rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) (11/19/88)
This article is a mish-mash of the four separate ariticles mentioned in the References line. From: nmg@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu (Nancy M Gould) >If enough people from ANY ETHNIC GROUP feel offended, the jokes >should not be posted. And if the person doesn't stop, then the majority should force them? Sorry, you're wrong. Read the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Usenet is a world-wide (dis)organization, so it doesn't apply to everyone, but I expect that the vast majority of Usenet readers agree with its basic intent: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. From: nmg@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu (Nancy M Gould) >... Or perhaps, an even better way >would be to say that if a certain number of people find a joke offensive >or in poor taste that is should not be posted. It's called censorship. It sucks. It is only a few steps from such a "review board" to the old Boston Watch and Ward society. >What gives Templeton the right to be the sole authority when it comes >to judging the "funnyness" of jokes? That is the question we have >to ask. He is not. There is rec.humor, an unmoderated humor group. Also, you are perfectly welcome to follow the standard procedures for creating a newsgroup: start with a mailing list, when you believe that there is enough interest, open up a discussion to turn your list into a full newsgroup. You could even try for total one-upsmanship and call your group "rec.humor.funnier" (this trick would only work twice, tho, :-). As for removing a moderator, as someone else asked, it's never really been done before. All previous transitions have been handled smoothly, where the old moderator turned things over to the new one. If you're serious about wanting to do this, start a discussion going in news.misc. >I don't think any joke that offends a significant amount of people and >brings back horrifying memories and associations from their past >is very "funny". That is your decision. Other people do find humor in it. This is a totally different issue from whether or not it should be allowed to be said. Your viewpoint on what is funny has not been shown to be more valid than mine. By looking at the readership statistics, I can claim that Brad's viewpoint on what is funny IS more valid then yours and mine put together. Jonathon Richmond <richmond@athena.mit.edu> >To briefly answer all your other points, I believe that no >humor which belittles any person as a result of their race or >ethnicity is acceptable. Suppose that I find such humor totally acceptable. (This is a supposition, not necessarily an actual statement of belief.) Why is your viewpoint more valid than mine? I also do not understand why race an ethnicity is a valid criteria, and (say) physical deformity or occupation isn't. Can you elaborate why you feel that it is okay to make fun of lepers or programmers, but not ethnics? > History has shown the use of such humor >to propagate persecution. I believe this is wrong. If you have any evidence that shows that denigrating humor propagates persecution, please post it. I'll take anything, but would naturally prefer hard references to personal anecdotes. I have cross-posted this article to news.misc, as it is not strictly a Jewish issue. In fact, the previous sentence contains the only mention of the word at all! -- Please send comp.sources.unix-related mail to rsalz@uunet.uu.net.
nmg@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu (Nancy M Gould) (11/19/88)
In article <1223@fig.bbn.com> rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes: >This article is a mish-mash of the four separate ariticles mentioned >in the References line. > >From: nmg@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu (Nancy M Gould) >>If enough people from ANY ETHNIC GROUP feel offended, the jokes >>should not be posted. >And if the person doesn't stop, then the majority should force them? >Sorry, you're wrong. Read the First Amendment of the US Constitution. >Usenet is a world-wide (dis)organization, so it doesn't apply to >everyone, but I expect that the vast majority of Usenet readers >agree with its basic intent: > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, > or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of > speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to I don't think that free speech is the issue here. I do not question Brad Templeton's legal right to post any thing he likes to. The real issue here is that of COMMON POLITENESS. For example, if a friend asks me how she looks, and I think she looks like a pig, certainly I have the right to say so. But out of common consideration, I'll show respect for her feelings. In summary, this is not an issue of the legal right of freedom of speech (nobody is on trial here)al here)--it is just as issue of COMMON POLITENESS AND CONSIDERATION. > >>I don't think any joke that offends a significant amount of people and >>brings back horrifying memories and associations from their past >>is very "funny". >That is your decision. Other people do find humor in it. This is a >totally different issue from whether or not it should be allowed to be said. What ever happened to common consideration and respect for other people's feelings. > >I also do not understand why race an ethnicity is a valid criteria, and >(say) physical deformity or occupation isn't. Can you elaborate why you >feel that it is okay to make fun of lepers or programmers, but not >ethnics? Excuse me, but has any one here said that it was okay to make fun of lepers or programmers? First, I'm accused of only being concerned with Jews. Now, that I've made it clear that the principle applies to members of ANY ETHNIC GROUP, I've being accused for not taking the whole world into account. For the last time, it is not okay to engage in any kind of humor that comes at the expense of another person's feelings--regardless of which catagory they represent! This is a commonly accepted principle of basic politeness. -- "When the writer becomes the center of his attention, he becomes a nudnik. And a nudnik who believes he's profound is even worse than just a plain nudnik." --Isaac Bashevis Singer (1904- ) Nancy M. Gould
nmg@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu (Nancy M Gould) (11/19/88)
In article <1223@fig.bbn.com> rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes: >This article is a mish-mash of the four separate ariticles mentioned >in the References line. > >From: nmg@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu (Nancy M Gould) >>If enough people from ANY ETHNIC GROUP feel offended, the jokes >>should not be posted. >And if the person doesn't stop, then the majority should force them? >Sorry, you're wrong. Read the First Amendment of the US Constitution. >Usenet is a world-wide (dis)organization, so it doesn't apply to >everyone, but I expect that the vast majority of Usenet readers >agree with its basic intent: > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, > or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of > speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to > assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. No, they should not be forced. They should stop in the name of common politeness and consideration for other people's feelings. Freedom of speech is not the issue here. No one is questioning Brad Templeton's legal right to post anything he likes. Nobody's going to court, nobody's on trial here. We are just asking him to stop in the name of politeness and consideration. > >>I don't think any joke that offends a significant amount of people and >>brings back horrifying memories and associations from their past >>is very "funny". > That is your decision. Other people do find humor in it. How unfortunate. It doesn't say very much for the values of other people. >Your viewpoint on what is funny has not been shown to be more valid >than mine. By looking at the readership statistics, I can claim that >Brad's viewpoint on what is funny IS more valid then yours and mine >put together. In 1933 a significant amount of German's found such humor to be funny also. Who cares about what the majority of net readers think! Whatever happened to the rights of minorities! > >Jonathon Richmond <richmond@athena.mit.edu> >>To briefly answer all your other points, I believe that no >>humor which belittles any person as a result of their race or >>ethnicity is acceptable. >Suppose that I find such humor totally acceptable. (This is a supposition, >not necessarily an actual statement of belief.) Why is your viewpoint >more valid than mine? Because Jonathon's viewpoint represents a commonly accepted moral principle--one that is accepted by virtually every religion (Christianity as well as Judaism), secular humanists, and even some atheists and agnostics. The principle I refer to is that of consideration for other people's feelings. For example, most people, regardless of their ethnic nationality or religious beliefs would consider it extremely rude and thoughtless to make jokes about fat people in the presence of a fat person. Nobody is questioning their right to freedom of speech. It's just a matter of politeness and consideration. > >I also do not understand why race an ethnicity is a valid criteria, and >(say) physical deformity or occupation isn't. Can you elaborate why you >feel that it is okay to make fun of lepers or programmers, but not >ethnics? > Excuse me, but who ever said it is okay to make fun of lepers, etc.? First people get upset with me because they think I am automatically considering only Jews. Now that I've made it clear that the principle applies to ALL ETHNIC GROUPS, people make the accusation that I don't care about lepers and programmers. Okay, let me spell it out for you, REEAAAAALLLLLLL SSSSSSSLLLLLLLLOOOOWWWW... If enough people from ANY CATEGORY have reason to feellthat they are being discriminated against (and history shows that their fears are not totally unfounded), consideration and respect should be given to their feelings. IN THE NAME OF COMMON POLITENESS, PLEASE STOP!!! -- "When the writer becomes the center of his attention, he becomes a nudnik. And a nudnik who believes he's profound is even worse than just a plain nudnik." --Isaac Bashevis Singer (1904- ) Nancy M. Gould
shore@ncifcrf.gov (Melinda Shore) (11/19/88)
In article <1223@fig.bbn.com> rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes: >And if the person doesn't stop, then the majority should force them? >Sorry, you're wrong. Read the First Amendment of the US Constitution. The First Amendment gives Brad Templeton the right to include racist, sexist, denigrating jokes in rec.humor.funny. What I find appalling, profoundly appalling, is that we as a community tolerate it. There is nothing funny about racial, religious, or sexual stereotyping. When somebody tells a racist joke at work, what do you do? Do you let the teller know that the joke is offensive and not amusing, or do you laugh? Each of us has a responsibility to make our community a better place. I don't see that tolerating hatred contributes toward that. -- Melinda Shore shore@ncifcrf.gov NCI Supercomputer Facility ..!uunet!ncifcrf.gov!shore
welty@steinmetz.ge.com (richard welty) (11/19/88)
I oppose any attempts to restrict the types of jokes that
Brad Templeton allows to be posted to rec.humor.funny; while
I do not always agree with his value judgements, I will not,
under any circumstances, agree with the type of censorship being
proposed by some people at this time.
cheers,
richard w
--
richard welty 518-387-6346, GE R&D, K1-5C39, Niskayuna, New York
welty@ge-crd.ARPA uunet!steinmetz!welty
rec.arts.misc vote in progress NOW -- send me your voterichmond@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) (11/19/88)
In article <666@fcs280s.ncifcrf.gov> shore@ncifcrf.gov (Melinda Shore) writes: >In article <1223@fig.bbn.com> rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes: >>And if the person doesn't stop, then the majority should force them? >>Sorry, you're wrong. Read the First Amendment of the US Constitution. > >The First Amendment gives Brad Templeton the right to include racist, >sexist, denigrating jokes in rec.humor.funny. What I find appalling, >profoundly appalling, is that we as a community tolerate it. There >is nothing funny about racial, religious, or sexual stereotyping. >When somebody tells a racist joke at work, what do you do? Do you >let the teller know that the joke is offensive and not amusing, or do >you laugh? Each of us has a responsibility to make our community a >better place. I don't see that tolerating hatred contributes toward >that. >-- >Melinda Shore shore@ncifcrf.gov >NCI Supercomputer Facility ..!uunet!ncifcrf.gov!shore WELL SAID -- and this is the point at which I will reply. Since this does appear to have spread to more than one newsgroup I will cross-post. I will try to be succinct and avoid repetition. Let me start by saying I wholeheartedly agree with Melinda Shore and Nancy Gould. Both speak to our need to eliminate hatred from our midst, and that is crucial. It is amazing how often people cry "censorship" whenever they are asked to show restraint. It is as if none of us are required to take into account the feelings of anyone else, but can simply hurt people at will. Rich Salz and a number of others raise the question of the First Amendment. Though I am not a US citizen (and I don't believe Brad Templeton is either), I clearly stand by the right to freedom of speech. But people who cite the First Amendment so quickly and do matter-of-factly erroneously believe that the world is a simple place and that there is never more than one "right" to be considered at a time. Real life unfortunately isn't like that, and much of the task of the judiciary is to mediate between conflicting rights. I may own a piece of land and wish to construct a pollution-causing industrial plant there. I consider it my right to do so because I have legally purchased the property. Local residents, on the other hand, may consider that they have the right to a clean environment, and a whole bunch of litigation may follow. When rights conflict, one of the parties -- or sometimes both -- must bend. On the question of racist jokes, maybe posters of these items consider they have First Amendment protection. But do the people who are victims of these jokes have no rights, too? I find it very interesting that Rich Salz believes I am "intimidating" Brad Templeton by saying up front that I am considering further action on this matter. But Rich says nothing about the intimadation caused to people made the subjects of these "jokes." They have rights, too, and I believe that their rights must be weighted against the rights of those who wish to propagate racist humor -- and therefore hatred. Brad Templeton, in his role as moderator should, I believe, avoid racially offensive materials. Some people have asked how to judge if such material is offensive. Can I suggest that if Brad Templeton forwards a joke with the keyword "racist" it is clearly offensive, and he knows that. So I am saying that Brad Templeton should have the *judgement* to avoid racist humor. If he lacks it, then he must recognize my right to freely express my disapporval. Some people question whether racist humor really is damaging. Answers have already been given to this, but I'll reiterate that racist jokes were very popular in Nazi Germany and were used to stereotype Jews, and by making them seem less human, made their persecution more acceptable by society. I lived in the South for a year recently, and one unfortunately still sees a high incidence of Black jokes down there which serve a similar purpose. Make a Black seem like a monkey, for example, and it then becomes logical to ship him back to Africa, because that is where monkeys come from. All such humor serves to degrade its subjects and propagate persecution against them. I am well aware of this, since my current research is in the area of Metaphor (seeing how we see things and using this to account for social understandings), and I have been doing work in Watts, the black urban ghetto of Los Angeles. I have many eye-witness accounts of the hurt caused by racial stereotyping and by the jokes which promote it. Jokes get made, for example, about the intelligence of Blacks -- imagine what this does to someone who has just made it into UCLA, and is trying to make it in a new and foreign society: Someone who might log on to the USENET and see an unattractive reflection of themselves in the computer terminal, for example. Should they not be upset, and do they not deserve restraint on the part of a moderator? Can't we let the bigots stick to rec.humor, and count on a moderator to exclude racial malice from rec.humor.funny? It really comes down to a matter of decency and judgement. So, instead of crying "censorship!" how about putting yourself in the position of someone victimized by a racist joke, someone who knows history, and knows all too well how racial stereotyping embodied in such humor leads to predudice, lynchings, and even attempts at racial extermination. Jonathan Richmond
tse@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Gary Tse) (11/20/88)
In article <8052@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> richmond@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) writes: >It is amazing how often people cry "censorship" whenever they are >asked to show restraint. It is as if none of us are required to take >into account the feelings of anyone else, but can simply hurt people >at will. >[And later, Jonathan says...] > I find it very >interesting that Rich Salz believes I am "intimidating" Brad Templeton >by saying up front that I am considering further action on this matter. What Jonathan Richmond says here is pretty reasonable. He only wants Brad Templeton to show some consideration for the minorities and to exercise some restraint. Can't argue with that, can we? Unfortunately (for Jonathan Richmond, that is), he said in an earlier article: #In article <8011@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> richmond@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) writes: #I am having some friends in Waterloo do some investigations into #Looking Glass Software, where Templeton works, their operations and their #clients. I am in the mood to take some "affirmative action" on this #individual. Here, we find out that Jonathan is NOT asking Brad Templeton to show restraint, etc. Jonathan is insinuating he will FORCE Brad Templeton to stop by PRESSURING MR. TEMPLETON'S EMPLOYERS. Ladies and gentlemen, this is called censorship. And no matter the cause, it is evil. Whatever happened to "I may not agree with what you are saying, but I will defend to death your right to say it"? (This is roughly paraphrased; I am just a poor engineer afterall.) > >[rest of Jonathan's article (on the damaging effects of racial jokes) >deleted] ----- Gary Tse, tse@cory.berkeley.edu or ..!ucbvax!cory!tse Tse's Fifth Law of Clean Living: hours of sleep + cans of Coca-Cola = constant
weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) (11/20/88)
