 sj |
||
|
||
PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC!
|
|
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: Peter T. Date: 28 Sep 99 - 10:00 AM Actually, I think you are on to a great dividing point, kat, which I struggle with, but have not come to terms with at all. Most of the free speech arguments, derived from John Stuart Mill and John Milton (dead white guys) assume that while words are powerful and occasionally hurtful, they should be allowed free rein, because they are not as hurtful as suppressed speech. The model is one of strength through conflict: that the truth depends on being able to withstand whatever is said -- essentially to develop the truth over time in spite of hurt. If you repress it, it does not go away, but festers, and makes people more frightened of the power of what is not being said openly. The alternative model, which you espouse, and with which I am somewhat sympathetic, is that continuous use of repulsive language is not just hurtful, but actually alters the world, or freezes it in systems of domination. What is interesting to me is that as a white male, I am constantly subjected to hurtful language against white males, which no one (including me) takes seriously, and against which I don't seem to be able to object, and the reason is that I am perceived to be powerful and thereby invulnerable to those kind of insults. In that sense, Mill and Milton are right: a sign of strength is to be able to laugh off this kind of insult. But what if you are not in such a position of strength? What if you are not a white male, or already in a position of personal strength? Do we alter our language to protect the most vulnerable, or ask them to be stronger in order to protect a larger truth? Easy to say if you are on top. But where do you stop when you start protecting people from speech? All my instincts go with Mill and Milton, because I believe that the truth is more important than hurt feelings, but I am very possibly completely wrong because of who I am -- a self confident (well, in theory) male. Yet, if I believe in the truth, I have to be prepared to admit that this central belief of mine is just wrong. It is very, very deep. yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: catspaw49 Date: 28 Sep 99 - 10:15 AM Well, yet another treatise on the central dichotomy of "freedoms".....well done but it gets down to the same thing, we live in the illusion of freedom of (fill in the blank). Ain't happenin' though....and we're becoming in a lot more of a hurry than we were in the days of Mill. Problem is, we wouldn't have reached this point were it not for the continuing defense of true freedom of speech. And now, like Peter, I ask, "is it time to chuck the whole thing?" Can't have it both ways.........that's the problem today. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: katlaughing Date: 28 Sep 99 - 11:10 AM FOCK! FOCK! FOCK! I just typed in a long reply, accidentally brushed a key wiht the tip of my pinkie and it just disappeared! Don't have time to retype it all right now. I shall return. Sorry! kat |
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: JedMarum Date: 28 Sep 99 - 11:40 AM There is power in the spoke, but it is not all powerful. The spoken word is still a representation of a thought or feeling. I have word the word 'nigger' used (rarely) without malice ... where the speaker had no understanding of its hateful connotations. Likewise regarding race, I have heard respectful words spoken from people who I know harbor hate and malice. We have to remember that words are just words, and the meaning behind them is much more important. As one who does care about eliminating racial (and other) prejudice, I practice political correctness, if you will - that is I use care in the language I select, and the behaviors I exibit, when addressing these kinds of sensitive issues. When it comes to 'political correctness' I choose to lead by example.
This leads me to another point, and it has been addressed eloquenty by both lamarca and Jack (Who is called Jack) above. We are sensitive and indignant toward the excesses of the people we consider 'right wing' - while we are intollereant of their point-of-view? We profess to be open minded and free thinkers, yet we have no problem ridiculing these people. |
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: GeorgeH Date: 28 Sep 99 - 11:53 AM A quick thought (unlike me, I know). "PC" in its non-perjorative sense, has never been a useful concept. 'Cause "all" it amounts to is common decency, courtesy, respect for one's fellow beings (oops, nearly said "fellow man"!!) and sensitivity to others. Beyond that it becomes mere posturing. G. |
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: Joe Offer Date: 28 Sep 99 - 12:49 PM Kat, I don't think you'll find anyone here who will object to the removal of truly hateful or pejorative language from common usage. That's not the point. What people find aggravating is the frequent and arbitrary changing of language, making once-acceptable language unacceptable. "Nigger" was clearly an unacceptable term and "colored" was kind of a transitional word (still used in the name of the NAACP), so decent people willingly changed to "Negro." It took a little longer to change to "black" as the acceptable word, but it really wasn't that big a step because the word had been used in some situations in the past. Now, the move is to require clumsy, bureaucratic-sounding "African-American." What's that - four or five changes to a term in 40 years? I think that's ludicrous. I'll hold onto "black" until they can come up with a better term than "African-American." I have no idea what are the polite terms to use for handicapped people any more, so I've essentially been removed from any meaningful discussion of issues relating to the handicapped because I just don't understand what's being said. The terms have changed too quickly, and many are ludicrous, especially the "xxx-challenged" series of euphemisms. Somebody here was throwing around a four-letter acronym the other day, and I had no idea what they were talking about. Certainly, language is powerful. So is logic. If you put the two of them together, you can do wonderful things. If there is no logic behind your changing the language, people may start to look on those changes as ludicrous, and that defeats your purpose. -Joe Offer- ludicrous so absurd, ridiculous, or exaggerated as to cause or merit laughter. |
