Re: Is this anti-homophobia tactic sound?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia-vEoVa6Jh+/J4piUD7e9S/[email protected]>
To: <bonobos-4GNy1lrxftmrG/[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 1:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Bonobos] 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.

That bugs me too!
Should we restrain hostility because it might turn reachable people off? What I
think is that the answer slipped slightly into bashing, which is a form of
violence... That is what is not very good.

I think some kind of hostility to such a posting had to be somehow demonstrated,
even if the author simply did it because of the old habit of doing so outside,
or even if he was only testing, to see what answer he would get...

(...)

> 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?

(...)

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

Now, this would be for that particular posting, a very good answer, don't you
think?
This would probably have been the most suited answer!


Miguel