>> So, setting aside Michael's original quandary, what is the
>> fascination here with exceptional cases?
> Because these cases are causing actual harm to queers. This
> is not theoretical, it is actual.
I guess I could have been clearer by what I meant by "exceptional case."
I don't deny that unions can make policy or tactical decisions so egregious that one might justifiably contest the imperative of solidarity. As ravi notes, it's a matter of working out reasoned action, not following rules.
So the discussion itself is necessary and inevitable.
I just think that its development - from "Jeez, what's the deal with this specific action?" to "By what reasoning might one justify crossing a picket line?" - while theoretically valid, is odd. As in kind of erosive and painful, in light of labor's current weakness and vulnerability.
As opposed to, say, "Is there any way to express critical or conditional solidarity, and can/should there be?" Or just venting, even: "If this is solidarity, why do I feel like a chump?"
Yeah, my input is belated and maybe naive, and I don't even know if I'm making myself any clearer. But I still think this is curious form.
-- Best regards,
DMC mailto:dclark at ptd.net