Text 8962, 167 rader
Skriven 2006-09-24 12:24:00 av Robert E Starr JR (9459.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Can You BELIEVE This?
=================================
  * * * This message was from Carl to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *   
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <eeudnVbT9arnz4jYnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d@comcast.com>
@REPLY:
<450960b2$0$6826$ecde5a14@news.coretel.net><zcGdnRx83sl5pIjYnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@comcast.com><ef3gtu014ig@drn.newsguy.com>


"Jan" <janmschroeder@aol.com> wrote in message 
news:ef3gtu014ig@drn.newsguy.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

On my way out I figured I owe you a response since I opened the can.

I read the words  "going to be change," " need to be permanently removed,"
"some radical social surgery," and  "*have* to be removed from acceptable
vocabulary" as more than pointing out offensive remarks.

I have heard (not here) some people suggest that using the word is itself
an act of hate-speech and should be considered at least a misdemeanor.
I am not suggesting that you hold that view, but with the words that you 
used
above, I was ultimately asking if you had something more in mind, and if so, 
what?

Although I was speaking for the freedom to be offensive, I had absolutely
no intention of offending you.


Carl
Quot homines, tot sententiae
Qvod cibvs est aliis, aliis est wenenum
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

Ave atque vale
                      
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)