Subject:
|
Re: Eduardo is out of line (was: Re: The Lego Group will attempt to stop some "brickfilms")
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 23 Dec 2001 19:37:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
489 times
|
| |
|
|
="Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message
news:Goszrp.H3J@lugnet.com...
> Tim, I'm choping your note and reassembling because I think it's
important...
Ok.
> > 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 don't believe there's a fault in my thinking. I will definitely examine
my thinking, but at this point I still hold to my thoughts even after
reading this entire message. More below.
> 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...
>
> > > F*** u all gay f***s I hope those animations are deleted or else...
(I semi-censored the comments with asterisks)
> I'd call that profane, defamatory, threatening and maybe unlawful.
Unlawful? What law?
> 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).
Yes. I definitely agree his message was profane, defamatory, and
threatening. I completely disapprove of the comment he made. Note - he
wasn't expressing an opinion about gays here (though he was being
insulting), he was expressing an opinion hoping the animations were deleted.
I'm not going to excuse what Eduardo said here.
> > 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?
No. I think so-called 'hate speech' is unnecessary anywhere, and definitely
unnecessary on LUGNET.
At the same time, expressing naive ideas may be key to some people
experiencing personal growth by having those ideas corrected. Now, if
LUGNET isn't the place for that experience and most people agree, fine by
me.
I'll say though, that I learned a lot from being able to express the same
naive ideas online - on RTL (which has no regulations) and LUGNET.
> I read the
> Campus Speech Codes article you referenced and it seems dumb to me.
I think the story in the article shows how dumb the speech codes can be.
And he was right - preventing complete free speech on university campuses
denies the free expression of ideas higher education is all about.
> 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.
Understood.
> > 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.
Think of it this way (I'm not basing this on fact, just the way I see both
profanity and hate speech and the reaction to it in social circiles):
Hate speech would be more openly chastized in a discussion than profanity.
In my experience, most people won't ask someone not to swear, but they will
definitely ask (or tell) someone not to express hateful ideas. If the
person continues to express those ideas, they'll be ostracized by the group
for their hateful opinion. If they vehemently hold the opinion (on LUGNET)
and don't shut up, they're being overly disruptive to the group and creating
a negative atmosphere. At that time, I think the person can be considered
for a formal (admin) chastizement and banishment if they do not comply with
the admin ruling.
> > 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.
I definitely don't think it belongs here, but at the same time, I think the
social repercussions of a statement like that would correct the situation
and possibly open the eyes of the person who said it to their bigotry.
I base a lot of my thoughts on the matter on my view of the victim mentality
of groups who are discriminated against. I'm not going to fully explain
that opinion, but its 100% in line with the view of Larry Elder. Read his
book, Ten Things You Can't Say In America for a complete presentation of it.
In a nutshell - the victim mentality is ludicrous. Instead of spending time
working hard to advance themselves through achievements, they spend time
whining and complaining and overprojecting their sensitivities to get
something back they feel they're entitled to for compensation.
> 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.
Ok - I can live with this assessment of it.
> You wrote:
>
> > But wait, isn't allowing the free expression of non-politically correct
> > opinions creating a more pleasant place?
Note: I slipped here and *meant* to say 'isn't disallowing the free
expression...' It seems you picked up on my meaning anyways though :-)
> > 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!
And I understand your concern and share it. Its tricky to weigh out
principle on this.
> 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.
I wish they were playing a more active role and doing that. (see the other
thread running in admin.general - For the eyes of Suz)
> > 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.
And its tricky defining those lines. That's what both of us are trying to
do here.
> > 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?
If someone absolutely needs profanity to express themselves, then I would
say they have a ways to go to developing their mind and education.
> > "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.
Sure, and I support them too. I'm just explaining my position on what I
think should and shouldn't be disallowed in such a contract in this case.
> 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.
No, you didn't profane.
I wouldn't deny you the right to do so though. I wouldn't like it, and I
wouldn't agree with your statements either. But I couldn't deny you that
right.
Would it be equally appealing to parents and to TLC? My guess is no. But
my guess is also that people would not appreciate you doing that and would
ask you to stop, and there would be social repercussions for you not doing
so.
> > "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.
Read Ten Things You Can't Say in America first, to learn where I'm coming
from. I don't ignore social issues (I've spent a long time thinking about
them and examining other positions) and I have come to this opinion.
I've definitely explored other positions than the 'right-wing' one. But
then again, something about a fair examination of facts and sound logic
reveals the truth. Funny how that happens.
I wrestle with issues every day in my mind, definitely. I'm not totally
satisfied with the conservative position but I definitely think it makes a
lot of sense.
If I were interested in a long debate about this, I'd bring up specific
issues, but I'm not. I'm only defending myself against your
misunderstanding of where I'm coming from.
> 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.
Yep, descrimination exists. Either people will whine about it, or they'll
get off their rear ends and work hard despite it and rise above the people
who are too stupid to see their value. Before satisfying your urge to call
me any hateful words, read the book.
-Tim
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
