybe not his apartment--I may simply decide to give that to a
homosexual instead.) How *will* he stop me from colluding with
others to take advantage of him?
Some kinda vote thing? Universal consent? Force?
Who will side with whom? Where does everybody else's self-interest
lie? (to use one of Brian's quaint notions) Why doesn't everyone just
*agree* with Brian's conception of rights? Surely it's in their best
interest. It should be obvious. He said so. For whatever reason, some
people just don't seem to get it. Go figger.
II. HOW DARE HE ASSUME WHAT I ASSUME
B> ...my claims are NOT tautological! Again this gets to your
B> misunderstanding of the difference between self-interest and doing
B> what you want.
Brian is still equating acting in self-interest with doing good--just
like I said he was doing. 'Doing what I want' is not the same thing
at all. Somehow he thinks that doing what I want is going to be
transformed into doing what is good by turning me--a self-confessed
thug--loose to wreak havoc. I can *hardly* wait!
B> Are you saying that you have no particular theories about justice,
B> ethics, and so forth? It is only through proper theoretical
B> understanding that we can deal with empirical questions.
Well, I'm not nearly civilized enough to have a proper theoretical
understanding of anything. I want to take *advantage* of people. But
to do it I need to pick teams and form coalitions. Maybe with Brian.
Maybe not.
But since I *like* having the biggest mob on my side, I will need to
be a shameless populist too. I've gotta be more concerned with what
sells than with what's 'right.'
Bummer. I seem to have sold out.
And by the way, what's with this 'right' and 'wrong' stuff? I may not
know much about Brian's morality, but I know what I like.
B> You are applying a theory of social organization too, and that is "If
B> you see something you don't like, have the government pass a law
B> against it."....Do you claim to not be applying any
B> particular notion of what the government is for or what its proper
B> role is?
I think that Brian has underestimated my guile here. I don't *only*
pass laws to get what I want, I'm willing to use private hoodlums too
if it suits my purposes. I think it was the great modern political
theorist 'Butthead' who said: 'hehheheheh whatever.'
The only priciples I care about are the ones that buy votes.
C>My claim must therefore be that Brian is corrupt. There is no
C>logical alternative....he is not what he claims to be.
B>Disagreements aside, I don't understand how you reached that
B>conclusion.
Brian is mistakenly assuming that I am *personally* attacking him
here. It's just business--anyone who opposes *my* doctrine of
property rights, which says that they are operative only
*after* certain minimum necessities are provided to everyone
*by definition* opposes the protection of individual rights. Just
like his notion of opression and tyranny--it's oppressive if it
doesn't fit his concept of property rights--which is NOT the
only possibe one.
In fact, those minorities attempting to repatriate some of Brians
wealth to the descendents of its' previous owners think Brian is
pretty corrupt too. They are just defending *their* concept of
property rights, which may involve removing things from Brian's
pants--like his wallet. I'll side with them there, but I wont let
them take the shirt off his back.
See, their definition of property rights says that he is sitting on
stolen goods. Apparently Brian just doesn't understand property
rights as they are correctly defined. He wants to keep things that
others have stolen and bequeathed to the people who sold it to him.
Now Brian has the gall to demand that *his* syndicate of racists,
sexists and homophobes should be able to take advantage of anyone
they care to oppress and he doesn't want mine to fight back. How
naive. He even asks for special treatment with an exception to our
rule that says you can't accept stolen property. The nerve.
C>[That Brian is corrupt] is true by definition, (as is his notion of
C>self-interest.)
B>I think you are confusing "self-interest" with "doing whatever I
B>want to do".
Well this is still more self-assuming rhetoric. We disagree about what
constitutes self-interest. Period. Brian's system *excludes* my dissent
by defining its terms in a circular fashion. I refuse to misuse
concepts in *his* way. Self-interest is doing what I want. And what
I want is good, what Brian wants might not be.
Brian claimed that I mischaracterized his position and then he went
on restate it in identical terms--either 'laws are unnecessary'
(Brian agrees with your idea) or 'You have no right to force me'
(Brian disagree with your idea).
I'm not criticising his method of reasoning--I'm *adopting* it as it
suits my purpose. I'm an unprincipled knave, remember?
Oddly though, it had previously seemed to me that the reason that we
had laws and legislatures and arbitrators is *because* we disagree
about these matters.
How could I have been so foolish?
Brian's notion works even better for we devotees of rule by guile and
force. In fact, it has some distinct advantages. I can define
away the mistreatment of people whose concept of rights are different
from mine. Maybe I'll say that their demands are oppressive or tyrannical.
I can *use* that when circling my vulturous hoardes before a 'hostile'
take-over.
