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

[Tom Hansen]

Roger Falen stated:

"I have not read the book and do not intend to. The price is too damn high."

I couldn't agree with you more, Mr. Falen.

Why pay ninety-five dollars for third-grade fiction, especially when most
of it is plagiarized?

But, what with taxes comin' due in the next few months, can you really
blame W&W (Wilson & Wilkins) for jackin' up the price?

I wonder how much Nate is chargin' for his etch-a-sketch mock of the
Shroud of Turin.

I mean Christmas is mere hours away.

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

On Tue, December 21, 2010 10:21 am, lfalen wrote:
> 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
>> =======================================================
>
> =======================================================
>  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