Sad, But So True ...
Lovegod
predominantly white Gay community, it's not addressed in that community and it
DAMN won't be any articles posted in soc.motss about it. This forum was
supposed to include ALL gay people, and for me to have to wait around until I
post the first article pertaining to anything that happened in L.A. with the
Rodney King incident really tells me where I stand in this community.
You people have really let me down ...
Donald Andrew Agarrat
Jack Hamilton
>I've seen first-hand that if a problem doesn't directly affect the
>predominantly white Gay community, it's not addressed in that community and
>it DAMN won't be any articles posted in soc.motss about it.
soc.motss was set up as a safe place for the discussion of gay/lesbian
issues, not as a political and social free-for all.
>This forum was
>supposed to include ALL gay people, and for me to have to wait around until I
>post the first article pertaining to anything that happened in L.A. with the
>Rodney King incident really tells me where I stand in this community.
Are you saying that Rodney King is gay, or that one of the police officers
is? I hadn't heard that. I haven't heard anything gay-related about the
case, except for the obvious analogies (which have certainly been
discussed here). If you have new information or new insight to contribute,
we'll probably read it, but we're under no obligation to discuss it here.
Look at the newsgroups where the Rodney King case has been discussed, and
see how many of the posters also contribute to soc.motss.
>You people have really let me down ...
Too bad, but it's not our job to satisfy all your needs.
--
------------------------------------
Jack Hamilton j...@netcom.com
Doug Sewell
: I've seen first-hand that if a problem doesn't directly affect the
: DAMN won't be any articles posted in soc.motss about it. This forum was
: supposed to include ALL gay people, and for me to have to wait around until I
: post the first article pertaining to anything that happened in L.A. with the
: Rodney King incident really tells me where I stand in this community.
In my opinion, the Rodney King incident doesn't DIRECTLY affect the gay
community, white or otherwise. On the other hand, police brutality has
been directed at lgbs just as well as African-Americans and others, and
that has been discussed here before.
I've seen Rodney King discussed in talk.politics.misc, alt.rodney-king/rodney.
king, alt.activism, and other places. Motssers are among those participating.
How many places does it need to be talked about ?
I rarely post articles to this newsgroup that aren't motss-relevant, because
with well over 100 articles per day, many people can't keep up with the
traffic (not everyone has a newsreader that can skim the cream). It may
well be that others have decided that this issue is better discussed else-
where as well (and incidentally, I tried mailing this, but your disk quota
is full and your mail bounced).
Don't look for malice when there are other reasonable explanations.
--
Doug Sewell, Tech Support, Computer Center, Youngstown State University
do...@cc.ysu.edu do...@ysub.bitnet <internet>!cc.ysu.edu!doug
"A Vote for Bush in '92 is a vote for Quayle in '96. Use your vote wisely!"
- Steve Schochet, af...@cleveland.freenet.edu
Lovegod
writes:
} In my opinion, the Rodney King incident doesn't DIRECTLY affect the gay
} community, white or otherwise. On the other hand, police brutality has
Well, you are wrong because it DIRECTLY affects black gay men in this country.
Donald
Lawrence C. Foard
>predominantly white Gay community, it's not addressed in that community and it
>DAMN won't be any articles posted in soc.motss about it. This forum was
>supposed to include ALL gay people, and for me to have to wait around until I
>post the first article pertaining to anything that happened in L.A. with the
>Rodney King incident really tells me where I stand in this community.
If you don't think police brutality and corruption effects white queers you
are wrong. When I got an anonymous death threat I was advised by people here
not to bother going to the police.
If you are concerned about something post about it! Don't wait for others
to post it and then complain when they don't.
BTW: I've seen articles about the LA situation posted for several days.
Chrome Jester
->In article <1992May3.1...@news.ysu.edu> do...@cc.ysu.edu (Doug Sewell)
->writes:
->} In my opinion, the Rodney King incident doesn't DIRECTLY affect the gay
->} community, white or otherwise. On the other hand, police brutality has
->
->Well, you are wrong because it DIRECTLY affects black gay men in this country.
->
->Donald
Donald, care to enlighten me as to how it affects gay men directly? I
understand how it affects black men in this country (and any racial
minority), but I don't see how it affects GAY black men any differently.
Perhaps you're seeing something I'm not, but I wonder if you're not making a
problem up where none really exists?
JOhn.
--
/-John A Kusters, jr.----------------------------------------------------______
| jkus...@ares.calpoly.edu & ph...@bbs.fubarsys.com \ /
Silence keeps us all in darkness, We can't change things overnight; \ /
But we can shed a little light, Be Political not Polite! -Romanovksy & Phillips
Steve Dyer
>predominantly white Gay community, it's not addressed in that community and it
>DAMN won't be any articles posted in soc.motss about it. This forum was
>supposed to include ALL gay people, and for me to have to wait around until I
>post the first article pertaining to anything that happened in L.A. with the
>Rodney King incident really tells me where I stand in this community.
Hey, Lovegod, next time read all the articles before bitching and moaning.
Either that, or your newsfeed is very lossy.
>You people have really let me down ...
>Donald Andrew Agarrat
Maybe you and Jeff Dauber could form a club.
--
Steve Dyer
dy...@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Steve Dyer
I think it's silly to argue about how it hasn't been discussed,
and offer explanations why, since the King verdict and the riots
have been discussed here. Doug Sewell made one good point, namely,
that many motssers have posted on this matter in other newsgroups.
(One particularly fine article from Michael Siemon made the most
impression on me.)
I think it would be wrong (and wrong-headed) to make the claim that
there is no motss-relevance to the entire incident. That's crazy.
I think it offers us all some very sobering reflections on the
ability of the majority to marginalize and alienate a community
and keep them down. And then, in best Bush-fashion, for them to
react with schoolmarmish incomprehension at the explosion of rage
which follows years of injustice.
Just listen to the discussion which has followed in the media, such as
Nightline. There have been forums for blacks to articulate their
frustration and rage such as I've never seen before, and many of the
arguments are exactly parallel to the situations of gay people.
When I hear what's expressed, however, I am both thrilled and worried,
because I am sure that a lot of white people are like Bush--they
"just don't get it". There's an almost impermeable barrier of
language and experience which isolates black America from the
white majority. Comfortable whites hear the words and don't
understand.
It's also a good exercise to think about how the (white) gay experience
and its movements differ from the experience of blacks. When I see
AIDS activist movements like ACT UP, Queer Nation, etc., I see white
middle class outrage which has never been disempowered and marginalized
to the extent that blacks have. And I see their progress, such as it is,
as reflecting the fact that whites get listened to sooner than minorities.
Before I get torched, it should be obvious that I'm not pissing on
ACT UP or QN. I mean, it's great that white middle class privilege and
outrage drive them and help them reach their goals. But you see, that's
their birthright, as it were. Recognizing this doesn't disparage their
goals or tactics.
Ward Chanley
Re: QN & White middle class privelige...
But I don't think that has really furthered the causes of
Queer Nation in any real way...there are a whole lot of
white middle class folks (gay and straight) who seem all
to willing to dismiss radical white gays as they are to dismiss
radical blacks or whatever...
--
"We stand united/I feel so excited"
-- Army of Lovers
bn...@cleveland.freenet.edu (Ward Chanley)
Craig D Woodward
Keywords: WATCH THE FOLLOW UP LINE!
In article <1992May3.1...@wam.umd.edu> lov...@wam.umd.edu (Lovegod) writes:
>I've seen first-hand that if a problem doesn't directly affect the
>predominantly white Gay community, it's not addressed in that community and
>it DAMN won't be any articles posted in soc.motss about it. This forum was
>supposed to include ALL gay people, and for me to have to wait around until I
>post the first article pertaining to anything that happened in L.A. with the
>Rodney King incident really tells me where I stand in this community.
>
>You people have really let me down ...
Thats because many people are talking about it elsewhere. You want to talk
about the case, type: g alt.rodney-king. If you want to talk about how it
relates to gays then DO IT. Don't wait for others to do it for you.
In article <1992May3.1...@wam.umd.edu> lov...@wam.umd.edu (Lovegod) writes:
NO, it directly affects ALL black men. There is no stipulation on gay/jew/
christian/whatever. Actualy its more than just black men it affects, it also
affects the LAPD, NAACP, NMG, and a slew of others. Now if ANY of the people
involved has so much as a bi cousin Im sure it would have been brought up
here by now, but sexuality was not an issue (from what I know of it). What
is an issue is police brutality, specificly on minorities, specificly blacks.
-Woody
david carlton
Yes, and the recent release of A/UX 3.0 DIRECTLY affects gay people
who happen to use Unix on their Macintoshes; this doesn't mean that it
is a particularly appropriate topic for discussion here. What is more
to the point is whether or not it affects gay people qua gay people, I
think.
Then again, it's not like we restrict ourselves to gay issues on this
newsgroup. Coverage of other issues is more sporadic, perhaps, but
it's certainly there.
david carlton
car...@husc.harvard.edu
I'm EMOTIONAL now because I have MERCHANDISING CLOUT!!
D. Owen Rowley
>>If you are concerned about something post about it! Don't wait for others
>>to post it and then complain when they don't.
>>
>>BTW: I've seen articles about the LA situation posted for several days.
I've been wondering how long it would take for someone else to say this
:-)
Sreriously If Donald thinks no-one else has posted anything about the
situation in LA then I must be in his kill filre or something, because
Jake and I have traded half a dozen articles on the subject!
LUX .. owen
--
-=- very happy to be queer -=- -+- right here -+- -*- NOW -*-
*No matter where you go, there you are.*
Jake Coughlin
> This forum was
> supposed to include ALL gay people, and for me to have to wait around until I
> post the first article pertaining to anything that happened in L.A. with the
> Rodney King incident really tells me where I stand in this community.
what'sa matter "Lovegod", were you too busy fucking your brains out
to post anything resembling intelligent discussion? seems to me
that *you* don't stand in this community, you lay.
--
Jason Coughlin ( ja...@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com )
Queer Without A Cause!
"I find myself suddenly in the world, and I recognize that I have one
right alone: that of demanding human behavior of the other." -- Fanon
Tim Pierce
And it affects black men who use NeXT computers, apparently like
yourself. So why aren't you on comp.sys.next.advocacy complaining
about their silence to the Rodney King verdict?
--
____ Tim Pierce / "Well, there's homosexuality in all animals
\ / twpi...@amherst.edu / but one, and that's the pig. If it weren't
\/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / for homosexuals we'd all have to live like
pigs." -- overheard at Sydney Mardi Gras
Joseph Francis
>In article <1992May3.1...@wam.umd.edu> lov...@wam.umd.edu (Lovegod) writes:
>>I've seen first-hand that if a problem doesn't directly affect the
>>predominantly white Gay community, it's not addressed in that community and it
>>DAMN won't be any articles posted in soc.motss about it. This forum was
>>supposed to include ALL gay people, and for me to have to wait around until I
>>post the first article pertaining to anything that happened in L.A. with the
>>Rodney King incident really tells me where I stand in this community.
>
>Hey, Lovegod, next time read all the articles before bitching and moaning.
>Either that, or your newsfeed is very lossy.
>
>>You people have really let me down ...
>>Donald Andrew Agarrat
>
>Maybe you and Jeff Dauber could form a club.
The first thing I posted back from Amsterdam was watching from afar
what was happening while being on Holiday. I guess I'm only half
letting someone down somewhere... ;)
--
US Jojo; damp, slighly soiled, but tasty nonetheless.
abe...@enh.nist.gov
>When I got an anonymous death threat I was advised by people here
>not to bother going to the police.
I hope you did anyway. You don't know that the police will be unresponsive
unless you try. I run an LGB anti-violence project in S. Florida and we
have been surprised at the support and help the police have given us. Not
to say all is rosy, and that police brutality against queers does not exist
down here. Just to say that there are some responsive police who will help
you in such situations.
Miami Beach Police will have a booth at Pride Festival this year recruiting
queer cops. What a step forward from 1977!
________
Sim David Aberson Ft. Lauderdale, FL aberson%3338...@sdsc.edu \ /
\ /
You are by definition racist and sexist if you are a white male. \ /
- Jess Anderson (ande...@macc.wisc.edu) \/
Greg Llacer
did not witness the veritable exodus of W. Hollywood to Laguna Beach,
where nary a micrometer of towel space was free at West Street, every
hotel from Newport to San Clemente was booked, everybody had somebody
staying with them, and the crowd at the Boom-Boom Room overflowed onto
PCH.
This sidebar was definitely missed by the mainstream press.
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
'Post-Modern Lovers: In order to save the relationship we will never see
each other again.' --B. Holman
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
^
* --gll...@sdcc1.ucsd.edu
^
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
Lovegod
Lovegod, but I've been trying ...
>Jack Hamilton,
I was not saying the Rodney King was gay. I merely said "all black gay
men" because it's obvious all black men in this country were effected, but I
wanted to emphasize that black men are in the gay community also and that I am
a black gay man.
The gay community doesn't even begin to satisfy a couple of my needs.
>Lawrence C. Foard,
I never said that this incident didn't effect white queers. Keep my words
in context, please.
>Steve Dyer,
My newsfeed may be foul, but to assume that I did not think before I
posted and to assume that I didn't even look for said articles is false.
>John A Kusters, Jr.,
Wake up. Do you remember Venn diagrams? Make a little circle and labeled
"Black Men". Then make a little circle labeled "Gay Men". Then put them
together ... Something has to exist in order to make a problem. Do not pass
"GO" ...
>D. Owen Rowley,
I have no kill-file. Actually, I have quite the opposite ...
>Tim Pierce,
If you do not think I'm being serious, just let me know. But do not make
light of my feelings with obtuse stupidity ...
>Jake Coughlin,
:) Actually I was so mad that sex with the second thing on my mind ...
So they we are. I hope White America learns the lesson they obviously didn't
learn from Watts in '65 because it just got a lot harder for whites (hell ...
everyone) to do the right thing ...
