Xref: utzoo soc.culture.jewish:8116 news.misc:1932 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bbn!bbn.com!rsalz From: rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,news.misc Subject: Re: RACIST JOKES Message-ID: <1223@fig.bbn.com> Date: 18 Nov 88 18:22:58 GMT References: <8030@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <1058@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu> <1060@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu> <1057@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu> Followup-To: news.misc Organization: BBN Systems and Technologies Corporation Lines: 77 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 >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.