Text 8961, 129 rader
Skriven 2006-09-24 12:24:00 av Robert E Starr JR (9458.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Can You BELIEVE This?
=================================
   * * * This message was from Jan to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *   
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <ef3gtu014ig@drn.newsguy.com>
@REPLY:
<450960b2$0$6826$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net><zcGdnRx83sl5pIjYnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@comcast.com>

In article <zcGdnRx83sl5pIjYnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@comcast.com>, Carl says...
>
>
>"Jan" <janmschroeder@aol.com> wrote in message 
>news:ef1l7j02q8u@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <45143fbd$0$19906$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net>, Mac Breck says...
>>>
>>>"Joseph DeMartino" <jdemarti@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>>news:1158944135.838018.203930@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>> phil wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > you have _no_ idea of how badly that idiot butchered this house;<
>>>>
>>>> Nor do I need to react to your use of a racist term.  The context is
>>>> irrelevant.  If my plumber really does a bad job rennovating my
>>>> bathroom does that justify my calling him at big, stupid WOP?
>>>>
>>>> > don't know his name or race, don't really care <
>>>>
>>>> So you don't even have the excuse that the guy who did the work
>>>> actually *was* African American and that your imputation of inferior
>>>> skills to that ethnic group had some kind anecdotal "justification" in
>>>> your particular case.  No, you admit you have no idea what race the
>>>guy
>>>> was, you just casually use the term "African-American engineered" (a
>>>> variation on the equally lovely "n*****-rigged" or its more
>>>pretentious
>>>> cousin, "Afro-Engineered") to describe bad plumbing work done by
>>>> *anyone* because ... well if not because you believe that inferior
>>>work
>>>> is characteristic of African-Americans, then why?
>>>>
>>>> That you evidently still don't see the problem tells me all I really
>>>> need or care to know about you.
>>>
>>>Joe, for god's sake, lighten up.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Why, Mac?  If there's ever going to be change, there are some things that 
>> simply
>> need to be permanently removed from the language and culture.  Just as it 
>> took
>> some radical social surgery for it to become indisputedly *wrong* to touch 
>> a
>> woman without her consent, terms like the above (I'm simply NOT going to 
>> type
>> either of them!) *have* to be removed from acceptable vocabulary.
>>
>> Language is fluid and changing all the time.  Those terms need to be 
>> permanently
>> retired.
>>
>> Jan
>>
>
>With much of this thread I've stayed back, content to read what others 
>write. If I wait long enough, someone else usuall writes the same thing I 
>would have (although they usually express it better than I would).
>
>When I read the original comment I winced and knew what was coming.
>
>I think the original term used was not something that should ever be said. 
>I don't know if the person knew he was offensive or cared either way. 
>People that care about others (or even just what others think of them) will 
>think before they speak and choose their words accordingly.  That's as it 
>should be.  Everyone will form their own opinions of a person that uses 
>certain terms.
>
>That said, I dislike the idea of socially sanitizing a language.  There is a 
>huge gap between defining words that a person shouldn't use and trying to 
>define words that they CAN'T use.  A person's right to be offensive 
>outweighs a person's desire not to be offended.  There is no inherent right 
>to go through life and not be offended, nor is it even possible.
>
>What a person should do is very different than what a person must do, and no 
>matter how well intentioned you are (and I think you have only good 
>intentions) I think you open quite a can of worms as you increasingly try to 
>define how a person should think or speak.   As a society defines what a 
>person can or can't do, it defines the level of freedom in that society. 
>There are obvious limitations we put on a person's freedom.. you're not free 
>to kill or rape... but in trying to define how a person should think or 
>speak you increasingly try to perform the social equivalent of genetic 
>engineering.
>
>I know that you weren't suggesting actually doing anything, but the words 
>you chose implied that you would be proactive in doing something to prevent 
>the word from being used again if you could. That particular word is already 
>pretty much considered "removed from acceptable vocabulary," so what else 
>would yo do?
>
>Carl

No, sorry.  The words I used meant *exactly* what I wanted them to-they
expressed my opinion that some phrases shouldn't be used and when used, should
be pointed out as offensive and racist so that they will fall out of useage. 
In
no way was anything I said an indication that I would *ever* be proactive in
curbing anybody elses freedom in any way. The absolute worst I would ever do
would be to ensure that when I encounter such useage, that person becomes aware
that I find it offensive and inappropriate.  In this case, Joe DeM did so
before
I ever saw the phrase Phil used.  Since Phil has decided that he'd rather be
free to use such language than hang out here, what else could I possibly 'do'
anyway?  I have no children to 'proactively prevent' (read: brainwash) into
never using racist phrases so that's out.

Please don't ascribe motives to me that aren't there.

Jan


-- 
We are the voice of the universe, the soul of creation, 
The fire that will light the way to a better future. 
We are One. 
                       IA Declaration of Principles
                        (J. Michael Straczynski)
                  
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)