<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.7600.16700"></HEAD>
<BODY style="PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 15px"
id=MailContainerBody leftMargin=0 topMargin=0 CanvasTabStop="true"
name="Compose message area">
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt Tahoma">
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=jampot@roadrunner.com
href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com">Gary Crabtree</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, December 16, 2010 6:01 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=thansen@moscow.com href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com">Tom
Hansen</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Freedom of expression</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 face=Arial>Far be it from me to make any kind of legal
judgment so I ask those in a better position to know, didn't someone
just violate the daylights out of another persons copyright? Let's hope that one
of the values that Jeff runs up the flag pole is respect for another's
property.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 face=Arial>g</DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR></FONT>--------------------------------------------------<BR>From:
"Tom Hansen" <<A
href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com">thansen@moscow.com</A>><BR>Sent: Thursday,
December 16, 2010 5:30 AM<BR>To: "Paul Rumelhart" <godshatter@yahoo.com>;
"Joe Campbell" <philosopher.joe@gmail.com>; "Vision2020"
<vision2020@moscow.com><BR>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Freedom of
expression<BR><BR>> Paul Rumelhart blindly hypothesizes:<BR>> <BR>>
"I'd also like to point out that I haven't read Doug Wilson's book, and<BR>>
have no idea exactly what his claims in it are. . . . If Doug's book is
a<BR>> valid work of historical research, . . . "<BR>> <BR>> Here you
go, Mr. R.<BR>> <BR>> Read "Southern Slavery As It Was" and judge for
yourself. It's a fair<BR>> attempt at third grade fiction.<BR>>
<BR>>
http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm<BR>>
<BR>> Seeya round the plantation, Moscow.<BR>> <BR>> Tom Hansen<BR>>
Moscow, Idaho<BR>> <BR>> On Wed, December 15, 2010 10:23 pm, Paul
Rumelhart wrote:<BR>>><BR>>> I don't think your "city test" is
measuring what you think it is.<BR>>> Instead of being a valid measure of
the amount of hate in a particular<BR>>> idea, it's measuring how
emotionally invested people are in the topic.<BR>>> As I've said before,
in some places in this country you would find<BR>>> certain basic ideas
that I find completely reasonable to elicit a strong<BR>>> negative
reaction. This reaction says more about the person reacting to<BR>>>
the statements than it does about anything else.<BR>>><BR>>> I'd
also like to point out that I haven't read Doug Wilson's book, and<BR>>>
have no idea exactly what his claims in it are. It wasn't pertinent
to<BR>>> my original point, which was that no matter what it says Doug has
the<BR>>> right to express his opinions. I'm just trying to say that
a stance<BR>>> that some people vehemently disagree with and that some
people would<BR>>> find offensive does not necessarily equate to being
hate speech. A<BR>>> study, for example, that showed that members of
ethnicity A have a much<BR>>> lower IQ on average that that of ethnicity B
may be seen as completely<BR>>> incorrect and grossly offensive to members
of ethnicity A, but should it<BR>>> be classified as "hate speech"?
I would say no, not if it's a valid<BR>>> scientific study. If
Doug's book is a valid work of historical<BR>>> research, then I wouldn't
classify it as "hate speech" even if it's<BR>>> conclusions would get you
beat up on the street in Spokane. Your<BR>>> opinion may be
different, so we might just have to agree to disagree on<BR>>> this
one.<BR>>><BR>>> If we try to use the test that if someone finds
something offensive then<BR>>> it must be hate speech, then you get
strange situations where people<BR>>> with no ill will towards members of
a particular group might<BR>>> inadvertently offend someone and thus have
their speech classified as<BR>>> "hate speech". All I'm saying is
that the common sense definition of<BR>>> "hate speech" would be speech
showing hatred towards something. How<BR>>> this definition changed
into some sort of marker that a particular<BR>>> speech offended someone
is beyond me.<BR>>><BR>>> Paul<BR>>><BR>>> Joe Campbell
wrote:<BR>>>> Well there ARE a lot of reasons one could get their butt
kicked in a<BR>>>> city. But none have the level of predictability of
the city test. You<BR>>>> would not have any reason, in general, to
think "Were I to go to<BR>>>> Spokane today, I'm likely to get my butt
kicked." But you would have<BR>>>> plenty of reason to think that were
you to go to Spokane today and,<BR>>>> say, hand out fliers that claim
slavery in the US was a "paradise in<BR>>>> which slaves were treated
well and had a harmonious relationship with<BR>>>> their masters" that
you'd get your butt kicked. That is why you won't<BR>>>> do it, right?
You know and I know what will happen. You'll go to<BR>>>> Spokane one
day because, though it could happen, it's unlikely you'll<BR>>>> get
your butt kicked but you won't try the city test because you
know<BR>>>> you'll at least have a bad day, an unpleasant experience in
Spokane.<BR>>>> Maybe you should just trust me on this one. I keep
saying "try it" but<BR>>>> you shouldn't try it because I KNOW what
will happen.<BR>>>><BR>>>> You seem to think that Wilson is
more naive than I do. I tend to give<BR>>>> him more credit and think
he is more clever than you do. But even if<BR>>>> Wilson is ignorant,
I'm not sure that it is relevant to whether or not<BR>>>> the slavery
book is hate speech. Think of your example of hate speech<BR>>>> below.