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: catspaw49 Date: 28 Sep 99 - 01:55 PM Uh, that would have been me Joe? I assume you mean MRDD? You'll be happy to know we've gone back to mentally retarded/developmentally delayed.(:+) But in truth, Liam speaks it. As does Peter. Sorrowfully, respect, decency, and courtesy, are not requisite to free speech. Removal of hateful language? Free speech? Hmmmm.....Tell me how you can have both? Rights and liberties and the like cannot be exclusionary, but they often are. Are children granted a lberty interest under the 14th amendment? Should they have one or not. It doesn't exclude them, but they are excluded at this point in time. Can we grant free speech then only to courteous and respectful people? Sometimes I long for a benevolent dictator......as long as he/she/it agrees with me.......... Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: Harvey Gerst Date: 28 Sep 99 - 02:28 PM A lot of this bothers me, but I can't put my finger on exactly why I'm bothered. In the 60s, I hung out with a lot of blues musicians who didn't differentiate between "Nigger", "Negro", "Black", "Colored", or "Whitey", "Honky" and a number of other colorful terms during a typical conversation. They used all these terms to add nuance to their speech and it didn't seem to bother anyone present as I recall, perhaps because the terms were being used with both sarcasm AND affection by both races. If anything, it drew me closer to the problems that Negros faced in the 60s and helped me realize the vast chasm that separated our two cultures. Music seemed to be a bridge that spanned them. I'm not sure the homoginization of all these terms into "African-American" is necessarily a good thing. It eliminates the wonderful nuances that even African-Americans used to describe themselves in the past, just as a "dumb redneck" or "trailer trash" creates certain instant mental images today. Is it painting with "too broad a brush"? Perhaps, but simply placing everybody into a category that can be described with a hyphenated two word description is possibly not the answer either. I guess the problem arises when hate groups get hold of a term and use it in a derogatory sense to incite others. At 62, I still don't have many answers, just more and more questions. |
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: Joe Offer Date: 28 Sep 99 - 02:39 PM Hi, Kat - these comments of yours were in the "Hummer" thread, but my response fits better into this one. Annap, it's because, in the patriarchal world of old, and even of today in some places, enjoying sex was against the control of the church. It meant women, might choose to be free, instead of subservient wombs.Gee, Kat, it seems to me that you may have swallowed some propaganda. I guess you don't realize that what you've been saying over and over this week is full of bigotry against men and against traditional religious beliefs. There is truth in what you say, but you've taken it to an irrational extreme. I can't believe that it's all that simple, that men and church were so totally evil in the "unenlightened" age of our ancestors. Certainly, there was sexism in our culture and in churches, but that does not totaly negate the value of the wisdom of the last two or three millennia. In the past, there were many corrupt leaders in our culture and in our churches. Well, by golly, the same is true today. I think there may be something about the essence of leadership that invites corruption. Maybe it's because you often have to sell your soul, your ideals, to become a leader. On the other hand, many leaders in the past, and in the present, did not compromise their ideals or their integrity. I believe there's a difference between the leaders and the thinkers in any organization or culture. It's the thinkers who maintain the ideals and who have the more profound effect on us. You sometimes have to look to find them, but every age and every culture has had inspired writing and thinking from both both women and men. It's the leaders who cause suffering - the thinkers give us hope. If you look at the sacred writings of most major religions that have endured though the ages, you will find much beauty and idealism and truth. Traditions endure because of the truth they embody. If your goddess beliefs provide a valuable and valid perspective on that same truth, then those beliefs will also endure the test of time. Religious beliefs that endure are those that express truth and love and beauty and a spirit of wonder for the mystery of life. When people do evil things in the name of religion, what they do is usually in direct contradition the the religious beliefs they claim to espouse. Yes, it's true we are coming out of an age that was dominated by men. It's true that women suffered greatly in that age. Nonetheless, there were many men in that age who were good, loving husbands, fathers, and friends. There were many women in that age who overcame male domination and accomplished wonderful things - both on a large scale and within their families and communities. Women were oppressed, but they certainly were not powerless. If you study literature, you will also find that there were women in past ages who had good sex. So, I'm asking you to stop and think a moment, and don't be soo quick to condemn. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: katlaughing Date: 28 Sep 99 - 03:22 PM Spoken like a true and patronising patriarch, Joe! I don't swallow for anyone, first of all. And, I've read plenty of literature of both men and women.That was a really cheap shot. I would suggest you open your mind and get outside of the theological box from which you are pontificating. I am NOT a separatist and anybody who has been on here and read most of my postings will not be so facetious as to assume so or claim that. I always advocate for balance. And that is what this has all been about; the need for the world of ALL people, to balance out, in a slow plod towards equality. If I have sounded like a bigot against men and religion I am sorry, but what I relate has been facts of the past and present and I do not apologise for that. The fact of the matter is that our world has been male-dominated for over 2,000 years and it is time for the pendulum to swing back towards a middle ground of sharing and caring. I don't care for your condescending holier-than-thou tone, Joe, you know me better than that.
Right now, in Afghanistan, women are not allowed out of their homes for any kind of work.
They are not allowed to leave their homes without a father, brother, or husband.
They are not allowed to interact with male shopkeepers.
They cannot be treated by a male doctor. Ironically there are no women doctors allowed to practise.
They may not study at schools, universities, or other educational institutions. They have to wear the Burqa, long veil which covers them from head to toe.
If a woman dares to go out without her male relative or without her full cover, she will be whipped, beaten and verbally abused, in public. One woman was beaten to death because her ankles showed.
