perceptions of bigotry--inquiry

[Tiassa]

Ideally, I would start this discussion with Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, except I choose in this event to respect the author's admonition found in the opening pages. Such issues, I can imagine, a bright man would foresee.

It sometimes happens that people assert that such a story is not meant for high school or junior high instruction; this took place one town over from where I went to high school; it seems some people were distressed that the any use of certain words constituted a racist intent.

But, respecting the author, I am now left without an example. Thus, a thin comparison offered for your perusal.

The issue at hand: Do either of these songs constitute bigotry?

* I do not listen to Eminem. That is, I go so far as to change the channel when I hear him on the radio. (That actually applies to a lot of musicians for many reasons; in this case, personally, I think his music lacks quality for a number of reasons not connected to his alleged "politics", which happen to be in question.) Thus, I suppose what I disclaim here is that I am only using his lyrics here because they have received some recent attention in relation to issues of bigotry.

* http://www.lyrixengine.com/browse.pl/cat.131/s.Eminem/song.2841/n.Criminal/lyrics.html

I disclaim virtually nothing about the second lyric, penned and performed by John Lennon. Rather, I'm quite sure that I cannot predict the issues which I would hope to shield myself from, so there's no point in trying.

* http://www.tacoshell.com/entomology/beatleg/discs/stinnyc.htm#lyr1-0

Of late, I've been dwelling on a notion that Bowser has espoused in other threads; that "equality" should favor one labeled group over another, and that the "unequal" or "minority" group is somehow "bigoted" if they wish to correct that. That I hear this sentiment at all does not surprise me within the Exosci sphere; it is a common attitude of recent years among American conservatives.

Thus, does the fact that an author, such as Alice Walker, is black imply that they "cannot be racist" (a charge leveled by the infamous Dr Leonard Jeffries)? Does one's "blackness" exclude one from being labled a racist when one uses the "N-word"? Or does the author's treatment of the word somehow put its use into context so that the reader might determine why it is present, and what relation it has to the story? (I so badly want to ask the same questions about Twain, but ....)

Take bigotry out of it for a moment: Is Salinger's Catcher in the Rye "profane" simply because it contains scenes of excessive alcohol use? Because it contains bad language or scenes involving a prostitute? Is it homophobic because of two scenes reflecting negative sentiment toward homosexuality? Does the simple presence of an idea, term, or other abstract entity define the nature of its presence?

What do we find objectionable about kids reading swear words? Is that idea enacted when character/narrator Caulfield laments about the possibility of the words "F--k You!" being scrawled on his headstone in red crayon?

What is objectionable about youth reading about alcoholism? Does the scene where Caulfield drunkenly harasses a former girlfriend over the phone "encourage" alcohol use?

What do we find objectionable about the presentation of prostitution? Does the thoroughly negative experience of the character not count for something in our assessment of the details?

Do quiet implications of gang-rape, or the idea of a teacher making a student nervous through physical contact slander homosexuality? Or does the story convey something--to borrow a term from the courts--"redeeming"?

For the record, I would raise the issue that no, Catcher is not a "dangerous" book in any sense. Perhaps in its sympathy to conflict, but that's an even-more subjective issue, I think. But I see a gaggle of important issues presented by the writer which can become lost if we choose to focus merely on the appearance of swear words, or of subject matter we deem "inappropriate" without considering the absract details.

Likewise, I wonder about bigotry.

Does the presence of the word "nigger" or "faggot" or "bitch" or "kike" or "spick" or ... (make your own list, if you like) ... instantly make an idea, a story, an abstraction, a song ... a subjective entity ... bigoted?

It seems as good a place to start as any.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet. (Khaavren of Castlerock)

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited February 05, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited February 05, 2001).]

 

[Tiassa]

I apologize. I have tried four times to fix the links in the above post, but something about--I think--the computer I'm using is making the same mistake over and over and over again. I'll try to correct it again later, but I'm at work now, so ... (apologies)

Edit: (Later) Ha! It really was something messed up about my work computer; I couldn't take out an extraneous space.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet. (Khaavren of Castlerock)

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited February 05, 2001).]

 

[Bowser]

"Does the presence of the word "nigger" or "faggot" or "bitch" or "kike" or "spick" or ... (make your own list, if you like) ... instantly make an idea, a story, an abstraction, a song ... a subjective entity ... bigoted?"

Maybe it is better to start with the definition of the word "biggot." My understanding of the word is that a biggot is one who holds absolute his own views.

Abstractions are ideas... It's content has no physical force to impose beliefs on others, it only opens the door for their observation. Do you believe that?

This one looks interesting, Tiassa.



------------------
It's all very large.

 

[Tiassa]

Bowser--

Do you remember learning the word, "Prejudice" in schools? If I judge by your prior answers, you never had any kids who suffered from this social malady, and thus never learned the word. That aside, do you remember hearing people say that someone is "prejudiced against" something? The word "prejudice" became a negative word because that's how it was represented.

However, if you prefer vanilla ice cream to chocolate ice cream, that is a prejudice. Quite simply, I would ask: Are you sure you've tried every chocolate ice cream in the world?

If not, you're prejudiced.

Now ... stop nitpicking. I understand well if you don't have an answer, but stop trying to sound charming; it doesn't work.

Abstractions are ideas... It's content has no physical force to impose beliefs on others, it only opens the door for their observation.

Now this, indeed, is a statement to work with. I believe we'll find common ground there. Since you've warp-sped past a couple of the argumentative signposts, I will ask you, then, at what point those abstractions become real and tangible. At what point do abstractions acquire physical force?

Let's drag out ol' Mr Twain: Does the use of the word "nigger" constitute a racist book as alleged by various members of the African-American civil rights community over the years?

Mr Salinger? Does the scene in which Holden Caulfield attempts to hire a prostitute constitute misogyny?

