[Vision2020] NYTimes: The Big Hate

Paul Rumelhart godshatter at yahoo.com
Mon Jun 15 18:48:44 PDT 2009


Joe Campbell wrote:
> Paul,
>
> It is hard for me to figure out where our disagreement lies. I've 
> never criticized anyone whose beliefs have never been manifested in 
> any kind of action. After all, how would I know?

I was responding to this:

"Are you saying that people are ENTITLED to believe that the holocaust  
never happened? That seems like a radical view to me. I feel  
comfortable drawing the line on the other side of crazy, thank you  very 
much. "

I do believe that people are entitled to their opinions, even if you 
think they are crazy.  You sounded to me to be incredulous that someone 
might believe something you think is obviously wrong, which is what 
prompted my reply. 

>
> Nor do I mind disagreement. It would be difficult to be successful in 
> the field of philosophy if I didn't tolerate disagreement! Goggle 
> "Joseph Keim Campbell free will" if you don't believe that I'm 
> successful. That's my area.

I've been debating free will on an Internet forum, it's an interesting 
topic, and I look forward to reading what you've written.

>
> Part of your problem is that you seem to equate belief with speech but 
> the two are not the same. There is a big difference between someone 
> who BELIEVES that I am fat and someone who SAYS that I am fat, 
> especially if he says it in a way that he doesn't care whether or not 
> I hear it. Someone who says it, not caring whether I hear it, is being 
> offensive. Offensive speech is an ACTION, not just a BELIEF.

So it's OK to hold a contrary opinion as long as you shut up about it?  
That's not the world I want to live in.  People need to grow thicker 
skin.  I understand your point that speech (offensive or not) is an 
action.  I don't want many restrictions placed upon free speech, 
though.  If someone has a viewpoint that is offensive to someone else, I 
would still like them to be able to share it.  I'm not talking about 
what is polite, I'm talking about their right to believe something that 
others do not and to be able to say so.  If they experience ridicule for 
it, so be it.  If they receive a shit storm of emails on a discussion 
list because of it, so be it.  What I don't want to see, though, is some 
kind of attempt by the majority to silence them.

>
> I am not in favor of laws against offensive speech, loving free speech 
> as I do. But I obviously have no problem criticizing offensive speech. 
> After all, any criticism is just more SPEECH.

It looks like we agree here.  I support your criticism of holocaust 
deniers, slavery apologists, or whatever group you disagree with.

>
> Paul, what more have I DONE as opposed to SAID in this regard than, 
> say, Pastor Wilson? (I'm just using him as a local example of the kind 
> of hate speech I'm talking about here.)

I have no idea.  It sounds like you've both simply communicated your ideas.

>
> You can't complain about what I SAY about Wilson or about anything 
> else I say if what I say is no more than my BELIEFS -- for those are 
> innocuous and beyond criticism. That is why you think you don't need 
> to speak out against Wilson, right?

I certainly can complain about what you say, it's my right as well.  I 
don't feel the need to speak out against Doug Wilson because I don't 
particularly care about his theology or whatever beliefs regarding it he 
might have.  It's no more odd to me than many other beliefs I've heard 
expressed.

>
> On the other hand, if you agree that if someone SAID I was fat, I'd 
> have a right to complain about it, then you'd have to agree that I 
> have a right to complain about Wilson. After all, talk about slavery 
> "As it Was" has got to be even more offensive to blacks in general 
> than talk about my fatness is to me. Still, my complaints are no less 
> speech (or writings, in either case) than are his offensive words.

You do have the right to complain about it.  I'm not trying to take that 
away from you.  As for your example, I'm overweight myself and I'd 
rather that people didn't feel frightened to bring up the topic in my 
presence for fear of my being offended.

>
> So what I don't get is why you remain more or less silent about 
> Wilson's hate speech yet have no problem criticizing me. The story so 
> far does not wash.

For one thing, I don't see it as "hate speech".  I haven't read 
everything he's written, so maybe I'm missing it.  To believe that 
slavery was a kinder gentler historical phenomenon than what is 
currently taught in history class is not "hate speech".  I can 
understand people disagreeing vehemently with the idea - but it's still 
not hate speech.

The reason I criticize you more than Doug, I think, has to do with the 
fact that I've never seen Doug post here.  If he posted about his theory 
here on the Viz, I might be inclined to tear it apart.  I also criticize 
you more because you and I are both (in my opinion) liberals.  To me, 
the liberal creed has a lot to do with acceptance of other viewpoints 
and other belief systems.  I expected to see more tolerance expressed 
here on the Viz about Wilson and his church, and I'm rather disappointed 
in the amount intolerance I see.  Criticism I expect to see, but people 
here seem to go too far.  I'm afraid I tend to lump you in with the 
crowd that produces websites like "not on the Palouse, not ever" or 
whatever it's called, or that shuns Kirk-member owned businesses.  If 
that's unfair to you, I apologize.

To me, they are just another group I don't agree with, like the Flat 
Earth Society or the people that want to ban violent video games.

