NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/soc/motss/47744

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-15 | 5.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnewsc!cbfsb!att-out!pacbell.com!hoptoad!laura
From: [e-mail] (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Inconsistency re CO boycott
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 15 Nov 92 15:46:01 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Laura Creighton)
Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco
Lines: 132

Jess doesn't have any concrete proposal as to how this boycott
will work.  It would just be nice if it does.  Let me count
the expressions:

>Even when
>people have proposed "outright" boycotting of anything and
>everything associated with Colorado, I think they actually
>mean a selective program.

(but if they don't -- who cares?-- and besides, a change
of skiing to Vermont rather than Aspen, doesn't hurt anybody,
because who cares about skiing anyway?)

>I don't think anyone features hurting our
>own any more than the minimum necessary to reach objectives
>that (I would say, indisputably) need to be reached.

Yep. somebody else out there is deciding what is ``the
minimum necessary''.

>I certainly care, and I know lots of others do too, about
>what could happen to our friends there.  But it seems to me
>inevitable that even if we are as selective and careful as
>possible, some injuries (casualties of an ideological war,
>after all) will take place.

Too bad you live in Colorado.  You've got so many jerks
who voted for OC-2 that I'm sure that you are all volunteering
to to be ideologically injured and ideological casualties.
In this war, for *your rights*, defeated by OC-2, you have
to be `ideologically injured'  and an `ideological casualty'
to get them.

Fine and wonderful amount of caring for friends when you would
just relegate them to the `casualty' pile.

>It doesn't necessarily indicate indifference that one might
>still advocate boycotting.  In the real world, you do what
>you can, you do what you think you have to do, in spite of
>such things.  Naturally, one tries to be aware and
>sensitive; there's no point in using dynamite when a scalpel
>will do the trick.

But if people are screaming that it won't fix the problem, but
will kill their businesses, you awarely and sensitively
stuff cotton in your ears?

>Last night I saw a brief report that Colorado skiing has
>started uncommonly early this year because the snows have
>been there.  I don't know for sure, but I think skiing is
>one of the largest, if not the largest, tourist business in
>the state.  If absolutely no one went there to ski,
>thousands and thousands of people, about 10% of them our
>own, would be thrown out of work in short order.  But the
>state would lose billions in taxes and correlative income,
>and ski-oriented interests (hotels, restaurants, the hills
>themselves, the bus and air travel people, private citizens
>from all over the world with time-share condos, etc) would
>(I feel sure) very quickly get very militant about ending
>this kind of discrimination, not because it's moral or good
>or ethical, but because not to cuts their own economic
>throats.


Great.  you are advocating boycotting of skiiing whether or not
it is the largest, or one of the largest industries of the
state.  No need to research that.  If it turned out to be a
tiny industry, you can always say ``ooops'' to those out
of work.

How the heck can you organise a boycott without knowing this?`

Even assuming that you are correct -- how are these no-shows
to let the state know that the reason they are not there is
because of OC-2

If gaypeople were 60% of the population, this boycott,
targetted, might work.  We're not.

>
>The pain of discrimination is real.  Unquestionably the pain
>of fighting it is also real.  We can (and I think should)
>take what steps we can to minimize what the military people
>call collateral damage; but it can't be prevented completely
>without sacrificing the entire campaign.  What's at stake,
>namely our freedom and our very lives, is too important to
>resist with only half a heart.

Let the Gaypeople in Colorado rot under `colateral damage'.
People like me who live in San Francisco aren't suffering now,
and all the hell they go throw will make life nicer for me.

>The individualism of "it's my money" is subordinated, in
>my view, to the larger social goal.


Sounds to me that Maureen's social goal is that she might not
have any money and any job either.

Let's all go support `gay rights' while Maureen is unemployed.
Doesn't that image bring bile to your throat?

``Boycott Colorado'' is a bucn of out-of-towners feeling good
about themselves when they did piss-all to defeat OC-2.

I sent $50.  That's close to piss-all.  But at least I have
the idea that the people who fought OC-2 are real alive
brothers and sisters, not some damn abstraction to be
sacrificed.

If I thought a boycott would work, I would back it, but,
like a union, collect dues from those who boycott Colorado
which we could pay to those friends whose businesses go under.
And I'd help with an outreach project to convince those that
live in Colorado that this will work, and it is worth toughing
it out.

But I have no indication that it will work.
So it is just out-of-towners dicking around with self-righteous
games again..

Bleah

--
    Since Ryan White was buried in April 1990, his grave has been vandalized
    *more than* four times.

    (this news courtesy Phil Paxton [e-mail])

Laura Creighton
[e-mail]
hoptoad!laura