|  IP: Logged

quote:

---

When hateful thoughts turn into hateful or violent actions, the person who hates does not belong in the workplace.

---

quote:

---

If you take the politically correct line that no-one can express any opinion because someone might take it the wrong way, it would make for a pretty boring existence.

---

Leo, I think the problem with political correctness is not that no-one can express an opinion but rather that some opinions are considered appropriate and others unappropriate at such an extent that an individual who dares expressing his views will be banned from a community. That's what bugs me.

"I don't believe anyone should be defining themselves by their sexuality."

The problem is, with many Gays and Lesbians, that EVERYONE ELSE defines them by their sexuality. When a friend of mine had to take a relative to the emergency room, she overheard the receptionists at the desk speculating that she was probably "G-A-Y." Had my friend been marching in a gay parade, these same people would probably have said, "I don't want to know about her disgusting bedroom habits." But they want to talk about it on their own terms.

Not too long ago, a man was shot to death because he was in a public restroom carrying a purse and holding onto another man. The murderer thought he was killing a faggot. In reality, the man was holding his wife's purse at her request, because she was in the ladies restroom. And the man on his arm was blind--the victim was guiding him.

Obviously, the victim wasn't shouting, "We're here, we're queer!" but through circumstances, he was assumed to be gay by the wrong person. How many times do you see an effeminate man or mannish woman and assume they're gay? You may be wrong, but even if you aren't, why are you even thinking about it? Don't define ANYONE by their sexuality, and eventually, those whose sexuality you don't like won't have to flaunt it to show their numbers.

Thought is one thing, but even hateful words can lead to illegal activities. That neo-nazi (Robert?) Metzger was convicted of inciting to the murder of an African American. Charles Manson will never get out of jail for the Tate-LaBianca murders, yet he wasn't there. All he did was incite his followers. All he did was talk. It's important that ALL of us behave responsibly and with respect toward each other.

Most people are wise enough not to do that. But if I have photos of my wife and children on my desk at work, why shouldn't a gay colleague be able to display photos of their partner? If I talk about my family in the cafeteria, shouldn't they be comfortable talking about their life too? Again, it's a matter of RESPECT for each other, and TOLERANCE of our differences.

Leo wrote: "If you take the politically correct line that no-one can express any opinion because someone might take it the wrong way, it would make for a pretty boring existence."

Likewise, PRETENDING we are all the same makes for a pretty boring existence. And for some, it means a life of fear and misery.

Lionel is correct: the most fortunate of us "work in places with mature and open people who never spent time arguing about each other's difference but simply accepted it".

Moms & Dads: You might want to think twice about letting your kids use public restrooms in Eugene without a chaperone.

I decided to post this because of a situation that happened several years ago where there was a gay rape of a young lad in Vancouver, Washington. The kid was killed and his body mutilated. When the person who commited the crime was brought to justice, it was then learned he was a gay man.

The gay community leaders were extremely outraged over this situation, and they took immediate action to help the victim's family in any way they possibly could.

I don't think anyone should condemn a whole culture because of what one person did. There are truly rottin' people in any culture you can think of.

I think that all of these individual groups are much too caught up in trying to make themselves "stand out" or "be counted" that they themselves are blind to others' beliefs/preferances/lifestyles. I'd have to use my toes to count the number of times someone has added, "By the way, I'm gay" into a casual conversation I was having with them. African Americans don't go around telling people, "By the way, I'm black." It shouldn't matter.

There is an ongoing debate at my University to include the words "sexual orientation" in the discrimination policy. The president of the University said, in a nutshell, that there has never been a documented instance where someone was discriminated against due to sexual orientation and therefore it does not need to be included. However, he added that the discrimination policy of the University is just what the state has, and that he personally feels that EVERYONE should be treated with dignity and respect, and listing each individual condition was unnecessary.

I agree with his second point somewhat, in that I feel it is unnecessary to say someone will not be discriminated against due to "Race, creed, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, color, hue, luminance, brighness, aspect ratio, or whether they crumple or fold their toilet paper." EVERYONE should be treated with respect, and "No matter what" should suffice.

On a side note, the campus bookstore recently held a homecoming-related "event" in which various student organizations were allowed to paint a window for a $50 donation to a charity that provides books to children. A lot of "diverse" organizations participated, including Breast Cancer Awareness, Gay Lesbian and Bisexual Student Union, Campus Crusade for Christ, Free The Planet and the campus chapter of NORML.
Everyone had their own thing. Pink ribbons, the "pride" flag, crosses, planet earth, and a pot leaf. The bookstore had approved of all submitted designs prior to them being painted on the windows. Once painted, some patrons complained about the pot leaf. Without contacting the organization or the artist who took several hours to paint the window, they simply whitewashed it out.
Thing is, I'm sure there were people "offended" by the pride flag or the cross, but if the bookstore were to paint over these, you bet there would be people screaming and hollering.

As for "sexual orientation", no one should be discriminated against because of it, but it shouldn't be flaunted to such an extreme that your actions in the bedroom warrant it being written into a formal document.

Whew! Hope I didn't offend anyone. OTOH, if you read this looking to be offended, then you deserve it!

quote:

---

Likewise, PRETENDING we are all the same makes for a pretty boring existence. And for some, it means a life of fear and misery.

