allen@sulaco.Sigma.COM (Allen Gwinn) (11/21/88)
Q: How Many (x) Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb? A: They don't... they just sit in the dark and suffer. If you replace 'x' with your particular ethnic/political/racial/religious group (or anything else for that matter), does that simple riddle have some glint of truth to it? Why does it offend some people in 'x' when there is a joke posted... not with the intent to harm or belittle, but with the sole attempt at giving someone a good laugh? The best friends that my wife and I have are a Jewish couple. He is in a similar profession to mine (however we first met on the radio... we are both hams). I introduced him to his wife (who was and still is Jewish). We're always joking around as to what would be the "proper Jewish way" to approach a buying/selling situation. Recently, Louis and I flew in a Cessna 152 from Dallas to San Antonio (both of us on business... different companies, same place... pilots dream of splitting expenses like this :-) We were leaving the hotel to go down to the Riverwalk to get a bite to eat the night that we got in. As we were walking out the front door, either one of us kicked a coin laying on the dark sidewalk, or one of us dropped some change (I don't know). Louis grabbed me by the shirt collar and exclaimed "you realize that neither one of us can leave this spot until we find it!" We laughed and walked on to dinner. Now who out there is going to brand him and me 'antisemitic'? What's wrong with a little casual humor now and then? I'm a computer programmer. Somehow, someway, we seem to have gotten a reputation for always wearing pocket protectors (??? how did this happen? I apologize to those who are now ripping their pocket protectors off and throwing them in the garbage :-) I now make it a point to find and wear a pocket protector to dinner, Fridays, with my parents (my Dad's a lawyer... yes... he gets told every lawyer joke I can get my hands on... by the way, if anybody has any others that haven't been posted recently, please email them... I'm running out :-( ). The point to my whole article is when humor and the ability to laugh at one's self cease to exist, culture ceases to exist right along with it. I agree that as with anything, there can be a certain amount of excessiveness at times (but I haven't seen anything I consider to be such, yet, on the net). When you start looking for things to offend you, you will always find something. Then its YOU who is becomming the prejudiced one... always trying to find the underlying way that someone not in 'x' is trying to secretly degrade and humiliate you. So, are you going to change it? ...or just sit in the dark and suffer? -- Allen Gwinn ...sulaco!allen Disclaimer: The facts stated are my own. "...I will not waste time proving this." - Hank Bovis
pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) (11/22/88)
There's a difference between laughing at oneself in the company of
friends, and laughing at someone else on a public network. Think about
it, please.
Pete
--
Pete Holsberg UUCP: {...!rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh
Mercer College CompuServe: 70240,334
1200 Old Trenton Road GEnie: PJHOLSBERG
Trenton, NJ 08690 Voice: 1-609-586-4800shani@TAURUS.BITNET (11/22/88)
In article <358@sulaco.Sigma.COM>, allen@sulaco.BITNET writes: > Q: How Many (x) Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb? > A: They don't... they just sit in the dark and suffer. > Very good! Why this is the best posting in this issue yet! That is exactly what most (x)'s will do, while they are complaining on being descriminated, and at the same time, descriminate the (y)'s, untill, maybe, someday somebody will come and say 'Hey folx, why don't we just change the Lightbulb', but nobodey will listen to him because it's dark, and they can't see who the hell he is. O.S. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What if they call war and nobody comes? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
rsvp@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (R. Scott V. Paterson) (11/23/88)
>> Q: How Many (x) Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb? >> A: They don't... they just sit in the dark and suffer. >> Hey, I have a strong heritage of (x). You offend me. I propose that all your postings be censored from this time forward. Is there any way that we can get this person's net use taken away. x
allen@sulaco.Sigma.COM (Allen Gwinn) (11/24/88)
