Author: Stephen A. Boak
Date: 11:41:27 11/24/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 23, 2000 at 11:50:06, Ratko V Tomic wrote: > >Having lived in a communist country once, I also have lots of "unpleasant >associations" any time I hear calls for >censorship in here. Why not shut them >up, as well? I was thinking about posting a famous quote (Shakespeare?): "Me thinks he doth protest too much" When someone complains bitterly about something, there is usually a hidden reason. Perhaps you have put your own finger on it. I do not judge--I'm merely observing. I am a lawyer (non-practicing). I understand individual rights. I understand how oppressive censorship can be. I strongly support free speech, in general. But I also am a Christian. There are moral (Godly) values that I try to follow (I'm not perfect). I therefore realize that legal freedom permits some actions that are immoral. Those actions do not break the law but they are just as oppressive and insensitive as illegal behaviors. I was one of the complainers about the original post (it wasn't yours) with references to child abuse. I oppose child abuse and I oppose those who make jokes lightly with reference to the subject. The immorality isn't that bright and moral readers will be confused by the joke. There are other persons that may be misled. We don't know all the persons that read this forum, but I suspect from reading many postings that some have serious mental or emotional problems. There is no need to make a joke that may be misinterpreted about a serious subject like child abuse. The problem is that casually mentioning an immoral behavior (of such wretched proportions) in some circumstances seems to condone the immoral behavior (but I'm not talking about the bright and moral readers) in the minds of others--after all, we can talk about it without flinching, can't we, we can joke about it without feeling guilty, can't we. I cannot. It offends my sense of morality. My point is that there are persons in all societies who are not as bright or mature as you. There are persons in all societies who are not as moral as you. There are persons in society who act immoral through some mistaken sense of what is moral. They are the ones who believe casual statements support, show or prove that certain behavior is proper, when it really is immoral. There are plenty of jokes we might tell to adults, but never to a child. There are plenty of actions we may take, by ourselves or among adults, but never in front of a child. Maybe you are a smoker. Do you light matches in the house, and toss them casually across the coffeetable, hopefully to land in the ashtray without incident? Do you do that time and again in front of your young children, who may take a notion (misguided) that it is fun to copy an adults behavior sometime when they adults are not about. My point is not the suitability of this analogy--it is that we should not willingly mislead others who may not know better (too young or other) and who may adversely react to what we do. Would it be 'thought police' for a wife to tell her husband, "Joe, don't toss lit matches in the house in front of the children." Is this oppressive (tossing those matches is certainly legal, isn't it)? I think not. It doesn't take thought police to understand this, just some common sense and caring for our fellow man. It is not the work of 'thought police' to point out that certain sayings are not appropriate. It is the work of people who have common sense and care for their fellow man. We don't deny one the right to discuss chess programs, which one beats another (which is not a serious subject in life); nor the right to discuss child abuse (which is a serious subject in life). We object to choices of words, phrases and occasions where the gravity of the subject is so serious that someone being misled may have serious or even fatal consequences. This kind of caring is a far cry from an oppressive government in a communist country that causes some people to denounce and turn in family, neighbors or even strangers for saying things that the government doesn't want spoken. We are not 'policing' in any manner that leads to social, political, criminal or physical abuse. Certainly one will not go to jail for inaptly referring to child abuse in a joke. Certainly one will not go to jail for criticizing that reference. In my family there is a true story of a relative, a great (or great great) grandmother who was in Russia about the turn of the century. As a young child of 14 to 16 years old, she had a conversation with a young girlfriend and apparently something was said about the Czar or the 'state', the Czarist regime, that should not have said (for safety's sake from a political point of view). Someone overheard the remarks and reported the girls to the authorities. The friend was caught and sent to a detention camp. The family heard the authorities were looking for their daughter and hid her, eventually smuggling her out of Russia. Discussions on better ways to tell jokes do not arise to the notions of such 'thought police'. Having a difference of opinion about the moral limits of free speech doesn't make one a Nazi. No one needs smuggled out of their country because their posting that mixed chess and child abuse received some adverse feedback. In summary, we don't need to offer up our jokes to create intellectual adornments for ourselves, to show we are bright and witty, via reference to child abuse. There are other ways that intelligent and moral persons can find to express themselves, with humor. I'm sure the original poster could do that, if he only gave it a moments thought. I'm hoping he will want to do that on his own (think how to phrase something in a better manner), the next time he wants to post a humorous comment on computer chess. I like humorous chess comments. Just not ones that lightly joke with serious subjects like child abuse. --Steve
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.