[5187] in Central_America
Re: New quotes for Fri Nov 19
sethf@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (sethf@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Sat Nov 20 23:05:38 1993
In the same vein, I have tried to make clear the difference
between my advocating a position of "the existence and analysis of
injustice can be abused, possibly to create even more injustice" and
those who would distort such into an absurdity of "there is no sense being
concerned over oppression at all, since their is some wherever you look.".
Indeed, I think about and am aware of reasons why people
generalize. Nor would I ever think of saying I do not ever make the same
mistake, and am pristine in my thoughts. But this knowledge, and even
sympathy, does not inhibit me from taking any issue. Some things pass,
some do not. After all, everything is trivial compared to the threat of
global nuclear war.
> are raped by men," and "Almost all men rape women", and I have said the
> former and had it taken as the latter, and that doesn't get anyone anywhere.
It is not quite this, but the deeper implication along the lines of
"because this criminal has a Y chromosome, and you have a Y chromosome,
you are deeply (morally?) connected to that crime in a way that those of us
without that Y chromosome aren't". And this shades into a "don't even
dare to argue about it, because that denies hurt". To wit:
"Don't give me shit if I tell you that you are, intentionally or not,
part of a culture and a patriarchy that hurts me. Deal."
This draws dispute. No, it's not the largest issue in the world.
Neither is a pebble in a shoe. But I will assert that it's in fact a
reflection of some very big issues, concerning identity and society,
writ small.
You're not asked to have infinite energy and compassion. In
essence, I'll conjecture all the collective flamers here just would like
not to have frustrations taken out on them for what they are (in terms
of race, sex, orientation etc), as opposed to what they've done. To
parody, I think this whole exchange is along the lines of "Men are scum"
"Waitaminnit, society may be scummy overall, but I'm not scum in
particular" "Why are you concerned with the trivial possible offense of
possibly being wrongly called scum when women are being raped?".
> And if none of that makes any sense to you, then I guess I'm talking to
> a wall, and I'll apologize for wasting your time and go talk to other people.
Perhaps I delude myself that it makes sense (as in passibly
consistent and comprehensible) to me. But then, on occasion, so do Louis
Farrahkan, Rush Limbaugh, and sometimes even Jesse Helms. I disagree
with them all, quite strongly though.
