Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxe.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!ihuxe!rainbow From: rainbow@ihuxe.UUCP Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: RE2:bigotry Message-ID: <714@ihuxe.UUCP> Date: Wed, 4-Jul-84 15:38:31 EDT Article-I.D.: ihuxe.714 Posted: Wed Jul 4 15:38:31 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 5-Jul-84 00:36:47 EDT Sender: rainbow@ihuxe.UUCP Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL Lines: 103 > Keeping in mind Trish's statement to the effect that > most [ not some, not just a few, not several, but MOST ] straight men > are assholes [straight men meaning heterosexual and not just > part of a comedy team :-) ] .... Robert states: >> And all she said was that women show her more >> understanding/feelings/sensitivity than men. Actually she said men >> showed less. > HA! [means I disagree. remember the original statement.... most > straight men are your egotistical, chauvenist, insensitive, > macho assholes. I agree that this can be interpreted to mean > that she feels that men showed her less understanding, etc. > but there's more to it than that.] I am amazed at the number of people that take everything stated totally literally. I will not accuse someone of such inhumane feelings without any other evidence first. Did anyone ever bother to inquire about exact details pertaining to her statement? Obviously not. People immediately thought they knew it all and assumed the worst. And then what happened was instant digression to "name-calling". If the discussion had taken a logic path of people expressing their opinions on their interpretation, fine. I would have had no qualms about it at all. But no. This was not the case. Then one particular article came along that has since been cancelled and I could no longer hold my silence. People were getting more and more bold in tearing Trish apart. This precipitated my entry into the cheap-shot discussion going on. I took a different interpretation of Trish's article(which I'll keep until she says otherwise) to try to show that there are other possibilities and what we should have is a rational discussion. Even here I have failed judging from Allen's articles as they get more and more irate. Fortunately I have a number of sane private discussions going on on the subject of Trish. But I also refuse to let others continue to rant and rave over the net and not respond. I didn't stick my neck out to post one article and then go into a shell as they continue. >then he states: >> The word BIGOT to me means a person who displays a total hatred towards >> a particular group or person for no reason other than what they are. >> Trish responded to bigotry against homosexuals. No where did she show >> a hatred toward men. She only indicated a lack of interest for a male >> relationship, not a male friendship. She is not a bigot. > Again, I refer you to the original statement. One could say that > calling most straight men +assholes is simply indicating > a lack of interest for a male relationship, not a male friendship; > but I don't buy it for a minute. [ At least, in the USA today (1984) > calling someone an asshole usually indicates a great deal > of dislike, if not actual hatred :-) ]. Now this is a rational comment for a change. All people are entitled to their opinions. You gave your interpretation, your thoughts, and your opinion. Thats fine. I have no complaint against this. No where do I see a personal attack. No where did I see rash comments insisting that their words are gospel. No where did I see words insisting that Trish should be expelled from the human race. Maybe I'm just naive, but I couldn't for a minute assume those are Trish's literal feelings. No one is capable of that. Thats my opinion. Hence my comments. And I also feel there is not enough evidence to assume anything else at this time. Why is so much fuss being made over half a sentence located within another paragragh when its words are taken literally. The intent of those words is what should be looked at and analyzed if anything. And we can only guess at that. Am I wrong? > Using "most" instead > of "all" gives everyone an out, and if her experience backs > it up, then it's all OK ?? I admit it, it wasnt one of my better arguments. However it should be enough to reserve judgment until a later day when we know more about her feelings. "Most" is a very vague term that needs clarification form Trish. That is all I'm trying to say. > Let us postulate a good-ol' boy from > the South named "Jim-Bob". Now Jim-Bob makes the statement that > "most blacks are stupid, unclean, inferior, eaters of waste". > > Is that perfectly OK to say ? Jim-Bob now points out that he said > "most" and not "all" and that his experience backs it up. > He claims that "many" would have been an understatement, and anyway, > he has a friend that thinks the same way and can back him up. > Everyone still happy ?? I sure hope not ! > Now, what is upsetting about the statements that our hypothetical > Mr. Jim-Bob made ? Not the fact that he used "most", but the > underlying attitudes [the hatred and bigotry] that is shown > by these statements. I think that Alan had a valid point to make. This example has nothing to do with Trish. Jim-Bob made an isolated remark showing clear feelings of bigotry and hatred. Trish did not. Jim-Bob has clearly stated his feelings. Trish has not. We know exactly what Jim-Bob is trying to say. Trish was in the process of saying something else. Her statement was torn out of a paragraph trying to make a totally different point. I feel the benefit of the doubt belongs to Trish. This is what should be cleared up. Else this discussion will go no where new. Robert