Re: CHAT: closet conlanging >> definitions?

Tom Wier wrote:
>
> vardi wrote:
>
>> In that sense, how ironic that many of those loudest to
> > condemn sodomy (especially among the American Right) are the same who
> > promote just such a society, on the pretext of encouraging enterprise or
> > protecting the basic human right to own a gun and kill people with it.
>
> You're not seriously saying that the people who condemn sodomy
> are also, for the most part, people who advocate a society based on
> materialism, greed and violence, are you? Such a claim is IMO a wild
> overgeneralization, and I don't think belongs in any discussion which
> purports to analyse facts in a rigorous or scientific way.
>
Thanks for your comment, Tom. I thought about you almost as soon as I'd
sent it, because I remember commenting a bit sharply about your use of
the expression "PC thuggery" a little while back. I was worried that I'd
crossed the line by tagging on that anti-right-wing comment, and your
reaction shows I was right to be worried.


Firstly, I am sorry if you got the impression that I was claiming that
all or even most right-wing people, whether American or not, are
"Sodomites" in the broader sense that I was discussing. I don't think
that. I do stand by my underlying comment that MANY of those who condemn
sodomy (as a metaphor for homosexuality) also favor positions which, in
my opinion, promote materialism, greed and violence. I see in that the
same irony that I see in someone bombing an abortion clinic and labeling
themselves pro-life.  But please let me reiterate that I'm talking about
something that I think is real and out there, but only part of reality.
I'm certainly *not* saying that if one is a member of the Republican
party, or sometimes says "he" as a generic third person pronoun, or
tends not to favor state intervention in economics, then one is
automatically part of the phenomenon to which I refer.

> These issues are far more complex than most people are willing to grant,
> and IME debates about American political persuasions (when discussed
> by non-Americans) tend to jump right into stereotypes, so we had all better
> be wary where we tread in these matters.
>
Well, as an Israeli, a Jew, and a gay person I'm certainly sensitive to
the dangers of stereotypes. However, I am also nervous about the "if
you're not there you can't comment" argument.  That's been used in all
kinds of parts of the world (including Israel) to try to stifle
criticism of things that badly needed criticizing.

> (BTW, I mean nothing personal by this;  it's only that I think people
> really ought to know what they're talking about in depth before making
> claims about whole societies.  In any event, this has little to do with conlanging,
> so we should perhaps take such discussions offlist if we are to continue them.)
>
I don't take anything personal:)

As for going offlist: I didn't, for this reply, since your comment was
on list, and even if only a couple of people read it, I'd want them to
have the chance to read my reply if they want to do so. But I'd be happy
to go offlist if you want to explore any of the points in more depth or
more personally.

Again, sorry if my phrasing was too brash, and please be assured that
beyond all these labels and divisions I make every effort to look at the
individual human in any case, with all his/her complexities, beliefs,
qualities and so on.

Best wishes

        Shaul Vardi