Note: I crossposted over to news.misc for the sake of bringing out into the open JEDR's veiled threats against Brad Templeton. The question of what is or is not funny belongs in rec.humor.d, where followups are di- rected. In article <666@fcs280s.ncifcrf.gov>, shore@ncifcrf (Melinda Shore) writes: > What I find appalling, >profoundly appalling, is that we as a community tolerate it. And what I find saddening is the existence of humorless people. > There >is nothing funny about racial, religious, or sexual stereotyping. Sure there is. >When somebody tells a racist joke at work, what do you do? Do you >let the teller know that the joke is offensive and not amusing, or do >you laugh? It depends. If the joke is FUNNY I laugh. If the joke is UNFUNNY, I do not laugh. If the joke seems to be not only UNFUNNY, but seems to be an absurdly thin cover for racist hatred and so on, my reaction fur- ther depends on how big and/or stupid the person telling the joke is. ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
allen@sulaco.UUCP (Allen Gwinn) (11/20/88)
In article <1076@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu> nmg@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu.UUCP (Nancy M Gould) writes: [...concerning the subject of racist humor in rec.humor.funny...] >I don't think that free speech is the issue here. I do not question >Brad Templeton's legal right to post any thing he likes to. The >real issue here is that of COMMON POLITENESS. Yes... but why should we censor someone just because he or she decides to post something that *some* people believe is impolite? For that matter, why should we censor something just because *all* people feel that it is impolite? >In summary, this is not an issue of the legal right of freedom of >speech (nobody is on trial here)al here)--it is just as issue of COMMON >POLITENESS AND CONSIDERATION. Then what's the big deal about Brad Templeton posting humor that others may or may not find offensive? >For the last time, it is not okay to engage in any kind of humor that >comes at the expense of another person's feelings--regardless of which >catagory they represent! Ok... if its NOT OKAY, then what do you feel should be done about people who persist in posting racist humor? Do you feel it is OK for JEDR to threaten to contact Brad's employer? >Nancy M. Gould -- Allen Gwinn ...sulaco!allen Disclaimer: The facts stated are my own. "...I will not waste time proving this." - Hank Bovis
clb@loci.UUCP (Charles Brunow) (11/20/88)
In article <1223@fig.bbn.com>, rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes: > > From: nmg@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu (Nancy M Gould) > >If enough people from ANY ETHNIC GROUP feel offended, the jokes > >should not be posted. > And if the person doesn't stop, then the majority should force them? > Sorry, you're wrong. Read the First Amendment of the US Constitution. > Usenet is a world-wide (dis)organization, so it doesn't apply to > everyone, but I expect that the vast majority of Usenet readers > agree with its basic intent: > > [ text of the First Amendment ] > This is an example of "loop-hole opportunism", a point of view that says "if it's legal it must be ethical". The intent of the Bill of Rights is to provide protection, not to be used as an instrument of abuse of others. It is bad enough that people think they have an unalienable right to bash others, but it is revolting that they would interpret the Constitution to rationalize their behavior. Now, before you launch into calling me a bunch of names, you should know that I believe in the Constitution and the other American State papers upon which our rights are derived, that I am willing to fight and die for them, and that I am a member of the ACLU. But I think you must take the entire package rather than picking and choosing; the Constitution leaves the job of interpreting rights to the courts, not to individuals. If you are going to insult Jews or anyone else then 'fess up to the truth: you're inconsiderate, or you're malicious or you're ignorant of the harm that it does ... but leave the Bill of Rights out of it. -- CLBrunow - KA5SOF clb@loci.uucp, loci@csccat.uucp, loci@killer.dallas.tx.us Loci Products, POB 833846-131, Richardson, Texas 75083
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (11/20/88)
I'm a tad tired of getting lectures on politeness from people who have never met me, yet call me "racist," "unfeeling" and "an ignoramus." I will admit that we ought to send these ideas off to George Miller, "The Comedian in Search of a Gimmick." He could be "The Polite Comic." He can tell any joke he wants, as long as it doesn't make fun of anything or anybody. Should be a big hit. I *know* the jokes I post offend some people, and a few very sensitive people are offended deeply. (Why they read the group, or the jokes I classify as offensive -- that's one thing I don't know.) I also *know* that If I rejected every category of joke that offended some of the 30,000 readers, there would not be much of a group, if any at all. And I have made the following decision: I would rather have a world where people can laugh at the nasty things that reside in it, than a world where nobody can be offended. If this attitude is evil, so be it. Fortunately, my right to hold this attitude is protected in the American & Canadian bills of rights. I have already explained the other motivations behind the posting of the various controversial jokes. I understand and respect the calls for politeness that have gone out to me. It is through knowledge, not ignorance, that I have decided that politeness is not the most important thing in the world. To those of you who would still attack me, please take your own lessons in politeness and debate my ideas, don't libel my person. (And please make up your minds. Are the jokes bad because they are racist, because they are rude, or because you don't think they're funny?) -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
allen@sulaco.Sigma.COM (Allen Gwinn) (11/20/88)
In article <8052@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> richmond@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) writes: >It is amazing how often people cry "censorship" whenever they are >asked to show restraint. Let me refresh your obviously short memory: In article <8011@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>, richmond@athena (thats you, Jonathan) writes: }I am having some friends in Waterloo do some investigations into }Looking Glass Software, where Templeton works, their operations and }their clients. I am in the mood to take some "affirmative action" on }this individual. I think people cry "censorship" when people threaten things like this. You weren't asking him to "show restraint", you were threatening to go snivelling and crying to Looking Glass Software and complain about Big Bad Brad saying things that you didn't like. What you probably DIDN'T know, is that Brad owns LGS... but that doesn't change your statement. It would kinda be like me saying that I 'have connections on the Board of Regents at MIT' and threatening to use those connections to get you thrown out of the University. I won't deny that there are some who are excessively sensitive about that type of humor. I agree that this type of humor should be ROT13 and marked 'offensive to x', but I don't believe that he should be forced to do ANYTHING about censoring anything in that group. Brad is quite responsible and has good sense. The group's in good hands. -- Allen Gwinn ...sulaco!allen Disclaimer: The facts stated are my own. "...I will not waste time proving this." - Hank Bovis
davidm@ihlpa.ATT.COM (Makowsky) (11/20/88)
In article <347@sulaco.UUCP>, allen@sulaco.UUCP (Allen Gwinn) writes: > In article <1076@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu> nmg@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu.UUCP (Nancy M Gould) writes: > [...concerning the subject of racist humor in rec.humor.funny...] > >I don't think that free speech is the issue here. I do not question > >Brad Templeton's legal right to post any thing he likes to. The > >real issue here is that of COMMON POLITENESS. > Yes... but why should we censor someone just because he or she decides > to post something that *some* people believe is impolite? For that > matter, why should we censor something just because *all* people feel > that it is impolite? The fact of the matter is that the presence of a moderator IMPLIES censorship. Isn't that what he is there for in the first place? If the author of the "joke" felt he was being wrongly censored, he could always post to rec.humor (not that it would be any less offensive). If you do not like censorship, complain about the whole idea of having a moderator. In the meantime, as long as there is a moderator, "jokes" that are offensive in the slightest bit should not be given the light of day by the moderator. > >In summary, this is not an issue of the legal right of freedom of > >speech (nobody is on trial here)al here)--it is just as issue of COMMON > >POLITENESS AND CONSIDERATION. > Then what's the big deal about Brad Templeton posting humor that > others may or may not find offensive? Because it implies his approval. Remeber (as I wrote above), there is another outlet for the author. > >For the last time, it is not okay to engage in any kind of humor that > >comes at the expense of another person's feelings--regardless of which > >catagory they represent! > Ok... if its NOT OKAY, then what do you feel should be done about people > who persist in posting racist humor? Do you feel it is OK for JEDR to > threaten to contact Brad's employer? Two wrongs do not make a right, or so I was always taught. -- David Makowsky (312) 979 - 6211 UUCP: att!ihlpa!davidm ARPANET/INTERNET: davidm@ihlpa.ATT.COM BITNET, try: davidm%ihlpa@att.arpa or davidm%ihlpa@research.att.com Disclaimer: These opinions are mine alone. Sharing requires written permission!
mdm@cocktrice.UUCP (Mike Mitchell) (11/21/88)
If it really bugs you, quit reading the newsgroup! -- Mike Mitchell BELL: (505) 471-7639 2020 Calle Lorca #43 ARPA: mdm@cocktrice.UUCP Santa Fe, NM 87505 UUCP: ...!uunet!dmk3b1!cocktrice!mdm
cas@mtuxo.att.com (43424-C.STEVENS) (11/21/88)
Brad, Did you know you'd get this much flak before you started the group? If you did know, why did you? If you didn't know are you sorry you did start it? I'm sure you wouldn't stop now! Principle of the thing! But are you sorry you started? -- The silly flirt on the quad-cane. Cliff Stevens Jr. MT 1E228 Work: (201)957-3902 ...!att!mtuxo!cas Home: (201)671-7292 ...!att!mtdcb!cas
nagel@paris.ics.uci.edu (Mark Nagel) (11/21/88)
In article <10551@ihlpa.ATT.COM>, davidm@ihlpa (Makowsky) writes: |The fact of the matter is that the presence of a moderator IMPLIES |censorship. Isn't that what he is there for in the first place? No. He is there for quality control. A subtle, but very real difference. Do you accuse Ann Landers (or any send-me-a-letter-and-I-might-print-it columnist) of censorship because s/he refuses to print your letter? Brad's "job" (he *is* a volunteer, remember!) is to separate the chaff from the wheat *in* *his* *opinion*. That is the charter of the group. If you don't like it, start another moderated group. |If the author of the "joke" felt he was being wrongly censored, he |could always post to rec.humor (not that it would be any less |offensive). No argument here... So how could you call what Brad does censorship? This is the same as having Dear Aunt Mo publish the letter Ann Landers rejected. But Dear Aunt Mo prints everything... |If you do not like censorship, complain about the whole idea of |having a moderator. In the meantime, as long as there is a |moderator, "jokes" that are offensive in the slightest bit should |not be given the light of day by the moderator. Please, do tell me a joke that is not "offensive in the slightest bit." Or better yet, post them in your new moderated group "rec.humor.unoffensive" My disk can probably take the added burden... Mark D. Nagel UC Irvine - Dept of Info and Comp Sci | The probability of someone nagel@ics.uci.edu (ARPA) | watching you is proportional to {sdcsvax|ucbvax}!ucivax!nagel (UUCP) | the stupidity of your action.
richmond@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) (11/21/88)
Gary, let's please not speculate on what I might or might not do -- I have simply given Brad Templeton notice that if he cannot find sufficient control to be reasonably selective by himself, I am inclined to take further action. I haven't said what that action is. As it so happens, I have been informed that Brad Templeton in fact owns his firm, so there doesn't appear to be a question of contacting his employer (there may be other options, though.) But let us take that particular case: If I were an employer, I would certainly want to know if one of my employees were sending out racially offensive material using *my* equipment, and I would certainly regard it as my right to tell that employee to stop doing so. Part of "freedom of speech" is the opportunity to inform affected communities of what is going on. If someone would be ashamed at an employer having that knowledge, then it is an indication that the material in question is socially unacceptable. This is no more an attempt at "censorship" than Mr. Templeton's decisions to reject jokes he does not find to be amusing. One person might argue that Mr. Templeton should be selective only to the extent of rejecting boring submissions; another might say he should exclude racist material. It is all a matter of selectivity, and I believe it involves judgment. As I said in an earlier posting, I very much support the right of freedom of speech, but that is rarely the only "right" under consideration. The right of ethnic and religious groups to not feel persecuted is another and, by the way, Canadian law is much stricter on this than American law. Mr. Templeton happens to live in Canada, so we should consider the Canadian case as well as the American one. My overall preference would be for Mr. Templeton to show some moderation, then I could forget about the whole matter. I certainly agree that good judgement with free will is the best way to go.
richmond@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) (11/21/88)
To the many people who have sent me mail saying I lack a sense of humor: I doubt that anyone who knows me (including Rich Salz -- Rich, I assume you remember all those battles with Linda Schaffir to get my rude humor included in The Tech) would accuse me of lacking a sense of humor. When I was a student at Berkeley, I was the editor of the I-House magazine "Intergnat," which quickly became very popular, due to the satirical and often scandalous submissions written both by invited writers and myself. The course I am teaching at MIT this term also has a reputation for being entertaining and my advertizing campaign to attract students to it (I referred to it as meetings of the "Brain Users Group") was regarded as extremely amusing. I have had parodies of my writing style done, one of which was quite widely read, and I had a good laugh at it -- I usually enjoy jokes made at my personal expense, especially if they have an element of truth to them. What I cannot tolerate is "humor" which puts down and which has been associated with the persecution and murder of races. There is plenty of humor around that does not convey racial prejudice. Let's stick with that. Jonathan Richmond
skyler@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Patricia Roberts) (11/21/88)
I have long been deeply troubled by racist jokes. I think it started when _All in the Family_ was on. Obviously, you were supposed to laugh at Archie's ignorance, but I knew people who loved the show because they loved to hear the things that Archie said--they identified with him. My father loves racist jokes. He justifies it by saying that he's racist about everybody. I don't know how much a justification that is (and I've never heard him tell a racist joke about the Welsh) but I do know that he has an exemplary record for hiring women and minorities, never blinked about his daughter marrying/dating any particular race, and he even married an Irish Catholic. One of my sisters loves racist jokes. She is racist. All of her friends are as WASP as she can find. In other words, her racism is real, insidious, and disgusting. I don't know if my father is racist or not, but I know that he is less racist than my sister and that it is less destructive. And I do know that you can't tell the difference by the jokes they tell. Humor is used in many different ways. Sometimes, it expresses hatred or contempt. Sometimes, it reinforces negative stereotypes. Sometimes, it is used to make some people feel uncomfortable, alien, or powerless. Sometimes, it is used to release tension about difficult issues. But, I would argue, the same joke could be used in different ways. In a sense, it's as though Brad has a group with a whole lot of clubs in it. Some people are going to pick up one or two clubs and try to hit someone else with them. Some people are going to use them to defend themselves. Some people are going to look carefully at those clubs and learn a lot about our culture. I happen to think that rape jokes are NOT FUNNY. I feel the same way about Ethiopian starvation jokes, dead baby jokes, and Holocaust jokes. But I can't pretend that those jokes don't exist, and I must admit that we can learn a lot from those jokes. (There have, for example, been some really fascinating studies of rape jokes which came up with very persuasive conclusions.) It seems to me that rather than trying to intimidate Brad into restricting jokes to ones which cannot offend anyone (and, by the way, I couldn't come up with a single one) the people who are offended should try to discuss it (in rec.humor-d) and should tell lots of jokes about racists. A friend of mine was the only woman at a meeting. Before the meeting started, some men started telling rape jokes, bimbo-woman jokes, and various other things which were almost certainly expressing their discomfort about having a woman there and, perhaps, attempting to intimidate her. She simply dropped into conversation a recent study she had read about rape jokes and about how sometimes men try to use them to make women feel uncomfortable. The men fell over themselves saying they didn't think that was true, they could never imagine doing that, some of their best friends were women, and so on. It was the end of the jokes, and (perhaps) the beginning of some of those men being slightly more aware of "women's issues." Had she kept her head buried in the sand about rape jokes, she wouldn't have known what to do. Had she ranted and raved at them, they would have decided she was on the rag. But, what she did was effective, gave them a way out, and, I think, showed a pretty good sense of humor. -- ==================================================================== -Trish "No one ever told us we had to study our lives..." skyler@ecsvax.uncecs.edu -A. Rich
numork@ndsuvax.UUCP (James Mork) (11/21/88)
In article <8086@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> richmond@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) writes: >Gary, let's please not speculate on what I might or might not do -- >I have simply given Brad Templeton notice that if he cannot find >sufficient control to be reasonably selective by himself, I am >inclined to take further action. I haven't said what that action is. > ----------------------------------- But is anybody up for offers on the TV movie rights? -- UUCP Bitnet Internet uunet!ndsuvax!numork numork@ndsuvax numork@plains.nodak.edu #! rnews 827 Relay
war@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Andy R.) (11/21/88)
richmond@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) writes:
[well, you saw it so why repost it?]
Until now, and like (I'll bet) so many others, I've been sitting on
the side watching the flames roll past.
Until now, that is.
