| |
Tim, I'm choping your note and reassembling because I think it's important...
In lugnet.admin.general, Tim Courtney writes:
> Something tells me you'll still try to pin a double standard on me though.
I believe I detect a double standard in your rhetoric. Is it "pinning"
something on you to identify the fault in your thinking?
> I'm sure Eduardo has seen the results of his opinion - its been challenged.
> Good for him, maybe it will cause him to think. But definitely don't punish
> him for expressing a naive opinion.
For me, this isn't really about Eduardo's outburst. But since it might be for
you, and you seem to be suggesting that what he said/did isn't that bad, let's
look at it...
> > Fuck u all gay fucks I hope those animations are deleted or else...
I'd call that profane, defamatory, threatening and maybe unlawful. I don't
care at all if he is disciplined for this because it was just an
isolated outburst (as far as I know), but I think it far and away the most
egregious violation of the TOS that I've ever read given 'just' the use of
words (i.e. not masquerading as someone else, etc).
> I'd hate to see o-t.debate littered with juviniles who cuss each other out
> instead of well-reasoned discussions on matters of fact and opinion.
I too. I support the mandate.
> > I've assumed the goal of these rules is to make LUGNET a
> > place where adults can do their thing and still be a place
> > that parents are comfortable letting their kids roam. Right?
> > If the F word will drive them off then surely open racism
> > will as well. Frankly -- as a parent of two, I'm much more
> > concerned with my kids being exposed to accepted biggotry
> > than to profanity. <<not that I would protect them from either...>>
> Allowing the use of profanity on LUGNET is unnecessary,
As a response to my writing, this directly implies that allowing the use of
hate speech on LUGNET is necessary. Is that really what you mean? I read the
Campus Speech Codes article you referenced and it seems dumb to me. But that
doesn't mean I approve of the expression of all opinions in all venues. As far
as I'm concerned, the first amendment is for the government, not LUGNET.
> and if allowed it
> would make LUGNET a much less pleasant place for the vast majority of people
> who visit it. Not to mention, it wouldn't be a place LEGO would want to
> associate with, nor would some kids feel comfortable in, nor would parents
> feel comfortable allowing their kids visiting.
Just like hate speech.
> Profanity in the sense of the common swear word is just that - a bunch of
> words. Disallowing 'F---' isn't disallowing an opinion from being said,
> neither is disallowing 'S---,' etc.
There are ideas and contexts in which the most appropriate term is the "F
word." By banning a word, you are banning the meaning. Intercourse,
copulation, fornication, etc all have different ideas than that word that we
are dancing around without actually saying. To remove it from our lexicon is
to remove the ability to express certain ideas with precision.
But that's OK. Just like it's OK to ban statements like "niggers should be
returned to their just place of servitude." That kind of advocation doesn't
belong here. I hope.
So now back to your double standard...
I think that the reason you might think you're not actually espousing a double
standard (or that such a double standard is OK...whichever it is that you
think) is that banning the use of certain words is easy (if someone haphazard)
while banning the expression of certain ideas is terribly difficult. But that
doesn't make it not a double standard.
You wrote:
> But wait, isn't allowing the free expression of non-politically correct
> opinions creating a more pleasant place?
>
> I'd say yes, to an extent. By doing that we'd be setting a premise for a
> padded world where no one is allowed to get their feelings hurt, and where
> percieved 'victims' are given special treatment.
I understand your concern. I share it. I see instances in which people seem
oversensitive and I think they need to get a perspective. But I also see bad
people doing bad things and making places less pleasant. I'd rather that not
happen to LUGNET. It hasn't so far, and that's great! But I hope that Suz, or
Todd, or whomever is vested with degrees of control will exercise a broader
interpretation of "unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory,
obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, or indecent" rather than a narrower one
if the time comes that it is needed.
> By allowing the free expression of opinions, we're allowing those with
> illogical naive views to express them and then learn from people who have
> thought it through more. Not too bad of a thing if you ask me.
Agreed. That's what I'm trying to do. And your expression of an opinion with
which I disagree is fine. But there are lines to cross.
> By expressing opinions and having those opinions challenged I grew as a
> person. Without being able to express myself for fear of not being
> 'politically correct,' its likely I would have shut out critical thinking as
> a reaction to such codes.
What about people who feel like they need profanity in order to "express
themselves?" I still see a double standard. And further, who's to say that
you wouldn't have just made up for that by learning even more critical thinking
skills?
There is a good deal of stuff that your note included about which I don't
really understand the link to this subject. But I do have some comments on
some of it below:
> "The exaggerated sensitivities of others are not my responsibility, nor do
> their hurt feelings empower them to abolish my right to free speech."
That's a great phrase about the real world. I don't support laws that abridge
free speech. But I do support the rights of venue owners to create contractual
obligations that must be upheld in order to communicate in the venue.
Do you think LUGNET would be equally pleasant, equally appealing to TLC, and
equally enticing to parents and kids if I followed you around posting responses
in which I called you an ignorant right-wing Bible-thumping homophic child?
After all, I didn't profane.
> "Gender, sexual orientation, skin color and ethnicity are accidents of
> birth, not an entitlement for life-long victimhood."
But the fact that our society does victimize people based on their sex,
orientation, color, religion, intelligence, interests, etc. isn't changed by
such a trite right-wing comment. You can't ignore these social issues unless
you actually welcome class warfare.
I stand at a place where I see that people of color are genuinely discriminated
against in our judicial system and I have no idea how to really fix it. And at
the same time, I have experienced individuals who were absolutely abusing the
system by revelling in their vicitmhood. And both things are wrong. But to
dismiss these rampant victimizations out of hand is dangerous and kind of evil.
> I've held on to my core beliefs, but learned to think critically -
> and as of yet, the process of thinking hasn't damaged what I believe.
If by damaged, you mean changed, then perhaps there is criticality yet to be
learned.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
22 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
