From: ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack B. Nimble)
Subject: Re: Social Democracy
Date: 9 Nov 92 14:33:37 PST

In article <1992Nov2.133233.20095@macc.wisc.edu>, on 2 Nov 92 13:32:33 GMT,
anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes:
>
>In article <19921101215510ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU>
>ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack B. Newsbaum) writes:
>
>>To charge someone specific with being a totalitarian
>>Tinkerbell, the first question that needs to be settled is
>>whether that accurately describes the particular individual.
>
>Jack uses pseudo-logic, rather than common-sense logic, to
>buttress what he thinks is the point.  Jack hides behind the
>guessing game (evidence further on) to maintain deniability.
>
And where is the "pseudo-logic" as you put it, Anderson, in the
above? I suppose you expect us all to accept what you write simply
because you make an assertion that such is the case. Proof by assertion,
if you will.

I'm amazed (well not really!) that you continue to ignore the substance
of the matter. But I'll humor you and proceed with your little
digression. What exactly is pseudo-logic? Where exactly did it come into
play in this thread? What exactly is common-sense logic other than
any argument designed to reach the conclusion that you'd like to get to?

The ball is in your court, Bubbelah!

>>A totalitarian would be someone who supports a form of
>>government in which the political authority exercises
>>centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual
>>is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and
>>cultural expression is suppressed.
>
>Not entirely accurate (not *all* aspects of life), but close
>enough for our purposes here.  The key elements are
>centralized state control, subordination of the individual
>to the state, and suppression of the opposition.
>
>>Any GLB person who fits the definition of totalitarian is
>>also, therefore, a totalitarian Tinkerbell.
>
>We have the totalitarian part down pretty pat.  But then, we
>always did, didn't we?  No one disagreed about that part
>from the get-go.  It's "tinkerbell" we're concerned with.
>It's a homophobic epithet, in your usage.

Did we? That's news to me. No one disagreed? That's not what I've
observed. We've had quite a few in here making the claim that labelling
someone as totalitarian has absolutely nothing to do with their
politics, but was merely a name-calling device used to tarnish those
on the political left. (That it is applicable as well to right-wing
extremists has been conveniently ignored). What I find quite interesting
is all of those in here who have circled the wagons and rushed to assume
a defensive posture when they were not even labelled. Could it be that
something to the designation has struck a responsive chord?

As to your claim that "tinkerbell" in my usage is homophobic, my answer
is again, bullshit! Tinkerbell is just as appropriate a designation as
homosexual, gay, queer, fairy, fruit, and a dozen others. The fact is
obvious that you want to tag "totalitarian Tinkerbell" as homophobic,
because the adjective totalitarian is perjorative. Had the context
been "We have some of the most gorgeous Tinkerbells who read soc.motss,"
anybody who made the claim that the remark was homophobic would be
laughed out of court.

What's reasonably clear is that according to Jess Anderson, there is
no way that one can define and label the class of gays who hold
totalitarian views WITHOUT being charged with homophobia. Apparently,
to view any subset of gays with scorn and disdain NO MATTER WHAT THE
REASON will subject one to that charge. As I rejected your proposition
once before, I categorically reject it once again.

>
>You probably know that, but you just don't want to admit it.
>I wouldn't either, since it's shameful.  Evidence that you
>probably know it is your having spent 80% or 90% of your
>effort on "totalitarian," hoping, I suppose, to keep
>"tinkerbell" from being examined.  Not too unreasonable,
>there's *some* totalitarianism in everyone, after all.
>
I'm quite willing to examine "tinkerbell" now that I know where
you're coming from. Also, you're simply incorrect about there
being some totalitarianism in everybody, as libertarians such as I are
diametrically opposite to totalitarians. I haven't got a totalitarian
bone in my body. But I certainly can see why you'd like to believe that
everybody is to some degree, for it is a necessary step in your
flim-flam argument that the label of totalitarian apply either to
everybody or to nobody.

>But let's get it cleared up now, Jack, because there are
>more important things.
>
>Make the context sexism, rather than sexuality.  If you'd
>said, "any L person who fits the definition is also,
>therefore, a totalitarian bitch," that would be sexist.  An
>analogous racist context could be adduced.  What you said
>(way back when) was homophobic.  All your so-called logic
>has not changed that.  We realize you will go to any length
>to try to sanitize the remark after the fact, but those
>efforts are bound to be more pseudo-logical flummery.
>
Ah! Progress at last. Your analogy between bitch and tinkerbell
collapses in a heap. There is a general agreement that the use of the
term "bitch" as applicable to human females is derogatory. There is
no such agreement that the term "tinkerbell" as applied to homosexuals
is derogatory.

>If anything, by reformulating your point of view, you've
>made it more obvious that it was homophobic to start with.
>
>In sum, in reaching for the cute turn of phrase, you
>overreached and said something that upon reflection you
>probably shouldn't have said.  It's not the worst, after
>all.  *Everybody* has homophobic thoughts, just as everybody
>has racist and sexist thoughts, so that's not the main thing;
>what you do about it is the main thing.
>
Nope. No apologies. Despite your new claims in this article that the
term "tinkerbell" is what offends, you made it perfectly clear in your
last post that it was the juxtaposition of totalitarian with ANY TERM
USED TO REFER TO GAYS was inherently homophobic.

To wit:

I:
>>>>First, my use of the term "Tinkerbell" is no more homophobic
>>>>than is any other group-referential designation that we are
>>>>wont to use such as "queer", "queen", or "fairy".
>
Anderson:
>>>In your use, all of those terms would be homophobic
>>>epithets.  I might add I have some difficulty imaging you as
>>>part of the "us" you refer to.

Thus despite your specious claims to the contrary above, it really
is the term totalitarian that chaps your hide.

Had I to choose over again, I'd use exactly the same phrase. Such
circumlocutions as totalitarians of the homosexual persuasion are
simply not my literary style.

>
>--
>Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin
>Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson
>NeXTmail w/attachments: anderson@yak.macc.wisc.edu  Bitnet: anderson@wiscmacc
>Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888
>
        =Jack=
---

Jack B. Newsbaum             You have rights antecedent to all earthly
Library Information Systems  governments; rights that cannot be
University Research Library  repealed or restrained by human law.
ecl4jn2@mvs.oac.ucla.edu               - John Adams
Newsgroups: soc.motss