Donald Andrew Agarrat
adolphson
stopped me before?
In article <1992May4.1...@wam.umd.edu>
lov...@wam.umd.edu (Lovegod) writes:
| This past weekend, it was very hard for me to be your friendly
| neighborhood Lovegod, but I've been trying ...
I hope you've snapped out of your funk.
[...]
| So they we are. I hope White America learns the lesson they
| obviously didn't learn from Watts in '65 because it just got a
| lot harder for whites (hell ... everyone) to do the right thing ...
I've just lived through the riots and lootings and burnings, and
I have got to tell you that after the first couple of hours it
ceased to be a race issue (black against white) and became an
*economic* issue (have-nots finally getting some consumer goods).
That lasted for a little while, and then it was pure anarchy. Many
of the most extensively looted and burned neighborhoods were Latino,
not black, and they were looted and burned by Latinos.
What lesson will White America learn from the looting of the Silo
(an electronics/appliances store) at Sunset and La Brea (3/4 of a
mile from my apartment in lily-white West Hollywood) by *white*
people driving new Volvos and Jeep Cherokees? The national coverage
of the events of the last few days was incredibly misleading.
Arne
Mark
jkus...@zeus.calpoly.edu (Chrome Jester) writes:
>lov...@wam.umd.edu (Lovegod) divulges:
>->In article <1992May3.1...@news.ysu.edu> do...@cc.ysu.edu (Doug Sewell)
>->writes:
>->} In my opinion, the Rodney King incident doesn't DIRECTLY affect the gay
>->} community, white or otherwise. On the other hand, police brutality has
>->
>->Well, you are wrong because it DIRECTLY affects black gay men in this country.
>->
>->Donald
>
>Donald, care to enlighten me as to how it affects gay men directly? I
>understand how it affects black men in this country (and any racial
>minority), but I don't see how it affects GAY black men any differently.
>Perhaps you're seeing something I'm not, but I wonder if you're not making a
>problem up where none really exists?
>
>JOhn.
>--
It affects all of us who do not fit into a Simi Valley's idea
of what is 'normal'. When the police can beat a man
and get away with it, even praised for it by their superior
(Gates), it affects gay people. The cops haven't exactly been
friendly to the gay community. Neither have many jurys, such
as the one that let Dan White off, after murdering Harvey Milk
and the Mayor of S.F. If it can happen to a Rodney King, it
can happen to someone who is 'obviously' gay; at least, obvious
to the police and to the jury.
Melinda Shore
> If it can happen to a Rodney King, it
> can happen to someone who is 'obviously' gay; at least, obvious
> to the police and to the jury.
It does happen. The most notorious incident of this type
recently was the O'Banion beating in Cincinatti. Not only
did they beat him bloody after detaining him for jaywalking,
the police then prosecuted him for attempted murder when
they discovered his HIV status (his blood spurted onto them
during the beating).
--
Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - sh...@tc.cornell.edu
Henry Mensch
->I've seen first-hand that if a problem doesn't directly affect the
->predominantly white Gay community, it's not addressed in that community
->and it DAMN won't be any articles posted in soc.motss about it.
you've seen nothing at all; news propagates to various hosts based on
a number of factors ... being the first to post at your site doesn't
mean that others haven't posted and you haven't seen it yet ... nor
does it mean that those others weren't doing more important things
(like working for peace in the community).
-> ... This
->forum was supposed to include ALL gay people, and for me to have to
->wait around until I post the first article pertaining to anything that
->happened in L.A. with the Rodney King incident really tells me where I
->stand in this community.
you stand where you always have: with your head up your butt,
wondering why it's so dark out ...
->You people have really let me down ...
nobody's here to impress you; you seem to have mistaken soc.motss for
something else ...
get a life.
--
# henry mensch / booz, allen & hamilton, inc. / <he...@ads.com>
Lovegod
Donald
adolphson
| lov...@wam.umd.edu (Lovegod) wrote:
| -> ... This
| ->forum was supposed to include ALL gay people, and for me to have to
| ->wait around until I post the first article pertaining to anything that
| ->happened in L.A. with the Rodney King incident really tells me where I
| ->stand in this community.
Listen, Lovegod, I would have posted something about what was
happening in LA, but I wasn't able to for a couple of reasons:
1) I am a white male working in a white enclave (USC) smack dab
in the middle of South Central LA and I had to get my butt out
of here as quickly as I could on Wednesday because it was clear
that something ugly was brewing (the riot started about 2 miles
away from my office); 2) I do not have a modem at home so I was
unable to post anything over the weekend.
In any case, I have yet to hear a single person express anything
other than shock and outrage over the King verdict. And most of
the people I know are gay white males. Look, Lovegod, LA queers
have long been brutalized by the LAPD. As recently as last November,
for instance, the LAPD rioted against a peaceful queer protest against
Gov. Pete Wilson -- I know what it's like to be charged over and over
for over an hour and a half by several hundred club-swinging, riot-
geared cops. Did you read the Christopher Commission Report on
the LAPD? It made clear that the LAPD is as homophobic as it
is racist.
Besides, if you don't see a conversation happening on motss that
you'd like to see, then get the fuck off your butt and start it.
Arne
Jess Anderson
In article <1992May4.1...@wam.umd.edu>
lov...@wam.umd.edu (Lovegod) who in life is Donald Andrew
Agarrat, writes:
>This past weekend, it was very hard for me to be your
>friendly neighborhood Lovegod, but I've been trying ...
>[various responses to his earlier post saying he was
> disappointed not to have seen responses to the Rodney King
> verdict and ensuing riots.]
>So they we are. I hope White America learns the lesson they
>obviously didn't learn from Watts in '65 because it just got
>a lot harder for whites (hell ... everyone) to do the right
>thing ...
At the risk of sounding too much holier than thou, I'm taken
back by the tone of *many* -- I guess most -- of the replies
to the original posting. What seems to me to have been
missed is the emotional substratum I felt to be underlying
Donald's sense of loss and disappointment. Rather, people
seem to have focussed on explaining how he might have missed
various postings that did address the topic, on (entirely
specious, I thought) whether soc.motss was a "proper" place
for the relevant comments, and on a wide variety of (I
thought) extraordinarily unkind comments of no particular
merit.
I am shocked and a bit shamed by some of that, and by how
little empathy has been exhibited here.
It's sad but true, I think, that the lessons of Watts did
not last, and today we are far less apt to learn the lessons
-- and with *far* less material means of addressing anything
we might learn -- from the recent events.
The next may seem odd to some people here. I can't do much
about that, however.
Last night I heard a decent performance of the St. Matthew
Passion of J.S. Bach. As regulars here know, I'm anything
but a Christian. But Bach's Matthew Passion is an intensely
religious work. In it, the persona of Jesus is a living
human being, and the evangelist's story is one of great
suffering, bigotry because of what one believes, betrayal
and senseless cruelty. The music, indeed the whole
conceptualization, of this work is one of a very small
number of true monuments in European civilization. Despite
this immense scale, everything about it is human in emotion,
human in understanding, human in frailties of the spirit,
human in scalding intolerance.
As I walked back to my car, these images came together in my
mind and heart about Donald's lament, for clearly, errors of
fact or vagaries of network operations notwithstanding, a
lament is what it was. It requires no great religious
orthodoxy to understand that plaintive outcry: Eli, eli,
lama sabachtani?
Friends, it starts in the heart, the lessons that are still
to be learned. Perhaps we may with respect for more lasting
harmonies each make our own small beginning, doing our best
to forgive the unchangeable past, working together toward
what is best within us.
--
Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin
Internet: ande...@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson
NeXTmail w/attachments: ande...@yak.macc.wisc.edu Bitnet: anderson@wiscmacc
Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888
Gene Ward Smith
>I think it would be wrong (and wrong-headed) to make the claim that
>there is no motss-relevance to the entire incident. That's crazy.
>I think it offers us all some very sobering reflections on the
>ability of the majority to marginalize and alienate a community
>and keep them down.
In my own mind, it had at least one similarity with the Dan White
verdict: as soon as I heard this verdict, I knew there was going to be
Trouble. And I suspect that in both cases, the juries had no idea
what effect the decision was likely to have. The Dan White verdict
lead to trouble even though, with Moscone also murdered, it was harder
to read it as an us-against-them situation.
--
Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/CICMA/Concordia University
gsm...@concour.cs.concordia.ca
Ailsa N.T. Murphy
routed it to alt.rodney.king, where my remarks will make a little
less sense. *grr*
anyway, the threads about the LA mess are "Is Arne OK?" and one
that originally was about some legal decision in texas. it has
been discussed. i have been one of the discussants.
people should cut lovegod a little slack. if lesbians are
under-represented here, then what are gay black men? it
grates that no one but oneself cares about one's issues, and
that if one wants to see them discussed, one has to bring it
up onself. these are my PEOPLE, the reasoning goes, don't
they CARE??? y'all didn't get this pissy when the thread
of angry lesbians about teh lack of wimmin's threads here
was going on...
and i think it is pretty damned obvious that something
affecting black men affects the gay community. 01, people!
-ailsa
p.s. and if you do not see that this is obvious, then give me
a good reason why i should give a damn about AIDS? there are
parallels, if you think about it...
Tim Pierce
> If you do not think I'm being serious, just let me know. But do not make
>light of my feelings with obtuse stupidity ...
I did think you were being serious. However, in spite of the
legitimate complaints you have with the Anglocentrism of the gay
press, I thought that your points were poorly founded:
You said, effectively, that this debate SHOULD be specifically
addressed in soc.motss, because the Rodney King verdict affects all
black men and black men are part of the gay community. I noted that,
if your Nntp-Posting-Host is to be believed, you are posting from a
NeXT machine, which implies that black men are part of the community
of NeXT users. Using this logic, comp.sys.next.advocacy should also
address the King verdict. Where do you find fault with the argument?
I'm not saying that soc.motss is necessarily a bad place to discuss
this. For that matter, if you had come in and brought up some
relevant points (never mind that the L.A. riots have been a strong
undercurrent of the postings for the last several days), I'm sure that
you would have started a reasonably strong discussion. But for
marching in and announcing that soc.motss is definitionally a place
where Rodney King SHOULD be discussed, and that you're disappointed in
all of us for not explicitly addressing this issue before, you are
quite reasonably flamed.
Jake Coughlin
> At the risk of sounding too much holier than thou, I'm taken
> back by the tone of *many* -- I guess most -- of the replies
> to the original posting. What seems to me to have been
> missed is the emotional substratum I felt to be underlying
> Donald's sense of loss and disappointment.
what seems to be missed is that Donald has not contributed a dialogue
to soc.motss in the past, and presently, his "Sad but true" article
doesn't open a dialogue or take part in the current dialogue. is he
surprised to find that a criticism shouted in the dark to everyone and
no one only receives a criticism from same?
we have not been completely insensitive -- racism and racism in the gay
community have been discussed, and in the case of racism, are currently
being discussed. does Donald wish to contribute? from his recent
historical trend, i doubt it, but should he, i have very little doubt
that he will find soc.motss open to his participation.
Jake Coughlin
> In my own mind, it had at least one similarity with the Dan White
> verdict: as soon as I heard this verdict, I knew there was going to be
> Trouble.
anyone with half a brain realized it was going to be trouble, and where
was Darryl Gates? celebrating at a cocktail party raising money
against an initiative for police reform. personally, i'd like to see
Gates on trial for menace to the public. if he neglected the situation
consciously, he's truly a menace.
Donn F. Pedro
About the Rodney King thing:
(does that sound too cold?)
:At the risk of sounding too much holier than thou, I'm taken
:back by the tone of *many* -- I guess most -- of the replies
:to the original posting. What seems to me to have been
:missed is the emotional substratum I felt to be underlying
:Donald's sense of loss and disappointment.
I caught it. And I thought, "what would you have me do?"
:I am shocked and a bit shamed by some of that, and by how
:little empathy has been exhibited here.
What is there to say? It was bad, evil, terrible, horrible,
and beyond the scope of my influence. I felt for King.
I wanted it to stop - NOW! But that was then.
Where am I? What time is it?
I am here. It is now.
I am not cold hearted. Had it been then, and I'd been there,
the story might have another twist. But it as not then, and
I was not there, so my words are of little use. My feelings are
real enough, but help little.
I did speak up to a woman in my local food mart who equated
Rodney King to Charles Manson. She got my response because it
was now and I was there.
:Friends, it starts in the heart, the lessons that are still
:to be learned.
Because I do not speak of something here - do not assume
I do not speak of it somewhere else. Do not think I am
not learning from it. I may not have anything to say
now.
:Perhaps we may with respect for more lasting
:harmonies each make our own small beginning, doing our best
:to forgive the unchangeable past, working together toward
:what is best within us.
I believe you Jess. I really believe that.
But I am here. And it is now.
Donn Pedro ...................{uunet, sequent}!uswnvg!dfpedro.
Seek dis-illusionment.
Donn F. Pedro
>
>In my own mind, it had at least one similarity with the Dan White
>verdict: as soon as I heard this verdict, I knew there was going to be
>Trouble. And I suspect that in both cases, the juries had no idea
>what effect the decision was likely to have.
Should they? Really.
Steve Dyer
>does Donald wish to contribute? from his recent
>historical trend, i doubt it, but should he, i have very little doubt
>that he will find soc.motss open to his participation.
Well, you just have to have a taste for self-pitying, mawkish
ruminations on how disconnected and alone we all are after
having incredibly hot sex.
Honey, it's strictly from the Boyz 'n the Band.
Jess Anderson
In article <21...@uswnvg.UUCP> dfp...@nv2.uswnvg.com (Donn
F. Pedro) who has a malformed Reply-to: line,
>Reply-To: dfp...@uswnvg.UUCP.UUCP (Donn F. Pedro)
writes:
>In article <1992May5.0...@macc.wisc.edu>
>ande...@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
>About the Rodney King thing:
About Donald Aggarat, not Rodney King:
>>At the risk of sounding too much holier than thou, I'm taken
>>back by the tone of *many* -- I guess most -- of the replies
>>to the original posting. What seems to me to have been
>>missed is the emotional substratum I felt to be underlying
>>Donald's sense of loss and disappointment.
