<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Comic Sans MS";
panose-1:3 15 7 2 3 3 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;
color:black;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>The Moscow public library also has a copy, but I think that it doesn’t circulate (i.e., it’s for in-library reading only).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>John Pool<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext'> vision2020-bounces@moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Sam Scripter<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, December 17, 2010 10:03 PM<br><b>To:</b> Moscow Vision 2020<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Vision2020] Like a Twinkie (Was "Freedom of Expression")<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Comic Sans MS"'>Re Warren's suggestion . . .<br><br>As of a few moments ago, Amazon.com lists two new copies <br>of <u>Southern Slavery: As It Was</u> [paperback] @ $94.82 each, <br>and used copies @ $39.93:<br><br></span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Southern-Slavery-Was-Douglas-Wilson/dp/188576717X/ref=pd_ybh_1?pf_rd_p=280800601&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_t=1501&pf_rd_i=ybh&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1FV1810BFY7F3CKD159J">http://www.amazon.com/Southern-Slavery-Was-Douglas-Wilson/dp/188576717X/ref=pd_ybh_1?pf_rd_p=280800601&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_t=1501&pf_rd_i=ybh&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1FV1810BFY7F3CKD159J</a><br><br>Warren Hayman wrote: <o:p></o:p></p><pre>Hi Paul,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Pardon the intrusion on my part. But after all this discussion, why not just <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>read the book? It's neither hard nor long, and could perhaps answer some of <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>your concerns. Just a thought.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Warren Hayman<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>----- Original Message ----- <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>From: "Paul Rumelhart" <a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com"><godshatter@yahoo.com></a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre>To: "Joe Campbell" <a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com"><philosopher.joe@gmail.com></a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Cc: "Moscow Vision 2020" <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><vision2020@moscow.com></a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 10:44 AM<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Like a Twinkie (Was "Freedom of Expression")<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre>I guess the mere existence of a book that defends slavery, if that's what <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>it's<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>doing, doesn't shock me as much as the rest of you. If you really want to <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>be<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>shocked, I can send you to a couple of websites I know of, or point you to <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>a<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>couple of movies I've watched recently.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>My only point was that I don't think it should be classified as hate <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>speech,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>based on what I have heard about it. I still don't understand why that <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>throws<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>you all into a tizzy.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>I don't know what to do about this, so I guess I *am* doomed to go through <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>life<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>ignorant and opinionated.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Oh well. Have a nice holiday.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Paul<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>----- Original Message ----<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>From: Joe Campbell <a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com"><philosopher.joe@gmail.com></a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre>To: Paul Rumelhart <a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com"><godshatter@yahoo.com></a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Cc: keely emerinemix <a href="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com"><kjajmix1@msn.com></a>; Tom Hansen <a href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com"><thansen@moscow.com></a>; <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Moscow<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Vision 2020 <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><vision2020@moscow.com></a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Sent: Fri, December 17, 2010 6:40:10 AM<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Subject: Re: Like a Twinkie (Was "Freedom of Expression")<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Again, I'm off the V for awhile but since you asked the answer is that<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Wison's book is a defense of SLAVERY. That and he's had a lot of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>political influence in town for a pastor. And then there is the fact<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that he gets to say whatever offensive thing he wants and anytime time<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>someone speaks out against him he tries to get them fired (see some of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the letters written to the governor trying to get two UI profs fired<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>for writing the critical pamphlet of his book), or kicks them out of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>his church (Michael Metzler), or floods the V with posts from his<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>friends (Crabtree, Harkins, etc.).<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Just read the introduction to his book that Tom posted or any of a<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>number of things on Tom's website. Won't take long. In other words, DO<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>SOME RESEARCH ABOUT THE STUFF YOU KEEP TALKING ABOUT IN PUBLIC BUT<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>ADMIT TO KNOWING NOTHING ABOUT. Or just stay out of it you'd rather go<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>through life ignorant but opinionated.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Best, Joe<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 7:07 PM, Paul Rumelhart <a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com"><godshatter@yahoo.com></a> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>wrote:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>You know, I find it amazing how many people want to make sure that I know<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that Doug Wilson's book is crap, when I've never even read it, I'm not<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>advocating for any positions he takes, and the only thing I've said about <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>it<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>is that I wouldn't classify it as hate speech based on my admittedly <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>limited<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>knowledge of it's contents.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Why does he have such a profound effect on so many people here? Usually<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>when I'm discussing my views on freedom of expression, it's in the <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>context<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>of supporting someone who has made a statue of Jesus on the cross and put <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>it<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>on display in a jar of urine or denouncing something like Amazon's recent<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>move to delete Kindle books people paid for from their Kindle archives<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>because they contain descriptions of incestuous relationships. Those<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>usually lead to lively discussions about how much is too much and whether <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>it<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>makes sense to limit freedom of expression in certain defined areas. Yet<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the only discussion this topic engenders here is a unanimous agreement <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Doug Wilson's book is crap.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>I guess I'll just have to go through life not understanding this.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Paul<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>keely emerinemix wrote:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>I will wade in once more, just long enough to remark that if Paul's<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>arguments are based on the premise that Wilson's slavery booklet is "a <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>valid<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>work of historical research," he is making his freedom of speech <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>argument on<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the flimsiest possible grounds.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>I would hope that Paul would stake his claim on the presumption that the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>First Amendment means that Wilson can say idiotic, insipid things -- a <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>point<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>on which we all agree. But to augment his point with the offhanded<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>assumption that Wilson's take on Southern Slavery is a valid <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>contribution to<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the annals of American history reveals Paul's argument to be based not <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>on<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the rightness of free speech, however stupid its content, but on the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>possibility that this example of protected blather makes that freedom <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>more<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>valuable.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>"Southern Slavery As It Was" is to valid historical research as a <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Hostess<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Twinkie laced with rat poison is to classic French cuisine. Like a <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>toxic<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Twinkie, it's a dense brick of artificial content, sugar-coated to <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>appeal to<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the basest of audiences and full of preservatives -- appeals to <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>"Southern<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>culture," Christian patriarchy, and wooden Biblical literalism -- that<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>guarantee a long shelf life. Like a Twinkie, "Southern Slavery As It <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Was"<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>is offered as a valid, important contribution to the field it purports <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>to be<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>an example of -- cuisine, American history -- and it deserves nothing <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>but<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>contempt from any literate reader, much less established, trained<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>historians. Wilson's "research" and conclusions are as embarrassingly<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>idiotic as West of Paris' chef Francis Foucachon's offering a Twinkie <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>during<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>his dessert course would be. Unfortunately, the chef would have to add<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>poison to the plastic-wrapped Twinkie to complete the analogy, because <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>conclusions of Wilson's booklet are utterly toxic in their effect on <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>race<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>relations, historical understanding, Biblical hermeneutics, and <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Christian<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>social and cultural engagement.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>A diet of nutritionally empty starch, sugar, and artificial fluff<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>guarantees poor physical health -- but its effect, at least, is <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>contained<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>within the junk food junkie. Unfortunately, followers of Wilson's <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>theology,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>history, and manner of cultural engagement willingly gorge themselves on <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>fluff and filth he offers and then begin other churches and other<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>"ministries" devoted to Wilsonian ideas and ideals. That's bad for <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>those<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>followers, a disgrace for the Church and its witness in the world, a<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>horrific way of living in the culture around us, and a toxic blow to the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>"truth, goodness, and beauty" Wilson insists is the fruit of the Gospel.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>He has every right to say what he says; I have every right to judge what<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>he says to be insipid and vile. And if there's a Truth who is our <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>ultimate<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>judge, as both Wilson and I believe, I would quake before Him if I <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>persisted<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>in using His Word to defend the utterly, despicably indefensible.