rachel, scott, and the merit thread

[nathan kets]

Rachel, why is it just an ATTEMPT at satire
and not TRUE satire.  And who gets to make
those decisions?
And the satirist who Scott borrowed his indecent
proposal...he was talking about homelessness and
poor conditions of children (both groups of
people who don't get that invisible suitcase
of priv.--both with a great deal of HISTORICAL
oppression)
How is Scotts humor ANY DIFFERENT from the original
satirist he borrows from?
How is Scotts post any different from that
advocated in Living Color..
I'm not sure Scott's attempt was to trivialize
the issue...but perhaps to BRING LIGHT and
raise consciousness that not all the
PIECE MEAL solutions we THROW at issues
of race and gender don't necessarily
work.
I think race and gender are important issues,
but FAIL to see how aff. axn. in judging
improves the situation.  Urban debate leagues yes...
webpages probably....affirmative action
at in judging Nationals nope.
Rachel you seem to deploy almost AUTOMATIC
defenses of "this is a race and gender
issue damn it!!" without looking any further.

Also, perhaps rachel you should spend more time
focusing on advocators of your position (ie Sparky)
who don't advocate the basic principles you
seem to be advocating (ie respect).  For me
Spark'y post seems to UNDERMINE the message
and the messenger more than do ANYTHING
for progressive politics.

The message is meant in all honesty and sincerity...
i hope i haven't offended anyone.  I agree with
your message, just disagree with the MEANS.

gotta run to class..
peace,
nathan

--- Rachel Saloom <Spewer77 at AOL.COM> wrote:
> your attempt at satire is not amusing
> you make think its fun to trivialize issues of
> diversity in debate
> but some of us dont think its either funny or
> particularly enlightening
> rachel
> west ga
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com