Two tactics [was Re: Is this anti-homophobia tactic sound?]

On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Kendall Clark wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 02:05:07AM -0000, Miguel Ramos muttered something about:
> > 
> > I agree mostly with Dave Rolsky when he makes the point that it is immoral,
> > and underline where he says "hypothetical homosexuality".
> 
> What's immoral? I didn't see that point made about anything.
[snip]

I think there's some confusion, aided by myself, as to which tactic is
under discussion. That, plus the confusion added by the radical
differences just a little shift in some of the parameters of the tactic,
has left us making somewhat uneven progress in this discussion.

So, really, there are a bunch of different varients at hand, but they
break into two rough categories:

1) Manipulating the homophobia of a gay basher.
2) Trying to talk sincerely and offer a place where a person dealing with
serious repression might find some safety.

Note how these are *not* mutually exclusive, i.e, one could manipulate the
homophobia of a repressed person.

David introduces a third consideration, perhaps:

3) Being quiet or "non-hostile" *seeming* to avoid alienating third
parties.

I'm not sure that this is a tactic *per se*, although it seems to be an
almost overriding consideration for David.

----

Of course the circumstances matter a lot. If Uncle Bob really is sorta
desparately reaching out, then one would want to be *very careful* not to
scare him off. I don't think Kendall's draft did a *particularly* good job
of that, but let's amend it a bit:

"Dear Uncle Bob:

	Your note in response to our article was extremely hostile, but in
a peculiar kind of way. In my experience, such notes are a good sign of
someone struggling hard with their own, very strong, homosexual
inclinations. If this is the case for you, I just want you to know, in all
sincerity, that I'd like to help. I can connect you with folks, recommend
books, or just talk about it.

Cheers,
..."

----

On the other hand, if Bob is just a straight bigot, this probably won't
have any of the "silencing" that the more agressive version would. If,
unlike Kendall, one thinks that it's highly likely that Bob is just a
basher, his tactic might not make much sense.

Furthermore, I would expect that kendall would/should send the above style
note directly to Bob and not to the list. (Note: he *didn't* send it to
the list, *per se*. So he's not actually *done* anything yet :)))

----

I really have to dig up my Mohr and think some more (so to speak) about
outing in general. In a weird way, the "reverse bash" technique is a form
of outing.

Hmm. I don't recall Mohr discussing this particular issue, per se. Anyone
know of anything about the "reverse bash"?

Cheers,
Bijan.