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>And now I really do intend to take a Vision break . . . Happy Holidays <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>to<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>all of you!<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Keely<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="http://www.keely-prevailingwinds.com">www.keely-prevailingwinds.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre>Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 05:30:38 -0800<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>From: <a href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com">thansen@moscow.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre>To: <a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>; <a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a>;<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Freedom of expression<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Paul Rumelhart blindly hypothesizes:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>"I'd also like to point out that I haven't read Doug Wilson's book, <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>and<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>have no idea exactly what his claims in it are. . . . If Doug's book <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>is<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>a<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>valid work of historical research, . . . "<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Here you go, Mr. R.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Read "Southern Slavery As It Was" and judge for yourself. It's a fair<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>attempt at third grade fiction.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><pre><a href="http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm">http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Seeya round the plantation, Moscow.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Tom Hansen<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Moscow, Idaho<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>On Wed, December 15, 2010 10:23 pm, Paul Rumelhart wrote:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>I don't think your "city test" is measuring what you think it is.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Instead of being a valid measure of the amount of hate in a <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>particular<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>idea, it's measuring how emotionally invested people are in the <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>topic.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>As I've said before, in some places in this country you would find<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>certain basic ideas that I find completely reasonable to elicit a<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>strong<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>negative reaction. This reaction says more about the person reacting<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>to<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the statements than it does about anything else.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>I'd also like to point out that I haven't read Doug Wilson's book, <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>and<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>have no idea exactly what his claims in it are. It wasn't pertinent <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>to<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>my original point, which was that no matter what it says Doug has <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>right to express his opinions. I'm just trying to say that a stance<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that some people vehemently disagree with and that some people would<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>find offensive does not necessarily equate to being hate speech. A<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>study, for example, that showed that members of ethnicity A have a<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>much<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>lower IQ on average that that of ethnicity B may be seen as <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>completely<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>incorrect and grossly offensive to members of ethnicity A, but <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>should<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>it<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>be classified as "hate speech"? I would say no, not if it's a valid<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>scientific study. If Doug's book is a valid work of historical<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>research, then I wouldn't classify it as "hate speech" even if it's<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>conclusions would get you beat up on the street in Spokane. Your<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>opinion may be different, so we might just have to agree to disagree<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>on<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>this one.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>If we try to use the test that if someone finds something offensive<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>then<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>it must be hate speech, then you get strange situations where people<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>with no ill will towards members of a particular group might<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>inadvertently offend someone and thus have their speech classified <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>as<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>"hate speech". All I'm saying is that the common sense definition of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>"hate speech" would be speech showing hatred towards something. How<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>this definition changed into some sort of marker that a particular<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>speech offended someone is beyond me.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Paul<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Joe Campbell wrote:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre>Well there ARE a lot of reasons one could get their butt kicked in <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>a<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>city. But none have the level of predictability of the city test. <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>You<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>would not have any reason, in general, to think "Were I to go to<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Spokane today, I'm likely to get my butt kicked." But you would <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>have<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>plenty of reason to think that were you to go to Spokane today and,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>say, hand out fliers that claim slavery in the US was a "paradise <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>in<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>which slaves were treated well and had a harmonious relationship <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>with<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>their masters" that you'd get your butt kicked. That is why you <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>won't<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>do it, right? You know and I know what will happen. You'll go to<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Spokane one day because, though it could happen, it's unlikely <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>you'll<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>get your butt kicked but you won't try the city test because you <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>know<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>you'll at least have a bad day, an unpleasant experience in <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Spokane.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Maybe you should just trust me on this one. I keep saying "try it"<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>but<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>you shouldn't try it because I KNOW what will happen.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>You seem to think that Wilson is more naive than I do. I tend to <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>give<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>him more credit and think he is more clever than you do. But even <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>if<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Wilson is ignorant, I'm not sure that it is relevant to whether or<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>not<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the slavery book is hate speech. Think of your example of hate <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>speech<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>below. It wouldn't matter if someone actually believed that a<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>particular race was "sub-human" would it? Likely someone who said<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>such<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>a thing in public WOULD believe it but that fact wouldn't mean that<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>it<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>wasn't hate speech.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>And how on earth COULD someone think that slavery was a "paradise,"<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>as<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>you say? And how isn't that claim offensive, no matter how ignorant<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the person was who said it? Again, consider the Elizabeth Smart <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>case.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>It would be offensive to suggest, in public, that she enjoyed being<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>kidnapped, held against her will, raped and abused. If you said <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>in public it would be offensive. If you tried to justify saying it <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>by<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>saying you actually believed it that would not justify the offense. <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>I<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>would think that you were SO ignorant that you MUST be culpable. It<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>isn't as if ignorance always mitigates. If you tell me you failed <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>an<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>exam because you failed to study that is no excuse. There are some<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>things that people should know better and that kidnapping is wrong,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that holding someone who committed no crime against her will is <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>wrong<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>are among them.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>I don't see how moving from the single case of Elizabeth Smart to <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>general case of slavery makes your story any more plausible. For<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>crying out loud, Americans went to Africa and kidnapped other human<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>beings, held them against their will, sold them for profit, abused<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>them, and forced them to work without pay. What about this story<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>sounds like "paradise"? How would it matter how they were treated<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>while they were held against their will? How twisted of a world <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>view<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>would one have to have in order to come away with the idea that <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>this<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>was a kind of "paradise" and that saying so in public was anything<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>less than offensive? Common sense and empathy should be enough to<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>tell<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>you that slavery is wrong. The only way that you could possibly<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>justify it is if you were to think that the people held as slaves<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>were, as you said, "sub-human." I see no other possibility. Now <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>we've<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>moved from Wilson's book to the kind of stuff you do consider to be<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>hate speech and it was not a long trip.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>And that is exactly why the claims of Wilson's book are wrong. The <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>US<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>practice of slavery was justifiable ONLY on the assumption that<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>blacks<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>are sub-human. That, at any rate, is what anyone who gave the issue <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>a<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>moment's thought would conclude. That is why the claim that slavery<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>was really a "paradise" is offensive. That is why saying it in <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>public<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>would incite violence and that is why it is hate speech. It is a <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>very<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>natural progression from Wilson's claims to claims that even you<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>admit<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>are hate speech.