Re: Is this anti-homophobia tactic sound?

On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Dave Rolsky wrote:

> On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Bijan Parsia wrote:
[snip]
> > I'm still lost on what's *wrong* with the hostility. If it's hostile
> > *about gaybashing*, that's one thing. An ok thing. I'm very hostile to gay
> > bashing. Frankly, unless "Uncle Bob" showed some remorse or engagement, i
> > think being hostile to *him* is just fine.
> 
> What's wrong with hostility is that it has the potential to turn off
> people more reachable than Uncle Bob.

Ok. This is definitely part of your general methodology that, well, bugs
me. I wish you'd make that more explicit.

After all, there's a vast difference between risking turning off Uncle
Bob, turning off me, turning off you, turning off timid folks on bonobos,
turning off gay activists one might wish to ally with, etc. etc.

And the degree of risk can vary widely.

So, if you want to avoid torquing me off, I think that being more explicit
on the actual risk of doing what to whom you think is at stake would be a
fruitful tactic.

>  Uncle Bob seems to be mostly a lost
> cause.

Now *that's* interesting. Why do you think that? Kendall obviously
*doesn't*. Indeed, not writing off Uncle Bob is seems to be his main
motivation.

If it's true that folks like Uncle Bob are likely to be gay, isn't it very
homophobic to write them off as lost causes? Shouldn't we be willing to
risk a little to help them?

>  But perhaps there are other people who would find Kendall's
> response inappropriate and thus not want to listen to him further on the
> issue.

Because of his perceived homophobia? But that indicates that they're
likely to be relatively non-homphobic, so that seems ok. They'll read
other folks and Uncle Bob still gets some attention.

>  Or worse, they might want to discuss the issue (homophobia)
> further at all.  I think that the potential losses here are greater than
> the potential gains.

You really need to specify the hypothetical a bit better.

But, in any case, it's not the potentials alone that should govern,
yes? I.e., if the gain isn't that great but the loss isn't likely...why
not?

Plus, I'm not clear that you've separated the tactic from the particularly
draft/instance kendall presented. After all, as he said, this was a
draft. do you think the *tactic* is irredeamable? Care to try a draft that
did better?

> > > Hostile isn't necessarily bad in and of itself, but in this case I don't
> > > think its a good tactic.
> >
> > Well, I think if Kendall was evidencing hostility toward *gays* generally,
> > that would be bad. You've not convinced me that that's so.
> 
> I wasn't trying to convince you Kendall was being generally hostile
> towards gays.

I didn't say you were.

>  I think we can both agree that Kendall is not generally
> hostile to gays.  In fact, we agreed to that in our last exchange.

My point is that I'm unclear at who you think Kendall is hostile *to* such
that it is bad. As far as I can tell, the people you fear for are the
quieter homophobes. *That* confuses me.

Plus, I'm confused as to why the homophobes would be "turned off" by
kendall's apparent hostility toward a gay person. They seem much more
likely to be turned off by his hostility to a gay basher.

"Dear Uncle Bob: You are a homophobic slimeball. Evil on a BarBQ. Grow up
and grab a brain."

Now, would you have condemned that too? *As strongly*?

> > > As to
> > > the first, it certainly didn't seem apparent to me from reading Kendall's
> > > response.  It seemed like the taunt was about the fact that Uncle Bob
> > > might be gay.
> >
> > Is this specific to Kendall's actually note, or a fact about the
> > tactic? That's something I'd like to keep separate.
> 
> I'm not sure.  Maybe if I read a range of possible responses along similar
> lines I could figure out if it was the tactic or this one response.

Please generate some. Generate some with an eye to making it work. If you
fail, at least we will have learned something.

> I think the tactic itself makes me fairly uncomfortable for reasons I
> already discussed.

No, that won't due. Kendall brought the whole thing in because it made
*him* somewhat uncomfortable. But I really am not clear (as should be
clear) why *you're* uncomfortable. (Heck, I bet *you* aren't clear :)).

Maybe you should start afresh, so the baggage of past statements doesn't
interfere?

[snip]
> But I think this is a very personal issue in terms of how one approaches
> activism in general and varies quite a bit from person to person.  If you
> honestly think this is a good way to spend your energy, then I sincerely
> wish you good luck.  And if you had success, I'd sincerely congratulate
> you (hell, I'd be in awe of you!).

Ok. Thanks.

May I suggest that when you criticize those of us that engage in these
tactics that you be a bit more, well, tactful :) You *are* supposed to be
the tactful one after all.