>I caught it. And I thought, "what would you have me do?"
I took it to be "Hear my cry of despair for how things are."
<> The man who can smile when things go wrong has thought of
<> someone he can blame it on.
Jess Anderson
>ande...@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson):
>>At the risk of sounding too much holier than thou, I'm taken
>>back by the tone of *many* -- I guess most -- of the replies
>>to the original posting. What seems to me to have been
>>missed is the emotional substratum I felt to be underlying
>>Donald's sense of loss and disappointment.
>what seems to be missed is that Donald has not contributed a
>dialogue to soc.motss in the past, and presently, his "Sad
>but true" article doesn't open a dialogue or take part in
>the current dialogue.
For more than six years, I haven't realized that "opening" a
"dialogue" is a requirement here. Same for "taking part in
the current dialogue." I'd hazard the guess that not more
than 1% of postings open a dialog. I'd also guess that
fewer postings than one might think are *actually* taking
part in an existing dialog.
>is he surprised to find that a criticism shouted in the dark
>to everyone and no one only receives a criticism from same?
In another article, you mention the difficulty of this
medium for communication and how missing the other person's
point makes us susceptible to thinking the other person is a
bozo.
It seems pertinent that you took "I feel let down," which is
approximately what Donald said, to be a criticism. Clearly,
you weren't alone.
I took it to be an expression of grief, shared with 60000+
none too responsive people. Donald (probably with the wrong
expectation, but that's a different point) had been looking
here for signs of support. They existed, but he hadn't seen
them. He dared to say what he felt right then. He gets
"mawkish" or worse back. Seems pretty insensitive, to me.
>we have not been completely insensitive -- racism and racism
>in the gay community have been discussed, and in the case of
>racism, are currently being discussed. does Donald wish to
>contribute? from his recent historical trend, i doubt it,
>but should he, i have very little doubt that he will find
>soc.motss open to his participation.
Now and then straight people of the decent but horribly
uninformed sort crash in here and more or less expect us to
educate them. They regularly get trounced, don't they? I
think they should, most of the time.
Let's say you decide to take the motss-education program to
an average college fraternity house. You'd have to flounce
in there and lay it on a flock of straight boyz. Now if it
were me, I might see it as socially useful, but I'd be
mighty disinclined, knowing in advance what an uphill task
it would be and having to expose my innermost self to a
largely ignorant and uncaring crowd of people whose most
probable response to me (as a group) would be: your
differentness is stickin' out *real* bad here.
It's common for straight and gay men both to expect women to
lay it on them about women's issues and women's perspectives
on male privilege and structural sexism. That gets
trounced. I think it should, most of the time.
So ask yourself again about Donald's laying it on all these
nice liberal white boyz. Not everybody here is white or
male, but I'll bet you the white maleness of soc.motss is
considerably greater than the white maleness of the society
at large.
In his boots, I might be disinclined to take much part in
the current racism discussion, all of which has been about
what white people think. I can imagine his having had his
fill of what white people think, especially with the strong
reminders of recent days out there in the world press.
<> The only way to learn is by changing your mind.
<> -- Orson Scott Card
Jess Anderson
>In article <1992May3.1...@wam.umd.edu>
>lov...@wam.umd.edu (Lovegod) writes:
>>In article <1992May3.1...@news.ysu.edu>
>>do...@cc.ysu.edu (Doug Sewell) writes:
>>In my opinion, the Rodney King incident doesn't DIRECTLY
>>affect the gay community, white or otherwise. On the other
>>hand, police brutality has
>>Well, you are wrong because it DIRECTLY affects black gay
>>men in this country.
>I think it would be wrong (and wrong-headed) to make the
>claim that there is no motss-relevance to the entire
>incident. That's crazy. I think it offers us all some very
>sobering reflections on the ability of the majority to
>marginalize and alienate a community and keep them down.
>And then, in best Bush-fashion, for them to react with
>schoolmarmish incomprehension at the explosion of rage which
>follows years of injustice.
Got that right, I think.
>Just listen to the discussion which has followed in the
>media, such as Nightline. There have been forums for blacks
>to articulate their frustration and rage such as I've never
>seen before, and many of the arguments are exactly parallel
>to the situations of gay people.
Though the forums I've seen don't seem to me very different
from others that didn't lead to noticeable change, I agree
wholeheartedly that there are many useful parallels with our
situation. It is far from a perfect fit, but very useful
nonetheless.
>When I hear what's expressed, however, I am both thrilled
>and worried, because I am sure that a lot of white people
>are like Bush--they "just don't get it". There's an almost
>impermeable barrier of language and experience which
>isolates black America from the white majority. Comfortable
>whites hear the words and don't understand.
Fer sure. I think we've been seeing it here, too, in the
other thread.
>It's also a good exercise to think about how the (white) gay
>experience and its movements differ from the experience of
>blacks. When I see AIDS activist movements like ACT UP,
>Queer Nation, etc., I see white middle class outrage which
>has never been disempowered and marginalized to the extent
>that blacks have. And I see their progress, such as it is,
>as reflecting the fact that whites get listened to sooner
>than minorities.
I'm so glad you said this, because I haven't noticed anyone
else saying it. This is another very useful awareness to
have, I think.
<> A pig on a mountain sees more than a wise man with a bag
<> over his head. -- Mary Jane DeFroscia
Jack Hamilton
>
>Not everybody here is white or
>male, but I'll bet you the white maleness of soc.motss is
>considerably greater than the white maleness of the society
>at large.
If you talking about sheer numbers, you're probably right, but if you're
talking about influence, you're almost certainly wrong. Where do you think
women's views are taken more seriously, here or the US Senate? Where do you
think minority issues are considered more, here or Exxon?
--
------------------------------------
Jack Hamilton j...@netcom.com
Jess Anderson
In article <m6dk6r#.j...@netcom.com> j...@netcom.com (Jack
Hamilton) writes:
>In article <1992May6.1...@macc.wisc.edu>
>ande...@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
>>Not everybody here is white or
>>male, but I'll bet you the white maleness of soc.motss is
>>considerably greater than the white maleness of the society
>>at large.
>If you talking about sheer numbers, you're probably right,
>but if you're talking about influence, you're almost
>certainly wrong. Where do you think women's views are taken
>more seriously, here or the US Senate? Where do you think
>minority issues are considered more, here or Exxon?
Though I take your point, I suggest that no one here should
risk breaking an arm to congratulate themselves on what
all-around good folks they are. Being noticeably better
than the Senate or than Exxon can leave you still being
*quite* a jerk; I mean, you wouldn't call *that* an
accomplishment, would you?
Besides what we got here is talk and that's about the least
costly of all commodities, so that isn't probably a point to
be stressed in this newsgroup.
abe...@enh.nist.gov
>Let's say you decide to take the motss-education program to
>an average college fraternity house. You'd have to flounce
>in there and lay it on a flock of straight boyz.
Which assumes everyone in a college fraternity is straight.
I follow Harvey Fierstein's advice to assume everyone queer unless
told otherwise.
Jake Coughlin
> For more than six years, I haven't realized that "opening" a
> "dialogue" is a requirement here.
i wasn't under the impression that you sanctioned criticisms
of soc.motss without some form of dialogue and past interaction.
it seems to me that criticisms imply a certain responsibility
between the critic and that which is being criticised.
> It seems pertinent [given Jake's article on the difficulty of
> communicating thru soc.motss] that you took "I feel let down," which is
> approximately what Donald said, to be a criticism. Clearly,
> you weren't alone.
clearly. some other very bright people who have my respect
took it the same way.
> So ask yourself again about Donald's laying it on all these
> nice liberal white boyz. Not everybody here is white or
> male, but I'll bet you the white maleness of soc.motss is
> considerably greater than the white maleness of the society
> at large.
donald's article didn't seem to strike me as barging in to educate.
donald's article barged in with a criticism of soc.motss (even "it let
me down" is a criticism.), and i question donald's familiarity with his
subject since i have not seen him partake of soc.motss other than to
post his sexual exploits.
did donald raise any points? or, are you doing that for him?
i am *more* than willing to discuss or at least read about his
experiences as a black gay man. in fact, i am genuinely curious!
however, i want more than simple fuck stories before i'll accept a
sharp criticism. i don't think soc.motss is as closed a forum as the
picture he paints, and currently, he's using only black and white
fingerpaints.
> In his boots, I might be disinclined to take much part in
> the current racism discussion, all of which has been about
> what white people think. I can imagine his having had his
> fill of what white people think, especially with the strong
> reminders of recent days out there in the world press.
then let the actor raise the curtain and play...
Michelle Elliott
>In article <1992May3.1...@wam.umd.edu> lov...@wam.umd.edu (Lovegod) writes:
>>DAMN won't be any articles posted in soc.motss about it. This forum was
>>supposed to include ALL gay people, and for me to have to wait around until I
>>post the first article pertaining to anything that happened in L.A. with the
>>Rodney King incident really tells me where I stand in this community.
>
>Hey, Lovegod, next time read all the articles before bitching and moaning.
>Either that, or your newsfeed is very lossy.
There has been almost nothing *else* talked about on the
sappho mailing list, so it's hard for me to remember
whether it's been on motss or not -- the two tend to run
together in my mind.
But racism should be talked about here. Honestly, because
I'm white, it's hard for me to know where to begin...
Racism benefits me to some extent because I'm white. It
harms me in other respects because it devastates our economy,
causes crime, and erodes the civil rights of *all* of us.
It is also, most importantly, morally repugnant.
Let's talk about it. Let's not drop it. Racism is the topic
of the hour. I tend to run from "popular" topics, but not
this time.
We undoubtedly have thousands of non-white people in this
group, but it's hard to tell. I myself tend to think of the
other posters in motss as white -- which is odd because the
phosphors on my screen are green. This is wrong, and while
we cannot fix it today or this week, it deserves discussion.
Now.
Michelle
Melinda Shore
> We undoubtedly have thousands of non-white people in this
> group, but it's hard to tell. I myself tend to think of the
> other posters in motss as white -- which is odd because the
> phosphors on my screen are green. This is wrong, and while
> we cannot fix it today or this week, it deserves discussion.
I always have to laugh when somebody expresses surprise
at being identified as white, wanting to find out how we
know this, never having met him or her. How can we not
know? The attitudes expressed by people such as *******
****** and all the other little asterisks, Scott Moir, Greg
Oldham, and others are so obviously rooted in their
experiences that their race and gender are impossible to
miss. I would guess that someone could as easily tell
that I'm white from my postings. So, I think that when
you identify other motssonians as white, it's often not
out of assuming the default (white), but from reading
between the lines in their postings.
Ailsa N.T. Murphy
has. soemtimes i don't read them, as they are about things
that don't interest me, like men & sex, but i have noted that
they are there. he also started a dialogue in which he was
roundly trashed by all the guys who are at it again, on
racism in the gay community earlier this semester. i guess
it still bugs him. gauging [sp?] by the response he has
gotten, i can see why.
last time the argument raged, i asked why most people out
there can handle angry dykes better than angry gay black men.
no one deemed the question worth comment in the thread, but i got
a number of email answers (you know, claiming email support ought
to be in the taxonomy...) from guys sayig that male anger at them
was somethign that couldn't be acknowleged or allowed because men
could threaten them, whereas women could not. i think that is a
valid thought to consider.
i have said for a long time that ther reason that gay rights is
doing so much better than a lot of other civil rights movements,
and why i think it will untimately succeed, is because there are
white men in the movement, white men whose only bar to being
able to take part in their full societal privelege is their gayness.
i hope once the men get included into society, they remember the
rest of us...
-ailsa
Lovegod
first arrived, I posted a lot of articles. I'll admit to not reading soc.motss
in a long time because of school.
I try to break out of this uncontrollable rage, but it gets harder every day.
Maybe this Rodney King incident has changed me for life; up until that, I was
the most optimistic person I knew in regards to racism. But shit like this
comes up and fucks up relationships. But the good ones remain intact. I've
been taking NO shit from white people lately. I still applaud the white people
I know who are trying to do the right thing, but I've become a lot less
tolerant of young, ignorant whites, gay and straight alike, who display no
sensitivity in a situation obviously sensitive.
It especially hurts when I don't get that sensitivity from people who
supposedly have something in common with me (yes you, gay white america). It
hurts, but it makes me realize who you are and who I am. You are still white.
I am still black.
Jess was right. It's in our hearts. My mother told me she got into it with
her white supervisor until they both were crying and sobbing. Her heart went
out to that white man's pain, and that touched me. We have to really try to
understand each other a lot better, and I think I understand you all better
that you understand me. You want to know why?
Everything I learned about in history has been lily-white since elementary
school. And I feel proud when I learn your history. I learn about your dreams
and your opinions and your accomplishments and your goals and those stick in my
mind as "acceptable". But you never learn a thing about my history (including
the fact that blacks help build this FABULOUS country ...) so you don't grow to
respect me. You don't know a thing about me. And I am surrounded by you. So
in some instances, I try to become you. So here we have me, a black man who's
proud to know white history, and you, a white man who's also proud to know
white history.
It's very clear what problems this has caused in this country: racial hatred,
unequal oppurtunities, and vast injustice ... I'm not that black man that's
been described above. I'm proud to be both black and gay and if you exhibit
the same response of your straight, racist counterparts, I will gladly group
you together and protect myself.
Donald Andrew Agarrat
Jess Anderson
In article <6MAY92....@enh.nist.gov>
abe...@enh.nist.gov writes:
>In a previous article, ande...@macc.wisc.edu (Jess
>Anderson) wrote:
>>Let's say you decide to take the motss-education program to
>>an average college fraternity house. You'd have to flounce
>>in there and lay it on a flock of straight boyz.
