Limits of Toleration

[Griffin NoName]

Given the Monastery is all about toleration, it seems strange we haven't had a serious debate about this yet. (perhaps this should be in the serious section?).

I am horrified to learn that the British National Party (BNP), which I regard as a political party devoted to thugs and which may be about to be called to account on racism, is to be on one of my favourite BBC TV programmes, Question Time - a serious but enjoyable political debating programme (the BBC has to demonstrate impartiality which is the justification for the decision to invite the BNP).

My instinctive response is that any political party which holds racism as a central tenet should be shunned. It genuinely scares me that people with such views are given platforms to promote their beliefs and raises the specter of the how the Natzi party gained power and all that followed. That this flies in the face of Freedom of Speech is a problem for me. Is it better to have it out in the open ratehr than hidden due to repression of freedom of speech and where is the dividing line between this and a platform for promotion of thuggery and racism to be drawn and how?

So who is for total Freedom of Speech and who is for some form of control and how should that be achieved?

[Swatopluk]

Personally I am for certain limits to free speech but those should apply only to closely defined extreme examples. Those may not be the same in every place. For example it would be not very useful to make a law against Holocaust denial in Japan.
Anything that can be reasonably construed as instigation of violence in public should in my view be open to ban.
'Simple' racism is a grey area. Once it goes into direct intimidation, I am open for legal measures but the borders are of course fluid.
As for the BNP on TV, get capable opponents that are able to tear them a new one. I think Britain still has a few of those (over here we unfortunately haven't any more). One problem over here is that the conservative parties like to fish in the brown waters at election time (the CSU's official dogma is: NO democrats to the right of us). As a result there is a certain unwillingness to go really after the brown agitators because xenophobia is something that can be exploited in pusuit of votes. They have no qualms of course to insinuate that the moderate left is in cahoots with the fringe left. Not as extreme as in the past but some still regret that "Their orders come form Moscow" lacks a bit of credibility these days (although the pipeline deals with Russia made by the Schröder administration allowed a brief revival).
What I do not like is that existing laws are not applied equally. Catholic archbishops can utter filth without legal consequences that would get other mere mortals (rightfully) behind bars.
What is considered 'normal' in the US would mean overtime for the courts over here. And media outlets like Radio Marya in Poland should imo not just be closed  but razed, the ground salted and the people behind it receive the treatment they so freely call down on their enemies (esp. Teh Jeeews; blood libel charges are part of the normal diet).

[Darlica]

I think this should be in the serious discussion section.
Because we should have a serious discussion about it...

We have a Church election coming up at the end of the month and our equivalent of BNP, SD (Sverigedemokraterna Swedish Democrats) are using it as a gateway. To sit in the parish council gives an air of respectability which they want as a platform for next years elections to the parliament where they are aiming for a role where they can tip the scale of power towards anyone how give in to their demands... 

I am very low at the tolerance scale when it comes to racists, fascists and Nazis, religious fundamentalists or anyone else who claim they are better one, based on; colour of skin, religion, ethnicity, sex/gender, sexual preferences and disabilities.   

Other nut jobs one can have an argument with and try to smack down trashing their arguments and turning the remains of their own logic against them, but the lot mentioned above have an ugly tendency to turn to violence when they are intellectually defeated, thus they have no raison d'être in a democracy... They have gained their red card before the match has even started to use a sports analogy.

[Swatopluk]

Therefore keep the fifteen ton weight handy! 

[Darlica]

And a crane I assume... 

[Griffin NoName]

OK I moved it. But it is still a Debate. If only we have someone who promotes disgusting politics.

As for the BNP on TV, get capable opponents that are able to tear them a new one.

Question Time is designed to do this. But in my book it gives them airtime and therefore risks promoting their ideas. I believe, as said above, that no amount of "discussion" by oponents will persuade their voters and potential voters of their thorough nastiness.

[Darlica]

I don't know, as I said my tolerance is low but I don't think this lot can be ignored to death.

