Tuesday, January 25, 2005

Response to comments

First, in case you didn't notice, I sided against the radicals more than against the conservatives, so :-P.

Secondly, and I quote, "[w]hile I sympathize with the radicals in that they don't want to be around people whose basic outlook on life includes segregation and hate (I wouldn't, either), there are a lot of people who are 'republican' or what have you that aren't." Seems like I mentioned that "[c]onservative and republican do not automatically equate a belief in segregation and hate." Maybe I should have said 'don't' instead of 'aren't,' and put quotation marks around some of that bit, which are not my own words, I should add.

In addition, yeah, the radicals have the privilege - they're the ones that first started holding 'All Queers' meetings. The moderator/facilitator, btw, was not a radical.

I also seemed to advocate for inclusiveness in the queer term, even the more conservative ones.

I will agree that radicals (far lefters, not the strange concoction by [who?] that are actually reactionary/fundamentalist) can be very black and white in the way that they see issues; I, however, though I do have strongly-held beliefs concerning politics and, well, actually lots of things, try to exercise balance and thoughtful consideration on issues (though I will admit I don't always succeed). That's one reason I have a blog: through dialogue with others I can ensure that my opinions are well thought-out, and that I have communicated them well.

Clearly you failed to read the entire post, and did exactly what I was complaining about - people not listening to each other.

As a parting shot, 'queer' was adopted by the "more extreme radicals" as a way of turning something hateful into something to be proud of, so if anyone has claim to it, it's the radicals.
Post a Comment