[Vision2020] Welcome to Confederate Latah County . . .
Paul Rumelhart
godshatter at yahoo.com
Sat Jul 14 20:53:47 PDT 2012
On 07/14/2012 11:06 AM, Joe Campbell wrote:
> This is my last post. You keep twisting what I am taking great pains
> to explain.
I see it as failing to come around to your way of thinking, but that's
as nevermind.
>
> People have a choice to go to a website; not always so with regard to
> a building, especially this one. I doubt as someone is walking through
> the building and sees a confederate flag their first thought is
> "history lesson."
I wonder what they do think. "OMG! We're being attacked by the
Confederate Army!" or, maybe "Run for your lives! They're going to
enslave us all!"
>
> The idea that some people find symbols of slavery -- and like it or
> not that's what the confederate flag is -- offensive is not an
> indication that those folks are too sensitive. If anything it is an
> indication of your lack of sensitivity and good judgment that you fail
> to realize how this flag is more than a flag.
See, this is where my problem lies. Because I don't see that flag as a
symbol of slavery. Some people might, but I don't. I don't buy into
the narrative that the North was completely altruistic and the South
just wanted to enslave people out of pure evil. That's about as
accurate as calling the Civil War the War of Northern Aggression. Both
may have some truth to them, but I would bet almost anything that what
the "cause" was for the war is far more complicated than either of those
suggest.
Also, must you always try to denigrate me in some way? I do not lack
sensitivity or good judgment simply because I disagree with you on this.
>
> I'm not criticizing the display or the people who promoted it. I
> haven't seen it. I'm criticizing your general arguments, all of which
> are bad. I'm criticizing you and your continual defense of offensive
> symbols and documents associated with hatred and bigotry. This is
> nothing new. You've been doing this for years and I've been
> criticizing you for years.
The problem with supporting freedom of expression is that you end up
defending all the outliers that people love to hate. Everyone in the
majority doesn't need me to defend them. I've said *that* time and time
again over the years. Maybe you've missed it. If you want to not
offend anyone, you're stuck. You can't even keep quiet, because some
people might find just that offensive. Whether something could possibly
offend someone is a horrible metric to use in determining if it should
be displayed in public. It's completely illogical and unworkable.
>
> My main point in nearly all of my comments to your posts is simple,
> though you continue to fail to appreciate it. There is NO such thing
> as the right to offend; you can't hide behind free speech or
> educational opportunity in an effort to do so.
If there is no right to offend, then none of us can say much of
anything. I find that situation offensive.
Want to put up a display of shoes in a store? What about people missing
one or both feet? Isn't that insensitive? Want to display your love of
chewing gum? What about loved ones of people who have choked on chewing
gum? Your love of Pokemon? What about the kid that gets beat up every
day because of his Pokemon lunch box? A beautiful painted picture of a
pine forest? What about loved ones of loggers that have lost their
lives in a logging accident?
Paul
>
> On Jul 14, 2012, at 9:20 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com
> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>>
>> We're talking about a historical display in which the use of a flag
>> from that time period simply as a prop makes sense. Do you think it
>> was the intent of the historical society to offend people who... are
>> easily offended by this symbol?
>>
>> You seem to be arguing that we shouldn't, for example, show an image
>> of a swastika on a web page that explains what the swastika is. Are
>> these images *so* offensive that we need to eradicate them from our
>> society completely? If so, how do you plan on getting every single
>> person on-board with this?
>>
>> I just think that the right not to be offended is subordinate to the
>> right to free expression. Of course, we're talking about the
>> Courthouse here which brings in different issues, I realize. But
>> generally, I think this is true.
>>
>> I'll leave it to the historical society or whoever it was that put up
>> this display to defend it's educational value.
>>
>> I just don't understand the vehemence here. I get offended
>> occasionally by things I see on TV or signs or the occasional
>> commercial or advertisement I run across. When that happens, I shake
>> my head at their foolishness, recognize that people have other
>> viewpoints and the right to express them, and move on without
>> creating a big stink about it. In my opinion, if everybody did that
>> we'd live in a much less confrontational and less divisive world.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> On 07/14/2012 07:17 AM, Joe Campbell wrote:
>>> You are frustrating to talk to. First, it was a bit of a joke. Also,
>>> you're not tracking the quantity terms: all, some, etc. My view is
>>> not that ALL herpes displays should be banned. Of course such things
>>> COULD be helpful. But when and where and for what purpose? IN
>>> GENERAL were someone to say "There's a herpes display downtown" and
>>> it turned out not to be at Gritman, it should make you scratch your
>>> head.
>>>
>>> I think Idaho and our town in particular is not in need of a
>>> confederacy flag on display. Has anyone forgotten about the civil
>>> war? Is there anyone who might see the display who would learn
>>> something new? I just don't see it. The educational value of the
>>> display is little or nothing. You haven't done much to convince me
>>> otherwise. Nor do you seem to care about the particulars. Your view
>>> seems to be that we need to display offensive symbols, or at the
>>> very least that every display of everything offensive symbol needs
>>> to be defended, least we lose our God-given right to offend!
>>>
>>> That is an odd, curious view. Not every instance of every offensive
>>> symbol has educational value. I think the burden is on the defender
>>> of the display of the offensive symbol to show that it has
>>> educational value that overrides its offensive nature and you're not
>>> doing that because you're speaking in generalities and not about the
>>> particular display itself.