The main problem as I see it is that mainstream media doesn't take them as serious as they should. They should get together and smoke them out! Go over the organisations and expose them, report about every crime people connected to the organisations has committed, put them between a rock and a hard place. 

Now as I said, these are people prone to threats and violence so it would probably take persons so well-known, loved and respected by people in general to stand behind the perusal people they don't dare to touch because that would be really bad publicity. The goons and thugs might want to strike against these people but the brain trust would hold them back.
A lone journalist on a mission would be dead meat, but they can't bully the whole media collective (editors in chief of every major newspaper well known TV journalists etc. ) if they joined forces.

Now I guess hell will freeze over before that happen, but I still think that is what it would take to get people to realise that these people isn't just "nationalists" who loves their country...

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

When freedom of speech becomes freedom to lie repeatedly with no consequence it becomes a problem (see the US for the past 9 years). Unless there is a clear mechanism to shoot down libel, mischaracterizations and misrepresentations, then there isn't really a 'democratic' freedom of speech, but mob mentality which shouldn't have place in a democratic society. For instance, if we deal with an holocaust denier he must be taken to court to legally prove his point, and in the absence of proof the individual should be fined or arrested depending on the damage created by the misinformation.

The problem is on of harm: what happens if we are dealing with a UFO conspiracy theorist? Shoud (s)he be fined or arrested for conjecture? How do you prove that any particular speech is harmful?

[beagle]

When freedom of speech becomes freedom to lie repeatedly with no consequence it becomes a problem (see the US for the past 9 years). Unless there is a clear mechanism to shoot down libel, mischaracterizations and misrepresentations, then there isn't really a 'democratic' freedom of speech, but mob mentality which shouldn't have place in a democratic society.

Well of course some would say that the reason the smaller parties have been growing here recently is precisely because there are certain issues (EU etc) where the larger parties have lied through their teeth ("It's not a constitution really").
When people are lied to, know they're being lied to, and know the people doing the lying know they know they're being lied to and don't care, you begin to understand why any other party starts to look like an improvement.  Personally this wouldn't propel me any further away from the mainstream than UKIP (which has moved into second position and is rapidly becoming mainstream here), but for major parties (stand up Labour and Liberals) to think they can say one thing on a manifesto and do something else afterwards is asking for trouble, guaranteeing to make people angry enough to consider the lunatic fringe such as the BNP.
Threatening (possibly correctly) that the BNP would rig elections if they ever got to power is a bit rich coming from people already conniving in the suppression or rigging of EU referenda.

[Griffin NoName]

Maybe I'll get shot down in flames for saying this, but IMO UKIP is just cleverer than the BNP at disguising themselves (eg. by not having a racist constitution).

As for saying one thing and doing another, I always assume most politicians do this regardless of party. It almost seems like a job description to me.

[beagle]

Maybe I'll get shot down in flames for saying this, but IMO UKIP is just cleverer than the BNP at disguising themselves (eg. by not having a racist constitution).

Depends if you equate nation-statism with racism. You might just think it's the natural unit of governance. And if we don't, why do we praise Gandhi for achieving it for India, and accept the establishment of Eire?
The Greens don't want the EU superstate either, nor the Bennite remnant of the Labour party.

[Griffin NoName]

Depends if you equate nation-statism with racism.

I guess I do.

You might just think it's the natural unit of governance. And if we don't, why do we praise Gandhi for achieving it for India, and accept the establishment of Eire?

Um. I don't know. Something about the under dogs?

The Greens don't want the EU superstate either, nor the Bennite remnant of the Labour party.

Ok, you got me chuckling. And now the chuckle is wearing off I am still grinning.

But....when the red and white flags come out I hate it. They seem to be particularly attached to football hooliganism, that oh so English sport. And if that is nation state, then yes it does appear to me to be racist. I must admit I can't get my head around those of the Cambridge dons whom I know indulge in this, nor the politicians. I don't think I am alone in this although I wouldn't necessarily expect all beagles to agree.

Strangely I don't mind the Union Jack fluttering about. But then I am a woman so I can be inconsistent.