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>And don't try to justify it all by appealing to Wilson's religious<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>beliefs. It isn't as if religion is some kind of "get out of <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>civility<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>free" card. I'm certain that the folks who crushed the twin towers<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>actually believed that they were doing the right thing because of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>their own warped religious views. In reflective moments I might <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>think<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that this mitigates their actions, makes them less blameworthy but<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>most of the time I think their beliefs were so warped that they<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>should<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>have known better. Regardless, at no time do I think it isn't worth<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>noting that they had warped beliefs and noting that religion is no<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>excuse for wrong action. At the very least, even if Wilson is as<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>naive<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>as you think he is, I would still say the same things I've been<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>saying: that his ignorance has gone too far and much of what he <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>says<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>is offensive and should not be said in a civil society. If he is<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>ignorant certainly he needs folks to shake some sense into him. And<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that's giving him the "benefit" of the doubt, as you do. Again, I'm<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>pretty sure he is not that ignorant but I may be wrong. Wouldn't<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>change what I say either way.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>On Dec 14, 2010, at 11:11 PM, Paul Rumelhart <a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com"><godshatter@yahoo.com></a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre>wrote:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre>Can't you get your ass kicked in a city for any of a number of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>reasons?<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Such as wearing the wrong color coat or walking down the wrong <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>alley<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>or having the wrong skin color or looking the wrong person in the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>eye?<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>I don't think that Doug Wilson's book on slavery is hate speech,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>because I believe that he truly believes what he's written and <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>he's not intending to insult anyone. He may be seriously wrong, <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>but<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>I<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>would expect that something should be called "hate speech" only <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>when<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>it<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>involves speaking in such a way as to show hatred for a group <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>based<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>solely on a person's membership in that group. For example, if he<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>had<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>said "blacks are a sub-human race and won't amount to anything if<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>someone doesn't take a strong hand with them", then I would <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>classify<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that as hate speech with respect to the non-law definition. In <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>fact,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that's a common theme I heard from more than one person growing up<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>in<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>idyllic Idaho when I was a kid. It's not something I ever agreed<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>with,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>but it was common to hear it in conversations on the subject of <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>race<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>relations. In fact, back then, there were places where you could <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>get<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>your ass kicked if you walked in off the street and tried to<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>describe<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>how black peopl!<o:p></o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote></blockquote><pre>e are as good as white people and deserve to be treated equally,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>making<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>such statements into "hate speech" by your definition. Intent should<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>matter.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Anyway, I also appreciate the civil conversation. Especially <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>knowing<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that this is an emotionally charged topic for a lot of people.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Paul<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Joe Campbell wrote:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre>Paul,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>There are a lot of issues here. No one is helped if we jumble <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>them<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>up<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>and forget which one we're talking about.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>We're not talking about freedom of expression. I believe it, you<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>believe it, it's the law. I keep saying I'm not for legal<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>restrictions<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>of speech (other than the ones we already have, like yelling fire<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>in a<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>crowd etc.), Nick has said the same. So please stop bringing it <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>up.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>We<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>agree.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>In your previous post to me you mocked my clam that Wilson's<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>pro-slavery book was hate speech. I gave this definition: speech<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>"may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>protected<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>protected individual or group." The "city test" (as I'll call it)<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>is a<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>test to see if something is hate speech. If you can say it on a<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>city<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>street and LIKELY get beat up, it is hate speech. If you went to <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>a<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>city, stood on a street corner, and tried to sell folks the idea<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>slavery in the US was a "paradise in which slaves were treated <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>well<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>and had a harmonious relationship with their masters" you would <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>get<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>beat up. It WOULD incite violence, violence to YOU. In order to <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>get<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>slaves they had to be KIDNAPPED and held AGAINST their WILL. Does<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>sound like paradise to you? Would anyone in their right mind <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>think<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that being kidnapped, held against ones will, and forced into <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>labor<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>with no pay is PARADISE? It is an OFFENSIVE idea with NO merit<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>whatsoever. It would be offensive to suggest the idea in a single<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>case<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>-- like the Elizabeth Smart case: it is offensive to suggest that<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>she<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>enjoyed being kidnapped, held against her will, raped and abused.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>To<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>suggest it about the US institution of slavery is even more<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>offensive,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>offense to blacks and to almost anyone else. There is no purpose<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>for<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>such an absurd suggestion. The only reason that someone would <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>make<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>such a suggestion would be to incite rage in other people, people<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>one<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>hates. There is NO reasonable purpose other than this to make <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>such<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>an<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>absurd claim. None. That is why the book needed to be published <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>on<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Wilson's own vanity press. No legitimate publisher would touch <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>it.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>That is why it took merely a pamphlet by a pair of UI historians <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>to<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>refute it. It is without academic and social merit. Its only<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>purpose<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>is to make people angry. That is hate speech.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Again, if you think I'm wrong just try the city test. Just find <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>one<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>black man NOT a member of Christ Church and run the idea by him.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Then<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>try to convince him that it isn't offensive. See where you get. <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>You<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>cannot take this crap to anywhere other than an on-line blog in<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Idaho<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>and get away with saying it without getting punched in the nose <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>or<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>having your house burned to the ground. It is hate speech. If you<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>want<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>to try to prove me wrong, I'll be happy to drive you to Spokane <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>and<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>we'll put it to the test. Although I'll remain in the car while <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>you<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>conduct the test because someone will need to take you to the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>hospital<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>afterward and it won't be the guy who beat you up.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>And the definition of "hate speech" is not watered down at all. <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>You<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>could try the city test with a variety of other statements and<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>LIKELY<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>you won't get punched. There is something special about the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>suggestion<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that slavery was paradise, something that you still don't seem to<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>get.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>If you tried the city test, you'd get it rather quickly. I'm just<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>asking you to put your nose where your theory is and see what<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>happens.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>You won't do it, so you loose this particular debate. Wilson's <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>book<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>is<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>hate speech.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>I just wanted to point out that this is the first time I've ever<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>had<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>an extended discussion on Vision 2020 about Wilson, NSA, etc. and<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>no<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>one mentioned my job, offended me with insults, or told me to <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>take<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>it<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>off-line. So I thank you for that! Though I'm a bit worried that <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>it<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>is<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>merely the calm before the storm.