It wouldn't matter if someone actually believed that a<BR>>>>
particular race was "sub-human" would it? Likely someone who said
such<BR>>>> a thing in public WOULD believe it but that fact wouldn't
mean that it<BR>>>> wasn't hate speech.<BR>>>><BR>>>>
And how on earth COULD someone think that slavery was a "paradise,"
as<BR>>>> you say? And how isn't that claim offensive, no matter how
ignorant<BR>>>> the person was who said it? Again, consider the
Elizabeth Smart case.<BR>>>> It would be offensive to suggest, in
public, that she enjoyed being<BR>>>> kidnapped, held against her will,
raped and abused. If you said that<BR>>>> in public it would be
offensive. If you tried to justify saying it by<BR>>>> saying you
actually believed it that would not justify the offense. I<BR>>>> would
think that you were SO ignorant that you MUST be culpable. It<BR>>>>
isn't as if ignorance always mitigates. If you tell me you failed
an<BR>>>> exam because you failed to study that is no excuse. There are
some<BR>>>> things that people should know better and that kidnapping
is wrong,<BR>>>> that holding someone who committed no crime against
her will is wrong<BR>>>> are among
them.<BR>>>><BR>>>> I don't see how moving from the single
case of Elizabeth Smart to the<BR>>>> general case of slavery makes
your story any more plausible. For<BR>>>> crying out loud, Americans
went to Africa and kidnapped other human<BR>>>> beings, held them
against their will, sold them for profit, abused<BR>>>> them, and
forced them to work without pay. What about this story<BR>>>> sounds
like "paradise"? How would it matter how they were treated<BR>>>> while
they were held against their will? How twisted of a world view<BR>>>>
would one have to have in order to come away with the idea that
this<BR>>>> was a kind of "paradise" and that saying so in public was
anything<BR>>>> less than offensive? Common sense and empathy should be
enough to tell<BR>>>> you that slavery is wrong. The only way that you
could possibly<BR>>>> justify it is if you were to think that the
people held as slaves<BR>>>> were, as you said, "sub-human." I see no
other possibility. Now we've<BR>>>> moved from Wilson's book to the
kind of stuff you do consider to be<BR>>>> hate speech and it was not a
long trip.<BR>>>><BR>>>> And that is exactly why the claims of
Wilson's book are wrong. The US<BR>>>> practice of slavery was
justifiable ONLY on the assumption that blacks<BR>>>> are sub-human.
That, at any rate, is what anyone who gave the issue a<BR>>>> moment's
thought would conclude. That is why the claim that slavery<BR>>>> was
really a "paradise" is offensive. That is why saying it in
public<BR>>>> would incite violence and that is why it is hate speech.
It is a very<BR>>>> natural progression from Wilson's claims to claims
that even you admit<BR>>>> are hate
speech.<BR>>>><BR>>>> And don't try to justify it all by
appealing to Wilson's religious<BR>>>> beliefs. It isn't as if religion
is some kind of "get out of civility<BR>>>> free" card. I'm certain
that the folks who crushed the twin towers<BR>>>> actually believed
that they were doing the right thing because of<BR>>>> their own warped
religious views. In reflective moments I might think<BR>>>> that this
mitigates their actions, makes them less blameworthy but<BR>>>> most of
the time I think their beliefs were so warped that they should<BR>>>>
have known better. Regardless, at no time do I think it isn't
worth<BR>>>> noting that they had warped beliefs and noting that
religion is no<BR>>>> excuse for wrong action. At the very least, even
if Wilson is as naive<BR>>>> as you think he is, I would still say the
same things I've been<BR>>>> saying: that his ignorance has gone too
far and much of what he says<BR>>>> is offensive and should not be said
in a civil society. If he is<BR>>>> ignorant certainly he needs folks
to shake some sense into him. And<BR>>>> that's giving him the
"benefit" of the doubt, as you do. Again, I'm<BR>>>> pretty sure he is
not that ignorant but I may be wrong. Wouldn't<BR>>>> change what I say
either way.<BR>>>><BR>>>> On Dec 14, 2010, at 11:11 PM, Paul
Rumelhart <godshatter@yahoo.com><BR>>>>
wrote:<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>> Can't you get your
ass kicked in a city for any of a number of reasons?<BR>>>>>
Such as wearing the wrong color coat or walking down the wrong
alley<BR>>>>> or having the wrong skin color or looking the wrong
person in the eye?<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> I don't think that
Doug Wilson's book on slavery is hate speech,<BR>>>>> because I
believe that he truly believes what he's written and that<BR>>>>>
he's not intending to insult anyone. He may be seriously wrong, but
I<BR>>>>> would expect that something should be called "hate speech"
only when it<BR>>>>> involves speaking in such a way as to show
hatred for a group based<BR>>>>> solely on a person's membership in
that group. For example, if he had<BR>>>>> said "blacks are a
sub-human race and won't amount to anything if<BR>>>>> someone
doesn't take a strong hand with them", then I would classify<BR>>>>>
that as hate speech with respect to the non-law definition. In
fact,<BR>>>>> that's a common theme I heard from more than one
person growing up in<BR>>>>> idyllic Idaho when I was a kid.
It's not something I ever agreed with,<BR>>>>> but it was common to
hear it in conversations on the subject of race<BR>>>>>
relations. In fact, back then, there were places where you could
get<BR>>>>> your ass kicked if you walked in off the street and
tried to describe<BR>>>>> how black peopl!<BR>>> e are
as good as white people and deserve to be treated equally, making<BR>>>
such statements into "hate speech" by your definition. Intent
should<BR>>> matter.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> Anyway, I
also appreciate the civil conversation. Especially
knowing<BR>>>>> that this is an emotionally charged topic for a lot
of people.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>>
Paul<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> Joe Campbell
wrote:<BR>>>>><BR>>>>>>
Paul,<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> There are a lot of issues
here. No one is helped if we jumble them up<BR>>>>>> and forget
which one we're talking about.<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>>
We're not talking about freedom of expression. I believe it,
you<BR>>>>>> believe it, it's the law. I keep saying I'm not for
legal restrictions<BR>>>>>> of speech (other than the ones we
already have, like yelling fire in a<BR>>>>>> crowd etc.), Nick
has said the same. So please stop bringing it up. We<BR>>>>>>
agree.<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> In your previous post to
me you mocked my clam that Wilson's<BR>>>>>> pro-slavery book was
hate speech. I gave this definition: speech that<BR>>>>>> "may
incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a
protected<BR>>>>>> individual or group, or because it disparages
or intimidates a<BR>>>>>> protected individual or group." The
"city test" (as I'll call it) is a<BR>>>>>> test to see if
something is hate speech. If you can say it on a city<BR>>>>>>
street and LIKELY get beat up, it is hate speech. If you went to
a<BR>>>>>> city, stood on a street corner, and tried to sell
folks the idea that<BR>>>>>> slavery in the US was a "paradise in
which slaves were treated well<BR>>>>>> and had a harmonious
relationship with their masters" you would get<BR>>>>>> beat up.