[beagle]

Nice image. Rampaging hordes of tweed clad dons hurling decanters onto the pitch accompanied by obscene chants in ancient Greek. In my experience they tend to prefer other vices though, and leave that sort of thing to the first year boaties and rugger* crowd.


*
Rugger - a game for yobs, played by gentlemen.
Football - a game for gentlemen, played by yobs.

[Griffin NoName]

*
Rugger - a game for yobs, played by gentlemen.
Football - a game for gentlemen, played by yobs.

Class wars are

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Mmm, a delicate line to be tread.

Stirring up a riot <--- a no-no
Denying the Holocaust. Evil, wrong, but not something I think anyone should be dragged off the court for.

Regarding racism, etc. I don't think, in good consciousness, that I can tell anyone not to talk about it, excluding certain circumstances (see the rioting bit). It gives them the opportunity to spout, but also gives everyone else a chance to mock the living daylight out of them. And mockery and the threat of ostracism is the best way to keep them (or anyone) quiet.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Nice argument: a mature society should be able to cope with their lunatics by pointing out the obvious flaws from their arguments, the question is how mature are our societies? When Glenn Beck starts foaming making racist comments how many of his viewers are capable to qualify his statements? The fact that he is mocked by some isn't enough to counteract the damage he does everyday he goes in the air, yet he is free to utter his 'speech' with little* or no consequence.

*some sponsors decided to pull their adds from his program but not all by any means.

[Griffin NoName]

Surely the question is whether such speech leads to mob rule?

[Swatopluk]

Unfortunately the worst offenders have good lawyers that tell them exactly where the limits are, i.e. where they could be held legally liable, if someone acts on their thinly veiled instigation.
And O'Reilly has what is known over here as a Jagdschein (hunting permit). Someone tried to sue him for libel but the court told the plaintiff that O'Reilly was so pathological a liar that knowledge and evil intent would be impossible to prove at the same time. In other words, O'Reilly is certifiably insane enough to be beyond the court's reach as far as libel etc. was concerned.
And if O'Reilly is insane then Glenn Beck clearly is too. Unfortunately spewing metaphorical bile does not cause throat cancer or there would be hope that they would lose their voices  in the forseeable future.
And then there are Rush and 'Whiner' Savage. The former definitely is aware of his own scumitude (and even recorded one or two songs about it). The latter... I don't know but he better should not set foot on German soil. No, not because I would await him with some nasty surprises (although it would be tempting) but because German courts could be quite interested in him (and he is to my knowledge not a Roman Catholic archbishop which would give him jester's licence).

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

I would love to have a word or three with Mr. Savage. Also, I love that O' Reilly is considered crazy over there.

Nice argument: a mature society should be able to cope with their lunatics by pointing out the obvious flaws from their arguments, the question is how mature are our societies? When Glenn Beck starts foaming making racist comments how many of his viewers are capable to qualify his statements? The fact that he is mocked by some isn't enough to counteract the damage he does everyday he goes in the air, yet he is free to utter his 'speech' with little* or no consequence.

*some sponsors decided to pull their adds from his program but not all by any means.

Our society is much, much better than it used to be, but we're still not there. OTOH, most people talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. If it requires them to do something, it will almost never get done and the thing about TV and radio, is that the audience Beck may stir up is spread out across the country so mobs are unlikely. A single person on a froth-inspired mission is also unlikely, since again, people are unlikely to act on beliefs because it requires them to step out of their rut. Armchair hatred is much easier than actively hurting others. Plus, armchair-ing it is legal, whereas such actions are not.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Erm, have you heard of the so-called 'tea parties' or the psychos hijacking townhall meetings? They are doing much more than encouraging armchair hate, they are actively mobilizing them. Besides, if something has been proved over and over is that it only takes one committed individual to do significant damage.

I don't think the Limbaughs and Becks of this world should be underestimated in their capacity to do (or actively encourage) damage. 

