I will vote for you if you can apply the "no means no" policy to salespeople, telemarketers, and so on. Yes, "no" is a fungible term like thousands of other terms in our language. It often means "make me a better offer" in both sales and mating rituals. It may not be right, but it is. Likewise "He/she/it's different" is Minnesotan for "That's wierd or gross and I don't like it." "Minnesota nice" is a term used in many places for "passive/agressive."
"No means no." was developed in the context educating against rape, and it is valid, and unfungible in that limited CONTEXT. So it was a poor choice of examples. A better example might have been the position that "all heterosexual sex is rape." This is similar to declaring that breathing is immoral. Our remaining instincts as humans appear to be eating, breathing, sleeping, seeking shelter and reproducing. Moral or immoral nobody is going to stop breathing by choice (for long) and very few heterosexual males are going to stop seeking sex with women. (Though we can hope that they all limit themselves to safe, consensual sex). Some movements have been trying to rewrite the dictionary for too long. Unfortunately, language is like wet soap. If you grip it too hard, it gets away from you. Language is not binary. Words have shades of meaning. we even have a word for that "connotation." I have often heard that education is a "right" not a "priviledge". This statement is also wrong. Education IS a priviledge. It SHOULD be a right, but it isn't. Not yet. You can worry about language all you want, but it usually doesn't reflect reality. We have another education discipline that tries to reflect reality in language and symbols. It's called science, and it's wrong too. Well, it's not necessarily wrong. It's "inaccurate." To some, inaccurate is the same as being wrong. To some, being in accurate is the same as lieing. So, yes, if the focus of your campaign is to worry about language, then no you won't have my support. If your concern is to insure that the language of YESTERDAY is not lost as it evolves into the language of tomorrow, then that is a valid concern of the language department. If your concern is to reduce or eliminate violence in schools, then of course you have my support - but not if your plan is tell everyone that "no means no." > Michael Atherton writes: > > It's fair to say that homosexuals have many things in common with > heterosexuals; it is also fair to say that there are others things that > they don't. The Feminist movement lost credibility with the public > partially because they resorted to unrealistic rhetoric. For > instance, "No means no." Well, most everyone knew that "no" > sometimes meant "maybe" (even in the gay community). > > And the Patrick wrote (in part) > > Most of all, I'm > not seeking the endorsment of those who think that no EVER means maybe. > Honestly, I would rather lose the election if winning meant that I > would have to seek the support of that ideology. So yeah, don't vote > for me. Perhaps you could write in Renee LaVoi. > > Patrick _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
