richmond@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) (03/12/89)
I would oppose the appointment of Matt Crawford as moderator, given his stated position to take no account of the potential offensiveness of submissions. If you'd like to read an excellent statement of why he should be more careful, look at the recent posting (in alt.hypertext, of all places) of the system manager who is cutting rec.humor (not clear whether he includes rec.humor. funny, too) because of offensivess. Note also that Stanford has cut rec.humor.funny (and I've never had any contact with them: they did this of their own volition.) There is a whole lot to discuss on the freedom of speech issue -- and I've had my say, and don't plan on starting up again, except to remind you all that while freedom of speech is an important right, freedom from fear and discrimination is also a basic right. When more than one right is at play, trade-offs have to be made between them. The choice is not easy, and I recall when I had a tough choice. I was the editor of my departmental journal at the London School of Economics, where I was an undergraduate. A white South African student submitted a paper for publication which was, to say the least, controversial. It painted a very unfavourable picture of Black parts of town in Johannesburg. Now, I disliked this paper a great deal, but decided it should be published, since it met the normal standards of academic publications, and -- though it certainly presented a white view -- was not racist. I decided to invite a Black African to submit a reply. What happened was that a whole bunch of students went to the Department Head to protest, and I got a whole bunch of flak. In a meeting with the Head, I said that although I did not like the piece, we should try to learn more about the problems of South Africa, and the views of whites, however unpleasant, should be included as a way of understanding the conflicts of South African society. I told him I would have had no hesitation in rejecting the article if there had been the slightest racial slur in it. I then went ahead, and sent the copy to the printers. Without telling me, a bunch of the protestors were authorized by the department head to black out passages they found offensive with ink. They did this to all copies except one box which I had luckily removed from storage. It took a long time for the heat to die down from that episode. Now, racist humour is an entirely different matter. Where the intent is to insult someone because of their race, stricter judgement is demanded. I'll stop here, and direct your attention to the entry in alt.hypertext. On a pragmatic basis, you should all consider the future of the rec.humor.funny newsgroup. Given that Stanford has already pulled the plug, and the alt.hypertext poster has done so as well, it seems likely that a policy of allowing unrestrained offensive material will simply lead to more sites cutting the newsgroup out. What we need is someone with a keen sense of humour, but also a sense of perspective. Jonathan Richmond ps: Please don't take this as another opportunity to start a flame war. Think through this whole business carefully and rationally, and please try to cool and polite when replying.
waters@polya.Stanford.EDU (Jim Waters) (03/12/89)
In article <9773@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> richmond@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) writes: >On a pragmatic basis, you should all consider the future of the >rec.humor.funny newsgroup. Given that Stanford has already pulled >the plug, and the alt.hypertext poster has done so as well, it seems likely >that a policy of allowing unrestrained offensive material will simply >lead to more sites cutting the newsgroup out. On a pragmatic basis, don't draw too many conclusions from Stanford's removal of rec.humor.funny. That was a rather hasty decision, made by the administration without consulting the people who do the work and/or pay the bills here (i.e. faculty and students). Indications are that now that our Faculty Senate has taken up the issue, rec.humor.funny very well may be reinstated. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Waters UUCP: decwrl!polya.stanford.edu!waters waters@polya.stanford.edu BITNET: waters%umunhum.stanford.edu@stanford
