[Vision2020] Freedom of expression

[Ted Moffett]

Two separate responses in body of text below.  This fourth post today
is over the limit for me... so "Good Night," as Ringo Starr sang it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIKugx1sToY

On 12/12/10, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ted Moffett wrote:
>> Paul Rumelhart godshatter at yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-December/073155.html
>>
>> "According to my views on freedom of expression, political correctness is
>> a disease that should be purged from the world."
>>
>> and earlier:
>>
>> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-December/073150.html
>>
>> "Just point, laugh, roll your eyes, and move on to fight something that
>> isn't just hyperbole."
>>
>> So after the above advice to "...point, laugh, roll your eyes, and
>> move on..." regarding the New Saint Andrews' website discussion on
>> Vision2020, you later state you want to purge the world of the disease
>> political correctness?  Why not just "...point, laugh, roll your eyes,
>> and move on..." when someone makes a politically correct statement?
>> Are politically correct statements more harmful to the world than
>> statements suggesting violence and hate, as some have interpreted the
>> statements on the NSA website to imply?
>>
>
> I see the point you're making.  I wasn't suggesting that people point,
> laugh, and move on to be politically correct, I was suggesting doing
> that to avoid feeding the trolls.  Which is, really, what they are.

It appears the slippage of language strikes again...

I was not saying anyone should "move on to be politically correct."  I
was asking, why object so strenuously to those who make politically
correct statements, if this is what you think some on Vision2020 are
doing, regarding New Saint Andrews' website?  What is the major harm
in someone making a politically correct statement on Vision2020, if
this is truly what is occuring (I am not saying it is...)?

Are these statements more harmful than statements that suggest
violence and hate, as some found the statements on the NSA website?  I
understand you do not think there is any real threat implied by the
NSA website, but others perhaps disagree.  What is the major problem
with expressing differing opinions regarding the NSA website?  Maybe
there are more important topics, but Vision2020 often focuses on what
I think are not very important issues.

Your response suggests you think the NSA website should not be a focus
of discussion to "avoid feeding the trolls."  But in responding on
Vision2020 to what you have implied, it seems, is politically correct
criticism regarding NSA, are you feeding those politically correct
"trolls?  You are certainly helping to keep the focus on the NSA
website discussion in this thread, by referencing it in your first
post.

Again, why not just "...point, laugh, roll your eyes..." at the
criticisms of NSA, rather than make more of an issue of it, as you
advised regarding the NSA website?  You think, if I have understood
you correctly, that these criticisms are somehow creating ill will
between NSA and those of differing ideologies.  So I suppose you think
that less criticism of NSA will encourage them to express more
tolerance of "secularists?"  I doubt it.  When an insititution of
higher learning, NSA, frames its mission aggressively against others
who do not share their ideology, to argue this approach should only
arouse a "...point, laugh, roll your eyes..." response, appears to be
an attempt to silence public discussion on substantive issues that
effect many people, which it also appears you cannot be advocating,
given your emphasis on freedom of expression.

Also, to claim the debate regarding fundamentalist Christianity and
secularism, and the political tactics involved, is not worth public
discussion, is on the face of it, not credible, given the power that
fundamentalist Christianity has over the political system.  Consider
that Idaho is one of the Super DOMA states
( http://www.danpinello.com/SuperDOMAs.htm ).  There is no doubt that
this law is in part the result of a religious view that NSA shares
with other fundamentalist Christians in Idaho.  And they vote.  As
they did regarding the ridiculous topless ordinance the Moscow City
Council passed.

To state you are not afraid of being physically attacked by anyone
from NSA, nor where you offended, given the rhetoric on their website,
does not address the real influence based on behavior that such
rhetoric has on the local, state and national level, regarding at
least four very important issues (I'll skip the alleged association
with racist groups and the debate regarding Wilson's book "Southern
Slavery As It Was"): gay and women's rights, religious tolerance and
understanding between those of all religions, spiritual worldviews, or
those of no particular persuasion on these matters, and the US pursuit
of the so called "war on terror," which as everyone knows is tainted
with religious prejudice and misunderstandings here in the US and
internationally, by those of differing religions:

http://atheism.about.com/od/sarahpalinreligion/tp/SarahPalinReligionScience.htm

>From website above:

In a speech to high school kids at her church, Sarah Palin said:
"Pray...that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [our
military men and women] out on a task that is from God. That's what we
have to make sure that we are praying for, that there is a plan and
that that plan is God's plan."

>
>> "Political correctness" could be defined to suit whatever I want to
>> purge from society.  Advocating purging a point of view is alarming
>> language.  Perhaps you were making a joke of some sort in this
>> comment, and I am missing the joke by taking you literally?
>>
>> But consider this example:  I define publicly exposing undercover CIA
>> government assassins as a "politically correct" agenda, that must be
>> "purged" to protect the necessary for national security assassinations
>> carried out in secret by the CIA..  Thus in purging political
>> correctness in this example, I am supporting government secrecy
>> regarding CIA assassinations.  It might be justifed to purge somone
>> planning to expose undercover CIA assassins, to protect national
>> security.
>>
>> Some examples of what might be reasonably defined as "politically
>> correct" can be viewed as idealistic ethically laudable behaviors, the
>> sort of behaviors it seems you would aprove given your support for
>> Wikileaks.
>>
>
> I think you are taking me too literally.  It's not politically correct
> statements, which is basically any statement not involving race,
> religion, gender, or sexual orientation in a negative light, that I
> object to.  It's people feeling like they cannot make politically
> incorrect statements because of some sort of societal pressure that I
> think is a problem.  When I said that I think "political correctness" is
> a problem, I was referring to the very idea that there are things that
> we cannot talk about because they might offend somebody, which is an
> idea I object to.  Not talking about any one of these areas as a society
> helps only in the short term.  Real discussion is what heals wounds,
> societal pressure towards silence only makes them fester.
>
> You're example above referring to political assassination isn't the sort
> of political correctness I was referring to, but while we are on the
> subject, I would say that keeping information about the whereabouts and
> covers for assassins should be kept secret.  However, the fact that the
> US government is sanctioning assassinations should be out in the open so
> that the American people can let their congressmen know whether or not
> they think the US should be engaging in such behavior.
>
> Paul
>

