NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/alt/supermod/1697

Text File | 1992-11-10 | 5.5 KB | 122 lines

Newsgroups: alt.supermodels
Path: sparky!uunet!infonode!ingr!b8!cogito.b17d.ingr.com!bfh
From: [e-mail] (Burgess Howell)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet Account)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: "PIPS Documentation, Intergraph Corp, Huntsville AL"
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 05:04:06 GMT
Lines: 109

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (David S. Auer) writes:

|> Should one express oneself in a manner that is offensive to another?

In a word, yes.

What if you find offensive my expression (let's say I write an essay
which is published in something really subversive...what could it be?...
got it!... High Times) concerning personal liberties, such as the right
of property ownership.  Should I shut up because you don't like what I
say?  Good luck, Ace.

|> Legally, this should be allowed; yet, if one knows that one's expression
|> will wantonly offend those who do not wish to be offended, is not appropriate
|> to move one's expression elsewhere?

I can just hear the confession... "Father forgive me for I have wantonly
offended..."

People who are offended by the exercise of free speech _need_ to be
offended.

|> Freedom is only a good thing when it does not interfere with another's
|> freedom.  I consider freedom from offense nearly as important as freedom of
|> expression.

You've contorted the idea.  "My right to swing my fist ends exactly at
the tip of your nose."  Not the same thing at all.  You are equating
some notion of "freedom from offense" with the premise of freedom of
expression.  From what I see, "freedom from offense" is purely a
construct of the fertile imagination of someone pursuing the
unattainable politically correct (I almost barf just typing those words)
utopia.

Here's your wake up call, Dave.  You are perfectly FREE to plug your
ears, sing the national anthem, and/or leave the room when I say
something offensive to you.  Ditto for when I look at that really nice
nekkid lady picture over there on /usr4/scum.  You are categorically,
emphatically, and most assuredly NOT FREE to tell me how I can express
my offensive ideas, whether it be by speaking or drooling.

|> What you seem to be advocating is a bargain: I will not get offended if you
|> will not get offended.

I think you've missed the point in all this.  It's not "I will not get
offended if you will not get offended."  It's basically "Sorry, but if
you don't like it, don't look/listen/purchase."

|>What if the other person does not wish to engage in your bargain?

It's not a bargain.  The terms are not negotiable.

|>Is this just?  Permissable certainly, but hardly equitable.

Wow.  Novel concept.  Inequity.  Now that I think about it, it sounds a
helluva lot like life to me.

|> >Another poster said something like this, 'You have the right to be
|> >uncomfortable, you don't have the right to tell me what I can read and
|> >not read.'  One has to learn to be indiferent to what one does not like.
|> >We cannot all live our lives based on other peoples likes and dislikes.
|> >It is the price of freedom.  There is no right or wrong.

He was wrong.  There is right, and he was.  (Kinda' turns your brain
into a pretzel followin' the logic on that one, eh?  :^o )

|> What if other's do not wish to be indifferent to their desires?

Wait a minute.  "Likes" and "desires" are a lot different.  I _like_
Labrador Retrievers.  I do not _desire_ a Labrador Retriever.  (Paulina,
on the other hand, is quite a different subject.)

|> You may feel fine and dandy in suppression city, but why enforce that
|> numbness upon
|> others who are content with their preferences and wants?  You have decided
|> on the price for yourself and wish to extract it from other's.  Do not be
|> surprised when others resist payment.

Do not be surprised to come out holding the shit end of the stick if you
think you are going to rewrite the Bill of Rights because you find some
of its provisions run a little counter to PC.

|> >Some think there is so much danger in someone putting up a Cindy Crawford
|> >calander but the real danger is in the political attitudes that wish
|> >to control.  I believe they want control of other people out of fear.

[just in passing, I will address this (now anonymous) poster's
comments...  They wish to control other people not only out of fear, but
also out of jealousy toward those who can unabashedly and unashamedly
offend when the target of the offense is deserving.  They covet the
comfort of those who recognize pernicious (sorry, Dave, I swiped your
word -- fully recognizing the emotional baggage it connotes) concepts
which are posited in the name of being "politically correct."]

|> Show some consideration towards the feelings of others.  You will be amazed
|> at how liberating the experience can be.  I do not fear offending others,
|> for I know that when I do it is not out of pettiness or indifference.

Contrary to the nasty-ass persona I must be projecting here, I am
actually pretty considerate of the feelings of others.  I can't say it's a
particularly liberating experience, but, then again, I don't seem to get
slapped very often and I haven't been fired for nigh on 20 years, so I
guess it has its good points.

BTW, I do not fear offending others, for I know that 99.44% of the time
I'm pretty friggin' good at aiming my offenses at those most deserving.

|> -dave