Ms Harper Lee? Hey, the accused rapist was a black man.

Mostly what I'm looking for in the long run, Bowser, is the transition from our own internalized prejudice into open, operative bigotry at the legislative level.

In the meantime, are you attempting to restore dictionaries as our standard?

Look, just because you don't want to be the only bigot in denial at this board doesn't mean the rest of us haven't gotten used to dealing with our own shortcomings. Doesn't mean we have, either.

If I recall, those who wanted to keep school prayer out of schools in the 1990's were anti-Christian bigots. If I recall, those who wanted to stop censorship based on outdated religious standards (in a country where censorship is against the law), were bigots. If I recall, people with dark skin, according to my local political arena as recently as 1999, were bigots.

Have your dictionary defintion, Bowser. I approve. Now, let me guess: things are just fine on the social front, and there are no issues of bigotry to settle?

I was hoping to find a way to identify a few principles of human conduct in order to explore your seemingly sad defense of legalized homophobia, censorship, and hatred that you expressed in our other topics of debate. However, I see that will be a little more difficult than I had planned.

In the meantime, go on trying to blanche the negative aspects of society. Go on; our Revolutionary Americans were bigoted against the English. By your expressed reckoning, there never was an issue, everyone was bigoted, and the Revolution should never have happened. That's right, Bowser: go on and try to raise the status of a Lon Mabon or a De la Beckwith to equal that of people who gave their efforts for the good of the many.

I mean, Mother Teresa was a horrible bigot, y'know?

When you get past the idea that we're all bigots in our own way, and start examining the notion of how those bigotries affect our selves within the larger context of the Universe around us, let me know. In the meantime, I'll just sit in my corner and wonder if you're ever going to do much more than defend, deny, and duck.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
No, don't seek control, and the milk of heaven will flow. Why would you want to keep it from anyone? (Floater)

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited February 12, 2001).]

 

[Boris]

Bowser,

Just a quickie observation: I couldn't help but notice how you misspelled "biggot" in a way that is rather close to "faggot". An innocent mistake, or is there some undercurrent to it?

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

 

[Bowser]

"Now ... stop nitpicking. I understand well if you don't have an answer, but stop trying to sound charming; it doesn't work."

Charming? No, no, no. I thought it best to start from the definition of "bigot" and "bigotry." If we are going to examine words and their intent, giving them labels, then we should first define the label.

"I will ask you, then, at what point those abstractions become real and tangible. At what point do abstractions acquire physical force?"

It depends on the individual recieving the message and the power of delivery.

"Let's drag out ol' Mr Twain: Does the use of the word "nigger" constitute a racist book as alleged by various members of the African-American civil rights community over the years?"

I don't think the use of the word implies that Twain was a racist. Show me a passage.

"Mr Salinger? Does the scene in which Holden Caulfield attempts to hire a prostitute constitute misogyny?"

Possibly, but it might imply many other possibilities.

"Mostly what I'm looking for in the long run, Bowser, is the transition from our own internalized prejudice into open, operative bigotry at the legislative level."

It comes about when the values of others enter our lives in a manner which is intrusive and contradictory to our own beliefs.

"In the meantime, are you attempting to restore dictionaries as our standard?"

I suppose I should write my own. Everyone else is taking an active role in creating words and definitions. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

"Look, just because you don't want to be the only bigot in denial at this board doesn't mean the rest of us haven't gotten used to dealing with our own shortcomings. Doesn't mean we have, either."

I never made any claim that I was NOT a bigot. Yes, Tiassa, by definition, I am a bigot.

"If I recall, those who wanted to keep school prayer out of schools in the 1990's were anti-Christian bigots. If I recall, those who wanted to stop censorship based on outdated religious standards (in a country where censorship is against the law), were bigots. If I recall, people with dark skin, according to my local political arena as recently as 1999, were bigots."

By definition, yes, they are. In my new thesaurus, you will also find its synonyms: radical, extremist, zealot, etc.

"Have your dictionary defintion, Bowser. I approve. Now, let me guess: things are just fine on the social front, and there are no issues of bigotry to settle?"

Show me a real problem that deserves my sympathy, Tiassa. I might join the fight if it looks worthy of the effort. I won't demand social change for the benefit those who have empty complaints.

"I was hoping to find a way to identify a few principles of human conduct in order to explore your seemingly sad defense of legalized homophobia, censorship, and hatred that you expressed in our other topics of debate. However, I see that will be a little more difficult than I had planned."

"legalized homophobia, legalized homophobia, legalized homophobia, legalized homophobia, legalized homophobia..." When was an opinion made illegal?

"In the meantime, go on trying to blanche the negative aspects of society."

Trying? It's in progress right now. For the next four years, I'm right. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

"When you get past the idea that we're all bigots in our own way, and start examining the notion of how those bigotries affect our selves within the larger context of the Universe around us, let me know. In the meantime, I'll just sit in my corner and wonder if you're ever going to do much more than defend, deny, and duck."

Take a break, Tiassa. Leave the social order to me and mine. Then again, I would hope that you are not so easy.



------------------
It's all very large.

 

[Bowser]

Boris,

It's very simple, I can't spell very well, and I'm sloppy. Maybe I had a bad fall as a child. I dunno...<img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

------------------
It's all very large.

 

[Tiassa]

Bowser--

Charming? No, no, no. I thought it best to start from the definition of "bigot" and "bigotry." If we are going to examine words and their intent, giving them labels, then we should first define the label.

Good for you, sweetheart. That's the point. That's why I mentioned ice cream, but you seem to find that irrelevant even in its most abstract implications.

We're not playing dodge-ball, Bowser. And we're not disco dancing. What, then, is this sidestepping?

"I will ask you, then, at what point those abstractions become real and tangible. At what point do abstractions acquire physical force?"

It depends on the individual recieving the message and the power of delivery.