[Swatopluk]

About the only things they have not (yet*) accused Obama of are sexual deviation** and child pornography (consumption and production thereof).
Claims of murder*** and mob criminality were already made (and I think drugs too).

*to my knowledge
**that was aimed at Hilary Clinton including claims that Chelsea was the result of rape
***ironically parts of the list consisted of former alleged Clinton victims and some others are still alive and well

[Aggie]

(and I think drugs too)

That one's not an accusation, it's an admission.


At least he's honest about it, unlike some preznits.

[Swatopluk]

The question is consumption or dealing.
I guess Obama got the drugs from Bill Ayers and sold them during Rev. Wright's services.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Erm, have you heard of the so-called 'tea parties' or the psychos hijacking townhall meetings? They are doing much more than encouraging armchair hate, they are actively mobilizing them. Besides, if something has been proved over and over is that it only takes one committed individual to do significant damage.

I don't think the Limbaughs and Becks of this world should be underestimated in their capacity to do (or actively encourage) damage. 

I actually forgot about the Tea Baggers. The tea parties themselves weren't anything, it what their participants are doing /now/ is. And so far as I know, they're just verbally hijacking things...which is frustrating but I don't think we have any right to stop them from doing it, especially since there hasn't been any active violence that I've heard of.

[Aggie]

Tea Baggers or Tea-Birthers?  The few I've run into online seem to support both 'movements'.

[Swatopluk]

Not to forget the Tenthers, the Deathers and the new group that hasn't yet an official name, since Concentration Campers simply has the false ring (I'd propose KZers, pronounced kay-zetters).
Then there are the Hoaxters* (closely related to the Hucksters*).

*organized "climate change is the greatest hoax in human history" proponents (currently in league with the Beck to bring down Obama's scientific team)
**the followers of Mike Huckabee, increasingly radicalized

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

A part of me thinks that a huge convention should be organized in Alaska to mobilize all of them there and then close the borders, then they can declare their precious independence and live happily ever after. 

[Griffin NoName]

That's a splendid idea. Segregate anyone who claims to be of pure race.

Meanwhile we have this going on.

[Aggie]

We had a bit of that back in March:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2009/03/21/cgy-racism-clash.html?ref=feh



The difference here is that most of our local racists grew up in small towns with no 'forners' except the family who ran the Chinese restaurant, so they can't actually identify and single out any particular immigrant group.  They just stick to "Yay for White People". 


Apparently the groups were unevenly sized by quite a bit.... 50 Aryan Guard members tried to counter-protest a 400 person march by the Anti-Racist Action group. The police had to step in and keep them from getting killed*. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourvoice/yourvideo/index.html?playlistId=435b12adba3929ff22fa9d82a12d4ae75ef82e2a&videoId=3930276


_{*some of the commentaries I saw on news stories at the time lamented the police "defending" the Aryans; I just think they needed to step in to keep someone's (skin)head from getting kicked in. The Calgary Police Force do a great job overall.}

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Tea Baggers or Tea-Birthers?  The few I've run into online seem to support both 'movements'.

Hadn't heard the second one. But I like it.

That's a splendid idea. Segregate anyone who claims to be of pure race.

Meanwhile we have this going on.

Oh, that's lovely on both counts.

[Aggie]

Tea Baggers or Tea-Birthers?  The few I've run into online seem to support both 'movements'.

Hadn't heard the second one. But I like it.

I made it up on the spot.  Seemed like the same group of people. 
I hadn't heard the term Tea-Baggers applied this way before. 

[Swatopluk]

A part of me thinks that a huge convention should be organized in Alaska to mobilize all of them there and then close the borders, then they can declare their precious independence and live happily ever after. 

But the Alaska separatists are "Alaska natives only". This is quoted as one possible reason why Sarah Palin did her preganancy stunt. Otherwise her youngest son would not have been a native of Alaska and that would have undermined her family position within the Alaska Independence Party.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

But the Alaska separatists are "Alaska natives only".

As if reason were an obstacle for them... 

[Swatopluk]

If they were reasonable, they would not try to secede in the first place.

