Text 8951, 99 rader
Skriven 2006-09-24 12:22:00 av Robert E Starr JR (9448.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: <zcGdnRx83sl5pIjYnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@comcast.com>
@REPLY: <ef1l7j02q8u@drn.newsguy.com>

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