<html><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); font-size: medium; "><span>"Compare this with the supposedly harmful statements on the NSA website. </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); font-size: medium; "><br></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); font-size: medium; "><span>If our bar is so low that that website can trigger cries of "hate </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); font-size: medium; "><br></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); font-size: medium; "><span>speech", then a veteran debater can argue that almost any website is </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); font-size: medium; "><br></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); font-size: medium; "><span>offensive to somebody."</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); font-size: medium;"><br></span></div><div><span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); font-size: medium;">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? </span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); font-size: medium;"><br></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); font-size: medium;">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.<br></span><br><br></div><div><br>On Dec 12, 2010, at 8:47 PM, Paul Rumelhart <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>Ted Moffett wrote:</span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span>Two separate responses in body of text below. This fourth post today</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>is over the limit for me... so "Good Night," as Ringo Starr sang it:</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIKugx1sToY">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIKugx1sToY</a></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>On 12/12/10, Paul Rumelhart <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Ted Moffett wrote:</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Paul Rumelhart godshatter at <a href="http://yahoo.com">yahoo.com</a> wrote:</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-December/073155.html">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-December/073155.html</a></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>"According to my views on freedom of expression, political correctness is</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>a disease that should be purged from the world."</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>and earlier:</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-December/073150.html">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-December/073150.html</a></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>"Just point, laugh, roll your eyes, and move on to fight something that</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>isn't just hyperbole."</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>So after the above advice to "...point, laugh, roll your eyes, and</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>move on..." regarding the New Saint Andrews' website discussion on</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Vision2020, you later state you want to purge the world of the disease</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>political correctness? Why not just "...point, laugh, roll your eyes,</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>and move on..." when someone makes a politically correct statement?</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Are politically correct statements more harmful to the world than</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>statements suggesting violence and hate, as some have interpreted the</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>statements on the NSA website to imply?</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>I see the point you're making. I wasn't suggesting that people point,</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>laugh, and move on to be politically correct, I was suggesting doing</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>that to avoid feeding the trolls. Which is, really, what they are.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>It appears the slippage of language strikes again...</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>I was not saying anyone should "move on to be politically correct." I</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>was asking, why object so strenuously to those who make politically</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>correct statements, if this is what you think some on Vision2020 are</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>doing, regarding New Saint Andrews' website? What is the major harm</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>in someone making a politically correct statement on Vision2020, if</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>this is truly what is occuring (I am not saying it is...)?</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Are these statements more harmful than statements that suggest</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>violence and hate, as some found the statements on the NSA website? I</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>understand you do not think there is any real threat implied by the</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>NSA website, but others perhaps disagree. What is the major problem</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>with expressing differing opinions regarding the NSA website? Maybe</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>there are more important topics, but Vision2020 often focuses on what</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>I think are not very important issues.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span>I think that the societal self-censorship of certain topics under the </span><br><span>guise of political correctness has a negative effect in the long run. </span><br><span>It stops the average Joe Public from speaking his mind freely about what </span><br><span>he perceives to be negative traits of a certain race, creed, or whatever </span><br><span>and it keeps people from being offended, but Joe has not changed his </span><br><span>mind - he's just learned to keep his thoughts to himself. He may harbor </span><br><span>a hatred of people of a specific type, and may have no simple way of </span><br><span>blowing off steam. So he has a run-in with one someday, and gets </span><br><span>violent. Or he learns to not promote anyone in his company of that type </span><br><span>of person, because it's one way of getting back at them. You get the </span><br><span>idea. If there were no societal prohibitions about talking about it, he </span><br><span>might learn that other people like people of that type just fine, and </span><br><span>that they are actually really nice, usually. He might even get in a </span><br><span>discussion with one that turns into a friendship, after the first bit of </span><br><span>arguing and name-calling dies down.</span><br><span></span><br><span>Compare this with the supposedly harmful statements on the NSA website. </span><br><span>If our bar is so low that that website can trigger cries of "hate </span><br><span>speech", then a veteran debater can argue that almost any website is </span><br><span>offensive to somebody. I'd rather save the phrase to describe things </span><br><span>that are undeniably hate speech. What's the harm in having some </span><br><span>language like that on their website? People might get a bad impression </span><br><span>of Moscow is one reason I've heard. Tough. We can only control what we </span><br><span>do ourselves. We don't have the right to try to censor others.</span><br><span></span><br><span>If people think that there is a real threat on the website, call the </span><br><span>police. Making threats is against the law. Just be aware that they </span><br><span>have a definition of "threat" that the website may fail to meet.</span><br><span></span><br><span>I don't have a problem with people expressing their views. It's just my </span><br><span>opinion that if they really valued freedom of expression then they </span><br><span>wouldn't be talking about this subject so much. I do value freedom of </span><br><span>expression, which is why I'm talking about what my concept of it is here.