It WOULD incite violence, violence to YOU. In order to
get<BR>>>>>> slaves they had to be KIDNAPPED and held AGAINST
their WILL. Does that<BR>>>>>> sound like paradise to you? Would
anyone in their right mind think<BR>>>>>> that being kidnapped,
held against ones will, and forced into labor<BR>>>>>> with no
pay is PARADISE? It is an OFFENSIVE idea with NO merit<BR>>>>>>
whatsoever. It would be offensive to suggest the idea in a single
case<BR>>>>>> -- like the Elizabeth Smart case: it is offensive
to suggest that she<BR>>>>>> enjoyed being kidnapped, held
against her will, raped and abused. To<BR>>>>>> suggest it about
the US institution of slavery is even more offensive,<BR>>>>>>
offense to blacks and to almost anyone else. There is no purpose
for<BR>>>>>> such an absurd suggestion. The only reason that
someone would make<BR>>>>>> such a suggestion would be to incite
rage in other people, people one<BR>>>>>> hates. There is NO
reasonable purpose other than this to make such an<BR>>>>>>
absurd claim. None. That is why the book needed to be published
on<BR>>>>>> Wilson's own vanity press. No legitimate publisher
would touch it.<BR>>>>>> That is why it took merely a pamphlet by
a pair of UI historians to<BR>>>>>> refute it. It is without
academic and social merit. Its only purpose<BR>>>>>> is to make
people angry. That is hate
speech.<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> Again, if you think I'm
wrong just try the city test. Just find one<BR>>>>>> black man
NOT a member of Christ Church and run the idea by him.
Then<BR>>>>>> try to convince him that it isn't offensive. See
where you get. You<BR>>>>>> cannot take this crap to anywhere
other than an on-line blog in Idaho<BR>>>>>> and get away with
saying it without getting punched in the nose or<BR>>>>>> having
your house burned to the ground. It is hate speech. If you
want<BR>>>>>> to try to prove me wrong, I'll be happy to drive
you to Spokane and<BR>>>>>> we'll put it to the test. Although
I'll remain in the car while you<BR>>>>>> conduct the test
because someone will need to take you to the hospital<BR>>>>>>
afterward and it won't be the guy who beat you
up.<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> And the definition of "hate
speech" is not watered down at all. You<BR>>>>>> could try the
city test with a variety of other statements and LIKELY<BR>>>>>>
you won't get punched. There is something special about the
suggestion<BR>>>>>> that slavery was paradise, something that you
still don't seem to get.<BR>>>>>> If you tried the city test,
you'd get it rather quickly. I'm just<BR>>>>>> asking you to put
your nose where your theory is and see what happens.<BR>>>>>> You
won't do it, so you loose this particular debate. Wilson's book
is<BR>>>>>> hate
speech.<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> I just wanted to point
out that this is the first time I've ever had<BR>>>>>> an
extended discussion on Vision 2020 about Wilson, NSA, etc. and
no<BR>>>>>> one mentioned my job, offended me with insults, or
told me to take it<BR>>>>>> off-line. So I thank you for that!
Though I'm a bit worried that it is<BR>>>>>> merely the calm
before the storm.<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> Best,
Joe<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> On Dec 13, 2010, at 9:19 PM,
Paul Rumelhart <godshatter@yahoo.com><BR>>>>>>
wrote:<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>
Joe Campbell
wrote:<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>
Thoughtful discussion like this about the slavery book could
only<BR>>>>>>>> happen here and practically nowhere else in
the country. You take<BR>>>>>>>>
that<BR>>>>>>>> book to a street corner in almost any city
and try to give the<BR>>>>>>>> explanation you are giving
below. Do it. I am serious. You won't but<BR>>>>>>>> if you
did, someone would literally beat the crap out of you.
It<BR>>>>>>>> would<BR>>>>>>>> quite
literally incite violence. Go to any city with a
diverse<BR>>>>>>>> population and try this experiment and
see what happens. You won't<BR>>>>>>>>
do<BR>>>>>>>> it and you know it. That should tell you
something about your own<BR>>>>>>>> attitude toward your
own argument. You can only give it in the<BR>>>>>>>>
sheltered confines of V2020 in Moscow, Idaho. Bad
argument!<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>
I'm advocating for freedom of expression, not Doug Wilson's views
on<BR>>>>>>> slavery. That means that I'm often in the
position of trying to<BR>>>>>>> protect someone's right with
whom I disagree, since they are often<BR>>>>>>> the ones that
people are trying to
censor.<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>> This idea that
people should not express their opinions because
other<BR>>>>>>> people might get upset is basically what I'm
fighting against. No, I<BR>>>>>>> wouldn't want to go
there and preach from the gospel of Doug. I<BR>>>>>>>
don't really want to go to a right-wing bar and start discussing
the<BR>>>>>>> benefits of gay marriage either. That
doesn't mean that I shouldn't<BR>>>>>>> talk about
it.<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>
Again, hate speech is in part a legal term and as I defined it
the<BR>>>>>>>> other day it is speech that "may incite
violence or prejudicial<BR>>>>>>>>
action<BR>>>>>>>> against or by a protected individual or
group, or because it<BR>>>>>>>> disparages or intimidates a
protected individual or group." Say what<BR>>>>>>>> you
will but the slavery book classifies as hate speech by this
and<BR>>>>>>>> any reasonable definition. And the thought
experiment noted above,<BR>>>>>>>>
as<BR>>>>>>>> well as your unwillingness to try to provide
the justification below<BR>>>>>>>> in pretty much ANY
context other than this one, shows I'm correct.<BR>>>>>>>>
And<BR>>>>>>>> I never said the NSA website was "hate
speech." It is "violent<BR>>>>>>>> rhetoric" and like hate
speech it is an example of OFFENSIVE speech.<BR>>>>>>>>
Offensive speech is political. Not religious but political. You
seem<BR>>>>>>>> blind to that
truth.<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>
I think that definition of hate speech is so watered down as to
be<BR>>>>>>> unworkable. All you have to do is disparage
a group and it's hate<BR>>>>>>> speech by that
definition. I think many people on the far right
let<BR>>>>>>> their emotions rule their responses too
often. There, that would<BR>>>>>>> qualify as hate
speech.<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>
Let me explain something to you. I did not grow up in Idaho. I
did<BR>>>>>>>> not<BR>>>>>>>> grow up
in a place where folks could get away with saying the
kind<BR>>>>>>>> of<BR>>>>>>>> crap
that NSA, No Weatherman, etc. have gotten away with saying.