A number of lovers have been stoned to death for having sex outside their marriages. No makeup is allowed. Several women have had their fingers cut off for wearing fingernail polish. They are not allowed to talk to or shake the hands of any male who is not their relative. Nor are they allowed to laugh out loud. All in the name of religion by the dominate gender. And, lest you accuse me of spewing propoganda, please see the website of women in Pakistan who have lived to escape from such a hell and are working with men and women of the world to try to end the oppression and murders of thousands of women. They are at www.RAWA.org. Of course women weren't powerless, in some cases. If you will get Barbara Walker's Encyclopedia of Women's Myths and Secrets you will find she cite her hundreds of sources for a lot of the herstory I am talking about. You might especially pay close attention to what happened to land-owning women when the early Church decided they had too much autonomy and power and stripped them of their lands, including abbesses. kat |
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: catspaw49 Date: 28 Sep 99 - 03:24 PM So what is the meaning of the words "Folk Music?" Spaw -- "Equal Opps" --- for an Answer to either. |
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: Peter T. Date: 28 Sep 99 - 03:42 PM And is a matronizing tone characterised as replying to an argument about tradition by insinuating that all past societies in general, and Joe (Ayatollah Offer) in particular, are Afghanistan? yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: katlaughing Date: 28 Sep 99 - 03:47 PM I used it as an example, only, that there is still much work to be done while we still have such oppression going on, Peter. If that's matronising, so be it. kattheirrationalextremist |
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: Joe Offer Date: 28 Sep 99 - 04:11 PM Kat, you have a pure heart and a lot of wonderful passion. Much of what you say is true, but you tend to speak in broad generalizations and you give very little respect for those who have different perspectives. Your goals and mine are very much the same, but we cannot accomplish those goals if we run roughshod over all that has gone before us, or if we we try to impose those goals upon others without presenting them gently, logically, and convincingly. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: Larry B. Date: 28 Sep 99 - 04:24 PM Folk Music and Philosophy on the same web site! I'm in Heaven! Seems like eveveryone can give you "their definition" of a word or phrase; I hope this doesn't go on to its (no apostrophe) logical conclusion, because it's (not the posessive) impossible to communicate unless symbols are universally understood. When people try to bend meanings to their own uses, you have "African-Americans" who have never been to Africa, and whose ancestors have been here longer than many others. People whose ancestors entered the country in historical times are not Native Americans, but thank God and Mr. Webster, the child of immigrants can still be a Native New Yorker. -A native Earthling and proud member of the Human race |
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: Rick Fielding Date: 28 Sep 99 - 04:55 PM Welcome to Heaven Larry B. Folk music and philosophy on the same thread ain't news at the Mudcat. It can be extremely informative about all aspects of the music, but is equally revealing when it comes to folks' amazing and complex personalities. An aditional bit of excitement crops up every five weeks when some folks can hold it in no longer and explode with rage that their former "heaven" is turning into a living "hell", what with discussions like this. (or possums, or top ten lists, or birthday threads, or Irish folk who wanna march) As in the (very) old Theresa Brewer song, they want "Music, Music, Music! More often than not, they'll participate in both though, so don't worry about it. Rest assured that Katlaughing and Joe will never come to blows, because I suspect that the articulate thought and caring shown in their debate is a lot harder to find down at the local coffee shop. Welcome, Rick |
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: katlaughing Date: 28 Sep 99 - 05:02 PM So...I am a loud, brassy woman, who refuses to be quiet and demure. Oh, well....I guess in all the thousands of words I've put in the Mudcat, I've just been speaking in a general sort of way and been full of intolerance. Is that kind of generalisation you're talking about, Joe? I am only paraphrasing your words about me. Gentle, logical, convincingly...sorry, those may work in some situations, but they didn't get women the vote, or bring about civil rights in the USA. It took loud protests and physical sacrifices, as well. Or, am I rewriting history, again? This isn't going to get us anywhere, because we will never agree. I think you are being close-minded and patronising. You think I am being an over-emotional extremist. Change is uncomfortable. The only other thing I have to say is from the earlier post of mine which was lost, without getting too long winded: the spoken is word is full of power. Our subconscious is like a computer; it takes anythng we "feed" it as truth and will work to manifest that "truth"; this if one says, "I am ill", it will automatically begin to manifest illness. Yes, that IS a generalisation and a simplistic example, but an example nonetheless. It is important to remember that is a powerful reason for changing the language to reflect less hurt and malice. IT is esp. important in what children hear. Take a child and use negative language around him, day and day out, and it WILL have a detrimental effect. If someone wants to be called a Native or African American, who cares? It would be disrepectful NOT to. I believe one of the beauties of language is that it can change and be added to. There are plenty of educational resources available to be sure everyone learns of the haetful words and actions of the past; but we also have to lead by example and that means, I hope, that my grandsons will never hear themselves refered to as "nigger babies". kattheirrationalextremistwhogeneralises |
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: northfolk/al cholger Date: 28 Sep 99 - 05:05 PM I was recently flamed in one of the other postings, for stating my belief that the "appeal" of our music must not be "expanded" by making it more like what I call corporate music...it was suggested that my tired leftist analysis was irrelevent, and that there is no war going on.... I think that there is little difference in the accusation of PC'ness or recent vilification of "liberalism" from any other kind of baiting that many of us have witnessed, in the last 50 years. While I make no pretense that the left is ever, often or occasionally, right(correct),I do know that there is an ongoing struggle between those with wealth and power, and the rest of us. In that struggle, folk music has been a source of comfort, a source of motivation, sometimes a source of education, and always a source of recounting and passing it on. While this is not necessarily true of all folk music, I think that I could make a fairly strong case that much "pop culture" serves the other side, promulgating feelings of despair, isolation, angst, and in some cases, complete divisiveness based on age, race, sex. Who controls the culture, is a question we should ask, and discuss...and what are the effects. kat has made a passionate appeal for that kind of analytical questioning, much different than we are usually challenged with, via TV radio or newspapers. I applaud.... I also caution, that many of us watched the movements for social justice, which accomplished so much, but needed to do more, self destructover minor differences, but, we ended up fighting one and other, harder than we fought for our original goals. |
