wnp@killer.Dallas.TX.US (Wolf Paul) (03/20/89)
In article <3459@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >In article <784@twwells.uucp>, bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) writes: >> Let me put it this way. I am Jewish enough that Hitler would have sent >> me to a concentration camp. (My mother was born Jewish; > >You *can't* be "born Jewish", any more than you can be "born Presbyterian". >You can be born to persons who believe in Judaism; that doesn't make >you Jewish. Hold it, Jeff -- "Jewish", unlike "Presbyterian" or any of the other "Christian" denominational designations, is not merely a designation of religious affiliation, it is an ETHNIC group, like "Irish", or "Hispanic". >> I was raised >> Catholic.) My wife *is* Jewish. I don't consider myself Jewish; I'm >> an Objectivist and find all religion equally repugnant. (Yes, my wife >> is also now an atheist.) >If you're wife is now an atheist, she is *not* Jewish. You can't be >a Jewish atheist anymore than you can be a Baptist atheist. Someone should have told that to Uncle Adolph ... >The operative word here is stereotyped. Enough! When are we going >to mature, to put away religious/racial/national stereotypes and >judge persons as individuals??? Maybe you should consider the fact that Jewish jokes for the most part originate from WITHIN the Jewish community; who are you or I to tell our Jewish friends that they cannot poke fun at what THEY perceive to be typical traits and reactions of their own people? As is fairly usual in these highly polarized discussions, I find that truth and fairness lie somewhere in between the extremes. It is a fact that people raised within a particular culture or subculture exhibit certain common traits, and frequently respond to various situations in typical, predictable ways. To recognize that, to talk about it, whether in the form of anecdotes, jokes, or otherwise, is not in itself offensive -- especially when these jokes originate within the group concerned. I have no doubt that there are truly offensive, racist jokes -- but not all ethnic jokes are racist, and not everyone who enjoys ethnic jokes is a racist. I also don't doubt that there are people who find all ethnic jokes offensive; it would be a matter of personal maturity and good manners not to insist on telling such jokes in the company of such people; that is also the reason why ethnic jokes are maybe out of place in a newsgroup. Note I said maybe -- I am not making a pronouncement here, just suggesting a possibility. > >> Third, I laugh at it for the same >> reason that we, later, laugh at all disasters that we manage to >> survive and grow from (my childhood, in this case). > >And for this you need the joke to be told in a "Jewish accent". >Sigh. Well, yes, if that's the accent he associates with his childhood environment, and if he perceives the attitudes displayed in the joke to be somehow typical of his own ethnic group. > >Para un Tejas Libre, I dare say "Tejas" is a lot more "libre" than a lot of other places on this globe ... Wolf Paul -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: killer!wnp ESL: 62832882 DOMAIN: wnp@killer.dallas.tx.us TLX: 910-380-0585 EES PLANO UD
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (03/21/89)
In article <7597@killer.Dallas.TX.US>, Wolf Paul writes: > In article <3459@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: > > > >You *can't* be "born Jewish", any more than you can be "born Presbyterian". > >You can be born to persons who believe in Judaism; that doesn't make > >you Jewish. > > Hold it, Jeff -- "Jewish", unlike "Presbyterian" or any of the other > "Christian" denominational designations, is not merely a designation of > religious affiliation, it is an ETHNIC group, like "Irish", or "Hispanic". Yeah, right. Sammy Davis, Liz Taylor, and Myron Cohen are all part of the same ethnic group. > >If you're wife is now an atheist, she is *not* Jewish. You can't be > >a Jewish atheist anymore than you can be a Baptist atheist. > > Someone should have told that to Uncle Adolph ... It is *precisely* because psychotics like Hitler see Jewishness as racial that it is a good practical, as well as theoretical, idea to view Jewishness as religious. BTW, even the New Testatment supports the idea of Jewishness as religious, not racial. Read Galatians 3:29. > It is a fact that people raised within a particular culture or subculture > exhibit certain common traits, and frequently respond to various situations > in typical, predictable ways. To recognize that, to talk about it, whether > in the form of anecdotes, jokes, or otherwise, is not in itself offensive -- > especially when these jokes originate within the group concerned. But ethnic jokes generalize to the point that they almost imply that these responses or traits can be ascribed to *every* member of the group -- a highly anti-individualistic concept, and one not supported by the evidence. Wolf, I hate to burst your bubble, but there are a lot of philanthropic Jews, a lot of industrious blacks, a lot of non-alcoholic Irish, a lot of freespending Scots, a lot of non-bigoted Southerners. [Wolf quotes from Bill here in reference to a "Jewish joke"] > >> Third, I laugh at it for the same > >> reason that we, later, laugh at all disasters that we manage to > >> survive and grow from (my childhood, in this case). > > > >And for this you need the joke to be told in a "Jewish accent". > >Sigh. > > Well, yes, if that's the accent he associates with his childhood > environment, and if he perceives the attitudes displayed in the joke > to be somehow typical of his own ethnic group. Well, to be fair, I decided to test various ethnic jokes without any reference to an ethnic group. The one above is next on my list, BTW. And you know what? People laughed even *without* turning the jokes into slurs! > > > > >Para un Tejas Libre, > > > I dare say "Tejas" is a lot more "libre" than a lot of other places > on this globe ... True! But that's no reason to forego improvement! Para un Tejas Mas Libre, Jeff Daiell -- "Buy land. They've stopped making it." -- Mark Twain
