Re: Respectable
From: Loren Davidson (
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 95 13:30 CST
At 12:51 PM 1/31/95 CST, John M. Gear wrote:
>Whaaaaaaaaaaaat?????????????????????????????  I can't believe I got ambushed
>on this.  If you had bothered to check soc.religion.unitarian.univ you would
>have found that I post to argue *for* acceptance and recognition of
>polyrelationships by the UUA (along with a UUA resolution opposing the "war
>on drugs" and a host of other less "respectable" issues).
Sorry, John...fortunately or not, we don't all have sufficient time to read
every newsgroup, and not being a Unitarian of any stripe, I don't read
s.r.u.u and really don't have free cycles to check it or any other group for
content.  Please don't assume that we all have the same subscription lists.
I apologize for any misjudgements based on lack of context which I believe
should have been provided.
>It must have been the word "respectable" that caused this. 
<lots of intelligent stuff about reactionaries deleted>
I believe that the only answer to reactionaries is to discuss things openly
and honestly.  Anything else evokes a "what are you hiding" response.  If we
want to get into "context issues" on this, I've been arguing this one in
various Pagan communities since the mid 80's, but I don't expect you to know
that without being told.
>Cohousing is about the most radical and potentially subversive activity
>going today, perhaps as potent as feminism.  And that is *not* an insult,
>that is high praise.  Cohousing has the potential to fundamentally change
>the way the great North American consumer class uses resources and relates
>to the corporate state.  Cohousing threatens every pillar of the consumer
>society, from washing machine and lawn mower makers to the mass media
>(people in cohousing are *not* going to keep buying one of everything for
>every adult family for long, nor will they long tolerate a mass media that
>depends constantly implanting "needs" and selling people the solutions in a
Agreed, totally, and I think this is a very good and healthy thing.
 THAT's what cohousing looks like to the 4% of the US that owns 90%
>of its wealth--a serious threat that should be marginalized and made to seem
>radical/outre/strange/fringy.  There are a *lot* of powerful people who can
>see the implications of cohousing very quickly--and can reflexively make it
>even harder than it already is.
Sorry, but I don't see this.  Maybe I'm not as paranoid, but I just don't
believe that enough of these people have made this sort of connection.  I
believe that it is beyond their range of perception unless someone gets into
their faces with it.  I try not to get into people's faces with stuff like
that.  I just do what I do and act as though it's the most perfectly natural
thing in the world.  You can go a long way on that, I've found.
>If you want to play into their hands by letting them create an association
>between cohousing and other social forms that have been widely attacked, you
>go right ahead. 
I believe that the best way to "play into their hands" is by letting them
make us afraid and confrontational and to split ourselves apart on
relatively minor issues.  John, I don't believe that you and I are that far
apart, philosophically.  We just make some different assumptions about how
to deal with the world.
>And please, before you decide your tender buttons have been pushed again,
>note that *nowhere* in either of my posts have I suggested or implied that
>poly is not perfectly acceptable to me.

I'm sorry, but that's what it looked like to me in the absence of any other
information on you and your views.  Apparently neither of us was as clear in
our original posts on this subject as we could have been.

And unless we can come to a fairly quick resolution of this or re-turn the
discussion to something that most of the list will be interested in, maybe
we should take this discussion to Email.

(Offering the olive branch)

Loren Davidson 
lmd [at]
This document made from 100% recycled electrons.

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.