(I remember your response to Nader's Big Chance. You started off with a
paragraph that basically, intentionally or not, insinuated that I made
certain claims to be "trendy" or "more pc than thou". You then retracted
that. Here again you made a wildly overblown charge that turns out, you
claim, to be merely a bit of mistaken word choice. I'll buy that, but I
also think you consistently do this. It's worth thinking about, IMHO.)

> > I don't see how you can wiggle out of this one. Really. You pretty much
> > said that kendall would have been embracing homophobia and indulging in
> > some gay bashing.
> 
> I think you're engaging in some rather creative interpretation of my
> original response.

It's what it *seemed* to me! It's how I thought third parties would see
it.

>  I did not mean to suggest, either overtly or covertly,
> that Kendall was indulging in gay bashing.

I didn't say you meant to. I said that you *did*. Or, at least, you
*seemed* to. 

Take that criticism in *exactly* the way you intended yours. If it still
bugs you, you may want to reconsider yours.

>  And as I said, embracing was
> the wrong word to use.

Well, I bashed "validating" too :)

But, y'know, it's not just the word, but the tone. You may not agree.

> I _did_ mean to say that I thought Kendall's response could be viewed, by
> a third party, as homophobic,

And if the third party is mildly homophobic, won't that mean that they're
more likely to listen to kendall?

> because it engaged Uncle bob on his own
> terms.

Are we to give up *reductios* in general?

>  I think it is an inappropriate and unhelpful response for that
> reason, but I don't think that means Kendall is a raging homophobe, just
> that that particular response would be easily read in a way other than
> what was intended.

Since you read it, easily, that way, I grant the truth of that. I'm still
unclear on the general harm.

"Folks, as supporter of gay rights, I use this tactic in the manner and
spirit of various gay activist groups." Would that be enough disclaimer?

But if kendall is truely trying to engage Bob, then that disclaimer is way
inappropriate, yes?

Of course, kendall's *intent* suggests that he should have sent the
message directly and privately. With maybe a slightly different note to
the list.

> I just read Kendall's message explaining why he would use such a response,
> and it was very interesting and, I believe, quite sincere.  But I think
> that without that accompanying explanation, its very hard to see his good
> intentions, particularly for the intended recipient (Uncle Bob).

I'm completely unclear why perceiving the good intentions matters.

[snip]
> If I know you're very sensitive about the size of your nose and I start
> making comments about your nose, isn't that a taunt?

Not necessarily.

>  I may have no
> particular dislike of your big nose but if I can make use of _your_
> feelings to taunt you, right?

But you've slide from "making comments" (for a variety of reasons) to
*taunting*. "I see you're very sensitive about your nose, but I rather
admire it." *I know people who get upset by that.* But surely it's not a
taunt when sincerely meant and uttered in reasonable contexts. It *could*
be a taunt, but that's a separate issues.

>  That doesn't mean that I actually care
> about nose size, but I'm engaging you on your terms and therefore giving
> the appearance of caring about nose size.

Irrelevant.

> > No, you said that you can't imagine why kendall would have thought his
> > response would come off as sincere. Well, how about because it *was*
> > sincerely made? If so, the idea that it *was* a taunt is out the window
> > (though it might be *read* by Bob as such, but that's part of *his*
> > problem/homophobia, yes?)
> 
> I couldn't imagine that Kendall would have thought that his response would
> come off as sincere to Uncle Bob.  That was my point.

Well, what you said seemed very strongly to suggest otherwise. Given what
it seemed, wasn't my response approriate?

But why can't you so imagine. It's apparently the case.

> > Ok, that's somewhat clearer. But what exactly is the problem? (not
> > suggesting there isn't one, but trying to nail it down):
> >
> > 1) It's a bit of expressed homophobia (but put to a good cause?)
> > 2) It's likely to harm Bob qua gay man (reverse bash)
> > 3) It's likely to harm Bob qua straight homophobe (I don't care)
> > 4) It's likely to harm gays on the list (sorta "collateral damage")
> > 5) It's likely to harm gays generally (by reinforcing homophobia)
> > 6) It'd be ok if Kendall were gay, regardless of these other factors (this
> > is possible)
> > 7) It'd be ok if Kendall were gay, but because that'd mitigate these other
> > factors.
> 
> I'd say my discomfort with Kendall's response as a potential tactic was
> because of #'s 1, 4, 5, and maybe 6/7.

