[Vision2020] Like a Twinkie (Was "Freedom of Expression")
lfalen
lfalen at turbonet.com
Tue Dec 21 10:21:37 PST 2010
I have not read the book and do not intend to. The price is too damn high. My curiosity is not that great,
Roger
-----Original message-----
From: Paul Rumelhart godshatter at yahoo.com
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 23:09:50 -0800
To: Warren Hayman whayman at roadrunner.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Like a Twinkie (Was "Freedom of Expression")
>
> 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
> >> =======================================================
> >
> >
>
> =======================================================
> 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
> =======================================================
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list