XPost: seattle.politics
From: whit@whit.net
"Paul Mitchum" wrote in message
news:1fxd74g.f2hmfq189r3nsN%usenet@mile23.com...
> whit wrote:
>
> > "Paul Mitchum" wrote in message
> > news:1fx7x9z.16i8ys41o90lwsN%usenet@mile23.com...
>
> [..]
>
> > > Further, one has to ask: What 'valid' social and cultural purposes are
> > > you talking about? It used to be taboo to say that the earth revolved
> > > around the sun. Now it's the opposite; you get kicked out of the
academy
> > > if you say the sun revolves around the earth. Quite frequently, those
> > > 'shunned' are those who light the fire under the next revolution.
That's
> > > why there's so much effort put into silencing them.
> >
> > that's wonderful, but just because people have shunned due to faulty
> > reasons does not invalidate the concept itself.
>
> Where did I say that it was an invalid concept? I only said it was
> antithetical to egalitarianism and democracy.
>
well, this is not an 'egalitarian' nation. so, i would say GOOD.
egalitarian implies equality of condition. that concept is a socialist
concept, basically. in the US, we strive for equalizing opportunity, not
condition/result.
i do NOT think it is antithetical to democracy. i think it's elemental to
democracy.
> Anyway. You neglected to say what valid social and cultural purposes are
> furthered by ostracization, ridicule, shunning and taboo, as applies to
> political speech in the US.
it wasn't IN THE US. first of all. it was in the UK. for example, what
eddie vedder did was far more atrocious (in content) than what Maines did
(impaling a bush caricature on stage). BUT, he did it on US soil, thus it
was not nearly as noteworthy imo.
regardless, i think that all the above things you mention are important
parts of regulating behavior, disseminating opinion, etc.
taboos, for example serve valid purposes. they are regulators of behavior,
put in place by cultural evolution, and cultural institutions. as a
conservative, i generally believe that culture does and should trump
politics, and that cultural institution are exceptionally important to
national health. cultural institutions have ways to disseminate and enforce
taboos, etc. that are (imo) very important. and they do not involve the
heavy hand of govt. nor are they unconstitutional restricitons because they
do not involve govt. actors, or restraint of liberties such that they are
unconstitutional.
one taboo - illegitimacy. imo, illegitimacy is/was an EXTREMELY important
taboo (the taboo against having children out of wedlock). for a myriad of
reasons. imo, the dissolution (to some extent) of the taboo has led to
immense social, economic, problems. compare the illegitimacy rates now vs.
50 years ago. also, look at relative illegitimacy rates between different
ethnic, racial, social groups and correlate with social pathologies. even
many liberal child psych's have come around to the conclusion that on
average, the two parent unit is far superior to the one parent unit.
However, i do not think the govt. should criminalize illegitimacy (or any #
of other behaviors viewed now or formerly as taboo). the ramificantions of
the dissolution of illegitimacy has, imo, led to severely detrimental
societal effects.
In the case of Maines and other critics of
> the war, the purposes are pretty clear: To marginalize anyone with any
> sense at all.
>
look, i am going to make this very clear. maines had EVERY right to say
what she said, but with that right comes the responsibility to accept that
she can and might get negative public reaction. anybody who is not willing
to face public scrutiny for their statements should shut their blow hole.
if that is marginalization, then I'm for it. In the US, unlike Canada et
al, one does have the right to express pernicious and hateful ideas. and
public outrage is the price you pay. witness GLAAD etc. marching and
protesting EMINEM. witness all the outcry over Michael Savage. etc. etc.
etc. that is Democracy in action. criticizing (perceived) bad speech, with
good speech. maines has the 'advantage' of having what SHE says amplified
many thousands of times more loudly and broadly due to her station, as a
popular entertainer. she has the corresponding responsibility to accept
that what SHE says will affect many more people than what I or you says, and
will thus subject her to much more scrutiny, public outcry, etc. iow, it
goes with the territory. and if that is marginalization, i'm for it. it's
part of democracy.
> > sorry, all ideas are not equal. [..]
>
> You have this tendency to assume I'm arguing that all ideas are equal.
> If I was, I wouldn't be able to point out that you're wrong, would I?
>
i am not wrong. it is elemental to democracy, that we have a marketplace of
ideas, and that includes condemnation, ridicule, boycott, etc. if maines
wants to spout her blowhole, she needs to accept the consequences.
> > > Maines was right,
> >
> > iyo. not imo.
>
> You're not from Texas. I am. :-)
>
no, i'm not.
> > regardless, consumers have every right to shun, criticize, mock, scorn,
> > and deride her for her statements. as has happened. and others have
the
> > right to support her. hey, you can go out and buy one of her records,
or
> > send her a letter, or write a letter ot the editor in her support or
> > whatever. but she does not have the 'freedom' to spout from her
blowhole
> > w.o people REACTING to same by giving her shite. that's democracy.
>
> Yes. My point exactly. She's not being shunned. Neither is Duke or the
> KKK, who are hot-points for political speech and boycott.
>
i am n ot sure we have the same meaning for shunned. there are people who
will now purposely not buyt her albums or go to her concerts. that's what i
am talking about. ditto with duke's books.
> > > and was right to say what she said, because she's an American. The
> > > social and cultural purposes you hope to apologize for above
(especially
> > > when you begin to apologize for freakin' *McCarthy*)
> >
> > i am NOT apologizing for mccarthy. reread the thread. i am saying that
> > shunning, criticizing, etc. does not make one a 'mccarthy'ite'.
>
> I just re-read the last few messages, and that's not what it looks like
> to me.
>
well, that's what I'M saying. i said that it does not make one a
mccarty'ite to support the backlash against maines (which has pretty much
blown over, as it should. because, imo, it is not worth any more time to
blather over some ignorant dixie chick's statement).
fwiw, the special on CMT outlining the controversy and conflict between toby
keith and maines was an excellent show.
i, of course, agree with keith, not maines.
> Regardless, in a lot of ways using the term 'McCarthyite' is like
> McCarthy using the term 'communist.'
>
or somebody calling somebody who is against preferences a "racist" etc.
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