I agree that political correctness can be used to censor, of course,
can create a climate of fear that blocks freedom of expression, and
can impede Democracy and the power of the Fourth Estate.  Look at what
happened to Bill Maher, or the US media coverage of the build up to
the invasion of Iraq, especially, a shameful and frightening example
of media seized by a form of patriotic political correctness that kept
the US public woefully misinformed.  The example of the firing of Imus
for the "nappy-headed hos" comment some argue is an example of the
abuse of political correctness.  I wonder if you think Imus should
have been fired for what some claim was an explictly racist comment?
I recall Imus meeting the women basketball players he referred to in
this manner, where he apologized, and they asserted they were deeply
offended by his statement.

I knew that you were not referring to the sort of political
correctness I used as an example, regarding CIA assassins.  I was
simply saying that advocating purging something from society, like
political correctness, is alarming language, that can be twisted to
suit nefarious agendas.  I was making no statement on the
appropriateness of exposing CIA assassins, only using this as an
example.  My example was probably not a good one to make my point.
But given you stated I was taking you too literally, I'll not
construct a better example.

>> ------------------------------------------
>> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>>
>> On 12/12/10, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I just thought I'd weigh in here with a little diatribe of my own.
>>>
>>> I think the freedom of an individual or group of individuals to express
>>> themselves is sacrosanct.  The freedom to express your opinion should be
>>> held dearly by everyone, if they want to live in a free society.
>>>
>>> There are very few limits that should be placed on speech, in my humble
>>> opinion, most having to do with statements of facts and not opinions.  I
>>> agree with libel laws, for example.  On the other hand, I disagree with
>>> obscenity laws probably universally.  If groups want to get together and
>>> form islands of information in which certain ideas are suppressed, I'm
>>> for that, too, as long as other options exist.  For example, if someone
>>> wanted to create a separate internet targeted at children that enforced
>>> it's own censorship, I would be OK with that.  If parents were OK with
>>> their kids surfing unrestrained on the Big Bad Internet, then they
>>> should be allowed to do so without repercussions if their child ends up
>>> on a porn site or a site about Islam or whatever your favorite boogey
>>> man is.
>>>
>>> As an aside, this is why I support Wikileaks.  Our government works *for
>>> us*.  They should only have secrets in very narrowly defined areas for
>>> very specific reasons.  And no, "they shouldn't see it because it will
>>> make our leaders look like hypocrites" does not qualify.  The people
>>> behind Wikileaks are exposing secrets that shouldn't be secrets in a
>>> reasonable world.
>>>
>>> According to my views on freedom of expression, political correctness is
>>> a disease that should be purged from the  world.  Instead of helping, it
>>> just sweeps the problem under the rug.  If a person hates blacks because
>>> of an incident when they were younger, or because they just don't like
>>> people who are "different", then they should be free to express that
>>> opinion.  Others will likely disagree, and a dialogue will probably
>>> ensue, but this is healthy.  This tendency by people to shun these sorts
>>> of debates is unhealthy for society (in my opinion, anyway).
>>>
>>> In an effort to totally ostracize myself from the community, I might as
>>> well go ahead and add that I also disagree with some of the child
>>> pornography laws as they exist on the books, as they relate to freedom
>>> of expression.  These laws have been expanded so much under the guise of
>>> "save the children" that they are insane.  In Australia, one man was
>>> arrested for having downloaded a drawing of Bart Simpson engaged in
>>> having sex, and was convicted under that countries child pornography
>>> laws.  In Iowa, another man was arrested for possessing manga comics
>>> from Japan that contained drawings of children having sex.  Was Bart
>>> Simpson actually hurt by this?  Or the fictional Japanese schoolgirl?  I
>>> can understand the prohibition against possession of real child porn
>>> (because it creates a market for such things) though I don't agree with
>>> it completely.  I think it should be a prohibition against
>>> *distribution* of child pornography, not simply "possession", if for no
>>> other reason than people might be likely to hand it over to law
>>> enforcement without the fear of going to jail themselves.  Prohibition
>>> against "virtual porn" is crazy and needs to be fought.
>>>
>>> So what does this mean to us?  It means that if something offends you,
>>> you should suck it up and learn to live with it.  Grow some thicker skin
>>> and see if you can find a sense of humor on sale somewhere.  Freedom of
>>> expression, if that's a concept you agree with, has to trump "freedom
>>> from being offended".  The minute you allow the idea that some things
>>> are just too horrible to be read or viewed, then you've just thrown the
>>> concept of freedom of expression out the window.  Now you'll have a
>>> slippery slope where the definition of "too horrible" tends to match the
>>> ideals of the people who are in power at any given moment.
>>>
>>> The odd irony for people who really believe in freedom of expression is
>>> that they most often end up defending things that they might vehemently
>>> disagree with.  They defend the speech of people they simply don't like
>>> or don't agree with, and they defend speech they are personally offended
>>> by because the speech that everyone agrees with is not threatened.
>>>
>>> Very little offends me, but even if I was offended by the NSA website,
>>> which I wasn't, then I would still be fighting for their right to be as
>>> inane with their metaphors as they wish.  I applaud them, really, for
>>> not rushing to change the page in an orgy of political correctness.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>