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Best, Joe<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>On Dec 13, 2010, at 9:19 PM, Paul Rumelhart <o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com"><godshatter@yahoo.com></a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre>wrote:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre>Joe Campbell wrote:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre>Thoughtful discussion like this about the slavery book could <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>only<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>happen here and practically nowhere else in the country. You <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>take<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>book to a street corner in almost any city and try to give the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>explanation you are giving below. Do it. I am serious. You <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>won't<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>but<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>if you did, someone would literally beat the crap out of you. <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>It<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>would<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>quite literally incite violence. Go to any city with a diverse<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>population and try this experiment and see what happens. You<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>won't<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>do<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>it and you know it. That should tell you something about your <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>own<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>attitude toward your own argument. You can only give it in the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>sheltered confines of V2020 in Moscow, Idaho. Bad argument!<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><pre>I'm advocating for freedom of expression, not Doug Wilson's <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>views<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>on<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>slavery. That means that I'm often in the position of trying to<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>protect someone's right with whom I disagree, since they are <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>often<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the ones that people are trying to censor.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>This idea that people should not express their opinions because<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>other<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>people might get upset is basically what I'm fighting against. <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>No,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>I<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>wouldn't want to go there and preach from the gospel of Doug. I<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>don't really want to go to a right-wing bar and start discussing<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>benefits of gay marriage either. That doesn't mean that I<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>shouldn't<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>talk about it.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre>Again, hate speech is in part a legal term and as I defined it<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>other day it is speech that "may incite violence or prejudicial<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>action<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>against or by a protected individual or group, or because it<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group." Say<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>what<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>you will but the slavery book classifies as hate speech by this<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>and<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>any reasonable definition. And the thought experiment noted<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>above,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>as<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>well as your unwillingness to try to provide the justification<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>below<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>in pretty much ANY context other than this one, shows I'm<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>correct.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>And<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>I never said the NSA website was "hate speech." It is "violent<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>rhetoric" and like hate speech it is an example of OFFENSIVE<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>speech.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Offensive speech is political. Not religious but political. You<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>seem<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>blind to that truth.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><pre>I think that definition of hate speech is so watered down as to <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>be<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>unworkable. All you have to do is disparage a group and it's <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>hate<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>speech by that definition. I think many people on the far right<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>let<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>their emotions rule their responses too often. There, that would<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>qualify as hate speech.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre>Let me explain something to you. I did not grow up in Idaho. I<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>did<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>not<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>grow up in a place where folks could get away with saying the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>kind<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>crap that NSA, No Weatherman, etc. have gotten away with <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>saying.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>So<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>my<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>experience of all of this and of watching otherwise decent <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>folks<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>like<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>yourself defending that crap is a bit jarring. It is unlike<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>anything<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>I<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>could have ever imagined. In the town I grew up in there were<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>butchers<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>with numbers tattooed on their forearms. The grandparents of <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>some<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>my friends grew up in concentration camps, as well. Nazi <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Germany<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>was<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>not something I just read about in history books or heard about<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>in<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>films. I actually heard some of the stories from actual <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>survivors<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>concentration camps. I saw and interacted with these people<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>often. I<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>was told on a regular basis by people who suffered to never<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>forget<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>and<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>I won't.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><pre>I prefer to live in a place where people can speak their mind<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>without<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>fear of getting their asses kicked or worse. I think that should<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>be<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the ideal, not some sort of accident of location to be chastised<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>about.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre>I go back east a few times each year since my family and my <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>best<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>friends still live there. Years ago I talked about the slavery<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>book<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>and the regular criticisms of gays and Muslims. One of the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>parents<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>my friend said: "This is how it started in Nazi Germany. They<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>started<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>with the gays and with the less populated groups and then moved<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>on<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>from there." Years ago intolerance against Mormons would have<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>been<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>unthinkable but this year we actually had a man run for <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>political<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>office whose pastor had insulting comments about Mormons posted<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>on<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>his<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>website. Want to read more local hate speech about Mormons? <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Look<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>here:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="http://pullman.craigslist.org/rnr/">http://pullman.craigslist.org/rnr/</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>I find it hard to shake the thought that maybe the parent of my<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>friend<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>was correct. I go back to New Jersey a few times a year and I <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>run<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>into<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>these folks and they ask me how it's going. So I can't ever <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>give<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>up<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the fight to try to shake some sense into this town. It is just<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>not<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>possible. Maybe I'm wrong but I'd rather err on the side of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>insulting<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>some idiot who thinks that slavery was a cakewalk than make the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>mistake of allowing another Nazi Germany. That is an easy <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>choice<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>for<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>me.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><pre>I would think that if you best want to fight the kind of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>totalitarianism exemplified by Nazi Germany, then you would <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>fight<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>for<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>an individual's right to freedom of expression, among other <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>rights<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>like the right to believe as one wishes and the right to be<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>different<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>from the norm. You can't have freedom of expression if you try <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>to<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>define it as anything "not Nazi-like" or whatever your standard<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>is.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>You have to take the bad with the good, or you don't have <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>anything<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>at<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>all.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>I suspect that if some group tried to do what the Nazis did in<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Germany here, I'd be one of the first targets. I wouldn't agree<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>with<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the silencing of opposition voices, and I'd say so loud and <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>clear.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>I'd be fighting on the "right" side, as far as most people are<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>concerned, which would be a relief from what I'm currently doing<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>which is fighting for viewpoints I don't usually agree with. <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>From<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>my<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>perspective, though, I'd still be fighting for the same thing.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre>And again, I'm not asking you to agree with me. Nor am I trying<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>to<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>convince you of anything. Nor am I trying to silence Christ<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Church<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>or<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>NSA. I'm just asking you and others to stay the hell out of my<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>way<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>and<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>let me say what I wish. You want to allow hateful, offensive<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>speech<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>on<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>regular basis? Fine. I am the natural consequence of your<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>generous<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>nature, so you better allow my speech too.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><pre>I uphold your right to freedom of expression as much as anyones.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>My<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>comments aren't meant to try to silence anyone. I'm just trying <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>to<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>put my opinion on the matter out there.