dewey@sequoia.UUCP (Dewey Henize) (03/12/89)
Oh boy, now there's one of the best reasons for keeping Brad we could get - JEDR is crawling out if his hidey-hole and giving us the supreme benefit of his experience. I know there are Moroney awards, which is interesting in itself, but who else has managed to get his initials to be a symbol for evrything stupid and wrong? Love it, just love it! Which paper are you going to try to lambast me in, JEDR? Or, if I'm lucky, will it be some comment like 'you aren't worth it'? Cause I'm not, of course, you wouldn't get anywhere near as much milage out of me. Hehehe. Just so you know where to scream - the only paper here is the American Statesman. We already know you can get the rest of the info you want from reading the maps... -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | There is nothing in the above message that can't be explained by sunspots. | | execu!dewey Dewey Henize | | Can you say standard disclaimer? I knew you could. Somehow... |
dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (03/13/89)
In article <9773@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> richmond@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) writes: [an anecdote illustrating how much he values opposing points of view] Followed by: >What we need is someone with a keen sense of humour, but also a sense of >perspective. Given JEDR's own self-proclaimed keen sense of humor and the sense of perspective that he has revealed both in newspaper interviews and in articles on Usenet, I think we have the perfect candidate right here. When Brad Templeton originally proposed rec.humor.funny he said he saw no reason why others couldn't propose their own moderated rec.humor newsgroups. JEDR could propose rec.humor.jedr, containing only jokes that were offensive to none and funny to him. Expect the volume to be low. -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi ARPA: dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu
les@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (Les Earnest) (03/13/89)
richmond@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) writes: > [. . .] >Note also that Stanford has cut rec.humor.funny (and I've never had any >contact with them: they did this of their own volition.) > [. . .] >On a pragmatic basis, you should all consider the future of the >rec.humor.funny newsgroup. Given that Stanford has already pulled >the plug, and the alt.hypertext poster has done so as well, it seems likely >that a policy of allowing unrestrained offensive material will simply >lead to more sites cutting the newsgroup out. Mr. Richmond is badly mistaken -- every joke in rec.humor.funny has appeared on every one of the hundreds of computers at Stanford that give access to Usenet. In other words, the dimwitted attempt by certain bureaucrats to censor rec.humor.funny failed. The Stanford faculty senate is expected to discussed this issue shortly and is expected to confirm the "hands off" policy. Les Earnest Phone: 415 723-9729 Internet: Les@Sail.Stanford.edu USMail: Computer Science Dept. UUCP: . . . decwrl!Sail.Stanford.edu!Les Stanford, CA 94305
zvs@melba.bby.oz (Zev Sero) (03/14/89)
In article <9773@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> richmond@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) writes: > >Now, racist humour is an entirely different matter. Where the intent is >to insult someone because of their race, stricter judgement is demanded. > The point is that racist humour is NOT intended to insult anyone because of anything. It is intended to be funny. Full stop. Zev
cc1@valhalla.cs.ucla.edu (It glows in the dark) (03/15/89)
In article <9773@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> richmond@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) writes:
^I would oppose the appointment of Matt Crawford as moderator, given his
^stated position to take no account of the potential offensiveness of
^submissions.
^
^ [ ... ]
^
^What we need is someone with a keen sense of humour, but also a sense of
^perspective.
^
^Jonathan Richmond
I nominate Jonathan E. D. Richmond to succeed Brad Templeton as moderator
of rec.humor.funny, should the attempt to remove Templeton prove successful.