So<BR>>>>>>>> my<BR>>>>>>>> experience
of all of this and of watching otherwise decent
folks<BR>>>>>>>> like<BR>>>>>>>>
yourself defending that crap is a bit jarring. It is unlike
anything<BR>>>>>>>> I<BR>>>>>>>> could
have ever imagined. In the town I grew up in there
were<BR>>>>>>>> butchers<BR>>>>>>>>
with numbers tattooed on their forearms. The grandparents of some
of<BR>>>>>>>> my friends grew up in concentration camps, as
well. Nazi Germany was<BR>>>>>>>> not something I just read
about in history books or heard about in<BR>>>>>>>> films.
I actually heard some of the stories from actual survivors
of<BR>>>>>>>> concentration camps. I saw and interacted
with these people often. I<BR>>>>>>>> was told on a regular
basis by people who suffered to never forget<BR>>>>>>>>
and<BR>>>>>>>> I
won't.<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>
I prefer to live in a place where people can speak their mind
without<BR>>>>>>> fear of getting their asses kicked or
worse. I think that should be<BR>>>>>>> the ideal, not
some sort of accident of location to be chastised<BR>>>>>>>
about.<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>
I go back east a few times each year since my family and my
best<BR>>>>>>>> friends still live there. Years ago I
talked about the slavery book<BR>>>>>>>> and the regular
criticisms of gays and Muslims. One of the
parents<BR>>>>>>>> of<BR>>>>>>>> my
friend said: "This is how it started in Nazi Germany.
They<BR>>>>>>>> started<BR>>>>>>>>
with the gays and with the less populated groups and then moved
on<BR>>>>>>>> from there." Years ago intolerance against
Mormons would have been<BR>>>>>>>> unthinkable but this
year we actually had a man run for political<BR>>>>>>>>
office whose pastor had insulting comments about Mormons posted
on<BR>>>>>>>> his<BR>>>>>>>> website.
Want to read more local hate speech about Mormons?
Look<BR>>>>>>>> here:<BR>>>>>>>>
http://pullman.craigslist.org/rnr/<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>
I find it hard to shake the thought that maybe the parent of
my<BR>>>>>>>> friend<BR>>>>>>>> was
correct. I go back to New Jersey a few times a year and I
run<BR>>>>>>>> into<BR>>>>>>>> these
folks and they ask me how it's going. So I can't ever give
up<BR>>>>>>>> the fight to try to shake some sense into
this town. It is just not<BR>>>>>>>> possible. Maybe I'm
wrong but I'd rather err on the side of<BR>>>>>>>>
insulting<BR>>>>>>>> some idiot who thinks that slavery was
a cakewalk than make the<BR>>>>>>>> mistake of allowing
another Nazi Germany. That is an easy choice for<BR>>>>>>>>
me.<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>
I would think that if you best want to fight the kind
of<BR>>>>>>> totalitarianism exemplified by Nazi Germany, then
you would fight for<BR>>>>>>> an individual's right to freedom
of expression, among other rights<BR>>>>>>> like the right to
believe as one wishes and the right to be different<BR>>>>>>>
from the norm. You can't have freedom of expression if you try
to<BR>>>>>>> define it as anything "not Nazi-like" or whatever
your standard is.<BR>>>>>>> You have to take the bad with the
good, or you don't have anything at<BR>>>>>>>
all.<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>> I suspect that if
some group tried to do what the Nazis did in<BR>>>>>>> Germany
here, I'd be one of the first targets. I wouldn't agree
with<BR>>>>>>> the silencing of opposition voices, and I'd say
so loud and clear.<BR>>>>>>> I'd be fighting on the "right"
side, as far as most people are<BR>>>>>>> concerned, which
would be a relief from what I'm currently doing<BR>>>>>>>
which is fighting for viewpoints I don't usually agree with. From
my<BR>>>>>>> perspective, though, I'd still be fighting for
the same
thing.<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>
And again, I'm not asking you to agree with me. Nor am I trying
to<BR>>>>>>>> convince you of anything. Nor am I trying to
silence Christ Church<BR>>>>>>>>
or<BR>>>>>>>> NSA. I'm just asking you and others to stay
the hell out of my way<BR>>>>>>>>
and<BR>>>>>>>> let me say what I wish. You want to allow
hateful, offensive speech<BR>>>>>>>>
on<BR>>>>>>>> regular basis? Fine. I am the natural
consequence of your generous<BR>>>>>>>> nature, so you
better allow my speech
too.<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>
I uphold your right to freedom of expression as much as anyones.
My<BR>>>>>>> comments aren't meant to try to silence
anyone. I'm just trying to<BR>>>>>>> put my opinion on
the matter out there.<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>
Paul<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>
On Dec 12, 2010, at 11:34 PM, Paul Rumelhart
<godshatter@yahoo.com><BR>>>>>>>>
wrote:<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>
Are you saying that descriptions of this supposed paradise in
which<BR>>>>>>>>> slaves were treated well and had a
harmonious relationship with<BR>>>>>>>>> their masters
is hate speech? You may disagree with it, lots
of<BR>>>>>>>>> people whose ancestors had a considerably
worse experience that he<BR>>>>>>>>> describes might
disagree with it, but that doesn't make it
hate<BR>>>>>>>>> speech. I think that he truly
believes this, because he knows that<BR>>>>>>>>> many of
the men that owned slaves at that time professed to
be<BR>>>>>>>>> Christian, and the Bible apparently talks
about slavery as an<BR>>>>>>>>> everyday occurrence, so
it must be something that God would approve<BR>>>>>>>>>
of. So he selectively reads history and picks out what he
thinks<BR>>>>>>>>> supports this ideal and glosses over
what doesn't. A very easy<BR>>>>>>>>> trap to fall
into. That doesn't make his book hate speech.
