Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site wjh12.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!wjh12!dyer
From: sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (dyer)
Newsgroups: net.motss
Subject: Re: Re: GAY SATIRE (Dyer's objections disputed)
Message-ID: <538@wjh12.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 12-Nov-84 00:21:09 EST
Article-I.D.: wjh12.538
Posted: Mon Nov 12 00:21:09 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 15-Nov-84 01:14:21 EST
References: <4159@decwrl.UUCP> <1124@bbncca.ARPA> <488@amdahl.UUCP>
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 50

Coming from wjh12 due to a head crash on bbncca...

About the only thing Gordon Moffett and I agree on is that the article has
received more attention than it can possibly be expected to bear.
However, the discussion nevertheless raises valid points, and ones
which I think Moffett simply cares to ignore.  That is, his objection
is simply a "shut-up ploy" designed to defer, rather than confront,
the issues.

The BLKTRAN incident did, in fact, raise quite a stink, one sufficient
enough to remove a large organization from the net.  A lot of people
didn't think BLKTRAN was funny.  Moffett must be marching to a different
drummer, which is his prerogative.  However, I would argue that this is
not a sufficient excuse to dismiss the opinions and feelings of
people who are sensitive to racist stereotyping.

Humor simply doesn't exist alone by itself.  There are presuppositions
on the part of the writer and preconceptions and attitudes which are
brought by the audience.  When I see something which deals exclusively
in stereotypes, I immediately start worrying about just what the
author is trying to say, and from what position the audience is going
to be reading.

After putting up with the likes of Arndt and Brunson for the past six
months, after reading the so-called christian fundamentalist literature
attacking gay people, after really beginning to apprehend just what
much of America thinks about gays, can we really take Moffett seriously
when he claims that the article could not be taken seriously
as representative of all gay people?  Well, maybe not representative of
gay women!  Frankly, I cannot afford to take the intelligence of
USENET, let alone America, for granted anymore.

To claim that any "misinterpretations" are the fault of the reader is
to miss the point.  I came across an interesting quote in net.singles
a few months ago.  I think it was by Bruce Israel: "You are
responsible for your own communication."  That is, it is incumbent
upon anyone communicating that the message be received intact, as
intended.

For that reason, the "satire" might be considered a {harm,taste}less piece
of fluff in a paper like, say, the "Advocate", where the humor would be
clear.  On the other hand, if the same appeared in, say, the "Dartmouth
Review", it would be cause for alarm.  Net.motss lies somewhere in
between the two extremes, and I think it is unwise for anyone to
assume that "gay humor" will be construed here the way we assume.

___
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,ihnp4,ima,wjh12,linus}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA