Author: Andrew Williams
Date: 08:18:47 11/23/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 23, 2000 at 10:39:54, Ratko V Tomic wrote: >> It isn't known who complained, and you are attributing >> political beliefs to this unknown person that haven't >> been evidenced. > >No I don't know the name(s) for sure, but few who joined into the >thread openly in support of the PeeCee censoring do fit the bill. >Also I have run into the same self-anointed hypersensitive thought >police here before. And many other places, too, the same types of >arguments, the same underlying assumptions and value system. Clusters >of traits do have tendency to go together (otherwise the whole reality >would be a disconnected random sequence of unrelated perceptual blips). "self-anointed hypersensitive thought police" What on earth are you talking about? > >> The simile has nothing to do with alternate lifestyles, > >Really. If you take all practicing believers of the "alternate >lifestyles" and all practicing believers of the traditional morality >based lifestyles, which group would you guess will have larger >number of step-children (say, normalized per 100,000 children). > >The latter group places stigma on any behaviors contributing to >the breakup of traditional families (thus the behaviors which increase >the proportion of step-children). The former group places stigma on >anyone not embracing or celebrating sincerely enough (to say nothing >of actively opposing) the same "traditional family"-breaking >behaviors. > >It is pretty self-evident that the former, the group promoting destruction >of "traditional family" (male father, female mother taking care of their >biological offspring), will have fewer traditional families, hence greater >proportion of step-children than the traditionalists. > >The metaphor points out the plain fact that step-children are >abused much more than biological children. The implication brings >the proverbial skunk at the anti-traditionalists party -- by simply >pointing out a bit of unpleasant reality behind the long standing >traditions. Unfortunately, there are tangible, painful reasons for >all those stigmas and moral codes. > >And that's why, whenever you see someone pointing out such >plain facts of life, especially through a sly implication >as the metaphor did (where the reader is induced to arrive >at the conclusions, consciously or otherwise, increasing thus >their impact on the reader), you will immediately hear a panicked >loud cackle from the predictable quarters. They know well who >the sting of the satire was aimed at. And, perfectly predictably >again, they will immidately call for the censorship of the >non-PeeCee speech, all "for our children," of course. This exact same metaphor came up a couple of years ago. It was used by Odell Hall, as he explains in a post further down. In the course of the discussion that emerged, one poster said that he personally objected to the use of the metaphor because it had unpleasant associations for him; indeed he had in the past even gone as far as to change his name because of problems with his step-father. I don't know if he is the only member who has had such difficulties in the past, but even if he is I am certain that the extra effort required to find metaphors and expressions that aren't frankly distasteful *must* be well worthwhile. As for "whiny", my own view is that the whining comes from people who seem to object to being asked to *think* before they post. Andrew
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.