Good. Remember that for many future debates. At least we're seeing some similar aspects. Strangely, though, you're still skipping points.

If I feel that "Niggers and faggots and Kikes don't belong in America," that is an abstraction. Now, when does that abstraction become tangible? I can get myself a sawed-off, 21-oz. pool cue and make it very tangible when I put that cue through someone's face for their skin color, ethnicity, or perceived lack of heterosexuality. But aside from that, what about that sentiment actually affects another person?

"Let's drag out ol' Mr Twain: Does the use of the word "nigger" constitute a racist book as alleged by various members of the African-American civil rights community over the years?"

I don't think the use of the word implies that Twain was a racist. Show me a passage.

I should have figured you went to a school that never read Huck Finn. For reasons best expressed by Mr Twain, I generally don't quote Huck Finn. If you read the book, you'd know why.

Hence the John Lennon lyrics. They're the best surrogate I can find. Is the phrase, "Woman is the nigger of the world" a racist or sexist remark reflecting long-standing bigotries in society--which is comparable, imho, to claiming the same of the use of the word "nigger" in Twain--or are these lyrics not?

"Mr Salinger? Does the scene in which Holden Caulfield attempts to hire a prostitute constitute misogyny?"

Possibly, but it might imply many other possibilities.

Good. Are you boxing? Bob and weave?

"In the meantime, are you attempting to restore dictionaries as our standard?"

I suppose I should write my own. Everyone else is taking an active role in creating words and definitions

Actually, Bowser, go ahead. It will make it much easier to have no issues separating people when we establish that the beady-eyed Grand Wizard on Jerry Springer is morally comparable to Mother Teresa. When bigots like Martin Luther King are knocked down off their pedestal and held in equal regard to someone like Mabon.

I love your paranoid-conservative writhing. If nothing else, it's performance art that demonstrates the hollow end of conservative bigotry: you have no real answers, and never have.

"Look, just because you don't want to be the only bigot in denial at this board doesn't mean the rest of us haven't gotten used to dealing with our own shortcomings. Doesn't mean we have, either."

I never made any claim that I was NOT a bigot. Yes, Tiassa, by definition, I am a bigot.

You're right, Bowser. You've merely claimed that your bigotry is so important in the world that other people have to be excluded from society in order to respect your "right" to be one. There's two whole threads full o'that.

"If I recall, those who wanted to keep school prayer out of schools in the 1990's were anti-Christian bigots. If I recall, those who wanted to stop censorship based on outdated religious standards (in a country where censorship is against the law), were bigots. If I recall, people with dark skin, according to my local political arena as recently as 1999, were bigots."

By definition, yes, they are. In my new thesaurus, you will also find its synonyms: radical, extremist, zealot, etc.

Bowser, the one thing you're forgetting here is that in the conservative case, the bigots, radicals, extremists, and zealots wanted to hurt people.

So what you're asserting then, is that the following two people are bigoted:

* Joe the Conservative: If I can't take away your rights through censorship and civil rights exclusions, my rights are being violated by bigots.

* Jack the Liberal: I don't care what you think, and what you say is something between us. But you cannot make a law censoring people and stripping their civil rights, merely because you think you're right.

Consider this, if you've got the depth:

What you are saying, then, is that, Yes, people who dislike faggots because their Bible tells them so are bigots.

What you are also saying is that Yes, people who believe in equality are bigots, and no better than the exclusionists they oppose.

That's what it reads like, Bowser. And it's also very, very wrong.

"Have your dictionary defintion, Bowser. I approve. Now, let me guess: things are just fine on the social front, and there are no issues of bigotry to settle?"

Show me a real problem that deserves my sympathy, Tiassa. I might join the fight if it looks worthy of the effort. I won't demand social change for the benefit those who have empty complaints.

Well, Bowser, as I understand you, the only "real problem" that gets your sympathy is the horribly oppressed Christians in Oregon who are so bravely fighting the systematic rape of their heritage by the Evil Gays who (gasp!) merely want to be equal.

It would seem, then, that the only real problem deserving your sympathy is the one that allows you to teach your children that some people aren't worth respecting, and that the law should reflect that.

The only real problem you seem to care about is the idea that the world doesn't necessarily agree with you. The only solution you seem to find acceptable is that you should force the world to agree with you.

"I was hoping to find a way to identify a few principles of human conduct in order to explore your seemingly sad defense of legalized homophobia, censorship, and hatred that you expressed in our other topics of debate. However, I see that will be a little more difficult than I had planned."

"legalized homophobia, legalized homophobia, legalized homophobia, legalized homophobia, legalized homophobia..." When was an opinion made illegal?

Bowser, that's slicker than the usual fertilizer you spread. Go back and read the 10 years of Mabonian hatred in your own state. Maybe you don't realize it, but under his 1992 measure, violence against gay people would have been legally endorsed; no state employees was allowed to speak "on behalf" of gays. That someone was perceived as gay would be grounds to beat them senseless, or to death.

Think about it ... being unable to prosecute a beating or a murder because the state says these people are bad, and you have to leave your good citizens a means of protecting themselves. The "extreme homophobic reaction" defense would become legal on the grounds that no state office would be allowed to consider any counterpoint that might give the appearance of endorsing, encouraging, and whatnot.

That's the point of it, though. Without dumb laws like Mabon's, a certain set of opinions would, indeed, become legal. I suppose we should wait until Mabon wins, then, to complain? Hey, since it doesn't matter, should we not vote, then?

"In the meantime, go on trying to blanche the negative aspects of society."

Trying? It's in progress right now. For the next four years, I'm right.

We know how you feel about yourself, but how would that compare to the last four, or eight, or twelve or sixteen or twenty? In that sense, it seems you think the same of yourself today that you did yesterday. Or am I being too figurative for you?