[Zan]

Personally I am for certain limits to free speech but those should apply only to closely defined extreme examples. Those may not be the same in every place. For example it would be not very useful to make a law against Holocaust denial in Japan.
Anything that can be reasonably construed as instigation of violence in public should in my view be open to ban.

Here in Fat City, free speech is (supposedly) sacred, with the exception of overt acts (incitement to violence, shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, etc).

Simple racism isn't illegal, nor do I personally believe it should be.  Freedom of speech has to include unpopular speech - even ignorant or vile speech - or it isn't a freedom at all.  After all, popular speech doesn't need protection.

Toleration should be extended to any and all who leave their opinion as just that...speech.  Those who take steps to put their opinions into practice (such as the BNP in England, or ANY political party in America) should be jerked up short.

Of course, that's all theory.  In reality, our freedom of speech here in Fat City has devolved into mere privilege, with the introduction of "free speech zones" that have been used through 3 presidencies now, government engineered violence at demonstrations, and of course we are always ready to crush any really new ideas through the simple brute force of market power.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Personally I am for certain limits to free speech but those should apply only to closely defined extreme examples. Those may not be the same in every place. For example it would be not very useful to make a law against Holocaust denial in Japan.
Anything that can be reasonably construed as instigation of violence in public should in my view be open to ban.

Here in Fat City, free speech is (supposedly) sacred, with the exception of overt acts (incitement to violence, shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, etc).

Simple racism isn't illegal, nor do I personally believe it should be.  Freedom of speech has to include unpopular speech - even ignorant or vile speech - or it isn't a freedom at all.  After all, popular speech doesn't need protection.

Toleration should be extended to any and all who leave their opinion as just that...speech.  Those who take steps to put their opinions into practice (such as the BNP in England, or ANY political party in America) should be jerked up short.

Of course, that's all theory.  In reality, our freedom of speech here in Fat City has devolved into mere privilege, with the introduction of "free speech zones" that have been used through 3 presidencies now, government engineered violence at demonstrations, and of course we are always ready to crush any really new ideas through the simple brute force of market power.

^ What Zan said. I still don't think anything more than "fire!" or "kill ___" (IF it results in a riot, and ONLY if) should be illegal.

[Roland Deschain]

Read pages 1 and 3 in full, but skimmed page 2.

I think that freedom of speech means exactly that; full freedom to say whatever you like (except to incite violence). I know this can cause issues, as evidenced throughout this discussion, but to not allow someone a voice just because we disagree with their opinion is a double standard if you agree with free speech. As said above, popular opinions don't need protecting. Allowing the airing of different views also gives you the opportunity to alter peoples' opinions, as there's nothing like an open debate to show the problems inherent in them.

Take the issue of allowing the BNP on Question Time. By allowing them on, it allowed not only the BNP to introduce others to their views, but also the opposition to lay waste to their bigotry and ignorance, and in a fashion that allowed many more to see it being done than normal. Those most likely to vote for the BNP aren't statistically as likely to watch programmes like Question Time as supporters of other parties, as many of their supporters tend to be poorly educated (I met more than a few growing up, unfortunately). This means that the message would only reach their more educated followers, and therefore those more likely to understand the arguments. To reach those others will take far more than Question Time.

There are laws now in effect in the UK that allow the police to fine you, and in some cases prosecute you, for passing remarks that another person finds either racially or sexually (as in sexuality) insulting. I completely disagree with this law. This amounts to nothing more than a thoughtcrime law, and is just one step on the road to something worse. It essentially makes offending someone an offence, albeit only in specific ways, which I think is ridiculous in the extreme. Criminalising someone for speaking their mind is a reprehensible act in a democracy, the point of which is to allow everyone a voice.

I am with Voltaire 100% when he said something along the lines of "I disagree strongly with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I do not care how reprehensible the topic someone agrees with and vocalises; they have the right not only to think that, but also the right to say what they think. To repress one point of view is to, in principle, oppress them all.