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Paul<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre>On Dec 12, 2010, at 11:34 PM, Paul Rumelhart<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com"><godshatter@yahoo.com></a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre>wrote:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre>Are you saying that descriptions of this supposed paradise in<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>which<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>slaves were treated well and had a harmonious relationship <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>with<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>their masters is hate speech? You may disagree with it, lots <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>people whose ancestors had a considerably worse experience <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>he<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>describes might disagree with it, but that doesn't make it <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>hate<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>speech. I think that he truly believes this, because he knows<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>many of the men that owned slaves at that time professed to be<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Christian, and the Bible apparently talks about slavery as an<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>everyday occurrence, so it must be something that God would<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>approve<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>of. So he selectively reads history and picks out what he <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>thinks<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>supports this ideal and glosses over what doesn't. A very easy<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>trap to fall into. That doesn't make his book hate speech. It<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>more than likely makes him wrong (I'm not a historian), but it<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>doesn't make it hate speech.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>And I fully support his right to express his opinions on the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>matter.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Paul<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Joe Campbell wrote:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre>"Compare this with the supposedly harmful statements on the <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>NSA<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>website. If our bar is so low that that website can trigger<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>cries<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>of "hate speech", then a veteran debater can argue that <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>almost<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>any<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>website is offensive to somebody."<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Is this the only example of hate speech from this crowd? For<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>crying out loud, Wilson wrote a BOOK denying the evils of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>slavery.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>They were noted by a NATIONAL organization, one that helped<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>remove<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>neo-Nazis up north. Did I make that up too?<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Again, come back east with me just once and try telling your<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>story<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>to my friends. I no longer wonder how the Nazis took over<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Germany,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>I'll tell you that. Well meaning "liberals" like yourself had<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>much<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>to do with it.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>On Dec 12, 2010, at 8:47 PM, Paul Rumelhart<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com"><mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre>Ted Moffett wrote:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre>Two separate responses in body of text below. This fourth<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>post<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>today<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>is over the limit for me... so "Good Night," as Ringo Starr<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>sang<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>it:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIKugx1sToY">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIKugx1sToY</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>On 12/12/10, Paul Rumelhart <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com"><mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre>Ted Moffett wrote:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre>Paul Rumelhart godshatter at yahoo.com <a href="http://yahoo.com"><http://yahoo.com></a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre>wrote:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><pre><a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-December/073155.html">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-December/073155.html</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>"According to my views on freedom of expression, <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>political<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>correctness is<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>a disease that should be purged from the world."<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>and earlier:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><pre><a href="http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-December/073150.html">http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-December/073150.html</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>"Just point, laugh, roll your eyes, and move on to fight<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>something that<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>isn't just hyperbole."<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>So after the above advice to "...point, laugh, roll your<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>eyes,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>and<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>move on..." regarding the New Saint Andrews' website<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>discussion on<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Vision2020, you later state you want to purge the world <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>disease<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>political correctness? Why not just "...point, laugh, <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>roll<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>your eyes,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>and move on..." when someone makes a politically correct<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>statement?<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Are politically correct statements more harmful to the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>world<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>than<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>statements suggesting violence and hate, as some have<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>interpreted the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>statements on the NSA website to imply?<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><pre>I see the point you're making. I wasn't suggesting that<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>people<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>point,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>laugh, and move on to be politically correct, I was<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>suggesting<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>doing<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that to avoid feeding the trolls. Which is, really, what<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>they<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>are.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><pre>It appears the slippage of language strikes again...<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>I was not saying anyone should "move on to be politically<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>correct." I<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>was asking, why object so strenuously to those who make<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>politically<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>correct statements, if this is what you think some on<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Vision2020<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>are<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>doing, regarding New Saint Andrews' website? What is the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>major<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>harm<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>in someone making a politically correct statement on<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Vision2020,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>if<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>this is truly what is occuring (I am not saying it is...)?<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Are these statements more harmful than statements that<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>suggest<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>violence and hate, as some found the statements on the NSA<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>website? I<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>understand you do not think there is any real threat <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>implied<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>by<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>NSA website, but others perhaps disagree. What is the major<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>problem<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>with expressing differing opinions regarding the NSA <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>website?<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Maybe<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>there are more important topics, but Vision2020 often <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>focuses<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>on<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>what<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>I think are not very important issues.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><pre>I think that the societal self-censorship of certain topics<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>under<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>guise of political correctness has a negative effect in the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>long<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>run. It stops the average Joe Public from speaking his mind<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>freely about what<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>he perceives to be negative traits of a certain race, creed,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>or<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>whatever<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>and it keeps people from being offended, but Joe has not<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>changed<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>his<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>mind - he's just learned to keep his thoughts to himself. He<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>may<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>harbor<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>a hatred of people of a specific type, and may have no <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>simple<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>way<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>blowing off steam. So he has a run-in with one someday, and<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>gets<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>violent. Or he learns to not promote anyone in his company <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that type<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>of person, because it's one way of getting back at them. You<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>get<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>idea. If there were no societal prohibitions about talking<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>about<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>it, he<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>might learn that other people like people of that type just<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>fine,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>and<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that they are actually really nice, usually. He might even <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>get<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>in a<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>discussion with one that turns into a friendship, after the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>first<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>bit of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>arguing and name-calling dies down.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Compare this with the supposedly harmful statements on the <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>NSA<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>website. If our bar is so low that that website can trigger<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>cries of "hate<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>speech", then a veteran debater can argue that almost any<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>website<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>is<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>offensive to somebody. I'd rather save the phrase to <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>describe<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>things<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that are undeniably hate speech. What's the harm in having<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>some<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>language like that on their website? People might get a bad<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>impression<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>of Moscow is one reason I've heard. Tough. We can only <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>control<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>what we<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>do ourselves. We don't have the right to try to censor <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>others.