dgreen@ucla-cs.UUCP (08/30/84)
WE ARE NOT FOCUSING VERY WELL
Having been involved in a number of political groups before, the tactics
used by Mr. Arndt and Mr. Ted really come as no surprise. Destruction of
fruitful discussion is easy if you can appear well-intentioned. Indeed,
both may be quite well-intentioned, but our ability to carry on extended
discussion of cultural and political issues has been muddied substantially.
Under these conditions, the first task is to recognise the goals and the
problems. The goals are simple: To discuss cultural and political issues
of relevance to gays. The goals do not include incessant defense of gay
lifestyles or preferences. I have to defend my preference everyday in
everyday life. I refuse to do that here. Its an absolute waste of my time,
and yours.
The problems are, likewise, quite simple: Distraction from the goals of
the group can be accomplished readily in a no-discipline environment. We
have no moderator. No one can intercede against one member for the overall
benefit of the group. I.e., no one can stop Ken from flaming and no one
can stop you from responding.
WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT?
1. STOP DEFENDING YOURSELF IN SITUATIONS WHERE DEFENSE HAS NO EFFECT.
You know, and I know that Ken won't change his mind. With that in mind,
who do you think you are helping by flaming back at him? You aren't
helping the overall group, certainly. Most of us are gay. We already know
that gays are OK.
The person you are helping is Ken. He WANTS you to respond. There are
many possible reasons for that, but sincere interest on his part is hardly
one of them.
You might be helping yourself, by getting something off your chest.
Please, before you get something off your chest: THINK. Are you doing
something constructive ... or is it destructive? Are you destroying the
unity of the group for your own relief?
2. START DISCUSSING RELEVANT ISSUES.
Here's some interesting ones:
a. What distinguishes gay culture on the West Coast from that on the
East Coast? I bet they are pretty different. Los Angeles is
substantially different from San Francisco.
b. What has been your experience in unifying gay men and lesbians in
political or social groups?
c. Are gays becoming "more right-wing"?
d. What are your feelings about the focus of "gay money" in AIDS projects.
The ones I know about seem to spend a lot of cash on patient support,
and little or nothing on research. When the Reagan administration
recently announced substantial cuts in the support of AIDS related
research, should we be putting our money in to fill the gap? Or not?
e. I liked the review of the Fourth Man. Has anyone seen Another Country?
Its supposed to be a pretty good film, with a gay protagonist.
f. What companies are known to have non-discrimination clauses for gays?
g. Surely, you have some special interests within the gay community. What
are they?
A FINAL NOTE:
Since it is impossible (and perhaps undesirable) to control disruptive
behavior in a net group like this, we must impose self-discipline in order
to nurture fruitful discussion. Please do your best to be a positive influence
in this conference. Don't waste time defending yourself. It won't help.
My next entry in the conference will discuss political motivation among gays
(or something like that).
IF YOU AREN'T PART OF THE SOLUTION, YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM.
Love, Dan Greening (ihnp4, ucbvax) !ucla-cs!dgreenjeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (08/31/84)
> Please do your best to be a positive influence in this conference. > IF YOU'RE NOT PART OF THE SOLUTION, YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM. You might try following your own advice. That particular hoary old bulls**t is anything but a positive influence. One always has the right to abstain. Of course, political fanatics don't like that. And they've already decided what the solution is, regardless of what anyone else thinks about it. They are cordially invited, regardless of their sexual preference, to osculate my posterior. Other than that bitter reaction, I liked your article. Don't let your emotions drive you into quoting mindless slogans like the above. Jeff Winslow
ag5@pucc-i (Henry C. Mensch) (09/11/84)
<Boy, is Purdue boring! Better to die in a plane crash than to land here!>
One of the points which Dan Greening mentions in his article
"What about politics, . . ." regards the focus of "gay money" in AIDS
projects. He seems concerned that most of the gay-sponsored AIDS
projects spend *lots* of money on patient support, and that not much of
the money from gay sources is spent on research. He seems to feel
that some of the money should be re-directed from the support functions
to the research functions.
Although I understand his concern that we should spend more on
research and whup this monster for good, we *shouldn't* decrease
funding for the AIDS projects which support victims, their SO's and
families. It's important to keep in mind that (in many cases) the
victim is left jobless (either because he can no longer perform
required tasks due to his illness or because he was fired for being gay
and having AIDS) and homeless. We have to help support our own. These
support groups aren't just rap groups and counseling sessions; they are
providing *vital* services to AIDS victims.
I'd like to hear more about this. It's important stuff.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry C. Mensch | Purdue University Computing Center
{decvax|ucbvax|sequent|icalqa|inuxc|uiucdcs|ihnp4}!pur-ee!pucc-i!ag5
pucc-i.ag5@purdue.ARPA | pucc-i.ag5@purdue-mordred.CSNET
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Oh brave new world that has such people in it!"