[Swatopluk]

While I agree in general, the line between inconsequential speech and incitement is a blurry one and incitors have made it an art to walk that line (dogwhistle, code words). There are certain areas where I would rather err on the side of caution and allow to block certain things from being aired publically. But that needs thoughtful deliberation and has to be secured against abuse constantly. No matches for proven arsonists but what about those that are only strongly suspect of becoming ones once they get their hands on the means?

[Roland Deschain]

That's a good point you make there, but as you also say, eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. Where is that line, and who gets to decide that? Does this mean that government or law enforcement should then monitor every little thing that anyone says, or should other people who hear such things be asked to report it? Ok, so maybe that's a little extreme, and smacks of the versions of fascism and communism seen in the last century, but I feel it's a valid question to ask. The process is incredibly open to abuse, and it doesn't take much to go from a very open society to a very closed one. Creeping fascism, to take on such example, didn't take long to take hold in Europe in the middle of the 20th century, and it was done with pretty much explicit public approval. Also look at the laws enacted in the US because of 9/11. They would have been shot down in seconds if they were suggested 20 years ago (Clinton did try to get a watered-down version of the Patriot Act through congress after the Oklahoma City bombing).

Using the arsonist analogy, if someone is suspected, let them stay suspected, and leave them alone until such time that they either, (a) Ask for help with their problem, (b) Need dealing with by the law, or (c) Die. I am also a strong believer in "innocent until proven guilty". I've seen and read about far too many people who've been ridiculed or demonised, just for being "suspected" for something, and as we all know that mud (or your brown object of choice) sticks, it is better to err on the side of caution than to join in with that form of madness. I would rather 10 guilty people walk free than 1 innocent person be incarcerated.

Regardless, it is indeed a thin line to walk between freedom and tyranny, and we can only do what we can to the best of our abilities.

[Swatopluk]

The rule over here is generally that one can say (write etc.) what one wants as long as it is not public even if it is a call to commit a crime. The question of law/censorship only arises once the speech becomes public (deliberately; accidental release is a different matter). Since there is no censorship officially, the state has to prove in each individual case that someone has crossed the line and the courts have set rather high standards for that. To go back to the arsonist analogy, if someone threatens to commit arson and immediately after tries to acquire the tools for that, this would be enough for suspicion. The potential seller (provided he knew of the threats) would have to notify authorities and may have the right to refuse to sell. Authorities would have the right (even duty) to at least observe the actions of the potential arsonist, not necessarily to arrest him on the spot. If on the other hand the threats are not quickly followed by action, the authorities would have no right of permanent surveillance or to impose restrictions on what the person could buy based on just the verbal threats.
If a preacher shouts from the pulpit that certain persons deserve to die, that is borderline but would likely not be enough to gag him. If he then publishes the addresses and schedules of said persons and later loudly applauds, when someone who heard him went out to kill those, that would be ample reason for arrest and trial even if he had not explictly called for murder. The second part, i.e. publishing info that seems to amount to assistance to commit a crime in order to instigate it, would likely end with a conviction in court over here (high clerics of established churches may still get a pass there) but not in the US (or a number of media personalities would end up in jail while in reality they get not even tried). Henry II should have just worked for Fox and nothing would have happened to him

The laws have to be clear (no 'rubber paragraphs') and the courts have to be held to a high standard. If these conditions are not met, any attempts at speech suppression should be fought. If they are met I am willing to put up with quite a deal.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I was thinking two things on the subject. First, let's imagine someone who frequently claims that Jesus was of Celtic origin, who also says that there is a conspiracy of bankers to take over the world, that they should be stopped and that everybody knows what kind of people they are. Notice I left out any reference to any ethnic group and that while not explicitly advocating violence it can be implied. You don't need a PhD to figure out he is likely an antisemite but he is getting away with it even if he isn't spelling out his hate.

