[Vision2020] Freedom of expression

[Joe Campbell]

"Compare this with the supposedly harmful statements on the NSA website.  
If our bar is so low that that website can trigger cries of "hate 
speech", then a veteran debater can argue that almost any website is 
offensive to somebody."

Is this the only example of hate speech from this crowd? For crying out loud, Wilson wrote a BOOK denying the evils of slavery. They were noted by a NATIONAL organization, one that helped remove neo-Nazis up north. Did I make that up too? 

Again, come back east with me just once and try telling your story to my friends. I no longer wonder how the Nazis took over Germany, I'll tell you that. Well meaning "liberals" like yourself had much to do with it.



On Dec 12, 2010, at 8:47 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Ted Moffett wrote:
>> 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.
>> 
> 
> I think that the societal self-censorship of certain topics under the 
> guise of political correctness has a negative effect in the long run.  
> It stops the average Joe Public from speaking his mind freely about what 
> he perceives to be negative traits of a certain race, creed, or whatever 
> and it keeps people from being offended, but Joe has not changed his 
> mind - he's just learned to keep his thoughts to himself.  He may harbor 
> a hatred of people of a specific type, and may have no simple way of 
> blowing off steam.  So he has a run-in with one someday, and gets 
> violent.  Or he learns to not promote anyone in his company of that type 
> of person, because it's one way of getting back at them.  You get the 
> idea.  If there were no societal prohibitions about talking about it, he 
> might learn that other people like people of that type just fine, and 
> that they are actually really nice, usually.  He might even get in a 
> discussion with one that turns into a friendship, after the first bit of 
> arguing and name-calling dies down.
> 
> Compare this with the supposedly harmful statements on the NSA website.  
> If our bar is so low that that website can trigger cries of "hate 
> speech", then a veteran debater can argue that almost any website is 
> offensive to somebody.  I'd rather save the phrase to describe things 
> that are undeniably hate speech.  What's the harm in having some 
> language like that on their website?  People might get a bad impression 
> of Moscow is one reason I've heard.  Tough.  We can only control what we 
> do ourselves.  We don't have the right to try to censor others.
> 
> If people think that there is a real threat on the website, call the 
> police.  Making threats is against the law.  Just be aware that they 
> have a definition of "threat" that the website may fail to meet.
> 
> I don't have a problem with people expressing their views.  It's just my 
> opinion that if they really valued freedom of expression then they 
> wouldn't be talking about this subject so much.  I do value freedom of 
> expression, which is why I'm talking about what my concept of it is here.
> 
>> 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.
>> 
> 
> I think the person that wrote that blurb on that website was hoping for 
> this kind of reaction.  They were trolling the people that watch them, 
> and a few of them took the bait.  If you don't want trolls to continue 
> trolling, then your best bet is to simply ignore them.  Point, laugh, 
> roll your eyes, and move on.  If that's all the reaction they get, 
> they'll find someone else to bait.  That's the method I've learned that 
> works best after 20+ years of interacting in Internet forums.  It didn't 
> have anything to do with trying to suppress the actual point they were 
> trying to make.
> 
>> 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.
>> 
> 
> For one, I don't care if they ever learn to have a better opinion of 
> secularists.  Their education on religion is none of my concern.  They 
> can go to the grave believing that secularists are out to hunt them down 
> and convert them.  I don't really care.  I don't feel the need to make 
> sure that everyone agrees with what I say or think like I do.  In fact, 
> I'd hate a world like that.  My stance is simple.  Everyone has the 
> right to think whatever they want, believe whatever they want, and have 
> whatever view of whatever topic they want.  I don't care how horrendous 
> their beliefs or views are to others.  I also believe that they have the 
> right to express those views however they want, keeping in mind that 
> they don't have the right to force others to listen to them, and they 
> don't have the right to harm others.  If they want to put on the website 
> that they think that secularists probably eat children for breakfast, so 
> what?  If someone goes out and beats up a secularist because of it, then 
> the responsibility for that action falls on the shoulders of the person 
> that committed that action.  There are very few cases where I would 
> advocate for censoring their website.  The text they have on it now 
> doesn't even come close.
> 
>> 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.
>> 
> 
> It's not my stance that people shouldn't talk about fundamentalist 
> Christianity and the ills they imagine are there.  I just think that 
> people that I've been assuming all along are for freedom of expression 
> shouldn't get so bent out of shape when something somebody says offends 
> them.  I'm not trying to force them to shut up, I really don't care.  
> What did provoke me to write my little diatribe were indications that 
> some sort of attempt to silence the NSA people might be coming up.  I 
> misinterpreted what Nick said about the Chamber of Commerce, but at the 
> time I thought they were advocating for taking the site down.  I also 
> saw references to "hate speech", which is a sensitive button of mine.  
> I'd hate for a statement that more or less says "we fight secularism as 
> an ideal" to lead to someone being convicted of some sort of "hate 
> crime".  Stranger things have happened.
> 
> All I'm doing is advocating for true freedom of expression.  Let people 
> say what they like.  It's better for all of us in the end.
> 
>> 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."
>> 
> 
> I'm all for people discussing these issues.  I'm not for any attempt to 
> get the NSA to change their website other than simple pleas that they  
> do so.  What people are discussing is not the implications of their 
> viewpoints on secularism, they are discussing whether or not their text 
> is violent and whether or not something should be done about it.  
> Prejudice about religion or lack of religion can be a problem, it's 
> true.  As long as no one is censoring anyone, then I hope that debate 
> rages along nicely.  I just haven't seen much of it on here with regards 
> to this topic.  I admit, though, that I haven't been following it all 
> that close.  I just thought I'd go ahead and elucidate my thoughts on 
> the subject of freedom of expression, and hopefully others would put 
> this in perspective.
> 
> Paul
>> 
>>>> "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
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> =======================================================
> 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
> =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20101212/ffc6a2c5/attachment-0001.html