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: Davey Date: 28 Sep 99 - 05:10 PM I can't reply to everyone on this thread, but certain comments have provoked feelings in me that I have to express. Liam, I can't agree with your 'free speech' attitude, if free speech means allowing bigots and racists to produce and disseminate hate literature, falsehoods and lies to those who haven't had the opportunity to engage in intelligent, reasoned discussions such as are taking place here. Sorry, but I won't put up with it when I'm around.... KatL, I can sense your outrage and frustration at the patriarchy prevalent throughout the world today, and I'm also appalled at the extent. The situation of women in Afghanistan is one of the more extreme examples in our time, and the fact that the rest of the world sits by and does nothing is a further crime. Joe, while I can agree that much has been done and accomplished during the past two or three hundred years, it's not enough, and much of the advances that have been made is now in the process of being rolled back.. We are losing ground to the almighty quest for profit. We have to remember that virtually all governments around the world are run by MEN, virtually all religions are run by MEN, and under either of those institutions little is being done to address the problems women face daily. Wife abuse is common, and the number of women killed annually by their mates, in the US and Canada, is on the increase. The authorities treat it as 'domestic violence' and penalties are small and of no deterrence. Women continue to earn 70% of what men earn for the same work or work of equal value. This is going to look like one big paragraph, can someone tell me how to put in line breaks (sigh...)... I'd like to add one positive note to this posting, there is a group in Toronto called Metro Men Against Violence, who are actively working to educate boys and men about the effects of the violence neing done to women. There are similar groups in other cities across Canada and the US, working for similar ends. With few resources and scant access to mainstream media, however, it's almost like trying to stop an oncoming steamroller by throwing a pebble at it. 'Nuff ranting, I'm getting too worked up..... |
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: katlaughing Date: 28 Sep 99 - 05:11 PM "If your goddess beliefs provide a valuable and valid perspective on that same truth, then those beliefs will also endure the test of time"........they already have, since time immemorial, they are the feminine side of what you call "God". |
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: Rick Fielding Date: 28 Sep 99 - 05:27 PM Davey, well spoken. I'm not familiar with the group, can you e-mail me some info? Rick |
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: katlaughing Date: 28 Sep 99 - 05:49 PM Thank you, Davey and Northfolk/Al, well put and thoughtful. The other thing I had talked about earlier, which was lost, was the fact that so much hate is so much more accessible than ever before because of the Internet. This is another reason I feel so strongly about common language and the need for it to reflect an enlightened consciousness. In an article by Lars-Erik Nelson, copyrighted by the New York Daily New on 9-17, entitled Hate Is Easy To Find Online he explains how a search for info on "a leading American industrialist, Henry Ford" brings one directly to, for one thing, a listing for the book "International Jew"; Amazon.com then kindly informs one that people who've ordered that book, have also enjoyed The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and White Power by "George Lincoln Rockwell, (the late American Fuhrer)." (Quoting Nelson, here. Also, he does note that "Old Henry was an anti-Semite, at least for part of his life, and International Jew is still in print." His article includes a quote from Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, who testified before a Senate Committee: "For the first time in the history of our democracy, those promoting hate, racial violence and terrorism have been able to do so directly into the mainstream, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Many of these groups, once isolated geographically and marginalised to the fringes of society, have succeeded in creating an online subculture of hate." The article also quotes Joseph Roy of the Southern Poverty Law Center (just a quick note, I found out, yesterday, that I will have the privilege of dining with the head of the SPLC, Morris Dees, next Tuesday night, along with other "locals", before he gives a lecture, right here in little ole' Wyoming! I am thrilled!) Anyway, Roy said, "A few years ago, a klansman needed to put out substantial money and effort to produce and distribute a shoddy pamphlet that might reach 100 people. Today, with a $500 computer and negligible other costs, that same klansman can put up a slickly produced Web site with a potential audience of millions." Noting that young poeple who wouldn't dare go to a klan rally can now sit at home & easily enter a world of hate, he added, "The Net, with its promise of privacy, lowers any social inhibitions they might have had about consorting openly with racists and other haters. And, nobody will disagree with them. There is no real exchange of ideas on www.whitepower.com." Nelson also points out that a couple of years ago, if one went looking for info on the French chemist, Joseph Gay-Lussac, one was led mostly to gay pornography. He says, now, due to publis pressure, you "no longer get flooded with gay pornography" when looking for references to Gay-Lussac. Curiously, none of the Internet Service Providers who were invited to the Senate Committee hearing chose to attend. This was an excellent article, which was republished in the Liberal Opinion Week of 9-27-99. Again, it illustrates to me why 1) the Mudcat is so important because of its general tone of civility and openness, and 2) that it is most important for us to lead the way in using terms that are no denigrating and hurtful. kat |
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: Peter T. Date: 28 Sep 99 - 06:21 PM Apart from the Roy quote, which is worth pondering, I would argue that hatred is about as accessible as it ever was, certainly in my lifetime. Kids got all kinds of pornographic and vicious hate literature all the time in my happy American high school. They especially liked it because it was banned and dangerous.