>Which assumes everyone in a college fraternity is straight.
No it doesn't. In an average college fraternity house,
you'd have to lay it on a bunch of straight boyz; that's
what I said. It certainly isn't an average college
fraternity that doesn't have a large majority of straight
members.
>I follow Harvey Fierstein's advice to assume everyone queer unless
>told otherwise.
That is a different point, and a good one.
Rob Bernardo
>Those who think the verdict/riot had no bearing on the gay community
>did not witness the veritable exodus of W. Hollywood to Laguna Beach,
>where nary a micrometer of towel space was free at West Street ...
I don't think effects on gay individuals' social calendar is what
the poster had in mind.
--
Rob Bernardo
r...@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US
Gene Ward Smith
writes:
>In article <39...@daily-planet.concordia.ca>
gsm...@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith) writes:
>>In my own mind, it had at least one similarity with the Dan White
>>verdict: as soon as I heard this verdict, I knew there was going to be
>>Trouble. And I suspect that in both cases, the juries had no idea
>>what effect the decision was likely to have.
>Should they? Really.
Should they is an entirely different question. But not realizing such
a thing is indicitive of a general obliviousness to what is going on
which can't be very helpful to a juror. In the King case, the jurors
were so out of it they thought they were obligated to pay attention to
the instructions of the judge, whether or not these made any sense.
Or at least that is what one juror I saw interviewed claimed.
Scott Moir
>In article <21...@uswnvg.UUCP> dfp...@uswnvg.UUCP.UUCP (Donn F. Pedro)
>writes:
>>In article <39...@daily-planet.concordia.ca>
>gsm...@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith) writes:
>
>>>In my own mind, it had at least one similarity with the Dan White
>>>verdict: as soon as I heard this verdict, I knew there was going to be
>>>Trouble. And I suspect that in both cases, the juries had no idea
>>>what effect the decision was likely to have.
>
>>Should they? Really.
I don't think I would want a Juror to take any outside opinion
into his decision making. They restrict a jurors access to media
and the outside world for a reason. Our legal system is -supposed-
to be based on the objective view of a group of citizens.
>
>Should they is an entirely different question. But not realizing such
>a thing is indicitive of a general obliviousness to what is going on
>which can't be very helpful to a juror. In the King case, the jurors
>were so out of it they thought they were obligated to pay attention to
>the instructions of the judge, whether or not these made any sense.
We need a Fully Informed Jury LAW.
>Or at least that is what one juror I saw interviewed claimed.
The two main problems that I see in the way the King case was handled
was:
1) The change of venue. It was either an amazinly stupid choice
on the part of the Judge, or it was a carefully planned one. Either
way it is dreadfully embarassing.
2) The Jury did not know its full rights. Our legal system is
odd in that it treats citizen's rights like a disease. There are
many examples of the court simply failing to tell the jury that
the only opionions they really have to listen to are thier own.
The appropriateness of the application of what they see in the
courtroom is -thier- choice.
> Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/CICMA/Concordia University
> gsm...@concour.cs.concordia.ca
Scott
--
Scott Moir / Pentangle / Satyr ______ # "There's really only one requirement
pent...@Ursa-Major.spdcc.com \ \/ / # for a Prophet, and you've got it."
B4 f t+ w g k+(+) s+ m r p+ \/\/ # "What's that?"
These are my opinions, not SPDCC's # "A mouth." - 'God' to J.R.'BoB' Dobbs
Jess Anderson
In article <1992May06.1...@watson.ibm.com>
ja...@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com (Jake Coughlin) writes:
>ande...@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson):
>>For more than six years, I haven't realized that "opening"
>>a "dialogue" is a requirement here.
>i wasn't under the impression that you sanctioned criticisms
>of soc.motss without some form of dialogue and past
>interaction.
Brother, you are wearing your blinders with extra
resoluteness on these points, I think. If we accept your
formulation, we're left without a place to start a
criticism. What you're saying is, more or less, "watch this
space, after I've told you about the price of tea (queer
tea, of course), I'll tell you what shits you all are."
>it seems to me that criticisms imply a certain
>responsibility between the critic and that which is being
>criticised.
That's so safe it doesn't say anything.
>>It seems pertinent [given Jake's article on the difficulty
>>of communicating thru soc.motss] that you took "I feel let
>>down," which is approximately what Donald said, to be a
>>criticism. Clearly, you weren't alone.
>clearly. some other very bright people who have my respect
>took it the same way.
Much as I hate to agree with Owen (it makes him even more
unmanageable), you *do* seem to have a hangup on smart or
stupid. It's possible, just possible, mind you, for a whole
lot of smart people to be wrong, every one of them. The
smartest people on earth -- all of them -- once thought
the world was flat, and they were *very* sure about that.
>>So ask yourself again about Donald's laying it on all these
>>nice liberal white boyz. Not everybody here is white or
>>male, but I'll bet you the white maleness of soc.motss is
>>considerably greater than the white maleness of the society
>>at large.
>donald's article didn't seem to strike me as barging in to
>educate.
First he has to precede his "criticism" with dialog, and now
he has to "educate?" Well, I hate to be the one to break it
to ya, toots, but I think he *was* educating, even if that
wasn't his primary purpose.
And your use of "barging in" is mighty curious. What is he,
second class, or what? Gad, Jake, think about what you're
saying! I don't recall seeing a ticket-taker at the door.
>donald's article barged in with a criticism of soc.motss
>(even "it let me down" is a criticism.), and i question
>donald's familiarity with his subject since i have not seen
>him partake of soc.motss other than to post his sexual
>exploits.
Ah, the *real* reason surfaces. Since you have him
type-cast as a porn star, he's not allowed to have some
other thought, and especially not to have some feelings, is
that it?
You should be thinking about your words, friend. What does
"exploits" really say here?
When you say you question his familiarity with his subject
(his subject being: this LA stuff is tormenting me), you
think he isn't familiar enough, at least not enough for you?
Well how much would it take?
>did donald raise any points? or, are you doing that for
>him?
Excuse me? First I gotta pass your admissions tests, then I
gotta say only pre-approved things? Myrtle, your high horse
is in the stratosphere.
>i am *more* than willing to discuss or at least read about
>his experiences as a black gay man. in fact, i am genuinely
>curious!
I wouldn't describe what you've written since his posting as
enticements to share, exactly.
>however, i want more than simple fuck stories before i'll
>accept a sharp criticism.
I thought they were complex fuck stories, duckie. Actually,
I didn't think they were fuck stories at all. You sure have
a hard time letting people be what *they* want to be. Why
is that? I mean, it isn't the same as the phobes crashing
in, is it?
>i don't think soc.motss is as closed a forum as the picture
>he paints, and currently, he's using only black and white
>fingerpaints.
Good grief!
Donn F. Pedro
>F. Pedro) who has a malformed Reply-to: line,
>
>>Reply-To: dfp...@uswnvg.UUCP.UUCP (Donn F. Pedro)
Thank you for the tip. I'm currently beating my newsadm about the
face with a large oaken staff about this. He swears to fix it soon.
I would fix it, but alas, tis not my area of responsibility.
>writes:
>
>>In article <1992May5.0...@macc.wisc.edu>
>>ande...@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
>
>>About the Rodney King thing:
>
>About Donald Aggarat, not Rodney King:
The story revolves around him. You could easly call it the Gates
thing.
>>>At the risk of sounding too much holier than thou, I'm taken
>>>back by the tone of *many* -- I guess most -- of the replies
>>>to the original posting. What seems to me to have been
>>>missed is the emotional substratum I felt to be underlying
>>>Donald's sense of loss and disappointment.
>
>>I caught it. And I thought, "what would you have me do?"
>
>I took it to be "Hear my cry of despair for how things are."
The quotes were my reaction to his words. I had the same
take as you, to some extent.
><> The man who can smile when things go wrong has thought of
><> someone he can blame it on.
Or he is learning from it.
The story: _The Vinegar Tasters_ comes to mind.
Donn F. Pedro
>I try to break out of this uncontrollable rage, but it gets harder
>every day.
Let if flow, then let it go.
>Maybe this Rodney King incident has changed me for life; up until that, I was
>the most optimistic person I knew in regards to racism.
To me it's a reminder. A reminder of how shitty my ancestors were, and
how their children still are, to people they percieve as inferior.
We white people, as a society, and one hell of an inferiority complex.
>I know who are trying to do the right thing, but I've become a lot less
>tolerant of young, ignorant whites, gay and straight alike, who display no
>sensitivity in a situation obviously sensitive.
As I said to Jess, do not mistake silence on my part as insensitivity.
>It's very clear what problems this has caused in this country: racial hatred,
>unequal oppurtunities, and vast injustice ... I'm not that black man that's
>been described above. I'm proud to be both black and gay and if you exhibit
>the same response of your straight, racist counterparts, I will gladly group
>you together and protect myself.
Please do so. When, not if, it applies to me I hope to learn from it.
>Donald Andrew Agarrat
I cannot convince you that I am without prejudice. I cannot convince
you I am on your side. I do not have the ability to become you, to live
in the world you describe.
The best I can do, being 'white' and all, is to try to learn from you.
What else would you have me do?
Terrance Heath
>last time the argument raged, i asked why most people out
>there can handle angry dykes better than angry gay black men.
>no one deemed the question worth comment in the thread, but i got
>a number of email answers (you know, claiming email support ought
>to be in the taxonomy...) from guys sayig that male anger at them
>was somethign that couldn't be acknowleged or allowed because men
>could threaten them, whereas women could not. i think that is a
>valid thought to consider.
>
>i have said for a long time that ther reason that gay rights is
>doing so much better than a lot of other civil rights movements,
>and why i think it will untimately succeed, is because there are
>white men in the movement, white men whose only bar to being
>able to take part in their full societal privelege is their gayness.
>i hope once the men get included into society, they remember the
>rest of us...
> -ailsa
I don't think they will remember us, at first. At least not
without insistent voices demanding recognition and inclusion. In my
experience with white gay men, I have come up against many who have
failed to deal with - or even acknowledge - their own racism. If is
almost as if they assume being gay makes them automatically immune to
absorbing the racism in our society.
When I look at the images of black men in gay media, specifically
gay male-oriented pornography (for lack of a better word, or maybe I
should have used 'erotica'), I can't help but notice the
obectification that goes on. I think it denotes a certain unconscious
acceptance in our community of certain dehumanizing, racist images of
black people, and especially black gays. It is certainly reflected in
what I am expected to be, when dealing with an awful lot of white
gays: that is a sort of lavender Aunt Jemima - or perhaps a Blaine or
Antione. It is reflected in the extremes of distaste and objectifying
obssession I've noticed in the ways gay white men respond to gay black
men.
I don't think most white gays have made progress in dealing with
their own personal racism, at least not beyond offering the obligatory
lip-service support for civil rights, etc. It is easy to deal with me
in that abstract, but the queens sit nervously on their throwns and
the tiara's a a little shakey on the royals noggins when I come to the
table and expect my share of the feast.
--
Terrance Heath he...@athena.ugs.cs.edu
Freedom is not something that anybody can be given, freedom is something people
take.
Jake Coughlin
blown *far* out of proportion. i'm more than a little disturbed at the
implications that jess and owen are making. certainly there's truth
underlying their basic premise, but the personal attack is far from the
mark.
if you want to continue, i would suggest email which i will answer
eagerly.
ande...@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson):
> If we accept your
> formulation, we're left without a place to start a
> criticism. What you're saying is, more or less, "watch this
> space, after I've told you about the price of tea (queer
> tea, of course), I'll tell you what shits you all are."
now, once again, jess:
i'm saying that i don't accept a criticism unless the critic has some
familiarity with their subject. donald hasn't exactly demonstrated
this point adequately to my mind. i told him so in my original
article as i've told you in subsequent articles. this is not a
racist or intellectual attack as you and Owen would like to think --
although it might be interesting to find out why you two are so
bent on classifying it as such! tell me jess, do *you* feel guilty?
your statement does not reflect my statement.
>>it seems to me that criticisms imply a certain
>>responsibility between the critic and that which is being
>>criticised.
>
> That's so safe it doesn't say anything.
and what's this, "going out on a limb"?
> Much as I hate to agree with Owen (it makes him even more
> unmanageable)
no intellectual snobbery in your camp, huh?
> you *do* seem to have a hangup on smart or
> stupid. It's possible, just possible, mind you, for a whole
> lot of smart people to be wrong, every one of them.
keep stuffing, babycakes. soon you'll have a scarecrow for
that nice new garden of eden of yours.
>>donald's article didn't seem to strike me as barging in to
>>educate.
>
> First he has to precede his "criticism" with dialog, and now
> he has to "educate?" Well, I hate to be the one to break it
> to ya, toots, but I think he *was* educating, even if that
> wasn't his primary purpose.
ummm, i believe the idea of educating was yours, "ducky." personally,
i found his recent article much more educational than his first.
> I wouldn't describe what you've written since his posting as
> enticements to share, exactly.
in each posting, i have explicitly stated that i am willing to discuss
and learn about the issues surrounding the experience of black gay men.
if donald wishes to contribute for a while, then makes the same
statements about soc.motss, i'll accept his criticism should it extend
beyond a basic whine a la the motss taxonomy.
is this really as cruel as you're trying to nail me?
Rob Foye
|> 2) The Jury did not know its full rights. Our legal system is
|> odd in that it treats citizen's rights like a disease. There are
|> many examples of the court simply failing to tell the jury that
|> the only opionions they really have to listen to are thier own.
|> The appropriateness of the application of what they see in the
|> courtroom is -thier- choice.
|>
How long has it been since you've done jury duty? I was called in for federal District Court last year, and although I was excused from duty, I was empanelled on 2 seperate drug trials. The prospective jurors were told time and time again that they were to make their decisions based solely on the evidence presented in the trial. Prior experience and knowledge of the law was to be ignored. Only those laws mentioned in the court room were to be considered.
