[Vision2020] Like a Twinkie (Was "Freedom of Expression")
Sam Scripter
MoscowSam at charter.net
Fri Dec 17 22:02:49 PST 2010
Re Warren's suggestion . . .
As of a few moments ago, Amazon.com lists two new copies
of _Southern Slavery: As It Was_ [paperback] @ $94.82 each,
and used copies @ $39.93:
http://www.amazon.com/Southern-Slavery-Was-Douglas-Wilson/dp/188576717X/ref=pd_ybh_1?pf_rd_p=280800601&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_t=1501&pf_rd_i=ybh&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1FV1810BFY7F3CKD159J
<http://www.amazon.com/Southern-Slavery-Was-Douglas-Wilson/dp/188576717X/ref=pd_ybh_1?pf_rd_p=280800601&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_t=1501&pf_rd_i=ybh&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1FV1810BFY7F3CKD159J>
Warren Hayman wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Pardon the intrusion on my part. But after all this discussion, why not just
> read the book? It's neither hard nor long, and could perhaps answer some of
> your concerns. Just a thought.
>
> Warren Hayman
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Rumelhart"<godshatter at yahoo.com>
> To: "Joe Campbell"<philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> Cc: "Moscow Vision 2020"<vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 10:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Like a Twinkie (Was "Freedom of Expression")
>
>
>
>> I guess the mere existence of a book that defends slavery, if that's what
>> it's
>> doing, doesn't shock me as much as the rest of you. If you really want to
>> be
>> shocked, I can send you to a couple of websites I know of, or point you to
>> a
>> couple of movies I've watched recently.
>>
>> My only point was that I don't think it should be classified as hate
>> speech,
>> based on what I have heard about it. I still don't understand why that
>> throws
>> you all into a tizzy.
>>
>> I don't know what to do about this, so I guess I *am* doomed to go through
>> life
>> ignorant and opinionated.
>>
>> Oh well. Have a nice holiday.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Joe Campbell<philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
>> To: Paul Rumelhart<godshatter at yahoo.com>
>> Cc: keely emerinemix<kjajmix1 at msn.com>; Tom Hansen<thansen at moscow.com>;
>> Moscow
>> Vision 2020<vision2020 at moscow.com>
>> Sent: Fri, December 17, 2010 6:40:10 AM
>> Subject: Re: Like a Twinkie (Was "Freedom of Expression")
>>
>> Again, I'm off the V for awhile but since you asked the answer is that
>> Wison's book is a defense of SLAVERY. That and he's had a lot of
>> political influence in town for a pastor. And then there is the fact
>> that he gets to say whatever offensive thing he wants and anytime time
>> someone speaks out against him he tries to get them fired (see some of
>> the letters written to the governor trying to get two UI profs fired
>> for writing the critical pamphlet of his book), or kicks them out of
>> his church (Michael Metzler), or floods the V with posts from his
>> friends (Crabtree, Harkins, etc.).
>>
>> Just read the introduction to his book that Tom posted or any of a
>> number of things on Tom's website. Won't take long. In other words, DO
>> SOME RESEARCH ABOUT THE STUFF YOU KEEP TALKING ABOUT IN PUBLIC BUT
>> ADMIT TO KNOWING NOTHING ABOUT. Or just stay out of it you'd rather go
>> through life ignorant but opinionated.
>>
>> Best, Joe
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 7:07 PM, Paul Rumelhart<godshatter at yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> You know, I find it amazing how many people want to make sure that I know
>>> that Doug Wilson's book is crap, when I've never even read it, I'm not
>>> advocating for any positions he takes, and the only thing I've said about
>>> it
>>> is that I wouldn't classify it as hate speech based on my admittedly
>>> limited
>>> knowledge of it's contents.