"When you get past the idea that we're all bigots in our own way, and start examining the notion of how those bigotries affect our selves within the larger context of the Universe around us, let me know. In the meantime, I'll just sit in my corner and wonder if you're ever going to do much more than defend, deny, and duck."

Take a break, Tiassa. Leave the social order to me and mine. Then again, I would hope that you are not so easy.

Ooo! A compliment. I think.

Jeez, Bowser ... the social order has been in the hands of you and yours for quite a long time. If this weren't true, the words "liberty" and "equality" wouldn't be so damned exclusive. Let me guess ... it was the homosexual communists who, for instance, reduced two towns in the Bishopric of Trier to a single childbearing female inhabitant apiece. Oh, wait! It was Kramer and Sprenger, and their ilk, which, by social heritage, have become you and yours.

Let me guess, though ... just because we aren't torturing and killing our perceived undesirables in an open Inquisition, there's no need to worry?


--Tiassa

------------------
No, don't seek control, and the milk of heaven will flow. Why would you want to keep it from anyone? (Floater)

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited February 13, 2001).]

 

[Bowser]

Tiassa,

"Good for you, sweetheart. That's the point. That's why I mentioned ice cream, but you seem to find that irrelevant even in its most abstract implications."

Happy Valentines Day to you too. Now, let me have another look at your point.

<hr><font color = "red">"Do you remember learning the word, "Prejudice" in schools? If I judge by your prior answers, you never had any kids who suffered from this social malady, and thus never learned the word. That aside, do you remember hearing people say that someone is "prejudiced against" something? The word "prejudice" became a negative word because that's how it was represented.

However, if you prefer vanilla ice cream to chocolate ice cream, that is a prejudice. Quite simply, I would ask: Are you sure you've tried every chocolate ice cream in the world?

If not, you're prejudiced."<hr></font>

Your point looks a bit obscure.I'm not sure you have a point. It looks like you are saying that anyone with a preference is "prejudice" and "bigoted."

"We're not playing dodge-ball, Bowser. And we're not disco dancing. What, then, is this sidestepping?"

<font color = "red"><hr>"I will ask you, then, at what point those abstractions become real and tangible.</font>

<font color = "blue">It depends on the individual recieving the message and the power of delivery.<hr></font>

I thought that was a direct answer, but I will give it another shot. Ideas can create action. We could present the idea that those who don't like chocolate ice cream are bigots; and most certainly, others would take up our cause.

"Good. Remember that for many future debates. At least we're seeing some similar aspects. Strangely, though, you're still skipping points."

Oh, so you understood my reply. If it appears that I'm skipping points, I'm simply pressed for free time. Your posts usually require more time than others. That's a good thing, Tiassa.

"If I feel that "Niggers and faggots and Kikes don't belong in America," that is an abstraction. Now, when does that abstraction become tangible? I can get myself a sawed-off, 21-oz. pool cue and make it very tangible when I put that cue through someone's face for their skin color, ethnicity, or perceived lack of heterosexuality. But aside from that, what about that sentiment actually affects another person?"

Sentiments are more varied than those you have mentioned, Tiassa. Prejudice has no favorites. And I don't believe harm to others can be limited to only physical brutality. It's not so black and white, this thing you call tangible. There is a spectrum of possibilities to be considered here, an equation that evolves with time.
I better answer your question so you don't feel cheated.

"If I feel that "Niggers and faggots and Kikes don't belong in America," that is an abstraction. Now, when does that abstraction become tangible?"

When you turn that idea into action.

"I should have figured you went to a school that never read Huck Finn. For reasons best expressed by Mr Twain, I generally don't quote Huck Finn. If you read the book, you'd know why."

We read "Animal Farm." <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon12.gif">

"Hence the John Lennon lyrics. They're the best surrogate I can find. Is the phrase, "Woman is the nigger of the world" a racist or sexist remark reflecting long-standing bigotries in society..."

Used as a comparative. A conclussion that woman were of the same social status as blacks.

"Actually, Bowser, go ahead. It will make it much easier to have no issues separating people when we establish that the beady-eyed Grand Wizard on Jerry Springer is morally comparable to Mother Teresa. When bigots like Martin Luther King are knocked down off their pedestal and held in equal regard to someone like Mabon."

By definition, Tiassa.

"I love your paranoid-conservative writhing. If nothing else, it's performance art that demonstrates the hollow end of conservative bigotry: you have no real answers, and never have."

Well, I'm working within the confines of your questions, but I don't mind. Hey, Man...give me a label for this statement:

<font color = "red"><hr>"I love your paranoid-conservative writhing. If nothing else, it's performance art that demonstrates the hollow end of conservative bigotry: you have no real answers, and never have."<hr></font>

"You've merely claimed that your bigotry is so important in the world that other people have to be excluded from society in order to respect your "right" to be one. There's two whole threads full o'that."

No, I stated that I have an opinion which plays an active role in our society. In the past, I have stated that some sexual activity doesn't deserve minority status, my esteem, or the attention of my children. In short, Tiassa, I have expressed myself. Call me a bigot.<img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif">

"Bowser, the one thing you're forgetting here is that in the conservative case, the bigots, radicals, extremists, and zealots wanted to hurt people."

Let me reply with your own words:

<font color = "red"><hr>"...at what point those abstractions become real and tangible."<hr></font>

"So what you're asserting then, is that the following two people are bigoted: Joe... Jack..."

They have their own opinions, don't they? They might even be prejudice in favor of their own opinions.

"Consider this, if you've got the depth:

What you are saying, then, is that, Yes, people who dislike faggots because their Bible tells them so are bigots.

What you are also saying is that Yes, people who believe in equality are bigots, and no better than the exclusionists they oppose."

Most certainly, providing you don't soil your definition of the word with your own prejudice opinion.

"That's what it reads like, Bowser. And it's also very, very wrong."

