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

[Paul Rumelhart]

I guess I'm going to have to, now.  I just never intended for my little 
diatribe on freedom of expression to turn into a damn book report.

So if I read it and find it to be just wrong and not hateful, then what 
happens?

Paul

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