In a way, I'm glad I didn't have to serve.
Jake Coughlin
> I try to break out of this uncontrollable rage, but it gets harder every day.
> comes up and fucks up relationships. But the good ones remain intact. I've
> been taking NO shit from white people lately. I still applaud the white people
> tolerant of young, ignorant whites, gay and straight alike, who display no
> sensitivity in a situation obviously sensitive.
i can understand this to some degree because i can identify with
my own anger against heterocentrism. there was a point when being
queer was so sensitive to me that i literally picked a few fights
with "the breeders."
you have a larger issue because as a gay white man, i can choose to
hide from society whether ry feels there's a choice or not. i know of
no ways that you're able to hide this. a *great* essay is "White
Masks" or "Black Skin, White Masks" (one of the two by Frantz Fanon,
the philosopher in my .sig. he was an affluent black man fitting
into the white system and yet, not really fitting in at all. in
his essay, he calls for blacks to remove themselves from that
system. this may not be entirely correct -- it's been a long time
since i've read the essay.)
> It especially hurts when I don't get that sensitivity from people who
> supposedly have something in common with me (yes you, gay white america). It
> hurts, but it makes me realize who you are and who I am. You are still white.
> I am still black.
this would seem to be the reality -- minorities don't extrapolate
their experience to other minorities. gays are no less bigotted
than straights. at the risk of sounding insensitive, blacks aren't
exactly innocent of prejudice either -- blacks have been bigotted
against hispanics and koreans. blacks, it would seem, are no less
bigotted than whites. (i said bigotted not racist.)
the primary difference which is what we've been discussing in the
class guilt thread is that whites have priviledge. whites have
power that neither blacks, hispanics, or koreans have, and with
that power comes a responsibility. unfortunately, with our
social structure which reinforces the white status quo, whites are
rarely even aware of their bigotry or their power.
in particular, i was disgusted with CNN's reporting of LA. the
white reporter was commenting to the white newscaster something
along the lines, "It's a sad statement when those who are hired to
protect us become the targets of violence." this reporter then
proceeded to list the costs of the looting and violence. there
was absolutely no connection to the issue of racism -- only
economics (which plays a remarkable role in the -isms).
> Everything I learned about in history has been lily-white since elementary
> school. And I feel proud when I learn your history. I learn about your dreams
> and your opinions and your accomplishments and your goals and those stick in my
> mind as "acceptable". But you never learn a thing about my history (including
> the fact that blacks help build this FABULOUS country ...) so you don't grow to
> respect me. You don't know a thing about me. And I am surrounded by you. So
> in some instances, I try to become you. So here we have me, a black man who's
> proud to know white history, and you, a white man who's also proud to know
> white history.
i agree with your assessment about education (as my parallel, where are
the fags and dykes who made this country?). however, the problem is
even deeper than multiculturalism. this problem is with our educational
system period, whose goal is churn out automatons working to maintain the
status quo. you touch on this when you say "you goals and those stick
in my mind as `acceptable'."
my ignorance illustrates the point you make when you say, "you never
learn a thing about my history (including the fact that blacks help
build this FABULOUS country.)" my impression is that until recently,
the building you mention was mostly labor since blacks were kept
uneducated. it seems to me that it's only been the 20th century which
has seen blacks contribute to western (read: white) culture. i wish
that Malcom X, Martin Luther King, and many other 20th century blacks
of whom i am completely ignorant *were* stressed in history because
they were making very clear statements on the state of humanity in our
society.
however, this is still limited to western culture -- my impression is
that these heros acted within the bounds of western culture.
multiculturalism, on the other hand, implies a familiarity with other
cultures. i wish our education included more about black culture which
appears to have very rich roots.
> It's very clear what problems this has caused in this country: racial hatred,
> unequal oppurtunities, and vast injustice ...
well, education, or the lack of true education, has caused many
problems, but this still seems a little oversimplified -- one has the
resources at any public library to educate oneself. call me a leftist,
but i think the criminal behind most of the problems is economics.
i don't know where to go from here -- i would like to see more of your
experiences, but i'm at a loss as to what questions to ask. it's
particularly distasteful to me to find that i lack the tools even to
ask questions about your experience.
my only experience so far has been a statement by Marlon Riggs that
that black gay men have not been accepted by black culture because
black culture stresses the traditional definition of family, and the
statement that homosexuality is a decadence learned by the black man
from the white man. (i guess black lesbians don't exist. :-)
Scott Moir
I was picked for the jury pool for a Massachusetts District court. More than
likely the worst case I would have been empaneled for would have been a
domestic dispute of some sort. We were given a few flyers and put in a large
room with alot of out-of-date magazines to read and wait. Later someone came
in with questionaires. Later, after a four hour wait, I was told I could go
home. At no point did anyone say anything about how a jury actually worked or
what thier responsibilities would actually be if picked. Perhaps the difference
was that you were picked for -federal- duty. I would expect the feds to be a
bit more on the ball than the local Massachusetts legal-eagles. Too Bad.
Jack Hamilton
Jury nullification has been discussed from time to time in misc.legal.
It's a very old tradition, and one of the reasons for the existence of
juries in the first place.
In any case, if you don't talk about it, no one will know the basis on
which you reached your verdict.
Sandra Hereld
good old white gay male bashing -- I heard a wonderful interview
with a man (Name unremembered, of course) who was doing a study of
male/male asian/white porn. He said (and I haven't watched enough of the
stuff to have an opinion) that asians never penetrate white men, and a
reacurrent theme is some white guy dreaming about being penetrated for the
first time, dreams he is an asian, gets penetrated, and then wakes up
white again.
Wow, was this rally on NPR? Well, some kind of public broadcasting -
my car radio never changes the dial - but it is possible I didn't hear
this gem during the evening drive time.
So, is this true? (How much porno have You watched?) Does it matter?
Sandy Studying? NOT!
J. N. Shaumeyer
Jess Anderson (ande...@macc.wisc.edu) writes:
> Not everybody here is white or male, but I'll
> bet you the white maleness of soc.motss is
> considerably greater than the white maleness
> of the society at large.
Of those who post regularly or semi-regularly
from wam.umd.edu [and I do *not* count a certain
clueless jerk], half of us are black, half of
us are white. Interestingly enough, none of
us is female.
Admittedly, this *is* a small sample.
--jns [in a contentious mood, apparently]
D. Owen Rowley
>federal District Court last year, and although I was excused from duty,
>I was empanelled on 2 seperate drug trials. The prospective jurors were
>told time and time again that they were to make their decisions based solely
>on the evidence presented in the trial. Prior experience and knowledge of
>the law was to be ignored. Only those laws mentioned in the court room were
>to be considered.
how long has it been since you touched the return key on your keyboard :-)
Wew..
anyway.
this is why we need
Fully Informed Jury Legislation.
the reality is that there is tremendous precedent that juries have the
right, if not the duty to judge the law as well as the participants.
A supreme court decision some years ago made it a federal crime for any
officer of the court ( prosecutor, defense attornney, judge etc)
to inform jurors of this traditional right.
Most Americans are ignorant of the FIJA situation.
Do you suppose thats why they handed down that prohibition?
LUX . owen
--
-=- very happy to be queer -=- -+- right here -+- -*- NOW -*-
*No matter where you go, there you are.*
D. Owen Rowley
>
>Much as I hate to agree with Owen (it makes him even more
>unmanageable), you *do* seem to have a hangup on smart or
>stupid.
Consider yourself busted Jess
:-)
>And your use of "barging in" is mighty curious. What is he,
>second class, or what? Gad, Jake, think about what you're
>saying! I don't recall seeing a ticket-taker at the door.
ditto.
LUX .. owen
Tom Chatt
| dfp...@uswnvg.UUCP.UUCP (Donn F. Pedro) writes:
| > gsm...@concour.cs.concordia.ca (Gene Ward Smith) writes:
| >> And I suspect that in both cases, the juries had no idea
| >>what effect the decision was likely to have.
|
| >Should they? Really.
|
| Should they is an entirely different question. But not realizing such
| a thing is indicitive of a general obliviousness to what is going on
| which can't be very helpful to a juror.
I agree, up to this point. I suspect that most of the jurors on that
case were rather clueless about the feelings that have been brewing
for a long time in the communities that erupted.
| In the King case, the jurors
| were so out of it they thought they were obligated to pay attention to
| the instructions of the judge, whether or not these made any sense.
You lose me here. Are you saying the instructions of the judge in
this case were nonsensical? Or are you suggesting something else?
If I were on a jury, I would feel obligated to pay attention to
the instructions of the judge (unless they were true nonsense or
contrary to the law---which seem like unlikely hypothetical
situations). Although I have a decent familiarity with the law
for a non-professional, I would tend to defer to the judge's
expertise on such matters. The application of the law is often
rather technical, and something that a juror probably needs to
be instructed on.
Am I "out of it" too?
--
Tom Chatt \ Don't take offense, take action.
Internet: t...@flood.com \ Speak up. When we remain silent,
UUCP: ...!uunet!flood!tom / \ we oppress ourselves.
Tom Chatt
| In article <77...@netnews.upenn.edu> fo...@unagi.cis.upenn.edu (Rob Foye) writes:
| >How long has it been since you've done jury duty? I was called in for
| >federal District Court last year, and although I was excused from duty,
| >I was empanelled on 2 seperate drug trials. The prospective jurors were
| >told time and time again that they were to make their decisions based solely
| >on the evidence presented in the trial. Prior experience and knowledge of
| >the law was to be ignored. Only those laws mentioned in the court room were
| >to be considered.
|
| Fully Informed Jury Legislation.
|
| the reality is that there is tremendous precedent that juries have the
| right, if not the duty to judge the law as well as the participants.
Yikes!!!!!!!!!!!
What sort of nonsense are you spouting here? The juridical anarchy
you seem to be proposing would render legislation irrelevant. (In
which case, why advocate for any legislation at all.)
Can you cite some of this "tremendous precedent"? From what basis
do juries derive this "right"? (Yes, those are sneer quotes.)
| A supreme court decision some years ago made it a federal crime for any
| officer of the court ( prosecutor, defense attornney, judge etc)
| to inform jurors of this traditional right.
Your language is so incredibly slanted here that someone unfamiliar
with the American legal system (yourself, for instance) might get
indignant upon hearing this. If you rephrased it more appropriately,
substituting "misinform" for "inform", and replacing "traditional
right" with "ill-advised notion completely without foundation in law",
the assertion is much less controversial. Then we are left with
only the more technical controversy of how it is you think the
Supreme Court is in a position to make a crime.
|
| Most Americans are ignorant of the FIJA situation.
Unhappily, many Americans are ignorant of even the fundamentals
of our own legal system. You, apparently, are one of them.
Jess Anderson
In article <5pgky...@netcom.com> o...@netcom.com (D. Owen
Rowley) writes:
>In article <1992May7.1...@macc.wisc.edu>
>ande...@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
>>Much as I hate to agree with Owen (it makes him even more
>>unmanageable),
>Consider yourself busted Jess
>:-)
Despite the fact that gravity *is* doing its number on me,
and therefore they're sagging a bit, I simply can't think of
myself as busted.
<> Quick story. I was walking in Center City, Philadelphia,
<> bedecked as usual with pink triangles, etc., and a car
<> pulls up to a stop light. Window rolls down, redneck
<> type looks at me.
<> Redneck: Howdy, faggot.
<> Me (quick as can be): Howdy, bigot.
<> Window rolls up, light changes, he keeps going.
<> -- Jacob Mattison
Rob Foye
|> In article <77...@netnews.upenn.edu> fo...@unagi.cis.upenn.edu (Rob Foye)
|>
|> how long has it been since you touched the return key on your keyboard :-)
|> Wew..
I apologize about this. That's what I get for trusting my news-reader's
default editor. Hopefully, I have corrected the situation and this message
is legible.
A Usenet Pal
>o...@netcom.com (D. Owen Rowley) writes:
>| the reality is that there is tremendous precedent that juries have the
>| right, if not the duty to judge the law as well as the participants.
>
>Yikes!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>What sort of nonsense are you spouting here? The juridical anarchy
>you seem to be proposing would render legislation irrelevant. (In
>which case, why advocate for any legislation at all.)
Owen is right. Juries are under no obligation to convict if they believe
that the law ostensibly being broken is unjust. A good recent case is a
trial of several people participating in an illegal needle exchange program.
The defendants did not contest that they had broken the law, but the jury did
not convict them. In fact at least one juror joined in the exchange program
after the trial.
-paul asente
ase...@adobe.com ...decwrl!adobe!asente moo-...@cs.stanford.edu
The next morning she was wakened in a novel fashion by Lady Celia in time
for elevenses.
Mara Chibnik
>I was picked for the jury pool for a Massachusetts District court.
> [ ... ] We were given a few flyers
>and put in a large room with alot of out-of-date magazines to read and
>wait. Later someone came in with questionaires. Later, after a four
>hour wait, I was told I could go home. At no point did anyone say
>anything about how a jury actually worked or what thier
>responsibilities would actually be if picked. Perhaps the difference
>was that you were picked for -federal- duty. I would expect the feds
>to be a bit more on the ball than the local Massachusetts
>legal-eagles. Too Bad.
Wow. Annoyed though I am at the system as it works here (NYC), I
will say that they offer a short film describing the jury selection
process and reminding us what part jurors play in the court system.
The clerks (or some of them) will answer some question about the
mechanical workings of the system in a very general way. (They
won't tell you anything that you could take advantage of, but if you
wonder, for instance, how it is that you don't get sent back to a
voir dire from which you've been excused once, they'll explain.)
At least you got to go home after four hours. I put in five
*days*.
BTW, the film is okay the first time through, but for anyone with a
reasonably good memory, two years isn't a long enough time to make
the not-very-complicated details it presents grow foggy.
--
Mara Chibnik
ma...@panix.com Life is too important to be taken seriously.
D. Owen Rowley
>| this is why we need
>| Fully Informed Jury Legislation.