Ok, that's at least concrete. I'd be shocked if use of this tactic on
*bonobos* was likely to cause much overall damage, particularly in the
"aid and comfort of homophobes" category. But I may be mistaken.

I take it that most of these would go away if Kendall sent it privately?

>  In regards to #'s 6 and 7, both
> Kellan and your reponses have made me think about my original statement
> that it would be okay for gays, but not for straights.  Obviously, that
> kind of thinking opens a huge can of worms.  There's a slippery slope in
> either direction.

Hmm. So, what do you think about outing in general? Outing only people who
are actively harmful to gays (e.g., anti-gay-rights activists who are
secretly gay)? 

> Suffice it to say, if a gay man were to use that tactic I'd probably be
> less likely to criticize, if only on the theory that as someone who is a
> direct victim of the particular oppression being fought that they deserve
> even more of the benefit of the doubt.
> 
> Of course, blindly assuming that Kendall is straight is completely
> homophobic on my part.

And you did it twice, actually. Once for the message to Uncle Bob (where
you *literally* put words in kendall's mouth, even if he's straight), and
once for the surrounding message (which, erhm, is a pretty good guess
since he said he was :)).

> > >  But I think that this
> > > particular tactic just sends the wrong message (for reasons I've discussed
> > > above).
> >
> > To whom?
> 
> To third parties who might be in 'hearing range'.  I discussed this a bit
> above.

Yes, but not, to my ears, fully coherently. I think there's a point to be
made here, but I'm not clear on all the details.

[snip]
> > "You know, people who mock gays are often repressing the fact that they're
> > gay. Maybe you should explore that side of you. I stand in support of that
> > exploration."
> 
> I guess I'm a cynic but I can't see how Kendall (or anyone) could say that
> to someone with an attitude like Uncle Bob's and not expect to sound
> taunting.  Maybe with the explanation it would sound better.

Eww, no. Er..or, with what explanation? If uncle bob is really under huge
psychological strain, sometimes a straightforward offer can cause the damn
to burst. If he's just a scumjerk, then who cares if he's taunted? And if
the harm is to third parties, surely only *they* have to think Kendall
sincere. Why wouldn't they?

> > I mean, at least kendall tried something. Where was *your* response to
> > Uncle Bob? Or, for that matter, to the fundies?
> 
> See above.  For me, I don't really see a lot of value to directly engaging
> every crazy and fundie that I come across.  In this case, Uncle Bob was
> simply trying to get a rise out of the list.  Why humor him?

Hmm. Because letting statements like his go unanswered is to be somewhat
complicit in them? Sure, maybe we can't do *everyone* one, but it's not
like Bob's was in a *flood*.

> > So, dave, what's your alternative response? How do *you* handle Uncle
> > Bob? Hell, we still haven't dealt with him, and you, for one, have
> > provided nothing positive (not that one necessarily has to, in order to
> > criticize). So, show us how!
> 
> My suggestion would be that in the context of this email list he should
> simply be ignored.  There are only so many hours in the day and only so
> much energy in a body.  There's a lot of people out there who act in ways
> that oppresive to others who are _much_ more receptive to education.

Aren't we tacitly endorsing him? Or saying we're afraid of him? Or
tacitily giving comfort to the homophobes who agree with him? Or losing
opportunities to help change the minds of fence straddlers?

I mean, once we get this consequentialist, I don't see how you're going to
come out *clearly* ahead. We take chances in everything.

[snip]
> For me, a short list of imperfect people who are receptive to change
> includes my friends, my family, the people I work with, people with whom I
> engage on other topics (such as at a programmer's conference), and last
> but not definitely not least, myself.

Er...but we write Monkeyfist to reach a wider audience. We should have
strategies for dealing with them.

> All of the people in that list are _far_ more likely to listen to me when
> I talk about homophobia, racism, sexism, or animal rights.  And some of
> them have even ended up changing their minds.  I just don't see that
> progress with Uncle Bob is possible in the context of this email list.

But the mailing list is somehow strangely effective to all the third
parties?

Dave, you've been on the list a while. You've seen kendall and me and
others respond to swamps of hate mail (mostly due to election
coverage). You've see us tame some and sink energy into naught with
others. *In that context* we were discussion this tactic. So your list is
almost completely irrelevant!

Plus, your list is the "soft targets", who must simultaneously not be
antagonized into pigheadness...I can understand *your* not wanting to
spend energy otherwise, but why are you so *vehament* against others who
choose differently?

Cheers,
Bijan.