The other comes from the opposite side of the spectrum, the establishment will always try to preserve the status quo, therefore any form of speech that undermines the status quo is by definition subversive regardless of the merits the establishment may or not have, that is, even a "good" establishment will fret about speech it dislikes. On the same token, the establishment will find ways to censor subversive information even if those aren't obvious, for instance if the media is controlled by said establishment it will not shed light to embarrassing or questionable facts (say, the government lending to the banks at 0% to borrow back from the same banks at 5-10%). IOW you don't need censorship laws to have effective censorship.

[pieces o nine]

Censorship, correction, or courtesy?

That is always the question, and there is no one-size-fits-all rule that can properly address it. Breakfast at Tiffany's is on my favorite oldies list, but I absolutely loathe Mickey Rooney's cameo as Mr. Yunioshi. I don't know if they were trying -- ineptly -- to mimic one of Jerry Lewis' stock characters, or if they truly thought it added something of merit to the plot, but my loathing of iot has only increased with time.  I was able to excise it from my VHS copy, but it remains on the dvd upgrade. I believe with all my heart that *nothing* would be lost, and the movie could only be enhanced for the enjoyment of future generations if that racist claptrap were eliminated.

In other words, I'd like to censor it for what I believe to be noble and proper impulses, and I'd *like* to think that rational minds would share my assessment.

Which, it pains me to admit, is the same process going on in the minds of the people hysterically trying to re-write law, history and science in order to conform to their preferred version of an arbitrary Holy Book. (Not to mention, the *exact process* used to write their holy book in the first -- and second, third, fourth -- place.)

Well, there *is* one difference: I am right and they are wrong...   

And that conundrum presents itself to me whenever this topic comes up. Who gets to choose what is 'right" and what is 'wrong'? Small-d democratic voting works on some issues, but is entirely suspect on *fact*, quickly becoming a wrong-headed mob rule wherever ignorance, uber patriotism, and emotional response trumps reason. On the other hand, passively wringing those hands on the sidelines in awareness of my own potential for error (due to incomplete and finite knowledge, if not hampered by  'wrong' bias) and doing nothing is not an ethical position. It leads, ineluctably, to another classic observation: All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good [men] do nothing.

[Roland Deschain]

PoN, I know how you feel about Mickey Rooney's cameo in Breakfast at Tiffany's, which is otherwise such a fine film, but I disagree with censoring it. History must be allowed to be as it is, warts and all, so that not only can future generations look back at it and be shown how attitudes have changed for the better since that day, but also to see how beauty can be marred with ugliness, and to learn from it.

As much as I don't want to bring elements of Orwellian language into this, it's very much like the memory hole. If we censor that one thing, erasing it from our history, then do we stop there? What if we carried on, erasing everything else that is morally repugnant to us? Where would we stand at this point, or even far into the future, unable to learn from the mistakes of our past because we've removed them? I don't like the idea of that at all.

It used to be taught in history lessons in the UK that colonialism=good, but as the colonies became ex-colonies, and the decades slowly moved on, the emphasis was put onto the negative aspects of it, and shame was what was taught. This is all well and good, as there were many awful atrocities committed in the forthright nature of the British of the time, but should not the benefits be taught alongside the bad things? History is never black and white, but many shades of grey. For sure you should teach that colonialism/slavery/whatever is bad, as this is the moral thing to do, but balance is also needed here, and without a full picture of our history, however reprehensible its content, we cannot fully understand it.

[Griffin NoName]

It used to be taught in history lessons in the UK that colonialism=good, but as the colonies became ex-colonies, and the decades slowly moved on, the emphasis was put onto the negative aspects of it, and shame was what was taught. This is all well and good, as there were many awful atrocities committed in the forthright nature of the British of the time, but should not the benefits be taught alongside the bad things?

This is like when a relationship breaks up and you are not the one instigating the break up but the one who is left. To move forward you have to focus on all the negative aspects of the relationship. Hopefully this is a phase and not for the rest of your life. When fully separated from the relationship by having painted it negative, one can then start to remember the good aspects.* I suspect it is still too soon for us Britains to admit there was any good in colonialism.

*Book = Uncoupling by Diane Vaughan

[pieces o nine]

GAH! an errant keystroke just sent my entire reply to the ethers! 