>>>
>>> Why does he have such a profound effect on so many people here? Usually
>>> when I'm discussing my views on freedom of expression, it's in the
>>> context
>>> of supporting someone who has made a statue of Jesus on the cross and put
>>> it
>>> on display in a jar of urine or denouncing something like Amazon's recent
>>> move to delete Kindle books people paid for from their Kindle archives
>>> because they contain descriptions of incestuous relationships. Those
>>> usually lead to lively discussions about how much is too much and whether
>>> it
>>> makes sense to limit freedom of expression in certain defined areas. Yet
>>> the only discussion this topic engenders here is a unanimous agreement
>>> that
>>> Doug Wilson's book is crap.
>>>
>>> I guess I'll just have to go through life not understanding this.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> keely emerinemix wrote:
>>>
>>>> I will wade in once more, just long enough to remark that if Paul's
>>>> arguments are based on the premise that Wilson's slavery booklet is "a
>>>> valid
>>>> work of historical research," he is making his freedom of speech
>>>> argument on
>>>> the flimsiest possible grounds.
>>>> I would hope that Paul would stake his claim on the presumption that the
>>>> First Amendment means that Wilson can say idiotic, insipid things -- a
>>>> point
>>>> on which we all agree. But to augment his point with the offhanded
>>>> assumption that Wilson's take on Southern Slavery is a valid
>>>> contribution to
>>>> the annals of American history reveals Paul's argument to be based not
>>>> on
>>>> the rightness of free speech, however stupid its content, but on the
>>>> possibility that this example of protected blather makes that freedom
>>>> more
>>>> valuable.
>>>>
>>>> "Southern Slavery As It Was" is to valid historical research as a
>>>> Hostess
>>>> Twinkie laced with rat poison is to classic French cuisine. Like a
>>>> toxic
>>>> Twinkie, it's a dense brick of artificial content, sugar-coated to
>>>> appeal to
>>>> the basest of audiences and full of preservatives -- appeals to
>>>> "Southern
>>>> culture," Christian patriarchy, and wooden Biblical literalism -- that
>>>> guarantee a long shelf life. Like a Twinkie, "Southern Slavery As It
>>>> Was"
>>>> is offered as a valid, important contribution to the field it purports
>>>> to be
>>>> an example of -- cuisine, American history -- and it deserves nothing
>>>> but
>>>> contempt from any literate reader, much less established, trained
>>>> historians. Wilson's "research" and conclusions are as embarrassingly
>>>> idiotic as West of Paris' chef Francis Foucachon's offering a Twinkie
>>>> during
>>>> his dessert course would be. Unfortunately, the chef would have to add
>>>> poison to the plastic-wrapped Twinkie to complete the analogy, because
>>>> the
>>>> conclusions of Wilson's booklet are utterly toxic in their effect on
>>>> race
>>>> relations, historical understanding, Biblical hermeneutics, and
>>>> Christian
>>>> social and cultural engagement.
>>>> A diet of nutritionally empty starch, sugar, and artificial fluff
>>>> guarantees poor physical health -- but its effect, at least, is
>>>> contained
>>>> within the junk food junkie. Unfortunately, followers of Wilson's
>>>> theology,
>>>> history, and manner of cultural engagement willingly gorge themselves on
>>>> the
>>>> fluff and filth he offers and then begin other churches and other
>>>> "ministries" devoted to Wilsonian ideas and ideals. That's bad for
>>>> those
>>>> followers, a disgrace for the Church and its witness in the world, a
>>>> horrific way of living in the culture around us, and a toxic blow to the
>>>> "truth, goodness, and beauty" Wilson insists is the fruit of the Gospel.
>>>>
>>>> He has every right to say what he says; I have every right to judge what
>>>> he says to be insipid and vile. And if there's a Truth who is our
>>>> ultimate
>>>> judge, as both Wilson and I believe, I would quake before Him if I
>>>> persisted
>>>> in using His Word to defend the utterly, despicably indefensible.
>>>> And now I really do intend to take a Vision break . . . Happy Holidays
>>>> to
>>>> all of you!
