Re: inappropriate racist and other offensive material
On Thursday 14 March 2002 02:56 pm, Vineet Kumar wrote:
> * Warren Stramiello (email@example.com) [020313 23:39]:
> > Trying to stir up passions by comparing snipping racist remarks from
> > source to the image of a torch-waving book burning (and the implicit
> > link to nazism) doesn't strike me as a good analogy... the request that
> Finally! The nazis! I invoke Godwin's Law and declare this thread dead.
what's godwin's law? that is, i'm interested as long as it goes a step beyond
permitting you to accuse someone of being a nazi and then taking your ball
and going home.
as for the flying accusations of racism that proliferate throughout this
thread, if any single person is offended by anything, doesn't it behoove
those individuals who take offence to take the matter up with the alleged
offender? and, even if the offence is genuine, i still don't see that we have
to surrender yet more of the constitution simply because some individuals
scattered all over the country and/or globe might be offended by the stupid
utterances of others; and, as far as racism is concerned, the fact is that
racism, in the sense of having discrimatory attitudes towards others on the
basis of ethnic origin, as unfortunate and bigoted as that may be, is not
illegal. it's a moral issue or an issue of linguistics, but certainly not an
issue that can be decided by any one or another proving that their particular
sense of righteousness deserves to hold sway over another, because it's
impossible to prove. however unburdened of prejudice i might believe myself
to be, the fact remains that, when i look around, the bulk of my associations
with others tend to reflect a number of biases. all of my male friends have
dark hair--i guess that means i'm bigoted against blonde haired males. hey,
guess what, all of my female friends also have dark hair. well, it's pretty
damn apparent that i've got an issue with blonde haired people. does that
make me a hairist, a colorist, or what? does the fact that i can't remember
any jokes, whether about blondes or anything else get me some slack, here?
personally, i'm at a loss to see either the funny side or the offensive side
of the incriminating text. my momma and the rest of my family are neither
white nor black--not that i've ever seen anybody in the world who is actually
white or actually black, notwithstanding that there may well be many who
choose to refer to themselves as white or black.
somebody used the phrase "my tax dollars" in arguing that they should not be
forced to pay for the inclusion in libraries of some book or other to which
they objected. all i can say is that i'll support you in your cause when you
support me in mine. however, i've long since resigned myself to the fact that
the bible, despite assurances of the separation of church and state, is still
the defacto creed offered as the means of public authentication of sworn
testimony. first off, they are not your tax dollars--they are our tax
dollars. taxes are a collective obligation. in fact, if we did get to choose
what our contributions finance, i'm pretty sure that you'd miss the lack of
bibles long before i would notice the absence of any of my favorites. next,
if you've got an issue with the texts available in public libraries in the
u.s., take it up with congress, as in the library of. lastly, if, for
whatever reason, you want to withold taxes, that's your business, not ours.
so, given your apparent sensibility to community welfare, be sure not to
incriminate the participants in this thread in the course of whatever
conspiracy it is that you imagine might accord you the sole right to
determine where our tax dollars are spent.
what the hell is wrong with you people? you've got the source. contact the
author. this is debian-user, right? not jerryspringer-watcher? the smartest
post i've seen in this thread came from an allegedly fifteen year old kid.
screw the utterance of godwin's mysterious law--this thread should have died