It<BR>>>>>>>>> more than likely makes him wrong (I'm not
a historian), but it<BR>>>>>>>>> doesn't make it hate
speech.<BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>
And I fully support his right to express his opinions on
the<BR>>>>>>>>>
matter.<BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>
Paul<BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>> Joe
Campbell
wrote:<BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>
"Compare this with the supposedly harmful statements on the
NSA<BR>>>>>>>>>> website. If our bar is so low
that that website can trigger cries<BR>>>>>>>>>> of
"hate speech", then a veteran debater can argue that almost
any<BR>>>>>>>>>> website is offensive to
somebody."<BR>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>
Is this the only example of hate speech from this crowd?
For<BR>>>>>>>>>> crying out loud, Wilson wrote a BOOK
denying the evils of slavery.<BR>>>>>>>>>> They were
noted by a NATIONAL organization, one that helped
remove<BR>>>>>>>>>> neo-Nazis up north. Did I make
that up too?<BR>>>>>>>>>> Again, come back east with
me just once and try telling your story<BR>>>>>>>>>>
to my friends. I no longer wonder how the Nazis took over
Germany,<BR>>>>>>>>>> I'll tell you that. Well
meaning "liberals" like yourself had
much<BR>>>>>>>>>> to do with
it.<BR>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>
On Dec 12, 2010, at 8:47 PM, Paul Rumelhart
<godshatter@yahoo.com<BR>>>>>>>>>>
<mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com>>
wrote:<BR>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>
Ted Moffett
wrote:<BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
Two separate responses in body of text below. This fourth
post<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
today<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> is over the limit for
me... so "Good Night," as Ringo Starr
sang<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
it:<BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIKugx1sToY<BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 12/12/10, Paul Rumelhart
<godshatter@yahoo.com<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
<mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com>>
wrote:<BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ted Moffett
wrote:<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Paul Rumelhart godshatter at yahoo.com
<http://yahoo.com><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
wrote:<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-December/073155.html<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"According to my views on freedom of expression,
political<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctness
is<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a disease that should
be purged from the
world."<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
and
earlier:<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-December/073150.html<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Just point, laugh, roll your eyes, and move on to
fight<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something
that<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't just
hyperbole."<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So after the above advice to "...point, laugh, roll your
eyes,<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
and<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> move on..."
regarding the New Saint Andrews'
website<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion
on<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vision2020, you later
state you want to purge the world of
the<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
disease<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> political
correctness? Why not just "...point, laugh,
roll<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your
eyes,<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and move on..."
when someone makes a politically
correct<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
statement?<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are
politically correct statements more harmful to the
world<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
than<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements
suggesting violence and hate, as some
have<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpreted
the<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements on the
NSA website to
imply?<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I see the point you're making. I wasn't suggesting that
people<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>
point,<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> laugh, and move on to
be politically correct, I was
suggesting<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>
doing<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> that to avoid feeding
the trolls. Which is, really, what
they<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>
are.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
It appears the slippage of language strikes
again...<BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
I was not saying anyone should "move on to be
politically<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> correct."
I<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> was asking, why object so
strenuously to those who make<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
politically<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> correct statements,
if this is what you think some on
Vision2020<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
are<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> doing, regarding New Saint
Andrews' website? What is the
major<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
harm<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> in someone making a
politically correct statement on
Vision2020,<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
if<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> this is truly what is
occuring (I am not saying it
is...)?<BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
Are these statements more harmful than statements that
suggest<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> violence and hate, as
some found the statements on the
NSA<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> website?
I<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> understand you do not think
there is any real threat implied
by<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
the<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> NSA website, but others
perhaps disagree. What is the
major<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
problem<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> with expressing
differing opinions regarding the NSA
website?<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
Maybe<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> there are more important
topics, but Vision2020 often focuses
on<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
what<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> I think are not very
important
issues.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>
I think that the societal self-censorship of certain topics
under<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
the<BR>>>>>>>>>>> guise of political correctness
has a negative effect in the long<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
run. It stops the average Joe Public from speaking his
mind<BR>>>>>>>>>>> freely about
what<BR>>>>>>>>>>> he perceives to be negative
traits of a certain race, creed, or<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
whatever<BR>>>>>>>>>>> and it keeps people from
being offended, but Joe has not
changed<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
his<BR>>>>>>>>>>> mind - he's just learned to keep
his thoughts to himself. He
may<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
harbor<BR>>>>>>>>>>> a hatred of people of a
specific type, and may have no simple
way<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
of<BR>>>>>>>>>>> blowing off steam. So he
has a run-in with one someday, and
gets<BR>>>>>>>>>>> violent. Or he learns to
not promote anyone in his company of<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
that type<BR>>>>>>>>>>> of person, because it's
one way of getting back at them. You
get<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
the<BR>>>>>>>>>>> idea. If there were no
societal prohibitions about talking
about<BR>>>>>>>>>>> it,
he<BR>>>>>>>>>>> might learn that other people
like people of that type just fine,<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
and<BR>>>>>>>>>>> that they are actually really
nice, usually. He might even
get<BR>>>>>>>>>>> in
a<BR>>>>>>>>>>> discussion with one that turns
into a friendship, after the first<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
bit of<BR>>>>>>>>>>> arguing and name-calling dies
down.<BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>
Compare this with the supposedly harmful statements on the
NSA<BR>>>>>>>>>>> website. If our bar is so
low that that website can trigger<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
cries of "hate<BR>>>>>>>>>>> speech", then a
veteran debater can argue that almost any
website<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
is<BR>>>>>>>>>>> offensive to somebody. I'd
rather save the phrase to describe<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
things<BR>>>>>>>>>>> that are undeniably hate
speech. What's the harm in having
some<BR>>>>>>>>>>> language like that on their
website? People might get a
bad<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
impression<BR>>>>>>>>>>> of Moscow is one reason
I've heard. Tough. We can only
control<BR>>>>>>>>>>> what
we<BR>>>>>>>>>>> do ourselves. We don't have
the right to try to censor
others.<BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>
If people think that there is a real threat on the website,
call<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
the<BR>>>>>>>>>>> police. Making threats is
against the law. Just be aware
that<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
they<BR>>>>>>>>>>> have a definition of "threat"
that the website may fail to
meet.<BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>
I don't have a problem with people expressing their views.