>|
>| the reality is that there is tremendous precedent that juries have the
>| right, if not the duty to judge the law as well as the participants.
>
>Yikes!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>What sort of nonsense are you spouting here? The juridical anarchy
>you seem to be proposing would render legislation irrelevant. (In
>which case, why advocate for any legislation at all.)
I'm sure there are many FIJA advocates here whoa re aware of
*this nonsense*
>
>Can you cite some of this "tremendous precedent"? From what basis
>do juries derive this "right"? (Yes, those are sneer quotes.)
Sneer all you like, I'm used to your kind, gunning for mine :-)
I am not an active FIJA advocate, and don't have the pertinatnt literature
at hand, and frankly don't give a fuck what you think, so won't go out of my
way to look it up for you. Do your own homework.
But it DOES exist.
>| A supreme court decision some years ago made it a federal crime for any
>| officer of the court ( prosecutor, defense attornney, judge etc)
>| to inform jurors of this traditional right.
>
>Your language is so incredibly slanted here that someone unfamiliar
>with the American legal system (yourself, for instance) might get
>indignant upon hearing this. If you rephrased it more appropriately,
>substituting "misinform" for "inform", and replacing "traditional
>right" with "ill-advised notion completely without foundation in law",
>the assertion is much less controversial. Then we are left with
>only the more technical controversy of how it is you think the
>Supreme Court is in a position to make a crime.
Again perhaps some FIJA advocate here will be kind enough to *inform* you.
>| Most Americans are ignorant of the FIJA situation.
>
>Unhappily, many Americans are ignorant of even the fundamentals
>of our own legal system. You, apparently, are one of them.
yeah right.
you finished yet.
LUX .. owen
Jess Anderson
In article <1992May07.1...@watson.ibm.com>
ja...@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com (Jake Coughlin) writes:
>this, i think, is my last posting in this topic because it's
>getting blown *far* out of proportion. i'm more than a
>little disturbed at the implications that jess and owen are
>making. certainly there's truth underlying their basic
>premise, but the personal attack is far from the mark.
It seems to me less a personal attack than it apparently
seems to you. In view of that, let's back up a little and
come at a couple of things again.
In the first place, let Donald defend Donald; doing that was
never among my purposes. What I was seeking was to point
out something I think you've just conceded: truth underlying
the basic premise.
But there are some loose ends to be tied up, too.
>i'm saying that i don't accept a criticism unless the critic
>has some familiarity with their subject. donald hasn't
>exactly demonstrated this point adequately to my mind.
I was prepared from the first to grant him that without a
rigorous examination. As I see it, you've done that too in
other cases, so it struck me as odd that you were so
vehement in this particular case.
>tell me jess, do *you* feel guilty?
Guilt? What for? No, I don't feel guilty. Guilt is mainly
anger turned inward on oneself. It's fundamentally
different, I think, from what happens when we *do* make a
mistake and find we have to try to make amends.
>>Much as I hate to agree with Owen (it makes him even more
>>unmanageable)
>no intellectual snobbery in your camp, huh?
It was an inside joke for Owen's (and our friends')
amusement.
>>I wouldn't describe what you've written since his posting as
>>enticements to share, exactly.
>in each posting, i have explicitly stated that i am willing
>to discuss and learn about the issues surrounding the
>experience of black gay men.
Doesn't this sound any memory bells, like the straight boyz
wanting us to tell 'em about queer life and being incensed
when we chase 'em away for their presumption?
>if donald wishes to contribute for a while, then makes the
>same statements about soc.motss, i'll accept his criticism
>should it extend beyond a basic whine a la the motss
>taxonomy.
Are you *really* sure you don't have some sort of double
standard going here? If you've posed a test like that to
any preceding poster, I guess I didn't detect it as such.
The only other alternative would be that no other poster ever
posted a "criticism" (I still think it wasn't that) without
the precedent you *seem* to be requiring here.
>is this really as cruel as you're trying to nail me?
Nailing, I for sure wouldn't say. I dunno, I guess it
wouldn't help much for me to speculate on any of this
further, and it could have been (at least in part) concerns
of my own (mainly health) that made me sensitive to what
seemed *to me* to be unmotivated animosity on your part.
<> At the political level, _honkey_ is insignificant. No
<> systems privilege it. Black students changed _honkey_
<> quickly after a little education, especially when I
<> showed them how to document their oppression and how to
<> invest their verbal energies less frivolously, more
<> systematically to change the systems by which white
<> people receive special privilege. I was especially
<> effective when I pointed out that my insight derives not
<> from my own whiteness, but from my being an articulate
<> sissy! Once hetero egos mended, I got an apology from
<> every one who had called me "Faggot!" too. Solidarity is
<> dangerous unless we can unite with justice for all.
<> -- Louie Crew (lc...@andromeda.rutgers.edu)
Unknown Ghost
There was a good segment done on Gay Teen Suicide. It was
sad to listen to the 'religious' good fearing types... Who
basically caused the death of their childern.
I wish we could get past all of the shit, and help support
and stop this waste of life. Let people be who they are.
Phil Thrift
ste...@orchid.UCSC.EDU (Unknown Ghost) writes:
> There was a good segment done on Gay Teen Suicide. It was
> sad to listen to the 'religious' good fearing types... Who
> basically caused the death of their childern.
One woman interviewed about why she was keeping her young boys
away from the evils of homosexuality in the public schools was
asked by John Stossel [why does he get all the gay stuff on
20/20?] what she would do if one of her boys turned out gay.
She said: "Put his mind on other things, like sports."
Jess Anderson
In article <1992May9.1...@csc.ti.com>
thr...@ra.csc.ti.com (Phil Thrift) writes:
>One woman interviewed about why she was keeping her young boys
>away from the evils of homosexuality in the public schools was
>asked by John Stossel [why does he get all the gay stuff on
>20/20?] what she would do if one of her boys turned out gay.
>She said: "Put his mind on other things, like sports."
An excellent idea, in my view. I've had my mind on sports
ever since I realized I was gay (50 years next year!). Up
to that time I hated sports.
<> Outing is not a simple issue. It is a violent scream of rage
<> to move beyond private tolerance, as long as strayts don't see
<> you, to a demand for equality and that being publicly gay is
<> not something to be ashamed of. -- Ry Schwark (r...@usl.com)
Unknown Ghost
>
>In article <1992May9.1...@csc.ti.com>
>thr...@ra.csc.ti.com (Phil Thrift) writes:
>
>>One woman interviewed about why she was keeping her young boys
>>away from the evils of homosexuality in the public schools was
>>asked by John Stossel [why does he get all the gay stuff on
>>20/20?] what she would do if one of her boys turned out gay.
>>She said: "Put his mind on other things, like sports."
>
What a perfect idea- let's put them in with the other jocko's and
especially when their all in the shower together... soaping up and
stroking...
I was in 'sports' when I was in HS, and if that mother really had
a clue about anything, she know that's exactly where he might want
to be...
I remember my first sport encounters- and they were'nt on the field
but behind the lockers...
Unknown Ghost
Got you on that one....
Maybe it is time for a Gay Moses...
Let my people go Pharaoh!
And with his large staff- he shall part the suburbs and
all gay people shall be freed.
Whoa!!!!!!!!!!!!
Roger B.A. Klorese
writes:
|> pent...@spdcc.com (Scott Moir) writes:
|>
|> >I was picked for the jury pool for a Massachusetts District court.
|> > [ ... ] We were given a few flyers
|> >and put in a large room with alot of out-of-date magazines to read and
|> >wait. Later someone came in with questionaires. Later, after a four
|> >hour wait, I was told I could go home. At no point did anyone say
|> >anything about how a jury actually worked or what thier
|> >responsibilities would actually be if picked. Perhaps the difference
|> >was that you were picked for -federal- duty. I would expect the feds
|> >to be a bit more on the ball than the local Massachusetts
|> >legal-eagles. Too Bad.
I *have* served in Massachusetts. They instruct you once you have been
empanelled, not before.
By the way, I think the one-day-or-one-trial system in effect in some
jurisdictions in Massachusetts would, if implemented globally, make jury
duty less of a chore for most of us. If you're not put on a trial on your
first day, you're free.
--
ROGER B.A. KLORESE +1 415 ALL-ARFF
rog...@unpc.QueerNet.ORG {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!mips!unpc!rogerk
"Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from."
-- J. Foster
Gene Ward Smith
>| In the King case, the jurors
>| were so out of it they thought they were obligated to pay attention to
>| the instructions of the judge, whether or not these made any sense.
>You lose me here. Are you saying the instructions of the judge in
>this case were nonsensical? Or are you suggesting something else?
I didn't hear the instructions of the judge, but I did hear a juror
interviewed on television discussing them. Supposedly the judge
told them they could not find a defendant guilty of excessive
force unless they could all agree on precisely which blow was
the one which went over the line into actual excess. If true,
this clearly would be a nonsensical instruction, and one a good
jury would simply ignore.
>Although I have a decent familiarity with the law
>for a non-professional, I would tend to defer to the judge's
>expertise on such matters. The application of the law is often
>rather technical, and something that a juror probably needs to
>be instructed on.
>Am I "out of it" too?
Maybe. Juries are never told one basic fact about juries, which is
that they can ignore the judge if they want to. Sometimes you
obviously would. For instance, if you spoke fluent Swedish, and the
whole case rested on some testimony given in Swedish, you would be
told by the judge that you must ignore your own knowledge and base
your deliberations entirely on the translation provided by the
court-appointed Swedish expert. If you knew that this guy was a Dane
who had gotten it all mixed up, what would you do?
Here is another case. You are on the jury of someone being prosecuted
for sodomy. The case involves consenting adults. The instructions of
the judge make it clear that this person must be found guilty, since
the evidence to you is clear. What do you do?
Part of the idea behind juries is that this legal stuff is too
important to be entrusted to the care of lawyers.
--
Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/CICMA/Concordia University
gsm...@concour.cs.concordia.ca
Gene Ward Smith
>| the reality is that there is tremendous precedent that juries have the
>| right, if not the duty to judge the law as well as the participants.
>Yikes!!!!!!!!!!!
>What sort of nonsense are you spouting here? The juridical anarchy
>you seem to be proposing would render legislation irrelevant. (In
>which case, why advocate for any legislation at all.)
My knowledge of the law may not extend much beyond what I recall of
the Perry Mason Show, but I have read stuff like this. Juries, as I
understand, have powers which they *may not* be instructed about.
Moreover, grand juries have even more sweeping powers. Sometimes a
granf jury figures this out, and one has the interesting phenomenon
known as the run-away grand jury.
>Can you cite some of this "tremendous precedent"? From what basis
>do juries derive this "right"? (Yes, those are sneer quotes.)
One famous case involved William Penn, and whether he should go to
jail for not being a good Anglican. The judge instructed the jury to
return a verdict of guilty. The jury refused, whereupon the judge
threw the jury in jail. This case led to fundamental anglo-american
law about the rights of juries--and they do have rights.
Frank R.A.J. Maloney
Leave us not neglect Aaron's Rod.
--
Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
"Only the mediocre can always be at their best." -- Mencken
For an average time write uunet!microsoft!frankm
For an even more mediocre time try fra...@microsoft.com
Rob Bernardo
>In article <1992May9.1...@macc.wisc.edu> ande...@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
>>
>>In article <1992May9.1...@csc.ti.com>
>>thr...@ra.csc.ti.com (Phil Thrift) writes:
>>
>>>One woman interviewed about why she was keeping her young boys
>>>away from the evils of homosexuality in the public schools was
>>>asked by John Stossel [why does he get all the gay stuff on
>>>20/20?] what she would do if one of her boys turned out gay.
>>>She said: "Put his mind on other things, like sports."
>>
>
>What a perfect idea- let's put them in with the other jocko's and
With the other jocko's what? Which other jocko? Oh. I see. You really
didn't mean to stick in that apostrophe.
--
Rob Bernardo
r...@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US
Robert Coren
> ste...@orchid.UCSC.EDU (Unknown Ghost) wrote:
> >What a perfect idea- let's put them in with the other jocko's and
>
> With the other jocko's what? Which other jocko? Oh. I see. You really
> didn't mean to stick in that apostrophe.
Clay Bond may be gone, but the Apostrophe Police live on!
[And a good thing, too.]
Steve Dyer
>Be careful about generalizing...one of the first (if not the first)
>regular intruders into (then) net.motss, *** *****, was not white.
Are you sure? The name sounds pretty aryan.
--
Steve Dyer
dy...@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Tom Chatt
since we are often on the fringes of the "system". Other than that, none.
If you don't care, hit 'n' now.
ase...@adobe.com (A Usenet Pal) writes:
| Owen is right. Juries are under no obligation to convict if they believe
| that the law ostensibly being broken is unjust. A good recent case is a
| trial of several people participating in an illegal needle exchange program.
| The defendants did not contest that they had broken the law, but the jury did
| not convict them. In fact at least one juror joined in the exchange program
| after the trial.
About this specific case:
I'm really not sure how to make sense of what you are describing.
If the defendants did not contest that they had broken the law
(ie., they pleaded guilty to the charges against them), then
they would go directly to sentencing without having a jury trial.
A trial only occurs if the defendants DO contest that they had
broken the law.
Do juries have the right to judge the law?
If a prospective juror has a conscience problem with the law(s)
involved in the case being tried, this will almost certainly come
out in voir dire (unless, of course, the prospective juror is a
perjuror). A special point is made of exploring this aspect in
cases where a law is known to be controversial, e.g., in a murder
case where the death penalty may be involved. Jurors that do
have conscience problems with the law will be excused. For cause.
(Gene, this answers your question about what I would do if I
were a juror on a sodomy case. I wouldn't be on the case.)
In our current system, appeals courts can judge the law, based
(not on the conscience of the judge but) on the application of
superceding law. There is a formal mechanism to do this: an
opinion is rendered, and new precedent is established which
may be used in other cases.
