clong@topaz.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) (11/23/88)
A play involving various evil-doers making stupid comments. I could have let them stand on their own (the gibber content is that high), but I couldn't resist a few cheap jabs. Cast of characters: The good: Brad Tempelton, persecuted moderator of rec.humor.funny . The misguided: Jonathan E. D. Richmond, leader of the misguided: "My ultimate goal -- to reply to question 4 -- is the elimination of racist jokes from rec.humor.funny." My ultimate goal -- to reply to Jonathan Richmond -- is the elimination of Jonathan Richmond. "In reply to #7, I was simply saying that I wish to consider some action which will result in the elimination of racist "humor" from rec.humor.funny." racist humor, [noun], something Jonathan Richmond doesn't like. "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." Start filling those bottles with gasoline ... that'll show 'em. "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.)" Looks like you'll have to switch to the backup plan. "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." The right of Jonathan Richmond to censor everything he doesn't like is another and, by the way, Moron law is much stricter on this than American law. Nancy M Gould, his second-in-command: "If enough people from ANY ETHNIC GROUP feel offended, the jokes should not be posted." The Chris Long ethnic group sez, Nance stop posting! "How unfortunate. It doesn't say very much for the values of other people." I never did like other people, now I know why. "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!" In 1988 a significant amount of news readers found knot jokes to be funny also. Who cares what the majority of news readers think! Whatever happened to the rights of little bits of string! "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." Gee, even some atheists! I thought we were all Satanists. "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." The Chris Long minority sez, Nance stop posting! David Makowsky, toadie bigot: "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?" And I thought he was there to screen joke quality; guess ya learn something new every day. "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." I find you to be a joke, and offensive. Go away. Betsy R. Schwartz --aka-- Kinyan Cattery, a random bigot: "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 right of free speech, apparently does 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." The censoristic, moron, gibber support that Betsy gets makes her feel justified. Go away, bigot. -- Chris Long Mathematics Department Rutgers University New Brunswick, NJ 08903
meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) (11/23/88)
In article <Nov.22.16.54.04.1988.3254@topaz.rutgers.edu> clong@topaz.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) writes: >Gee, even some atheists! I thought we were all Satanists. No, you guys are just heathens. Now us Christian rockers, we are supposed to be Satanists... >"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 stayed out of it at first, just so this kind of argument would not get used (it WAS soc.culture.jewish), but now that they know our secret, we are OUT of the closet. Actually, while most of the support I read for Brad was male (based on my gender-guess at account names*), a substantial amount was ... Jewish (AIEEEE!!!!), and predominantly NON-Christian. So Nancy slipped up there. There were a NUMBER of avowed aetheists/agnostics/etc (watch those etc - they REALLY proselytize...) supporting Brad. Perhaps Nancy meant to say,oh... "caucasian, non-Jewish, male", since I am sure she would never assume goy == Christian. And of course, while we may asSUME the posters are caucasian, there is no evidence of that over the net, except for what our preconceptions tell us, are there (except when we KNOW the poster, of course)? Chris - an excellent response on your part. MileS *Even there, more than guesswork, I went by claims as to genderness made by many of them in soc.men & soc.women. I had to assume they were telling the truth...