Johnathans thinly disguised threats to "take action" smack
of the MES/TIMBO "I'll sue" syndrome. And while I may or may
not agree with the way Brad moderates rec.humor.funny,
I find it much the concept of somebody trying to take the
net to an employer and crying "I'll sue UNLESS. .." much
more offensive than ANYTHING I've seen reposted by Brad.
I would like to place in nomination the name. . .
Andy R.
war@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com
The opinions expressed are mine and mine alone. I do not
speak for this company, nor represent it (or its opinions).
--
I dared and just look. . .mayville@tybalt.caltech.edu (Kevin J. Mayville) (11/21/88)
>> Yes... but why should we censor someone just because he or she decides >> to post something that *some* people believe is impolite? For that >> matter, why should we censor something just because *all* people feel >> that it is impolite? > >The fact of the matter is that the presence of a moderator IMPLIES >censorship. Isn't that what he is there for in the first place? Yes. >If you do not like censorship, complain about the whole idea of >having a moderator. In the meantime, as long as there is a >moderator, "jokes" that are offensive in the slightest bit should >not be given the light of day by the moderator. Here you are wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. (patronizing tone intentional) The group rec.humor.funny was created for a reason. The person who started it (coulda been Brad, coulda been someone else, if anyone knows and cares they can post), as far as I remember, thought that most of the postings in rec.humor were either not funny, or were discussion postings that should have been in rec.humor.d. So, he went to the effort to get a newsgroup with more select material. The moderator of rec.humor.funny is there to decide if the jokes are *funny* enough to see the light of day. Why should the offensiveness of the joke make any difference? Now, if you wan to create rec.humor. unoffensive, and appoint a moderator, go for it. I assume you know the procedure. However, the group we have is rec.humor.FUNNY. If you read articles labeled *offensive*, and are subsequently offended, it's your own d*mn fault. To paraphrase the lead-in to Monty Python: "This newsgroup has been found to be an effective tool in the offending of the easily offended. If you are one of these, do us all a favor: DON'T READ IT!" Kevin mayville@tybalt.caltech.edu "She's beautiful, popular, and obviously going through some emotional shoot-out to consent to date....the human tater-tot. What did you do, Keith, threaten her life?"
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (11/21/88)
In article <8088@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> richmond@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) writes: > [funny stuff deleted about what a funny guy he is] > >There is plenty of humor around that does not convey racial prejudice. >Let's stick with that. > >Jonathan Richmond Yeah, let's stick with that. As long as your imposing your views on all 275,000 of us, I'm just curious: what should our attitude be towards sex, drugs, South American Rivulins and Gene Hackman ? -- ``You havn't seen Hollywood until you've been to Nikodell'' richard@gryphon.CTS.COM {backbone...err, well connected site}!gryphon!richard
weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) (11/21/88)
In article <8088@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>, richmond@athena (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) writes: >There is plenty of humor around that does not convey racial prejudice. >Let's stick with that. If that's what you want, go campaign for a rec.humor.readers-digest, with yourself or Nancy Gould as moderator. Meanwhile, the rest of us will continue to read rec.humor.funny, and ignore your threats. ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
campbell@redsox.UUCP (Larry Campbell) (11/21/88)
Go re-read "1984", folks. What we're talking about here is thought control. I, for one, want no part of it. Folks who are easily offended should curl up in a shell away from "dangerous" places like rec.humor.funny. -- Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc. campbell@bsw.com 120 Fulton Street wjh12!redsox!campbell Boston, MA 02146
allen@sulaco.Sigma.COM (Allen Gwinn) (11/21/88)
Weemba: before I begin, I would like to record a Maroney nomination for this guy ...if only someone could come up with an appropriate category :-) In article <8086@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> richmond@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) writes: >Gary, let's please not speculate on what I might or might not do -- >I have simply given Brad Templeton notice that if he cannot find >sufficient control to be reasonably selective by himself, I am >inclined to take further action. I haven't said what that action is. As I have said before, either you seem to have a problem identifying the truth or perhaps you just have an extremely short memory... In article <8011@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>, richmond@athena (thats you, Jonathon) writes: }I am having some friends in Waterloo do some investigations into }Looking Glass Software, where Templeton works, their operations and }their clients. I am in the mood to take some "affirmative action" on }this individual. I can't help but feeling that you have threatened to contact Brad's employer, have you not? If not, please quote *your* quote and rebut it. >As it so happens, I have been informed that Brad Templeton in fact >owns his firm, so there doesn't appear to be a question of contacting >his employer (there may be other options, though.) Aw shucks... >But let us take that particular case: If I were an employer, I would >certainly want to know if one of my employees were sending out racially >offensive material using *my* equipment, and I would certainly regard >it as my right to tell that employee to stop doing so. You see, now we are getting into defining "whats offensive" and whats not. I happen to find your threats to contact people's employers extremely offensive... more so than any racial statement than you could make about me. How about if someone managed to contact MIT and have your site admin have a little "talk" with you and tell you to quit posting these snivelling little threats? What would be the difference in doing that and what you're threatening to do? -- Allen Gwinn ...sulaco!allen Disclaimer: The facts stated are my own. "...I will not waste time proving this." - Hank Bovis
oconnor@sungod.steinmetz (Dennis M. O'Connor) (11/22/88)
( Very poor Irish Accent ON :-)
People seem to be gettin' a mite upset about a joke
that portrays Scotsmen as homicidal maniacs who would
kill a dinner companion in a back alley after losing the
price of two dinners through a small joke.
Now, being of Irish descent ( mostly ), and seein' how
the Scots were themselves Irish a long, long time ago,
( before they got sense enough to move to the Highlands )
it's my considered opinion that no Scot would ever do
such a thing. They'd either get the money back somehow,
with interest but without bloodshed, or murder the offender
right there in the restaraunt in a fit o' Celtic rage.
( Here now, it seems a wee long since I be mentionin'
POTATOES, so I think I'll mention them now. POTATOES. )
Therefor, I'm havin to protest this bit o' humor as bein'
entirely untrue to the grand traditions o' th' Highlands.
And it seems to me that any person who would be enjoyin'
such a joke must be anti-celtitic. Or English, which is near
enough to the same thing, I be thinkin'.
I'm thinking I'll likely get flamed hotter than an Irish temper.
Well, seein' the weather here's been a bit cool, I'm thinkin'
it'll be a blessing.
( And may I ask, I've seen before the various translators
for such rare languages as "jive" and "valspeak", and
I'm wonderin', is such a tool for Irish English to be had ? )
( Very poor Irish Accent OFF :-)
--
Dennis O'Connor oconnor%sungod@steinmetz.UUCP ARPA: OCONNORDM@ge-crd.arpa
"I've discovered how to stop stupid people from flaming :
lead them to believe you enjoy it. That really frosts them"nmg@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu (Nancy M Gould) (11/22/88)
In article <347@sulaco.UUCP> allen@sulaco.Sigma.COM (Allen Gwinn) writes: >In article <1076@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu> nmg@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu.UUCP (Nancy M Gould) writes: > > >>For the last time, it is not okay to engage in any kind of humor that >>comes at the expense of another person's feelings--regardless of which >>catagory they represent! > >Ok... if its NOT OKAY, then what do you feel should be done about people >who persist in posting racist humor? Do you feel it is OK for JEDR to >threaten to contact Brad's employer? I think that it is OK for JEDR to do anything that is in accordance with U.S. Law. If Brad's legal rights (i.e., freedom of speech, etc.) are being threatened, the courts will decide. -- "When the writer becomes the center of his attention, he becomes a nudnik. And a nudnik who believes he's profound is even worse than just a plain nudnik." --Isaac Bashevis Singer (1904- ) Nancy M. Gould
brs@lzfme.att.com (B.SCHWARTZ) (11/22/88)
Do not be deceived by the numbers. Some of us who are deeply
offended have kept silent, because we have been taught that as a
minority our voice will not be heard unless the majority wants it to
be heard. The rights of the minority, apparently do not count.
The white, christian, male support that Brad gets makes
him feel justified. The if you don't like it, leave it attitude
(Don't subscribe if you are offended) does not address the issue.
I'm sure that racism and sexism can be justified by the majority,
since they are not affected, but does that make it right.
--
--Betsy R. Schwartz --aka-- Kinyan Cattery-------------------------
(201) 576-3632 work Ruddy and Red Abyssinians
(201) 321-0130 home Home of Ch. Yavapai Isis of Kinyan
att!lzfme!brs & Kinyan's Ramsette & some people too!bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) (11/22/88)
richmond@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) writes: [ deleted stated qualifications for sense of humor ] >quite widely read, and I had a good laugh at it -- I usually >enjoy jokes made at my personal expense, especially if they have >an element of truth to them. What I cannot tolerate is "humor" >which puts down and which has been associated with the persecution >and murder of races. The crux of the tale in question revolved around the widely held (if inaccurate) belief that Scottish and Jewish people are very thrifty. I'm unsure how you undo the notion that they are penny pinchers but it has been the butt of many an amusing story. I found no hatred or "persecution and murder of races" anywhere in it. Some of the funniest stories about Jewish people have been told to me by my Jewish friends. Perhaps the folks I know are unique in that they have a good sense of humor regarding themselves and others of the same religion, but JEDR claims to be amused by "jokes made at my personal expense". >There is plenty of humor around that does not convey racial prejudice. >Let's stick with that. There's plenty of humor that is funny because it's patently ridiculous even if it's related to a particular segment of society. As others have already pointed out in this group, some people just over react when their particular group gets included in a humorous story. In Texas we tend to pick on "Aggies", but I doubt that anyone, Texas A&M graduates included, misinterpret the stories to promote hatred or murder as has been claimed. I suppose that I should be outraged because of my Scottish heritage but I'm not. Had the groups been swapped, i.e. "Scottish ventriloquist" I would have been equally amused and certainly not outraged. It appears to me that suggesting something sinister was conveyed in a ridiculous tale is as ridiculous as the story itself. I can't find anything in the story that begins to resemble what my dictionary says for "racial" or "prejudice". -- Bill Kennedy usenet {killer,att,rutgers,sun!daver,uunet!bigtex}!ssbn!bill internet bill@ssbn.WLK.COM
allen@sulaco.Sigma.COM (Allen Gwinn) (11/22/88)
In article <8088@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> richmond@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) writes: >I assume you remember all those battles with Linda >Schaffir to get my rude humor included in The Tech) would accuse >me of lacking a sense of humor. "Rude" humor? >When I was a student at Berkeley, I was the editor of the I-House >magazine "Intergnat," which quickly became very popular, due to the >satirical and often scandalous submissions written both by invited >writers and myself. "Scandalous" submissions? >What I cannot tolerate is "humor" >which puts down and which has been associated with the persecution >and murder of races. Maybe I'm missing something here. You can't tolerate "humor which puts down" yet you have written "rude" humor and "scandalous" submissions. Perhaps you (and/or others) can enlighten the rest of the group with some examples? I further fail to see how the *one* joke that set you off can be "associated with the persecution and murder of races". Perhaps you can enlighten the group with this one as well. -- Allen Gwinn ...sulaco!allen Disclaimer: The facts stated are my own. "...I will not waste time proving this." - Hank Bovis
rob@violet.berkeley.edu (Rev. Bob) (11/22/88)
In article <8086@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> richmond@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) writes: >My overall preference would be for Mr. Templeton to show some moderation, >then I could forget about the whole matter. I certainly agree that >good judgement with free will is the best way to go. Well, you might be able to forget about it. Mr Templeton (If he knows what's good for him) had better preapprove those jokes with ME, so I can tell him which jokes, would offend MY brand of Christianity. My people don't approve of any postings relating to SEX, DRUGS, ROCK MUSIC, JUDAISM, ISLAM, CATHOLISM, DEVIL worship or other satanistic practices. This stuff is just morally offensive, and as Nancy Gould said (a bit of a paraphrase here), "If it offends someone why post at all?" A member of our group is preparing a MORALITY TEST for all the USENET moderators (and potential moderators) to take to see if they are fit for the job. Mr Richmond is right. The moderators need some guidance and my group is here to help. Rev. Bob
engelson@cs.yale.edu (Sean Philip Engelson) (11/22/88)
The problem is not with the jokes posted, nor is it with the policy of posting these jokes. The problem is the attitude expressed by several people of "If you don't like it, don't read it!". This policy fails to address the main issue at hand which is that many discriminatory remarks can help build and reinforce real discriminatory tendencies. Thus telling people not to read so that they won't be offended does not address the problem, as the problem is with the people who read and begin to believe, or are buttressed in their belief that, the characteristics and stereotypes in the joke or story are true, and then go and act on these beliefs. And should you believe that net.people are good, honest, non-discriminatory folk, I should point you at comp.ai, where someone who posted an ordinary post was flamed from a number of people about his posting, in racial terms. I am not calling for censorship of rec.humor.funny. I am, however, calling for an honest recognition of the effects that postings may have, and an honest attempt to act accordingly. -Sean- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sean Philip Engelson, Gradual Student Yale Department of Computer Science 51 Prospect St. New Haven, CT 06520 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The frame problem and the problem of formalizing our intuiutions about inductive relevance are, in every important respect, the same thing. It is just as well, perhaps, that people working on the frame problem in AI are unaware that this is so. One imagines the expression of horror that flickers across their CRT-illuminated faces as the awful facts sink in. What could they do but "down-tool" and become philosophers? One feels for them. Just think of the cut in pay! -- Jerry Fodor (Modules, Frames, Fridgeons, Sleeping Dogs, and the Music of the Spheres)
mcglk@blake.acs.washington.edu (Ken McGlothlen) (11/22/88)
I tried responding to Mr Richmond's concerns in soc.culture.jewish, and fervently hoped it would not go any farther. Sadly, it has. First, some background. The original joke that Mr Richmond took offense at involved a Scot and a Jew, playing on stereotypes of each. I have a rather strong Scot heritage (McGlothlen--sounds Russian, no?), *plus* a rather strong Jewish heritage from my great-grandmother's side. I am *well* aware of the historical difficulties that both groups have gone through in the past. The Scots haven't had a particularly easy time of it. The Jews have had a significantly worse time of it. I didn't find the joke extremely funny. I thought it was okay. That's all. At least I didn't fly off the handle and see it as a racial attack. I'm a thinking human being--I know the stereotypes, and know that they don't necessarily hold. I'm not stingy, as the classic stereotypes of Scots go; nor am I a ruthless businessman, or rich, or necessarily pompous, as the stereotypes of Jews go. Fact is, most humor--if not all of it--plays on misfortune of some kind, with the exception of puns (even here, it can be argued that puns play on misfortune--primarily of the listener). There's nothing wrong with being able to laugh at stereotypes, or history, or presidents, or whoever. Just because it was *your* group that got slammed (in a rather trivial way, in this case) doesn't mean that you need to (a) make a major havoc on USENET over this; (b) implicitly threaten action against the moderator of rec.humor.funny by going through his employers; and (c) scream about racist attacks over something this minor. It looks especially strange considering that ethnic humor has gone on rec.humor.funny for rather a long time before you noticed that your group came under fire once. I've learned to laugh about various things about me. I think epileptic jokes are humorous. Don't sweat it: I'm an epileptic. I *collect* epileptic jokes. Sure, I could whine about it. Wah, epileptics spent centuries being accused of devil-possession. We were stoned, confined in asylums, burned at the stake, misunderstood, kept from leading normal lives throughout history. Wah, we've been persecuted for thousands and thousands of years. Oh, c'mon. Wah, Scots have had a rough time at English hands. Don't pick on us, we've been persecuted. Wah. This kind of hypersensitivity bodes no good, for USENET, *or* for rec.humor.funny. If you're this sensitive about it, then why are you even *reading* rec.humor.funny? In any case, I hardly think this qualifies Brad Templeton as a "racist." Sure, the word showed up in the Keywords line; this was probably a mistake--he *should* have put "ethnic." Regrettable, but it happened. Cope. In the meantime, it's hardly a direct attack on the Jewish nation, history, or religion--and I believe you owe Brad an apology for the implication that he *is* racially prejudiced. --Ken McGlothlen mcglk@blake.acs.washington.edu
tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) (11/22/88)
Q: How many censors does it take to screw in a lightbulb? A: [deleted] -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff "None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: t.neff (no kidding)
