Eschewing Violence / Chewing Silence
Sun Sep 3 11:05:20 CDT 2000
>In a message dated 9/2/00 10:51:34 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
>johns01 at sprynet.com writes:
>> Well then my nobility will be tainted and I guess I will become a mere
>> aristocrat, apparently dropping me below significant member of the
>> community status. Perhaps I will petition the king for a reinstatement next
>> year, it is nice to have a castle, in the mean time I think I will avoid
>> stoking the fireplace of profanity that someone has constructed in my
>> parlor, and instead go drink some mead with my fellow peasants. Hopefully
>> my friends will forgive me.
>> I was only questioning your use of the word "everyone" in the original
>> note. They did not manage to get "everyone" to support the feminist cause
>> by promising rhetorical violence. They got about 12 people to do it. That
>> is not even everyone in the e-debate world. You are using the typical
>> tactic of using a portion of a group to smear the entire cause.
>Gee, let's look at your tactics, ok?
>1. The whole 1st paragraph is an absurd attempt to paint my position as the
>voice of the elite.
No, it was a joke.
>2. Your expression that it's better to go drink beer than get involved in a
>profanity melee is my point exactly. I am led to believe that you have
>enjoyed the opportunity to "smash" me more than you have put effort into
>understanding my message. I am also against the profanity. I am not enjoying
>my "manly" friends lowering themselves to the level of those profanity-users
>by employing counter-threats.
>3. Finally, I counted far more than 12 that have now produced counter-threats
>in the cause of stopping the rhetoric of Schiros and Hultz. Why are you
>choosing to not speak out against ALL violence. Isn't that what a real
>feminist would do?
I'm not sure what a real feminist would do. I do try to oppose all
violence. Sometimes that does not entail speaking, when any sort of
speaking is perceived as a provocation, as has been the case in this
discussion. That is not the same thing as complicity.
>I apologize if you feel that you have been unfairly stung by a hasty
>generalization, but what silenced you in taking an opposition to all
>violence? You've taken it against me before when I've been frustrated. Is it
>just the inherent "rightness" of violence employed in defense of feminism
>that keeps you quiet? Oh, great one, emerge from the mead-filled halls of
>your castle to illuminate us mere earthlings!
Nothing "silenced" me, I was silent because of the reason above and because
of the ineffectiveness of this forum as a means to accomplish much of
anything. No, I don't see anything right about this violence. I don't have
a castle, the IRS took it away because I didn't declare my camp money.
>who was strenuously avoided profanity of any sort...
More information about the Mailman