PoN, I know how you feel about Mickey Rooney's cameo in Breakfast at Tiffany's, which is otherwise such a fine film, but I disagree with censoring it. History must be allowed to be as it is, warts and all, so that not only can future generations look back at it and be shown how attitudes have changed for the better since that day, but also to see how beauty can be marred with ugliness, and to learn from it.

Yes. I agree.

And yet...

There are no enlightened beings educating our children or creating our culture, just fellow homo sapiens, each with his or her own reactional baggage on various issues. To stay with my example, I've seen films such as Breakfast at Tiffany's shown to kids without commentary, in order to avoid imposing political correctness gone mad [<---which is sometimes a valid criticism]. As a result, an ugly stereotype which should have died generations ago is passed on, intact, to a new one which finds it hi-LAR-ious.

Another, nonscientific, anecdote is from my teens. Alex Haley's ROOTS had been aired on network television and been avidly watched in my 99% white hometown. The next time a black was on an opposing basketball team, half the males in our pep band spent the entire game bellowing KUNTA KINTE at the tops of their lungs every time he was on the court. It was clearly audibly to the players and the fans, but the band director, refs, and coaches were -- incredibly -- struck deaf and did not notice. No punitive action was taken against our students, who continued bullying other minority targets, with slurs learned from other cultural treasures (or not).

Those are two examples. I could give dozens more, and very few showing enlightened, empathic behavior. Should those cultural items be censored or destroyed then?  Absolutely not!

But the only lessons those students learned were new ways to torment others, because the adults were too passive, too unsure, or even too privately in favor of perpetuating stereotypes, to give any alternative guidance -- let alone model it. How can individuals escape ugly and stupid stereotypes when the larger community just keeps passing them on?

There is no easy answer, or this problem would have been solved long ago. But just hoping that people will improve on their own does no more good than attempting censorship. The public doesn't change its collective beliefs or actions until vocal individuals demand change -- relentlessly -- until critical mass is reached. Even then, it takes very little to waken -- or redirect -- mental poison. That is, assuming the change is made *towards* enlightenment, and not a resurrection of institutionalized prejudices and actions. Perhaps if I didn't see so many neighbors clamoring to elect reactionary, repressive, bald-faced lying, anti-intellectual, *evil* men to office at every level, I would be more optimistic that the lessons of history can be learned to a society's greater benefit.

[Swatopluk]

The obvious solution is to intermix the anti-non-white stereotypes with enough evil stereotypes about your own culture. Of course some British parents may protest if their little John Bulls get fed Nazi Propganda and Commie cartoons.

Honestly, I can't see a really promising solution there. It may be easy to spot the deliberately biased movies where the injection of stereotypes IS the message but most movies include them more or less unconsciously (including about any 'classic' one could think of). And any comic relief character is more likely than not to run on stereotypes.
What is clearly necessary is to sensitize first the teachers and then the kiddies about this. A rather radical approach was taken by a German school that introduced a regular course on movies but does not show any in the first year. It starts instead with picture analysis through the ages, i.e. how our sense of looking at pictures works and has developed and how artists of the past expressed topics and concepts in their pictures (openly or through symbols). That way students learn how to 'read' images consciously. Once you are aware that almost any image contains deeper layers of meaning, the unconscious/subliminal manipulation of the viewer can be strongly diminished. This has both the effect of at least partial immunization and also a deeper appreciation of the art. When the curriculum then proceeds to the movies the students already possess the tools needed for analysis. I think it is far easier to acquire those with static images, not to forget that the traditions did not die and many of the codes from European art can be found in the movies. As an aside, a thorough understanding of Western art, including movies, without a certain knowledge of the Bible seems impossible to me too.

[Griffin NoName]

a thorough understanding of Western art, including movies, without a certain knowledge of the Bible seems impossible to me too.

Unless the Bonga-Bonga tribe start making films?

[Aggie]

Unless the Bonga-Bonga tribe start making films?

They already do, via their media empire...


_{no wait, that's bunga-bunga...}