allen@sulaco.Sigma.COM (Allen Gwinn) (11/22/88)
In article <1082@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu> nmg@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu.UUCP (Nancy M Gould) writes: >In article <347@sulaco.UUCP> allen@sulaco.Sigma.COM (Allen Gwinn) writes: >>Ok... if its NOT OKAY, then what do you feel should be done about people >>who persist in posting racist humor? Do you feel it is OK for JEDR to >>threaten to contact Brad's employer? >I think that it is OK for JEDR to do anything that is in accordance >with U.S. Law. If Brad's legal rights (i.e., freedom of speech, etc.) >are being threatened, the courts will decide. So I gather might gather from your response (assuming that Brad was not his own employer) that, logically, you would support Brad if he were to sue JEDR for slander or defamation should JEDR's actions result in the loss of job or clientele? After all, it would be Brad's right... -- Allen Gwinn ...sulaco!allen Disclaimer: The facts stated are my own. "...I will not waste time proving this." - Hank Bovis
tse@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Gary Tse) (11/22/88)
In article <977@lzfme.att.com> brs@lzfme.UUCP (xmrj5-B.SCHWARTZ) writes: >Do not be deceived by the numbers. Some of us who are deeply >offended have kept silent, because we have been taught that as a >minority our voice will not be heard unless the majority wants it to >be heard. The rights of the minority, apparently do not count. We are not omniscient, and it is not unreasonable that we cannot consider every concern. If you do not speak up, then how do you expect the rest of us to recognize and consider your viewpoint? But since you have spoken up, your ideas will be examined just like everyone else's. I certainly do not want to be discriminatory by coddling you. > >The white, christian, male support that Brad gets makes >him feel justified. The if you don't like it, leave it attitude >(Don't subscribe if you are offended) does not address the issue. I originally prepared a very sarcastic reply to this statement. But we are discussing a very serious matter here, and my (attempted) humor might distract attention from the discussion. So I will not use that passage here. Just let me assure you that I am neither white nor christian. I am a male though, and I suppose Betsy Schwartz would want me to apologize and feel guilty for that. I am sorry, Betsy, but I will never do such things. /* Flame on */ Why is this racist and sexist complaining about the rest of us? Betsy Schwartz is as much a racist and sexist as anyone I have met. What? Don't believe what I claimed? Look, in essence she says: "All male <ethnic> has horrible character flaw." This is of course a racist statement. That the <ethnic> happens to be white does nothing to vindicate the incorrect (and very sloppy) thinking behind the statement. /* flame off */ While I have the floor here, let me explain something else. It may seem contradictory that I am against both Jonathan Richmond's effort to "clean up" rec.humor.funny and Betsy Schwartz's racism. So let me clarify my position. Fundamentally, I see nothing wrong with discussing (and hopefully determining) the correctness of posting racial jokes on rec.humor.funny . I have no complaint against Mr. Richmond on that. What I am against is Mr. Richmond's threatened censorship of Brad Templeton (despite Jonathan Richmond's protestations, his veiled threat of "affirmative action" (his quotes, not mine) still smacks of censorship). And I have not (and will never) attempt to censor Betsy Schwartz (through vague threats against her employers/family/dog :). So there is no inconsistency in my stance. > >I'm sure that racism and sexism can be justified by the majority, >since they are not affected, but does that make it right. This is yet another example of sloppy thinking. Betsy is stuck in a mode where she claims: "X is not wrong, because I do not suffer from X." But most of us can recognize a wrong even if we do not suffer from its consequences. Can't you, Betsy? >-- > --Betsy R. Schwartz --aka-- Kinyan Cattery------------------------- > (201) 576-3632 work Ruddy and Red Abyssinians > (201) 321-0130 home Home of Ch. Yavapai Isis of Kinyan > att!lzfme!brs & Kinyan's Ramsette & some people too! ----- Gary Tse, tse@cory.berkeley.edu or ..!ucbvax!cory!tse Tse's Fifth Law of Clean Living: hours of sleep + cans of Coca-Cola = constant
jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) (11/22/88)
In article <977@lzfme.att.com> brs@lzfme.UUCP (xmrj5-B.SCHWARTZ) writes: >The white, christian, male support that Brad gets makes him feel >justified. The if you don't like it, leave it attitude (Don't >subscribe if you are offended) does not address the issue. I'm a religious Jew, and I agree completely with those who support Brad. Don't try to speak for an entire group of people when you haven't checked with all of them first. Better yet, just don't try to speak for an entire group of people. Furthermore, your comment about "white, christian males" reeks of racism in and of itself. Jonathan Kamens MIT '91
msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu (Mark Robert Smith) (11/22/88)
I'd like to go on record by saying that I am a white caucasian male
heterosexual protestant, and that I am proud of all that, and WILL NOT
APOLOGIZE for being any of this.
However, I do not feel that not being any of those things is in any way
inferior to me. I do feel that those who believe that they are
superior characteristics, or those who feel that I am inferior because
of this, ARE inferior.
Also, I do like an occasional ethnic/minority joke, even (often
especially) when they are about a group to which I belong, though
these are rare. In fact, I enjoy jokes about my own make-up best
because they are the only jokes that I can openly laugh about without
being labelled racist/sexist/etc.
Mark
--
Mark Smith (alias Smitty) "Be careful when looking into the distance,
RPO 1604; P.O. Box 5063 that you do not miss what is right under your nose."
New Brunswick, NJ 08903-5063 {backbone}!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!msmith
msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu R.I.P. Individual Freedoms - 11/8/88steven@york.cs.ucla.edu (Steven Berson) (11/22/88)
In article <2359@looking.UUCP>, Brad says: >After my examinations of the various messages, and the good volume of >support mail I have received, I think this series of attacks upon me >is really the view of a very small minority. > > ... comments about Brad's rights ... I guess that I am also among the minority of people that find ethnic or racist jokes objectionable. My feeling is that it is not Brad's rights to post ethnic or racist jokes that is in question, only his judgement in so doing. Steve steven@cs.ucla.edu
jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) (11/22/88)
In article <1082@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu> nmg@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu.UUCP (Nancy M Gould) writes: | | I think that it is OK for JEDR to do anything that is in accordance | with U.S. Law. If Brad's legal rights (i.e., freedom of speech, etc.) | are being threatened, the courts will decide. | Oh, F***, now Brad's gotta spend real money going to court. And why in accordance to U.S. Law? I see you weren't paying attention. Brad posts from Waterloo, Ontario, *Canada*. Step back a moment, and think. If this ends up in a court, the probable result is the end of news. One of the things the rest of the world finds disgusting about the U.S. is the habit its citizens have of suing. Possible European Joke: How many U.S. Courts does it take to screw in a light bulb? 6: 1 to sue the manufacturer of the bulb being replaced. 1 to sue the power company whose electricity destroyed the bulb. 1 superior court to review the lower decisions. 1 appelate court to review the lower decisions. 1 state supreme court to review the lower decisions. 1 U.S. Supreme Court to review the lower decisions. -- Jim Budler address = uucp: ...!{decwrl,uunet}!eda!jim OR domain: jim@eda.com #define disclaimer "I do not speak for my employer" #define truth "I speak for myself" #define result "variable"
shore@ncifcrf.gov (Melinda Shore) (11/22/88)
[] You have the right to pick your nose in public, but the result is that those around you will be uncomfortable and you will look boorish. Most people elect not to pick their noses in public. Under what circumstances is racism/sexism justified? A two-second chuckle? We all have the right to use racial epiphets, but is it right to do so? Is your little joke worth the cost of hurting members of our community? Racism is wrong under any circumstance. I have been offended by what I've seen in rec.humor.funny for quite some time but haven't said anything, and I was wrong in keeping quiet. I am not calling for Brad's removal; I am asking that racist, sexist jokes not be posted. If that makes me humorless, so be it. -- Melinda Shore shore@ncifcrf.gov NCI Supercomputer Facility ..!uunet!ncifcrf.gov!shore
berleant@cs.utexas.edu (Dan Berleant) (11/23/88)
In article <370@eda.com> jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) writes: >Step back a moment, and think. If this ends up in a court, the >probable result is the end of news. And why? Because net news sponsors anti-ethnic jokes! If we(the usenet community) don't act respectable, we won't get respect. If we don't regulate ourselves, someone else is going to regulate us. Face it, anti-ethnic jokes are not respectable. (I think the term 'anti-ethnic joke' sums things up a lot better than 'ethnic jokes', don't you?) Dan berleant@cs.utexas.edu
news@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU (USENET News System) (11/23/88)
>The white, christian, male From: rsvp@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (R. Scott V. Paterson) Path: eleazar.dartmouth.edu!rsvp You might ask yourself just how racist and sexist you are. I fall into two of these categories and feel as though you are trying to say that I have some character flaw due to my skin color and my gender. >I'm sure that racism and sexism can be justified by the majority, >since they are not affected, but does that make it right. Obviously, you justify them in your own mind very well. >----Betsy R. Schwartz --aka-- Kinyan Cattery------------------------- > (201) 576-3632 work Ruddy and Red Abyssinians > (201) 321-0130 home Home of Ch. Yavapai Isis of Kinyan > att!lzfme!brs & Kinyan's Ramsette & some people too! rsvp
nmg@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu (Nancy M Gould) (11/23/88)
In article <362@sulaco.Sigma.COM> allen@sulaco.sigma.com (Allen Gwinn) writes: >In article <1082@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu> nmg@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu.UUCP (Nancy M Gould) writes: >>In article <347@sulaco.UUCP> allen@sulaco.Sigma.COM (Allen Gwinn) writes: > >>>Ok... if its NOT OKAY, then what do you feel should be done about people >>>who persist in posting racist humor? Do you feel it is OK for JEDR to >>>threaten to contact Brad's employer? > >>I think that it is OK for JEDR to do anything that is in accordance >>with U.S. Law. If Brad's legal rights (i.e., freedom of speech, etc.) >>are being threatened, the courts will decide. > >So I gather might gather from your response (assuming that Brad was not >his own employer) that, logically, you would support Brad if he were to >sue JEDR for slander or defamation should JEDR's actions result in the >loss of job or clientele? After all, it would be Brad's right... Of course. In this country anybody can sue anybody for anything. Unlike most of the people on the net, I realize that this issue is a highly controversial. You can't find a black and white answer to a problem that is not black and white. That is why we have a court system. -- "When the writer becomes the center of his attention, he becomes a nudnik. And a nudnik who believes he's profound is even worse than just a plain nudnik." --Isaac Bashevis Singer (1904- ) Nancy M. Gould
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (11/23/88)
In article <666@fcs280s.ncifcrf.gov., shore@ncifcrf.gov (Melinda Shore) writes: . In article <1223@fig.bbn.com. rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes: . .And if the person doesn't stop, then the majority should force them? . .Sorry, you're wrong. Read the First Amendment of the US Constitution. . . The First Amendment gives Brad Templeton the right to include racist, . sexist, denigrating jokes in rec.humor.funny. What I find appalling, . profoundly appalling, is that we as a community tolerate it. There . is nothing funny about racial, religious, or sexual stereotyping. . When somebody tells a racist joke at work, what do you do? Do you . let the teller know that the joke is offensive and not amusing, or do . you laugh? Each of us has a responsibility to make our community a I usually don't laugh -- sometimes I leave the room, if the joke is offensive enough -- but suggesting that someone put pressure on the moderator of a group through his employer is a sure way of making people VERY angry. . better place. I don't see that tolerating hatred contributes toward . that. . -- . Melinda Shore shore@ncifcrf.gov There's a lot of stereotypical humor -- and not all of it is racist, ethnocentric, or sexist. But if you want to make it go away, getting all huffy about it WON'T WORK. -- Clayton E. Cramer ..!ames!pyramid!kontron!optilin!cramer
mhw@wittsend.LBP.HARRIS.COM (Michael H. Warfield (Mike)) (11/23/88)
In article <8052@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> richmond@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan E. D. Richmond) writes: >Let me start by saying I wholeheartedly agree with Melinda Shore >and Nancy Gould. Both speak to our need to eliminate hatred from >our midst, and that is crucial. Hold the phone! Who said one damn thing about hatred. I enjoy ethnic humor (note I did not say racist) even when I'm the target, if it's in good tasted and FUNNY! Certainly, as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, humor is in the mind of the reader. I hold no hatred or even dislike in any way shape or form for any ethnic group, religion, race, or sex. I don't think very highly of those who can't look at themselves and laugh, whatever their persuasion. Some of the funniest polack jokes I've ever heard came from some polish friends and my "little brother" in my fraternity, who just happended to be both handicapped and black, could tell racist jokes that could spin your head (he even had a "KKK" honorary membership card). We all had good times and the idea of the jokes having anything to do with hatred is pure unadulterated BULLSHIT! Jokes certainly should take into account the receiving audience. That's what we have warnings in subject lines and "ROT13" for. So someone with sensitive eyes needn't disturb his self esteem by viewing something he feels is offensive. Anyone who reads the warning and then even de-rots the thing inspite of his feelings has a problem. How to you spell masochist? Or does that offend the mentally ill? >On the question of racist jokes, maybe posters of these items >consider they have First Amendment protection. But do the people who >are victims of these jokes have no rights, too? I find it very >interesting that Rich Salz believes I am "intimidating" Brad Templeton >by saying up front that I am considering further action on this matter. That's interesting. I've never heard of the right not to be made fun of. Boy can I start up some lively lawsuits against the perpetrators of some practical (and some not so pratical) jokes. I have had as many people get a laugh at my expense as I at theirs. Around here, when it comes to jokes, paybacks are hell. If you don't want to be a target, you don't aim the weapon but if your hit you've earned the right to a return salvo. >So I am saying that Brad Templeton should have the *judgement* to >avoid racist humor. If he lacks it, then he must recognize >my right to freely express my disapporval. Let's see you try to define the limits you want to impose upon Brad that doesn't either eliminate humor all together or is so arbitrary as to be capricious. Certainly you have the right to disaprove just as you have the right not to read it in the first place. What's the problem, don't you have the judgement to avoid something when the subject line clearly indicates that you might be offended? >Some people question whether racist humor really is damaging. Answers >have already been given to this, but I'll reiterate that racist jokes >were very popular in Nazi Germany and were used to stereotype Jews, >and by making them seem less human, made their persecution more >acceptable by society. What has this got to do with the price of tea in china??????? If I tell a sexist joke does that label me a Nazi. Censorship and restriction of personal freedoms were also rather popular back then. Sounds a lot closer to what you're proposing than what Brad puts out! >Should they not be upset, and do they not deserve restraint on the >part of a moderator? Can't we let the bigots stick to rec.humor, >and count on a moderator to exclude racial malice from rec.humor.funny? Say what? Maybe I've just skipped over the articles that don't fit my taste but I haven't seen anything in there which comes under the heading of "racial malice". I think maybe malice is also in the mind of the beholder. Take a good look in a mirror sometime. >..... All such humor serves to degrade its subjects and >propagate persecution against them. I am well aware of this, since >my current research is in the area of Metaphor (seeing how we see >things and using this to account for social understandings), and I >have been doing work in Watts, the black urban ghetto of Los Angeles. Hmmmmmm. Doing work as an unbiased neutral observer to establish new independent research or going in with a preconceived view of the world and bent on proving some pet theory. Plenty of perfectly good researchers in both camps out there. I don't find jokes about me degrading as long as I get the return match. >It really comes down to a matter of decency and judgement. So, >instead of crying "censorship!" how about putting yourself in the >position of someone victimized by a racist joke, someone who knows >history, and knows all too well how racial stereotyping embodied in >such humor leads to predudice, lynchings, and even attempts at >racial extermination. Sorry doesn't wash, not in the least. No proof no way no where that there is a causal connection leading from the telling of jokes to racial extermination. One could argue, to the contrary, that telling jokes and laughing at each other and our selfs should ease the absurd tension which separates too many of us. And yes I have been the subject of jokes, cruel and otherwise. Jokes is jokes and cruel jokes hurt whether they're racist, religious, sexist, ethnic, or just plan dumb. You want to argue against cruel jokes - argue away, you won't get any farther with that than against racist jokes. But don't fool yourself into thinking racist jokes are the only cruel jokes around or even that all ethnic jokes are cruel. Your view is too narrow and on the wrong angle entirely. --- Michael H. Warfield (The Mad Wizard) | gatech.edu!galbp!wittsend!mhw (404) 270-2123 / 270-2098 | mhw@wittsend.LBP.HARRIS.COM An optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it!
pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) (11/23/88)
In article <251@blake.acs.washington.edu> mcglk@blake.acs.washington.edu (Ken McGlothlen) writes:
=I'm a thinking human being--I know the stereotypes, and know that they
=don't necessarily hold.
