weltyc@rpics.UUCP (03/24/87)
When I was still in the grips of adolescence and puberty, I
thought that jokes about sex and rape were funny, I was certainly
an advocate of pornography and I even represented the "Makes Times
Square a Red Light District" side of a debate once. But I like to
think I've grown up, matured if you will, since then. After working
with people who have experienced emotional problems due to sexual
offenses (manily rape, but also child pornography), I have seen the
real, human side of the issue.
As a volunteer, I started teaching self defense to men and
women at a rape crisis center. I became interested in why there were
men in my classes, and after a short amount of time I joined a
counseling group. I could never even begin to describe the feelings
of women who have been through experiences like this, I could try, but
I know it would be inaccurate. But I can easily empathize with these men
who had to see loved ones (sisters, wifes, and daughters) be abused in
some sexual manner. The anger and frustration is intense. It is so
intense that the people who are near them begin to feel the same anger
and frustration (that's my case).
I doubt that any of you people (MEN) out there who think that
this garbage is funny would laugh after going through it yourself - cry
maybe, smash your terminal maybe - but not laugh. So climb down off
of your god dammned "censorship is bad" high horses and try to live
with the rest of the people on the planet. I am sorely dissapointed
that an organization as seemingly noble as the FSF would have the
arrogance to claim this should be distributed with their software.
--
Christopher Welty * * * * *
weltyc@csv.rpi.edu \ / \ / \ / \ /
\ /
REX QUANDUM. REXQUE FUTURUS. -----------rfb@h.cs.cmu.edu.UUCP (03/24/87)
In article <1028@rpics.RPI.EDU> weltyc@rpics.RPI.EDU (Christopher A. Welty) writes: > I doubt that any of you people (MEN) out there who think that >this garbage is funny would laugh after going through it yourself - cry >maybe, smash your terminal maybe - but not laugh. So climb down off >of your god dammned "censorship is bad" high horses and try to live >with the rest of the people on the planet. I am sorely dissapointed >that an organization as seemingly noble as the FSF would have the >arrogance to claim this should be distributed with their software. Several members of my family have been raped and at least one was the victim of child molestation. I am *still* on a ``god dammned [sic] "censorship is bad" high horse'' and am (very mildly) offended by Mr. Welty apparent attitude. Rape is *very* bad. Child molestation is *very* bad. Censorship is much, much worse than either. Its range of its effects is much larger, both in terms of the number of people which it affects and in terms of the length of time over which it has an effect. Can anyone offer a figure as to the percentage of the GNU Emacs distribution that sex.1 represents? I would guess that it is *extremely* small, i.e. negligible. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Rick Busdiecker Rick.Busdiecker@H.Cs.Cmu.Edu Carnegie-Mellon University seismo!cmucspt!rfb The Robitics Institute Schenley Park 914 South Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213 Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania 15221 (412) 268-7663 [CMU-Pond] (412) 242-6364 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Rick Busdiecker Rick.Busdiecker@H.Cs.Cmu.Edu Carnegie-Mellon University seismo!cmucspt!rfb The Robitics Institute Schenley Park 914 South Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213 Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania 15221 (412) 268-7663 [CMU-Pond] (412) 242-6364 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
dld@theory.cs.cmu.edu.UUCP (03/25/87)
I find the current "anti-censorship" backlash to be a little extreme. I really didn't see any of the people who posted complaining about the (to them) offensive content of the release to be advocating censorship, per se (except maybe for the system administrator who deleted the offending file from his site's gnu-emacs installation.) Instead, their posts could be seen as their exercising their right of free speech in an attempt to affect the opinions of their peers. What's wrong with their complaining that "hey guys, don't you think that this stuff you sent out is kind of offensive? Maybe you could leave it out in the future?" No-one can very well compel someone to do something throught a netnews post, so I don't see how anyone can claim that any censorship could be accomplished. The distinction is the same as that between anti-pornography groups trying to convince people that they should not go to see such films, which I have no objection to, versus their lobbying for anti-pornography legislation, which I do find objectionable. That said, let me add that I found the various options kind of crude, especially the rape and pedophilia ones. (Bestiality too, if the beast is unwilling.) As well as offensive, I found it unprofessional as well. There are plenty of outlets for humor in this electronic playground, and I daresay that there would have been no objections to sex.1 if posted on net.humor -- only complaints that it wasn't funny.
lear@aramis.UUCP (03/25/87)
I, for one, consider "NOT putting sex.1 in the distribution is
censorship" an invalid argument. After all, there are a lot of
other files that are not in the distribution. Why aren't we putting
the News software in the GNU distribution?? Why not include kermit???
By not including any given piece of software, does that imply
censorship? Come on, guys! Lighten up! I suppose that requesting
that you people move this discussion elsewhere would be considered
censorship too. This argument has churned out fast ammounts of
flamage over a silly text file that serves no useful purpose in life.
...eliot
---
Anyone who disagrees with this opinion should check out the -1 option
in sex.1.