</span><br><span></span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span>Your response suggests you think the NSA website should not be a focus</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>of discussion to "avoid feeding the trolls." But in responding on</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Vision2020 to what you have implied, it seems, is politically correct</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>criticism regarding NSA, are you feeding those politically correct</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>"trolls? You are certainly helping to keep the focus on the NSA</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>website discussion in this thread, by referencing it in your first</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>post.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span>I think the person that wrote that blurb on that website was hoping for </span><br><span>this kind of reaction. They were trolling the people that watch them, </span><br><span>and a few of them took the bait. If you don't want trolls to continue </span><br><span>trolling, then your best bet is to simply ignore them. Point, laugh, </span><br><span>roll your eyes, and move on. If that's all the reaction they get, </span><br><span>they'll find someone else to bait. That's the method I've learned that </span><br><span>works best after 20+ years of interacting in Internet forums. It didn't </span><br><span>have anything to do with trying to suppress the actual point they were </span><br><span>trying to make.</span><br><span></span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span>Again, why not just "...point, laugh, roll your eyes..." at the</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>criticisms of NSA, rather than make more of an issue of it, as you</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>advised regarding the NSA website? You think, if I have understood</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>you correctly, that these criticisms are somehow creating ill will</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>between NSA and those of differing ideologies. So I suppose you think</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>that less criticism of NSA will encourage them to express more</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>tolerance of "secularists?" I doubt it. When an insititution of</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>higher learning, NSA, frames its mission aggressively against others</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>who do not share their ideology, to argue this approach should only</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>arouse a "...point, laugh, roll your eyes..." response, appears to be</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>an attempt to silence public discussion on substantive issues that</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>effect many people, which it also appears you cannot be advocating,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>given your emphasis on freedom of expression.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span>For one, I don't care if they ever learn to have a better opinion of </span><br><span>secularists. Their education on religion is none of my concern. They </span><br><span>can go to the grave believing that secularists are out to hunt them down </span><br><span>and convert them. I don't really care. I don't feel the need to make </span><br><span>sure that everyone agrees with what I say or think like I do. In fact, </span><br><span>I'd hate a world like that. My stance is simple. Everyone has the </span><br><span>right to think whatever they want, believe whatever they want, and have </span><br><span>whatever view of whatever topic they want. I don't care how horrendous </span><br><span>their beliefs or views are to others. I also believe that they have the </span><br><span>right to express those views however they want, keeping in mind that </span><br><span>they don't have the right to force others to listen to them, and they </span><br><span>don't have the right to harm others. If they want to put on the website </span><br><span>that they think that secularists probably eat children for breakfast, so </span><br><span>what? If someone goes out and beats up a secularist because of it, then </span><br><span>the responsibility for that action falls on the shoulders of the person </span><br><span>that committed that action. There are very few cases where I would </span><br><span>advocate for censoring their website. The text they have on it now </span><br><span>doesn't even come close.</span><br><span></span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span>Also, to claim the debate regarding fundamentalist Christianity and</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>secularism, and the political tactics involved, is not worth public</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>discussion, is on the face of it, not credible, given the power that</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>fundamentalist Christianity has over the political system. Consider</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>that Idaho is one of the Super DOMA states</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>( <a href="http://www.danpinello.com/SuperDOMAs.htm">http://www.danpinello.com/SuperDOMAs.htm</a> ). There is no doubt that</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>this law is in part the result of a religious view that NSA shares</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>with other fundamentalist Christians in Idaho. And they vote. As</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>they did regarding the ridiculous topless ordinance the Moscow City</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Council passed.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span>It's not my stance that people shouldn't talk about fundamentalist </span><br><span>Christianity and the ills they imagine are there. I just think that </span><br><span>people that I've been assuming all along are for freedom of expression </span><br><span>shouldn't get so bent out of shape when something somebody says offends </span><br><span>them. I'm not trying to force them to shut up, I really don't care. </span><br><span>What did provoke me to write my little diatribe were indications that </span><br><span>some sort of attempt to silence the NSA people might be coming up. I </span><br><span>misinterpreted what Nick said about the Chamber of Commerce, but at the </span><br><span>time I thought they were advocating for taking the site down. I also </span><br><span>saw references to "hate speech", which is a sensitive button of mine. </span><br><span>I'd hate for a statement that more or less says "we fight secularism as </span><br><span>an ideal" to lead to someone being convicted of some sort of "hate </span><br><span>crime". Stranger things have happened.</span><br><span></span><br><span>All I'm doing is advocating for true freedom of expression. Let people </span><br><span>say what they like. It's better for all of us in the end.</span><br><span></span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span>To state you are not afraid of being physically attacked by anyone</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>from NSA, nor where you offended, given the rhetoric on their website,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>does not address the real influence based on behavior that such</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>rhetoric has on the local, state and national level, regarding at</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>least four very important issues (I'll skip the alleged association</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>with racist groups and the debate regarding Wilson's book "Southern</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Slavery As It Was"): gay and women's rights, religious tolerance and</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>understanding between those of all religions, spiritual worldviews, or</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>those of no particular persuasion on these matters, and the US pursuit</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>of the so called "war on terror," which as everyone knows is tainted</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>with religious prejudice and misunderstandings here in the US and</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>internationally, by those of differing religions:</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span><a href="http://atheism.about.com/od/sarahpalinreligion/tp/SarahPalinReligionScience.htm">http://atheism.about.com/od/sarahpalinreligion/tp/SarahPalinReligionScience.htm</a></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>From website above:</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>In a speech to high school kids at her church, Sarah Palin said:</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>"Pray...that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [our</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>military men and women] out on a task that is from God. That's what we</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>have to make sure that we are praying for, that there is a plan and</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>that that plan is God's plan."