Good. Then we don't have to worry about the cumulative effect of jokes
like these on you. But we do worry about the effect on others. Look at
World War II Germany to see the effect of not protesting stereotypes.
Maybe Templeton isn't a racist, per se, but if he encourages the posting
of material that could influence people to have negative feelings about
any group by reinforcing the stereotype, then he is contributing to the problem.
--
Pete Holsberg UUCP: {...!rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh
Mercer College CompuServe: 70240,334
1200 Old Trenton Road GEnie: PJHOLSBERG
Trenton, NJ 08690 Voice: 1-609-586-4800brs@lzfme.att.com (B.SCHWARTZ) (11/23/88)
>In article <8112@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes: > >I'm a religious Jew, and I agree completely with those who support >Brad. Don't try to speak for an entire group of people when you >haven't checked with all of them first. Better yet, just don't try to >speak for an entire group of people. > >Furthermore, your comment about "white, christian males" reeks of >racism in and of itself. If I have offended people I am deeply sorry. I will try to do better next time, and try not to post offensive or racist statements. If I am a racist, I will try to eradicate these feelings and behaviors in myself. I will try to be more sensitive to the feelings and opinions of those other people. Just as I expect them to respect me and my opinions. My sincere and heartfelt apologies to those on the net that were seriously offended by my comments. I still disagree with much of the attitude that has been presented, just as I don't believe that reverse discrimination is a sematically correct concept or term. Yet, I do apologize and don't mean to cause grievous hurts or serious offense. Still, I can't help but think that if I had heard a similar apology from someone else, I would never have commented. NO SMILEYS INTENDED!!!!! -- --Betsy R. Schwartz --aka-- Kinyan Cattery------------------------- (201) 576-3632 work Ruddy and Red Abyssinians (201) 321-0130 home Home of Ch. Yavapai Isis of Kinyan att!lzfme!brs & Kinyan's Ramsette & some people too!
msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu (Mark Robert Smith) (11/23/88)
Just a quick pointer:
There is a discussion starting in rec.humor.d,news.groups, and
soc.culture.jewish about the possible recall of Brad as moderator of
rec.humor.funny.
Mark
--
Mark Smith (alias Smitty) "Be careful when looking into the distance,
RPO 1604; P.O. Box 5063 that you do not miss what is right under your nose."
New Brunswick, NJ 08903-5063 {backbone}!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!msmith
msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu R.I.P. Individual Freedoms - 11/8/88nessus@nsc.nsc.com (Kchula-Rrit) (11/23/88)
[]
I have seen a lot of shouting back and forth on this subject, and
something that just occurred to me is this: Why are there no Scotspeople
getting upset? Why is it that everyone seems to tolerate jokes/riddles
that portray the Scottish as bestial, close-minded tight-wads who wear
skirts and would murder someone in return for having to pay for a meal?
What if the punch line had been "Scottish ventriloquist found ... in alley."
I do realize that Jewish people have been persecuted for a LONG
time; it would probably be difficult to find some group that has not
been persecuted at some point.
I'm sure I'll be called racist because of this article...
--
Kchula-Rrit
"In challenging a kzin, a scream of rage is sufficient.
You scream and you leap."jwalsh@bbn.com (Jamie Walsh) (11/23/88)
In article <977@lzfme.att.com> brs@lzfme.UUCP (xmrj5-B.SCHWARTZ) writes: >The white, christian, male support that Brad gets makes >him feel justified. I've written a few articles in support of Brad, and in case you hadn't noticed, I'm a woman, agnostic but formerly Jewish, from a family that still is Jewish. I don't recall ever hearing about the JDL, NAACP and NOW ever protesting the various versions of "The Complete <ethnic> Jokebook" available in any bookstore. If these jokes were the horrible threat a few people in this group claim they are, these books would have been picketed into oblivion by now. Ethnic jokes may be used by those who already are racist to belittle those to whom they feel superior, but I do not believe that ethnic jokes can contribute to changing the adult public's opinions toward racism. I do not believe that jokes about stereotypes can contribute to the adult public's belief in the truth of stereotypes. Perhaps such jokes can change the minds of children, but this is not meant to be a children's forum. I do believe that such jokes should be rotated in the newsgroup as a matter of common courtesy (or POLITENESS, to quote) to those who do not wish to view these kinds of jokes. I reiterate that I think the only changes needed in rec.humor.funny is more care in selecting which jokes should be posted in ROT13 form. -- jamie (jwalsh@cc6.bbn.com) "There's a seeker born every minute."
jwalsh@bbn.com (Jamie Walsh) (11/23/88)
In article <667@fcs280s.ncifcrf.gov> shore@ncifcrf.gov (Melinda Shore) writes: >I have been offended by what I've seen in rec.humor.funny for quite >some time but haven't said anything, and I was wrong in keeping quiet. I have been so offended by masses of foul-mouthed flamefests by a few offensive people in most of the unmoderated soc.* and talk.* groups that I unsubscribed to them. I suggest you do the same to rec.humor.funny. YOU subscribed to the newsgroup. You are not FORCED to read fetishist pornographic magazines or rec.humor.funny. Stop SUBSCRIBING to material that offends you. I was very offended recently by something that was posted in alt.sex in ROT13 form, but I defend the author's right to post it. I didn't HAVE to keep reading it, I could have hit the 'n' key at any time. I also defend my right to post that it offended me, just as you have every right to post to rec.humor.d that you are offended, but I do not consider that I have any right to demand that what offends me should not be posted, nor do you. >? Is your little joke worth the cost of hurting members of our >community? As I said in a previous article, I do not believe that publication of ethnic jokes promotes any further racism in the community. As far as personal hurt is concerned, posting offensive jokes in ROT13 is the "COMMON POLITENESS" equivalent of not telling <group> jokes in front of a <group> person. -- jamie (jwalsh@cc6.bbn.com) "There's a seeker born every minute."
rob@violet.berkeley.edu (Rob Robertson) (11/23/88)
In article <423@mccc.UUCP> pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) writes: |Maybe Templeton isn't a racist, per se, but if he encourages the posting |of material that could influence people to have negative feelings about |any group by reinforcing the stereotype, then he is contributing to the problem. Does that make Woody Allen a Jewish Uncle Tom? Does he, or does he not propogate a stereotype? I'd love to know your opinions. rob
shani@TAURUS.BITNET (11/23/88)
In article <1223@fig.bbn.com>, rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes: > Sorry, you're wrong. Read the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Haaaa... if only everbody could see what a great thing the american constitution is, that it allows such a bizzare monster as the USA to survive.. Why this planet could be a wonderful place to live in, couldn't it? O.S. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am what I think, therfore I am what I am --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
john@basser.oz (John Mackin) (11/23/88)
In article <977@lzfme.att.com> brs@lzfme.UUCP (xmrj5-B.SCHWARTZ) writes: > Do not be deceived by the numbers. Some of us who are deeply > offended have kept silent, because we have been taught that as a > minority our voice will not be heard unless the majority wants it to > be heard. The rights of the minority, apparently do not count. Oh, WOW! So now we've gone from the silent majority concept to the silent _minority_ concept! What a chortle. > The white, christian, male support that Brad gets makes > him feel justified. I'm not white. I sure as _hell_ am not christian! So, I'm male. One out of three ain't a problem. And I support Brad 100%, he's doing a great job! > The if you don't like it, leave it attitude > (Don't subscribe if you are offended) does not address the issue. Of course it does. There are pornographic bookstores in many major cities. If you don't like pornographic publications, as long as no one forces you to go into the bookstores, WHERE IS THE PROBLEM? All this ``people have to be protected from themselves'' business really sickens me. I think I need to quote Plato (thanks, Alan): Plato, `The Republic' (page 405, Stephanus edition): 'And the prevalence of indiscipline and disease in a community leads, does it not, to the opening of law courts and surgeries in large numbers, and law and medicine begin to give themselves airs, especially when they are taken with great seriousness even by free men.' 'That is bound to happen.' 'And when not only the lower classes and manual workers, but also those who have some pretensions to a liberal education, need skilled doctors and lawyers, that is a pretty conclusive proof that the education in a state is disgracefully bad. For is it not a strikingly disgraceful sign of a bad education if one has to seek justice at the hands of others as one's masters and judges because one lacks it in oneself?' John Mackin, Basser Department of Computer Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia john@basser.oz.AU (john%basser.oz.AU@UUNET.UU.NET) {uunet,mcvax,ukc,nttlab}!munnari!basser.oz!john
shore@ncifcrf.gov (Melinda Shore) (11/23/88)
[] Let me get this straight ... You all are saying that racism is okay as long as it's funny, and that those of who object should look the other way? -- Melinda Shore shore@ncifcrf.gov NCI Supercomputer Facility ..!uunet!ncifcrf.gov!shore
allen@sulaco.Sigma.COM (Allen Gwinn) (11/24/88)
In article <977@lzfme.att.com> brs@lzfme.UUCP (xmrj5-B.SCHWARTZ) writes: [...complains about the "majority" restricting the "voice" of the "minority"...] >...The white, christian, male support that Brad gets makes >him feel justified.... >...I'm sure that racism and sexism can be justified by the majority... There's NO racism or prejudice in these statements, are there? Noooooo... -- Allen Gwinn ...sulaco!allen Disclaimer: The facts stated are my own. "...I will not waste time proving this." - Hank Bovis
dave@cs.wisc.edu (Dave Cohrs) (11/24/88)
In article <1090@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu> nmg@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu (Nancy M Gould) writes: > You can't find a black and white >answer to a problem that is not black and white. That is >why we have a court system. Yes, and the courts translate the question into a color everyone in the U.S. understands, green. -- -- Dave Cohrs +1 608 262-6617 UW-Madison Computer Sciences Department dave@cs.wisc.edu ...!{harvard,rutgers,ucbvax}!uwvax!dave
mcglk@blake.acs.washington.edu (Ken McGlothlen) (11/24/88)
In article <670@fcs280s.ncifcrf.gov> shore@ncifcrf.gov (Melinda Shore) writes: +---------- | Let me get this straight ... | | You all are saying that racism is okay as long as it's funny, and that | those of who object should look the other way? | -- | Melinda Shore shore@ncifcrf.gov | NCI Supercomputer Facility ..!uunet!ncifcrf.gov!shore +---------- *Bzzzt*. Sorry, that answer is *wrong*. You *don't* get the dishwasher, you *don't* get the car, and you *don't* get the $50000! But feel free to take this handy-dandy "u" key as a consolation prize. Sigh. *Nobody* is saying that "racism" (in the sense of prejudice or abuse) is funny. Period. Ethnic humor, religious humor, and sexist humor is frequently funny, and doesn't create or reinforce racists, pagans, or rapists. Honestly, Melinda. "Ethnic humor" != "racism." Pure and simple. Take it from a Scot with a strong Jewish heritage. --Ken McGlothlen mcglk@blake.acs.washington.edu
shore@ncifcrf.gov (Melinda Shore) (11/24/88)
In article <260@blake.acs.washington.edu> mcglk@blake.acs.washington.edu (Ken McGlothlen) writes: >*Bzzzt*. Sorry, that answer is *wrong*. You *don't* get the dishwasher, >you *don't* get the car, and you *don't* get the $50000! But feel free >to take this handy-dandy "u" key as a consolation prize. Damn these Sun keyboards. You've got to blow a question just to get the vowels. Okay, but I still need an 'a', an 'e', an 'i', and an 'o'. I'm not suggesting that anybody is suggesting that racism is funny (although I know people who think it is). I'm asking if anyone thinks that racism is okay when couched in humorous terms. When I was growing up in Virginia in the '60's and '70's, it was not at all uncommon to hear kike and nigger jokes. It is pretty clear that the fact that these jokes were told so openly and frequently helped create an environment in which people did not feel uncomfortable being openly racist. At the same time, both of my parents came from Orthodox Jewish backgrounds. When we went to visit the family, everybody would sit around the table after meals swapping jokes, many of them about Jews and Jewishness. There was a considerable difference in tone and content between these jokes and the jokes I heard back home. Yes, ethnic humor can be funny, but that does not mean that it isn't used as a weapon as well. Some of what I've seen in rec.humor.funny has been extremely vicious, and I don't think it's appropriate for Brad to put his stamp of approval on it and post it to the net. Du bis nit a mensch, Brad. Do the right thing. Racism is not acceptable, period. -- Melinda Shore shore@ncifcrf.gov NCI Supercomputer Facility ..!uunet!ncifcrf.gov!shore
mayville@tybalt.caltech.edu (Kevin J. Mayville) (11/24/88)
>Face it, anti-ethnic jokes are not respectable. And comedy is not pretty.......so what's your point? >(I think the term 'anti-ethnic joke' sums things up a lot better >than 'ethnic jokes', don't you?) No, I think anti-ethnic is at best a very misleading distortion. Kevin mayville@tybalt.caltech.edu "She's beautiful, popular, and obviously going through some emotional shoot-out to consent to date....the human tater-tot. What did you do, Keith, threaten her life?"