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>If people think that there is a real threat on the website,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>call<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>police. Making threats is against the law. Just be aware <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>they<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>have a definition of "threat" that the website may fail to<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>meet.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>I don't have a problem with people expressing their views.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>It's<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>just my<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>opinion that if they really valued freedom of expression <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>then<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>they<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>wouldn't be talking about this subject so much. I do value<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>freedom of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>expression, which is why I'm talking about what my concept <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>it<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>is here.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre>Your response suggests you think the NSA website should not<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>be a<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>focus<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>of discussion to "avoid feeding the trolls." But in<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>responding<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>on<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Vision2020 to what you have implied, it seems, is <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>politically<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>correct<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>criticism regarding NSA, are you feeding those politically<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>correct<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>"trolls? You are certainly helping to keep the focus on the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>NSA<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>website discussion in this thread, by referencing it in <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>your<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>first<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>post.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><pre>I think the person that wrote that blurb on that website was<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>hoping for<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>this kind of reaction. They were trolling the people that<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>watch<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>them,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>and a few of them took the bait. If you don't want trolls to<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>continue<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>trolling, then your best bet is to simply ignore them. <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Point,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>laugh,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>roll your eyes, and move on. If that's all the reaction they<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>get,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>they'll find someone else to bait. That's the method I've<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>learned that<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>works best after 20+ years of interacting in Internet <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>forums.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>It<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>didn't<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>have anything to do with trying to suppress the actual point<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>they<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>were<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>trying to make.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre>Again, why not just "...point, laugh, roll your eyes..." at<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>criticisms of NSA, rather than make more of an issue of it,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>as<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>you<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>advised regarding the NSA website? You think, if I have<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>understood<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>you correctly, that these criticisms are somehow creating <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>ill<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>will<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>between NSA and those of differing ideologies. So I suppose<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>you<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>think<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that less criticism of NSA will encourage them to express<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>more<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>tolerance of "secularists?" I doubt it. When an <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>insititution<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>higher learning, NSA, frames its mission aggressively <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>against<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>others<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>who do not share their ideology, to argue this approach<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>should<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>only<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>arouse a "...point, laugh, roll your eyes..." response,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>appears<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>to be<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>an attempt to silence public discussion on substantive <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>issues<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>effect many people, which it also appears you cannot be<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>advocating,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>given your emphasis on freedom of expression.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><pre>For one, I don't care if they ever learn to have a better<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>opinion<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>secularists. Their education on religion is none of my<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>concern.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>They<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>can go to the grave believing that secularists are out to <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>hunt<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>them down<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>and convert them. I don't really care. I don't feel the need<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>to<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>make<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>sure that everyone agrees with what I say or think like I <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>do.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>In<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>fact,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>I'd hate a world like that. My stance is simple. Everyone <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>has<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>right to think whatever they want, believe whatever they <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>want,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>and have<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>whatever view of whatever topic they want. I don't care how<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>horrendous<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>their beliefs or views are to others. I also believe that <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>they<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>have the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>right to express those views however they want, keeping in<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>mind<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>they don't have the right to force others to listen to them,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>and<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>they<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>don't have the right to harm others. If they want to put on<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>website<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that they think that secularists probably eat children for<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>breakfast, so<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>what? If someone goes out and beats up a secularist because <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>it, then<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the responsibility for that action falls on the shoulders of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>person<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that committed that action. There are very few cases where I<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>would<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>advocate for censoring their website. The text they have on <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>it<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>now<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>doesn't even come close.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre>Also, to claim the debate regarding fundamentalist<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Christianity<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>and<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>secularism, and the political tactics involved, is not <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>worth<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>public<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>discussion, is on the face of it, not credible, given the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>power<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>fundamentalist Christianity has over the political system.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Consider<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that Idaho is one of the Super DOMA states<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>( <a href="http://www.danpinello.com/SuperDOMAs.htm">http://www.danpinello.com/SuperDOMAs.htm</a> ). There is no<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>doubt<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>this law is in part the result of a religious view that NSA<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>shares<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>with other fundamentalist Christians in Idaho. And they <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>vote.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>As<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>they did regarding the ridiculous topless ordinance the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Moscow<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>City<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Council passed.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><pre>It's not my stance that people shouldn't talk about<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>fundamentalist<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Christianity and the ills they imagine are there. I just <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>think<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>people that I've been assuming all along are for freedom of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>expression<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>shouldn't get so bent out of shape when something somebody<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>says<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>offends<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>them. I'm not trying to force them to shut up, I really <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>don't<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>care. What did provoke me to write my little diatribe were<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>indications that<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>some sort of attempt to silence the NSA people might be <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>coming<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>up. I<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>misinterpreted what Nick said about the Chamber of Commerce,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>but<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>at the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>time I thought they were advocating for taking the site <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>down.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>I<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>also<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>saw references to "hate speech", which is a sensitive button<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>mine. I'd hate for a statement that more or less says "we<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>fight<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>secularism as<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>an ideal" to lead to someone being convicted of some sort of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>"hate<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>crime". Stranger things have happened.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>All I'm doing is advocating for true freedom of expression.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Let<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>people<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>say what they like. It's better for all of us in the end.