</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span>I'm all for people discussing these issues. I'm not for any attempt to </span><br><span>get the NSA to change their website other than simple pleas that they </span><br><span>do so. What people are discussing is not the implications of their </span><br><span>viewpoints on secularism, they are discussing whether or not their text </span><br><span>is violent and whether or not something should be done about it. </span><br><span>Prejudice about religion or lack of religion can be a problem, it's </span><br><span>true. As long as no one is censoring anyone, then I hope that debate </span><br><span>rages along nicely. I just haven't seen much of it on here with regards </span><br><span>to this topic. I admit, though, that I haven't been following it all </span><br><span>that close. I just thought I'd go ahead and elucidate my thoughts on </span><br><span>the subject of freedom of expression, and hopefully others would put </span><br><span>this in perspective.</span><br><span></span><br><span>Paul</span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>"Political correctness" could be defined to suit whatever I want to</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>purge from society. Advocating purging a point of view is alarming</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>language. Perhaps you were making a joke of some sort in this</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>comment, and I am missing the joke by taking you literally?</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>But consider this example: I define publicly exposing undercover CIA</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>government assassins as a "politically correct" agenda, that must be</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>"purged" to protect the necessary for national security assassinations</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>carried out in secret by the CIA.. Thus in purging political</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>correctness in this example, I am supporting government secrecy</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>regarding CIA assassinations. It might be justifed to purge somone</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>planning to expose undercover CIA assassins, to protect national</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>security.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Some examples of what might be reasonably defined as "politically</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>correct" can be viewed as idealistic ethically laudable behaviors, the</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>sort of behaviors it seems you would aprove given your support for</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Wikileaks.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>I think you are taking me too literally. It's not politically correct</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>statements, which is basically any statement not involving race,</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>religion, gender, or sexual orientation in a negative light, that I</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>object to. It's people feeling like they cannot make politically</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>incorrect statements because of some sort of societal pressure that I</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>think is a problem. When I said that I think "political correctness" is</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>a problem, I was referring to the very idea that there are things that</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>we cannot talk about because they might offend somebody, which is an</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>idea I object to. Not talking about any one of these areas as a society</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>helps only in the short term. Real discussion is what heals wounds,</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>societal pressure towards silence only makes them fester.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>You're example above referring to political assassination isn't the sort</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>of political correctness I was referring to, but while we are on the</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>subject, I would say that keeping information about the whereabouts and</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>covers for assassins should be kept secret. However, the fact that the</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>US government is sanctioning assassinations should be out in the open so</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>that the American people can let their congressmen know whether or not</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>they think the US should be engaging in such behavior.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Paul</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>I agree that political correctness can be used to censor, of course,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>can create a climate of fear that blocks freedom of expression, and</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>can impede Democracy and the power of the Fourth Estate. Look at what</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>happened to Bill Maher, or the US media coverage of the build up to</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>the invasion of Iraq, especially, a shameful and frightening example</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>of media seized by a form of patriotic political correctness that kept</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>the US public woefully misinformed. The example of the firing of Imus</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>for the "nappy-headed hos" comment some argue is an example of the</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>abuse of political correctness. I wonder if you think Imus should</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>have been fired for what some claim was an explictly racist comment?</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>I recall Imus meeting the women basketball players he referred to in</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>this manner, where he apologized, and they asserted they were deeply</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>offended by his statement.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>I knew that you were not referring to the sort of political</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>correctness I used as an example, regarding CIA assassins. I was</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>simply saying that advocating purging something from society, like</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>political correctness, is alarming language, that can be twisted to</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>suit nefarious agendas. I was making no statement on the</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>appropriateness of exposing CIA assassins, only using this as an</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>example. My example was probably not a good one to make my point.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>But given you stated I was taking you too literally, I'll not</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>construct a better example.