kmw@sim.ardent.com (Ken Wallich) (11/24/88)
In article <1090@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu> nmg@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu (Nancy M Gould) writes: >Unlike most of the people on the net, I realize that this issue >is a highly controversial. You can't find a black and white >answer to a problem that is not black and white. Right Nancy. It is obvious that no one but you knows that this issue is 'a highly controversial' (what the hell is 'a controversial' anyhow :-). I think it is quite clear that 'most' folks realize that this is an area that is grey. Some folks have been telling us that they find any hint of ethnic humor to be tantamount to organizing death squads, and others think that it is no big deal in their eyes, they find humor in absurd things. Doesn't sound cut and dry to me, nor to anyone else who has any analytical grey matter left between their ears. It is interesting that the 'Brad burners' seem to feel that identifying racist humor *is* cut and dry, whereas many of the 'Brad supporters' (does he *still* wear those things?) feel that what is vile and racist to Ralph may be absurdly funny to Peggy (and won't make her go searching for that armband in the attic). These same people make a distinction between 'racist' and 'ethnic'. An ethnic joke can be racist when told by one person, and simply ethnic and humorous when told by someone else. When you are reading ethnic jokes, you are telling them to yourself. What you find racist and offensive, another may not. There may be jokes that are inherently racist, that have a mean spirit about them and have no purpose other than to make a group of people look like sub-humans no matter who tells them, and how they are told. I can't think of any off-hand, but I wouldn't find such things to be of great interest to retain (I also cannot recall seeing anything like that in rec.humor.funny). I can find the absurdity in a great variety of humor, and if looked at from an objective viewpoint, a great many things contain humor, but the bottom line is that 'racist' humor is difficult to define, and a joke being 'ethinic' does not make it 'racist'. >That is why we have a court system. Ohhh. So let's ask THEM whether or not *each and every joke* is offensive to anyone. Yeah, that's the ticket. Saying "I want to eliminate racist jokes' is not like saying 'I want to eliminate jokes with the word penis in them'. One is measurable, one is up to interpretation. What some people aren't willing to face is that no matter WHO filters the jokes, someone will be offended. If the content of the jokes doesn't, then the fact that *they* filter some jokes will offend someone (censorship!), and the fact that jokes are read by employees of companies, some even during (gasp!) working hours will offend others (theft!). The people on the net must be somewhat computer literate, that means they probably have some reasoning capacity (although I often wonder, if this is a crossection of the above average folks in the world....). If *we* cannot decide if something is really really offensive, and what the correct thing is to do about it, how can you expect the courts to have a rational, informed opinion? Oh yeah, I forgot, just because they *can* make a judgement that is legally binding, it *must* be right. No need to question authority, nosiree. Did you ever think that the attitude "Well I'm not wrong, and you're not right, and I refuse to compromise, unless you compromise first!" may perhaps be *why* everyone in America is so bloody sue crazy? What ever happened to moderation (pardon the implied pun)? Oh no, that would mean I'd have to respect *your* opinions, even if I don't like them. I can understand (in principle, anyway) why some folks could get offended by racial humor. I am offended if the humor is hostile, or is presented in a hateful way, but it is my choice to not listen to such garbage, without insisting that someone sew the bozo's mouth shut just because I don't agree with him. What I cannot understand is the desire to suppress something that offends you. You can rationalize and say that it not only offends you, but it damages you, and people who hold your belief system, perhaps it does do some subtle damage, and you may wish to counteract this with propagation of your own beliefs, but silencing the offending party is not the answer. Suppression of offensive ideas is the first step to allowing others to control the information you receive (oh, I know, that could *never* happen here). Then *they* can control your environment, then they can start to control your thoughts by not allowing any input that would cause you to believe differently than was "right" and then, well George Orwell wrote a whole book about what happens *then*. Is the next goal to be to eliminate anything that is sexually offensive to white christian males (or green atheist asexual lepers?, now *there* is a minority). I can see it now: "I want Johnny removed from the net because he supports homosexuals, which [my] god specifically forbids. If he isn't removed, I'll, well I'll SUE!". Yeah. That's the ticket. Boy I'm sure glad that we have learned to respect the right of people to express their thoughts, whether we agree with them or not. We're on our way to utopia, yup we are (and people bitch at me for being a cynic, geesh). -- Ken Wallich Ardent Computer Corp kmw@ardent.com "I'd let you be macrobiotic, if you'd let me have some pie"
jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (The Beach Bum) (11/24/88)
In article <977@lzfme.att.com> brs@lzfme.UUCP (xmrj5-B.SCHWARTZ) writes: >Do not be deceived by the numbers. Some of us who are deeply >offended have kept silent, because we have been taught that as a >minority our voice will not be heard unless the majority wants it to >be heard. The rights of the minority, apparently do not count. The silent have no rights. I should not have to read your mind to know if you are offended by some action of mine. Nor should I have to be considerate of all possible objections - a minority of one could formulate an objection, this does not mean I must concede to their demands. At some point a minority becomes so small as to no longer be legitimate. >The white, christian, male support that Brad gets makes >him feel justified. The if you don't like it, leave it attitude >(Don't subscribe if you are offended) does not address the issue. Brad is very careful to inform the reader of what groups may be offended. Even in the event of an accident, as we recently had it would appear, you still have no basis for recourse. By subscribing to a newsgroup where offensive material is present, you accept the risk of being offended.[1] >I'm sure that racism and sexism can be justified by the majority, >since they are not affected, but does that make it right. This is a common misconception. First, the empowered class is seldom a majority. As an example, our mythical white-christian-male class is easily less than 50% of the population. The next misconception is that empowerment is a property of the class - that somehow being a ``member'' of the empowered class provides one with those rights and privileges. The oppressive class must constantly risk rebellion or revolution by the class which they are presently oppressing. For a current example of this behavior, I suggest you study Isreal or South Africa. -- [1] The legal theory is, I believe, called ``Assumed Risk'' and relates to situations whereby a reasonable man would have been aware the risk existed but chose to accept that risk. The only defense would be to argue you are too dumb to have realized that the risk existed, since one can obviously see that offensive material is present. The only other avenue would be that posting offensive jokes is in some way illegal, and I think we know what is wrong with that approach already. -- John F. Haugh II +----------Quote of the Week:---------- VoiceNet: (214) 250-3311 Data: -6272 | "Okay, so maybe Berkeley is in north- InterNet: jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US | ern California." -- Henry Spencer UucpNet : <backbone>!killer!rpp386!jfh +--------------------------------------
greggy@infmx.UUCP (greg yachuk) (11/24/88)
In article <902@taurus.BITNET> <shani%TAURUS.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> writes: >Haaaa... if only everbody could see what a great thing the american >constitution is, that it allows such a bizzare monster as the USA to survive.. > >Why this planet could be a wonderful place to live in, couldn't it? I don't get it. This planet can only be a wonderful place to live in if everybody could see what a great thing the American constitution is? :-) >------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >I am what I think, therfore I am what I am I yam what I yam, and that's all that I yam... -greg Greg Yachuk Informix Software Inc., Menlo Park, CA (415) 322-4100 {uunet,pyramid}!infmx!greggy why yes, I DID choose that login myself
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (11/24/88)
In article <423@mccc.UUCP., pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) writes: . In article <251@blake.acs.washington.edu. mcglk@blake.acs.washington.edu (Ken McGlothlen) writes: . =I'm a thinking human being--I know the stereotypes, and know that they . =don't necessarily hold. . . Good. Then we don't have to worry about the cumulative effect of jokes . like these on you. But we do worry about the effect on others. Look at . World War II Germany to see the effect of not protesting stereotypes. Where are these stupid people? Not reading USENET, I hope. But more important, one of the greatest concerns a liberal has never himself, or you, but "someone else" who isn't clever enough to think too clearly. Maybe the people on USENET really aren't any smarter -- just better educated. And better education is no panacea for this problem. . Maybe Templeton isn't a racist, per se, but if he encourages the posting . of material that could influence people to have negative feelings about . any group by reinforcing the stereotype, then he is contributing to the problem. . . Pete Holsberg UUCP: {...!rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh Mike Dukakis was running around the country giving speeches talking about "rich people" in the same style as certain racists talk about blacks. Maybe there should be laws preventing Dukakis' stereotyped, negative, class-struggle promoting speeches? -- Clayton E. Cramer ..!ames!pyramid!kontron!optilin!cramer
mcglk@blake.acs.washington.edu (Ken McGlothlen) (11/24/88)
In article <672@fcs280s.ncifcrf.gov> shore@ncifcrf.gov (Melinda Shore) writes: +---------- | In article <260@blake...> [I write]: | +---------- | | [... a joking reference to a prior posting of Melinda's, and a | | reference to the extent that racism isn't funny, but ethnic jokes | | can be (and frequently are) ...] | +---------- | | [...] | | I'm not suggesting that anybody is suggesting that racism is funny | (although I know people who think it is). I'm asking if anyone thinks | that racism is okay when couched in humorous terms. | | [...anecdote about jokes told in a racist manner...] | | [...anecdote about ethnic jokes told by ethnic families...] | There was a considerable difference in tone and | content between these jokes and the jokes I heard back home. Yes, | ethnic humor can be funny, but that does not mean that it isn't used as | a weapon as well. Some of what I've seen in rec.humor.funny has been | extremely vicious, and I don't think it's appropriate for Brad to put | his stamp of approval on it and post it to the net. Du bis nit a | mensch, Brad. Do the right thing. Racism is not acceptable, period. | -- | Melinda Shore shore@ncifcrf.gov | NCI Supercomputer Facility ..!uunet!ncifcrf.gov!shore +---------- You raise a good point (one of the few good ones I've heard yet on this discussion). They can be told two different ways, in most cases. There are some really gross jokes of this sort, and other, more gentle ones. But where do you draw the line? There seems like a huge grey area here. I saw nothing wrong about the Scot/Jew joke. There *have* been others that I've winced at--but sometimes, humor *is* uncomfortable. Jokes of this sort *can* be used as a weapon, but I don't think Brad is--and I don't think most of the people on USENET are. There are some who undoubtedly would, I'm sure--but posting jokes of that sort isn't going to change things at all. The idiot bigots will remain, sadly, idiot bigots. Those that know better won't be persuaded otherwise. I'm pretty sure that Brad weeds out enough really gross jokes as it is, right Brad? :) So, for the meantime, leave Brad be. He's doing a good job. One other thing I should say. It seems to be that publishing a book at nearly break-even costs, and advertising it on the net, isn't a bad thing. He *could* have reposted those jokes as a uuencoded ARCed binary file, I guess--would that have been better? :) ("This will cost the net zillions if not googleplexes of dollars to send to everyone on the planet--are you *sure* you're stupid enough to do this?") --Ken McGlothlen mcglk@blake.acs.washington.edu
David_W_Tamkin@cup.portal.com (11/24/88)
Rob Robertson in <17379@agate.Berkeley.EDU>: > Does that make Woody Allen a Jewish Uncle Tom? Allen makes himself a Jewish Uncle Tom. I classify him with Philip Roth. > Does he, or does he not propogate a stereotype? Yes, he does. Now, the reason I didn't move this to rec.arts.movies: I'd like to put in my two agorot on the main subject. I'm Jewish; I'm also less than 100% fond of Templeton. However, I think that Gould and especially Richmond (I can't believe that he wasn't able to figure out that Templeton was his own boss) are going way overboard. Templeton admitted that he should have rotated that joke, and that, I think, would have been enough. It was a cull from rec.humor. I thought it a weak joke when I read it there and again when I saw it in rec.humor.funny. There have been much worse posted to rec.humor, and I doubt that Richmond has called for the contributors of those postings to be have their post access yanked. Making fun of ethnic, gender, or racial stereotypes is not the height of comedy in my estimation, but I agree with the person who said that we on the net are past the ages where hearing negative jokes will form our opinions. On the other side, though, I would like to point something out to all who have tried to support Templeton by saying, "A black/Jew/Pole/lawyer/fnord I know just LOVES black/Jew/Pole/lawyer/fnord jokes, tells them all the time, and eagerly collects them." You are comparing sharing a joke among a limited, preconstituted group of friends to sending it out to an unrestricted, unknown audience on the net. That is really not applicable to the situation at hand and including it attenuates your arguments. David_W_Tamkin@cup.portal.com {...}!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!david_w_tamkin Portal's management and other customers do not speak for me, nor I for them.
pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) (11/24/88)
In article <17379@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> rob@violet.berkeley.edu (Rob Robertson) writes: =In article <423@mccc.UUCP> pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) writes: =|Maybe Templeton isn't a racist, per se, but if he encourages the posting =|of material that could influence people to have negative feelings about =|any group by reinforcing the stereotype, then he is contributing to the problem. = =Does that make Woody Allen a Jewish Uncle Tom? = =Does he, or does he not propogate a stereotype? = =I'd love to know your opinions. = =rob Dear Rob, Here is my opinion. Woody Allen perpetuates the sterotype of the neurotic New Yorker (not necessarily Jewish, if you've seen some of his movies that feature Italians and non-ethnics). Now, neurotic New Yorkers are not a persecuted minority (except those who are paranoic!), so this kind of stereotype is not harmful. Thank you for the opportunity to present my opinion. Sincerely, Pete -- Pete Holsberg UUCP: {...!rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh Mercer College CompuServe: 70240,334 1200 Old Trenton Road GEnie: PJHOLSBERG Trenton, NJ 08690 Voice: 1-609-586-4800
bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) (11/24/88)
In article <7997@nsc.nsc.com> nessus@nsc.nsc.com.UUCP (Kchula-Rrit) writes: > > I have seen a lot of shouting back and forth on this subject, and >something that just occurred to me is this: Why are there no Scotspeople >getting upset? I'm (for a Texan) nearly pure blood Scottish, have and wear the Kennedy tartan. That's immaterial, just establishing credentials. >Why is it that everyone seems to tolerate jokes/riddles >that portray the Scottish as bestial, close-minded tight-wads who wear >skirts and would murder someone in return for having to pay for a meal? First, as pointed out by someone else, if the Scot was what the stereotype would have you believe, he would certainly never have killed his dinner companion. He might have tortured him until retribution was forthcoming, but murder would have been an act of desparation. From my point of view I don't like the references to beastiality, I'm amused about the kilt references (their WW-I and WW-II adversaries called them "ladys from hell") or by the references to being "thrifty". It's as simple as having a sense of humor and being able to laugh at what is clearly ridiculous or outrageous. Thus far (by my estimate) we're running about thirty to five with those who can and those who can not. For those who can not, I offer my sympathy. Gosh, can you imagine not being able to laugh at a Jewish joke just because you are Jewish and fragile? Worse, can you imagine being insulted by an <ethinic> joke just because you empathisize with <ethnic>s? Naw, folks, it's time to stop the flames and pity the poor folks who haven't figured out even after it was force fed. I might point out that it was fed without force until they didn't get it, now what a pity that they *still* don't get it. Let's leave them alone, they'll go away until the moon's full again and they have something else to grouse about. If we let this stretch through the full moon it will just wear on and on... > What if the punch line had been "Scottish ventriloquist found ... in alley." Well he couldn't have been strangled, he'd have had to have been shot. I have some classmates who were killed on the USS Liberty but that probably makes me more of a racist, more in favor of genocide, masiltov (excuse the spelling, goyish kopf). > I do realize that Jewish people have been persecuted for a LONG >time; it would probably be difficult to find some group that has not >been persecuted at some point. You bet! And that kind of (or any kind of) hatred is WRONG and worthy of opposition and condemnation by any self respecting society. JEDR and the other four are just looking through the wrong end of the microscope and the rest of us have become weary of trying to be diplomatic trying to eliminate their cellophane navels. > I'm sure I'll be called racist because of this article... Well the Scots are not a protected class, so blaze away, we won't whine. >-- > Kchula-Rrit -- Bill Kennedy usenet {killer,att,rutgers,sun!daver,uunet!bigtex}!ssbn!bill internet bill@ssbn.WLK.COM
allen@sulaco.Sigma.COM (Allen Gwinn) (11/24/88)
In article <670@fcs280s.ncifcrf.gov> shore@ncifcrf.gov (Melinda Shore) writes: >Let me get this straight ... Good, cuz up til now you apparently haven't... >You all are saying that racism is okay as long as it's funny, and that >those of who object should look the other way? Yeah, those Jewish jokes... they're going to be responsible for the downfall of Israel, the demise of the Jewish religion. Religious persecution will follow... Everybody better note this down... you're seeing history being made right here on Usenet :-) -- 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) (11/25/88)
In article <691@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: =In article <423@mccc.UUCP., pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) writes: =. In article <251@blake.acs.washington.edu. mcglk@blake.acs.washington.edu (Ken McGlothlen) writes: =. =I'm a thinking human being--I know the stereotypes, and know that they =. =don't necessarily hold. =. =. Good. Then we don't have to worry about the cumulative effect of jokes =. like these on you. But we do worry about the effect on others. Look at =. World War II Germany to see the effect of not protesting stereotypes. = =Where are these stupid people? Not reading USENET, I hope. But more =important, one of the greatest concerns a liberal has never himself, =or you, but "someone else" who isn't clever enough to think too clearly. I wouldn't call them "stupid". "Ignorant" is the word that comes to mind. Are you calling me a "liberal"? Thank you. I don't feel that I'm my brother's keeper as I think you're implying, but I am concerned that there are some ignorant people (who may infact be *very* clever) who may misconstrue these stereotypes. Surely you've run into some of these? Seen them on TV? =Maybe the people on USENET really aren't any smarter -- just better =educated. And better education is no panacea for this problem. Ignorance is completely independent of "smartness". I'm sure that people who read Usenet postings have higher IQs than the general populice, and that they have better educations. But my impression is that, in general, their education is technical, and that kind of education usually gives sort shrift to liberal studies. =. Maybe Templeton isn't a racist, per se, but if he encourages the posting =. of material that could influence people to have negative feelings about =. any group by reinforcing the stereotype, then he is contributing to the problem. =. =. Pete Holsberg UUCP: {...!rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh = =Mike Dukakis was running around the country giving speeches talking about ="rich people" in the same style as certain racists talk about blacks. =Maybe there should be laws preventing Dukakis' stereotyped, negative, =class-struggle promoting speeches? =-- =Clayton E. Cramer =..!ames!pyramid!kontron!optilin!cramer Two points. (1) Bush was doing the same thing with "liberals". (2) Neither rich people nor liberals are PERSECUTED MINORITIES. I'm not attacking Brad, just his judgement. Again, I'm concerned about anything that perpetuates NEGATIVE stereotypes about PERSECUTED MINORITIES. (Sorry about the shouting, but it seemed like you weren't seeing those words when I wrote them in lower case.) Happy Thanksgiving, Pete -- Pete Holsberg UUCP: {...!rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh Mercer College CompuServe: 70240,334 1200 Old Trenton Road GEnie: PJHOLSBERG Trenton, NJ 08690 Voice: 1-609-586-4800
pas@unh.UUCP (Paul A. Sand) (11/25/88)
In article <423@mccc.UUCP>, pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) writes: > Maybe Templeton isn't a racist, per se, but if he encourages the posting > of material that could influence people to have negative feelings about > any group by reinforcing the stereotype, then he is contributing to the > problem. Maybe Holsberg isn't a fascist, per se, but if he encourages the supression of material on the grounds that it causes "negative feelings" in some groups or another, then he is contributing to the problem. -- -- Paul A. Sand | Disclaimer: -- Univ. of New Hampshire | I'm not the funny-looking actor. -- UUCP: uunet!unh!pas | I'm the funny-looking teacher.
