Re: Hugo Shortlist 2008 (Sawyer)

On Mar 27, 10:13 am, fairwa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Derek Lyons) wrote:

> >Once upon a time it was cool, acceptable and mainstream to be a bigot.
>
> John's point is that it is _still_ "cool, acceptable and mainstream"
> to be a bigot - the only thing that is changed is who the societally
> acceptable targets of the bigotry are.
>

Huh, txs, kinda understood that myself.

> And just like the bigots of yesteryear, the bigots of today advance
> convoluted moral theories as to why their bigotry is the "correct"
> attitude.

True, but some moron reflexively foaming at the mouth at the mere hint
of political incorrectness is, for all that she is a moron, still less
dangerous than a classical racist.  I don't deny the stupidity of such
a position, I am just of the opinion that is a relatively lesser harm
and inherently self-contradictory though rarely perceived as such by
its proponents.

> >Nowadays, you never know how strangers, even your fellow whites, are
> >gonna react when you spout off white supremacist theories.  For me at
> >least, that is an improvement.  Do you find that to be a problem
> >yourself?
>
> That has changed less than you might think.  I grew up in the South in
> the 60's and 70's - and supremacist groups like the Klan were in fact
> widely regarded and treated as dangerous loons, The two guys at my
> high school who publically espoused Nazi theories were invited to shut
> their mouths under penalty of having a baseball bat introduced to
> their cranium.
>
> "White Supremacy" (as understood today) simply wasn't tolerated, while
> bigotry [against blacks] more-or-less was, even as the tolerance for
> the latter was decreasing.

Sorry, don't buy the we-were-all-good-guys-you-know position.  It
doesn't seem to fit my perception of history so well, though I hardly
presume to tell you that your entourage were racists or anything.  For
myself, I was still telling off-color jokes in the early 80s, mostly
because well, I wasn't the only one.

> >Unfortunately, we've also gotten to the point where opinions that
> >clash with PC thinking can generate a lot of unthinking backlash.  I
> >find it a somewhat acceptable, if regrettable, trade off if it is
> >needed to move us away from pure racism.
>
> Huh?
>

Crappy argumentation on my end.  OK, let's take some examples of what
I do and do not like.

1.  Watson (DNA) controversy lynching - bad.

2.  Ferraro being canned for her Obama comment - seems relatively
justified, at the least it was a klutzy political move so she became a
liability.

3.  Hate incitation speech censor****p (as we have it in Canada) -
mostly good, but burden of proof needs to be on the complainants.

4.  Mein Kampf being banned in a country, as it is in France - bad.  I
don't see myself reading it, but he did supposedly outline what he was
gonna do to everybody and was promptly ignored - makes it valid to
study and I dislike censor****p.

5.  General revulsion and self-censor****p at racist comments - good.

6.  General revulsion and self-censor****p at positions claiming racial/
ethnic differences, if scientifically argumented - generally bad,
except, when it is just pseudo-scientific wrapping for racist
theories.  Difficult to differentiate the 2 though.

OK, all in all, it is very difficult to separate the free speech baby
from the bathwater, but there is a lot of racist bathwater we could do
without.  I really don't have a hard and fast position or certainties,
so you can shoot at me from either side - not PC enough, too PC.