--Ken
(Of COURSE I'm joking, you ninny.)jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (03/15/89)
In article <118@melba.oz>, zvs@melba.bby.oz (Zev Sero) writes: > > > The point is that racist humour is NOT intended to insult anyone because of > anything. It is intended to be funny. Full stop. Bullfeathers, Zev -- do you actually believe that? People make racist jokes to put down the victim group (ditto jokes about religious groups or one of the sexes) -- or as a defensive mechanism by a member of a victim group. That's why people who like to make jokes - but dislike bigotry - don't make such jokes. Para un Tejas Libre, Jeff Daiell -- "Why can't they be like *we* were -- perfect in every way? What's the matter with kids today?" From "Bye, Bye Birdie"
news@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU (USENET Master) (03/16/89)
>I would oppose the appointment of Matt Crawford as moderator, given his >stated position to take no account of the potential offensiveness of >submissions. From: drc@beach.cis.ufl.edu (David Cabana) Path: beach.cis.ufl.edu!drc I am not here concerned with who ought to moderate rec.humor.funny. I am concerned that anyone would suggest that a potential moderator ought to be ruled out because he is willing to permit free speech on a newsgroup. Mr. Richmond explains his reasoning: >If you'd like to read an excellent statement of why he should be more careful, >look at the recent posting (in alt.hypertext, of all places) of the system >manager who is cutting rec.humor (not clear whether he includes rec.humor. >funny, too) because of offensivess. > >Note also that Stanford has cut rec.humor.funny (and I've never had any >contact with them: they did this of their own volition.) Mr. Richmond is concerned that more sites will drop the offensive rec.humor.funny. He continues: >There is a whole lot to discuss on the freedom of speech issue -- and >I've had my say, and don't plan on starting up again, except to remind >you all that while freedom of speech is an important right, freedom >from fear and discrimination is also a basic right. When more than >one right is at play, trade-offs have to be made between them. Rights multiply without bound. The Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of speech. The genesis of the right of freedom from fear and discrimination is harder to trace. Mr. Richmond, no one can guarantee anyone else freedom from fear and discrimination. Our fears are our own creations. As for discrimination, I recall less muddled times when 'discriminate' meant simply to distinguish among choices. Now 'discrimination' means bigotry. Would that we were free of it. I do not believe that bigotry can be eliminated by silencing bigots, whether the censor be the state or the moderator of rec.humor.funny. Nor do I believe that such elimination ought to be attempted. Bigotry lives in the mind of the individual; to use the apparatus of the state (or the net) to silence those guilty of harboring the 'wrong' thoughts is both futile and (more importantly) evil. On that road lies tyranny. Compulsory censorship is disgusting and immoral; voluntary censorship is worse. If we are silenced by force, let us at least have lost the good fight. Those who consent to silence themselves have no one to blame but themselves. Nor will they ever escape the censor's eye, for it will be their own. >On a pragmatic basis, you should all consider the future of the >rec.humor.funny newsgroup. Given that Stanford has already pulled >the plug, and the alt.hypertext poster has done so as well, it seems likely >that a policy of allowing unrestrained offensive material will simply >lead to more sites cutting the newsgroup out. Pragmatism. Let us yield to every pressure, lest we suffer the slightest consequence. So what if Stanford pulled the plug? If they bow to the censors, shall we? (I understand that Standford did not pull the plug. Bravo.) Still, ideals are a forgotten thing; pragmatism holds the field. Let us be pragmatic. The censorship of rec.humor.funny will not save the world; it will (briefly, until they move on to their next conquest) make happy a few souls who would not permit spoken what they do not wish to hear. There are precious few opinions (or jokes) that will not offend somebody. I find the spoken or written support of censorship offensive; I will find a way to live with it. David Cabana drc@beach.cis.ufl.edu Should the above address fail, try drc@bikini.cis.ufl.edu
drc@beach.cis.ufl.edu (David Cabana) (03/16/89)
A somewhat long-winded posting of mine got somewhat scrambled in transit. I think it is still legible, but if anyone requests it I will repost. Otherwise I will save the bandwidth and let the current version stand. drc
bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) (03/16/89)
