[Vision2020] Welcome to Confederate Latah County . . .

Sat Jul 14 11:44:48 PDT 2012

The first amendment most emphatically is the right to offend. There is nothing but what some faint heart will not find it offensive. The idea of pandering to the lowest common denominator is offensive to me. How will you salve my delicate sensibilities?

From: Joe Campbell 
Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2012 11:06 AM
To: Paul Rumelhart 
Cc: viz 
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Welcome to Confederate Latah County . . .

This is my last post. You keep twisting what I am taking great pains to explain.

People have a choice to go to a website; not always so with regard to a building, especially this one. I doubt as someone is walking through the building and sees a confederate flag their first thought is "history lesson."

The idea that some people find symbols of slavery -- and like it or not that's what the confederate flag is -- offensive is not an indication that those folks are too sensitive. If anything it is an indication of your lack of sensitivity and good judgment that you fail to realize how this flag is more than a flag.

I'm not criticizing the display or the people who promoted it. I haven't seen it. I'm criticizing your general arguments, all of which are bad. I'm criticizing you and your continual defense of offensive symbols and documents associated with hatred and bigotry. This is nothing new. You've been doing this for years and I've been criticizing you for years.

My main point in nearly all of my comments to your posts is simple, though you continue to fail to appreciate it. There is NO such thing as the right to offend; you can't hide behind free speech or educational opportunity in an effort to do so.

On Jul 14, 2012, at 9:20 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:

  We're talking about a historical display in which the use of a flag from that time period simply as a prop makes sense.  Do you think it was the intent of the historical society to offend people who... are easily offended by this symbol?

  You seem to be arguing that we shouldn't, for example, show an image of a swastika on a web page that explains what the swastika is.  Are these images *so* offensive that we need to eradicate them from our society completely?  If so, how do you plan on getting every single person on-board with this?

  I just think that the right not to be offended is subordinate to the right to free expression.  Of course, we're talking about the Courthouse here which brings in different issues, I realize.  But generally, I think this is true.

  I'll leave it to the historical society or whoever it was that put up this display to defend it's educational value. 

  I just don't understand the vehemence here.  I get offended occasionally by things I see on TV or signs or the occasional commercial or advertisement I run across.  When that happens, I shake my head at their foolishness, recognize that people have other viewpoints and the right to express them, and move on without creating a big stink about it.  In my opinion, if everybody did that we'd live in a much less confrontational and less divisive world.

  Paul

  On 07/14/2012 07:17 AM, Joe Campbell wrote:

    You are frustrating to talk to. First, it was a bit of a joke. Also, you're not tracking the quantity terms: all, some, etc. My view is not that ALL herpes displays should be banned. Of course such things COULD be helpful. But when and where and for what purpose? IN GENERAL were someone to say "There's a herpes display downtown" and it turned out not to be at Gritman, it should make you scratch your head.

    I think Idaho and our town in particular is not in need of a confederacy flag on display. Has anyone forgotten about the civil war? Is there anyone who might see the display who would learn something new? I just don't see it. The educational value of the display is little or nothing. You haven't done much to convince me otherwise. Nor do you seem to care about the particulars. Your view seems to be that we need to display offensive symbols, or at the very least that every display of everything offensive symbol needs to be defended, least we lose our God-given right to offend!

    That is an odd, curious view. Not every instance of every offensive symbol has educational value. I think the burden is on the defender of the display of the offensive symbol to show that it has educational value that overrides its offensive nature and you're not doing that because you're speaking in generalities and not about the particular display itself. 

    My view is that there is NO general defense of the display of offensive symbols. If someone wants to educate that is fine but I don't see the educational value in this case. You don't seem to care.

    On Jul 13, 2012, at 6:41 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:

      Why not put up a display about (for example) herpes?  What it is, how you get it, how you can recognize it, how you can avoid it, what are the available treatments for it, etc.  If some society did put up a display about this in the Courthouse, I certainly wouldn't object to it.  It's educational, it's a problem that education can help with, an so forth.  What it would not be, presumably, is some kind of glorification of the state of having herpes.

      I also object to the simple idea that any display of the Confederate flag in any context is always meant as support for the idea of slavery.  I can't think of a symbol that so immediately makes you think "Civil War" than either the Confederate flag or the Union Jack, so (not being subject to being offended every time I turn around) finding one in a display that discusses some aspect of the Civil War makes perfect sense to me.  

      I don't have kids, but if I did, I would want them to live in a world where they would know what the Civil War was about and what herpes is.  Having more information about incest (think genetic reasons not to do it) and rodent infestations (possible health concerns) wouldn't hurt them, either.

      I also object to your snarky "Well, most of us at least." line.  Arguing for the use of the Confederate flag as a device for decorating a display about something that is connected to that war does not mean that I don't know about the ills of slavery.  Do you really think I treat slavery as something other than an evil upon our society?  

      Paul

      On 07/13/2012 01:03 PM, Joe Campbell wrote:

        Why not a display about herpes, or incest, or rodent infestation? Wouldn't want to censor those, would we? After all, we don't want to sugarcoat the horrible world we live in!  

        What good does it do? None. We all know about the ills of slavery. Well, most of us at least. Joe

        On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:

          One doesn't nuance slavery, but we shouldn't sugar-coat it either.  It's a historical display.  We shouldn't be self-censoring it because people might find the confederate flag offensive.  Some people would find the union flag offensive, if they had ancestors that died on that side of the war.

          As a community, we should not be afraid to look at this display unflinchingly and remember the positives and the negatives of that conflict.  Be very, very careful about self-censoring our history.  As a country we have done some pretty bad things, to each other and to people outside our borders, and those things should be remembered.

          Paul

          On 07/13/2012 11:56 AM, Rosemary Huskey wrote:

            I  would call a confederate flag placed in a display about a confederate soldier with ties to Latah County A Celebratory Nod to Racism.   Help me to understand how one nuances slavery, Paul.  If you are under the impression that tolerance of the intolerable is a badge of liberal honor, then I assume you understand completely why I despise and mock the latte sipping liberals that are so thick on the ground in Latah County.  

            Rose

            From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] On Behalf Of Paul Rumelhart
            Sent: Friday, July 13, 2012 11:35 AM
            To: Joe Campbell
            Cc: viz
            Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Welcome to Confederate Latah County . . .

            Would you call placing a confederate flag in a cabinet housing an historical display about a confederate soldier that has a tie to Latah County in the Latah County Courthouse indefensible?

            Because I wouldn't.

            Also, the one-dimensional liberal / conservative axis is failing us here.  We need more nuance in American politics than that.

            Paul

            On 07/13/2012 09:47 AM, Joe Campbell wrote:

              I think it is best to avoid defending the indefensible, anything to do with slavery in particular. There are A LOT of better uses for your words and your motivations will always be questioned -- no matter how many times you call yourself a liberal.

              Joe

              On Jul 13, 2012, at 9:33 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:

                You have to walk on eggshells around here, lest your honest opinion be mistaken as an attack on all things liberal.  Which is ironic because I consider myself to be a liberal (at least on some issues).  And I hate walking on eggshells.

                Paul

                On 07/13/2012 12:25 AM, Scott Dredge wrote:

                  Wow! - welcome back to the V Paul.  You're a much better man than I am! [note to myself: never share a painful personal experience trying to make a perfectly valid point on the V lest you be savagely crucified by 'holier than thou' Tom and Donovan)

                  <mime-attachment.jpg>- <(null)>---------------- <(null)>

--------------------------------------------------------------

                  Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:13:51 -0700

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

=======================================================
 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
=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120714/91ac38a0/attachment-0001.html>