I am not unconcerned, but I think we can relax a little: the Internet is not going to drag us down to perdition. We are already there. |
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: catspaw49 Date: 28 Sep 99 - 06:45 PM hey Joe....How come you don't want to take on the free speech issue? Thank you Davey for at least addressing the other central problem here. I keep asking for an opinion but evidently it's hard to address of I'm such a general fockup that no one takes me seriously....probably just as well come to think about it. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: Joe Offer Date: 28 Sep 99 - 07:17 PM Dunno, Spaw, I thought you said it pretty well. I don't disagree with what you said, but I don't have much to add that hasn't been said already. Both the liberals and the conservatives want to control our speech. Kat wants to cleanse our brains by forcing a new vocabulary upon us. I think we need to allow our opponents to speak their minds without setting rules for the vocabulary they use. Then we should respond without verbally battering them, so they will feel free to rebut our response. But I don't accept the arbitrary rules set by those would wish us to be politically correct. Kat doesn't seem to understand that point. Why should somebody be able to dictate that I must use the word "black" this week, but "African-American" next week? Heck, I already changed my languuage at their request a couple of times - now they're demanding that I change again. Yes, speech should be free. Yes, speech should be civil. There's a balance - speech should be free, but not cause harm. Generally, I'd prefer to err on the side of freedom. Attempts to control speech get me worried. But if I say much more, Kat's gonna bop me on the head. I think I already have more words than she has in this thread....(grin) -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: katlaughing Date: 28 Sep 99 - 08:01 PM Wow! I had no idea I was so powerful and original! I can cleanse minds and force vocabularies??? Hmmmm....so all-powerful, must be the gawdess personified. Yes! At last!*g* Joe, I think what 'Spaw is concerned about, as am I, is the dogged stance regarding free speech and harm. First you say that those who spew hate should be free to spew, which would imply, no matter how much it might hurt others. Then you say speech should be free, but do no harm. Which is it? I am not advocating control of anybody's speech or mind. In their clubs, homes, etc. anybody is free to whatever they want to declare. What I am concerned about is in general society. There are people nowadays who would welcome the ability to be so free in their speech that they would post "no niggers allowed" signs in their windows. If we don't work towards a change in mass consciousness, towards the upliftment of all humankind, then what are we even doing here? If that means using a new term to refer to someone's skin colour, what harm is there in that? BTW, my son-in-law, whom you know is from Antigua, does NOT like the term black, as he doesn't feel that is a true term for his skin tone. He is a gorgeous mahagony and when with family or when we refer to him, that is his choice and ours. People of colour seems to be more accurate, in general. PeterT, I didn't mean that as an alarmist post and I don't think Lars-Erik Nelson did either. In fact in his article he said censorship is not the answer. I do not agree with you that hate hasn't changed in its accessibility, though. While there may have been hate flyers etc. available where you grew up, there is no denying the fact that the Internet has opened up the entire world to millions and millions of people. Just as an example, before the Internet, anyone of us may have been able to see a few pictures of the Sistine Chapel or access information through inter-library loan programs. Now, anyone of us with Internet access can take a virtual tour of the Sistine Chapel and visit other sites directly with access to archives that are unbvelievable in their scope and that were available to only a limited few in times past. There is one site I go to which has direct translations of ancient writings of the saints, with direct quotations of their last words, etc. It is incredible. In the same way, hate and the violence it can beget are much more available than ever before.
kat
|
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: lamarca Date: 28 Sep 99 - 11:14 PM Sorry, kat, but I have to side with Joe on this one. You say I am not advocating control of anybody's speech or mind. In their clubs, homes, etc. anybody is free to whatever they want to declare. What I am concerned about is in general society. There are people nowadays who would welcome the ability to be so free in their speech that they would post "no niggers allowed" signs in their windows. Think back to the 1950's, when those same arguments were used against the left wing, and used to silence Pete Seeger and others by "blacklisting" them to prevent their "dangerous" views from being made available to the general public. Currently there is a debate in our area whether "The Washington Blade", a local gay newspaper, should be in the periodical section of the library. The social conservatives are afraid that the "dangerous and immoral" views in the paper will persuade our vulnerable children (and adults) to perhaps consider that the publishers of this paper might have views worth thinking about. How is this censorship different from wanting to prohibit publication and distribution of a tract saying the world's ills are caused by blacks and Jews? The distinction that needs to be made is one between speech (and writing) that is offensive, and speech or writing that incites violence (which is what I think Joe meant by "hurt"). The recent court case that declared the anti-abortion web site that had a "Hit List" of abortion providers and their addresses crossed this line. The offensive sign you mentioned would be illegal - not for the content of its speech, but because of the illegal action it proposes. Case by case, the American judicial system is trying to make those distinctions and still preserve our First Amendment rights. I believe that most "hate" speech doesn't really persuade many people who aren't already converts to that perverse way of looking at the world. I think that the most effective way to fight hate is to evangelize for tolerance by the way you live, by showing respect for people you deal with in person, no matter how skewed you think their views are, and by countering inflammatory arguments made by ignorant people with calm, love and rationality. I'm not saying we have to love Rush Limbaugh, but rather than getting into a shouting match with one of his supporters, drive them nuts by being civil to them and countering their more outrageous pronouncements with more rational arguments. All of us need to periodically examine our own beliefs and try to figure out how much of what we believe has basis in fact, how much is based on blind prejudices (and, yes, we liberals have them, too) and how much is based on faith. It is my personal religious belief that no matter whether there is a Divine Being or not, the greatest morality is to respect others and treat them as you would like to be treated; in short, the Golden Rule. Remember, also, that one's right to swing one's arm ends BEFORE it hits the next guy's face - which also applies to trying to impose your personal views and beliefs on someone else. I know I fall short of this more often than not, but I think it's as good a rule for moral behavior to strive for as any. Finally, I am upset by the personal animosity some of the arguments on this thread are showing, and would like to request that folks take a deep breath and count to 10 before firing off replies to each other, and remember how we've tried to keep Mudcat more civil than many chat groups. I've enjoyed being able to debate issues here, and would like to see that we can occasionally agree to disagree and not have "debates" turn into raging arguments. I enjoy all of your company, and don't want to see us hurt eachother needlessly. Mary |