>>>>
>>>> Keely
>>>> www.keely-prevailingwinds.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 05:30:38 -0800
>>>>> From: thansen at moscow.com
>>>>> To: godshatter at yahoo.com; philosopher.joe at gmail.com;
>>>>> vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Freedom of expression
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul Rumelhart blindly hypothesizes:
>>>>>
>>>>> "I'd also like to point out that I haven't read Doug Wilson's book,
>>>>> and
>>>>> have no idea exactly what his claims in it are. . . . If Doug's book
>>>>> is
>>>>> a
>>>>> valid work of historical research, . . . "
>>>>>
>>>>> Here you go, Mr. R.
>>>>>
>>>>> Read "Southern Slavery As It Was" and judge for yourself. It's a fair
>>>>> attempt at third grade fiction.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm
>>>>
>>>>> Seeya round the plantation, Moscow.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom Hansen
>>>>> Moscow, Idaho
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, December 15, 2010 10:23 pm, Paul Rumelhart wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think your "city test" is measuring what you think it is.
>>>>>> Instead of being a valid measure of the amount of hate in a
>>>>>> particular
>>>>>> idea, it's measuring how emotionally invested people are in the
>>>>>> topic.
>>>>>> As I've said before, in some places in this country you would find
>>>>>> certain basic ideas that I find completely reasonable to elicit a
>>>>>> strong
>>>>>> negative reaction. This reaction says more about the person reacting
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> the statements than it does about anything else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd also like to point out that I haven't read Doug Wilson's book,
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> have no idea exactly what his claims in it are. It wasn't pertinent
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> my original point, which was that no matter what it says Doug has
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> right to express his opinions. I'm just trying to say that a stance
>>>>>> that some people vehemently disagree with and that some people would
>>>>>> find offensive does not necessarily equate to being hate speech. A
>>>>>> study, for example, that showed that members of ethnicity A have a
>>>>>> much
>>>>>> lower IQ on average that that of ethnicity B may be seen as
>>>>>> completely
>>>>>> incorrect and grossly offensive to members of ethnicity A, but
>>>>>> should
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> be classified as "hate speech"? I would say no, not if it's a valid
>>>>>> scientific study. If Doug's book is a valid work of historical
>>>>>> research, then I wouldn't classify it as "hate speech" even if it's
>>>>>> conclusions would get you beat up on the street in Spokane. Your
>>>>>> opinion may be different, so we might just have to agree to disagree
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> this one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we try to use the test that if someone finds something offensive
>>>>>> then
>>>>>> it must be hate speech, then you get strange situations where people
>>>>>> with no ill will towards members of a particular group might
>>>>>> inadvertently offend someone and thus have their speech classified
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> "hate speech". All I'm saying is that the common sense definition of
>>>>>> "hate speech" would be speech showing hatred towards something. How
>>>>>> this definition changed into some sort of marker that a particular
>>>>>> speech offended someone is beyond me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Joe Campbell wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well there ARE a lot of reasons one could get their butt kicked in
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> city. But none have the level of predictability of the city test.
>>>>>>> You
>>>>>>> would not have any reason, in general, to think "Were I to go to
>>>>>>> Spokane today, I'm likely to get my butt kicked." But you would
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> plenty of reason to think that were you to go to Spokane today and,
>>>>>>> say, hand out fliers that claim slavery in the US was a "paradise
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> which slaves were treated well and had a harmonious relationship
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> their masters" that you'd get your butt kicked. That is why you
>>>>>>> won't
>>>>>>> do it, right? You know and I know what will happen. You'll go to
>>>>>>> Spokane one day because, though it could happen, it's unlikely
>>>>>>> you'll
>>>>>>> get your butt kicked but you won't try the city test because you
>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>> you'll at least have a bad day, an unpleasant experience in
>>>>>>> Spokane.