"You sound like a Christian, Tiassa."

"Well, Bowser, as I understand you, the only "real problem" that gets your sympathy is the horribly oppressed Christians in Oregon who are so bravely fighting the systematic rape of their heritage by the Evil Gays who (gasp!) merely want to be equal.

It would seem, then, that the only real problem deserving your sympathy is the one that allows you to teach your children that some people aren't worth respecting, and that the law should reflect that.

The only real problem you seem to care about is the idea that the world doesn't necessarily agree with you. The only solution you seem to find acceptable is that you should force the world to agree with you."

Appearances can be decieving. My observation is that the hatred of homosexuals is more important to homosexuals and homophiles. I can't give your concern much respect when true pain is taking place at this time. Starve yourself for a several days; then tell me how concerned you are for those who demand my appreciation of their sexual diversity. Relative to real problems, Tiassa, I rank prejudice regarding homosexuality pretty low on my list of concerns. I don't see suffering there on a scale which isn't suffered by anyone else.

"Bowser, that's slicker than the usual fertilizer you spread. Go back and read the 10 years of Mabonian hatred in your own state. Maybe you don't realize it, but under his 1992 measure, violence against gay people would have been legally endorsed; no state employees was allowed to speak "on behalf" of gays. That someone was perceived as gay would be grounds to beat them senseless, or to death."

Tiassa, I will assume that that is a slanted view simply because you are not offering the text of that measure.

"Think about it ... being unable to prosecute a beating or a murder because the state says these people are bad, and you have to leave your good citizens a means of protecting themselves. The "extreme homophobic reaction" defense would become legal on the grounds that no state office would be allowed to consider any counterpoint that might give the appearance of endorsing, encouraging, and whatnot."

I doubt that was the intention, but I do understand that often the intent of such measures are aligned with of worst of some imaginations.

"That's the point of it, though. Without dumb laws like Mabon's, a certain set of opinions would, indeed, become legal. I suppose we should wait until Mabon wins, then, to complain? Hey, since it doesn't matter, should we not vote, then"

Complaint and political activity is your right. I would be disappointed if there was no opposition to these measures.

"Jeez, Bowser ... the social order has been in the hands of you and yours for quite a long time. If this weren't true, the words "liberty" and "equality" wouldn't be so damned exclusive. Let me guess ... it was the homosexual communists who, for instance, reduced two towns in the Bishopric of Trier to a single childbearing female inhabitant apiece. Oh, wait! It was Kramer and Sprenger, and their ilk, which, by social heritage, have become you and yours."

You're funny. I live here and now. Who is forcing change where I am concerned.

"Let me guess, though ... just because we aren't torturing and killing our perceived undesirables in an open Inquisition, there's no need to worry?"

So, homocide is a myth? Sheesh, I thought there were bodies in the streets and shool yards. What is that stentch. Oh, it BS.




------------------
It's all very large.

 

[Tiassa]

Bowser--

You're engaging in a classic conservative tactic. Admit the perceived fault, and minimize the fault. We're aware of dictionary definitions, but you seem to fail to realize why we identify bigotry and prejudice at all.

If I believe in the eternal goodness of humankind, and base all relevant moral decisions on that, I am a bigot.

If I believe in the eternal wickedness of dark-skinned humans, and base all relevant moral decisions on that, I am a bigot.

By equalizing bigotries, you are attempting to shake off the negative perception of what you advocate; in the case of Oregon's ballot measures, the stripping of people's civil rights in "defense" of your own.

By equalizing bigotries, you have implied that the effect of the work of Dr King is comparable in its merits and detriments to that of a Tom Metzger.

By equalizing bigotries, you have reduced the work of Mother Teresa to equal that of a dime-a-dozen jihad Muslim.

By equalizing bigotries, you have reduced the free speech rights of others to a grievous offense against your own ability to speak freely.

In none of these cases are your equalizations nearly correct.

By your argument, words such as "bigotry" and "prejudice" have no functional use outside academia. Thus, by your argument, the only people with a decent take on the functionality of bigotry are the academics; I must thank you for restoring to the professional thinkers the task of thinking about such things. Somebody want to e-mail Mabon? Lon, call off your purge! Bowser says there's no such thing as bigotry.

I thought that was a direct answer, but I will give it another shot. Ideas can create action. We could present the idea that those who don't like chocolate ice cream are bigots; and most certainly, others would take up our cause.

Tangible action?

Oh, so you understood my reply. If it appears that I'm skipping points, I'm simply pressed for free time. Your posts usually require more time than others. That's a good thing, Tiassa.

Actually, I had figured that if you skip enough steps, when the process falls through anyway and your bigotries are revealed to you for the detriment that they are, you might be able to get away with claiming you weren't included on this or that rhetorical step. It's a simple means of avoiding an inevitable conclusion that; a simple means that only works as long as you choose to let it work.

Sentiments are more varied than those you have mentioned, Tiassa. Prejudice has no favorites. And I don't believe harm to others can be limited to only physical brutality. It's not so black and white, this thing you call tangible. There is a spectrum of possibilities to be considered here, an equation that evolves with time.

I agree with the boldfaced statement. Can that harm be extended via legislation? Either by extending a direct legislative interference to a group of people that does not occur anywhere else in society? Or perhaps by making up arbitrary rules to exclude people from equality?

Hence the John Lennon lyrics. They're the best surrogate I can find. Is the phrase, "Woman is the nigger of the world" a racist or sexist remark reflecting long-standing bigotries in society..."

Used as a comparative. A conclussion that woman were of the same social status as blacks.

Here we tend to agree. I do, however, know of many people who decry Twain as racist, and also those who cannot get past the title of the Lennon song. Part of the point of this, and part of the step you're skipping, is the development of the idea that something is negatively bigoted. In most of our rounds concerning bigotry in any form, you seem to feel that your right to be bigoted is somehow disconnected from the detriment it causes when brought from abstract to actual. I'm hoping to find a way to communicate to you the essential fault of this.