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: Larry B. Date: 28 Sep 99 - 11:33 PM The verbal contention in the U.S. is only to be expected. It was designed by a group of men who could not change the status quo with words, so they did it with guns. They tried to set up a system to prevent a repeat performance of the American Revolution, and it has worked indifferently well, with a notable exception in the mid-nineteenth century. I can't remember where I read the following, and it is probably not an exact quote, but "Democracy was never intended to ensure good government, it was intended to insure against bad government." Davey: I insert line breaks with the [Enter] key. If your browser interprets this as a command, maybe you can change your browser defaults. LB Line Breaks look like this: <br> You can double-space by hitting the enter key twice, but for single-spaced line breaks, you have to use the HTML <br> tags. |
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: katlaughing Date: 28 Sep 99 - 11:43 PM Sorry, Lamarca, I agree with soem of what you say, but I do not consider the tracts of the racist white power groups, who are free to say what they want, to even be in the category as Pete Seeger or the Washington Blade. While I am not familiar with what exactly Pete had to say back then, I do believe that he and the paper you referred to neither one probably advocate annihilation of other groups of our society. I have been working with a human rights org., here in Wyoming, for about 5 years now. We have studied, presented, studied, organised, and worked hard towards educating people, and welcoming anyone who wants to dialogue with us, those who don't agree wiht us and those who do. We recognise that, yes, before there can be any progress, we have to be able to talk to one another and try to work out some common ground. The main thing I was saying (I wish people wouldn't just take one thing I've said and go with that. I've said a lot more.) was it is mean, hurtful, demeaning, and should no longer be acceptable in society, for someone to use the old terms which put people down, whether they are a person of colour, an MRDD, like Pat's son, or any of a number of other things, including gay. Don't worry about the animosity. Joe and I know where we stand and once in awhile a heated debate can clear the air and bring about all kinds of further discussion. It is possible to have an argument such as this and still bend an elbow afterward in the Tavern.*g* And, sometimes, I get tired of being the sweetness and light, contemplate your navel, resident "woo-woo", as WW dubbed me, recently. Sorry if you were offended. kat
|
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: JedMarum Date: 29 Sep 99 - 01:51 AM Thinking back to the 50's, as lamarca invited us to do ... in those days Pete Seeger was so shamefully 'silenced' (as much as he could be) by our legal watchdogs ... so were the KKK. I agree that Pete, and other gentle souls of his day who spoke/sang their messages of importance, can in no way be compared with the hate mongers of the KKK ... but the point is, our society was more successful in those days, at its attempts to repress the points-of-view it found unaccepable. Today communism and socialist theory are discussed openly and without the Nationalist paranoia, (and even hysteria) it produced in the late 40's and the 50's. In those days, even at the cost of our freedom of speech - it was not allowed. This cost Pete his unfair treatment. Since the freedom of speech in the US is more liberally applied today than it was back in the 50's, we have an increase in the availability of the less desireable stuff as well. We have seen an increase in the availability of the hate stuff, and I find it disturbing, but I know it is the price of my freedom of speech. The hate mongers are governed by the same laws that govern the rest of us. If we fight them, and we must, we do so within reasoned law application, diligent law enforcement and organized social pressure. I believe this last means of combatting hate was Kat's original point - social pressure; we must all practice responsible, considerate behaviors. Our words and deeds must be those of sensitive adults who display acceptance and open minds to all people, not just those from our own little demographics group! I not agree with this notion, I practice it. When we have free speech and we apply the same rules to all within our society ... we will have people who say and do things we don't like. Even those 'hateful bastards' with messages we find abhorrent, are entitled to speak their opinions ... as long as they voice them under the same rules we do ours. |
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: Joe Offer Date: 29 Sep 99 - 04:52 AM Freedom of speech is a sticky question. I think that government should not legislate against speech unless it causes actual harm to another person. If it's physical harm, then I think criminal prosecution might be appropriate. If it's economic or other harm, then I think it should generally be a matter for the civil courts. Fear and emotional harm? - I dunno. On the other hand, it I were an Internet Service Provider or the publisher of a newspaper, I would be very reluctant to allow my publication or service the be the vehicle of hateful propaganda. I don't know what the law says, but if somebody wanted me to run a hate ad in my newspaper, I'd go to extremes to prevent it. If my car mechanic were a hate monger, I think I'd find another mechanic - but I'd first do my best to try to lead that mechanic in the right direction. I guess you could say that's economic pressure against hate, and I'd generally say that's a good idea. I'd like to day I'd do my best to speak out against hate. I'm not all that sure rhetoric works. Kat and I like each other pretty much, although we often have different perspectives. Usually, I keep my mouth shut, but today was a slow day at work so I decided to I decided speak my piece. My logic and rhetoric were admirable, I'd say - but maybe you noticed that Kat didn't budge an inch. So, did my rhetoric do any good? Did Kat change my mind? If I can't sway my friends, how will a affect the opinions of my enemies? Well, I plan to speak out, anyhow. I have in the past, and I ain't quitting now. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: GeorgeH Date: 29 Sep 99 - 07:11 AM Jo O: So if your words merely terrorise others without causing them actual harm that's OK?? I beg to differ! The problem is we're all talking broad generalisations, and at that level each of us probably holds irreconcilable believes. We probably all support "free speech", oppose censorship, and believe everyone should be able to live their lives in resonable comfort, safety and lack of fear . . That circle can't be squared. All we can hope to do is arrive at the best, most pragmatic compromise in each set of real circumstances. Just my 2p. G. |
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: Peter T. Date: 29 Sep 99 - 09:00 AM Kat, I think my response about the Internet was a muddy way of saying that although there is much more of it, we are already learning to cope. It is a pretty ugly sight, but we are. People thought that television was going to destroy us, beaming into our homes. They were completely right, but we go on. We bounce around for awhile, but then the safety nets of sense and tolerance get woven around a new set of boundaries. Democracies do that -- we assume that most people will cope, or look at the stuff once and move on -- the important thing (if you buy this) is that things are challenged (with which we all seem to agree here), and put in their rightful place as irritants. One tough part (of course) is that all this is based on a bunch of reasonably strong, well-adjusted people (Mill's Victorians), when we know that there is at least a minority that isn't (anywhere), with (in your country) easy access to handguns. Do we change the rules to protect ourselves against the thoughts that they might have, and the things that they might do, or not? Is the tradeoff worth it? And is the assumption that all citizens are able to make up their own minds independendtly worth hanging on to, even if we all know that that isn't true? I have an Internet pornography story which exemplifies this. I was talking to one of my male students about pornography on the Internet, and he said, "I expect that after the ten thousandth picture of a naked woman, you might begin to lose interest.""Yes?" I said. "Naaaah", he said. A good story, but it has nothing to do with the disgusting child pornography, etc., you can find easily on the Web. We could joke about it. As I said, deep questions. yours, Peter T.