In article <3430@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: : In article <118@melba.oz>, zvs@melba.bby.oz (Zev Sero) writes: : > > : > The point is that racist humour is NOT intended to insult anyone because of : > anything. It is intended to be funny. Full stop. : : : Bullfeathers, Zev -- do you actually believe that? People make racist : jokes to put down the victim group (ditto jokes about religious : groups or one of the sexes) -- or as a defensive mechanism by : a member of a victim group. That's why people who like to : make jokes - but dislike bigotry - don't make such jokes. Bullsh*t, Jeff. Racism is a property of an individual. Individuals are racists. Jokes are not. If *I* tell a joke, ostensibly "racist", it is because I find some factor in it amusing. It is not because I'm a racist. 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; 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.) So, let me tell you an old joke. It is to be told with the appropriate Jewish accent, of course. This boy is given two shirts by his mother and goes to his room to try them on. He returns to the living room and says "Mom, how does it look?" The mother says "What's wrong, don't you like the other shirt?" Why do I enjoy this? First, using the stereotype dramatically points out the thing I find incongruous. Without the Jewish accent to make it clear which stereotype is being invoked it looses quite a bit of its impact. Second, it pokes fun at a kind of stereotyped behavior that deserves a little censure. 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). One finds this humorous only when one understands in some way the catch-22 in this situation. The absurdity of the position of the boy, that whatever he did was wrong, is essential to the humor. The stereotype provides a shorthand for an entire collection of characteristics; these enable us to quickly enough grasp what is going on that we are struck by immediately by its humor. Without the stereotype, the joke, and its wider implications, would have to be explained. It wouldn't be funny any more. Merely sad. I find bigotry in all its forms *repulsive*, not to mention irrational. And I hardly need race-based jokes to defend myself against those who are anti-Jewish. Will you call me racist? Will you call me defensive? You'd better not. Or will you accept that your own racism (against people who enjoy jokes that you find offensive) is irrational and repudiate it? --- Bill { uunet | novavax } !twwells!bill (BTW, I'm going to be looking for a new job sometime in the next few months. If you know of a good one, do send me e-mail.)
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (03/17/89)
>>... while freedom of speech is an important right, freedom >>from fear and discrimination is also a basic right... Freedom of speech means nothing if it's only the freedom to speak "clean", "pure" words, where somebody else defines what is clean and pure. It has to include the right to be obnoxious and offensive. -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (03/17/89)
In article <784@twwells.uucp>, bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) writes: > > Bullsh*t, Jeff. Racism is a property of an individual. Individuals > are racists. Jokes are not. If *I* tell a joke, ostensibly "racist", > it is because I find some factor in it amusing. It is not because I'm > a racist. Nonsense. The statement, "All blacks are lazy" is racist. Period. Full stop. If you agree with that stereotype, you're a racist, too. And if you find racist humor funny, what does that say about you? > > 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. > 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. So, let me tell you an old joke. It is to be > told with the appropriate Jewish accent, of course. > > This boy is given two shirts by his mother and goes to his > room to try them on. He returns to the living room and says > "Mom, how does it look?" The mother says "What's wrong, don't > you like the other shirt?" > > Why do I enjoy this? First, using the stereotype dramatically points > out the thing I find incongruous. Without the Jewish accent to make > it clear which stereotype is being invoked it looses quite a bit of > its impact. Why, Bill? You don't think Christian children -- or Islamic children -- find themselves in this no-win situation? Sad! > Second, it pokes fun at a kind of stereotyped behavior > that deserves a little censure. 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??? > 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. > > One finds this humorous only when one understands in some way the > catch-22 in this situation. The absurdity of the position of the boy, > that whatever he did was wrong, is essential to the humor. And you think this doesn't happen to children whose parents are Methodist? > The > stereotype provides a shorthand for an entire collection of > characteristics; these enable us to quickly enough grasp what is going > on that we are struck by immediately by its humor. Without the > stereotype, the joke, and its wider implications, would have to be > explained. It wouldn't be funny any more. Merely sad. And that sort of shorthand leads to discrimination. To segregation. If carried far enough, to even worse things. If you need the stereotype for that joke to be funny, you're in trouble. > > I find bigotry in all its forms *repulsive*, not to mention > irrational. And I hardly need race-based jokes to defend myself > against those who are anti-Jewish. Will you call me racist? Will you > call me defensive? You'd better not. Or will you accept that your > own racism (against people who enjoy jokes that you find offensive) is > irrational and repudiate it? I'm proud of my distaste for stereotypes and bigoted humor. I see nother irrational about distaste for collectivistic generalizations and other manifestations of unreason. As one of my three favorite writers once said, Bill ... "Check your premises!" Para un Tejas Libre, Jeff Daiell -- Jeff Daiell Integration Section Baseline Department Ferranti Int'l Controls Corp.