nmg@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu (Nancy M Gould) (11/23/88)
In article <Nov.22.16.54.04.1988.3254@topaz.rutgers.edu> clong@topaz.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) writes: > >A play involving various evil-doers making stupid comments. I could ^^^^^^ >have let them stand on their own (the gibber content is that high), >but I couldn't resist a few cheap jabs. Which is exactly what they are--cheap jabs. > > >Cast of characters: > > >The good: Brad Tempelton, persecuted moderator of rec.humor.funny . > > >The misguided: > >Jonathan E. D. Richmond, leader of the misguided: >Nancy M Gould, his second-in-command: >David Makowsky, toadie bigot: >Betsy R. Schwartz --aka-- Kinyan Cattery, a random bigot: > Chris Long has just made a personal attack Jonathon Richmond, David Makowsky, Betsy Schwartz, and myself without seriously addressing what we had to say. If people on the net wish to attack the contents of one's postings, by all means, go ahead, but please refrain from making personal attacks on one's character (and labeling people who disagree with your point of view as "misguided" and "stupid". Please, people, let's act grown up!!! -- "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
clong@topaz.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) (11/23/88)
Let me make one thing clear: I respect the opinions of Nancy Gould and company. I completely disagree with these opinions, as my last posting shows. If my posting has offended the parties involved, then I have done what your postings have done to me. If I have not seriously addressed the issues involved, it is because there is nothing to seriously address, i.e. I have addressed the issues in the only manner they deserved to be addressed, to be made fun of. How any rational human being could seriously consider for even a moment that rec.humor.funny should be censored (yes CENSORED) is completely beyond me. The censoring of any point of view, no matter how offensive you find it, is *never* called for. To do so would justify the burning of Jewish literature during WWII (because the Nazi's found it offensive), to do so would justify the censoring of certain forms of literature in South Africa (because the white supremists find it offensive). I did not call any of the parties involved stupid (I called comments stupid), Nancy et. al. are obviously both intelligent and sane (though, I will admit, I have to keep telling myself this over and over again when I read what they wrote). As to calling David Makowsky and Betsy Schwarz bigots, well they ARE bigots. White, male, christian support, indeed! *smack* -- Chris Long Mathematics Department Rutgers University New Brunswick, NJ 08903
gsmith@BOSCO.BERKELEY.EDU (11/23/88)
In article <1092@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu> nmg@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu.UUCP (Nancy M Gould) writes: >In article <Nov.22.16.54.04.1988.3254@topaz.rutgers.edu> clong@topaz.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) writes: >>A play involving various evil-doers making stupid comments. I could >>have let them stand on their own (the gibber content is that high), >>but I couldn't resist a few cheap jabs. >Which is exactly what they are--cheap jabs. Cheap jabs? Do you remember who made the following cheap jab? "The fact that you have ignored my previous postings just goes to show your own anti-semitism." >Chris Long has just made a personal attack Jonathon Richmond, >David Makowsky, Betsy Schwartz, and myself without seriously >addressing what we had to say. >If people on the net wish to attack the contents of one's >postings, by all means, go ahead, but please refrain from making >personal attacks on one's character (and labeling people who >disagree with your point of view as "misguided" and "stupid". Let's see that again: "The fact that you have ignored my previous postings just goes to show your own anti-semitism." In other words, the fact that I may not have considered your postings extraordinary for their wisdom as well as their wit and seen fit to suitably acknowledge both with exclamations of awe and gratitude is taken by you to be a slight not to your ego but to your religion and/or ethnic group. You state I have either a slavering eagerness to burn down synagogues and desecrate Torah scrolls or at least the germs of such a feeling because I have not until now found your musings especially worthy of note. That was then. Now you are saying that character assassination is really not nice, and personal attacks perhaps not altogether polite. But you see, you really need to make up your mind on that score. Is it fine and dandy to discern anti-semitic tendencies on the basis of "evidence" which does not even make coherent sense, but less fine to label opposing points of view "misguided" or"stupid"? Of the four people on your list, only Mr. Richmond has (to my knowledge) refrained from name-calling. He has found other ways of annoying people, perhaps. In any case, the promoters of net politeness are seen in some cases (yours, alas, being one of them) to have a disturbing tendency to want to enforce a standard on other people they are not willing to meet themselves. And this whole question of ethnic jokes is at root a politness issue. This was the essence of my original complaint against Makowsky, which led to so much hollering. I still think it is valid, and think that person engaged in slinging stones should check first the composition of their walls. -- ucbvax!garnet!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 ucbvax!bosco!gsmith Institute of Pi Research
