From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: GayBashing question
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 22:47:39 GMT

yal@cltr.uq.oz.au (Yvette Lian) writes:

>In article <1993Jan25.173532.1477@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>>Keywords: 
>>Give it a rest. Do you know anyone who considers these acceptable? I

>Gay bashers consider gay bashing an acceptable pastime.  People who walk
>into black neighbourhoods with the intent of killing a black person because
>of the colour of their skin think it is acceptable.  


>>evil of "gay bashing" or "hate crimes" against blacks, while NEVER
>>commenting on the evil of black on white violence. To me, that gives
>>tacit approval to the black on white violence, or at least sends the
>>message that attacking a gay because he is gay or a black because he
>>is black is morally worse than attacking a white because he is white.

>Or perhaps they're trying to make it clear that this sort of behaviour is
>wrong!  

Or perhaps they are only pointing out that this behavior BY WHITES
is wrong, but that this behavior by OTHER GROUPS is justifiable because
of all the terrible crimes we've done.

>>Yes, but you are doing it by denying reality, and by using the coercive
>>force of government and the smothering effect of bureaucracy. All of us
>>are trying to make the world a better place - some of us are, however,
>>willing to recognize and accept realities and practical limitations.

>I am not denying reality.  Bashings happen.  What I am saying is that they
>SHOULDN'T happen, and should not be considered acceptable - no matter who
>the perpetrator/victim.  
>If the laws don't work for me, then it is up to me to suggest ways that
>they can be made to work for me.  That's why they exist.  

Laws don't work.  People work.  If the PEOPLE who enforce the laws aren't
enforcing them evenly, replace them with PEOPLE who will.  Did it ever
occur to you that with or without your vaunted hate laws, those SAME
people will be enforcing them (or not enforcing them)?  

>>But attacking gay bashing without simultaneously attacking all other
>>kinds of bashing creates such generalizations. The whole concept of

>Have you not been reading what I've been saying?  I've been telling you
>time and time again that NO form of bashing is acceptable, no matter what
>the reason might be.  Do you have selective reading or something?

No Yvette, you have NOT been saying this.  You clearly said that white
people in minority neighborhoods deserved to be attacked because we did
so many nasty things to those minorities.  You just sweetened the words
a little.  For proof, read the next paragraph:  


>>]I don't deny it.  You might like to wonder why it's gotten to the point you
>>]can't go places because you're white.  Could it be that the non-white
>>]people living there feel just a little upset by the way they've been
>>]treated in the past 200 or so years?  Could it be they're scared they might
>>]be hurt again by someone they see to be white?  Maybe you should be
>>]addressing the problem.
>>
>>I don't know of ANY black person who has been mistreated for 200 or so years.
>>Do they live longer in Australia? Would it make any difference? Is it any sort

>I was speaking of a particular group.  The indigenous (I wish I could learn
>to spell that word) people of Australia have been here long before any
>white people arrived, yet they have been treated like dirt since that day.
>Are you surprised that they might be just a little annoyed?  That perhaps
>one person belonging to that group might see it as logical to go out and
>bash a white person?


>>of justification? Is it okay for me to be attacked for the crimes my
>>great grandparents committed against the great grandparents of the attacker?

>No.  Nor is it acceptable to behave in a manner that suggests that what
>your great-grandparents did was acceptable.

Did you imply were condoning this behavior?  

>>Oh boy, here we go. Now you descend quickly into nasty personal attacks.
>>So much for any more logic in this thread. You must be really desperate
>>to use "sweety" and "slime-ball" in the same paragraph.

>You say this in the same breath as your inclusion of me in the group of
>people who think that "elitist white men" are the "cause of all the evil in
>the world" (perhaps you think this is the opinion of feminists too.. and we
>ALL know they're all hairy-legged lesbians with shaved heads and
>dungarees, DON'T WE! [Please try to see the sarcasm]).  Maybe I called you
>a slimeball because I think you're obnoxious and try to invalidate my
>arguments by suggesting that I'm just a man-hating feminist who thinks
>white men created all the evil in the world.  That's just poor
>argumentative technique on your part.

Hello, Yvette?  Wake up in there.  The guy you are responding to is
NOT the guy you called a slimeball.  I'm the guy you made yourself
look so immature to insult.  

Oh... I don't seem to remember calling feminists hairy-legged lezzies...
The feminist leaders in OUR country DO hate men.  They have repeatedly
called marriage slavery to men.  

>>]>Consider also this little fact: It's a hell of a lot easier to hide the
>>]>fact that you're gay than to hide the fact that you're white.
>>]
>>]Don't you believe it, kiddo.  And remember, it really is irrelevant as to
>>You have evidence to the contrary?

>Evidence to the contrary of what?  That it's easier to hide being gay than
>it is to hide the colour of one's skin?  

Only a total fool would claim that it is easier to hide skin color than
homosexuality.  As gays keep pointing out, there's thousands of them
that appear "straight".  How many blacks do you know that appear wwhite?
(Not including Michael "When's my next surgery" Jackson).  How many
whites look Japanese? 

Oh, I never implied any of these groups should have to hide anything.  
I was simply pointing out that gays have a better chance of fooling people
about their sexuality (for their own safety) that whites have a chance of
fooling other minorities that we aren't white.  


>>WHAT THE HELL DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE "WHY"? I thought you liberals wanted
>>to do away with discrimination. By your statements, it appears that you
>>think it is justifiable or understandable if done by "oppressed" groups.

>I'm suggesting that I can understand why certain groups might react
>unfavourably in your presence.  I never said that it was acceptable - in
>fact I stated several times that it was not so.

>And here you go again with the "you liberals" business.  Lump me in with a
>group you don't like and you think you can throw piss-poor arguments at me.
>Give it a rest.

This is a valid complaint on your part.  But you'd better get used to
lumping conservatives and liberals into groups on this news group.
It is just the way things are done.


>--
>Yvette Lian
>yal@lingua.cltr.uq.oz.au 
>FIDO: 3:640/352 
>IRC nick: Maxine2



Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers, happy that Yvette thinks he's a
		 "slimeball"  



Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15364 alt.sex:43400 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14061 alt.politics.correct:6395 alt.politics.equality:180 alt.politics.homosexuality:10411