In article <11124@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> rsvp@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (R. Scott V. Paterson) writes: [joke about (x)'s deleted] >Hey, I have a strong heritage of (x). You offend me. >I propose that all your postings be censored from this >time forward. Is there any way that we can get this >person's net use taken away. I would like to take this opportunity to appologize to all x's on the net. I sometime get carried away by my strong (w) heritage. Sometime it becomes uncontrollable. I will attempt to ROT13 all future postings containing things that might be offensive to all you x's... but I want you to know that this will require great effort on my part. w -- Allen Gwinn ...sulaco!allen Disclaimer: The facts stated are my own. "...I will not waste time proving this." - Hank Bovis
ct@dde.uucp (Claus Tondering) (12/01/88)
allen@sulaco.Sigma.COM (Allen Gwinn) writes: >Q: How Many (x) Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb? >A: They don't... they just sit in the dark and suffer. > >If you replace 'x' with your particular ethnic/political/racial/religious >group (or anything else for that matter), does that simple riddle have some >glint of truth to it? Why does it offend some people in 'x' when there >is a joke posted... not with the intent to harm or belittle, but with >the sole attempt at giving someone a good laugh? >The point to my whole article is when humor and the ability to laugh >at one's self cease to exist, culture ceases to exist right along >with it. Your point is a good one, and I agree with 90% of what you say. However, you have posted this article to soc.culture.jewish, and that gives a particular angle to the problem. I think that there is a profound difference between jokes about jews and jokes about Beglians, Irish, Scotchmen etc. Consider, for example, a joke about a Scotchman who is very fond of money. Now, replace the Scotchman with a jew. Is the joke the same? No, it isn't. Why? The joke suddenly becomes sick, because the accusation that jews are overly fond of money has been used for centruries as a pretext for persecution of jews. Nobody has ever persecuted the Scots for being greedy misers, so when you tell a joke about Scotchmen, we can all maintain a detached attitude to the whole thing; we know that there is neither truth nor malice in the joke. But when the same joke is told about jews, it turns into a analogy to one of the sick jokes about starving Biafrans that were so popular in the early 1970's, for suddenly the joke has somthing tangible to hinge on. Jewish history is one of persecution and suffering. Making jokes about that is tasteless, even if the same jokes can be told about another ethnic group with no ill effects. For the record: I am not jewish. -- Claus Tondering Dansk Data Elektronik A/S, Herlev, Denmark E-mail: ct@dde.dk or ...!uunet!mcvax!diku!dde!ct
campbell@redsox.UUCP (Larry Campbell) (12/06/88)
In article <494@Aragorn.dde.uucp> ct@dde.uucp (Claus Tondering) writes: }I think that there is a profound difference between jokes about jews and }jokes about Beglians, Irish, Scotchmen etc. Consider, for example, a joke }about a Scotchman who is very fond of money. Now, replace the Scotchman }with a jew. Is the joke the same? No, it isn't. Why? The joke suddenly }becomes sick, because the accusation that jews are overly fond of money }has been used for centruries as a pretext for persecution of jews. Nobody }has ever persecuted the Scots for being greedy misers ... No one ever persecuted the Scots? Check your history books. The English certainly did their share. It's just that the Jews have been persecuted more recently, and, due to modern technology and its effects (mass culture, mass media, etc.), more efficiently. The Jews do not have a monopoly on persecution. They are in the unique position, among victims of (attempted) genocide (I say "attempted", because if the Nazis were successful, there would be no Jews left), of having been persecuted: - Recently - Somewhat successfully (in central Europe, anyway) - On a massive scale over a short period of time (modern technology) - And -- sadly, I think this is very important -- by a regime that provoked a world war and *lost*. English settlers did much worse to the American Indians. But it took longer (300 years), finished less recently (1880 vs. 1945), and guess what -- we *won*. History is always kind to winners. -- Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc. campbell@bsw.com 120 Fulton Street wjh12!redsox!campbell Boston, MA 02146
nyssa@terminus.UUCP (The Prime Minister) (12/06/88)
In article <568@redsox.UUCP> campbell@redsox.UUCP (Larry Campbell) writes: >English settlers did much worse to the American Indians. But it took longer >(300 years), finished less recently (1880 vs. 1945), and guess what -- we >*won*. History is always kind to winners. While I agree with your point, why select only the English settlers? While they may have started it in North America, surely the other settlers weren't just sitting on their hands... Face it, they're all guilty.