>>>>>>> Maybe you should just trust me on this one. I keep saying "try it"
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> you shouldn't try it because I KNOW what will happen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You seem to think that Wilson is more naive than I do. I tend to
>>>>>>> give
>>>>>>> him more credit and think he is more clever than you do. But even
>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>> Wilson is ignorant, I'm not sure that it is relevant to whether or
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> the slavery book is hate speech. Think of your example of hate
>>>>>>> speech
>>>>>>> below. It wouldn't matter if someone actually believed that a
>>>>>>> particular race was "sub-human" would it? Likely someone who said
>>>>>>> such
>>>>>>> a thing in public WOULD believe it but that fact wouldn't mean that
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> wasn't hate speech.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And how on earth COULD someone think that slavery was a "paradise,"
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>> you say? And how isn't that claim offensive, no matter how ignorant
>>>>>>> the person was who said it? Again, consider the Elizabeth Smart
>>>>>>> case.
>>>>>>> It would be offensive to suggest, in public, that she enjoyed being
>>>>>>> kidnapped, held against her will, raped and abused. If you said
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> in public it would be offensive. If you tried to justify saying it
>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>> saying you actually believed it that would not justify the offense.
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> would think that you were SO ignorant that you MUST be culpable. It
>>>>>>> isn't as if ignorance always mitigates. If you tell me you failed
>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>> exam because you failed to study that is no excuse. There are some
>>>>>>> things that people should know better and that kidnapping is wrong,
>>>>>>> that holding someone who committed no crime against her will is
>>>>>>> wrong
>>>>>>> are among them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't see how moving from the single case of Elizabeth Smart to
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> general case of slavery makes your story any more plausible. For
>>>>>>> crying out loud, Americans went to Africa and kidnapped other human
>>>>>>> beings, held them against their will, sold them for profit, abused
>>>>>>> them, and forced them to work without pay. What about this story
>>>>>>> sounds like "paradise"? How would it matter how they were treated
>>>>>>> while they were held against their will? How twisted of a world
>>>>>>> view
>>>>>>> would one have to have in order to come away with the idea that
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> was a kind of "paradise" and that saying so in public was anything
>>>>>>> less than offensive? Common sense and empathy should be enough to
>>>>>>> tell
>>>>>>> you that slavery is wrong. The only way that you could possibly
>>>>>>> justify it is if you were to think that the people held as slaves
>>>>>>> were, as you said, "sub-human." I see no other possibility. Now
>>>>>>> we've
>>>>>>> moved from Wilson's book to the kind of stuff you do consider to be
>>>>>>> hate speech and it was not a long trip.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And that is exactly why the claims of Wilson's book are wrong. The
>>>>>>> US
>>>>>>> practice of slavery was justifiable ONLY on the assumption that
>>>>>>> blacks
>>>>>>> are sub-human. That, at any rate, is what anyone who gave the issue
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> moment's thought would conclude. That is why the claim that slavery
>>>>>>> was really a "paradise" is offensive. That is why saying it in
>>>>>>> public
>>>>>>> would incite violence and that is why it is hate speech. It is a
>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>> natural progression from Wilson's claims to claims that even you
>>>>>>> admit
>>>>>>> are hate speech.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And don't try to justify it all by appealing to Wilson's religious
>>>>>>> beliefs. It isn't as if religion is some kind of "get out of
>>>>>>> civility
>>>>>>> free" card. I'm certain that the folks who crushed the twin towers
>>>>>>> actually believed that they were doing the right thing because of
>>>>>>> their own warped religious views. In reflective moments I might
>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>> that this mitigates their actions, makes them less blameworthy but
>>>>>>> most of the time I think their beliefs were so warped that they
>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>> have known better. Regardless, at no time do I think it isn't worth
>>>>>>> noting that they had warped beliefs and noting that religion is no
>>>>>>> excuse for wrong action. At the very least, even if Wilson is as
>>>>>>> naive
>>>>>>> as you think he is, I would still say the same things I've been
>>>>>>> saying: that his ignorance has gone too far and much of what he
>>>>>>> says
>>>>>>> is offensive and should not be said in a civil society. If he is
>>>>>>> ignorant certainly he needs folks to shake some sense into him. And
>>>>>>> that's giving him the "benefit" of the doubt, as you do. Again, I'm
>>>>>>> pretty sure he is not that ignorant but I may be wrong. Wouldn't
>>>>>>> change what I say either way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Dec 14, 2010, at 11:11 PM, Paul Rumelhart<godshatter at yahoo.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can't you get your ass kicked in a city for any of a number of
>>>>>>>> reasons?