It's<BR>>>>>>>>>>> just
my<BR>>>>>>>>>>> opinion that if they really
valued freedom of expression then<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
they<BR>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't be talking about this
subject so much. I do value<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
freedom of<BR>>>>>>>>>>> expression, which is why
I'm talking about what my concept of
it<BR>>>>>>>>>>> is
here.<BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your response suggests you think the NSA website should not be
a<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
focus<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> of discussion to "avoid
feeding the trolls." But in
responding<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
on<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> Vision2020 to what you have
implied, it seems, is
politically<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
correct<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> criticism regarding NSA,
are you feeding those
politically<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
correct<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> "trolls? You are
certainly helping to keep the focus on the
NSA<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> website discussion in this
thread, by referencing it in
your<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
first<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
post.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>
I think the person that wrote that blurb on that website
was<BR>>>>>>>>>>> hoping
for<BR>>>>>>>>>>> this kind of reaction.
They were trolling the people that
watch<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
them,<BR>>>>>>>>>>> and a few of them took the
bait. If you don't want trolls
to<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
continue<BR>>>>>>>>>>> trolling, then your best
bet is to simply ignore them.
Point,<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
laugh,<BR>>>>>>>>>>> roll your eyes, and move
on. If that's all the reaction
they<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
get,<BR>>>>>>>>>>> they'll find someone else to
bait. That's the method I've<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
learned that<BR>>>>>>>>>>> works best after 20+
years of interacting in Internet forums.
It<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
didn't<BR>>>>>>>>>>> have anything to do with
trying to suppress the actual point
they<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
were<BR>>>>>>>>>>> trying to
make.<BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
Again, why not just "...point, laugh, roll your eyes..." at
the<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> criticisms of NSA, rather
than make more of an issue of it,
as<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
you<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> advised regarding the NSA
website? You think, if I
have<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
understood<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> you correctly, that
these criticisms are somehow creating
ill<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
will<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> between NSA and those of
differing ideologies. So I suppose
you<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
think<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> that less criticism of NSA
will encourage them to express
more<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> tolerance of
"secularists?" I doubt it. When an
insititution<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
of<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> higher learning, NSA, frames
its mission aggressively against<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
others<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> who do not share their
ideology, to argue this approach
should<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
only<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> arouse a "...point, laugh,
roll your eyes..." response,
appears<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> to
be<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> an attempt to silence public
discussion on substantive issues<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
that<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> effect many people, which
it also appears you cannot be<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
advocating,<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> given your emphasis
on freedom of
expression.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>
For one, I don't care if they ever learn to have a better
opinion<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
of<BR>>>>>>>>>>> secularists. Their
education on religion is none of my
concern.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
They<BR>>>>>>>>>>> can go to the grave believing
that secularists are out to hunt<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
them down<BR>>>>>>>>>>> and convert them. I
don't really care. I don't feel the need
to<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
make<BR>>>>>>>>>>> sure that everyone agrees with
what I say or think like I do.
In<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
fact,<BR>>>>>>>>>>> I'd hate a world like
that. My stance is simple. Everyone
has<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
the<BR>>>>>>>>>>> right to think whatever they
want, believe whatever they want,<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
and have<BR>>>>>>>>>>> whatever view of whatever
topic they want. I don't care
how<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
horrendous<BR>>>>>>>>>>> their beliefs or views
are to others. I also believe that
they<BR>>>>>>>>>>> have
the<BR>>>>>>>>>>> right to express those views
however they want, keeping in mind<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
that<BR>>>>>>>>>>> they don't have the right to
force others to listen to them, and<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
they<BR>>>>>>>>>>> don't have the right to harm
others. If they want to put on
the<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
website<BR>>>>>>>>>>> that they think that
secularists probably eat children
for<BR>>>>>>>>>>> breakfast,
so<BR>>>>>>>>>>> what? If someone goes out
and beats up a secularist because of<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
it, then<BR>>>>>>>>>>> the responsibility for that
action falls on the shoulders of the<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
person<BR>>>>>>>>>>> that committed that
action. There are very few cases where
I<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
would<BR>>>>>>>>>>> advocate for censoring their
website. The text they have on
it<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
now<BR>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't even come
close.<BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
Also, to claim the debate regarding fundamentalist
Christianity<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
and<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> secularism, and the
political tactics involved, is not
worth<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
public<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion, is on the
face of it, not credible, given the
power<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
that<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamentalist Christianity
has over the political system.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
Consider<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> that Idaho is one of
the Super DOMA states<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> (
http://www.danpinello.com/SuperDOMAs.htm ). There is no
doubt<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
that<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> this law is in part the
result of a religious view that
NSA<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
shares<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> with other fundamentalist
Christians in Idaho. And they
vote.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
As<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> they did regarding the
ridiculous topless ordinance the
Moscow<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
City<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> Council
passed.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>
It's not my stance that people shouldn't talk
about<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
fundamentalist<BR>>>>>>>>>>> Christianity and the
ills they imagine are there. I just
think<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
that<BR>>>>>>>>>>> people that I've been assuming
all along are for freedom of<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
expression<BR>>>>>>>>>>> shouldn't get so bent out
of shape when something somebody
says<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
offends<BR>>>>>>>>>>> them. I'm not trying
to force them to shut up, I really
don't<BR>>>>>>>>>>> care. What did provoke
me to write my little diatribe were<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
indications that<BR>>>>>>>>>>> some sort of
attempt to silence the NSA people might be
coming<BR>>>>>>>>>>> up.
