Xref: utzoo news.misc:2054 soc.culture.jewish:8304 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!convex!killer!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ncar!ames!ubvax!ardent!kmw From: kmw@sim.ardent.com (Ken Wallich) Newsgroups: news.misc,soc.culture.jewish Subject: Re: RACIST JOKES Message-ID: Date: 23 Nov 88 21:50:55 GMT References: <8030@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <1058@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu> <1060@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu> <1057@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.ed <362@sulaco.Sigma.COM> <1090@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu> Sender: news@ardent.UUCP Distribution: na Organization: Ardent Computer Corporation, Sunnyvale, CA Lines: 107 In-reply-to: nmg@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu's message of 22 Nov 88 19:23:26 GMT In article <1090@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu> nmg@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu (Nancy M Gould) writes: >Unlike most of the people on the net, I realize that this issue >is a highly controversial. You can't find a black and white >answer to a problem that is not black and white. Right Nancy. It is obvious that no one but you knows that this issue is 'a highly controversial' (what the hell is 'a controversial' anyhow :-). I think it is quite clear that 'most' folks realize that this is an area that is grey. Some folks have been telling us that they find any hint of ethnic humor to be tantamount to organizing death squads, and others think that it is no big deal in their eyes, they find humor in absurd things. Doesn't sound cut and dry to me, nor to anyone else who has any analytical grey matter left between their ears. It is interesting that the 'Brad burners' seem to feel that identifying racist humor *is* cut and dry, whereas many of the 'Brad supporters' (does he *still* wear those things?) feel that what is vile and racist to Ralph may be absurdly funny to Peggy (and won't make her go searching for that armband in the attic). These same people make a distinction between 'racist' and 'ethnic'. An ethnic joke can be racist when told by one person, and simply ethnic and humorous when told by someone else. When you are reading ethnic jokes, you are telling them to yourself. What you find racist and offensive, another may not. There may be jokes that are inherently racist, that have a mean spirit about them and have no purpose other than to make a group of people look like sub-humans no matter who tells them, and how they are told. I can't think of any off-hand, but I wouldn't find such things to be of great interest to retain (I also cannot recall seeing anything like that in rec.humor.funny). I can find the absurdity in a great variety of humor, and if looked at from an objective viewpoint, a great many things contain humor, but the bottom line is that 'racist' humor is difficult to define, and a joke being 'ethinic' does not make it 'racist'. >That is why we have a court system. Ohhh. So let's ask THEM whether or not *each and every joke* is offensive to anyone. Yeah, that's the ticket. Saying "I want to eliminate racist jokes' is not like saying 'I want to eliminate jokes with the word penis in them'. One is measurable, one is up to interpretation. What some people aren't willing to face is that no matter WHO filters the jokes, someone will be offended. If the content of the jokes doesn't, then the fact that *they* filter some jokes will offend someone (censorship!), and the fact that jokes are read by employees of companies, some even during (gasp!) working hours will offend others (theft!). The people on the net must be somewhat computer literate, that means they probably have some reasoning capacity (although I often wonder, if this is a crossection of the above average folks in the world....). If *we* cannot decide if something is really really offensive, and what the correct thing is to do about it, how can you expect the courts to have a rational, informed opinion? Oh yeah, I forgot, just because they *can* make a judgement that is legally binding, it *must* be right. No need to question authority, nosiree. Did you ever think that the attitude "Well I'm not wrong, and you're not right, and I refuse to compromise, unless you compromise first!" may perhaps be *why* everyone in America is so bloody sue crazy? What ever happened to moderation (pardon the implied pun)? Oh no, that would mean I'd have to respect *your* opinions, even if I don't like them. I can understand (in principle, anyway) why some folks could get offended by racial humor. I am offended if the humor is hostile, or is presented in a hateful way, but it is my choice to not listen to such garbage, without insisting that someone sew the bozo's mouth shut just because I don't agree with him. What I cannot understand is the desire to suppress something that offends you. You can rationalize and say that it not only offends you, but it damages you, and people who hold your belief system, perhaps it does do some subtle damage, and you may wish to counteract this with propagation of your own beliefs, but silencing the offending party is not the answer. Suppression of offensive ideas is the first step to allowing others to control the information you receive (oh, I know, that could *never* happen here). Then *they* can control your environment, then they can start to control your thoughts by not allowing any input that would cause you to believe differently than was "right" and then, well George Orwell wrote a whole book about what happens *then*. Is the next goal to be to eliminate anything that is sexually offensive to white christian males (or green atheist asexual lepers?, now *there* is a minority). I can see it now: "I want Johnny removed from the net because he supports homosexuals, which [my] god specifically forbids. If he isn't removed, I'll, well I'll SUE!". Yeah. That's the ticket. Boy I'm sure glad that we have learned to respect the right of people to express their thoughts, whether we agree with them or not. We're on our way to utopia, yup we are (and people bitch at me for being a cynic, geesh). -- Ken Wallich Ardent Computer Corp kmw@ardent.com "I'd let you be macrobiotic, if you'd let me have some pie"