B> You must take one of two positions here then:
B> 1. It is actually good for someone to be a racist/sexist/gaybasher
B> but we should not act for our self-interest.
[or]
B> 2. It isn't actually good for someone to be a racist/sexist/gaybasher
B> but the racist/sexist/gaybasher doesn't realize it.
Really now, good vs. evil is not a question that I have contemplated
recently. I must have missed that chapter in visigoth Sunday school.
We ruffians are more attuned to momentary impulses than anything
else, so we hardly ever concern ourselves with morality except when
we're tricking other people.
B> If you don't like my contention (#2) then you must accept #1, right?
B> ...according to your apparent support for contention #1 the bigot
B> actually SHOULD continue being that way and he should fight against
B> any efforts toward reform.... #1 is a PRO-bigotry position!
Yes it certainly seems that I have cast my lot in with certain
bigots. And to think that all I wanted to do was be left alone to be
abigot in my own special way--against straight white German men and
for gays, women and racial minorities, for example. Why should I care
if it fits Brian's oppressive wrongheaded notions of good and evil?
Where's my advantage in that?
B>What if such intervention [as the government deciding whom you can
B>sleep with] is approved of by 51% of the population?
Why would people *do* such a thing? It's not in their interest.
I guess there just may be some irreedeemably mean people out there,
huh?
Perhaps the government ought *not* to do anything about them. That
oughta fix it.
Personally, since I don't trust friends or enemies alike, I think
that it might be nice to set up some rules against stuff like that to
make it harder to do something so foolish. The best way to stop
it is to have some handle on the lawmakers. But it's all negotiable.
III. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ONE?
B> I think that the empirical evidence is undeniably on my side. When
B> people are left to their own devices AND prevented from using force
B> and fraud against one another things work out quite well for both
B> "the strong" and "the weak".
I wonder what leaving people to their own devices has in common with
'preventing people from using force and fraud?' Personally, I commit
some of my best acts of force and fraud when I'm left to my own
devices. That's also when my anti-German-white-male bigotry shows up
the most too.
B> What empirical challenge [on the other thread 'Why Brian K.
Yoder is so Tragically Misunderstood...']?
To find an existing or proposed law which would give special
protection to gay people that would not also be extended to Brian K.
Yoder.
It might also be nice to find out if there has *ever* been a state
whose powers were limited for any length of time, since Brian doesn't
seem to think that it's like that in the U.S. anymore.
Or perhaps, Brian likes it here. Maybe we can deal after all.
But he's gonna have to give up on that absolutism of his if my
people are ever gonna buy it.
IV. YOU AND WHOSE ARMY MR. DOGBREATH, SIR?
B> Would democratic principles dictate that the government outlaw
B> homosexuality in such a case? [51% majority] That is where your
B> principles would lead you.
B> Or are you unprincipled and inconsistent?
First of all Brian is beginning to bore me with all of that morality
talk. What do I care about democratic principles?--I'm a thug. I
thought that I made that clear.
I may be unprincipled. But I'm *not* inconsistent. I'll do whatever
to get what I want. And that includes cutting a deal with the
homosexuals to join forces to oppose a rule like that in exchange for
their help in oppressing Brian. Then we both win and Brian loses.
With friends like me around you'd think that Brian would spend more
time cutting deals with people he disagrees with rather than
preaching about his model of rights. But I'm not gonna tell him.
Hell, If I thought that I could make 20 cents per pound on selling
straight white males retail, then the only question I would have is
'Paper or plastic?'
And I'll buy help from whatever local muscle I need to in order to
pull it off, too. Or possibly from the state if they're for
sale cheaper.
Brian and whose army is gonna stop me?
C>I may even be arguing
C>...possibly that [Brian] may have *no choice* but to provide redress.
C>And that his complaining should not be of much concern either to the
C>aggrieved segments of society, nor to myself--an admittedly corrupt
C>member of the all-too-human race.
B> I may have no choice, but in that case I am being wronged every bit
B> as mush as the the "oppressed classes".
Well, they see it differently. And on their behalf, we find it
rude of you to impose your morality on us. So quit whining and
asking for special treatment. Give it back and you can keep the
commentary.
V. WOULD YOU BUY A USED CAR FROM THIS MAN?
C>3. Brian favors no *specific* form of redress and resists all attempts to
C> provide it via the government.
B> Not at all! I am FULLY in favor of having the government go after
B> those who violate the rights of others for ANY reason.
Except that Brian refuses to even admit the possibility that he may
be an unwilling accessory after the fact to wrongful appropriation
and oppression. How can someone who has benefitted from injustice
*prove* that they are against injustice without giving back the
ill gotten gains? Why *should* we believe him?