RWC102@PSUVM (R. W. F. Clark) (03/22/89)
In article <3491@ficc.uu.net>, jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) says: > >But ethnic jokes generalize to the point that they almost imply that >these responses or traits can be ascribed to *every* member of the >group -- a highly anti-individualistic concept, and one not >supported by the evidence. Wolf, I hate to burst your bubble, >but there are a lot of philanthropic Jews, a lot of industrious >blacks, a lot of non-alcoholic Irish, a lot of freespending Scots, >a lot of non-bigoted Southerners. No shit, Jeffy. Did Mr. Paul ever say they weren't? Does the ACLU support Naziism? Do you have a goddamn brain? Supporting the free dissemination of humor of any sort is _not_, en oh tee, NOT, not in any way agreeing with the stereotypes involved. Not that I'd expect a moron of a yvoregnevna like you to be able to understand this, but one does not have to agree with the semantic content of a joke to find it funny. Goddamn idiots like you tried to censor Lenny Bruce. [Note: I'm not saying that YOU have tried to censor Lenny Bruce. Just goddamn idiots LIKE you.] Your brand of freedom seems to be freedom to do what Jeff Daiell finds acceptable, freedom to say what Jeff Daiell finds acceptable, freedom to agree with Jeff Daiell's Weltanschauung. Every time I think of so-called liberals like you, I want to throw up again and again and again. Your idiocy on the net is unparalleled. Go away. Why not just ruin a few more public mailing lists while you're at it? fc
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (03/23/89)
In article <77278RWC102@PSUVM>, RWC102@PSUVM (R. W. F. Clark) writes: > > Do you have a goddamn brain? ^^^^^^^ On top of everything else, you have to invite a theological dispute? > > Supporting the free dissemination of humor of any sort > is _not_, en oh tee, NOT, not in any way agreeing with > the stereotypes involved. Not that I'd expect a moron > of a yvoregnevna like you to be able to understand > this, but one does not have to agree with the > semantic content of a joke to find it funny. The issue was not "Supporting the free dissemination" ... if you read my postings, you'll see that I have consistently attacked censorship, including censorship of racist humor. > > Goddamn idiots like you tried to censor Lenny Bruce. > [Note: I'm not saying that YOU have tried to censor > Lenny Bruce. Just goddamn idiots LIKE you.] > > Your brand of freedom seems to be freedom to do what > Jeff Daiell finds acceptable, freedom to say what Jeff > Daiell finds acceptable, freedom to agree with Jeff > Daiell's Weltanschauung. Uh, are you saying that criticism = censorship? That my expressing dismay over racist humor is the same as trying to suppress it? In that case ... what would you call *your* distempered comments, amigo? > > Every time I think of so-called liberals like you, I > want to throw up again and again and again. You're cute. But wrong. While certainly a liberal in the *original* sense of the word, I doubt that I have too much in common with the Mondales and Simons of the world. > > Your idiocy on the net is unparalleled. Do you *really* want me to respond to this straight line? > Go away. What? Censorship? > > Why not just ruin a few more public mailing lists while > you're at it? Uh, which ones have I ruined, and how? Let me repeat: I have *never* supported attempts to suppress racist humor. I demand the right to criticize it, however, silly people like R. W. F. Clark to the contrary notwithstanding. Fair enough? Para un Tejas Libre, Jeff Daiell -- "Buy land. They've stopped making it." -- Mark Twain
gall@yunexus.UUCP (Norman R. Gall) (03/24/89)
In article <77278RWC102@PSUVM> RWC102@PSUVM (R. W. F. Clark) writes: > > >Every time I think of so-called liberals like you, I >want to throw up again and again and again. > I'd like to emphasise [Canadian spelling...] that the above is directed at SO-CALLED liberals.... Kiss me ... I'm a liberal! (feel familiar?)
bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) (03/29/89)
I truly hope that during the days that I've been waiting for my feed
to catch up that the following has been resolved. But if not...
In article <77278RWC102@PSUVM> RWC102@PSUVM (R. W. F. Clark) writes:
: In article <3491@ficc.uu.net>, jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) says:
: >But ethnic jokes generalize to the point that they almost imply that
: >these responses or traits can be ascribed to *every* member of the
: >group -- a highly anti-individualistic concept, and one not
: >supported by the evidence. Wolf, I hate to burst your bubble,
: >but there are a lot of philanthropic Jews, a lot of industrious
: >blacks, a lot of non-alcoholic Irish, a lot of freespending Scots,
: >a lot of non-bigoted Southerners.
:
: [Miscellaneous flames deleted.]
:
: Your brand of freedom seems to be freedom to do what
: Jeff Daiell finds acceptable, freedom to say what Jeff
: Daiell finds acceptable, freedom to agree with Jeff
: Daiell's Weltanschauung.
Mr. Clark,
You owe Mr. Daiell an apology. And me too, for butting into our
discussion with a wholly unnecessary flame. We have been having a
more-or-less rational discussion of *one* point: whether the use of
stereotypes in jokes makes them racist.
It has not been a point of discussion as to whether such jokes should
be censored. Mr. Daiell and I both agree on this point: racist or
not, censorship of jokes is wrong.
The point of disagreement is that I hold that stereotypes are
occasionally useful, so long as we keep in mind that stereotypes are
not applicable to all (or even any) members of the stereotyped group.
Mr. Daiell holds the view that stereotypes are necessarily
collectivist. Were I to agree with him, I'd also agree that one
shouldn't use stereotypes.
And I'd still agree with him that censorship of them is wrong.
---
Bill { uunet | novavax } !twwells!bill
(BTW, I'm may be looking for a new job sometime in the next few
months. If you know of a good one where I can be based in South
Florida do send me e-mail.)