</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>------------------------------------------</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>On 12/12/10, Paul Rumelhart <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>I just thought I'd weigh in here with a little diatribe of my own.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>I think the freedom of an individual or group of individuals to express</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>themselves is sacrosanct. The freedom to express your opinion should be</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>held dearly by everyone, if they want to live in a free society.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>There are very few limits that should be placed on speech, in my humble</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>opinion, most having to do with statements of facts and not opinions. I</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>agree with libel laws, for example. On the other hand, I disagree with</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>obscenity laws probably universally. If groups want to get together and</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>form islands of information in which certain ideas are suppressed, I'm</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>for that, too, as long as other options exist. For example, if someone</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>wanted to create a separate internet targeted at children that enforced</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>it's own censorship, I would be OK with that. If parents were OK with</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>their kids surfing unrestrained on the Big Bad Internet, then they</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>should be allowed to do so without repercussions if their child ends up</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>on a porn site or a site about Islam or whatever your favorite boogey</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>man is.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>As an aside, this is why I support Wikileaks. Our government works *for</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>us*. They should only have secrets in very narrowly defined areas for</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>very specific reasons. And no, "they shouldn't see it because it will</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>make our leaders look like hypocrites" does not qualify. The people</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>behind Wikileaks are exposing secrets that shouldn't be secrets in a</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>reasonable world.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>According to my views on freedom of expression, political correctness is</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>a disease that should be purged from the world. Instead of helping, it</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>just sweeps the problem under the rug. If a person hates blacks because</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>of an incident when they were younger, or because they just don't like</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>people who are "different", then they should be free to express that</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>opinion. Others will likely disagree, and a dialogue will probably</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>ensue, but this is healthy. This tendency by people to shun these sorts</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>of debates is unhealthy for society (in my opinion, anyway).</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>In an effort to totally ostracize myself from the community, I might as</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>well go ahead and add that I also disagree with some of the child</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>pornography laws as they exist on the books, as they relate to freedom</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>of expression. These laws have been expanded so much under the guise of</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>"save the children" that they are insane. In Australia, one man was</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>arrested for having downloaded a drawing of Bart Simpson engaged in</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>having sex, and was convicted under that countries child pornography</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>laws. In Iowa, another man was arrested for possessing manga comics</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>from Japan that contained drawings of children having sex. Was Bart</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Simpson actually hurt by this? Or the fictional Japanese schoolgirl? I</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>can understand the prohibition against possession of real child porn</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>(because it creates a market for such things) though I don't agree with</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>it completely. I think it should be a prohibition against</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>*distribution* of child pornography, not simply "possession", if for no</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>other reason than people might be likely to hand it over to law</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>enforcement without the fear of going to jail themselves. Prohibition</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>against "virtual porn" is crazy and needs to be fought.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>So what does this mean to us? It means that if something offends you,</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>you should suck it up and learn to live with it. Grow some thicker skin</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>and see if you can find a sense of humor on sale somewhere. Freedom of</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>expression, if that's a concept you agree with, has to trump "freedom</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>from being offended". The minute you allow the idea that some things</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>are just too horrible to be read or viewed, then you've just thrown the</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>concept of freedom of expression out the window. Now you'll have a</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>slippery slope where the definition of "too horrible" tends to match the</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>ideals of the people who are in power at any given moment.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>The odd irony for people who really believe in freedom of expression is</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>that they most often end up defending things that they might vehemently</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>disagree with. They defend the speech of people they simply don't like</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>or don't agree with, and they defend speech they are personally offended</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>by because the speech that everyone agrees with is not threatened.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Very little offends me, but even if I was offended by the NSA website,</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>which I wasn't, then I would still be fighting for their right to be as</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>inane with their metaphors as they wish. I applaud them, really, for</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>not rushing to change the page in an orgy of political correctness.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>Paul</span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span>=======================================================</span><br><span> List services made available by First Step Internet, </span><br><span> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. </span><br><span> <a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a> </span><br><span> <a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a></a></span><br><span>=======================================================</span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>