engelson@cs.yale.edu (Sean Philip Engelson) (12/07/88)
In article <568@redsox.UUCP>, campbell@redsox (Larry Campbell) writes: >The Jews do not have a monopoly on persecution. They are in the unique >position, among victims of (attempted) genocide (I say "attempted", because >if the Nazis were successful, there would be no Jews left), of having been >persecuted: > > - Recently > - Somewhat successfully (in central Europe, anyway) > - On a massive scale over a short period of time (modern technology) > - And -- sadly, I think this is very important -- by a regime that > provoked a world war and *lost*. > >English settlers did much worse to the American Indians. But it took longer >(300 years), finished less recently (1880 vs. 1945), and guess what -- we >*won*. History is always kind to winners. True. But, another difference being that the Amerinds were not _exterminated_, they were just persecuted. That is to say, the intent of the English settlers was to get as much as possible for themselves; if the persecution of the Amerinds hadn't filled that goal, it never would have happened. The attempted genocide by the Nazis was precisely that--- not persecution incidental to other pursuits. The truly unique facet of Jewish persecution is the fact that it ALWAYS happens. There is no country in history which has had a significant, sustained Jewish presence which has not had widespread anti-semitism. This is not to say that it was always sanctioned by the government, but that's faint comfort to its victims. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sean Philip Engelson, Gradual Student Yale Department of Computer Science 51 Prospect St. New Haven, CT 06520 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- G-d, according to Einstein, does not play dice with the world. Well, maybe; but He sure is into shell games. --Jerry Fodor in "Modules, Frames, Fridgeons, Sleeping Dogs, and the Music of the Spheres"
david@mirror.UUCP (David Chesler) (12/07/88)
In article <568@redsox.UUCP> campbell@redsox.UUCP (Larry Campbell) writes: > >The Jews do not have a monopoly on persecution. They are in the unique >position ... of having been persecuted: > > - Recently > - Somewhat successfully (in central Europe, anyway) > - On a massive scale over a short period of time (modern technology) > - And -- sadly, I think this is very important -- by a regime that > provoked a world war and *lost*. I'm sure the readers of new.misc don't care, and of soc.culture.jewish already know, but while the Holocaust may be the worst example of anti-Jewish acts, it is far from the only episode. Every year at the Passover seder we read "In every generation there are those who would destroy us". Such has been the case throughout history through the present day. I agree with Larry's major point. To think that Jews are the only ones who have ever been persecuted would be inaccurate. But to think that all persecution of Jews was in the Holocaust is equally wrong. (I'll leave it to others, or upon request, to write about medeival times, pogroms, restrictions and quotas in this country, etc.) -- David Chesler (david@prism.tmc.com, mirror!david)
nmm@apss.ab.ca (Neil McCulloch) (12/09/88)
In article <20603@mirror.UUCP>, david@mirror.UUCP (David Chesler) writes: > (I'll leave > it to others, or upon request, to write about medeival times, pogroms, > restrictions and quotas in this country, etc.) > I have heard, though I have lost the reference, that the aborigines of Tasmania were systematically and deliberately wiped out, each and every individual. There is no-one left to tell their story, to remember them, to dream... To me that is incredibly sad. It was also genocide. Literally. I do not think that it is often remembered that the Holocaust was not successful. Others were not so "lucky". At the risk of being overly sentimental and morbid, we should all weep for those for whom there is no-one left to mourn. neil
mdm@cocktrice.UUCP (Mike Mitchell) (12/10/88)
In article <20603@mirror.UUCP> david@prism.TMC.COM (David Chesler) writes: >In article <568@redsox.UUCP> campbell@redsox.UUCP (Larry Campbell) writes: and i am going to take up band with and tell you: SO WHAT! get off the podium. -- Mike Mitchell BELL: (505) 471-7639 2020 Calle Lorca #43 ARPA: mdm@cocktrice.UUCP Santa Fe, NM 87505 UUCP: ...!uunet!dmk3b1!cocktrice!mdm
cs311s14@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Cs311s14) (12/11/88)
The writers keep thinking that the scotts have never had any persecution, a fact that history refutes in the face of GRIEVIOUS ENGLISH IMPERIALIST TENDENCIES!!!!! (-8 The English still keep the Scottish as their Colonial Puppets. (-8 so if anyone should be offended it should be the Scottish who are still trying to rest soveriegnty from the English, where as the Jews have Successfully gained their own position of RulerHood. af hampe .