On Wed, 25 May 2016, nalini.elkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>> >>On 5/25/16 6:17 AM, nalini.elkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> >> So, it is not OK to put an additional burden sometimes on GLBT people
>> >> but it is OK to put an additional burden on Asian and African and
>> >> other people as far as cost, racism, visa, etc, etc?
>>
>> >>On 5/25/16 6:17 AM, nalini.elkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> >> So, it is not OK to put an additional burden sometimes on GLBT people
>> >> but it is OK to put an additional burden on Asian and African and
>> >> other people as far as cost, racism, visa, etc, etc?
>>
>> >Perhaps we should regard this as an opportunity to talk
>> >about which forms of bigotry we'll accommodate and which
>> >we won't.
>
>> Well said.
>In an ideal world, there would be no travel costs, no visa barriers,
>no discrimination and no bureaucracies to deal with. We don't live
>in such a world. Until we do, this isn't a matter of what type of
>bigotry is worse or better IMO, it's about making practical choices
>about meeting locations (assuming we still want to have physical
>meetings). Every meeting we hold excludes some number of people for
>numerous reasons, hopefully it's not the same people every time.
Sure. I am OK with that. Share the burden of being inconvenienced and work together for the common goal.
I actually prefer the word "unfairness" or "inconvenience" to the word "bigotry". But, I think it FEELS like bigotry to some people so I was validating Melinda's feelings. (Sorry, I am from Northern California and processing feelings for hours on end is the local sport.)
Nalini