jim@tiamat.fsc.com (Jim O'Connor) (03/18/89)
In article <1989Mar16.165623.20831@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > >>... while freedom of speech is an important right, freedom > >>from fear and discrimination is also a basic right... > > Freedom of speech means nothing if it's only the freedom to speak "clean", > "pure" words, where somebody else defines what is clean and pure. It has > to include the right to be obnoxious and offensive. A recent "Shoe" comic strip put this very nicely, to paraphrase: "To guarantee freedom of speech, we must be willing to accept dumbness of speech." The comic strip presented it much better, but you get the drift. ------------- James B. O'Connor jim@tiamat.fsc.com Filtration Sciences Corporation 615/821-4022 x. 651 *** Altos users unite! mail to "info-altos-request@tiamat.fsc.com" ***
jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (John F. Haugh II) (03/20/89)
In article <3459@ficc.uu.net> jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: >Nonsense. The statement, "All blacks are lazy" is racist. Period. >Full stop. If you agree with that stereotype, you're a racist, too. >And if you find racist humor funny, what does that say about you? Lack of sense of humor alert ... There is an entire variety of humor which uses stereotypes in a perfectly acceptible fashion. My favorite example is from Richard Pryor - "Do you know why Black men hold onto their dicks all the time? Because whites already stole everything else" Gallagher and his "I'd wash my hair but it is just going to fall out", and Victor Bono's "Fat Man's Prayer". It is racist only if you buy into the stereotype. If you don't laugh at "I always wanted to be an Engineer but they told me I'd have to have half my brain removed first" you need to have YOUR brain checked. -- John F. Haugh II +-Quote of the Week:------------------- VoiceNet: (214) 250-3311 Data: -6272 | "Do not drink and bake" InterNet: jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US | -- Arnold Swartzenegger UucpNet : <backbone>!killer!rpp386!jfh +--------------------------------------
jj) (03/21/89)
Using the standards the original article on this particular sillyness applies, we can solve this problem quickly. If we are to be intellectually honest, forthright, and fair, we should simply append "biz." to all newsgroup names. (except, perhaps, alt, since I don't have any way to see them) Rec.humor.funny is no worse a violator than is any of the comp.os groups, or evn some of the rec.* groups. Aside to jfh: I've heard the bit about half-brained engineers so many times from MBA's who believe it that I am NOT amused. If engineers were a protected class, I'd think about being a real pain. Of course, this makes the point that ANYONE will think something or other offensive, eh? <well, no, but I am restricting my logical quality to that which predominates in this "debate", at least when I enter into this "debate".> Lookie, fellowcritters, if you think Templeton is racist, complain about that, not about something of inconsequential value and interest. If you don't think that, what's your problem? -- It's a Small World, After All! *Mail to jj@alice.att.com or alice!jj We're Not Satisfied, At All! *HASA, Athiest Curmudgeon Division Gonna Build One Not So Small *Copyright alice!jj 1989, all rights reserved, except As This Small, Small, World! *transmission by USENET and like free facilities granted.