It's gonna be pretty difficult to explain *that* to my aggrieved
mob of poor people, women, minorities and gays.
On the other hand, I'll do my best to personally guarantee a
Rawlsian-style maximum minimal share of opportunity to everyone
that I have to pay off in order to get their support.
It's truly a free market of ideas.
Because I assume that everyone is as corrupt as I am, I am prepared
to mathematically establish an effective curve-fitting formula for
dividing up wealth. That's arithmetically trivial.
But because I don't trust anybody, any state that I have a part of is
gonna require some super majorities in order to do certain things. So
instead of 51% of people being required in order to regulate my
bedroom, it's gonna take say 66% of the people as well as their
political bosses in the legislature. And they'll have to vote on it a
coupla times at a coupla different levels.
Sound familiar?
What I'm gambling on is that people would rather have a minimum
standard of living with a fair shot at getting very rich than
regulate other people's sexual mores or do any of the other fanciful
things that Brian suggested--so I'll make it easier to redistribute
wealth than to send around sex police. Gotta keep them customers
happy you know. Or a working majority of them anyway
Sure there'll be some whiners. So what?
Now on the other hand, Brian only favors the protection of things
that *he* says are rights. If you disagree, then he wont help you. You
are off on your own. Since *I* disagree with his conception of rights
he must either force me to comply by arresting me for doing the
things which my ethics tell me are necessary, or allow me a decidedly
unfair advantage within his society--and he's not gonna do that.
So how *dare* he impose his morality on me.
B> In other words, "I am corrupt and immoral and you had better do
B> as I order you or I will kill you.". At least you are honest.
Well I try to be as honest as the Klan, the slaveowners, gaybashers,
corporate goon squads and sexists not to mention those who profit
from their efforts, but it's a tough standard to live up to.
B> You are pretty clearly advocating a system whereby immoral bullies
B> such as yourself pile unchosen responsibilities on others and force
B> them to comply with whatever your wishes may be. That is the
B> principle of dictatorship and the end of individual freedom to
B> control his own life. How can you write such things? How can anyone
B> not be frightened by such threats to our freedom?
Well if someone were to replace the word *'advocating'* in the
previous paragraph with the word 'recognizing' we would have a pretty
lucid summary of my thinking.
I'm just trying to form a winning coalition. And in order to do it I
will be ruthless. I will even go so far as to buy the votes of the
poor by promising them a share of the income of the wealthy. But in
order to maintain this coalition I can't go *too* far in that
direction cause most people wanna be rich someday.
Brian has his rule of rights. I have rules of thumb.
Now, we have the real distinction. I may be a barbarian who is racist
sexist and homohostile. But I am willing to protect those groups
*with the force of law and statute.* Plus I will feed the majority with
money that I take from the minority who are rich.
That's good politics.
Brian is a 'civilized' man who will argue vociferously for treating
everybody well and fairly, but he will do *nothing* else for the
cause except talk. On talk of that he has complained about being
'repressed' by gays women and pushy minorities in a world where he
is doing better than average.
He even resists a law that says nothing more than that GWMs should be
treated just like SWMs.
If that's his notion of devotion to other people's rights, trusting
him with yours will certainly get you what you deserve.
In view of the fact that people have been decrying these abuses for
years, yet they persist, why should anyone believe Brian's claim that
the pattern of centuries of abuse will be ended by removing all
prohibitions against it?
I may be a barbarian. But even *I* wouldn't try to sell a story that
fanciful. No one would ever believe me. I would have to pass alaw in
order to convince people that I was serious. I guess I just don't
have Brian's principled veneer. I bet he has an honest face too.
And as for imposing morality on each other, Brian's insists on making
all property rights individual instead of recognizing the collective
way in which they were violated. In short, he seeks to ratify by law
what was stolen by force.
How civilized.
--Carl
And because it's still tribute week:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Freedom does not mean you can do anything you want, it means you can
*choose* your responsibility."
--Frank Zappa
Tribute week continues....
William Derth Adams
>In <2dopdk$c...@aludra.usc.edu>, wad...@aludra.usc.edu (William Derth Adams) writes:
>> I think part of his confusion comes from not having seen the wording of
>> most sexual orientation equal opportunity clauses: the standard formulation
>> is to include homosexuality, bisexuality and -heterosexuality- in the
>> term "sexual orientation". A "sexual orientation" EO policy protects
>> straight people, too.
>Au contraire. The infamous Colorado amendment 2 reads "[blah blah blah]
>homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation [blah blah blah]". Heterosexuality
>isn't mentioned anywhere.
Colorado's Amendment 2 is not an EO policy. It's the antithesis of one.
The legislation that Amendment 2 overturned did include heterosexuality
in "sexual orientation".
--
Derth Adams