>>>>>>>> Such as wearing the wrong color coat or walking down the wrong
>>>>>>>> alley
>>>>>>>> or having the wrong skin color or looking the wrong person in the
>>>>>>>> eye?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't think that Doug Wilson's book on slavery is hate speech,
>>>>>>>> because I believe that he truly believes what he's written and
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> he's not intending to insult anyone. He may be seriously wrong,
>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> would expect that something should be called "hate speech" only
>>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> involves speaking in such a way as to show hatred for a group
>>>>>>>> based
>>>>>>>> solely on a person's membership in that group. For example, if he
>>>>>>>> had
>>>>>>>> said "blacks are a sub-human race and won't amount to anything if
>>>>>>>> someone doesn't take a strong hand with them", then I would
>>>>>>>> classify
>>>>>>>> that as hate speech with respect to the non-law definition. In
>>>>>>>> fact,
>>>>>>>> that's a common theme I heard from more than one person growing up
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> idyllic Idaho when I was a kid. It's not something I ever agreed
>>>>>>>> with,
>>>>>>>> but it was common to hear it in conversations on the subject of
>>>>>>>> race
>>>>>>>> relations. In fact, back then, there were places where you could
>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>> your ass kicked if you walked in off the street and tried to
>>>>>>>> describe
>>>>>>>> how black peopl!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> e are as good as white people and deserve to be treated equally,
>>>>>> making
>>>>>> such statements into "hate speech" by your definition. Intent should
>>>>>> matter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anyway, I also appreciate the civil conversation. Especially
>>>>>>>> knowing
>>>>>>>> that this is an emotionally charged topic for a lot of people.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Joe Campbell wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Paul,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are a lot of issues here. No one is helped if we jumble
>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>> and forget which one we're talking about.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We're not talking about freedom of expression. I believe it, you
>>>>>>>>> believe it, it's the law. I keep saying I'm not for legal
>>>>>>>>> restrictions
>>>>>>>>> of speech (other than the ones we already have, like yelling fire
>>>>>>>>> in a
>>>>>>>>> crowd etc.), Nick has said the same. So please stop bringing it
>>>>>>>>> up.
>>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>> agree.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In your previous post to me you mocked my clam that Wilson's
>>>>>>>>> pro-slavery book was hate speech. I gave this definition: speech
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> "may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a
>>>>>>>>> protected
>>>>>>>>> individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a
>>>>>>>>> protected individual or group." The "city test" (as I'll call it)
>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>> test to see if something is hate speech. If you can say it on a
>>>>>>>>> city
>>>>>>>>> street and LIKELY get beat up, it is hate speech. If you went to
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> city, stood on a street corner, and tried to sell folks the idea
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> slavery in the US was a "paradise in which slaves were treated
>>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>>> and had a harmonious relationship with their masters" you would
>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>> beat up. It WOULD incite violence, violence to YOU. In order to
>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>> slaves they had to be KIDNAPPED and held AGAINST their WILL. Does
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> sound like paradise to you? Would anyone in their right mind
>>>>>>>>> think
>>>>>>>>> that being kidnapped, held against ones will, and forced into
>>>>>>>>> labor
>>>>>>>>> with no pay is PARADISE? It is an OFFENSIVE idea with NO merit
>>>>>>>>> whatsoever. It would be offensive to suggest the idea in a single
>>>>>>>>> case
>>>>>>>>> -- like the Elizabeth Smart case: it is offensive to suggest that
>>>>>>>>> she
>>>>>>>>> enjoyed being kidnapped, held against her will, raped and abused.