jha@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Jamie Andrews) (03/21/89)
In article <1989Mar16.165623.20831@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >Freedom of speech means nothing if it's only the freedom to speak "clean", >"pure" words, where somebody else defines what is clean and pure. It has >to include the right to be obnoxious and offensive. No one's trying to deprive people of the right to be obnoxious and offensive, Henry, otherwise you would have been kicked off the net long ago ((-: badaboom :-)) But seriously folks, why do some people think the only choices are absolute freedom of speech or total fascistic censorship? The law has always been dependent on juries and judges to decide matters of interpretation. If you're worried about "who will decide", you might as well free all people convicted because of the decision of a jury. Let's decide individual cases individually, as we've been doing all along in real life and on Usenet. Absolute freedom of speech is a RED HERRING. --Jamie. jha@lfcs.ed.ac.uk "Look at this tangle of thorns"
Zap@cup.portal.com (Tim Philip Cadell) (03/23/89)
}In article <784@twwells.uucp>, bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) writes: }> }> Bullsh*t, Jeff. Racism is a property of an individual. Individuals }> are racists. Jokes are not. If *I* tell a joke, ostensibly "racist", }> it is because I find some factor in it amusing. It is not because I'm }> a racist. } }Nonsense. The statement, "All blacks are lazy" is racist. Period. }Full stop. If you agree with that stereotype, you're a racist, too. }And if you find racist humor funny, what does that say about you? } I disagree. I'm not a big fan of racist jokes but if a joke is making fun of a "stereotype", it's not making fun of the race/group mentioned, it's making fun of the stereotype. Billy Crystal's old Jewish man character doesn't offend me, even though he's a stereotype. As long as some people propogate stereotypes by lumping people together for purposes of prejudgement (in other words, because they're too lazy to consider each person for their own merits and demerits (?)), there will continue to be jokes about those stereotypes. Humor has been described as a mechanism for pointing out things not to do. Hopefully, in this case, it makes the point that unthinking prejudices are stupid. }> }> 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. Can you be born Polish? Could Polish jokes offend you then? Being Jewish is partly religious, but largely based on ancestry. }> 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. <Buzzzzz> wrong answer! Baptist does not include ancestry. }>So, let me tell you an old joke. It is to be }> told with the appropriate Jewish accent, of course. <joke removed for terseness> <Too late!> }> Without the Jewish accent to make }> it clear which stereotype is being invoked it looses quite a bit of }> its impact. } }Why, Bill? You don't think Christian children -- or Islamic }children -- find themselves in this no-win situation? Sad! Is there a stereotype there to be joked about? }> Second, it pokes fun at a kind of stereotyped behavior }> that deserves a little censure. } }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??? I think you're attacking the wrong person. }> The }> stereotype provides a shorthand for an entire collection of }> characteristics; these enable us to quickly enough grasp what is going }> on that we are struck by immediately by its humor. Without the }> stereotype, the joke, and its wider implications, would have to be }> explained. It wouldn't be funny any more. Merely sad. } }And that sort of shorthand leads to discrimination. To segregation. }If carried far enough, to even worse things. } }If you need the stereotype for that joke to be funny, you're in }trouble. } }> I find bigotry in all its forms *repulsive*, not to mention }> irrational. And I hardly need race-based jokes to defend myself }> against those who are anti-Jewish. Will you call me racist? Will you }> call me defensive? You'd better not. Or will you accept that your }> own racism (against people who enjoy jokes that you find offensive) is }> irrational and repudiate it? } }I'm proud of my distaste for stereotypes and bigoted humor. I see }nother irrational about distaste for collectivistic generalizations }and other manifestations of unreason. As one of my three favorite }writers once said, Bill ... "Check your premises!" } }Jeff Daiell }-- }Jeff Daiell }Integration Section }Baseline Department }Ferranti Int'l Controls Corp. Zap Savage Savage Research "Making Tomorrow's Mistakes Today" And since this subject is relatively serious (sad, isn't it), my *real* name is Tim Cadell, not that that helps anyone any. :)
fred@cdin-1.UUCP (Fred Rump) (03/24/89)