In our current system, a jury can return a verdict of guilty
(ie., that the facts show beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant
committed the crimes charged) or it can return a verdict of
not guilty (which is not the same as innocent). There is no
other information content. The jury does not issue an opinion.
These facts about legal procedure seem to me to suggest that
the role of the jury is to determine fact and not to judge
the law.
Would it make procedural sense for a jury to judge the law?
If a jury acquitted a technically guilty defendant on conscientious
grounds, this would be indistinguishable from a jury acquitting
a technically innocent defendant on factual grounds. It
would have no precedential bearing on any future similar cases.
The law would still be on the books, and the jury's decision
would have no meaning beyond the scope of the particular case.
Other people with similar consciences might break the same law
in the same way, but they could have no reliance on getting the
same treatment from the court system.
In our current system, appellate courts will review cases
where conflicting precedent has arisen in different districts
under their jurisdiction in order to set a consistent precedent
for their whole jurisdiction. Higher courts can review the
decisions of lower courts, but not vice versa, thus the system
is designed to produce more consistent application of the law.
Consistency is fundamental to fairness.
Allowing juries in original trials to judge the law would turn
this whole system on its head. Consistent application of the
law---the fundamental goal of the system---would go right out
the window.
Also, the current system of appeals provides a mechanism for
citizens who believe that some law is unconstitutional (or is
unlawful under some superior law) to "test" that law, and
ultimately have it thrown out. A "fully-informed" jury would
thwart this process. A well-meaning "fully-informed" jury might,
for instance, acquit Robin Activist of the sodomy charges,
leaving Robin free to go back home, but not free to go up
to the appeals court where something of significant scope might
have been accomplished.
Should juries have the right to judge the law?
To place the conscience of a jury above the law is to make for
complete legal anarchy. Why even have laws if they can be selectively
enforced and inconsistently applied at the caprice of twelve
random people? Why not just poll twelve peers to decide if your
actions might be "legal"?
Consider one of the ramifications of this notion: if a jury's
conscience is above the law, then it can not only acquit the
technically guilty, but it can condemn the technically innocent.
"Yeah, you have an iron-clad alibi putting you far away from
the scene of the murder, but the twelve of us don't like your
kind, faggot, and there *ought* to be a law. Therefore, in the
charge of first degree murder, we find the faggot, er uh, the
defendant... GUILTY!"
In summary: The notion of a fully-informed jury has no basis
in current American legal procedure. It would have very little
effect toward achieving justice since it would not contribute
to case law. It would have a significant effect toward disrupting
justice, since it would tend toward inconsistent application of
the law, and lead to increased disrespect for the law. It has
the potential for dangerous abuse (finding guilt without basis).
VOTE NO ON FOLLY-INFORMED JURIES!
Tom Chatt
| that they can ignore the judge if they want to. Sometimes you
| obviously would. For instance, if you spoke fluent Swedish, and the
| whole case rested on some testimony given in Swedish, you would be
| told by the judge that you must ignore your own knowledge and base
| your deliberations entirely on the translation provided by the
| court-appointed Swedish expert. If you knew that this guy was a Dane
| who had gotten it all mixed up, what would you do?
Hmmm. That is a tricky one. In general, there may be facts which
are true, but which the jury must not consider. For example,
the smoking gun obtained by police illegally searching the defendant's
house. Now it is possible that the DA may "accidentally" mention
the smoking gun, and then the judge would instruct the jury to
disregard the DA's remarks. (Though this happens much more often on
L.A. Law than in real life.) The can having been opened, would I
disregard this fact as the judge instructed? As a stickler for
procedure, I would. In fact, I would not find it difficult to do so,
since I understand and appreciate the principle behind the procedure.
In the case of the bogus translator, I would certainly be torn.
(That shows you my loyalty to principle and procedure!) This would
certainly be harder, since I would not understand the reasons for
the judge's instruction. (And I hate not understanding the reason
for things...) But I still might stick to the procedure, on faith,
and then discuss the matter with the appropriate attorney after the
trial. (If there was a technical flaw, the attorney will have
excellent grounds for appeal.)
Now, what if you didn't know any Swedish, but someone else on the
jury claimed to know Swedish better than the translator. Maybe so,
maybe not. But that's the claim. Do you go on the juror's translation,
and disregard the judge's instruction? What if the distinction makes
the difference between guilty and not? (Or the other way around?)
| Here is another case. You are on the jury of someone being prosecuted
| for sodomy. The case involves consenting adults. The instructions of
| the judge make it clear that this person must be found guilty, since
| the evidence to you is clear. What do you do?
I wouldn't have survived voir dire. See my response to Paul.
If, somehow, I did get on such a jury (I thought I agreed with
the law, but suddenly realized after the trial started that I
had strong conscientious objections to it), I would quit the
jury.
| Part of the idea behind juries is that this legal stuff is too
| important to be entrusted to the care of lawyers.
The other part of the idea behind juries is that this legal stuff
is too technical to be entrusted to the care of non-lawyers.
The current system provides (as Mike would say) checks and balances.
To "fully inform" a jury is to tip the scales.
Melinda Shore
> Be careful about generalizing...one of the first (if not the first)
> regular intruders into (then) net.motss, *** *****, was not white.
How do you know this? To tell you the truth, I assumed he
was white, not because of his postings but because of his name.
That was well before I had become clued into Usenet semiotics,
though, and I was less likely to recognize someone's race or
gender from the contents of his or her postings.
--
Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - sh...@tc.cornell.edu
Rod Williams
>> ste...@orchid.UCSC.EDU (Unknown Ghost) writes:
>>Maybe it is time for a Gay Moses...
>>
>>Let my people go Pharaoh!
>>
>>And with his large staff- he shall part the suburbs and
>>all gay people shall be freed.
>>
>>Whoa!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>Leave us not neglect Aaron's Rod.
Oh Aaron & I split up *years* ago. But please don't neglect
me anyway. You should see my golden calves... like buttah!
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
rod williams -=- pacific bell -=- san francisco -=- rjw...@pacbell.com
Michael Thomas
|> If a prospective juror has a conscience problem with the law(s)
|> involved in the case being tried, this will almost certainly come
|> out in voir dire (unless, of course, the prospective juror is a
|> perjuror). A special point is made of exploring this aspect in
|> cases where a law is known to be controversial, e.g., in a murder
|> case where the death penalty may be involved. Jurors that do
|> have conscience problems with the law will be excused. For cause.
All that is asked in voir dire is whether they have any preconceptions
about the law. If the juror does not have an opinion he is normally allowed
to participate. This does not mean in any sense that the juror is *never*
allowed to have an opinion once the case is presented and thereafter.
How could you prevent such a thing??
|> In our current system, a jury can return a verdict of guilty
|> (ie., that the facts show beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant
|> committed the crimes charged) or it can return a verdict of
|> not guilty (which is not the same as innocent). There is no
|> other information content. The jury does not issue an opinion.
|>
|> These facts about legal procedure seem to me to suggest that
|> the role of the jury is to determine fact and not to judge
|> the law.
Part of this fact is whether the person is guilty in *every*
aspect of the word. Beyond a reasonable doubt. How can you be
beyond a reasonable doubt when you in fact begin to doubt the
justice of the law? The juries job is issue justice for the
individual charged, knowing full well that their decision will
have a profound effect on somebody elses life. All aspects must
be taken into account, not just a judges potentially prejudicial
instructions. A jury is not a political statement or anything
else: it is just a vehicle to determine whether a person charged
with a crime ought to be punished. This is the essense of why the
right to a jury is so important: it allows independant minds to
consider all aspects of the case as it stands, not just some narrow
interests of a legal system which might glorify the "hanging judge",
or any other political agendas.
|> Would it make procedural sense for a jury to judge the law?
Procedural sense? We are talking about peoples lives here.
If a law is invalid, the jury should be under no compunction
to lay down its conscious and lynch somebody they deam innocent.
Stories where juries appologize to defendants after they convict
them are outrageous!
|> If a jury acquitted a technically guilty defendant on conscientious
|> grounds, this would be indistinguishable from a jury acquitting
|> a technically innocent defendant on factual grounds. It
|> would have no precedential bearing on any future similar cases.
This comes down to whether the basis of our system is innocent
till proven guilty or visa versa. Thank goodness the later is still
the presumption. Guilty people will walk. Is this worse than innocent
people frying? IMHO no. Protection of the innocent is paramount.
|> The law would still be on the books, and the jury's decision
|> would have no meaning beyond the scope of the particular case.
|> Other people with similar consciences might break the same law
|> in the same way, but they could have no reliance on getting the
|> same treatment from the court system.
So everybody should be equally handed injustice? All this means
is that some people will be spared from injustice. This seems hardly
a detraction.
|> Allowing juries in original trials to judge the law would turn
|> this whole system on its head. Consistent application of the
|> law---the fundamental goal of the system---would go right out
|> the window.
Er, what fundamental goal might that be? Subservience of the
population to a totalitarian government has never been on my
list of goals for the judicial system.
|> Should juries have the right to judge the law?
|>
|> To place the conscience of a jury above the law is to make for
|> complete legal anarchy. Why even have laws if they can be selectively
|> enforced and inconsistently applied at the caprice of twelve
|> random people? Why not just poll twelve peers to decide if your
|> actions might be "legal"?
Just whom empowered the law in the first place? The state or the
people? This is fundamental check on the governments ability to pass
and enforce bad law. Even this little check doesn't have much effect
on the government's steam roller. To advocate getting rid of it is akin
to saying that the government effectively sets the agenda in the media
therefore why *shouldn't* we ditch the first amendment?
|> Consider one of the ramifications of this notion: if a jury's
|> conscience is above the law, then it can not only acquit the
|> technically guilty, but it can condemn the technically innocent.
|> "Yeah, you have an iron-clad alibi putting you far away from
|> the scene of the murder, but the twelve of us don't like your
|> kind, faggot, and there *ought* to be a law. Therefore, in the
|> charge of first degree murder, we find the faggot, er uh, the
|> defendant... GUILTY!"
This is one aspect that I have some problem with as well. I'm not
positive, but I believe that this may be an aspect. If so I disagree
with it as well. A jury should only be allowed to _convict_ given the
proper application of laws. Clearly allowing a jury to convict based
on their conscious could lead to miscarriages of justice.
Does anybody know for certain whether, in fact, juries are allowed
to vote their conscious toward guilt? In any case, the judge always
has the ability to set aside a conviction he think was improperly
obtainted. IMHO this is as it should be: err to the side of innocence.
|> In summary: The notion of a fully-informed jury has no basis
|> in current American legal procedure. It would have very little
|> effect toward achieving justice since it would not contribute
|> to case law. It would have a significant effect toward disrupting
|> justice, since it would tend toward inconsistent application of
|> the law, and lead to increased disrespect for the law. It has
|> the potential for dangerous abuse (finding guilt without basis).
Actually I think you are both factually and traditionally wrong.
You can think of FIJA as a form of civil disobedience which is a
proper check on a totalitarian minded government. Civil disobedience
has a long and highly regarded tradition in America. It is after all
how we threw off the shackles of the King George. The founders were
well aware of the possibility of creeping totalitarianism which is
why they built in many loopholes which allow the people ultimate
ability to throw off the shakles once again. This is certainly
one of the reasons why the founders put a great deal of emphasis
on the second amendment. FIJA is part of that tradition. In an age
which is seeing more than its share of restrictions on our individual
liberties tossing out yet another safeguard is not the answer. The
FIJA is not something to be dismissed as anarchic and threatening
to the status quo. To hell with the status quo!
--
Michael Thomas (mi...@gordian.com)
"I don't think Bambi Eyes will get you that flame thrower..."
-- Hobbes to Calvin
USnail: 20361 Irvine Ave Santa Ana Heights, Ca, 92707-5637
PaBell: (714) 850-0205 (714) 850-0533 (fax)
Michael Thomas
|> | important to be entrusted to the care of lawyers.
|>
|> The other part of the idea behind juries is that this legal stuff
|> is too technical to be entrusted to the care of non-lawyers.
|> The current system provides (as Mike would say) checks and balances.
|> To "fully inform" a jury is to tip the scales.
Or as Mike would say, justice is too important to be entrusted to
bureaucrats and politicial agenda makers. It is bad enough as it
is to remove or invalidate bad law, removing more options from the
populace is *not* the answer.
A good analogy could probably be drawn from before emancipation.
Suppose that one of the runners of the "underground railway" were
brought to trial in a relatively neutral area on the charges of
theft of property (which a slave was considered). The jury had no
real opinion about slavery, but given the brutal facts about slavery
and its heinous effects on the lives of fellow humans, the jury decided
that the law _in and of itself_ was what was wrong. If fact the defendant
did not even contest his guilt of the "crime". Should the jury be
required to find that defendant guilty?
Excusing yourself amid trial is completely ineffective since in fact
this will only lead to the conviction of the defendant, however many
mistrials ensue. Saying that the appeals process would "take care of it"
is in fact false. The appeals process *is* bound by precendent and the
consitution which allowed slavery. In voting the defendant you would in
fact be directly responsible for their false imprisonment. Should a juror
have to suffer the indignity of knowing he is part and parcel to a monumental
injustice? I say no.
David Christopher Rogers
Message-ID: <1992May12.0...@adobe.com>
From: ase...@adobe.com (A Usenet Pal)
>> Be careful about generalizing...one of the first (if not the first)
>> regular intruders into (then) net.motss, *** *****, was not white.
Message-ID: <1992May12....@tc.cornell.edu>
From: sh...@tc.cornell.edu
>How do you know this? To tell you the truth, I assumed he
>was white, not because of his postings but because of his name.
>That was well before I had become clued into Usenet semiotics,
>though, and I was less likely to recognize someone's race or
>gender from the contents of his or her postings.
I'm more inclined to let someone's words speak for themselves and
not worry about their sex and color. In fact, I wish the most people's
names hid their sex and ethnicity more effectively; it would reduce the
number of assumptions people make before even hitting the first word
of your text.
