> i wasn't speaking FOR him. i was interpreting what i thought he'd said to
> someone who also thought he could interpret what he thought art had said
> and, as a consequence of that interpretation, say something extremely
> controversial and substanceless.
>
> i hope my post to Leo will further explain why i stepped in and why i made
> the analogy to something left men typically feel less confiden or even
> concerned to speak about in any serious way and where they wouldn't be
> quite so offended.
No you didn't - I called myself that, in some ontological sense of the word.
> finally, i don't believe i called you racist or sexist. as to that issue,
> i will simply say this
Different it certainly is. I think Yoshie has done a pretty good ...(heh, heh, I won't say JOB :-) (it's more like a sysiphsian labor) arguing a point of view I could accept. So I will confine myself to my own subjective exposes of how dumb-ass some white workers can be. Real life experiences. To be posted later. Promises, promises.
-Brad Mayer
> no one, here, would deny that they are racist or sexist
> but that is different from engaging in a debate over whether or not a post
> or perspective is racist or sexist. we should always be able to discuss
> whether or not x or y argument is racist or sexist -- fully aware that we
> won't agree. assertions of racism or sexism (which i never made)
shouldn't
> be taken at face value, and they certainly shouldn't be accepted simply
> because someone is white or black, man or woman, etc. nor should it even
be
> accepted simply because someone marshalls the arguments of feminists or
> race theorists, etc.
>
>
> kelley
>
>