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

On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Dave Rolsky wrote:

[snip]
> Being quiet and not being hostile are two entirely different things.

Sometimes being quiet is being hostile to those who least deserve it.

> I think being outright hostile (in return to hostility) is likely to
> alienate third parties, yes.

Depends *which* third parties. I'm still unclear why *kendall's*
alienation of homophobes is so very bad.

>  And I think this is an important
> consideration.  I think this is especially important since I can't see any
> particular benefits to being hostile here.

Note, you don't see the benefits of *any response at all*. Given that
there are third parties who are *not* homophobic, who might be supported
or encouraged by a vigorous (even if non-hostile) response, I'm very
unclear why you think the *best* response is ignoring him. No "best given
one's energy", but best period (which you've surely argued at some
points).

If third party *homophobes* are worth such consideration, aren't the
non-homophobes worth even more? You *may* want to argue that the benefits
to the good guys are minimal, but you surely *haven't* yet. And I don't
see that you've entered them into your calcuations.

> Being quiet, on the other hand, is different.

Yes. It's often hostile to the *wrong people*.

>  If you (or anyone) has a
> response to Uncle Bob that is not hostile and you're willing to put the
> energy into crafting it, I'm all for it.

But better quiet than *risk* offending the homophobes?

Dave, we had this same dispute over racism.

[snip]
> > 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 agree.  There'd be no point in CC'ing a large group about such a thing,
> Doing so would probably make it seem less sincere to the recipient, I'd
> think.  It'd feel more like an outing and attempt to publically embarass
> the recipient rather than an offer of help.

But this just raises the very interesing question, what to do if the
situation is ambiguous?

Can one fruitfully combine the "taunt" and the "offer of help" usefully?

Cheers,
Bijan.