>>>>>>>>> To
>>>>>>>>> suggest it about the US institution of slavery is even more
>>>>>>>>> offensive,
>>>>>>>>> offense to blacks and to almost anyone else. There is no purpose
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> such an absurd suggestion. The only reason that someone would
>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>> such a suggestion would be to incite rage in other people, people
>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>> hates. There is NO reasonable purpose other than this to make
>>>>>>>>> such
>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>> absurd claim. None. That is why the book needed to be published
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> Wilson's own vanity press. No legitimate publisher would touch
>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>> That is why it took merely a pamphlet by a pair of UI historians
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> refute it. It is without academic and social merit. Its only
>>>>>>>>> purpose
>>>>>>>>> is to make people angry. That is hate speech.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Again, if you think I'm wrong just try the city test. Just find
>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>> black man NOT a member of Christ Church and run the idea by him.
>>>>>>>>> Then
>>>>>>>>> try to convince him that it isn't offensive. See where you get.
>>>>>>>>> You
>>>>>>>>> cannot take this crap to anywhere other than an on-line blog in
>>>>>>>>> Idaho
>>>>>>>>> and get away with saying it without getting punched in the nose
>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>> having your house burned to the ground. It is hate speech. If you
>>>>>>>>> want
>>>>>>>>> to try to prove me wrong, I'll be happy to drive you to Spokane
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> we'll put it to the test. Although I'll remain in the car while
>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> conduct the test because someone will need to take you to the
>>>>>>>>> hospital
>>>>>>>>> afterward and it won't be the guy who beat you up.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And the definition of "hate speech" is not watered down at all.
>>>>>>>>> You
>>>>>>>>> could try the city test with a variety of other statements and
>>>>>>>>> LIKELY
>>>>>>>>> you won't get punched. There is something special about the
>>>>>>>>> suggestion
>>>>>>>>> that slavery was paradise, something that you still don't seem to
>>>>>>>>> get.
>>>>>>>>> If you tried the city test, you'd get it rather quickly. I'm just
>>>>>>>>> asking you to put your nose where your theory is and see what
>>>>>>>>> happens.
>>>>>>>>> You won't do it, so you loose this particular debate. Wilson's
>>>>>>>>> book
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> hate speech.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I just wanted to point out that this is the first time I've ever
>>>>>>>>> had
>>>>>>>>> an extended discussion on Vision 2020 about Wilson, NSA, etc. and
>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>> one mentioned my job, offended me with insults, or told me to
>>>>>>>>> take
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> off-line. So I thank you for that! Though I'm a bit worried that
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> merely the calm before the storm.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best, Joe
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Dec 13, 2010, at 9:19 PM, Paul Rumelhart
>>>>>>>>> <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Joe Campbell wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thoughtful discussion like this about the slavery book could
>>>>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>>>>> happen here and practically nowhere else in the country. You
>>>>>>>>>>> take
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> book to a street corner in almost any city and try to give the
>>>>>>>>>>> explanation you are giving below. Do it. I am serious. You
>>>>>>>>>>> won't
>>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>> if you did, someone would literally beat the crap out of you.
>>>>>>>>>>> It
>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>> quite literally incite violence. Go to any city with a diverse
>>>>>>>>>>> population and try this experiment and see what happens. You
>>>>>>>>>>> won't
>>>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>>>> it and you know it. That should tell you something about your
>>>>>>>>>>> own
>>>>>>>>>>> attitude toward your own argument. You can only give it in the
>>>>>>>>>>> sheltered confines of V2020 in Moscow, Idaho. Bad argument!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm advocating for freedom of expression, not Doug Wilson's
>>>>>>>>>> views
>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>> slavery. That means that I'm often in the position of trying to
>>>>>>>>>> protect someone's right with whom I disagree, since they are
>>>>>>>>>> often
>>>>>>>>>> the ones that people are trying to censor.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This idea that people should not express their opinions because
>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>> people might get upset is basically what I'm fighting against.