mccarrol@topaz.rutgers.edu (Mark C. Carroll <MC>) (11/24/88)
] == Chris Long } == Nancy Gould ]A play involving various evil-doers making stupid comments. I could ] ^^^^^^ ]have let them stand on their own (the gibber content is that high), ]but I couldn't resist a few cheap jabs. }Which is exactly what they are--cheap jabs. ] ]Cast of characters: ] ] ]The good: Brad Tempelton, persecuted moderator of rec.humor.funny . ] ] ]The misguided: ] ]Jonathan E. D. Richmond, leader of the misguided: ]Nancy M Gould, his second-in-command: ]David Makowsky, toadie bigot: ]Betsy R. Schwartz --aka-- Kinyan Cattery, a random bigot: }Chris Long has just made a personal attack Jonathon Richmond, David Makowsky, }Betsy Schwartz, and myself without seriously addressing what }we had to say. } Nancy, I hate to say this, because I've really liked a lot of what you've had to say on other subjects, but: I think Chris is justified in that posting. The point of is how stupid this whole thing is. Brad posted a JOKE (Get that? Joke?) to an open public forum. A bunch of oversensitive jerks have decided to be offended, and carry this thing to absolutely insane proportions. Have you people heard of freedom of speach? You have NO right to decide what CAN and CANNOT be posted to ANY group on usenet. I find it particularly disgusting seeing jews in favor of censorship. I don't care if it was a potentially offensive joke. You have NO right to try to silence it! Who the hell do you think you are? }If people on the net wish to attack the contents of one's postings, }by all means, go ahead, but please refrain from making personal }attacks on one's character (and labeling people who disagree with }your point of view as "misguided" and "stupid". } When you act stupid, sometimes it's appropriate to point it out to you. }Please, people, let's act grown up!!! Yes, let's. Let us open our minds, and try to not be so sensitive. Let us try to understand that we can't try to destroy anyone who dares to post something we don't like. If I tried to have everyone who posted something that I considered disgustingly offensive removed, that's what I'd spend my life doing. But people have the right to say what they want, and we don't have the right to silence them. Maybe you should grow up a bit and try to understand that. Remember, to some people, everything we believe in as jews is horribly offensive, and should be banned... -Mark -- \ Mark Craig Carroll \ /"On and on, the rain will fall / | perhaps better known as: <MC> \/ like tears from a star | | mccarrol@topaz.rutgers.edu /\ On and on, the rain will say | / ...backbone!rutgers!topaz!mccarrol / \ how fragile we are" -Sting \
hwt@bnr-public.uucp (Henry Troup) (11/24/88)
In article <1092@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu> nmg@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu.UUCP (Nancy M Gould) writes: >"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 Please read your own quote. This whole discussion is a pure waste. Henry Troup utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!hwt%bnr-public | BNR is not Bell-Northern Reseach hwt@bnr (BITNET/NETNORTH) | responsible for Ottawa, Canada (613) 765-2337 (Voice) | my opinions
nmg@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu (Nancy M Gould) (11/24/88)
In article <Nov.23.11.54.06.1988.29466@topaz.rutgers.edu> mccarrol@topaz.rutgers.edu (Mark C. Carroll <MC>) writes: >} > >Nancy, I hate to say this, because I've really liked a lot of what >you've had to say on other subjects, but: I think Chris is justified >in that posting. > Have you people heard of freedom of >speach? If you had read my postings more carefully to begin with, you would know that I was not calling for censorship so much as for an honest acknowledgement of the consequences of telling ethnic jokes. Sean Engleson wrote a long, eloquent article on the subject, which expressed my exact views. Didn't you read it. > You have NO right to decide what CAN and CANNOT be posted to >ANY group on usenet. Of course, I have no legal right to decide what can and cannot be posted. But I do have the right to my personal opinion of what SHOULD and SHOULD NOT be posted. Please respect it. > I find it particularly disgusting seeing jews >in favor of censorship. Why just Jews? >You have NO right to try to silence it! Who the hell do you >think you are? > Again, I do have the right to express my opinion on the subject. You have NO right to try to silence that. >} > >When you act stupid, sometimes it's appropriate to point it out >to you. Fine. But if you wish to give me constructive criticism about my personal characteristics, all standards of politeness and netiquette indicate that the appropriate place to do this would be by e-mail > >}Please, people, let's act grown up!!! > >Yes, let's. Let us open our minds, and try to not be so sensitive. >Let us try to understand that we can't try to destroy anyone who dares >to post something we don't like. Excuse me, but have I tried to destroy any one? All I've done is post my honest opinions publicly to the net! You want freedom of speech? Fine! But, remember, it works both ways. -- "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
Infinite@cup.portal.com (Merril S Weiner) (11/24/88)
Nancy M Gould writes :
>People, people, let's act grown up!!!
I always thought that one of the purposes of the rec.humor
areas was to act childish and crack silly jokes! Oh well.