Well, I'm working within the confines of your questions, but I don't mind. Hey, Man...give me a label for this statement:

"I love your paranoid-conservative writhing. If nothing else, it's performance art that demonstrates the hollow end of conservative bigotry: you have no real answers, and never have."

I'd call it a critical assessment of your political position.

"You've merely claimed that your bigotry is so important in the world that other people have to be excluded from society in order to respect your "right" to be one. There's two whole threads full o'that."

No, I stated that I have an opinion which plays an active role in our society. In the past, I have stated that some sexual activity doesn't deserve minority status, my esteem, or the attention of my children. In short, Tiassa, I have expressed myself. Call me a bigot.

You have also expressed your desire to legislate certain persons out of the culture based solely on sexual activity. You have expressed that your right to be superior supercedes another's right to be equal.

Bigot.

"So what you're asserting then, is that the following two people are bigoted: Joe... Jack..."

They have their own opinions, don't they? They might even be prejudice in favor of their own opinions.

So what happens when one takes their ... opinions ... to the ballot box? Jack and Joe can think what they want, but nobody has the right to suspend the constitutional rights of another based solely on an undereducated opinion.

My observation is that the hatred of homosexuals is more important to homosexuals and homophiles.

That stands true for a good many things. The inherent hatred of women which has fuelled our American mistreatment thereof is certainly more important to women than it is to the men who don't see any reason to change things.

I can't give your concern much respect when true pain is taking place at this time.

But you can go out of your way to screw with people's civil and constitutional and human rights, eh? Priorities, dear Bowser. At least we know something about yours.

Starve yourself for a several days; then tell me how concerned you are for those who demand my appreciation of their sexual diversity.

Starve yourself, indeed, Bowser. Starve Mabon. Starve just about anyone and ask them if their right to free speech is worth holding onto if it can be exchanged for economic security. Get off.

Relative to real problems, Tiassa, I rank prejudice regarding homosexuality pretty low on my list of concerns.

I will repeat myself: But you can go out of your way to screw with people's civil and constitutional and human rights, eh? Priorities, dear Bowser. At least we know something about yours.

I don't see suffering there on a scale which isn't suffered by anyone else.

That's something I noticed about childhood rape survivors; I rarely saw the actual suffering. It was something these children seemed to prefer to keep to themselves until they couldn't stand it anymore. I guess there was no problem right up to the moment of suicide. Is it any wonder that people are surprised when their kids take the quick trip out?

On the other hand, there is the perspective that, since I don't perceive suffering (e.g., see, feel, recognize), there is no suffering which requires social attention. You know how one can go through life without seeing suffering? Simply, turn your eyes away.

Sorry, I suppose I'm talking down to you on that; I hate reminding people of what they already know so well.

Tiassa, I will assume that that is a slanted view simply because you are not offering the text of that measure.

Coward. You'll get your text. I have much more research time these days, as soon as I choose to use it. But, for reference ... that part about the schools, that we just argued over for the November ballot? That part pretty much applied to the whole state.

I doubt that was the intention, but I do understand that often the intent of such measures are aligned with of worst of some imaginations.

Bowser, since you're waiting for the text, why speculate?

Complaint and political activity is your right. I would be disappointed if there was no opposition to these measures.

Yes it is. I, however, see no reason to waste the public's resources until I have a reason that won't get thrown out by the constitution.

You're funny. I live here and now. Who is forcing change where I am concerned.

You're the one who suggested we leave the social order to you and yours. Conservatism has ruled for ages. I suppose you're going to blame the tyranny of history on the nasty fags?

And to answer your question: You and Lon Mabon are forcing change by advocating a new standard based solely on personal prejudice derived from religious texts.

The simple truth here, Bowser, is that right now, a gay teacher who oversteps his or her boundaries is subject to the same processes as a heterosexual teacher who does the same in context.

You are asking to have, first, that equal standard, and then an unequal one piled on top.

Don't ask silly questions unless you really are aiming for that Rainbow Award.

"Let me guess, though ... just because we aren't torturing and killing our perceived undesirables in an open Inquisition, there's no need to worry?"

So, homocide is a myth? Sheesh, I thought there were bodies in the streets and shool yards. What is that stentch. Oh, it BS.

Let me restate: open Inquisition.

I would hate to be prejudiced about you, Bowser, but I had mistakenly assumed intelligence. Oh, or is it sidestepping?

There is a difference, Herr Bowser, 'twixt rape, torture, and execution by fire at the hands of the church/state, and being firebombed to death in the middle of the night for the perceived crime of being gay.

So ... I shall restate the question you've slipped past on a soleful of dog-crap: Just because the government isn't flaying the skin from the still-living bones of homosexuals; just because the government hasn't resorted to glowing pins or jail-cell rape (whoops, I guess it has); just because a single accusation is not enough to condemn a human being before the law ... there is no need to worry?

As to that stench? Check your shoe on the way out. Don't crap everywhere if you don't want to step in it.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
No, don't seek control, and the milk of heaven will flow. Why would you want to keep it from anyone? (Floater)

 

[Tiassa]

Bowser:

Per your request:

"Bowser, that's slicker than the usual fertilizer you spread. Go back and read the 10 years of Mabonian hatred in your own state. Maybe you don't realize it, but under his 1992 measure, violence against gay people would have been legally endorsed; no state employees was allowed to speak "on behalf" of gays. That someone was perceived as gay would be grounds to beat them senseless, or to death."

Tiassa, I will assume that that is a slanted view simply because you are not offering the text of that measure.

Oregon's Ballot Meaure 9:, defeated November 1992.