In article <16116@cup.portal.com> Zap@cup.portal.com (Tim Philip Cadell) 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. > >Can you be born Polish? Could Polish jokes offend you then? Being Jewish >is partly religious, but largely based on ancestry. Ok, many jews have a genetic connection to a common ancestry. Semetic features very similar to arabic and other middle eastern types are often evident and the butt of offensive racial cartoons. But essentially the tie that binds is the religion. It has stood the test of time and made Jews 'different' thru modern and ancient history. National Socialism used this religious 'qualification' for its policies but spouted racial differnces as if they were such things. What they forgot was that the pure German (Arian) people were about as mongrol as they come and that the purest of Germans were really the English. To base anything on the policies of the 3rd Reich would seem to be placing oneself on a par with idiocy. >}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. > ><Buzzzzz> wrong answer! Baptist does not include ancestry. Well, here we go again. How many children of jewish or mixed parentage had children who don't even know that somewhere in the past their ancestors were jewish (adhered to the jewish faith)? Why is there this great fear that jewishness will die out with intermarriage into other religions or loss of faith? Because there is no pure race or pure nationality except by adoption, I agree that a jewish atheist makes about as much sense as calling someone a Baptist atheist. fred rump -- Fred Rump, Pres. | UUCP: {rutgers,cbmvax,bellcore}!bpa!cdin-1!fred CompuData, Inc. | or ...{allegra killer gatech!uflorida decvax!ucf-cs} 10501 Drummond Rd. | !ki4pv!cdis-1!cdin-1!fred Philadelphia, Pa. 19154| or ...!uunet!cdin-1!fred or fred@cdin-1.uu.net
bill@twwells.uucp (T. William Wells) (03/24/89)
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: : > Bullsh*t, Jeff. Racism is a property of an individual. Individuals : > are racists. Jokes are not. If *I* tell a joke, ostensibly "racist", : > it is because I find some factor in it amusing. It is not because I'm : > a racist. : : Nonsense. The statement, "All blacks are lazy" is racist. Period. : Full stop. If you agree with that stereotype, you're a racist, too. : And if you find racist humor funny, what does that say about you? But you are arguing a circle here: the point *I'm* making is that the thing you are referring to as racist humor is not necessarily so, and that we can only call something racist because a *racist* does it. Consider what you just said: If I agree with your statement (I don't, obviously), I am a racist. If, on the other hand, I use the "lazy black" stereotype for some purpose, I may or may not be a racist. Suppose that I use the stereotype to contrast with a particularly industrious black, for the purpose of clear demonstration that stereotypes don't apply to individuals. Is that racist? Hardly. Suppose that, on the other hand, I use that stereotype to justify putting down blacks? Is that racist? Obviously. The use of a stereotype *must* be considered in the light of the goals of the user. If the user is using the stereotype in a racist way, he's being a racist. If not, he's not. Your claim that humor using racial stereotypes is racist amounts to the proposition that the only reason one would use a racial stereotype in a joke is for racist purposes. But that is clearly incorrect. Some alternate purposes: emphasis of a particular human characteristic, putting down stereotypes themselves, using the incongruity of the stereotype as applied to a situation to create surprise, etc. : > 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. I think you have some misconceptions about Jews and Judaism that you really ought to fix. For example, a Jew is a member of a (now rather ill defined) race; one can be Jewish without believing in Judaism. It is true that the two are very strongly related, but they are not the same. My mother's parents were both Jews; that makes my mother, racially, a Jew. She also believed in Judaism as a child but converted to Catholicism when she married my father. My wife was born and raised a Jew, believed in Judaism, and a Jew she remains. She no longer believes in Judaism. Ok? Have I adequately established that one would have to consider me to be part of the racial group called "Jewish"? A relevant point is that the Jewish stereotypes are generally not dependent on religion but rather a supposed Jewish culture. : So, let me tell you an old joke. It is to be : > told with the appropriate Jewish accent, of course. : > : > This boy is given two shirts by his mother and goes to his : > room to try them on. He returns to the living room and says : > "Mom, how does it look?" The mother says "What's wrong, don't : > you like the other shirt?" : > : > Why do I enjoy this? First, using the stereotype dramatically points : > out the thing I find incongruous. Without the Jewish accent to make : > it clear which stereotype is being invoked it looses quite a bit of : > its impact. : : Why, Bill? You don't think Christian children -- or Islamic : children -- find themselves in this no-win situation? Sad! Of course not. *I* found myself in this kind of situation. In a Catholic home. But the point is not the Jewish, it is the stereotype. And