>>>
>>> My view is that there is NO general defense of the display of
>>> offensive symbols. If someone wants to educate that is fine but I
>>> don't see the educational value in this case. You don't seem to care.
>>>
>>> On Jul 13, 2012, at 6:41 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com
>>> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why not put up a display about (for example) herpes? What it is,
>>>> how you get it, how you can recognize it, how you can avoid it,
>>>> what are the available treatments for it, etc. If some society did
>>>> put up a display about this in the Courthouse, I certainly wouldn't
>>>> object to it. It's educational, it's a problem that education can
>>>> help with, an so forth. What it would not be, presumably, is some
>>>> kind of glorification of the state of having herpes.
>>>>
>>>> I also object to the simple idea that any display of the
>>>> Confederate flag in any context is always meant as support for the
>>>> idea of slavery. I can't think of a symbol that so immediately
>>>> makes you think "Civil War" than either the Confederate flag or the
>>>> Union Jack, so (not being subject to being offended every time I
>>>> turn around) finding one in a display that discusses some aspect of
>>>> the Civil War makes perfect sense to me.
>>>>
>>>> I don't have kids, but if I did, I would want them to live in a
>>>> world where they would know what the Civil War was about and what
>>>> herpes is. Having more information about incest (think genetic
>>>> reasons not to do it) and rodent infestations (possible health
>>>> concerns) wouldn't hurt them, either.
>>>>
>>>> I also object to your snarky "Well, most of us at least." line.
>>>> Arguing for the use of the Confederate flag as a device for
>>>> decorating a display about something that is connected to that war
>>>> does not mean that I don't know about the ills of slavery. Do you
>>>> really think I treat slavery as something other than an evil upon
>>>> our society?
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> On 07/13/2012 01:03 PM, Joe Campbell wrote:
>>>>> Why not a display about herpes, or incest, or rodent infestation?
>>>>> Wouldn't want to censor those, would we? After all, we don't want
>>>>> to sugarcoat the horrible world we live in!
>>>>>
>>>>> What good does it do? None. We all know about the ills of slavery.
>>>>> Well, most of us at least. Joe
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Paul Rumelhart
>>>>> <godshatter at yahoo.com <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> One doesn't nuance slavery, but we shouldn't sugar-coat it
>>>>> either. It's a historical display. We shouldn't be
>>>>> self-censoring it because people might find the confederate
>>>>> flag offensive. Some people would find the union flag
>>>>> offensive, if they had ancestors that died on that side of the
>>>>> war.
>>>>>
>>>>> As a community, we should not be afraid to look at this
>>>>> display unflinchingly and remember the positives and the
>>>>> negatives of that conflict. Be very, very careful about
>>>>> self-censoring our history. As a country we have done some
>>>>> pretty bad things, to each other and to people outside our
>>>>> borders, and those things should be remembered.
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul
>>>>>
>>>>> On 07/13/2012 11:56 AM, Rosemary Huskey wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would call a confederate flag placed in a display about a
>>>>>> confederate soldier with ties to Latah County A Celebratory
>>>>>> Nod to Racism. Help me to understand how one nuances
>>>>>> slavery, Paul. If you are under the impression that
>>>>>> tolerance of the intolerable is a badge of liberal honor,
>>>>>> then I assume you understand completely why I despise and
>>>>>> mock the latte sipping liberals that are so thick on the
>>>>>> ground in Latah County.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rose
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *From:*vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
>>>>>> <mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com>
>>>>>> [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] *On Behalf Of *Paul
>>>>>> Rumelhart
>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, July 13, 2012 11:35 AM
>>>>>> *To:* Joe Campbell
>>>>>> *Cc:* viz
>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] Welcome to Confederate Latah
>>>>>> County . . .
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would you call placing a confederate flag in a cabinet
>>>>>> housing an historical display about a confederate soldier
>>>>>> that has a tie to Latah County in the Latah County Courthouse
>>>>>> indefensible?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because I wouldn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, the one-dimensional liberal / conservative axis is
>>>>>> failing us here. We need more nuance in American politics
>>>>>> than that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 07/13/2012 09:47 AM, Joe Campbell wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it is best to avoid defending the indefensible,
>>>>>> anything to do with slavery in particular. There are A
>>>>>> LOT of better uses for your words and your motivations
>>>>>> will always be questioned -- no matter how many times you
>>>>>> call yourself a liberal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 13, 2012, at 9:33 AM, Paul Rumelhart
>>>>>> <godshatter at yahoo.com <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have to walk on eggshells around here, lest your
>>>>>> honest opinion be mistaken as an attack on all things
>>>>>> liberal. Which is ironic because I consider myself
>>>>>> to be a liberal (at least on some issues). And I
>>>>>> hate walking on eggshells.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 07/13/2012 12:25 AM, Scott Dredge wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wow! - welcome back to the V Paul. You're a much
>>>>>> better man than I am! [note to myself: never
>>>>>> share a painful personal experience trying to
>>>>>> make a perfectly valid point on the V lest you be
>>>>>> savagely crucified by 'holier than thou' Tom and
>>>>>> Donovan)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <mime-attachment.jpg>- <(null)>----------------
>>>>>> <(null)>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:13:51 -0700
>>>>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120714/2239269d/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list