[lear@rutgers.rutgers.edu]
[{harvard|pyrnj|seismo|ihnp4}!rutgers!lear]rfb@h.cs.cmu.edu.UUCP (03/25/87)
In article <370@aramis.RUTGERS.EDU> lear@aramis.RUTGERS.EDU (eliot lear) writes: >I, for one, consider "NOT putting sex.1 in the distribution is >censorship" an invalid argument. I quit agree. Of course, I never made that argument. I too feel that sex.1 does not belong in the GNU Emacs distribution because it is not related to GNU Emacs. My last message was a direct response to an attitude toward censorship which I felt was a dangerous one, i.e. that censorship is called for when the subject matter is offensive. The closing paragraph was simply an attempt to point out that the issue of whether or not sex.1 belongs in the distribution is hardly important enough to warrant this discussion. -- Rick Busdiecker Rick.Busdiecker@H.Cs.Cmu.Edu Carnegie-Mellon University seismo!cmucspt!rfb The Robitics Institute Schenley Park 914 South Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213 Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania 15221 (412) 268-7663 [CMU-Pond] (412) 242-6364 -- Rick Busdiecker Rick.Busdiecker@H.Cs.Cmu.Edu Carnegie-Mellon University seismo!cmucspt!rfb The Robitics Institute Schenley Park 914 South Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213 Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania 15221 (412) 268-7663 [CMU-Pond] (412) 242-6364
weltyc@rpics.UUCP (03/25/87)
In article <1049@h.cs.cmu.edu>, rfb@h.cs.cmu.edu (Rick Busdiecker) writes: > Rape is *very* bad. Child molestation is *very* bad. Censorship is much, > much worse than either. Its range of its effects is much larger, both in > terms of the number of people which it affects and in terms of the length of > time over which it has an effect. I agree, and perhaps (well, not perhaps - obviously) I didn't say what I meant. I didn't mean "get off your cesorship is bad high horses" to mean that censorship isn't bad, I meant it to mean that what we're talking about here isn't censorship. How is not including patheticly adolescant (my opinion, sure) jokes in a *EMACS* distribution - a *SOFTWARE* distribution - censorship? I'm not advocating that the authors of these jokes not be allowed to freely distribute them to people who want to see them, but I just don't think they have ANY place with serious software, especially since it seems to offend a numer of people. Post them to net.jokes, form a net.jokes.sex group (there may already be one). When you buy a porno magazine, or rent a porno movie, you are expecting to see pornography. When you subscribe to net.jokes.sex, then you would expect to see jokes about sex. When you get a copy of the GNU emacs distribution you do not expect to see either. I've already heard from a couple anti-free software people who have added to their list of sentiments: "You have to put up with the immaturity of the developers". Great. -- Christopher Welty * * * * * weltyc@csv.rpi.edu \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / REX QUANDUM. REXQUE FUTURUS. -----------
jpayne@rochester.UUCP (03/25/87)
In article <1050@h.cs.cmu.edu> rfb@h.cs.cmu.edu (Rick Busdiecker) writes: >In article <370@aramis.RUTGERS.EDU> lear@aramis.RUTGERS.EDU (eliot lear) writes: >>I, for one, consider "NOT putting sex.1 in the distribution is >>censorship" an invalid argument. > >I quit agree. Of course, I never made that argument. > >I too feel that sex.1 does not belong in the GNU Emacs distribution because >it is not related to GNU Emacs. My last message was a direct response to an >attitude toward censorship which I felt was a dangerous one, i.e. that >censorship is called for when the subject matter is offensive. > How about when the subject matter is just plain stupid? Somebody's idea of a good laugh. With any luck, the author of sex.1 will eventually stop being so embarrassed about sex that he feels the need to make jokes about it. Either FSF should delete it because it's stupid, or else everyone else should ignore it because it's stupid. Either way, it's stupid. Think of it as a piece of litter. Some people litter, some people ignore it when they see it, some people put litter in the garbage. Nobody's advocating censorship here. What we have here is people who don't litter yelling at people who do.
mende@aramis.UUCP (03/25/87)
Of course this entire discussion is a little trivial. Remember that
RMS distribues all of the GNU products with little financial gain. If
he wants to distribute a copy of the sunday times then he has all the
right in the world (assuming the times let him). It is up to him RMS
in the end.
Bob
--
{Both Reality and this message are figments of my imagination}
ARPA: mende@rutgers.edu BITNET: mende@zodiac.bitnet
UUCP: {anywhere}!rutgers!mende Voice: Yo Bob will do.rlk@bacchus.UUCP (03/25/87)
Well, as long as we're on this silliness, let me put my own two cents in: I thought for a while that including sex.1 was a fairly pointless thing to do, and probably not an extremely winning idea. But it struck me that I've seen something similar with a non-free software package that's getting quite a lot of play around here. The manual for that package thanked god or something like that. If people who distribute non-free software can put their own bogosity in, than why can't those of us who prefer free software do the same thing? Robert^Z
aaa@mtuni.UUCP (03/25/87)
I, too, am offended by making light of child abuse and rape. I can't express it better than Christopher Welty did--so when you see this posting go back and read his again! And then get rid of what is offensive to lots of people. Aaron Akman -- Aaron Akman (201) 957-2751 mtuni!aaa
dik@mcvax.UUCP (03/26/87)
In article <26363@rochester.ARPA> jpayne@rochester.UUCP (Jonathan Payne) writes: > Think of it as a piece of litter. Some people litter, some people ignore > it when they see it, some people put litter in the garbage. I agree, and this whole discussion is litter too (as is this message). -- dik t. winter, cwi, amsterdam, nederland INTERNET : dik@cwi.nl BITNET/EARN: dik@mcvax
bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (03/30/87)
I see nowhere in your note why or how a sexual joke (however offensive) is related to the sufferings of victims of rape or child pornography. I don't enjoy such jokes generally, but I don't think stopping them will do anything to halt the sickness of some individuals. I really do wish you were right however, then perhaps we could remove all the crime shows from TV and crime would just disappear, how nice! Somehow I doubt it however. I understand people's frustrations over the abuses within our sick society, but I don't think blindly striking out at anything in print which reminds you of the problem is a constructive way to attack the problems. It's mostly a waste of energy. Real solutions are hard, don't try to chase cheap and easy substitutes like censorship. -Barry Shein, Boston University