---

Absolutely - the Nazis, the Communists and the Taliban (amongst others) provided convincing proof of that. But tolerance and diversity cannot be defined as meaning that anything goes under any circumstances. No-one, apart from a tiny, extremist minority, believes that homosexuality is wrong per se: the only issue is over whether it should be actively and formally celebrated in the workplace, as distinct from being accepted as a routine part of some people's lives.

Personally I don't think it should, because once these sorts of event get formally recognised within a company or institution the eventual result is to promote some agendas but dismiss others. Far from encouraging tolerance and diversity this in fact inhibits them, because people who don't agree with the agendas being promoted feel repressed. The start of that process is some stressed-out middle manager firing off an indiscrete e-mail, as happened in this case, but if it isn't stopped things tend to get a lot more poisonous.

Example - at one university where I was a postgrad, the students' union organised major events to mark AIDS day. Our elected representative for postgrad research (i.e. her brief was to represent us on academic issues) sent round leaflets, in her official capacity, suggesting that we donate to this cause. I felt this to be inappropriate on a number of levels.

I have far less sympathy for AIDS sufferers (in the developed world) than I do for those affected by many other diseases. In the west, AIDS is self-inflicted, pure and simple. There is a known vaccine - it's called not sleeping around and not injecting illegal drugs. Anyone who chooses to do either of those activities does so voluntarily, and IMHO, should bear the consequences. I have no more and no less sympathy for an AIDS sufferer than I have for someone who drinks 15 pints of lager, gets in their car and then seriously injures themself in a road accident. This is unlike, say, heart disease and cancer, which affect millions of people who have led sensible and responsible lives without taking any wanton risks with their health whatsoever. Furthermore, there's a pragmatic argument against prioritising AIDS research as well as a moral one: in Britain last year, 270,000 people died of heart disease compared to 1,500 from AIDS-related issues. So by putting the same money into heart disease research you're potentially saving a lot more lives.

I accept that this is not the case in the African subcontinent, and that many people quite simply don't understand how AIDS is spread and how to prevent it. But we do know how to prevent it, so rather than invest millions in distributing retroviral drugs which at best pospone the onset of the disease for a few years, why not put that money into public education? Common sense says that it has to do more good.

Anyhow, as a result of this campaign, I wrote to the Student Union's president, expressing my view that the reprentative concerned had no right to conduct this campaign in her official capacity and with union funds, and that she should stick to her brief of academic issues. The result was that she made a complaint of harrasment against me to the institution's authorities. It was eventually thrown out, but not before a lot of stress and a lot of work involved in preparing the paperwork and so on. She should have just quietly been told to behave herself (i.e. campaign about AIDS in a private capacity or not at all). But because this issue had been worked up into a politically correct cause-célèbre, anyone who voiced dissent was automatically assumed to be destructive and a troublemaker. That's not what I call diversity.

quote:

---

In the west, AIDS is self-inflicted, pure and simple. There is a known vaccine - it's called not sleeping around and not injecting illegal drugs.

---

As for your so-called vaccination, I suppose you're sufficiently satisfied that there's no need to find a real one..? Would you say that staying in a plastic bubble is an acceptable vaccination for...say...polio?

I hope you never find yourself in a position where you regret making such an ignorant statement.

...and when is coming out day anyway?

quote:

---

I'd have to use my toes to count the number of times someone has added, "By the way, I'm gay" into a casual conversation I was having with them.

---

quote:

---

I'm sure then if you ever bring up a date you've had to friends in a group, and mention a girlfriend, you wouldn't have any problem with them discussing their dates with a boyfriend, then. As long as they don't actually SAY they're gay.

---

This is why people are afraid to express their opinions. I never said I "had a problem" with them "actually saying" they're gay. Nor did I say their statement was in the context of them talking about their partner. It was just a flat out statement, like "My cat's breath smells like cat food." I don't know if they were just waiting to see my reaction or what, but I found it to be an unnecessary part of the conversation that happened curiously often.

OTOH, if they were talking about their same-sex partner, then it would be rather redundant to say they were gay anyway.

quote:

---

"My cat's breath smells like cat food."

---

That sounds like a line from Ralph Wiggum. Are you a Simpson's Fan?

Prophecy is being fulfilled at alarming rates. Think about it.

quote:

---

As for your so-called vaccination, I suppose you're sufficiently satisfied that there's no need to find a real one..?

---

If that can be done at a cost which is proportionate to the number of lives it will save relative to spending the same money on research into other diseases, then by all means develop a real one. But the reality is that a hugely disproportionate amount of money has been spent on AIDS research, because AIDS activists are are highly politically motivated and very effective at getting their message across in the media. Spend the same money on research into heart disease or cancer and you'll save a lot more lives - it's that simple.

quote:

---

The truth is, nobody is safe from AIDS anymore.

---

No, and neither is anyone totally safe from walking across the road and being hit by a car driven by someone whose just drunk 15 pints of lager. But there is a tried and tested way of reducing the risk, and it makes me mad that AIDS activists concentrate on trying to find ways for people to carry on the behaviour which incurs the risks (i.e. sexual promiscuity and drug abuse), rather than promote behaviour which reduces them.

Once again, it comes down to a balance of rights and responsibilities. If you want the right to good health, then you must accept the responsibility to look after yourself. Rather than promote the widespread availability of condoms and needles and campaign for the use of (proven to be ineffective) retroviral drugs, this is the message that AIDS activists should be promoting. Is the National Heart Foundation putting money into research to develop a non-dangerous form of cholestorol? And how many cancer charities are developing genetically modified tobacco so that smokers can continue puffing away regardless?