for the purposes of this joke, any stereotype in which guilt and catch-22s played a significant part would do, even a non-racial one. As it happens, I know of no other such stereotype, so, to make my point in this joke, I use this particular part of a Jewish stereotype. : > Second, it pokes fun at a kind of stereotyped behavior : > that deserves a little censure. : : 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??? When people don't get bent out of shape about stereotypes. And there isn't a smiley there. I mean it seriously. When we all believe that we *are* individuals, we will *know* that stereotypes don't define any person. So why get upset? In psychology, we would, if it were a science (flames to /dev/null please), have definite (testable and not philosophically vacuous) theories about motivation, intention, etc. and knowledge of which kinds can be profitably considered together; such would be very useful when understanding a person for the same reasons that classifications in the sciences makes understanding easier. This would not remove the burden of using the classification correctly, nor would it permit us to ignore the specifics of the individual in question, but when a person was demonstrated to fit a classification, we could save ourselves a lot of effort in understanding the person and the situation he finds himself in. Absent a science of psychology, we have to make do with what classifications are available, as poor as they may be. It is unfortunate that such classifications (we've been calling them stereotypes) have been linked with racism but that is hardly a necessity. I, for example, got a real chuckle when my wife, being ill, had to be cajoled into eating some chicken soup. She referred to me as her "Jewish mother". I found this funny since I don't think of myself as Jewish and I'm certainly not a mother! In short, a stereotype is a primitive and poorly formed concept. : > 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. No, I don't. I heard the joke a long time ago. Now, my reaction to the joke is intellectual: I understand the incongruity of the boy's position and the accent is irrelevant. However, when I heard the joke the first time (told to me by a Jew, natch), the accent made it instantly obvious what was going on. I immediately caught the incongruity, and was amused thereby. Without the accent to clue me into the stereotype I wouldn't have had as much pleasure from the telling of the joke. This is the same phenomenon that occurs when one has to have a pun explained in order to get it: one enjoys more (if one enjoys that sort of thing in the first place :-) the pun if one gets the impact all at once. Having to have it explained leaves one with only the intellectual enjoyment of the word play. : > The : > stereotype provides a shorthand for an entire collection of : > characteristics; these enable us to quickly enough grasp what is going : > on that we are struck by immediately by its humor. Without the : > stereotype, the joke, and its wider implications, would have to be : > explained. It wouldn't be funny any more. Merely sad. : : And that sort of shorthand leads to discrimination. To segregation. : If carried far enough, to even worse things. Think again of what you just said: "And that sort of shorthand leads to discrimination". Always? Without fail? Even mostly? Perhaps never? Perhaps you have just engaged in "collectivist generalization"? I'll rehash: individualism implies that the moral stature of a thing must be classified in terms of the goals of the individual and not in terms of supposed intrinsic properties. : I'm proud of my distaste for stereotypes and bigoted humor. I see : nother irrational about distaste for collectivistic generalizations : and other manifestations of unreason. As one of my three favorite : writers once said, Bill ... "Check your premises!" I do. Frequently. If you'd like, I'll give you the step-by-step version. But not on news.admin; this topic is far enough removed from the usual news.admin that I feel a little uneasy about posting it, but Objectivist philosophy would clearly be out! --- Bill { uunet | novavax } !twwells!bill (BTW, I'm going to be looking for a new job sometime in the next few months. If you know of a good one, do send me e-mail.)
bondc@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Clay M Bond) (03/24/89)
True, Jewish and Semitic are not the same thing. Semitic
peoples include not only Jews of Semitic descent but Arabs.
And the use of the term "anti-Semitic" to mean "anti-Jewish"
is ignorant and racist in itself.
--
<< **********************DO***WHAT***THOU***WILT********************** >>
<< Clay Bond Indiana University Department of Leather, uh, Linguistics >>
<< bondc@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu AKA: Le Nouveau Marquis de Sade >>
<< {pur-ee,rutgers,pyramid,ames}!iuvax!bondc ************************* >>peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (03/26/89)
Well, I used to be an Anglican atheist. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.