This state shall not recognize any categorical provision such as ``sexual preference,'' and similar phrases that includes homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism or masochism. Quotas, minority status, affirmative action, or any similar concepts, shall not apply to these forms of conduct, nor shall government promote these behaviors.

State, regional, local governments and their properties and monies shall not be used to promote, encourage or facilitate homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism or masochism.

State, regional and local governments and their departments, agencies and other entities, including specifically the State Department of Higher Education and the public schools, shall assist in setting a standard for Oregon's youth that recognizes homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism and masochism as abnormal, wrong, unnatural, and perverse and that these behaviors are to be discouraged and avoided.

It shall be considered that it is the intent of the people in enacting this section that if any part thereof is held unconstitutional, the remaining parts shall be held in force.

* http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/polisci/pcurrah/ps7941/readings.htm#measure9 is the link I used.

Why don't we look at that in parts. I'm willing to look at the whole; I have for the last 8 election seasons, and then some. But, in parts:

This state shall not recognize any categorical provision such as ``sexual preference,'' and similar phrases that includes homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism or masochism. Quotas, minority status, affirmative action, or any similar concepts, shall not apply to these forms of conduct, nor shall government promote these behaviors.

* The state shall not recognize any categorical provision such as "sexual preference," and similar phrases that includes homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism, or masochism.

Two issues: for what purposes would someone categorize according to sexual preference? And here we go with that homosexual = pedophile bit that has no purpose except as damaging rhetoric.

Thus:
1) Why would anyone categorize sexual preference?
2) What is it with homosexual = pedophile? That's as dumb as tying music-lyric riders to timber legislation.

* Quotas, minority status, affirmative action, or any similar concepts, shall not apply to these forms of conduct, nor shall government promote these behaviors.

So we see that in the era before AffAct became a dinosaur, Mabon and company feared "quotas". In ten years of this fight, I have never seen documentation of a minority quota status for homosexuals. Even a disrespectable proposition.

Minority status? Well, let's see ... why is a person's prejudice against a homosexual any different from any other prejudice which the law disallows actualization of? In other words, do Christians have a minority status? No. And yet I still can't fire you for simply being Christian. Are "families" (that is, a mother, father, and children) a minority? Yet laws exist specifically indicating that I cannot refuse to hire you on the inference that your commitments to your family will interfere with the eight-hundred road hours I need you to take on every year.

Most gays I know would accept minority protections from the government. Of course, every gay I know would prefer tolerance, acceptance, and harmony. That is, while most would accept a legal reinforcement, all would prefer that the culture comes to understand that there's nothing to fear about being gay that would warrant conduct making minority status necessary. Simpler? Minority protections, sure; but homosexuals would rather be equal. Call it a fetish, if you want.

And of governmental promotion? In its most benign form, the proposal reads that the state should not go out of its way to make a special case that homosexuality is a good or better way of life than heterosexuality. Why does this need to be legislated? (In concept, first, helps, since in "practice" means we have to filter between various prejudices.) Just because the manipulation of tax codes, school-reinforced templates for reality, corporate benefit packages, and so forth, have propped up the disaster of American marriage (as an institution) as an ideal way of living hardly means that the pendulum will swing so far as to prop up homosexuality. What conservatism overlooks--generally speaking--in these cases is the process itself. They see the labels, but don't recognize the human processes at work. After watching the American family achieve a vapidity heretofore unknown in the world, why would homosexuals want to swing the government's weight behind them? In the limelight, heterosexual marriage structures have held back society. Sure, equality might seem to represent the state promoting homosexual unions and adoption of children, but why? Just as many kids will be on drugs; just as many kids will get into crime; just as many kids will want to take the quick trip out before realizing they're not even on the highway yet. Why would something so potential as the "homosexual community" wish to transform into, well, Mabon and company?

In a more serious light, Bowser, what equals government promotion? Therein lies the question. We're all aware of lawyerspeak; in the end, it's who pulls the best con job in front of the legislature or the courts. Unless, of course, there is a standard of stupidity. I once again revert to a tale from the Keizer-Salem (Oregon) School District.

* It seems that a born-again Christian became incensed at the presence of the Robert McCammon book, Demon Walk in the school library. Content aside--she had not actually read the book; what business horror-fiction has in a school library is, I suppose, another issue entirely, since I have no problem with that, either--what she apparently objected to was that the book contained a character named "Demon". As relates "Demon", I might note that "Demon" appears in various incarnations in McCammon's books; usually as a misunderstood, outcast child, branded as a Demon by parents, teachers, or other authority figures. The mother in question objected to "Satanic" books in the library. That is, the presence of the name Demon was tantamount to Satan worship. Now, whose rights are at stake? Is the mother's right to free religion violated by the presence of that book in the library? Or would the author's and the readers' rights to free speech/expression and equal protection under the law violated by the removal of a book in the library due to religious standards?

As relates M9, what is promotion?

* State, regional and local governments and their departments, agencies and other entities, including specifically the State Department of Higher Education and the public schools, shall assist in setting a standard for Oregon's youth that recognizes homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism and masochism as abnormal, wrong, unnatural, and perverse and that these behaviors are to be discouraged and avoided.

To deviate from that standard is to promote homosexuality, according to the proposal.

And, once again, we see the pathetic equation of homosexuality and child abuse. This is the only point, as I recall, that Ramsdell, Lively, and Mabon (yes, your Gay/Nazi expose author was one of the organizers of M9-1992) had nothing else to go on. Go ahead and cite Leviticus, Mr. Mabon. I can cite Leviticus, too, and destroy the Americans with Disabilities Act. (No more pesky, state-mandated wheelchair ramps!)

You were saying something, I believe, in other threads about Nazis and the exploitation of the educational system?

Now then, these are just the general rhetorical considerations. We haven't even gotten to what's conceptually wrong with this measure.