>>>>>>>>>> No,
>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't want to go there and preach from the gospel of Doug. I
>>>>>>>>>> don't really want to go to a right-wing bar and start discussing
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> benefits of gay marriage either. That doesn't mean that I
>>>>>>>>>> shouldn't
>>>>>>>>>> talk about it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Again, hate speech is in part a legal term and as I defined it
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> other day it is speech that "may incite violence or prejudicial
>>>>>>>>>>> action
>>>>>>>>>>> against or by a protected individual or group, or because it
>>>>>>>>>>> disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group." Say
>>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>>> you will but the slavery book classifies as hate speech by this
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> any reasonable definition. And the thought experiment noted
>>>>>>>>>>> above,
>>>>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>> well as your unwillingness to try to provide the justification
>>>>>>>>>>> below
>>>>>>>>>>> in pretty much ANY context other than this one, shows I'm
>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>>>> I never said the NSA website was "hate speech." It is "violent
>>>>>>>>>>> rhetoric" and like hate speech it is an example of OFFENSIVE
>>>>>>>>>>> speech.
>>>>>>>>>>> Offensive speech is political. Not religious but political. You
>>>>>>>>>>> seem
>>>>>>>>>>> blind to that truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think that definition of hate speech is so watered down as to
>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>> unworkable. All you have to do is disparage a group and it's
>>>>>>>>>> hate
>>>>>>>>>> speech by that definition. I think many people on the far right
>>>>>>>>>> let
>>>>>>>>>> their emotions rule their responses too often. There, that would
>>>>>>>>>> qualify as hate speech.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Let me explain something to you. I did not grow up in Idaho. I
>>>>>>>>>>> did
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> grow up in a place where folks could get away with saying the
>>>>>>>>>>> kind
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> crap that NSA, No Weatherman, etc. have gotten away with
>>>>>>>>>>> saying.
>>>>>>>>>>> So
>>>>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>>>> experience of all of this and of watching otherwise decent
>>>>>>>>>>> folks
>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>> yourself defending that crap is a bit jarring. It is unlike
>>>>>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>> could have ever imagined. In the town I grew up in there were
>>>>>>>>>>> butchers
>>>>>>>>>>> with numbers tattooed on their forearms. The grandparents of
>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> my friends grew up in concentration camps, as well. Nazi
>>>>>>>>>>> Germany
>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>> not something I just read about in history books or heard about
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> films. I actually heard some of the stories from actual
>>>>>>>>>>> survivors
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> concentration camps. I saw and interacted with these people
>>>>>>>>>>> often. I
>>>>>>>>>>> was told on a regular basis by people who suffered to never
>>>>>>>>>>> forget
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> I won't.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I prefer to live in a place where people can speak their mind
>>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>>> fear of getting their asses kicked or worse. I think that should
>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>> the ideal, not some sort of accident of location to be chastised
>>>>>>>>>> about.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I go back east a few times each year since my family and my
>>>>>>>>>>> best
>>>>>>>>>>> friends still live there. Years ago I talked about the slavery
>>>>>>>>>>> book
>>>>>>>>>>> and the regular criticisms of gays and Muslims. One of the
>>>>>>>>>>> parents
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> my friend said: "This is how it started in Nazi Germany. They
>>>>>>>>>>> started
>>>>>>>>>>> with the gays and with the less populated groups and then moved
>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>> from there." Years ago intolerance against Mormons would have
>>>>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>>>> unthinkable but this year we actually had a man run for
>>>>>>>>>>> political
>>>>>>>>>>> office whose pastor had insulting comments about Mormons posted
>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>>>>> website. Want to read more local hate speech about Mormons?
