From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Subject: Relative Merits (was Re: Faggots)
Keywords: Faggots
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 10:56:44 GMT


In article <23858@sybase.sybase.com> markp@sybase.com (Mark
Page) writes:

>First I must admit that I am quite a muffin.  I've read
>motss for years but this is my first post.

Hello and welcome.  But no longer a muffin, eh?  That status
goes *poof* when you post, sort of by definition.  But since
you've been in the swim already a long time, that means you
can jump in with both feet.  At least, I hope it does.

>I'm very active in GLB issues at my employer and have
>recent helped score a big success on the DP benefits issue.

Good work and great news.  There's been some discussion of
this in another thread, but my view is that DP benefits are
an important stage in achieving equality in the law and
before the eyes of the majority.

Naturally, your next paragraph is the focus of my present
response.  I think each sentence opens issues that need
airing.

>I often am dismayed at the tendency on motss to flame to
>death everything in sight.

Perceptions vary over a considerable range as to what
consitutes a flame, wouldn't you say?  Some people would say
they've been quite mercilessly flamed when others would say
they've merely been asked, politeness to one side, to
justify, or even simply to explain, their viewpoints.

For example, a lot of people might agree there are way too
many flames and sincerely wish there none.  I agree, for
example, that there's too much but have in mind a very
different amount from your own idea about it.

In that regard, I would suggest that what you call flaming
"to death" is a manifestation of a number of things.  One
would be the number of different people and the broad range
of their backgrounds and personal styles (some of that I
addressed in a recent posting).  If people feel strongly
about things, I think it best if they say so in whatever
terms they feel best convey their thoughts and feelings (and
note well, thought and feelings are both involved).  

In light of that, at least some of what we're talking about
here is matters of degree that are quite dependant on the
particular observers.  More specifically, it seems to me
that relatively few of us are flaming for just no reason,
even where there is a legitimate arument to be made over the
terms in which we do.  Things being done out of sheer sport
(you may think it's spite :-) are different from true anger
(yet another whole line of discussion, that).

I would, fairly vigorously if pressed, take exception to
your "everything in sight" thrust.  I think that's a
considerable overstatement.  Compared to many talk* groups
and many alt* groups and sprinkled around the whole range of
groups, the heat/light ratio of soc.motss is fairly low, I
think.  I think it's indisputable that *most* threads here
are relatively free of anything that could be styled as
flames.

>I've particularily watched this thread, and I must say that
>some of us need to calm down a little, and be more tolerant.

Debates rage over what tolerance is.  There's no single canon
on this issue, but rather a large number of working definitions.
For example, how much and in what ways does one tolerate the
intolerable?  How much and in what ways does one refuse to
accept the premises of sexist or homophobic people?

While I agree that it's good to be calm, I wouldn't agree
that it's *always* the best thing.  Feelings need to be
genuine, I think, to do what they do best.  If they're
feelings of anger, or impatience, it isn't necessarily
intolerance to express them in the most genuine terms you
can manage.

And I think I'd prefer to deal with genuine anger than with
feigned calm.

>We will never, as a group, get anywhere if our overwelming
>tendency is to be intolerant.

I most certainly agree.  But that leaves open issues of
tolerance (or perceived intolerance) on the individual
level.  This is actually quite a complicated bit, I think.
One needs to distinguish strategy and tactics.  One needs
take matters of degree into full account.  Therefore, I
think much turns on what "overwhelming" means in the context
of your remark.

>And frankly, I don't beleive we would particularily deserve
>to gain others tolerance if we are incapable of it
>ourselves.

I have major reservations about that, I must say.  It brings
to mind the not uncommon practice of punishing an entire
group for the actions of a single person.  And in our case,
of course, right away that lands us in the so-called
assimilationist thicket.

To me it makes more sense simply to say that *all* people
deserve tolerance.  "We hold these truths to be
*self-evident*: that *all* [people] are created equal."
(Emphasis added.) For some groups, including us, 216 years
later, we are still waiting for the manifestation of that
great idea.

I take it as a given -- a given, no ifs, ands, or buts --
that we all *deserve* tolerance, just as we deserve full
equality of rights, full protection under the law, and all
the rest of it.  I do not think *anything* -- even being
intolerant ourselves, when that's a factor -- compromises
that right.  That's what rights *are*.

>Is this guy right.  Of course not.  But the rude, offensive
>attitude I see here (virtually all the time) is just as
>wrong.

I recognize your opinion, though I do not embrace it.  In my
view, "virtually all the time" is a sizable overstatement.
In my view, one is *right* to be offended by such things as
launched this thread, rather than wrong, still less "just
as."

>I ask you to please develop a better more mature, more
>tolerant attitude.  We will all benefit by it.

I respect what you say, but quite a lot remains to be said
too.  I would also respect arguments with quite a different
thrust, most likely.

Thank you for the opportunity to air some of these issues.

-- 
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
Newsgroups: soc.motss