I might now direct your attention, Kind Bowser, to your own post, on 2/14/2001. I have italicized my prompting, and left your response normal:

"Think about it ... being unable to prosecute a beating or a murder because the state says these people are bad, and you have to leave your good citizens a means of protecting themselves. The "extreme homophobic reaction" defense would become legal on the grounds that no state office would be allowed to consider any counterpoint that might give the appearance of endorsing, encouraging, and whatnot."

I doubt that was the intention, but I do understand that often the intent of such measures are aligned with of worst of some imaginations.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, gold, and sundry other cursed things of human introspection. I mean, the OCA could have ... oh, I don't know ... written, then, what they intended? Shall we take the "extreme homophobic reaction" defense?

* It ain't (murder/assault/fill in blank), it's act'lly self-defense.
- And what were you defending yourself against when you (killed/beat/whatever) Mr Jones?
* Mista Jones is a homasexshal.
- Would you care to elaborate?
* I ain't in for that kinda thing, Mister. But I tell you what ... I don't need no homasexshals comin' round my property and botherin' my little girls.
- So Mr. Jones was stalking your property, sir? Is that what you're asserting?
* Not him, but I know his kind. Him and his political people.
- How, then, were you defending yourself?
* Mista Jones is a homasexshal.
- We're aware of that argument. What, however, was Mr Jones doing that required your defending yourself in such a severe manner?
* He's a homasexshal. He's a pervert, the law says so.
- Your honor, as I am paid by the state, I am prohibited by law from continuing this line of questioning to its logical debate, as the rhetorical points required are, after all, illegal. The state has no choice but to drop the charges.

In the same vein, one might legally justify the heterosexual rape of a lesbian. Now, you might tell me that such a defense will, logically, be thrown out in court. I, while I agree, will do everything I can as a voter to prevent that from even being a statistical possibility.

Think about it: The schools teach that homosexuality is wrong, unnatural, perverse, and abnormal.

* Unnatural: As the evidence even here at Exosci has shown, sexuality between common-gendered organisms does occur outside the human race. Therefore, unnatural is an outright lie of Mabon's measure.
* Wrong: Before making a moral declaration that something is wrong, one should probably establish why. Aside from superstitions, Mabon's Hate Brigade have nothing.
* Abnormal: Since you're fond of dictionary definitions, I thought I would include, deviating from the normal or average, taken from www.m-w.com (Merriam-Webster). So, great, we're back to statistical averages. Brown or blue eyes? What color hair? Chocolate or vanilla ice cream?
* Perverse: And so are a lot of things heterosexuals can do. I remember when you pulled Ramsdell's list for Another round ...; if I recall most of that list was not practices exclusive to homosexuality.

1 a : turned away from what is right or good : CORRUPT b : IMPROPER, INCORRECT c : contrary to the evidence or the direction of the judge on a point of law <perverse verdict>
2 a : obstinate in opposing what is right, reasonable, or accepted : WRONGHEADED b : arising from or indicative of stubbornness or obstinacy
3 : marked by peevishness or petulance : CRANKY

So it seems we're left to 1a: turned away from what is right or good. Subjective at best, eh?

* We might assert public definition. But I've already reminded you of what's wrong with that.
* We might assert medical standards. But what else would become anathema? (And let me say that if you and Mabon and your ilk do away with fellatio, I'm never setting foot in Oregon again!)
* Hmmm ... We might assert--what? By the time conservatives stop thinking about themselves exclusively ... well, that's the problem, isn't it? I mean, it's well and fine to say that this is how I live, but I cannot force you to conduct your person in any way unnatural to you. When we get down to the subjectivities of the objectivity of human beings in nature, if you choose to prescribe an unbalanced restriction of liberties as a progressive step, you had best be damn sure that what you are saying. Start with seed: reproductive sex. Guess what? All that fun sex for the hell of it that you have with your heterosexual married partner goes out the window, too, as does masturbation. We've been down this argument before, right? Okay, then start drawing health statistics to show the physical danger of homosexuality: everything from oral sex to drinking coffee before work is out. If we lived life according to health statistics, would we really take hyperactive children and put them on super-clean speed? Would we drive cars to work? It looks like the conservatives are left propping up superstitions and slurs to fill in the gaping hole where they should be placing coherent reality.

So what ends up happening when a child subjected to all of this superstition and hypocrisy behaves badly because of choices made relying on said superstition and hypocrisy? I will point out that, in the case of drugs, the formerly-popular D.A.R.E. program is enduring a decline in popularity and participation while the public considers the demonstrable fact that DARE graduates are more prone to use drugs than their "uneducated" brethren. What happens when that generation of lied-to, superstitious children find themselves alienated in a world that has left them behind? What happens when they find out they were lied to?

And each defeat merely means a setback for Lon. He has to write a scaled-down version. Like I said a long time ago, it's almost as if he wants to win just one so he can be remembered as Saint Lon, who tried and failed to drive the snakes, as such, out of Oregon. But it would reassure his heart greatly if just once the people of Oregon would say, "Yes, Lon, we do hate the filthy fags." Is that really so much for a superstitious old man to ask? In the majors, they retire the old guys with the big swing and no batting average. Lon and company should quit while they can still pretend amongst themselves that they have any dignity left.

Thank you, Bowser, for this stroll down Nostalgia Lane. You've caused me to think of a misty evening in Eugene, candles and choir.

As insignificant as it may seem to some, I offer this post in memory of Brian Moch and Hattie Cohen, unknown personally to me, but murdered in the fall of 1992 for the crime of being homosexual.

thanx,
Tiassa

------------------
No, don't seek control, and the milk of heaven will flow. Why would you want to keep it from anyone? (Floater)

 

[Bowser]

Tiassa,

I'm saving my efforts for the new and improved message board "Ethics, Morality, & Justice." I want to try a different approach. I will catch you there later.


------------------
It's all very large.