>>>>>>>>>>> Look
>>>>>>>>>>> here:
>>>>>>>>>>> http://pullman.craigslist.org/rnr/
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I find it hard to shake the thought that maybe the parent of my
>>>>>>>>>>> friend
>>>>>>>>>>> was correct. I go back to New Jersey a few times a year and I
>>>>>>>>>>> run
>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>> these folks and they ask me how it's going. So I can't ever
>>>>>>>>>>> give
>>>>>>>>>>> up
>>>>>>>>>>> the fight to try to shake some sense into this town. It is just
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> possible. Maybe I'm wrong but I'd rather err on the side of
>>>>>>>>>>> insulting
>>>>>>>>>>> some idiot who thinks that slavery was a cakewalk than make the
>>>>>>>>>>> mistake of allowing another Nazi Germany. That is an easy
>>>>>>>>>>> choice
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> me.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I would think that if you best want to fight the kind of
>>>>>>>>>> totalitarianism exemplified by Nazi Germany, then you would
>>>>>>>>>> fight
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> an individual's right to freedom of expression, among other
>>>>>>>>>> rights
>>>>>>>>>> like the right to believe as one wishes and the right to be
>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>> from the norm. You can't have freedom of expression if you try
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> define it as anything "not Nazi-like" or whatever your standard
>>>>>>>>>> is.
>>>>>>>>>> You have to take the bad with the good, or you don't have
>>>>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>>> all.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I suspect that if some group tried to do what the Nazis did in
>>>>>>>>>> Germany here, I'd be one of the first targets. I wouldn't agree
>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>> the silencing of opposition voices, and I'd say so loud and
>>>>>>>>>> clear.
>>>>>>>>>> I'd be fighting on the "right" side, as far as most people are
>>>>>>>>>> concerned, which would be a relief from what I'm currently doing
>>>>>>>>>> which is fighting for viewpoints I don't usually agree with.
>>>>>>>>>> From
>>>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>>>> perspective, though, I'd still be fighting for the same thing.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And again, I'm not asking you to agree with me. Nor am I trying
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> convince you of anything. Nor am I trying to silence Christ
>>>>>>>>>>> Church
>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>> NSA. I'm just asking you and others to stay the hell out of my
>>>>>>>>>>> way
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> let me say what I wish. You want to allow hateful, offensive
>>>>>>>>>>> speech
>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>> regular basis? Fine. I am the natural consequence of your
>>>>>>>>>>> generous
>>>>>>>>>>> nature, so you better allow my speech too.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I uphold your right to freedom of expression as much as anyones.
>>>>>>>>>> My
>>>>>>>>>> comments aren't meant to try to silence anyone. I'm just trying
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> put my opinion on the matter out there.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 12, 2010, at 11:34 PM, Paul Rumelhart
>>>>>>>>>>> <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that descriptions of this supposed paradise in
>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>> slaves were treated well and had a harmonious relationship
>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>> their masters is hate speech? You may disagree with it, lots
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> people whose ancestors had a considerably worse experience
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> he
>>>>>>>>>>>> describes might disagree with it, but that doesn't make it
>>>>>>>>>>>> hate
>>>>>>>>>>>> speech. I think that he truly believes this, because he knows
>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>> many of the men that owned slaves at that time professed to be
>>>>>>>>>>>> Christian, and the Bible apparently talks about slavery as an
>>>>>>>>>>>> everyday occurrence, so it must be something that God would
>>>>>>>>>>>> approve
>>>>>>>>>>>> of. So he selectively reads history and picks out what he
>>>>>>>>>>>> thinks
>>>>>>>>>>>> supports this ideal and glosses over what doesn't. A very easy
>>>>>>>>>>>> trap to fall into. That doesn't make his book hate speech. It
>>>>>>>>>>>> more than likely makes him wrong (I'm not a historian), but it
>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't make it hate speech.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And I fully support his right to express his opinions on the
>>>>>>>>>>>> matter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe Campbell wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "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
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto: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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ted Moffett wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paul Rumelhart godshatter at yahoo.com<http://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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto: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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "The Pessimist complains about the wind, the Optimist expects it to
>>>>> change
>>>>> and the Realist adjusts his sails."
>>>>>
>>>>> - Unknown
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>> 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
> =======================================================
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20101217/fa175eca/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list