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre>To state you are not afraid of being physically attacked by<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>anyone<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>from NSA, nor where you offended, given the rhetoric on <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>their<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>website,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>does not address the real influence based on behavior that<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>such<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>rhetoric has on the local, state and national level,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>regarding<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>at<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>least four very important issues (I'll skip the alleged<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>association<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>with racist groups and the debate regarding Wilson's book<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>"Southern<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Slavery As It Was"): gay and women's rights, religious<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>tolerance<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>and<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>understanding between those of all religions, spiritual<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>worldviews, or<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>those of no particular persuasion on these matters, and the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>US<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>pursuit<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>of the so called "war on terror," which as everyone knows <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>is<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>tainted<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>with religious prejudice and misunderstandings here in the <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>US<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>and<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>internationally, by those of differing religions:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><pre><a href="http://atheism.about.com/od/sarahpalinreligion/tp/SarahPalinReligionScience.htm">http://atheism.about.com/od/sarahpalinreligion/tp/SarahPalinReligionScience.htm</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre>From website above:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><pre>In a speech to high school kids at her church, Sarah Palin<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>said:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>"Pray...that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>[our<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>military men and women] out on a task that is from God.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>That's<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>what we<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>have to make sure that we are praying for, that there is a<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>plan<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>and<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that that plan is God's plan."<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><pre>I'm all for people discussing these issues. I'm not for any<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>attempt to<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>get the NSA to change their website other than simple pleas<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>they do so. What people are discussing is not the <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>implications<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>of their<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>viewpoints on secularism, they are discussing whether or not<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>their text<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>is violent and whether or not something should be done about<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>it.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Prejudice about religion or lack of religion can be a <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>problem,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>it's<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>true. As long as no one is censoring anyone, then I hope <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>debate<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>rages along nicely. I just haven't seen much of it on here<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>with<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>regards<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>to this topic. I admit, though, that I haven't been <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>following<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>it<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>all<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that close. I just thought I'd go ahead and elucidate my<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>thoughts on<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the subject of freedom of expression, and hopefully others<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>would<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>put<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>this in perspective.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Paul<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre>"Political correctness" could be defined to suit whatever <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>I<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>want to<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>purge from society. Advocating purging a point of view is<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>alarming<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>language. Perhaps you were making a joke of some sort in<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>this<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>comment, and I am missing the joke by taking you <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>literally?<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>But consider this example: I define publicly exposing<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>undercover CIA<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>government assassins as a "politically correct" agenda,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>must be<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>"purged" to protect the necessary for national security<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>assassinations<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>carried out in secret by the CIA.. Thus in purging<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>political<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>correctness in this example, I am supporting government<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>secrecy<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>regarding CIA assassinations. It might be justifed to <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>purge<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>somone<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>planning to expose undercover CIA assassins, to protect<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>national<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>security.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Some examples of what might be reasonably defined as<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>"politically<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>correct" can be viewed as idealistic ethically laudable<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>behaviors, the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>sort of behaviors it seems you would aprove given your<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>support<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>for<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Wikileaks.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><pre>I think you are taking me too literally. It's not<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>politically<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>correct<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>statements, which is basically any statement not involving<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>race,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>religion, gender, or sexual orientation in a negative <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>light,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that I<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>object to. It's people feeling like they cannot make<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>politically<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>incorrect statements because of some sort of societal<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>pressure<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that I<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>think is a problem. When I said that I think "political<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>correctness" is<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>a problem, I was referring to the very idea that there are<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>things that<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>we cannot talk about because they might offend somebody,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>which<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>is an<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>idea I object to. Not talking about any one of these areas<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>as<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>a society<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>helps only in the short term. Real discussion is what <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>heals<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>wounds,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>societal pressure towards silence only makes them fester.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>You're example above referring to political assassination<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>isn't<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the sort<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>of political correctness I was referring to, but while we<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>are<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>on the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>subject, I would say that keeping information about the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>whereabouts and<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>covers for assassins should be kept secret. However, the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>fact<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>US government is sanctioning assassinations should be out <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>in<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the open so<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that the American people can let their congressmen know<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>whether<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>or not<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>they think the US should be engaging in such behavior.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Paul<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><pre>I agree that political correctness can be used to censor, <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>course,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>can create a climate of fear that blocks freedom of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>expression,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>and<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>can impede Democracy and the power of the Fourth Estate. <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Look<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>at what<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>happened to Bill Maher, or the US media coverage of the <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>build<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>up<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>to<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the invasion of Iraq, especially, a shameful and <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>frightening<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>example<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>of media seized by a form of patriotic political <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>correctness<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that kept<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the US public woefully misinformed. The example of the <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>firing<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>of Imus<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>for the "nappy-headed hos" comment some argue is an example<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>abuse of political correctness. I wonder if you think Imus<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>should<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>have been fired for what some claim was an explictly racist<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>comment?<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>I recall Imus meeting the women basketball players he<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>referred<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>to in<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>this manner, where he apologized, and they asserted they <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>were<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>deeply<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>offended by his statement.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>I knew that you were not referring to the sort of political<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>correctness I used as an example, regarding CIA assassins. <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>I<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>was<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>simply saying that advocating purging something from <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>society,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>like<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>political correctness, is alarming language, that can be<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>twisted<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>to<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>suit nefarious agendas. I was making no statement on the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>appropriateness of exposing CIA assassins, only using this <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>as<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>an<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>example. My example was probably not a good one to make my<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>point.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>But given you stated I was taking you too literally, I'll <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>not<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>construct a better example.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre>------------------------------------------<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>On 12/12/10, Paul Rumelhart <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com"><mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><pre>I just thought I'd weigh in here with a little diatribe <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>my<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>own.