spaf@cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford) (11/25/88)
Excuse me, but I'm sometimes viewed as a member of the human race, and
every time Brad puts a joke in about humans, I view it as human racist
humor.
Obviously, he must stop this at once or I will make vague threats.
Can we stop all this bickering now? 99% (or more) of the people
reading the jokes seem to know that it was not racist (which is the
wrong word to use in this context anyhow). The remaining 1% (or less)
seem intent on making a big issue out of something that really doesn't
merit it.
In fact, take the postings of Mr. Richmond & company, replace "Jewish"
by "female," and I think we have Mark E. Smith's Greatest Hits, right
down to the classic "I'll contact your employer if you don't post what
I want."
Could we refrain from multiple hundred posted flames on this now? Please?
--
Gene Spafford
NSF/Purdue/U of Florida Software Engineering Research Center,
Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-2004
Internet: spaf@cs.purdue.edu uucp: ...!{decwrl,gatech,ucbvax}!purdue!spafmikej@cpmain.UUCP (Michael R. Johnston) (11/25/88)
In article <Nov.22.17.14.08.1988.4564@topaz.rutgers.edu> msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu (Mark Robert Smith) writes: >Just a quick pointer: >There is a discussion starting in rec.humor.d,news.groups, and >soc.culture.jewish about the possible recall of Brad as moderator of >rec.humor.funny. Thank you Mark. I might have missed reading it TWICE! It IS cross posted (profusely) to news.* . -- Michael R. Johnston - @NET: mikej@cpmain.uucp ...{cmcl2!phri!,uunet!}dasys1!cpmain!mikej || ...philabs!mergvax!cpmain!mikej
jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) (11/26/88)
In article <670@fcs280s.ncifcrf.gov> shore@ncifcrf.gov (Melinda Shore) writes: | [] | Let me get this straight ... | | You all are saying that racism is okay as long as it's funny, and that | those of who object should look the other way? | -- | Melinda Shore shore@ncifcrf.gov | NCI Supercomputer Facility ..!uunet!ncifcrf.gov!shore No, absolutely NOT. What we are all saying is that we don't agree that a joke containing ethic elements is racist. Or at least that is my opinion of what we are saying. And the fact that racist individuals might like ethnic jokes for racist reasons does not make an ethic joke a racist joke. That's the whole problem in a nutshell. *You* have decided that an ethnic joke is racist, therefore *you* have decided everyone who likes ethnic jokes *must* be racist. Therefore you make statements such as the one above, which reminds me of the old "Have you stopped beating your wife, yes, or no?" joke. Truths: 1) I don't believe in racism. 2) I like ethnic jokes. You appear to believe 2) negates 1). -- Jim Budler address = uucp: ...!{decwrl,uunet}!eda!jim OR domain: jim@eda.com #define disclaimer "I do not speak for my employer" #define truth "I speak for myself" #define result "variable"
jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (The Beach Bum) (11/27/88)
In article <438@mccc.UUCP> pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) writes: >In article <691@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >=Mike Dukakis was running around the country giving speeches talking about >="rich people" in the same style as certain racists talk about blacks. >=Maybe there should be laws preventing Dukakis' stereotyped, negative, >=class-struggle promoting speeches? > >Two points. (1) Bush was doing the same thing with "liberals". (2) >Neither rich people nor liberals are PERSECUTED MINORITIES. > >I'm not attacking Brad, just his judgement. Again, I'm concerned about >anything that perpetuates NEGATIVE stereotypes about PERSECUTED >MINORITIES. (Sorry about the shouting, but it seemed like you weren't >seeing those words when I wrote them in lower case.) So, let me get this straight. Clayton Cramer wants to know why it is okay for Mike Dukakis to run around stereotyping conservatives and the rich as uncaring bastards if it isn't okay to stereotype Jews and Scots as greedy tightwads. Did I get this part correct? And Pete Holsberg reminds us that greedy, selfish, uncaring, conservative bastards aren't a persecuted minority, so of course it is okay to negatively stereotype them. Did I get this part correct? So, in other words, it is perfectly okay to stereotype christian-white-males as goose-stepping-jew-killing-nazi-lovers because we belong to some particular socio-economic group. This really is a good thing to know, because before Pete pointed out that this was the proper behaviour, I didn't have the slightest clue that I was directly responsible for the holocaust, the Mideast wars and the entire Skinhead Nation. I have really been a very bad person these last fifty years or so. -- John F. Haugh II +----------Quote of the Week:---------- VoiceNet: (214) 250-3311 Data: -6272 | "Okay, so maybe Berkeley is in north- InterNet: jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US | ern California." -- Henry Spencer UucpNet : <backbone>!killer!rpp386!jfh +--------------------------------------
mhw@wittsend.LBP.HARRIS.COM (Michael H. Warfield (Mike)) (11/27/88)
In article <438@mccc.UUCP> pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) writes: >Two points. (1) Bush was doing the same thing with "liberals". (2) >Neither rich people nor liberals are PERSECUTED MINORITIES. Now I would definitly debate whether "rich" people are a minority (I sure hope liberals aren't) but there sure seem to be a lot of persecution going on over the last couple of months! And talk about propagating racist steriotypes, we're here arguing over ethnic jokes while the Bush camp engaged in some real SERIOUS racist tactics in the campaign. Are we going to have four more years of the Reagan style minority bashing? Seems like our time could be spend better by fighting some REAL racist attitudes on the part of the people running this country instead of worrying over perceived racism in ethinic jokes where none was present. Michael H. Warfield (The Mad Wizard) | gatech.edu!galbp!wittsend!mhw (404) 270-2123 / 270-2098 | mhw@wittsend.LBP.HARRIS.COM An optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it!
shani@TAURUS.BITNET (11/27/88)
In article <670@fcs280s.ncifcrf.gov>, shore@ncifcrf.BITNET writes: > Let me get this straight ... > > You all are saying that racism is okay as long as it's funny, and that > those of who object should look the other way? > -- > Melinda Shore shore@ncifcrf.gov Sorry Melinda but you didn't get it straight ... The point is the stereotypes are not about REAL PEOPLE (as, obviously, nobody feets into them...), Now, racism is when someone try to force stereotypes on real people, and treat them as the stereotype, raether then as themselfs, so if you are offended by a ethnic joke, the only one who imply racism on you, is YOURSELF! O.S.
allen@sulaco.Sigma.COM (Allen Gwinn) (11/27/88)
In article <438@mccc.UUCP> pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) writes: >In article <691@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >=Mike Dukakis was running around the country giving speeches talking about >="rich people" in the same style as certain racists talk about blacks. >=Maybe there should be laws preventing Dukakis' stereotyped, negative, >=class-struggle promoting speeches? > >Two points. (1) Bush was doing the same thing with "liberals". (2) >Neither rich people nor liberals are PERSECUTED MINORITIES. > >I'm not attacking Brad, just his judgement. Again, I'm concerned about >anything that perpetuates NEGATIVE stereotypes about PERSECUTED >MINORITIES. (Sorry about the shouting, but it seemed like you weren't >seeing those words when I wrote them in lower case.) Oh... I see. So just what group(s) do you consider to be PERSECUTED MINORITIES? Suppose I am a RICH YUPPIE? There are plenty of people (why, yes, I think you could find some of them here on the net) that would put me down and make jokes about me... don't you agree? But that might be a way of life for me. I might enjoy making money and living it up. I find the threat of "higher taxes for the rich" (brought on by the liberals in congress) to be quite threatening... and yes, PERSECUTING. I further think that RICH YUPPIE jokes perpetuates NEGATIVE stereotyping about PERSECUTED RICH YUPPIES. But I guess this is OK in your book, huh? (Oh... by the way... sorry about the shouting, but I wanted to be sure I used your examples wherever possible) -- 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) (11/28/88)
In article <779@unh.UUCP> pas@unh.UUCP (Paul A. Sand) writes: =In article <423@mccc.UUCP>, pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) writes: => Maybe Templeton isn't a racist, per se, but if he encourages the posting => of material that could influence people to have negative feelings about => any group by reinforcing the stereotype, then he is contributing to the => problem. = =Maybe Holsberg isn't a fascist, per se, but if he encourages the supression =of material on the grounds that it causes "negative feelings" in some =groups or another, then he is contributing to the problem. That's interesting, Paul. Perhaps you didn't get that what I was implying by "negative feelings" was direct physical action, such as burning crosses, torching churches and synagogues, beating people up, discriminating against them in school and work, lynching them, etc. I don't think we're talking about the same problem. -- Pete Holsberg UUCP: {...!rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh Mercer College CompuServe: 70240,334 1200 Old Trenton Road GEnie: PJHOLSBERG Trenton, NJ 08690 Voice: 1-609-586-4800
pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) (11/28/88)
In article <8842@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US> jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (The Beach Bum) writes: =In article <438@mccc.UUCP> pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) writes: =>In article <691@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: =>=Mike Dukakis was running around the country giving speeches talking about =>="rich people" in the same style as certain racists talk about blacks. =>=Maybe there should be laws preventing Dukakis' stereotyped, negative, =>=class-struggle promoting speeches? => =>Two points. (1) Bush was doing the same thing with "liberals". (2) =>Neither rich people nor liberals are PERSECUTED MINORITIES. => =>I'm not attacking Brad, just his judgement. Again, I'm concerned about =>anything that perpetuates NEGATIVE stereotypes about PERSECUTED =>MINORITIES. (Sorry about the shouting, but it seemed like you weren't =>seeing those words when I wrote them in lower case.) = =So, let me get this straight. Clayton Cramer wants to know why it is =okay for Mike Dukakis to run around stereotyping conservatives and the =rich as uncaring bastards if it isn't okay to stereotype Jews and Scots =as greedy tightwads. Did I get this part correct? I don't know; you have to ask Clayton. =And Pete Holsberg reminds us that greedy, selfish, uncaring, conservative =bastards aren't a persecuted minority, so of course it is okay to =negatively stereotype them. Did I get this part correct? No. Those are *your* adjectives, not mine. =So, in other words, it is perfectly okay to stereotype christian-white-males =as goose-stepping-jew-killing-nazi-lovers because we belong to some =particular socio-economic group. Well, if you say so, John. I'm not in favor of stereotyping people by socio-economic group -- or any other way. OTOH, if it makes for a funny story, I guess that Brad would post it. Do you know a joke about goose-stepping-jew-killing-nazi-lovers? =This really is a good thing to know, because before Pete pointed out that =this was the proper behaviour, I didn't have the slightest clue that I =was directly responsible for the holocaust, the Mideast wars and the =entire Skinhead Nation. I have really been a very bad person these last =fifty years or so. Aha!! So *you're* the guy who's been behind all that!! I hope you turn yourself in to the nearest CIA office first thing Monday morning. I'm happy that I was able to provide you will some enlightenment. Consider attending church and asking for forgiveness. Pete -- Pete Holsberg UUCP: {...!rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh Mercer College CompuServe: 70240,334 1200 Old Trenton Road GEnie: PJHOLSBERG Trenton, NJ 08690 Voice: 1-609-586-4800
jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (The Beach Bum) (11/28/88)
In article <6568@galbp.LBP.HARRIS.COM> mhw@wittsend.UUCP (Michael H. Warfield (Mike)) writes: > Seems like our time >could be spend better by fighting some REAL racist attitudes on the part >of the people running this country instead of worrying over perceived racism >in ethinic jokes where none was present. You really have to love the continued liberal whining. Look, the liberals LOST the election. Any one who can count should be able to see that the election was lost because the so-called ``Minorities'' didn't buy the racist claims. Ronald Reagan and George Bush are not the evil racists the democrats would have us believe they are. Perhaps the democrats would have us forget about George Wallace? Consider - - The feminist vote - The black vote - The hispanic vote - The jewish vote - The pro-choice vote - The blue collar vote What percentage of the national population do you think this ``democratic'' ``anti-racist'' [ hey, this guy thinks us conservative republicans are racists ] collection of ``minorities'' comprises? And if you really think the Jewish or Black population get along like peas in a pod, you are sadly mistaken. Sorry, bud, trying to find someone who isn't offensive to some group of people is nigh impossible. And stereotyping convservative republicans as racists is down right criminal. -- John F. Haugh II +----------Quote of the Week:---------- VoiceNet: (214) 250-3311 Data: -6272 | "Okay, so maybe Berkeley is in north- InterNet: jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US | ern California." -- Henry Spencer UucpNet : <backbone>!killer!rpp386!jfh +--------------------------------------
nmg@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu (Nancy M Gould) (11/28/88)
In article <8854@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US> jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (The Beach Bum) writes: > >You really have to love the continued liberal whining. > >Look, the liberals LOST the election. Any one who can count should be >able to see that the election was lost because the so-called >``Minorities'' didn't buy the racist claims. Now wait a second. The liberals did not LOSE the election. Congress has a solidly Democratic majority. Or is that something you'd rather not think about? -- "When the writer becomes the center of his attention, he becomes a nudnik. And a nudnik who believes he's profound is even worse than just a plain nudnik." --Isaac Bashevis Singer (1904- ) Nancy M. Gould
pas@unh.UUCP (Paul A. Sand) (11/29/88)
In article <423@mccc.UUCP>, pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) wrote: Maybe Templeton isn't a racist, per se, but if he encourages the posting of material that could influence people to have negative feelings about any group by reinforcing the stereotype, then he is contributing to the problem. In article <779@unh.UUCP> I responded: Maybe Holsberg isn't a fascist, per se, but if he encourages the supression of material on the grounds that it causes "negative feelings" in some groups or another, then he is contributing to the problem. In article <447@mccc.UUCP>, pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) writes: > That's interesting, Paul. Perhaps you didn't get that what I was > implying by "negative feelings" was direct physical action, such as > burning crosses, torching churches and synagogues, beating people up, > discriminating against them in school and work, lynching them, etc. > I don't think we're talking about the same problem. Observations: (1) Holsberg's right: the problem I am talking about is his use of slur and innuendo typified in the phrase: "Maybe Templeton isn't a racist, per se, but...". It's a nasty form of argument, used by cowards who want to avoid making a direct accusation, but still want to wield the tarbrush. My effort above to bring this to his attention was apparently too subtle for him; sorry. (2) Holsberg now reveals that when he talks about "negative feelings" he really means "direct physical action." An interesting definition, not shared by most, I think. Obviously, it's hard to deal with anyone who can't, or won't, say what he means in the first place. -- -- Paul A. Sand | Disclaimer: -- Univ. of New Hampshire | I'm not the funny-looking actor. -- UUCP: uunet!unh!pas | I'm the funny-looking teacher.