Nancy, I think you failed to realize the humor that was
intended in Chris Long's reply to all the humor bashing that
has been going around.
But the point has been well made. Maybe rec.humor should
be further divided. How about breaking rec.humor.funny down
into "rec.humor.funny" and "rec.humor.offensive" sound to
you all?
-Merril Weiner
Note : The above opinions may or may not belong to this persona
so labeled as Merril Weiner.
peggy@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Peggy Shambo) (11/25/88)
Okay, okay, okay.
I have been wading thru megabytes of argument re: ethnic/racial
discrimination and/or slurs. Seems that only the Jewish and Black
(with strong emphasis on the former) voices are crying out the
loudest.
I don't hear anyone crying out about the Italian jokes.
I don't hear anyone crying about the Russian jokes.
I certainly didn't cry out about either the Catholic or Irish jokes.
I found them humorous. They did not denigrate my ethnicity nor cultural
or religious background.
Why is it considered "okay" to tell certain <ethnic> jokes, but not
others?
--
_____________________________________________________________________________
Peg Shambo | The brain is a wonderful organ; it starts
peggy@ddsw1.mcs.com | working the moment you get up in the morning
| and doesn't stop until you get to work.nmg@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu (Nancy M Gould) (11/27/88)
In article <2229@ddsw1.MCS.COM> peggy@ddsw1.MCS.COM(Peggy Shambo) writes: > >Okay, okay, okay. > >I have been wading thru megabytes of argument re: ethnic/racial >discrimination and/or slurs. Seems that only the Jewish and Black >(with strong emphasis on the former) voices are crying out the >loudest. Probably because the Jews and the Blacks have been discriminated against more than any other ethnic groups in this country. > >I don't hear anyone crying out about the Italian jokes. Including Italians. > >I don't hear anyone crying about the Russian jokes. Including Russians. > >Why is it considered "okay" to tell certain <ethnic> jokes, but not >others? Did any one here say it WAS okay? The point is that if certain ethnic groups do not find such jokes offensive, it ceases to be an issue. But other ethnic groups, having suffered a significant amount of discrimination DO find such jokes offensive, and their wishes should be respected. -- "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
byte@gryphon.COM (Byte Felinus) (11/27/88)
In article <1099@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu> nmg@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu.UUCP (Nancy M Gould) writes: > >The point is that if certain ethnic groups do not find such >jokes offensive, it ceases to be an issue. But other ethnic >groups, having suffered a significant amount of discrimination >DO find such jokes offensive, and their wishes should be >respected. > 1. Why? 2. How does one determine what jokes "other ethnic groups" find offensive? Who is the authoratative spokesperson for an ethnic group?
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (11/27/88)
In article <1099@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu> nmg@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu.UUCP (Nancy M Gould) writes: > >Probably because the Jews and the Blacks have been discriminated >against more than any other ethnic groups in this country. Nah. Native Americans. -- Never confuse fruit flies with french frys. richard@gryphon.COM gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov
jet@chinet.chi.il.us (John E. Thomason) (11/28/88)
In article <1099@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu> nmg@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu.UUCP (Nancy M Gould) writes: >In article <2229@ddsw1.MCS.COM> peggy@ddsw1.MCS.COM(Peggy Shambo) writes: >> >>Okay, okay, okay. >> >>I have been wading thru megabytes of argument re: ethnic/racial ...rest of the gratuitous junk omitted. Ladies, take a look at the newsgroups line. Was it really necessary to post to all these? Please do alt.flame a favor, at least, and either FLAME OR EDIT IT OUT OF THE NEWSGROUPS LINE! TWITS! Cheers, Wasser
pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) (11/28/88)
In article <2065@uokmax.UUCP> russ@uokmax.UUCP (Random J Nightfall) writes:
=He understands fine. So do the rest of us. Kindly stop explaining. The
=point is, noone made you read it. The ONLY POSSIBLE problem here (except
=what might be in your head) is the failure to ROT13 the given post. Brad
=apoligized. I'm satisfied (actually, I was never perturbed). I don't
=think you're going to have his intestines for dinner, though.
I don't want anyone's intestines for dinner, luch, breakfast or a snack!
I just find it hard to justify the attitude that says that if something
offends me, I shoud ignore it. But you're right in at least one thing:
what I write here is not going to change that attitude
=->Are you student or faculty, Chris? Just curious.
