From: adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Insults
Date: 26 Aug 1992 16:03:35 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: mizar.usc.edu

You know, I prepared a long follow-up to this, but it seems
pointless to me now.  So I'll just point out a few things
that jump out at me.

In article <4888@news.duke.edu> 
John_Graves@cellbio.duke.edu writes:
> In article <l9ncn2INNct6@mizar.usc.edu> 
> adolphso@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson) writes:

[...]

[I characterized John's article as counseling loving the homophobe,
but hating homophobia.]

> While I certainly didn't say this, it is not far from what I believe in.

Yeah, well, that comes as no big surprise.

> I do believe that it is virtually impossible to grow up in this 
> society without absorbing some of the externalized homophobia.  To 
> that extent I think we can love the homophobe, or in other words, 
> we can love ourselves, 

You can stop right there.  Not only do I refuse to love the homophobe
as I love myself, but I am offended at your wish to collapse the
differences between me -- an out of the closet gay man with some
traces of internalized homophobia, largely having to do with the sound
of my voice -- and a baseball bat wielding fagbasher.

> our families, our friends, and those who disagree with us.  

*WHY* should I try to love my enemies?  I don't.  I don't feel
like trying.  I don't think I'd be successful.  The effort that
would go into the attempt to love the sinner but not the sin (an
impossibility, if you ask) would be much better utilized elsewhere.  

> I think that we can work against homophobia, both internalized 
> and external.  Do I hate homophobia?  You Betcha!  But I'm not 
> going to let that hate get in the way of doing what I can to
> convert persons from homophobes to homosexual accepting and even 
> affirmative beings. 

Yeah, well, fine.  You just go on and love 'em to death.  I'll
fight them.

> >> >> Explanation and education, not insult and ostracism should be the 
> >> >> order of the day.
>
> For someone who feels that all parts of a posting should be quoted, I'm

You're confusing me with someone else.

> surprised that you left off the following preface to the above sentence:
>
> I believe that I must demand that I not be oppressed and even fight 
> vigorously against oppression, but  [explanation and education, not 
> insult and ostracism should be the order of the day.]

Perhaps that's what you think you wrote, but the final paragraph
of your first posting in this thread (article <4866@news.duke.edu>)
read this way at my site:

>We need to focus more on the roles of the Bushes and the religious leaders who
>have power influence and explain over and over again the dynamics of
>self-hatred and internalized homophobia. Explanation and education, not insult
>and ostracism should be the order of the day.

Not that it's a big deal, really.

> >Yes, well, I believe it is better to think before giving
> >advice that can quite literally get someone killed.
>
> How would this advice get someone killed?  Are you claiming that one 
> should not be out in order to protect themselves from murderous homophobes?

Yes, that's what I'm claiming.  Everybody, follow me back into the
closet!  

I can think of any number of scenarios in which your advice --
love your oppressor, love that homophobe -- could be *very*
dangerous.  I'd advise people always to be wary, always to be on 
their guard and ready to flee or fight at a moment's notice.
I don't like martyrdom.

Arne

Newsgroups: soc.motss