|
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: JedMarum Date: 29 Sep 99 - 10:07 AM Peter T. -
I think Internet story on porn exemplifies how free speech limits are imposed reasonably. Simple nude photos are not typically judged to be 'obscene' but most US legal standards. Photos of consenting adults performing legal, sexual activities, are likewise not often judged to be obscene, in US communities. But child pornography is explicitly illegal, in several enforceable ways. We have the ability, in the US to prosecute purveyors of such material. I hope you are wrong about it's being available to US Internet viewers, but if you aren't I hope that US law enforcement is going after these merchants and viewers. |
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: Larry B. Date: 29 Sep 99 - 10:41 AM Now all we have to do is find people who both want to run for public office, and are capable of producing responsible legislation, as well as more citizens who are willing to pay for diligent law enforcement. LB |
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: katlaughing Date: 29 Sep 99 - 11:05 AM It would help if we had citizens who were willing to actually exercise their right to vote. And, I still don't think free speech should protect someone from using derogatory language towards children. |
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: katlaughing Date: 29 Sep 99 - 11:06 AM Arrggghhh! That should read "their right to vote"! |
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: GeorgeH Date: 29 Sep 99 - 11:42 AM liam: Of course child pornography is available to US citizens via the Internet. And - unless draconian changes are forced on the net - it always will be. And IMO the more general loss of freedoms that those changes would bring make them unacceptable. As for tracking those who access such material - I would have thought your constitution made that almost impossible, although there I could be wrong . . Don't get me wrong - I'm not supporting the sites or those who access them. G. |
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: JedMarum Date: 29 Sep 99 - 11:54 AM kat - I couldn't agree more with you, about voting! I am appalled by the small percentage of people who understand and accept this responsibility.
george - well perhaps I am a bit naïve, but I thought kiddie porn was being successfully controlled on the Internet. I am sure that our laws could be enforced though, without circumventing the constitutional rights of others though. |
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: JedMarum Date: 29 Sep 99 - 11:57 AM hmmm - serious thread creep, from Politically Correct to Kiddie Porn. Sorry Kat! liamdevlinwhohasnodisciplinewhenitcomestothreadcreep |
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: Lonesome EJ Date: 29 Sep 99 - 12:00 PM The concept of words having the potential to damage or weaken an individual can be extended to society in general; thus, pornography has been interpreted in the past as an attack on the larger construct of individuals known as a Nation or State. This was the logic that has been used to make child pornography illegal, but it is also the motivation behind the suppression of speech by such diverse individuals as Lenny Bruce, Pete Seeger, and Ernest Hemmingway in this country, and the stated cause for the book-burnings in Nazi Germany. The slope that supports both freedom of individual expression and censorship is indeed a slippery one. A reasonable balance is the foundation of true democracy, but movement too far in one direction or another leads to either anarchy or repression. Kat- re your argument that Christianity is a patriarchal religion that has an inherent interest in the oppression of women: How do you account for the fact that a woman was the central focus of Christianity for most of it's history? That,indeed, she was perceived as the central arbiter on behalf of mankind with a creator that was otherwise unapproachable? Just curious. LEJ |
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: JedMarum Date: 29 Sep 99 - 12:16 PM Bingo, Lonesome EJ. Exactly my point in a previous post above liam_devlin . But in the case of Kiddie porn, we are talking about activity which is illegal to begin with; child abuse. The laws surrounding these activities can be enforced, easily, and have a long history of successful prosecutions. If I knowingly particpate in, and film a murder or an armed robbery and then publish the film of those illegal activities, I am guilty of several crimes. Enforcing these laws has not been viewed by our courts as an infringment on freedom of speech. Back to my previous analogy; if you are practicing your right to swing your arms, that's fine, but when you strike me on the nose, you have violated my right to be unmolested. |
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: Peter T. Date: 29 Sep 99 - 12:36 PM If this thread has to creep, I would rather it creep towards the Virgin Mary! I'm not kat, but I can do this one!! Surely every religion that is going to survive has to incorporate some resonances from every part of human life, including the female. So what happens in this case. It is not that contentious (unless you are the Pope) that Christianity, from just after the very outset, did what it could to marginalise women. We have the spectacle at the beginning of Jesus being primarily supported by rich women, and consorting with them. It is obvious the women see this as a chance to break out. We have these women sticking by him when things get rough, while the guys head off in all directions. We have the Marys who are the only reliable witnesses to the resurrection (all reputable Biblical scholars recognise that the additions to Mark where Peter shows up are later). We have reports of women celebrants and deacons from the very outset. And what happens: within 200 years they are no where in the evolving hierarchy. But what to do about the basic feminine impulse? -- give them the Virgin Mary, the Vice-Presidential supplicator to God for humanity. Thus we keep them in the tent, but keep them humble (the humble handmaid of the Lord). There is a lot more in the tradition that is positive, but this part is pretty straighforward. Over to you, Kat. yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: Lonesome EJ Date: 29 Sep 99 - 12:46 PM Liam- (just to play Devil's advocate) we can easily agree that certain portrayals of child sexuality are and should be illegal, but what about tasteful or beautiful photographs of children naked? Pictures of my daughter which I took when she was three, and which I cherish, would probably be considered prurient by some. If they were displayed on an internet site, yes they would probably seen as pornographic. In many cases, the crime is not in the content, but in the context. Again, the situation is rarely black and white, and cannot always be placed in such a neat descriptive phrase as child abuse. What's more, we deal with a sliding scale- nudes done by Impressionist painters were considered by many at the time to be titillating. Today, we may consider them sensuous, but rarely pornographic. They were seen by many as harmful to the society then. Now we agree that they enrich it. The question of freedom of speech and of expression goes to the heart of how we perceive ourselves and our society, and how we structure our personal and societal moral codes and ethics. I would not live in a society where the degradation and abuse of children is accepted. But neither would I welcome a system that denies personal freedom in the attempt to ferret out these abuses. LEJ |