I<BR>>>>>>>>>>> misinterpreted what Nick said
about the Chamber of Commerce, but<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
at the<BR>>>>>>>>>>> time I thought they were
advocating for taking the site down.
I<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
also<BR>>>>>>>>>>> saw references to "hate
speech", which is a sensitive button
of<BR>>>>>>>>>>> mine. I'd hate for a
statement that more or less says "we
fight<BR>>>>>>>>>>> secularism
as<BR>>>>>>>>>>> an ideal" to lead to someone
being convicted of some sort of<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
"hate<BR>>>>>>>>>>> crime". Stranger things
have
happened.<BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>
All I'm doing is advocating for true freedom of expression.
Let<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
people<BR>>>>>>>>>>> say what they like.
It's better for all of us in the
end.<BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
To state you are not afraid of being physically attacked
by<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
anyone<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> from NSA, nor where you
offended, given the rhetoric on
their<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
website,<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> does not address the
real influence based on behavior that
such<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> rhetoric has on the local,
state and national level,
regarding<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
at<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> least four very important
issues (I'll skip the alleged<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
association<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> with racist groups
and the debate regarding Wilson's
book<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Southern<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> Slavery As It Was"):
gay and women's rights, religious
tolerance<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
and<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding between those
of all religions, spiritual<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
worldviews, or<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> those of no
particular persuasion on these matters, and the
US<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
pursuit<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> of the so called "war on
terror," which as everyone knows
is<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
tainted<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> with religious prejudice
and misunderstandings here in the
US<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
and<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> internationally, by those of
differing
religions:<BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://atheism.about.com/od/sarahpalinreligion/tp/SarahPalinReligionScience.htm<BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>From website
above:<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
In a speech to high school kids at her church, Sarah Palin
said:<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> "Pray...that our leaders,
our national leaders, are sending
[our<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> military men and women] out
on a task that is from God.
That's<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> what
we<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> have to make sure that we are
praying for, that there is a
plan<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
and<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> that that plan is God's
plan."<BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>
I'm all for people discussing these issues. I'm not for
any<BR>>>>>>>>>>> attempt
to<BR>>>>>>>>>>> get the NSA to change their
website other than simple pleas that<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
they do so. What people are discussing is not the
implications<BR>>>>>>>>>>> of
their<BR>>>>>>>>>>> viewpoints on secularism, they
are discussing whether or not<BR>>>>>>>>>>> their
text<BR>>>>>>>>>>> is violent and whether or not
something should be done about it.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
Prejudice about religion or lack of religion can be a
problem,<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
it's<BR>>>>>>>>>>> true. As long as no one
is censoring anyone, then I hope
that<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
debate<BR>>>>>>>>>>> rages along nicely. I
just haven't seen much of it on here
with<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
regards<BR>>>>>>>>>>> to this topic. I
admit, though, that I haven't been following
it<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
all<BR>>>>>>>>>>> that close. I just thought
I'd go ahead and elucidate my<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
thoughts on<BR>>>>>>>>>>> the subject of freedom
of expression, and hopefully others
would<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
put<BR>>>>>>>>>>> this in
perspective.<BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>
Paul<BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Political correctness" could be defined to suit whatever
I<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want
to<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> purge from
society. Advocating purging a point of view
is<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
alarming<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language.
Perhaps you were making a joke of some sort in
this<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comment, and I am
missing the joke by taking you
literally?<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But consider this example: I define publicly
exposing<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undercover
CIA<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government assassins
as a "politically correct" agenda,
that<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must
be<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "purged" to protect
the necessary for national
security<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
assassinations<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> carried
out in secret by the CIA.. Thus in purging
political<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctness in
this example, I am supporting
government<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
secrecy<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regarding CIA
assassinations. It might be justifed to
purge<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
somone<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planning to
expose undercover CIA assassins, to
protect<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
national<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
security.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Some examples of what might be reasonably defined
as<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"politically<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct"
can be viewed as idealistic ethically
laudable<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behaviors,
the<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sort of behaviors it
seems you would aprove given your
support<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
for<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Wikileaks.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think you are taking me too literally. It's not
politically<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>
correct<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements, which is
basically any statement not
involving<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>
race,<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> religion, gender, or
sexual orientation in a negative
light,<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
I<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> object to. It's
people feeling like they cannot
make<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>
politically<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect
statements because of some sort of societal
pressure<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
I<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> think is a problem.
When I said that I think
"political<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctness"
is<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> a problem, I was
referring to the very idea that there
are<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> things
that<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> we cannot talk about
because they might offend somebody,
which<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
an<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea I object to.
Not talking about any one of these areas
as<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
society<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> helps only in the
short term. Real discussion is what
heals<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>
wounds,<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> societal pressure
towards silence only makes them
fester.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You're example above referring to political assassination
isn't<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
sort<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> of political
correctness I was referring to, but while we
are<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
the<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject, I would say
that keeping information about
the<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> whereabouts
and<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> covers for assassins
should be kept secret. However, the
fact<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
the<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> US government is
sanctioning assassinations should be out
in<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> the open
so<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the American people
can let their congressmen know
whether<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
not<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>> they think the US should
be engaging in such
behavior.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Paul<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
I agree that political correctness can be used to censor,
of<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
course,<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> can create a climate of
fear that blocks freedom of
expression,<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
and<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> can impede Democracy and the
power of the Fourth Estate.
Look<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> at
what<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> happened to Bill Maher, or
the US media coverage of the build
up<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
to<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> the invasion of Iraq,
especially, a shameful and
frightening<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
example<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> of media seized by a
form of patriotic political
correctness<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> that
kept<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> the US public woefully
misinformed. The example of the
firing<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> of
Imus<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> for the "nappy-headed hos"
comment some argue is an example
of<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
the<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> abuse of political
correctness. I wonder if you think
Imus<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
should<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> have been fired for what
some claim was an explictly
racist<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
comment?<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> I recall Imus meeting
the women basketball players he
referred<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> to
in<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> this manner, where he
apologized, and they asserted they
were<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
deeply<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> offended by his
statement.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
I knew that you were not referring to the sort of
political<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> correctness I used as
an example, regarding CIA assassins.
