From: krikket@meltdown.chi.il.us (D. 'krikket' Krick)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Re: Who cares
Date: 24 Jul 92 12:02:45 GMT
Organization: The Meltdown - A Team Star BBS

In article <1992Jul23.120008.41843@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>,
kumagic@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Stephen R. Figgins) writes:
>In article <krikket.5025@meltdown.chi.il.us>, krikket@meltdown.chi.il.us (D. >'krikket' Krick) writes:
>> In article <1992Jul21.100930.41773@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>,
>> kumagic@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Stephen R. Figgins) writes:
 
>>>But do you in any way support those who do these things?  What is
>>>Sun's policy on hiring?  Are there many women in positions other than
>>>service there?  Do they use a CFC cleaning agent in manufacturing
>>>computers?  Are they open and tolerant of paganism?  Could I work
>>>there and wear my pentacle?  How about being openly gay or lesbian?
>>>Do they offer spousal benefits to those in same sex marriages?  How
>>>are they on maternity leave?  Or do women get stuck in the
>>>Mommy-track?  Did they make any campaign contributions to the Bush
>>>campaign?  Do they have a day-care program?  
 
>> I've said this before...  Get a grip on reality pal!  "You can't
>> change the world in a day.  You got to start with yourself and work
>> from the inside out."
>
>I am not sure what reality it is you want me to get a grip on.  And I
>am not sure why you call me pal.  I was trying to point out a few of
>the injustices maintained by the coorporate world, their employees,
>and their consumers.  I wanted to show how such a system is supported.
>I do think it is possible to work from within the system.  I
>personally would rather not, but times being what they are, I may end
>up working from the inside against my will.  I am in need to $$ to
>survive.  I can't eat my principles. 

Okay, let's try this again...  Take another look at the rant at the first
paragraph of this message.  Now keep in mind that the phrase "Get a grip
on reality pal!" is just that, a common phrase.  Slang.  Not to be taken
literally.

By declaring war on the system (ATTACKING it from the outside) doesn't
accomplish much, except getting people more annoyed and more ticked off
at the people attacking the system.  (Also, let me interject at this point,
that having read this message in full, I think we have a lot more to agree on
than disagree on...  Once again, it's boiling down to tactics to change the
system, not disagreeing on if the system needs changing...)

>I don't expect the world to change in a day, but it would be nice if
>they would change a little, every now and then, without the government
>or the courts forcing them to do so.  One way is to let them know, you
>think their policies stink.  Refusing to support them financially is
>just one way to get this message accross.  Business serves its own
>interests, and where it can make a profit at others expense, it will
>do so.  Profit is the only thing that really matters to most
>companies. 

Agreed.  But holding protest marches, while they can be effective, generally
are NOT.  Let's take the Gay Rights march on Washington.  It was the largest
protest march EVER, at the time it was held.  (I don't know if numbers were
beat during the Kuwait War or not...)  It got 1 page 45 article in ONE of
the Chicago papers.  The other major paper didn't bother to carry it.  Less
than two weeks later, another parch was held over the abortion issue.  In
comparing numbers, they said that it was the largest march since the 60's,
and they didn't come close to beating the Gay Rights march in numbers...

But the people who did become aware of the Gay Rights march were simply
annoyed at the Gay Community as a whole over the issue, rather than feeling
sympethetic.  There are times when this is the correct stance to take, but
far more often, it isn't, for it will do more harm than good.

(I just realised that the Gay Pride parade in Chicago probably would have
been a better example, for it truly pissed the locals off, expecially when
the Chicago Police Superentendant (who marched with the Parade) promised that
they would change the quotas to include Gay Officers.  This got people pissed,
not because he was backing the Gay Community (which was thought to be good)
but because it was helping re-enforce quotas, rather than letting the best
person get the job, regardless of sex, creed, color, etc.)

In short, you are hindering the problem by emphasizing the differences between
the two groups, rather than helping the groups come closer together.

>> (Yeesh, I'm quoting Jello Biafra HERE, but he does make a LOT of
>> good points in the song "The Stars and Stripes of Corruption") In
>> short, you have to take things one step at a time.  By simply refusing
>> to have anything to do with people / companies who aren't "Politically
>> Correct" (or whatever word you might use) doesn't help the problem.
>> You gotta WORK AT IT FROM THE INSIDE!

>You gotta work at it from every side, inside and out.  
>
>"Political Correctness" is used most often by people fighting change.
>Sometimes I try to tell someone what is wrong with what they are
>doing, and they start screaming "political correctness" and never
>listen to what I have to say.  PC is a buzzword.  I have grown
>sceptical of those who use it as some sort of defense.
>
>I make many of my purchase decisions based on the actions of
>companies.  If I find out one company is more progressive than
>another, I support them.  If a company has a bad record with the
>environment, women's issues, minority issues, I try to have as little
>to do with it as possible, I won't by their products, I won't work for
>them.   
>
>As for people, well I havent given up on you yet.  

Thanks for not giving up on me.  I haven't given up on you either.  :)

(And I agree with the above section 100%, as friends of mine who post here
will attest to as witnesses.)

>> A nice thought.  But it would also be nice if there was a 24 hour
>> period without war, famine, desiese, etc...  I can't be held
>> responsibly for every other male entity on this planet.  Nor can
>> anyone else.  Just as any one female can't answer for every other
>> female on this planet when one of those females breaks a law, or...
>> You get the picture.

>I am not holding you responsible.  I am not holding anyone
>in particular responsible.  I am recognizing responsibility.  We play
>a part in the system.  We are connected by thousands of little threads
>to each other.  Collectively we create soceity, and the soceity we
>create, grooms men to be violent, criminals, rapists, racists, wife
>beaters, child molestors.  These are the extremes, but they are all
>too common.  Most of us don't get it quite so bad, maybe we are just a
>little violent, maybe we interrupt women a bit more than men, maybe we
>think women aren't quite as smart, whatever.  

Now go back to your origional paragraph.  The shade of meaning has shifted
here, somewhere.  You were asking "But do YOU...", and now you are reversing
tracks by stating that you are not holding me responsible.  I suggest, sir,
that you don't play both sides of the argument against each other, unless you
are simply playing devil's advocate.  It get's hard to hold two conflicting
opnions, which you seem to be attempting to do.  (But please correct me if
I am wrong!)

>Recognizing the threads of responsibility that connect us to this
>behavior, allows us to change, to bend, to shape ourselves into
>something else.  It allows us to reverse the programming.  And it can
>show us ways to alter the soceity that groomed us to be scum. 
>
>Now, do you get the picture?  Our responsibility is our key to change,
>both ourselves and the system.  

Agreed.

Krikket               ! krikket@meltdown.chi.il.us ! USnail:3 Danada Square E.
a.k.a Doug Krick      ! Team Star Charter Member   !        Suite 246
Data ph# 708/665-9732 ! #include<std.disclaimers>  !        Wheaton, Il 60187

 'If you are what you eat, then I'm Dead Meat'  -- Timbuk 3 "Grand 'ol Party"
            
Newsgroups: alt.pagan