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>I think the freedom of an individual or group of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>individuals<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>to express<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>themselves is sacrosanct. The freedom to express your<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>opinion should be<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>held dearly by everyone, if they want to live in a free<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>society.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>There are very few limits that should be placed on <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>speech,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>in<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>my humble<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>opinion, most having to do with statements of facts and<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>not<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>opinions. I<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>agree with libel laws, for example. On the other hand, I<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>disagree with<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>obscenity laws probably universally. If groups want to <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>get<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>together and<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>form islands of information in which certain ideas are<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>suppressed, I'm<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>for that, too, as long as other options exist. For<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>example,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>if someone<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>wanted to create a separate internet targeted at <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>children<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that enforced<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>it's own censorship, I would be OK with that. If parents<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>were OK with<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>their kids surfing unrestrained on the Big Bad Internet,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>then<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>they<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>should be allowed to do so without repercussions if <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>their<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>child ends up<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>on a porn site or a site about Islam or whatever your<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>favorite boogey<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>man is.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>As an aside, this is why I support Wikileaks. Our<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>government<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>works *for<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>us*. They should only have secrets in very narrowly<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>defined<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>areas for<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>very specific reasons. And no, "they shouldn't see it<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>because it will<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>make our leaders look like hypocrites" does not qualify.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>The<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>people<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>behind Wikileaks are exposing secrets that shouldn't be<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>secrets in a<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>reasonable world.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>According to my views on freedom of expression, <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>political<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>correctness is<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>a disease that should be purged from the world. Instead <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>helping, it<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>just sweeps the problem under the rug. If a person hates<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>blacks because<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>of an incident when they were younger, or because they<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>just<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>don't like<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>people who are "different", then they should be free to<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>express that<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>opinion. Others will likely disagree, and a dialogue <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>will<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>probably<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>ensue, but this is healthy. This tendency by people to<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>shun<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>these sorts<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>of debates is unhealthy for society (in my opinion,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>anyway).<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>In an effort to totally ostracize myself from the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>community,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>I might as<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>well go ahead and add that I also disagree with some of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>child<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>pornography laws as they exist on the books, as they<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>relate<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>to freedom<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>of expression. These laws have been expanded so much <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>under<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the guise of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>"save the children" that they are insane. In Australia,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>one<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>man was<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>arrested for having downloaded a drawing of Bart Simpson<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>engaged in<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>having sex, and was convicted under that countries child<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>pornography<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>laws. In Iowa, another man was arrested for possessing<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>manga<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>comics<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>from Japan that contained drawings of children having <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>sex.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Was Bart<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Simpson actually hurt by this? Or the fictional Japanese<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>schoolgirl? I<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>can understand the prohibition against possession of <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>real<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>child porn<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>(because it creates a market for such things) though I<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>don't<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>agree with<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>it completely. I think it should be a prohibition <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>against<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>*distribution* of child pornography, not simply<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>"possession",<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>if for no<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>other reason than people might be likely to hand it over<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>to<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>law<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>enforcement without the fear of going to jail <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>themselves.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Prohibition<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>against "virtual porn" is crazy and needs to be fought.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>So what does this mean to us? It means that if something<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>offends you,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>you should suck it up and learn to live with it. Grow <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>some<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>thicker skin<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>and see if you can find a sense of humor on sale<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>somewhere.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Freedom of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>expression, if that's a concept you agree with, has to<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>trump<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>"freedom<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>from being offended". The minute you allow the idea that<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>some things<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>are just too horrible to be read or viewed, then you've<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>just<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>thrown the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>concept of freedom of expression out the window. Now<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>you'll<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>have a<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>slippery slope where the definition of "too horrible"<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>tends<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>to match the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>ideals of the people who are in power at any given <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>moment.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>The odd irony for people who really believe in freedom <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>of<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>expression is<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>that they most often end up defending things that they<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>might<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>vehemently<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>disagree with. They defend the speech of people they<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>simply<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>don't like<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>or don't agree with, and they defend speech they are<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>personally offended<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>by because the speech that everyone agrees with is not<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>threatened.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Very little offends me, but even if I was offended by <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>the<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>NSA<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>website,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>which I wasn't, then I would still be fighting for their<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>right to be as<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>inane with their metaphors as they wish. I applaud them,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>really, for<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>not rushing to change the page in an orgy of political<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>correctness.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>Paul<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><pre>=======================================================<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>List services made available by First Step Internet,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre>=======================================================<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote></blockquote><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>=======================================================<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>List services made available by First Step Internet,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre>=======================================================<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>"The Pessimist complains about the wind, the Optimist expects it to<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>change<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>and the Realist adjusts his sails."<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>- Unknown<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>=======================================================<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>List services made available by First Step Internet,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre>=======================================================<o:p></o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote></blockquote><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>=======================================================<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>List services made available by First Step Internet,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<o:p></o:p></pre><pre> <a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre> <a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre>======================================================= <o:p></o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre></blockquote><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>=======================================================<o:p></o:p></pre><pre> List services made available by First Step Internet, <o:p></o:p></pre><pre> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <o:p></o:p></pre><pre> <a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a> <o:p></o:p></pre><pre> <a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a><o:p></o:p></pre><pre>=======================================================<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre> <o:p></o:p></pre></div></body></html>