Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ut-sally.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!seismo!ut-sally!jsq From: jsq@ut-sally.UUCP (John Quarterman) Newsgroups: net.jokes.d Subject: Re: Re: 'Offensive' jokes, minorities, r Message-ID: <273@ut-sally.UUCP> Date: Wed, 23-May-84 23:45:13 EDT Article-I.D.: ut-sally.273 Posted: Wed May 23 23:45:13 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 31-May-84 20:04:38 EDT References: <186@ism780.UUCP> Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas Lines: 29 Are we all bored with this yet? > John, I think you are blinded by your unconstructive insistence on > criticizing anyone who in any way suggests that there are legitimate reasons > to dislike certain jokes, or that people who tell jokes should consider their > social implications. And your credibility is certainly weakened by this > example of your failure to understand a simple semantic construct. > > -- Jim Balter, INTERACTIVE Systems (ima!jim) One of the main reasons most people use analogies is that they can not be taken literally, and can imply more than was actually written, having a life often beyond even the intentions of the author. One of the main problems with using them is that it is difficult to understand beforehand all of the implications of an analogy. I never wrote anything even implying there were no legitimate reasons to dislike certain jokes, or that people should not consider the social implications of jokes. My point was that critics should have a care as well, in the expression of their criticism. Inappropriate hyperbole is misleading. Judgement of social implications can be wrong. Dislike is not sufficient reason for advocation of censorship. The critic is not always holier than the one criticised (though the critic may think so). "We can win a nuclear war." - George Bush, 1980 -- John Quarterman, CS Dept., University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712 USA jsq@ut-sally.ARPA, jsq@ut-sally.UUCP, {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!jsq