I<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
was<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> simply saying that
advocating purging something from
society,<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
like<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> political correctness, is
alarming language, that can be
twisted<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
to<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> suit nefarious agendas.
I was making no statement on the<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
appropriateness of exposing CIA assassins, only using this as
an<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> example. My example was
probably not a good one to make
my<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>
point.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> But given you stated I
was taking you too literally, I'll
not<BR>>>>>>>>>>>> construct a better
example.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
------------------------------------------<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Vision2020 Post: Ted
Moffett<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 12/12/10, Paul Rumelhart
<godshatter@yahoo.com<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com>>
wrote:<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I just thought I'd weigh in here with a little diatribe of
my<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
own.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think the freedom of an individual or group of
individuals<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
express<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves
is sacrosanct. The freedom to express
your<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion should
be<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> held dearly by
everyone, if they want to live in a
free<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
society.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There are very few limits that should be placed on speech,
in<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my
humble<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion, most
having to do with statements of facts and
not<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinions.
I<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree with libel
laws, for example. On the other hand,
I<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagree
with<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obscenity laws
probably universally. If groups want to
get<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> together
and<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> form islands of
information in which certain ideas
are<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suppressed,
I'm<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for that, too,
as long as other options exist. For
example,<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if
someone<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wanted to
create a separate internet targeted at
children<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
enforced<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's own
censorship, I would be OK with that. If
parents<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were OK
with<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their kids
surfing unrestrained on the Big Bad Internet,
then<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
they<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be
allowed to do so without repercussions if
their<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> child ends
up<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on a porn site or
a site about Islam or whatever
your<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> favorite
boogey<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> man
is.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As an aside, this is why I support Wikileaks. Our
government<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works
*for<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us*. They
should only have secrets in very narrowly
defined<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> areas
for<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very specific
reasons. And no, "they shouldn't see
it<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because it
will<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make our
leaders look like hypocrites" does not qualify.
The<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
people<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behind
Wikileaks are exposing secrets that shouldn't
be<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> secrets in
a<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reasonable
world.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
According to my views on freedom of expression,
political<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
correctness is<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
disease that should be purged from the world. Instead
of<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> helping,
it<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just sweeps the
problem under the rug. If a person
hates<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blacks
because<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an
incident when they were younger, or because they
just<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
like<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people who are
"different", then they should be free
to<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> express
that<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion.
Others will likely disagree, and a dialogue
will<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
probably<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ensue, but
this is healthy. This tendency by people to
shun<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these
sorts<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of debates is
unhealthy for society (in my opinion,
anyway).<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In an effort to totally ostracize myself from the
community,<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I might
as<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well go ahead and
add that I also disagree with some of
the<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
child<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pornography
laws as they exist on the books, as they
relate<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
freedom<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
expression. These laws have been expanded so much
under<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the guise
of<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "save the
children" that they are insane. In Australia,
one<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> man
was<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arrested for
having downloaded a drawing of Bart
Simpson<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> engaged
in<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> having sex, and
was convicted under that countries
child<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
pornography<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
laws. In Iowa, another man was arrested for possessing
manga<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
comics<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from Japan
that contained drawings of children having
sex.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Was
Bart<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simpson
actually hurt by this? Or the fictional
Japanese<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
schoolgirl? I<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
can understand the prohibition against possession of
real<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> child
porn<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (because it
creates a market for such things) though I
don't<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree
with<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it
completely. I think it should be a prohibition
against<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
*distribution* of child pornography, not simply
"possession",<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if for
no<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other reason than
people might be likely to hand it over
to<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
law<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enforcement
without the fear of going to jail
themselves.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Prohibition<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> against
"virtual porn" is crazy and needs to be
fought.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So what does this mean to us? It means that if
something<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offends
you,<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you should suck
it up and learn to live with it. Grow
some<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thicker
skin<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and see if you
can find a sense of humor on sale
somewhere.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Freedom
of<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression, if
that's a concept you agree with, has to
trump<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"freedom<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from being
offended". The minute you allow the idea
that<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
things<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are just too
horrible to be read or viewed, then you've
just<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thrown
the<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concept of
freedom of expression out the window. Now
you'll<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have
a<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> slippery slope
where the definition of "too horrible"
tends<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to match
the<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideals of the
people who are in power at any given
moment.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The odd irony for people who really believe in freedom
of<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression
is<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they most
often end up defending things that they
might<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
vehemently<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagree
with. They defend the speech of people they
simply<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
like<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or don't agree
with, and they defend speech they
are<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personally
offended<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by because
the speech that everyone agrees with is
not<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
threatened.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Very little offends me, but even if I was offended by the
NSA<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
website,<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which I
wasn't, then I would still be fighting for
their<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right to be
as<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inane with their
metaphors as they wish. I applaud
them,<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really,
for<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not rushing to
change the page in an orgy of
political<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
correctness.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Paul<BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>>
=======================================================<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
List services made available by First Step
Internet,<BR>>>>>>>>>>> serving the communities of
the Palouse since 1994.<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.fsr.net<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>>>>>>>>>>>
=======================================================<BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>
=======================================================<BR>>> List
services made available by First Step Internet,<BR>>> serving the
communities of the Palouse since
1994.<BR>>>
http://www.fsr.net<BR>>>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>>>
=======================================================<BR>>><BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> "The Pessimist complains about the wind, the Optimist expects
it to change<BR>> and the Realist adjusts his sails."<BR>> <BR>> -
Unknown<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
=======================================================<BR>> List services
made available by First Step Internet, <BR>> serving the communities of the
Palouse since 1994.
<BR>>
http://www.fsr.net
<BR>>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>>
=======================================================</DIV></BODY></HTML>