Re: Oh by the way (no Kate content whatsoever)

[moonboots@earthling.net (Boots)]

On 26 Oct 1997 12:53:36 -0500, s340090@student.uq.edu.au (K Bacon)
wrote:

[snip]

>I must admit that you comments on 'assumptions' are very ambiguous, and
>nearly the most bizarre thing I've read on an email list :)

Sheltered life? :-)

>- Firstly, *IF* you think I was referring to you, then I suggest you watch
>what you type...in your 'add-on' to Lane's email you not only had to
>"HAHAHAHA" (with no sign of it being a 'friendly giggle'), and you gave no
>reason about your reply except to quickly point out that it was 'another
>vote for missing the point'.

Perhaps taking a little of your own advice and lightening up (stepping
back for a second and getting rid of some of the knee-jerk emotions
would help.  To say "I suggest...you watch what you type" could be
taken as being rather authoritarian. (No, I'm not the etiquette
police). I've noticed that along with making your very valid points,
Kim, that you tend to blow up with your words. It's your right, of
course, but it's also other people's right to giggle at your sounding
huffy. 

> This in fact contradicts what you typed in
>your last email.  Up the top of this text, there is your quote "yes
>understand the song as you wish", and yet you're laughing at people for
>"missing the point".
This, in fact DOES NOT contradict at all.
"yes understand the song as you want" in no way logically unravels
"missing the point"

You can have your opinion, and I can laugh at it. It's called freedom.
This is *MY* take on things and not a comment on what Kryii wrote.
This is exactly what i'm talking about with letting go of some of the
emotion. 

For instance, let's grant that there are homophobes on this list.
Even if they demean for interpretation of the song, how does it
logically follow that they are demeaning you or homosexuality? They
aren't saying anything that extends beyond interpretation. How is that
fear or loathing of homosexuality? My point is that even if they are
homophobes and put forth statements demeaning your interpretation
(this is devil's advocate time, I'm in NO WAY suggesting anything of
the sort is the case)... it is still YOU, Kim, that instills the words
with a further meaning, it is YOU who read the insult into it. I'm not
saying that's good or bad, but it's the way it is.

I'll give you a personal example. I've got very asian features (maybe
it's because that's the way I was born:-))  If I get called names
based on the generalization, or if I hear a slur against asians, it
would be easy for me to fly off the handle and take it personally.
Instead, I feel a little momentary twinge of anger over the ignorance
of some people and realize that any stress in my life that this
causes, any bad feelings their ignorance provokes in me--it all first
has to go through me. I have to acknowledge it instead of dismiss it.
I have to be offended by it instead of chalk it up to ignorance. I
might add that I live in a very backwoods area, and, while it can't be
nearly as bad as what you must face from the ignorance of others, the
underlying rule still applies. You are the center of your universe,
You directly control how you react to things. Truly, homophobia is
ignorance, but what then is paranoia concerning homophobia?

 Finding things in cloudbusting that make you feel good (even if your
interpretation is totally personal) is a wonderful thing. If you want
to see "your son's coming out" as a positive reference toward being
gay, that's individuality and freedom (wonderful things too).  I think
that there wasn't a "the point" to be missed, but an inspiration for
the song. So, again, you're right. Like I said, finding good things is
a good thing, finding homophobia in posts that express the
individuality of others, and, in a veiled way, calling them names,
shows your own contradiction. To say, in effect, "I can't tolerate
even the hint of intolerance" is to be intolerant.

>  Make up your mind - you either believe in freedom of
>interpretation or you don't!  Just because you don't have the same
>interpretation (or Kate for that matter) doesn't justify telling people that
>they are "missing the point".  

Well, actually, if they feel there's a point to the song, that's
interpretation, opinion. Ultimately they can justify them saying
whatever they want with whatever they choose. Freedom is not
contingient upon being either right or polite. 

For example, you have the right to take what I write personally and be
offended. I don't mean it that way, but still you have that freedom.
Watching what you say so things don't become misunderstood isn't just
"the other guys's" responsibility. Does that makes sense?

Boots