=->
=Don't tell me you're about to propagate a ... stereotype!
Do *you* have a stereotype in mind for faculty and/or students? Where
do you see any "propagation"?
OK, OK. I call "uncle". I'm happy to say that given the general
conditions of 1988 USA, I'm not terribly worried about a physical threat
to any of the persecuted minorities whose negative stereotypes have been
perpetuated on usenet -- thank God!!
Pete
--
Pete Holsberg UUCP: {...!rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh
Mercer College CompuServe: 70240,334
1200 Old Trenton Road GEnie: PJHOLSBERG
Trenton, NJ 08690 Voice: 1-609-586-4800nmg@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu (Nancy M Gould) (11/28/88)
In article <8980@gryphon.COM> byte@gryphon.COM (Byte Felinus) writes: >In article <1099@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu> nmg@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu.UUCP (Nancy M Gould) writes: >> >>The point is that if certain ethnic groups do not find such >>jokes offensive, it ceases to be an issue. But other ethnic >>groups, having suffered a significant amount of discrimination >>DO find such jokes offensive, and their wishes should be >>respected. >> > >1. Why? It's called politeness and consideration for the feelings of others. > >2. How does one determine what jokes "other ethnic groups" find > offensive? Who is the authoratative spokesperson for an ethnic > group? No one person can be the authority. I think it just depends on how many people complain. If the number is significant, maybe the joke really is offensive. -- "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
RWC102@PSUVM (R. W. F. Clark) (11/29/88)
Newsgroups: alt.flame,news.misc,soc.culture.jewish,rec.humor.d Subject: Legislating courtesy Distribution: world Date: Monday, 28 Nov 1988 14:29:28 EST Organization: The Insensate Void Followup-to: news.misc,alt.flame From: R. W. F. Clark <RWC102@PSUVM> Nancy Gould writes: [Referring to how wonderfully liberal and enlightened thing called censorship] >It's called politeness and consideration for the feelings of >others. Neither politeness nor consideration for the feelings of others can, or should, be legislated. One might think that referring to Brad Templeton as being the next worst thing to a Nazi is hardly polite or considerate. >No one person can be the authority. I think it just depends on how >many people complain. If the number is significant, maybe the joke >really is offensive. There is no law against being offensive. If there were, perhaps Makowsky, Richmond, and their ilk would have been imprisoned quite some time ago. fc
meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) (11/29/88)
In article <1094@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu> nmg@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu.UUCP (Nancy M Gould) writes: >The above quote that you are referring to was not by me (I believe it >was by Betsy Schwartz). >If you are going to be so opinionated on an issue, please, please, >PLEASE read the postings more carefully. And make sure that when >you respond to an article, you respond to the right person next >time. Nancy- This is a public apology. I can only plead that long hours sometimes make me act brain-dead. I really do try to pay attention to such details. But I am sorry for attributing the quotes wrongly. I also apologize to the original poster (Betsy???). Anyway, I didn't feel it was that opinionated; I felt the original poster was, and was pointing out why I felt that way. -miles
rasar@wright.EDU (Ravin Asar) (11/29/88)
In article <2229@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, peggy@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Peggy Shambo) writes: > > I don't hear anyone crying out about the Italian jokes. > > I don't hear anyone crying about the Russian jokes. > > Why is it considered "okay" to tell certain <ethnic> jokes, but not > others? > Well, I don't know about the Italians, but you don't find anyone objecting to Russian jokes because : a) They're true b) Humor is a capital crime in Russia, hence "jokes" are not defined in their system c) Crying is a heinous crime in Russia (second only to humor) d) There aren't too many Russians on the net Take your pick. - Ravin Asar --------------------------------------------------------------------- As a rule, man's a fool, when it's hot he wants it cool When it's cool he wants it hot, always wanting what is not. -My Dad ---------------------------------------------------------------------
rob@violet.berkeley.edu (Rob Robertson) (11/29/88)
In article <1099@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu> nmg@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu.UUCP (Nancy M Gould) writes: >>I have been wading thru megabytes of argument re: ethnic/racial >>discrimination and/or slurs. Seems that only the Jewish and Black >>(with strong emphasis on the former) voices are crying out the >>loudest. >Probably because the Jews and the Blacks have been discriminated >against more than any other ethnic groups in this country. Huh? The people who are discriminated the most, are those that look "different". I'd put Blacks, Orientals, Indians, Native Americans and Hispanics way up there. Also remember that in 1942, a hundred thousand Japanese were interned for the duration of WWWII, all because they were of Japanese heritage. No such thing happened to German Americans or Italian Americans. bigots may be stupid, but they aren't blind. rob william robertson rob@violet.berkeley.edu