kathryn@arcturus.UUCP (Kathryn Fielding) (11/29/88)
In article <670@fcs280s.ncifcrf.gov>, shore@ncifcrf.gov (Melinda Shore) writes: > [] > Let me get this straight ... > > You all are saying that racism is okay as long as it's funny, and that > those of who object should look the other way? > -- > Melinda Shore shore@ncifcrf.gov > NCI Supercomputer Facility ..!uunet!ncifcrf.gov!shore Didn't we have someone a while back claiming that all of Brad's supporters were white, christian males? Sounds like a racist assumption to me! Guess how many of those categories I fit into :) Kathryn Fielding My opinions are exclusively mine! kathryn@arcturus
allen@sulaco.Sigma.COM (Allen Gwinn) (11/29/88)
In article <1102@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu> nmg@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu.UUCP (Nancy M Gould) writes: >In article <8854@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US> jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (Drtoyoubuddy. Beach Bum) writes: >>You really have to love the continued liberal whining. >>Look, the liberals LOST the election. Any one who can count should be >>able to see that the election was lost because the so-called >>``Minorities'' didn't buy the racist claims. >Now wait a second. The liberals did not LOSE the election. >Congress has a solidly Democratic majority. Or is that >something you'd rather not think about? Just because the Democrats maintain a majority doesn't mean that the liberals won the election. There is such a thing as a "conservative Democrat" (for example: L. Bentsen). This is obviously something that *you'd* rather not think about, isn't it? :-) -- Allen Gwinn ...sulaco!allen Disclaimer: The facts stated are my own. "...I will not waste time proving this." - Hank Bovis
jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) (11/29/88)
In article <8854@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US> jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (The Beach Bum) writes: >Sorry, bud, trying to find someone who isn't offensive to some group of >people is nigh impossible. And stereotyping convservative republicans as >racists is down right criminal. Well, actually, no, it isn't. Unless you're calling it libel or slander against a particular person :-) Jonathan Kamens MIT Project Athena
nmg@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu (Nancy M Gould) (11/29/88)
In article <375@sulaco.Sigma.COM> allen@sulaco.sigma.com (Allen Gwinn) writes: > > >Just because the Democrats maintain a majority doesn't mean that the >liberals won the election. There is such a thing as a "conservative >Democrat" (for example: L. Bentsen). This is obviously something >that *you'd* rather not think about, isn't it? :-) By the same token, there are also "liberal" Republicans. Why is it that Reagan had so much trouble dealing with Congress anyway? -- "When the writer becomes the center of his attention, he becomes a nudnik. And a nudnik who believes he's profound is even worse than just a plain nudnik." --Isaac Bashevis Singer (1904- ) Nancy M. Gould
jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) (11/29/88)
In article <375@sulaco.Sigma.COM> allen@sulaco.sigma.com (Allen Gwinn) writes: >In article <1102@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu> >nmg@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu.UUCP (Nancy M Gould) writes: ::In article <8854@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US> jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US ::(Drtoyoubuddy. Beach Bum) writes: ===You really have to love the continued liberal whining. Look, the ===liberals LOST the election. Any one who can count should be able ===to see that the election was lost because the so-called ===``Minorities'' didn't buy the racist claims. ::Now wait a second. The liberals did not LOSE the election. ::Congress has a solidly Democratic majority. Or is that something ::you'd rather not think about? >Just because the Democrats maintain a majority doesn't mean that the >liberals won the election. There is such a thing as a "conservative >Democrat" (for example: L. Bentsen). This is obviously something >that *you'd* rather not think about, isn't it? :-) (Sorry for all the reposting, but I think it's necessary to make the point.) He didn't say that "the liberals won the election," He said that "the liberals did not LOSE the election." A national election is not a black and white thing, where "the liberals" either "lose" or "win." If it were, we would walk into a polling place and be handed a ballot with two big boxes from which to pick and check one: "liberal" and "conservative." Come on, now. This election was a prime example of this, which makes it even more puzzling to me that this argument about "winning" and "losing" the election persists. Jonathan Kamens MIT Project Athena
nmg@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu (Nancy M Gould) (11/29/88)
>In article <375@sulaco.Sigma.COM> allen@sulaco.sigma.com (Allen Gwinn) writes: >> >> >>Just because the Democrats maintain a majority doesn't mean that the >>liberals won the election. There is such a thing as a "conservative >>Democrat" (for example: L. Bentsen). This is obviously something >>that *you'd* rather not think about, isn't it? :-) Hey, remember last year when they tried to appoint Bork to the Supreme Court. And Congress rejected him because they thought he'd set civil rights back 50 years... -- "When the writer becomes the center of his attention, he becomes a nudnik. And a nudnik who believes he's profound is even worse than just a plain nudnik." --Isaac Bashevis Singer (1904- ) Nancy M. Gould
Krulwich-Bruce@cs.yale.edu (Bruce Krulwich) (11/30/88)
In article <375@sulaco.Sigma.COM>, allen@sulaco (Allen Gwinn) writes: >>Now wait a second. The liberals did not LOSE the election. >>Congress has a solidly Democratic majority. Or is that >>something you'd rather not think about? > >Just because the Democrats maintain a majority doesn't mean that the >liberals won the election. There is such a thing as a "conservative >Democrat" (for example: L. Bentsen). This is obviously something >that *you'd* rather not think about, isn't it? :-) Not to mention Joe Lieberman, who also has the distinction of being the first Orthodox Jew in the Senate. Bruce
jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (The Beach Bum) (11/30/88)
In article <448@mccc.UUCP> pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) writes: >In article <8842@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US> jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (The Beach Bum) writes: >=And Pete Holsberg reminds us that greedy, selfish, uncaring, conservative >=bastards aren't a persecuted minority, so of course it is okay to >=negatively stereotype them. Did I get this part correct? > >No. Those are *your* adjectives, not mine. No, these are the adjectives used by the political left in this country. I did not choose them from some random sample of words merely to select text to include. That is my impression of the stereotype used to describe conservatives in this country. And the claim that the conservative right in this country in some sense has a strangle hold on the political and economic process flies in the face of reality. The have-nots greatly outnumber the haves. And with one-man, one-vote, it is very simple to select new social programs and demand new concessions. However, let the Christian-White-Male ``majority'' [sic] protest increased burdens and demands, then it is this ``Non-persecuted Majority'' which suddenly is accused of being greedy, selfish and uncaring. One need only imply that Israel is currently guilty of committing genocide against Palestinians to see the extent to which Mr. Holsberg's favorite ``Persecuted Minority'' believes it is somehow privileged above all others. -- John F. Haugh II +----------Quote of the Week:---------- VoiceNet: (214) 250-3311 Data: -6272 | "Okay, so maybe Berkeley is in north- InterNet: jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US | ern California." -- Henry Spencer UucpNet : <backbone>!killer!rpp386!jfh +--------------------------------------
magore@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (Mike Gore, Institute Computer Research - ICR) (12/03/88)
Hello, [re: rec.humor.funny ] Note: I deleted soc.culture.jewish from the newgroups line given the concern many have raised about cross posting all over the place... In article <672@fcs280s.ncifcrf.gov> shore@ncifcrf.gov (Melinda Shore) '> ' writes: [munch...] > Yes, >ethnic humor can be funny, but that does not mean that it isn't used as >a weapon as well. Some of what I've seen in rec.humor.funny has been >extremely vicious, This raises an interesting question. How do you KNOW what you read was _really_ vicious say rather then intended as _humor_? Your statement would seem to impute motives, yet on what basis !? Consider a paraphrase to your statement above, "Fish are good to eat but some people can be very sickened by the idea." What course of action does it tell us to take ? For example, would we as a society say, ban all commercials advertising fish and put pressure on all the eating establishments "obviously not restrained by simple common decency" who serve such "purely offensive material" !? :-) > and I don't think it's appropriate for Brad to put >his stamp of approval on it and post it to the net. Du bis nit a >mensch, Brad. Do the right thing. Racism is not acceptable, period. Is it not really questionable and also unappropriate for you to impute Brad's motives with such near context of "approval" and "racism"? Anyway, how do you know he really _approves_ of the _reality_ the jokes suggest ? Brad is NOT a racist - I've known him for 10 years. There is a LARGE gap between say approving the reality a joke may suggest to some and that of it's _humor_ value. When dealing with humor you don't take it seriously by definition. Especially when it's found in a group whose very function is humor - NOT reality. 8-)! [General aside] Have you ever 'provoked' a friend with a humorous jab while all the time just waiting for them to return the favor and "one up" you ? This happens on social level as well. Personally I feel the real sadness in this whole issue is the very thought of all those who may have yet to learn what humor can really do for them.... :-) Being able to laugh at each other, yes even at lifes more morbid things, is perhaps one of the best ways we have of diffusing the very kind of mean spirit that motivates some people to hate. There is another concern here. If we allow ourselves to more easily impute evil motives on another person then it is to see some good we may only end up being shocked to discover the REAL enemy standing far closer then we would like the next time we brush our teeth. :-) >Melinda Shore shore@ncifcrf.gov Best Regards, # Mike Gore # Institute for Computer Research. ( watmath!mgvax!root - at home ) # These ideas/concepts do not imply views held by the University of Waterloo.
murthy@pneuma.SRC.Honeywell.COM (Madhu Murthy) (12/07/88)
Hi Nancy & the rest:
Common politeness and consideration ? In a mental ward may be so. Or in
such situations. Not on the bboard meant just for jokes (caesar rotate is
bad enough state of affairs - Iron curtains across hearts).
Hi all!
--------------------------
THERE ARE SOME BASIC POINTS THAT ARE BEING MISSED:
"YOU" in the sentences is a generic you (could mean you, anybody, somebody, etc
etc. Whatever you think is right in the context).
CONSIDER ONLY THOSE STATEMENTS THAT APPLY TO YOU AND YOU ALONE while reading
this message. Avoid all other temptations to apply these statements to the
rest of the people etc etc. This is the rule of the game. Now for the play.
ALL KINDS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL HURT IS BOGUS. You rule this out (not living it)
and you are leading a miserable existence.
There is no point going out looking for people to hurt (psychologically).
That you hurt (psychologically) is fundamentally your responsibility.
You have a disease. You have not grown up. Helping you is one thing.
But to keep taking your hurt seriously, giving you a blank cheque and
forgetting that psychological hurt is a disease does not help.
YOU CAN LAUGH AT RACIAL JOKES AND NOT FEEL RACIAL TOO. You don't have to feel
guilty that you are a racist because you laughed at a racist joke. Humor comes
from many dimensions. But if you feel inferior or superior or smug identifying
to any stereotype (including a race) then you have a psychological inadequacy.
I do not feel racial, even while laughing at racist jokes. I speak for myself
and others like me. If you don't see this you have a funda"mental" problem.
Obviously if anybody takes the stereotypes (including racial) into play in
dealing with an individual he has a serious problem as well. It is not the
jokes that are the problem but the attitudes.
Jokes cause misery to diseased minds but they are therapeutic to minds
(even diseased) minds which are willing to learn. This alone is worth it
to have all kinds of jokes in a forum like rec.humor.funny
JER: Instead of trying to chop off humor (including racial), if you really
care for those people who you have seen suffering go help them feel adequate.
Start with feeling adequate yourself. I do not doubt your misplaced sincerity
but you remind me of the mob in India which beats up the driver of the bigger
vehicle in case of an accident.
Taking away the ability to laugh at human condition is one of the stupidest
mistakes that you can do. Especially at this phase of evolution. You wil
only add to the number of those hurting ones that you feel so "nobly" for.
Teach them how to laugh, to live. Start with yourself.
Sincere but not serious.
As for your example Nancy:
That you think somebody looks like a pig and choose not to say it out of
consideration have a lot of implications: Wonder how many of them hold in your
case (and to what extents):
- You do not see the beauty of a pig.
- You do not have the guts to say it.
- You feel guilty that you feel that somebody looks ugly like a pig.
- You "notice" (not see) somebody looks like a pig but it doesn't matter
(this doesn't seem to apply to you).
- You spend a lot of time thinking of looks in the foreground/background of
your mind.
- You think that most people give a damn about how you think they look.
MADHU
PS:
Instead of wasting energies feeling offended (if you do or any auch
feelings) you can spend those energies in considering how all the
statements might apply TO YOU (if at all) and you would have saved some
person years of living. What I mean by this is: That is how long it took me
to live this out.
Before you start accusing me in your head of arrogance, consider your own
arrogance to not consider the truth of what you have read. The ones who
understand will not have a problem.murthy@pneuma.SRC.Honeywell.COM (Madhu Murthy) (12/07/88)
Hi Melinda: A racist joke does not necessarily imply hatred. A joke comes from many states of being including hatred, ridiculousness-of-races etc etc. If you don't like a joke don't hear it or say so to your colleagues if you have the guts. You are incorrectly assuming that all jokes always convey a negative feeling. May be that is how you are. The person who says the joke is not necessarily coming from the fixed notions you have. Atleast I am not. And I know others who are not either. madhu
murthy@pneuma.SRC.Honeywell.COM (Madhu Murthy) (12/07/88)
There is no question that hatred needs to be eliminated. I accept that invoking the first amendment argument is law and not love. I recognize you right to say your piece as I am saying mine. I am a foreign national myself and have seen incidents of racism on myself. And I am saying my piece. If racist jokes are being used to put down people, the problem is with the people not the jokes. Get to the roots and not the branches. I can't speak for others but I am not a bigot. And I like all kinds of jokes. But to make an example from nazi germans in this context ... The extremity of your example makes one more aware of oneself. That was good. I hope you don't get carried away. Madhu
murthy@pneuma.SRC.Honeywell.COM (Madhu Murthy) (12/07/88)
From whatever Brad says it would be foolish on anybody's part to call him a bigot, inconsiderate and so on. Examine your own souls. In the worst case he looks at the world differently. His world has a better chance and is a better world than your world of polite spaces. This is my world.
dan@ivucsb.UUCP (Dan Howell) (12/09/88)
Ok, it might be offensive to others as well, so if you're easily offended hit 'n' now... In article <448@mccc.UUCP> pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) writes: |Well, if you say so, John. I'm not in favor of stereotyping people by |socio-economic group -- or any other way. OTOH, if it makes for a funny |story, I guess that Brad would post it. Do you know a joke about |goose-stepping-jew-killing-nazi-lovers? How many goose-stepping-jew-killing-nazi-lovers does it take to change a light bulb? None, they don't use lightbulbs, they burn crosses! Sorry... -- Dan Howell <...!pyramid!comdesign!ivucsb!dan> <dan@ivucsb.UUCP> -- The Heineken Uncertainty Principle: -- You can never be sure how many beers you had last night.