Paul

>
> Joe Campbell
>
> On Jun 14, 2009, at 5:15 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Joe,
>>
>> I'm not Dan, but I'd like to answer this one.
>>
>> My response to this is somewhat ironic, because I admonished you 
>> earlier for drawing lines in the sand.  But...  there is one line I 
>> do draw:
>>
>> What goes on inside your skull is your own business.
>>
>> So if someone does believe that the holocaust never happened, then I 
>> do think they are entitled to their opinion.  The same thing goes 
>> with the supposed Shangri La of southern slavery.  I may think they 
>> are wrong (which, as it happens, I do), but they are still entitled 
>> to their opinions.  They are entitled to speak about it publicly, and 
>> they are entitled to try to sway others to their cause.  People who 
>> believe differently are free to critique their ideas.
>>
>> I'd hate to live in a world where not simply stating a contrary 
>> opinion, but even just holding a contrary belief is not acceptable.
>> Paul
>>
>> Joe Campbell wrote:
>>> Dan,
>>>
>>> Are you saying that people are ENTITLED to believe that the 
>>> holocaust  never happened? That seems like a radical view to me. I 
>>> feel  comfortable drawing the line on the other side of crazy, thank 
>>> you  very much.
>>>
>>> I find it interesting that you and Paul and others have no trouble  
>>> calling me out for my beliefs -- I'm biased because I think 
>>> historical  revisionism is wrong, or whatever your reason was -- but 
>>> you don't  want to say anything against those who deny the holocaust 
>>> or who claim  that slavery wasn't so bad.
>>>
>>> That is one strange -- or politically convenient -- set of beliefs!
>>>
>>> Joe Campbell
>>>
>>> On Jun 14, 2009, at 2:46 PM, "Dan Carscallen" <areaman at moscow.com>  
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Joe,
>>>>
>>>> I think people are entitled to their opinion.
>>>>
>>>> I don't necessarily have to agree with their opinion.  Nor do I 
>>>> have  to
>>>> agree with yours.
>>>>
>>>> As Paul wondered earlier, why do we have to draw lines in the 
>>>> sand?   Why
>>>> must we search for divisiveness? I'd just as soon get along.
>>>>
>>>> DC
>>>>
>>>> p.s. my initial post was lighthearted in nature.  I thought you'd  
>>>> "get"
>>>> it.  Sunil and Carl would have!
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Joe Campbell [mailto:philosopher.joe at gmail.com]
>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 2:27 PM
>>>> To: Dan Carscallen
>>>> Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] NYTimes: The Big Hate
>>>>
>>>> Is it that I'm biased or that you are too afraid to buck the Wilson
>>>> camp for fear of losing votes?
>>>>
>>>> Well, we can test it.
>>>>
>>>> Don't you think that Wilson's revisionism about US slavery is just as
>>>> bad as the denial of the holocaust; if not, why not?
>>>>
>>>> My guess is you won't answer this question -- which is a bit of the
>>>> very problem I'm trying to note.
>>>>
>>>> Joe Campbell
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 14, 2009, at 1:27 PM, "Dan Carscallen" <areaman at moscow.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Joe,
>>>>>
>>>>> Your bias is showing.
>>>>>
>>>>> DC
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
>>>>> [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] On Behalf Of Joe Campbell
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 1:21 PM
>>>>> To: g. crabtree
>>>>> Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] NYTimes: The Big Hate
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't heard of half these people. Of these, most are not
>>>>> mainstream in the Fox is; of the others they are not as bad as Fox.
>>>>> Nor do I expect someone who defends Wilson's book in slavery to be
>>>>> able to notice how offensive Fox is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Joe Campbell
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 14, 2009, at 10:41 AM, "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you imagine that MSNBC with Olbermann, Madow, and Mathews,
>>>>>> Newsweek and Evan Thomas, and taxpayer funded NPR with Jeffery
>>>>>> Dvorkin, Nina Totenberg, Terry Gross and Michele Norris doesn't put
>>>>>> a particularly and decidedly liberal spin on its "information" then
>>>>>> you're even thicker than I previousimg20090614171449533ly 
>>>>>> imagined. No mean feat, that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> g
>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Campbell"
>>>>>>
>>>>> <philosopher.joe at gmail.com
>>>>>
>>>>>> To: "Paul Rumelhart" <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>>>>>> Cc: "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 5:41 AM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] NYTimes: The Big Hate
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Paul,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And what does this have to do with anything I've said? You're
>>>>>>> obviously reading something into my post that I did not say.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fox news is a disgusting example of bias, different in degree from
>>>>>>> any other news organization, IMO. That you would follow Tom's post
>>>>>>> with  some claim that "Everyone does it" strikes me as
>>>>>>> irresponsible since  it just muddys the water. Not every
>>>>>>> organization is biased in the way  Fox is. Someone needed to point
>>>>>>> that out and I did so. That is all  there is to it. I made no
>>>>>>> comments about conservative news  organizations in general, just
>>>>>>> the one bad apple.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Joe Campbell
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jun 14, 2009, at 1:21 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Joe Campbell wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is precisely why I'm disagreeing with Paul. Folks like you
>>>>>>>>> have got him convinced that the NY Times is as bad as Fox News.
>>>>>>>>> What a joke!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nowhere did I say that the NY Times is as bad as Fox News.  All I
>>>>>>>> said was that all news has bias.  That includes both the NY Times
>>>>>>>> and Fox News, but it says nothing about the amount of bias
>>>>>>>> relative  to each other.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You've drawn a line in the sand.  There is a "right" that watches
>>>>>>>> only Fox News, and there is a "left" that reads only the NY
>>>>>>>> Times.   The truth is, that line doesn't really exist as a line.
>>>>>>>> If you  really look at it, the right and left ideologies cover so
>>>>>>>> much  territory that you can't help but agree with a few concepts
>>>>>>>> "across  the line".
>>>>>>>> If we're ever going to come back together again as a country, we
>>>>>>>> have to throw that crap out the window.  All of us have to do
>>>>>>>> this.   Instead of looking for where we might agree, we're
>>>>>>>> highlighting the  differences.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>>             http://www.fsr.net
>>>>>        mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>
>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>>             http://www.fsr.net
>>>>>        mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>
>>>> =======================================================
>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>              http://www.fsr.net
>>>>         mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>> =======================================================
>>>>
>>>
>>> =======================================================
>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,  serving the 
>>> communities of the Palouse since 1994.                  
>>> http://www.fsr.net                                 
>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> =======================================================
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>




More information about the Vision2020 mailing list