nmg@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu (Nancy M Gould) (11/29/88)
In article <17505@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, rob@violet.berkeley.edu (Rob Robertson) writes: > In article <1099@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu> nmg@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu.UUCP (Nancy M Gould) writes: > >>I have been wading thru megabytes of argument re: ethnic/racial > >>discrimination and/or slurs. Seems that only the Jewish and Black > >>(with strong emphasis on the former) voices are crying out the > >>loudest. > > >Probably because the Jews and the Blacks have been discriminated > >against more than any other ethnic groups in this country. > > Huh? The people who are discriminated the most, are those that look > "different". I'd put Blacks, Orientals, Indians, Native Americans and > Hispanics way up there. > > Also remember that in 1942, a hundred thousand Japanese were interned > for the duration of WWWII, all because they were of Japanese heritage. > No such thing happened to German Americans or Italian Americans. Let me clarify my position. I'm sorry I left out American Indians, Hispanics, Japanese, etc. The reason I only mentioned Jews and Blacks was because those were the two ethnic groups that the original poster referred too. Certainly, there have been other ethnic groups that were discriminated against every bit as bad as the Jews and Blacks. But the ones she mentioned (Italians and Russians) don't fit that category. I thought it was interesting that the poster mentioned Russians because most Russian Americans are in fact Russian JEWISH Americans. Many Russian Jewish Americans, when asked their nationality, will reply "Russian" because they are afraid of anti-Semitism. I know that in my childhood, nobody ever called me a "dirty Russian". I have, however, been called a "dirty Jew". I think we can pretty safely say that ethnic groups of Asian and African origin are more discriminated against than those of Western European origin. -- "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) (11/29/88)
In article <1861@stiatl.UUCP> meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) writes: I originally wrote: >>If you are going to be so opinionated on an issue, please, please, >>PLEASE read the postings more carefully. And make sure that when >>you respond to an article, you respond to the right person next >>time. > >Nancy- > >This is a public apology. And this a public acceptance. Thank you. :-) >Anyway, I didn't feel it was that opinionated; I felt >the original poster was, and was pointing out why I >felt that way. Sorry. I guess I owe you an apology as well. -- "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
veve@tank.uchicago.edu (jack lewis vevea) (11/29/88)
In article <1106@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu> nmg@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu.UUCP (Nancy M Gould) writes: >In article <1861@stiatl.UUCP> meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) writes: > (text deleted) >>Nancy- >> >>This is a public apology. > > >And this a public acceptance. Thank you. :-) > > (more text deleted) > > >Sorry. I guess I owe you an apology as well. Isn't this sweet? Votes for a new newsgroup, rec.apologies, anyone? Saepe fidelis.
nmg@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu (Nancy M Gould) (11/29/88)
In article <390@thor.wright.EDU> rasar@wright.EDU (Ravin Asar) writes: >Well, I don't know about the Italians, but you don't find anyone >objecting to Russian jokes because : > > a) They're true > b) Humor is a capital crime in Russia, hence "jokes" are not > defined in their system > c) Crying is a heinous crime in Russia (second only to humor) > d) There aren't too many Russians on the net I have another reason. Most Russian Americans are in fact Jews. They probably don't have time to object to Russian jokes because they are too busy fighting the Jewish ones. :-) -- "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
mayville@tybalt.caltech.edu (Kevin J. Mayville) (11/29/88)
>>>But other ethnic >>>groups, having suffered a significant amount of discrimination >>>DO find such jokes offensive, and their wishes should be >>>respected. > >>1. Why? > >It's called politeness and consideration for the feelings of >others. Nancy, that does not answer the question by any stretch of the imagination. One of the basic tenets of comedy is that it respects *nothing*. Nothing is sacred. You can hop up and down, stamp your feet, and yell 'Discrimination!' for as long as you want, and this will never change. Or if it does, that will spell the end of comedy. >>2. How does one determine what jokes "other ethnic groups" find >> offensive? Who is the authoratative spokesperson for an ethnic >> group? > >No one person can be the authority. I think it just depends on how >many people complain. If the number is significant, maybe the joke >really is offensive. But nobody (well, nobody rational) really cares if some people think a particular joke is offensive. Millions if not billions of people think, say, Richard Pryor's comedy routines are offensive. Yet that hasn't stopped him from releasing new albums, or me from enjoying them. And I don't recall any great setbacks to the civil rights movement caused by the ethnic flavor of some of his jokes. 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?"