It's not that we should be colorblind or sexblind; but those factors
should be under our control, and explicitly invoked when we want to make
a point about our experiences, rather than used at will by others,
often to denigrate some statement without mentioning the content.
For example, I'd suggest that women in this forum, just as in spoken life,
tend to have their arguments interrupted and implicit assumptions made
about the worthiness of their arguments because they are women.
Comments?
David Christopher Rogers
Melinda Shore
> I'm more inclined to let someone's words speak for themselves and
> not worry about their sex and color.
I wish it were that simple. If you were to say, for example,
that what a straight man has to say about lesbians is as
valid as what a lesbian has to say about lesbians, I'd have
to disagree with you.
Anyway, if you go back to the original point, I was saying
that it is often quite obvious what the race and/or gender
of a poster is from the contents of the article and from
the choice of language. I wasn't addressing the issue of
whether or not this is a good thing.
Michael Portuesi
sh...@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
|> In article <1992May12....@riacs.edu>, dro...@riacs.edu
|> (David Christopher Rogers) writes:
|> > I'm more inclined to let someone's words speak for themselves
|> and
|> > not worry about their sex and color.
|>
|> I wish it were that simple. If you were to say, for example,
|> that what a straight man has to say about lesbians is as
|> valid as what a lesbian has to say about lesbians, I'd have
|> to disagree with you.
I'd be inclined to say that this point is moot, since it
is pretty improbable that a straight man will have anything
relevant to say about lesbians in the first place. We have
always claimed that we are experts on our own experience.
If we make that claim (as just about every oppressed group I've
ever seen has done), we also have to subscribe to the
notion that our statements will retain their relevance
and be recognizable as authoritative in an environment where
people who do not have those same experiences attempt to
comment on them.
Plain and simply put, what a straight man has to say about
lesbians is not as important as what a lesbian has to say
about lesbians, and that should be obvious no matter
what we know about the authors of the posts.
|> Anyway, if you go back to the original point, I was saying
|> that it is often quite obvious what the race and/or gender
|> of a poster is from the contents of the article and from
|> the choice of language.
It's the difference between looking at the opinions of
a person and extrapolating back to the elements of a
person's background (race and gender) that shapes those
opinions.
m.
--
Michael Portuesi Silicon Graphics, Inc. port...@sgi.com
Nelson Minar
>In fact, I wish the most people's names hid their sex and ethnicity
>more effectively; it would reduce the number of assumptions people
>make before even hitting the first word of your text.
Unfortunately, I think that you are wrong. I think more people would
begin assuming the posters were straight white men.
That's why I put a triangle in my signature. I don't like the idea of
broadcasting my sexual orientation in places like comp.lang.c++ where
it's really not relevant, but I hate the idea that someone would
assume I was straight even more.
--
__
nel...@reed.edu \/ Don't tread on me
J. N. Shaumeyer
> I'm more inclined to let someone's words speak for themselves and
> not worry about their sex and color. In fact, I wish the most people's
> names hid their sex and ethnicity more effectively; it would reduce the
> number of assumptions people make before even hitting the first word
> of your text.
is one that I've specifically chosen to use. It is of
great utility if an author of scientific papers consistently
uses the same name. When the time came for me to publish
my first paper, I settled on the initials because I know
them to be unique, and because I saw no reason to offer
gratuitous information about my gender.
It appears this way here for the same reasons. This was
also a factor in the way I chose to sign my motss articles.
> Comments?
>
> David Christopher Rogers
Well....
--jns
Jess Anderson
>I'm more inclined to let someone's words speak for
>themselves and not worry about their sex and color.
Don't we need to separate those two ideas a litle better? I
mean, I grant what you say, but in some senses, it's pretty
hard *not* to let a person's words do the talking.
Knowing, even worrying about their sex or race is not
necessarily linked to the way one receives those words.
There's no doubt that the phenomenon behind your remark
exists, but I wonder if you're not about to consent to too
high a price to offset what is after all impossible to
prevent: bias in the hearer/reader.
>In fact, I wish the most people's names hid their sex and
>ethnicity more effectively; it would reduce the number of
>assumptions people make before even hitting the first word
>of your text.
Here too I find the impulse laudable enough, but I think
it's operating on the wrong end of the organism, so to
speak. Diversity is really something wonderful, a source of
delight and great illumination. Masking it *really* costs
us something. It's not the assumptions themselves that
generate problems, it's the mental process behind how those
assumptions play in the interaction.
>It's not that we should be colorblind or sexblind; but those
>factors should be under our control, and explicitly invoked
>when we want to make a point about our experiences, rather
>than used at will by others, often to denigrate some
>statement without mentioning the content.
I hadn't thought, when I decided to respond, that I would
disagree quite this strongly. But I do agree that we should
not be <anything>blind. I agree that ideally, we should
have the option of revealing ourselves in our own way.
But we have eyes and ears, and they bring us most of our
mental and spiritual riches, and our mouths and hands and
voices deliver the richness that is within us. Of all the
things we use, these seem our most awesome means of being.
It's sure true that often there's many a foul slip in the
life of any given richness along its route in one direction
or the other, and people do get hurt. These hurts are real,
and even the figurative losses are real enough. But these
features of what one is are too precious, I think, to serve
as shields warding off the insensitivities and unkindnesses
of prejudice.
No, that's not quite it. Maybe it's closer to say: what
people *are* should be wonderfully, proudly, lightly, freely
said, whenever one might want. Our names, our races, our
everything detectable to the senses (and more!) all play
into our ethnicity, and *that* richness *is* a shield, or if
the shield proves penetrable now and then, that richness
serves as a balm for the hurt.
So I can't see hiding it, ever. It echoes the closet too
strongly for me. Those who use what we are for ill, they're
not good people, but I think in the end their relative moral
weakness takes them down, unless they can (and sometimes
they do) wake up. Of course, well so we know, we have to
work like hell because of those ills.
>For example, I'd suggest that women in this forum, just as
>in spoken life, tend to have their arguments interrupted and
>implicit assumptions made about the worthiness of their
>arguments because they are women.
Part of this seems a bit of a stretch, to me, but I'm not
the one to testify on it.
<> Everything worthwhile must be won again each day.
D. Owen Rowley
>I'm more inclined to let someone's words speak for themselves and
>not worry about their sex and color. In fact, I wish the most people's
>names hid their sex and ethnicity more effectively; it would reduce the
>number of assumptions people make before even hitting the first word
>of your text.
Shades of **** ***** ***** :-) who confused everyone no end, and
enjoyed rubbing peoples faces in it when the reality of her gender
was revealed.
I found it all fascinating of course :-)
>It's not that we should be colorblind or sexblind; but those factors
>should be under our control, and explicitly invoked when we want to make
>a point about our experiences, rather than used at will by others,
>often to denigrate some statement without mentioning the content.
>For example, I'd suggest that women in this forum, just as in spoken life,
>tend to have their arguments interrupted and implicit assumptions made
>about the worthiness of their arguments because they are women.
Hmm, I don't notice that myself, but I don't let a persons gender or race
influence how I respond. I abuse people indiscriminately :-)
No seriously.. I mean, I really try my best to be an equal opportunitty
pain in the ass.
Say Goodnight Spacey
LUX .. owen
--
-=- very happy to be queer -=- -+- right here -+- -*- NOW -*-
*No matter where you go, there you are.*
D. Owen Rowley
>In article <1992May12.0...@adobe.com> ase...@adobe.com (A Usenet Pal) writes:
>>Be careful about generalizing...one of the first (if not the first)
>>regular intruders into (then) net.motss, *** *****, was not white.
>Are you sure? The name sounds pretty aryan.
there was a posting that purported that KA ( or *** ***** ) was
not white, but when I talked to himby phone , I asked him directly about this.
I suppose he might have lied, but he told me that he was indeed
white.
FWIW BTW
D. Owen Rowley
>In article <1992May12....@riacs.edu>, dro...@riacs.edu (David Christopher Rogers) writes:
>> I'm more inclined to let someone's words speak for themselves and
>> not worry about their sex and color.
>I wish it were that simple. If you were to say, for example,
>that what a straight man has to say about lesbians is as
>valid as what a lesbian has to say about lesbians, I'd have
>to disagree with you.
Might as well practice what I preach :-)
Is every thing any strayt man has to say about lesbians intrinsicly
less valid than anything any lesbian has to say about lesbians ?
Is it possible that there might be a few enlightened strayt men around who
are infinitly more clued in than the most uninformed dyke on the block?
>Anyway, if you go back to the original point, I was saying
>that it is often quite obvious what the race and/or gender
>of a poster is from the contents of the article and from
>the choice of language. I wasn't addressing the issue of
>whether or not this is a good thing.
Am I the only one who finds this sentiment disturbing and quite
bigoted in its own right?
LUX ..owen
Jess Anderson
In article <cqmk+...@netcom.com> o...@netcom.com (D. Owen
Rowley) writes:
>In article <1992May12.2...@tc.cornell.edu>
>sh...@tc.cornell.edu writes:
>>If you were to say, for example,
>>that what a straight man has to say about lesbians is as
>>valid as what a lesbian has to say about lesbians, I'd have
>>to disagree with you.
>Is every thing any strayt man has to say about lesbians
>intrinsicly less valid than anything any lesbian has to say
>about lesbians ?
Yoo hoo, Mr. Loaded Questioner! May I have your attention
for a moment?
>Is it possible that there might be a few enlightened strayt
>men around who are infinitly more clued in than the most
>uninformed dyke on the block?
Is it possible there might be a few enlightened white men
around who are infinitely more clued in about being black
than the most uninformed African-American man on the block?
"Infinitely more clued in." Barforama!
Is there a useful distinction between what's (just barely)
possible and what (usually) obtains, the latter being the
presumed domain of discourse?
>>Anyway, if you go back to the original point, I was saying
>>that it is often quite obvious what the race and/or gender
>>of a poster is from the contents of the article and from
>>the choice of language. I wasn't addressing the issue of
>>whether or not this is a good thing.
>Am I the only one who finds this sentiment disturbing and
>quite bigoted in its own right?
Likely you aren't. Do you find your sentiment any less so?
But go back to what Melinda actually said and try again,
please. You don't think it's (often, ever, whatever you
think) possible to tell a writer's point of view from the
things coded into what they say?
I mean, from what you write I can easily guess that you're
one of those cheery, whispy-haired strawberry blonds with a
big laugh, a sly twinkle in your eye, a kind and gentle
spirit, an on-purpose pain in the ass, and *totally* full of
bullshit (meant as an affectionate compliment, of course).
<> The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say
<> you cannot do.
Mara Chibnik
>|> > I'm more inclined to let someone's words speak for themselves
>|> and
>|> > not worry about their sex and color.
sh...@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
>|> I wish it were that simple. If you were to say, for example,
>|> that what a straight man has to say about lesbians is as
>|> valid as what a lesbian has to say about lesbians, I'd have
>|> to disagree with you.
port...@tweezers.esd.sgi.com (Michael Portuesi) writes:
>I'd be inclined to say that this point is moot, since it
>is pretty improbable that a straight man will have anything
>relevant to say about lesbians in the first place.
Straight men, however, may believe otherwise. In fact, there's
evidence that many *do* believe otherwise. Which (I suspect) is
what Melinda is talking about.
>We have always claimed that we are experts on our own
>experience. If we make that claim (as just about every
>oppressed group I've ever seen has done), we also have
>to subscribe to the notion that our statements will retain
>their relevance and be recognizable as authoritative in an
>environment where people who do not have those same
>experiences attempt to comment on them.
I'm not exactly sure whether it's my reaction to reading "we have to
subscribe to the notion..." or something else, but I'm not sure that
I understand how this fits into the context of this discussion.
We make that claim precisely because it is so widely contested:
because determinations are made constantly by "majority" people
about supposed truths about all people. Even some people who will
allow (irony alert: so gracious of them!) that each of us may best
know the details of what we've lived will argue that we misinterpret
these details.
Example: I had email from a TS friend recently who is regularly
subjected to comments from a family member about how god doesn't
make mistakes, and that the feelings of gender dysphoria are the TSs
cross to bear. The family member doesn't seem to have considered
that accepting the TS's feelings and self-description (etc.) might
possibly be the family member's cross to bear...
And this one leaves me completely mystified:
>Plain and simply put, what a straight man has to say about
>lesbians is not as important as what a lesbian has to say
>about lesbians, and that should be obvious no matter
>what we know about the authors of the posts.
Sure-- but it isn't always clear here who's a woman, let alone a
lesbian. It was suggested that using more ambiguous IDs would be a
good thing because it would make more of these details impossible to
determine. I think, sadly, that it would cause more people, in
more cases, to assume that the authors are white men, but not-- in
soc.motss-- straight white men.
--
Mara Chibnik
ma...@panix.com Life is too important to be taken seriously.
Michael Thomas
|> port...@tweezers.esd.sgi.com (Michael Portuesi) writes:
|> >I'd be inclined to say that this point is moot, since it
|> >is pretty improbable that a straight man will have anything
|> >relevant to say about lesbians in the first place.
|>
|> Straight men, however, may believe otherwise. In fact, there's
|> evidence that many *do* believe otherwise. Which (I suspect) is
|> what Melinda is talking about.
Yeah, usually to the effect of "all they need is a good man..."
Blecht.
Jake Coughlin
> I'd be inclined to say that this point is moot, since it
> is pretty improbable that a straight man will have anything
> relevant to say about lesbians in the first place.
actually overheard from a group of strayt boyz:
"she disted me totally. she must be a lezzie."
"why do [lesbians] cut their hair and dress like that? it's so
unattractive."
*you* were saying?
--
Jason Coughlin ( ja...@ralvmm.vnet.ibm.com )
Queer Without A Cause!
"I find myself suddenly in the world, and I recognize that I have one
right alone: that of demanding human behavior of the other." -- Fanon