X-From-Line: nobody Sun Jan 4 13:15:13 1998 Newsgroups: alt.polyamory Subject: Re: Geraldo refuses to show Loving More episode References: <34AAB715.5A63@ibm.net> <68f4s2$6b@excalibur.gooroos.com> <68mpk7$t0o@nuhou.aloha.net> From: Paul Crowley Date: 04 Jan 1998 13:15:08 +0000 Message-ID: <87en2otm76.fsf@hedonism.demon.co.uk> X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.2.25/XEmacs 19.14 Lines: 70 Xref: hedonism.demon.co.uk misc-news:278 X-Gnus-Article-Number: 278 Sun Jan 4 13:15:13 1998 surfcow@aloha.net writes: > I believe that Brett really wants to help the polyamory movement. [snip a lot of text - all agreed] > I'll bet Geraldo expected the routine Thursday night crucifixion, > and what he got was the Sermon on the Mount. They walked into the > lion's den, acquitted themselves very well and came out unscratched > and the Romans don't want you to see it. (I know, metaphor abuse.) Could be. > Brett apparently feels that even if Geraldo edits the show in the meanest, > most unflattering way imaginable, some of their meaning will touch enough > people to justify it. As I was not there, I defer to his judgment. But the style of Geraldo's show is such that it simply will not be shown unless they can get a sufficiently gory edit on it. Pressure on them to show it will surely cause them to go over the tape again to see if they can find such an edit. > I may not have gone about it the way he did, but until I do a better > job I will respect his efforts and not shoot at them. This is your fundamental mistake; I'll come to discussing it in a moment. > Any jackass can knock down a house, but it takes a man to build > one. (or woman or trans-gendered person) Aside: I don't think the sexism in the phrase "it takes a man to build one" can be excised; you need a new phrase. You'll also annoy lots of TG people if you imply that they're neither men nor women... > Brett wasn't asking for permission. He wasn't asking for opinions > on the quality of Geraldo's show or family tree. He was only asking > for help. It would surely be a bad idea to give our help on ventures whose wisdom we question? > The words said 'no', but the tone said 'No and you are stupid for > trying'. Honesty does not justify abuse. There's a real person on > the other end of the keyboard. Sometimes abrasiveness is clever. > Sometimes it outshines meaning. Perhaps words could be chosen with > less attention to impact and more to clarity. No, I think you're seeing what isn't there. I don't think anyone actually thinks that Brett is actually stupid, like in some way incapable of following complex trains of thought. People are just saying that he made a mistake, which anyone can make. I'm disturbed that no-one is arguing that getting this Geraldo shown would actually be a good idea; instead all we've seen is criticism for daring to criticise what an Activist has done. It is a very common attitude that you shouldn't criticise what activists do because they're doing it and you're not, and it's a big mistake. The whole point about activism is that it's supposed to be directed at a goal affecting more people than just yourself, so it makes sense to ask for the intellectual input of others on what you're doing. Here's a lot of people saying "we're worried that showing this episode of Geraldo will damage our shared long-term interests", and you're saying that we should try to get it shown anyway because Brett's sincere and has done all this work. It seems to me that stifling debate on what actually is in our long term interests and blindly following the leaders would be madness. __ \/ o\ paul@hedonism.demon.co.uk \ / /\__/ Paul Crowley -+- DATA IS SACRED /~\