[Vision2020] Like a Twinkie (Was "Freedom of Expression")

Sat Dec 18 00:31:30 PST 2010

The Moscow public library also has a copy, but I think that it doesn't
circulate (i.e., it's for in-library reading only).

John Pool

From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of Sam Scripter
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 10:03 PM
To: Moscow Vision 2020
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Like a Twinkie (Was "Freedom of Expression")

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
<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>
&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_t=1501&pf_rd_i=ybh&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1FV
1810BFY7F3CKD159J

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"  <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com> <godshatter at yahoo.com>
To: "Joe Campbell"  <mailto:philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
<philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
Cc: "Moscow Vision 2020"  <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>
<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  <mailto:philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
<philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
To: Paul Rumelhart  <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com> <godshatter at yahoo.com>
Cc: keely emerinemix  <mailto:kjajmix1 at msn.com> <kjajmix1 at msn.com>; Tom
Hansen  <mailto:thansen at moscow.com> <thansen at moscow.com>; 
Moscow
Vision 2020  <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com> <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
<mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com> <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.h
tm

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  <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>
<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 
 <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com> <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
 <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com> <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> <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> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>> wrote:

Ted Moffett wrote:

Paul Rumelhart godshatter at yahoo.com  <http://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> <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
=======================================================

"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/20101218/64dec07b/attachment-0001.html 