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: Jeri Date: 29 Sep 99 - 12:50 PM LEJ, I think that depends on which form of Christianity you're talking about. As far as I know, protestants don't pray to Mary the way Catholics do. Organized religions to a large extent reflect societal norms. Problems occur when a society adopts new attitudes about right (and rights) and wrong and the religion doesn't change. Some people argue that the bible was written with divine guidance, and therefore change and adaption of the religion are impossible. People base their beliefs on what makes sense to them, and if a religion doesn't make sense, it will lose believers. |
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: Joe Offer Date: 29 Sep 99 - 01:06 PM Jo O: So if your words merely terrorise others without causing them actual harm that's OK?? I beg to differ Caught ya, George! I think you fell into a Kattrap on that one. Did I say that speech causing terror is OK??? No, sir, I certainly did not. I don't know where you're from, but I find that's a common error in American thinking - to believe that anything not specifically prohibited by law is "OK." I think I stated my strong opposition to hate propaganda, and the efforts I would take to restrict it. My question is whether it should be considered a matter for criminal or for civil legal action. I also think that there has to be strong proof of the harm done, and the intent to cause harm. When it comes to restricting speech, we have to be very careful. Next error: this patriarchal church issue. Seems to me that until the very recent past, all institutions were patriarchal. That was the nature of our society. Labor unions were patriarchal, too - and still are, to an extent. Are you antipatriarchs opposed to labor unions? I think that's changing in all our institutions, and I am very pleased that women are finally coming into leadership roles. Still, I cannot condemn all past institutions, simply because they were dominated by males. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: JedMarum Date: 29 Sep 99 - 01:37 PM Lonesome EJ - once again I find us in fierce agreement. I do not advocate a prohibition on nude photos of anyone. There is a clear distinction here. Abusing a child for sexual gratification and/or financial exploit is illegal - and it has nothing to do with the care and love a parent gives a child. I am sure that nude photos of your daughter or my son, have nothing to do with abuse. Small minded people may howl all they want to the contrary, but they do not have a legal leg to stand on, and common sense will prevail, in this arguement. I can't imagine why I put those photos up on a website, but I don't expect that we can legislate good taste. Abuse, on the other hand, is a clear distinction. |
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: Larry B. Date: 29 Sep 99 - 01:43 PM Liam: I suppose you mean you can't imagine why you would put those photos up on a website. (Or rather why someone else would.) LB |
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: katlaughing Date: 29 Sep 99 - 02:15 PM LeeJ, Jeri's answer made a good point. I don't have much energy for this, today. I am working on an editorial and jewelry. Basically, from my studies, the early church co-opted the goddess of the pagan people, which really just means those who were slow to give up their old ways or beliefs. She became Mary and has served a very good purpose in that pagans found they could go along with the new religion because they still had a familiar "deity" to petition. Women still became subjugated and treated as lesser class, thought of as without brains, and good mostly for service and procreation. I would refer anyone interested to the book I mentioned before, Encylopedia of Women's Myths and Secrets by Barbara Walker. Others I would highly recommend for a different perspective on things include one Sandy Paton recommended, God of the Witches by Margaret A. Murray; The Mystical Life of Jesus; and, The Secret Doctrines of Jesus, both written by H. Spencer Lewis, Ph.D. The last two are a little archaic in rhetoric as they were written in the 1930's. I think it is safe to say, some of us are never going to agree with each others beliefs. Personally, I am with George on the part of speech. The kind of speech, I think Joe means to protect, I would consider terrorising in certain circumstance. One important thing I would liek to point is, that when one person of a certain group is singled out for hatred, spoken or otherwise, simply because they are perceived to be a part of that group, it doesn't just effect them, it effects the whole group. A simple example is one African American family having a cross burned in front of their house. The hatemongers not only terrorise them, but the entire people of colour community. People don't usually decide to go burn a cross on someone's lawn without it being discussed and spurred on by hatefilled speech. Amongst themselves, I feel they ahve that right to speech, but when it spills over into the community is where I'd like to see the line drawn. Not an easy task no one with easy answers. And, that is the last I intend to say on either of the subjects for now. Thanks to all fo you for posting. kat |
|
Subject: RE: PC is NOT a dirty word!Proud to be PC! From: Joe Offer Date: 29 Sep 99 - 03:05 PM Well, I won't do another logic alert banner, but I can't let my words be twisted like that. Let me say it in bold print, so that there's no question: The type of free speech I seek to protect is the freedom to speak out about what's wrong with our society, and to propose ways to correct those wrongs. I think it is absolutely essential that this freedom be protected. In protecting that freedom, it may be that we will impair government's ability to restrict speech that is hateful or that causes fear. That is an unfortunate consequence of protecting our freedom of speech. I do believe in the need for government and for law and order and all that good stuff, but I'm afraid to give too much power to government when it comes to controlling speech. As I said above, I prefer to err on the side of freedom - with full realization that there are some very serious consequences to that error. The alternative, I'm afraid, is worse. -Joe Offer- |
| Share Thread: |