Without presuming to speak for Brian, I think you misunderstand. The point is not that you have to be gay or some such to get it -- Brian obviously thinks that nongays can get it -- but that no one who gets his head out of his, er, keyboard and actually thinks about the implications of what he's saying for other human beings would say with a straight face that the concerns of other human beings in not being killed because of his/her sexual preference, or even in receiving respect and equal treatment regardless, should be ignored or abandoned as "impediments" to the struggle for "the cause of humanity." No one who lives life with people in a way that involves any empathy at all would say such a stupid and vile thing. At least that is the way I read it, and it is what I think.
--- Miles Jackson <cqmv at pdx.edu> wrote:
> Brian Charles Dauth wrote:
>
> >
> >>Race, sex, sexual preference are all tied up with
> the distribution of
> >
> > property and the division of labor.
> >
> > But Doug, you have to actually live life and not
> just theorize it to
> > understand this. But some people are content to
> be keyboard
> > jockeys and opine from the safety of a home
> office.
>
> This argument is precisely analogous to the claim
> that a medical doctor
> could not understand the etiology of a disease
> unless the doctor
> personally experienced the disease. Being able to
> thoroughly analyze a
> phenomenon and test causal linkages is not dependent
> on having an
> immediate "personal" experience. This assumption
> that a person cannot
> "know" something unless they personally experience
> it is one of the most
> pernicious misconceptions about knowledge that I
> come across as a
> college prof.
>
> Miles
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >>And it's a phenomenal fact that people experience
> their lives
> >
> > through these "identity" categories. You can tell
> them all you
> > like that it's a delusion, and it's really all
> about class, but
> > you've got to do a lot of analytical and
> rhetorical work to make
> > that clear.
> >
> > Or maybe build on their actual exprience of these
> identities so
> > that they then expand to an inclusion/creation of
> a class identity.
> >
> >
> >>And there are a lot of important things that class
> doesn't really
> >
> > touch - like the privilege of visiting your sick
> partner in the ICU.
> >
> > And because you have been refused entrance, the
> man whom your
> > mother came to call her third son is put on
> machines he never
> > wanted to be on because you were denied access.
> >
> >
> >>I think identity politics marked the end of class
> struggle -- that
> >
> > it coopted the legitimate grievances of women and
> minorities
> >
> > I always thought being murdered was a legitimate
> grievance. The
> > things you learn on lbo-talk.
> >
> >
> >>I am not sure what there is to get here.
> >
> >
> > The fact that in anti-queer culture, the
> likelihood of violence against
> > queers increases. In fact, if you want to help
> the elite do its work,
> > you oppose efforts to end sexism, racism and
> anti-queer hatred.
> >
> >
> >>A [genuine] question: what is the basis of
> solidarity? Surely it is
> >
> > more than back-scratching?
> >
> > Why does it have to be more than that? By working
> to alleviate the
> > real life oppression I suffer and my doing the
> same in return, a great
> > of solidarity can be brought about (you have to
> unattach yourself from
> > your keyboard to do so, of course).
> >
> >
> >>They are under the delusion that there is some
> magic formula which
> >
> > will instantly revive The Left
> >
> > It is the desire for some Party Line they can
> prostrate themselves before
> > which I do not see coming back any time soon
> (maybe never). Pluralism
> > looks like a permanent fixture of the future.
> >
> >
> >>more or less deliberately avoiding the fact that
> criticisms of or policies
> >
> > for The Left are empty until there is something
> (probably a loose coalition,
> > but an identifiable one) that can be called The
> Left.
> >
> > However, The Left re-emerges, I doubt it will be
> similar to Lefts of the
> > past.
> > Time to throw the wayback machines on the scrap
> heap.
> >
> >
> >>Capitalism is possible w/o the oppression of gays,
> blacks, women and
> >
> > national minorities
> >
> > Is it?
> >
> >
> >>but you can't have capitalists or capitalist
> society w/o workers.
> >
> >
> > Agreed, but you also need scapegoats in
> capitalism.
> >
> >
> >>I tried to explain this to Rorty, but he remained,
> as
> >
> > I told him to his considerable resentment, a
> vulgar
> > "Marxist" to the core, unshakable in his belief
> that
> > all of us are really fairly directly linked in our
> > behavior to our economic interests understood in
> > pretty narrow terms as wages and benefits.
> >
> > Throwing reality in Rorty's face? No wonder you
> were
> > offered no roses.
> >
> >
> >>so what do we do with racist homophobic white
> union activists?
> >
> > who then is engaging in identity politics at the
> expense of class
> > struggle?
> >
> > Sing out Louise!
> >
> > Brian
> >
> >
> > ___________________________________
> >
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222