From: yal@cltr.uq.oz.au (Yvette Lian)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: GayBashing question
Date: 27 Jan 93 06:55:20 GMT
Organization: Centre for Language Teaching and Research, Uni of Queensland, AUSTRALIA.

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!  


>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.  


>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?


>]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.


>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.


>]>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?  


>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.


--
Yvette Lian
yal@lingua.cltr.uq.oz.au 
FIDO: 3:640/352 
IRC nick: Maxine2
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion