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

[deb]

And if you really do want to read it, I will lend out my copy. Frankly, it kind of creeps me out to have it in my research library, so if it isn't returned......
Debi R-S
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: John Pool 
  To: 'Sam Scripter' ; 'Moscow Vision 2020' 
  Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2010 2:31 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Like a Twinkie (Was "Freedom of Expression")


  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&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 AMSubject: 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'sdoing, doesn't shock me as much as the rest of you.  If you really want to beshocked, I can send you to a couple of websites I know of, or point you to acouple 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 throwsyou all into a tizzy. I don't know what to do about this, so I guess I *am* doomed to go through lifeignorant 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>; MoscowVision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>Sent: Fri, December 17, 2010 6:40:10 AMSubject: Re: Like a Twinkie (Was "Freedom of Expression") Again, I'm off the V for awhile but since you asked the answer is thatWison's book is a defense of SLAVERY. That and he's had a lot ofpolitical influence in town for a pastor. And then there is the factthat he gets to say whatever offensive thing he wants and anytime timesomeone speaks out against him he tries to get them fired (see some ofthe letters written to the governor trying to get two UI profs firedfor writing the critical pamphlet of his book), or kicks them out ofhis church (Michael Metzler), or floods the V with posts from hisfriends (Crabtree, Harkins, etc.). Just read the introduction to his book that Tom posted or any of anumber of things on Tom's website. Won't take long. In other words, DOSOME RESEARCH ABOUT THE STUFF YOU KEEP TALKING ABOUT IN PUBLIC BUTADMIT TO KNOWING NOTHING ABOUT. Or just stay out of it you'd rather gothrough 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 knowthat Doug Wilson's book is crap, when I've never even read it, I'm notadvocating for any positions he takes, and the only thing I've said about itis that I wouldn't classify it as hate speech based on my admittedly limitedknowledge of it's contents. Why does he have such a profound effect on so many people here?  Usuallywhen I'm discussing my views on freedom of expression, it's in the contextof supporting someone who has made a statue of Jesus on the cross and put iton display in a jar of urine or denouncing something like Amazon's recentmove to delete Kindle books people paid for from their Kindle archivesbecause they contain descriptions of incestuous relationships.  Thoseusually lead to lively discussions about how much is too much and whether itmakes sense to limit freedom of expression in certain defined areas.  Yetthe only discussion this topic engenders here is a unanimous agreement thatDoug 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'sarguments are based on the premise that Wilson's slavery booklet is "a validwork of historical research," he is making his freedom of speech argument onthe flimsiest possible grounds.I would hope that Paul would stake his claim on the presumption that theFirst Amendment means that Wilson can say idiotic, insipid things -- a pointon which we all agree.  But to augment his point with the offhandedassumption that Wilson's take on Southern Slavery is a valid contribution tothe annals of American history reveals Paul's argument to be based not onthe rightness of free speech, however stupid its content, but on thepossibility that this example of protected blather makes that freedom morevaluable. "Southern Slavery As It Was" is to valid historical research as a HostessTwinkie laced with rat poison is to classic French cuisine.  Like a toxicTwinkie, it's a dense brick of artificial content, sugar-coated to appeal tothe basest of audiences and full of preservatives -- appeals to "Southernculture," Christian patriarchy, and wooden Biblical literalism -- thatguarantee 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 bean example of -- cuisine, American history -- and it deserves nothing butcontempt from any literate reader, much less established, trainedhistorians.   Wilson's "research" and conclusions are as embarrassinglyidiotic as West of Paris' chef Francis Foucachon's offering a Twinkie duringhis dessert course would be.  Unfortunately, the chef would have to addpoison to the plastic-wrapped Twinkie to complete the analogy, because theconclusions of Wilson's booklet are utterly toxic in their effect on racerelations, historical understanding, Biblical hermeneutics, and Christiansocial and cultural engagement.A diet of nutritionally empty starch, sugar, and artificial fluffguarantees poor physical health -- but its effect, at least, is containedwithin the junk food junkie.  Unfortunately, followers of Wilson's theology,history, and manner of cultural engagement willingly gorge themselves on thefluff and filth he offers and then begin other churches and other"ministries" devoted to Wilsonian ideas and ideals.   That's bad for thosefollowers, a disgrace for the Church and its witness in the world, ahorrific 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 whathe says to be insipid and vile.  And if there's a Truth who is our ultimatejudge, as both Wilson and I believe, I would quake before Him if I persistedin using His Word to defend the utterly, despicably indefensible.And now I really do intend to take a Vision break . . . Happy Holidays toall of you! Keelywww.keely-prevailingwinds.com            Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 05:30:38 -0800From: thansen at moscow.comTo: godshatter at yahoo.com; philosopher.joe at gmail.com;vision2020 at moscow.comSubject: 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, andhave no idea exactly what his claims in it are. . . . If Doug's book isavalid work of historical research, . . . " Here you go, Mr. R. Read "Southern Slavery As It Was" and judge for yourself. It's a fairattempt at third grade fiction.             http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm         Seeya round the plantation, Moscow. Tom HansenMoscow, 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 particularidea, it's measuring how emotionally invested people are in the topic.As I've said before, in some places in this country you would findcertain basic ideas that I find completely reasonable to elicit astrongnegative reaction. This reaction says more about the person reactingtothe statements than it does about anything else. I'd also like to point out that I haven't read Doug Wilson's book, andhave no idea exactly what his claims in it are. It wasn't pertinent tomy original point, which was that no matter what it says Doug has theright to express his opinions. I'm just trying to say that a stancethat some people vehemently disagree with and that some people wouldfind offensive does not necessarily equate to being hate speech. Astudy, for example, that showed that members of ethnicity A have amuchlower IQ on average that that of ethnicity B may be seen as completelyincorrect and grossly offensive to members of ethnicity A, but shoulditbe classified as "hate speech"? I would say no, not if it's a validscientific study. If Doug's book is a valid work of historicalresearch, then I wouldn't classify it as "hate speech" even if it'sconclusions would get you beat up on the street in Spokane. Youropinion may be different, so we might just have to agree to disagreeonthis one. If we try to use the test that if someone finds something offensivethenit must be hate speech, then you get strange situations where peoplewith no ill will towards members of a particular group mightinadvertently 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. Howthis definition changed into some sort of marker that a particularspeech offended someone is beyond me. Paul Joe Campbell wrote:            Well there ARE a lot of reasons one could get their butt kicked in acity. But none have the level of predictability of the city test. Youwould not have any reason, in general, to think "Were I to go toSpokane today, I'm likely to get my butt kicked." But you would haveplenty 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 inwhich slaves were treated well and had a harmonious relationship withtheir masters" that you'd get your butt kicked. That is why you won'tdo it, right? You know and I know what will happen. You'll go toSpokane one day because, though it could happen, it's unlikely you'llget your butt kicked but you won't try the city test because you knowyou'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"butyou 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 givehim more credit and think he is more clever than you do. But even ifWilson is ignorant, I'm not sure that it is relevant to whether ornotthe slavery book is hate speech. Think of your example of hate speechbelow. It wouldn't matter if someone actually believed that aparticular race was "sub-human" would it? Likely someone who saidsucha thing in public WOULD believe it but that fact wouldn't mean thatitwasn't hate speech. And how on earth COULD someone think that slavery was a "paradise,"asyou say? And how isn't that claim offensive, no matter how ignorantthe person was who said it? Again, consider the Elizabeth Smart case.It would be offensive to suggest, in public, that she enjoyed beingkidnapped, held against her will, raped and abused. If you said thatin public it would be offensive. If you tried to justify saying it bysaying you actually believed it that would not justify the offense. Iwould think that you were SO ignorant that you MUST be culpable. Itisn't as if ignorance always mitigates. If you tell me you failed anexam because you failed to study that is no excuse. There are somethings that people should know better and that kidnapping is wrong,that holding someone who committed no crime against her will is wrongare among them. I don't see how moving from the single case of Elizabeth Smart to thegeneral case of slavery makes your story any more plausible. Forcrying out loud, Americans went to Africa and kidnapped other humanbeings, held them against their will, sold them for profit, abusedthem, and forced them to work without pay. What about this storysounds like "paradise"? How would it matter how they were treatedwhile they were held against their will? How twisted of a world viewwould one have to have in order to come away with the idea that thiswas a kind of "paradise" and that saying so in public was anythingless than offensive? Common sense and empathy should be enough totellyou that slavery is wrong. The only way that you could possiblyjustify it is if you were to think that the people held as slaveswere, as you said, "sub-human." I see no other possibility. Now we'vemoved from Wilson's book to the kind of stuff you do consider to behate speech and it was not a long trip. And that is exactly why the claims of Wilson's book are wrong. The USpractice of slavery was justifiable ONLY on the assumption thatblacksare sub-human. That, at any rate, is what anyone who gave the issue amoment's thought would conclude. That is why the claim that slaverywas really a "paradise" is offensive. That is why saying it in publicwould incite violence and that is why it is hate speech. It is a verynatural progression from Wilson's claims to claims that even youadmitare hate speech. And don't try to justify it all by appealing to Wilson's religiousbeliefs. It isn't as if religion is some kind of "get out of civilityfree" card. I'm certain that the folks who crushed the twin towersactually believed that they were doing the right thing because oftheir own warped religious views. In reflective moments I might thinkthat this mitigates their actions, makes them less blameworthy butmost of the time I think their beliefs were so warped that theyshouldhave known better. Regardless, at no time do I think it isn't worthnoting that they had warped beliefs and noting that religion is noexcuse for wrong action. At the very least, even if Wilson is asnaiveas you think he is, I would still say the same things I've beensaying: that his ignorance has gone too far and much of what he saysis offensive and should not be said in a civil society. If he isignorant certainly he needs folks to shake some sense into him. Andthat's giving him the "benefit" of the doubt, as you do. Again, I'mpretty sure he is not that ignorant but I may be wrong. Wouldn'tchange 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 ofreasons?Such as wearing the wrong color coat or walking down the wrong alleyor having the wrong skin color or looking the wrong person in theeye? 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 thathe's not intending to insult anyone. He may be seriously wrong, butIwould expect that something should be called "hate speech" only whenitinvolves speaking in such a way as to show hatred for a group basedsolely on a person's membership in that group. For example, if hehadsaid "blacks are a sub-human race and won't amount to anything ifsomeone doesn't take a strong hand with them", then I would classifythat 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 upinidyllic Idaho when I was a kid. It's not something I ever agreedwith,but it was common to hear it in conversations on the subject of racerelations. In fact, back then, there were places where you could getyour ass kicked if you walked in off the street and tried todescribehow black peopl!                e are as good as white people and deserve to be treated equally,makingsuch statements into "hate speech" by your definition. Intent shouldmatter.             Anyway, I also appreciate the civil conversation. Especially knowingthat 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 themupand forget which one we're talking about. We're not talking about freedom of expression. I believe it, youbelieve it, it's the law. I keep saying I'm not for legalrestrictionsof speech (other than the ones we already have, like yelling firein acrowd etc.), Nick has said the same. So please stop bringing it up.Weagree. In your previous post to me you mocked my clam that Wilson'spro-slavery book was hate speech. I gave this definition: speechthat"may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by aprotectedindividual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates aprotected individual or group." The "city test" (as I'll call it)is atest to see if something is hate speech. If you can say it on acitystreet and LIKELY get beat up, it is hate speech. If you went to acity, stood on a street corner, and tried to sell folks the ideathatslavery in the US was a "paradise in which slaves were treated welland had a harmonious relationship with their masters" you would getbeat up. It WOULD incite violence, violence to YOU. In order to getslaves they had to be KIDNAPPED and held AGAINST their WILL. Doesthatsound like paradise to you? Would anyone in their right mind thinkthat being kidnapped, held against ones will, and forced into laborwith no pay is PARADISE? It is an OFFENSIVE idea with NO meritwhatsoever. It would be offensive to suggest the idea in a singlecase-- like the Elizabeth Smart case: it is offensive to suggest thatsheenjoyed being kidnapped, held against her will, raped and abused.Tosuggest it about the US institution of slavery is even moreoffensive,offense to blacks and to almost anyone else. There is no purposeforsuch an absurd suggestion. The only reason that someone would makesuch a suggestion would be to incite rage in other people, peopleonehates. There is NO reasonable purpose other than this to make suchanabsurd claim. None. That is why the book needed to be published onWilson's own vanity press. No legitimate publisher would touch it.That is why it took merely a pamphlet by a pair of UI historians torefute it. It is without academic and social merit. Its onlypurposeis to make people angry. That is hate speech. Again, if you think I'm wrong just try the city test. Just find oneblack man NOT a member of Christ Church and run the idea by him.Thentry to convince him that it isn't offensive. See where you get. Youcannot take this crap to anywhere other than an on-line blog inIdahoand get away with saying it without getting punched in the nose orhaving your house burned to the ground. It is hate speech. If youwantto try to prove me wrong, I'll be happy to drive you to Spokane andwe'll put it to the test. Although I'll remain in the car while youconduct the test because someone will need to take you to thehospitalafterward and it won't be the guy who beat you up. And the definition of "hate speech" is not watered down at all. Youcould try the city test with a variety of other statements andLIKELYyou won't get punched. There is something special about thesuggestionthat slavery was paradise, something that you still don't seem toget.If you tried the city test, you'd get it rather quickly. I'm justasking you to put your nose where your theory is and see whathappens.You won't do it, so you loose this particular debate. Wilson's bookishate speech. I just wanted to point out that this is the first time I've everhadan extended discussion on Vision 2020 about Wilson, NSA, etc. andnoone mentioned my job, offended me with insults, or told me to takeitoff-line. So I thank you for that! Though I'm a bit worried that itismerely 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 onlyhappen here and practically nowhere else in the country. You takethatbook to a street corner in almost any city and try to give theexplanation you are giving below. Do it. I am serious. You won'tbutif you did, someone would literally beat the crap out of you. Itwouldquite literally incite violence. Go to any city with a diversepopulation and try this experiment and see what happens. Youwon'tdoit and you know it. That should tell you something about your ownattitude toward your own argument. You can only give it in thesheltered confines of V2020 in Moscow, Idaho. Bad argument!                         I'm advocating for freedom of expression, not Doug Wilson's viewsonslavery. That means that I'm often in the position of trying toprotect someone's right with whom I disagree, since they are oftenthe ones that people are trying to censor. This idea that people should not express their opinions becauseotherpeople might get upset is basically what I'm fighting against. No,Iwouldn't want to go there and preach from the gospel of Doug. Idon't really want to go to a right-wing bar and start discussingthebenefits of gay marriage either. That doesn't mean that Ishouldn'ttalk about it.                       Again, hate speech is in part a legal term and as I defined ittheother day it is speech that "may incite violence or prejudicialactionagainst or by a protected individual or group, or because itdisparages or intimidates a protected individual or group." Saywhatyou will but the slavery book classifies as hate speech by thisandany reasonable definition. And the thought experiment notedabove,aswell as your unwillingness to try to provide the justificationbelowin pretty much ANY context other than this one, shows I'mcorrect.AndI never said the NSA website was "hate speech." It is "violentrhetoric" and like hate speech it is an example of OFFENSIVEspeech.Offensive speech is political. Not religious but political. Youseemblind to that truth.                         I think that definition of hate speech is so watered down as to beunworkable. All you have to do is disparage a group and it's hatespeech by that definition. I think many people on the far rightlettheir emotions rule their responses too often. There, that wouldqualify as hate speech.                      Let me explain something to you. I did not grow up in Idaho. Ididnotgrow up in a place where folks could get away with saying thekindofcrap that NSA, No Weatherman, etc. have gotten away with saying.Somyexperience of all of this and of watching otherwise decent folkslikeyourself defending that crap is a bit jarring. It is unlikeanythingIcould have ever imagined. In the town I grew up in there werebutcherswith numbers tattooed on their forearms. The grandparents of someofmy friends grew up in concentration camps, as well. Nazi Germanywasnot something I just read about in history books or heard aboutinfilms. I actually heard some of the stories from actual survivorsofconcentration camps. I saw and interacted with these peopleoften. Iwas told on a regular basis by people who suffered to neverforgetandI won't.                         I prefer to live in a place where people can speak their mindwithoutfear of getting their asses kicked or worse. I think that shouldbethe ideal, not some sort of accident of location to be chastisedabout.                       I go back east a few times each year since my family and my bestfriends still live there. Years ago I talked about the slaverybookand the regular criticisms of gays and Muslims. One of theparentsofmy friend said: "This is how it started in Nazi Germany. Theystartedwith the gays and with the less populated groups and then movedonfrom there." Years ago intolerance against Mormons would havebeenunthinkable but this year we actually had a man run for politicaloffice whose pastor had insulting comments about Mormons postedonhiswebsite. Want to read more local hate speech about Mormons? Lookhere:http://pullman.craigslist.org/rnr/ I find it hard to shake the thought that maybe the parent of myfriendwas correct. I go back to New Jersey a few times a year and I runintothese folks and they ask me how it's going. So I can't ever giveupthe fight to try to shake some sense into this town. It is justnotpossible. Maybe I'm wrong but I'd rather err on the side ofinsultingsome idiot who thinks that slavery was a cakewalk than make themistake of allowing another Nazi Germany. That is an easy choiceforme.                         I would think that if you best want to fight the kind oftotalitarianism exemplified by Nazi Germany, then you would fightforan individual's right to freedom of expression, among other rightslike the right to believe as one wishes and the right to bedifferentfrom the norm. You can't have freedom of expression if you try todefine it as anything "not Nazi-like" or whatever your standardis.You have to take the bad with the good, or you don't have anythingatall. I suspect that if some group tried to do what the Nazis did inGermany here, I'd be one of the first targets. I wouldn't agreewiththe 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 areconcerned, which would be a relief from what I'm currently doingwhich is fighting for viewpoints I don't usually agree with. Frommyperspective, though, I'd still be fighting for the same thing.                       And again, I'm not asking you to agree with me. Nor am I tryingtoconvince you of anything. Nor am I trying to silence ChristChurchorNSA. I'm just asking you and others to stay the hell out of mywayandlet me say what I wish. You want to allow hateful, offensivespeechonregular basis? Fine. I am the natural consequence of yourgenerousnature, so you better allow my speech too.                         I uphold your right to freedom of expression as much as anyones.Mycomments aren't meant to try to silence anyone. I'm just trying toput 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 inwhichslaves were treated well and had a harmonious relationship withtheir masters is hate speech? You may disagree with it, lots ofpeople whose ancestors had a considerably worse experience thathedescribes might disagree with it, but that doesn't make it hatespeech. I think that he truly believes this, because he knowsthatmany of the men that owned slaves at that time professed to beChristian, and the Bible apparently talks about slavery as aneveryday occurrence, so it must be something that God wouldapproveof. So he selectively reads history and picks out what he thinkssupports this ideal and glosses over what doesn't. A very easytrap to fall into. That doesn't make his book hate speech. Itmore than likely makes him wrong (I'm not a historian), but itdoesn't make it hate speech. And I fully support his right to express his opinions on thematter. Paul Joe Campbell wrote:                           "Compare this with the supposedly harmful statements on the NSAwebsite. If our bar is so low that that website can triggercriesof "hate speech", then a veteran debater can argue that almostanywebsite is offensive to somebody." Is this the only example of hate speech from this crowd? Forcrying out loud, Wilson wrote a BOOK denying the evils ofslavery.They were noted by a NATIONAL organization, one that helpedremoveneo-Nazis up north. Did I make that up too?Again, come back east with me just once and try telling yourstoryto my friends. I no longer wonder how the Nazis took overGermany,I'll tell you that. Well meaning "liberals" like yourself hadmuchto 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 fourthposttodayis over the limit for me... so "Good Night," as Ringo Starrsangit: 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, politicalcorrectness isa 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 fightsomething thatisn't just hyperbole." So after the above advice to "...point, laugh, roll youreyes,andmove on..." regarding the New Saint Andrews' websitediscussion onVision2020, you later state you want to purge the world ofthediseasepolitical correctness? Why not just "...point, laugh, rollyour eyes,and move on..." when someone makes a politically correctstatement?Are politically correct statements more harmful to theworldthanstatements suggesting violence and hate, as some haveinterpreted thestatements on the NSA website to imply?                                       I see the point you're making. I wasn't suggesting thatpeoplepoint,laugh, and move on to be politically correct, I wassuggestingdoingthat to avoid feeding the trolls. Which is, really, whattheyare.                                    It appears the slippage of language strikes again... I was not saying anyone should "move on to be politicallycorrect." Iwas asking, why object so strenuously to those who makepoliticallycorrect statements, if this is what you think some onVision2020aredoing, regarding New Saint Andrews' website? What is themajorharmin someone making a politically correct statement onVision2020,ifthis is truly what is occuring (I am not saying it is...)? Are these statements more harmful than statements thatsuggestviolence and hate, as some found the statements on the NSAwebsite? Iunderstand you do not think there is any real threat impliedbytheNSA website, but others perhaps disagree. What is the majorproblemwith expressing differing opinions regarding the NSA website?Maybethere are more important topics, but Vision2020 often focusesonwhatI think are not very important issues.                                  I think that the societal self-censorship of certain topicsundertheguise of political correctness has a negative effect in thelongrun. It stops the average Joe Public from speaking his mindfreely about whathe perceives to be negative traits of a certain race, creed,orwhateverand it keeps people from being offended, but Joe has notchangedhismind - he's just learned to keep his thoughts to himself. Hemayharbora hatred of people of a specific type, and may have no simplewayofblowing off steam. So he has a run-in with one someday, andgetsviolent. Or he learns to not promote anyone in his company ofthat typeof person, because it's one way of getting back at them. Yougettheidea. If there were no societal prohibitions about talkingaboutit, hemight learn that other people like people of that type justfine,andthat they are actually really nice, usually. He might even getin adiscussion with one that turns into a friendship, after thefirstbit ofarguing and name-calling dies down. Compare this with the supposedly harmful statements on the NSAwebsite. If our bar is so low that that website can triggercries of "hatespeech", then a veteran debater can argue that almost anywebsiteisoffensive to somebody. I'd rather save the phrase to describethingsthat are undeniably hate speech. What's the harm in havingsomelanguage like that on their website? People might get a badimpressionof Moscow is one reason I've heard. Tough. We can only controlwhat wedo ourselves. We don't have the right to try to censor others. If people think that there is a real threat on the website,callthepolice. Making threats is against the law. Just be aware thattheyhave a definition of "threat" that the website may fail tomeet. I don't have a problem with people expressing their views.It'sjust myopinion that if they really valued freedom of expression thentheywouldn't be talking about this subject so much. I do valuefreedom ofexpression, which is why I'm talking about what my concept ofitis here.                                Your response suggests you think the NSA website should notbe afocusof discussion to "avoid feeding the trolls." But inrespondingonVision2020 to what you have implied, it seems, is politicallycorrectcriticism regarding NSA, are you feeding those politicallycorrect"trolls? You are certainly helping to keep the focus on theNSAwebsite discussion in this thread, by referencing it in yourfirstpost.                                  I think the person that wrote that blurb on that website washoping forthis kind of reaction. They were trolling the people thatwatchthem,and a few of them took the bait. If you don't want trolls tocontinuetrolling, then your best bet is to simply ignore them. Point,laugh,roll your eyes, and move on. If that's all the reaction theyget,they'll find someone else to bait. That's the method I'velearned thatworks best after 20+ years of interacting in Internet forums.Itdidn'thave anything to do with trying to suppress the actual pointtheyweretrying to make.                                Again, why not just "...point, laugh, roll your eyes..." atthecriticisms of NSA, rather than make more of an issue of it,asyouadvised regarding the NSA website? You think, if I haveunderstoodyou correctly, that these criticisms are somehow creating illwillbetween NSA and those of differing ideologies. So I supposeyouthinkthat less criticism of NSA will encourage them to expressmoretolerance of "secularists?" I doubt it. When an insititutionofhigher learning, NSA, frames its mission aggressively againstotherswho do not share their ideology, to argue this approachshouldonlyarouse a "...point, laugh, roll your eyes..." response,appearsto bean attempt to silence public discussion on substantive issuesthateffect many people, which it also appears you cannot beadvocating,given your emphasis on freedom of expression.                                  For one, I don't care if they ever learn to have a betteropinionofsecularists. Their education on religion is none of myconcern.Theycan go to the grave believing that secularists are out to huntthem downand convert them. I don't really care. I don't feel the needtomakesure that everyone agrees with what I say or think like I do.Infact,I'd hate a world like that. My stance is simple. Everyone hastheright to think whatever they want, believe whatever they want,and havewhatever view of whatever topic they want. I don't care howhorrendoustheir beliefs or views are to others. I also believe that theyhave theright to express those views however they want, keeping inmindthatthey don't have the right to force others to listen to them,andtheydon't have the right to harm others. If they want to put onthewebsitethat they think that secularists probably eat children forbreakfast, sowhat? If someone goes out and beats up a secularist because ofit, thenthe responsibility for that action falls on the shoulders ofthepersonthat committed that action. There are very few cases where Iwouldadvocate for censoring their website. The text they have on itnowdoesn't even come close.                                Also, to claim the debate regarding fundamentalistChristianityandsecularism, and the political tactics involved, is not worthpublicdiscussion, is on the face of it, not credible, given thepowerthatfundamentalist Christianity has over the political system.Considerthat Idaho is one of the Super DOMA states( http://www.danpinello.com/SuperDOMAs.htm ). There is nodoubtthatthis law is in part the result of a religious view that NSAshareswith other fundamentalist Christians in Idaho. And they vote.Asthey did regarding the ridiculous topless ordinance theMoscowCityCouncil passed.                                  It's not my stance that people shouldn't talk aboutfundamentalistChristianity and the ills they imagine are there. I just thinkthatpeople that I've been assuming all along are for freedom ofexpressionshouldn't get so bent out of shape when something somebodysaysoffendsthem. I'm not trying to force them to shut up, I really don'tcare. What did provoke me to write my little diatribe wereindications thatsome sort of attempt to silence the NSA people might be comingup. Imisinterpreted what Nick said about the Chamber of Commerce,butat thetime I thought they were advocating for taking the site down.Ialsosaw references to "hate speech", which is a sensitive buttonofmine. I'd hate for a statement that more or less says "wefightsecularism asan ideal" to lead to someone being convicted of some sort of"hatecrime". Stranger things have happened. All I'm doing is advocating for true freedom of expression.Letpeoplesay what they like. It's better for all of us in the end.                                To state you are not afraid of being physically attacked byanyonefrom NSA, nor where you offended, given the rhetoric on theirwebsite,does not address the real influence based on behavior thatsuchrhetoric has on the local, state and national level,regardingatleast four very important issues (I'll skip the allegedassociationwith racist groups and the debate regarding Wilson's book"SouthernSlavery As It Was"): gay and women's rights, religioustoleranceandunderstanding between those of all religions, spiritualworldviews, orthose of no particular persuasion on these matters, and theUSpursuitof the so called "war on terror," which as everyone knows istaintedwith religious prejudice and misunderstandings here in the USandinternationally, 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 Palinsaid:"Pray...that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending[ourmilitary men and women] out on a task that is from God.That'swhat wehave to make sure that we are praying for, that there is aplanandthat that plan is God's plan."                                  I'm all for people discussing these issues. I'm not for anyattempt toget the NSA to change their website other than simple pleasthatthey do so. What people are discussing is not the implicationsof theirviewpoints on secularism, they are discussing whether or nottheir textis violent and whether or not something should be done aboutit.Prejudice about religion or lack of religion can be a problem,it'strue. As long as no one is censoring anyone, then I hope thatdebaterages along nicely. I just haven't seen much of it on herewithregardsto this topic. I admit, though, that I haven't been followingitallthat close. I just thought I'd go ahead and elucidate mythoughts onthe subject of freedom of expression, and hopefully otherswouldputthis in perspective. Paul                               "Political correctness" could be defined to suit whatever Iwant topurge from society. Advocating purging a point of view isalarminglanguage. Perhaps you were making a joke of some sort inthiscomment, and I am missing the joke by taking you literally? But consider this example: I define publicly exposingundercover CIAgovernment assassins as a "politically correct" agenda,thatmust be"purged" to protect the necessary for national securityassassinationscarried out in secret by the CIA.. Thus in purgingpoliticalcorrectness in this example, I am supporting governmentsecrecyregarding CIA assassinations. It might be justifed to purgesomoneplanning to expose undercover CIA assassins, to protectnationalsecurity. Some examples of what might be reasonably defined as"politicallycorrect" can be viewed as idealistic ethically laudablebehaviors, thesort of behaviors it seems you would aprove given yoursupportforWikileaks.                                       I think you are taking me too literally. It's notpoliticallycorrectstatements, which is basically any statement not involvingrace,religion, gender, or sexual orientation in a negative light,that Iobject to. It's people feeling like they cannot makepoliticallyincorrect statements because of some sort of societalpressurethat Ithink is a problem. When I said that I think "politicalcorrectness" isa problem, I was referring to the very idea that there arethings thatwe cannot talk about because they might offend somebody,whichis anidea I object to. Not talking about any one of these areasasa societyhelps only in the short term. Real discussion is what healswounds,societal pressure towards silence only makes them fester. You're example above referring to political assassinationisn'tthe sortof political correctness I was referring to, but while weareon thesubject, I would say that keeping information about thewhereabouts andcovers for assassins should be kept secret. However, thefactthat theUS government is sanctioning assassinations should be out inthe open sothat the American people can let their congressmen knowwhetheror notthey think the US should be engaging in such behavior. Paul                                     I agree that political correctness can be used to censor, ofcourse,can create a climate of fear that blocks freedom ofexpression,andcan impede Democracy and the power of the Fourth Estate. Lookat whathappened to Bill Maher, or the US media coverage of the builduptothe invasion of Iraq, especially, a shameful and frighteningexampleof media seized by a form of patriotic political correctnessthat keptthe US public woefully misinformed. The example of the firingof Imusfor the "nappy-headed hos" comment some argue is an exampleoftheabuse of political correctness. I wonder if you think Imusshouldhave been fired for what some claim was an explictly racistcomment?I recall Imus meeting the women basketball players hereferredto inthis manner, where he apologized, and they asserted they weredeeplyoffended by his statement. I knew that you were not referring to the sort of politicalcorrectness I used as an example, regarding CIA assassins. Iwassimply saying that advocating purging something from society,likepolitical correctness, is alarming language, that can betwistedtosuit nefarious agendas. I was making no statement on theappropriateness of exposing CIA assassins, only using this asanexample. My example was probably not a good one to make mypoint.But given you stated I was taking you too literally, I'll notconstruct 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 ofmyown. I think the freedom of an individual or group ofindividualsto expressthemselves is sacrosanct. The freedom to express youropinion should beheld dearly by everyone, if they want to live in a freesociety. There are very few limits that should be placed on speech,inmy humbleopinion, most having to do with statements of facts andnotopinions. Iagree with libel laws, for example. On the other hand, Idisagree withobscenity laws probably universally. If groups want to gettogether andform islands of information in which certain ideas aresuppressed, I'mfor that, too, as long as other options exist. Forexample,if someonewanted to create a separate internet targeted at childrenthat enforcedit's own censorship, I would be OK with that. If parentswere OK withtheir kids surfing unrestrained on the Big Bad Internet,thentheyshould be allowed to do so without repercussions if theirchild ends upon a porn site or a site about Islam or whatever yourfavorite boogeyman is. As an aside, this is why I support Wikileaks. Ourgovernmentworks *forus*. They should only have secrets in very narrowlydefinedareas forvery specific reasons. And no, "they shouldn't see itbecause it willmake our leaders look like hypocrites" does not qualify.Thepeoplebehind Wikileaks are exposing secrets that shouldn't besecrets in areasonable world. According to my views on freedom of expression, politicalcorrectness isa disease that should be purged from the world. Instead ofhelping, itjust sweeps the problem under the rug. If a person hatesblacks becauseof an incident when they were younger, or because theyjustdon't likepeople who are "different", then they should be free toexpress thatopinion. Others will likely disagree, and a dialogue willprobablyensue, but this is healthy. This tendency by people toshunthese sortsof debates is unhealthy for society (in my opinion,anyway). In an effort to totally ostracize myself from thecommunity,I might aswell go ahead and add that I also disagree with some ofthechildpornography laws as they exist on the books, as theyrelateto freedomof expression. These laws have been expanded so much underthe guise of"save the children" that they are insane. In Australia,oneman wasarrested for having downloaded a drawing of Bart Simpsonengaged inhaving sex, and was convicted under that countries childpornographylaws. In Iowa, another man was arrested for possessingmangacomicsfrom Japan that contained drawings of children having sex.Was BartSimpson actually hurt by this? Or the fictional Japaneseschoolgirl? Ican understand the prohibition against possession of realchild porn(because it creates a market for such things) though Idon'tagree withit completely. I think it should be a prohibition against*distribution* of child pornography, not simply"possession",if for noother reason than people might be likely to hand it overtolawenforcement without the fear of going to jail themselves.Prohibitionagainst "virtual porn" is crazy and needs to be fought. So what does this mean to us? It means that if somethingoffends you,you should suck it up and learn to live with it. Grow somethicker skinand see if you can find a sense of humor on salesomewhere.Freedom ofexpression, if that's a concept you agree with, has totrump"freedomfrom being offended". The minute you allow the idea thatsome thingsare just too horrible to be read or viewed, then you'vejustthrown theconcept of freedom of expression out the window. Nowyou'llhave aslippery slope where the definition of "too horrible"tendsto match theideals of the people who are in power at any given moment. The odd irony for people who really believe in freedom ofexpression isthat they most often end up defending things that theymightvehementlydisagree with. They defend the speech of people theysimplydon't likeor don't agree with, and they defend speech they arepersonally offendedby because the speech that everyone agrees with is notthreatened. Very little offends me, but even if I was offended by theNSAwebsite,which I wasn't, then I would still be fighting for theirright to be asinane with their metaphors as they wish. I applaud them,really, fornot rushing to change the page in an orgy of politicalcorrectness. Paul                                            =======================================================List services made available by First Step Internet,serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.http://www.fsr.netmailto:Vision2020@moscow.com=======================================================                                                                    =======================================================List services made available by First Step Internet,serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.http://www.fsr.netmailto:Vision2020@moscow.com=======================================================               "The Pessimist complains about the wind, the Optimist expects it tochangeand 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.netmailto:Vision2020@moscow.com=======================================================                   =======================================================List services made available by First Step Internet,serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.              http://www.fsr.net         mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com=======================================================      ======================================================= List services made available by First Step Internet,  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.                  http://www.fsr.net                                 mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com=======================================================   

------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  =======================================================
   List services made available by First Step Internet, 
   serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
                 http://www.fsr.net                       
            mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
  =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20101221/540efdcb/attachment-0001.html