david@mirror.TMC.COM (David Chesler) (11/30/88)
In article <2065@uokmax.UUCP> russ@uokmax.UUCP (Random J Nightfall) writes: >[pjh@mccc.UUCP:] >->In article <Nov.22.21.55.17.1988.1278@topaz.rutgers.edu> clong@topaz.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) writes: (I think Nancy said the following:) >->Or maybe you just don't understand. Don't feel badly; lots of people >->don't understand how perpetuating the negative stereotypes of persecuted >->minorities can lead to further persecution. You may just have to live >->through it. >He understands fine. So do the rest of us. Kindly stop explaining. The >point is, noone made you read it. The ONLY POSSIBLE problem here (except >what might be in your head) is the failure to ROT13 the given post. Obviously the author of the above paragraph (russ) does not understand. If someone were to post "All the Jews ought to be killed" I would not be offended, because I would just figure the author is a jerk. Nevertheless I would object to the posting because someone else, a third party, might read the post and be more willing to act on it. I don't think one such post would be enough to convince anyone on the entire Usenet to commit murder, but enough of them can lead to an environment where physical acts against myself and my people become more commonplace. As this has happened before in recent and older history, it is something that I do watch out for. Whether or not I read the comment, whether or not I subscribe to the group containing it, those third parties read it. It is for this reason that many object to posting. (Disclaimer: I didn't find the particular joke to fit into that category, but many people whose opinions I respect did; their reasoning is perfectly valid, it is only their specific-case judgement with which I disagree.) -- David Chesler (david@prism.tmc.com, mirror!david)
RWC102@PSUVM (R. W. F. Clark) (11/30/88)
In article <20312@mirror.TMC.COM>, david@mirror.TMC.COM (David Chesler) says: >If someone were to post "All the Jews ought to be killed" I would not >be offended, because I would just figure the author is a jerk. Nevertheless >I would object to the posting because someone else, a third party, might >read the post and be more willing to act on it. I can understand objecting to the posting. However, many parties in this discussion have either supported forcing a person's employer to remove him or actually attempted to do so. Mr. Richmond made quite an idiot of himself in these endeavors. It is not that censorship on the net is such a terrible thing, but these parties have made ar- guments which are not only directed to this sort of thing on the net, but are very easily extendable to the real world. If anything which offends anyone 'should not be published,' then any idiot pressure- group is free to restrict publishing of any sort, leaving us with a literary heritage as useful and interesting as a TV documentary. > I don't think one such post would be enough to convince anyone on the >entire Usenet to commit murder, but enough of them can lead to an environment >where physical acts against myself and my people become more commonplace. >As this has happened before in recent and older history, it is something >that I do watch out for. Watching this is a good thing. The continued distribution of Moral Majoritarian garbage is a leading cause of bigotry in this nation. The use of advertisement as a brainwashing tool for political moguls is a leading cause of the breakdown of our political process. However, trying to stop this by limiting advertisement or publishing is not to be allowed. > Whether or not I read the comment, whether or not I subscribe to the >group containing it, those third parties read it. It is for this reason >that many object to posting. When they _object_ to the posting, I am not bothered. When they attempt to harass the person making the posting, I am impressed by their own lack of courtesy and respect for others. > >(Disclaimer: I didn't find the particular joke to fit into that category, >but many people whose opinions I respect did; their reasoning is perfectly >valid, it is only their specific-case judgement with which I disagree.) Their reasoning is as valid as the reasoning of any censors or proponents of censorship. That is to say, dead wrong. fc