Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Close to Home — What it’s like on the street where you live
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Columbus--The Man, The Myth...The Mercenary!
No one is suggesting giving up essential liberties, Pete. If you give up that part of your argument, what's left? And btw, I am conducting this argument despite being struck by the swine flu virus, (snort, snort, paw, paw), so do give it your oinking best, and figure out where to begin! :)— October 15, 2009 5:15 p.m.
Columbus--The Man, The Myth...The Mercenary!
(cont. 4 and last). #77, Pete: My point about guns being the same as words just meant that both are weapons. One kills. The other hurts. That's why one is outlawed in certain situations and one isn't outlawed at all. Our Founding Fathers were wise to see the difference. Why can't we? Pete, pardon the pun, but your ideas about the power of language are a bit scatter shot. Sometimes you claim that racist epithets, for example, do not contain enough historical significance to merit our taking care with them. Certainly, if you continue on this illogical path of denying history as ‘false,’ and continue to take such terms out of context, this does follow. Guns and words are two separate issues, but we can use an analogy, and say that both, yes, can be dangerous. If you now admit this, then you are readmitting history into the equation, and must consider that words can incite violence just as surely as can guns. The founding fathers were pretty bright, and the authors of the bible were pretty talented, but we need to adjust our lawmaking to reflect the times we live in, and the particular necessities of the sociocultural makeup of this country, which is quite a bit more diverse than it was. The very definition of “man” has changed since our fundamental doctrines were composed—for one, it now includes women. We can talk about this further if you like, though I am no Constitutional scholar, I can track some important social changes that might necessarily affect the principles under which we agree to live, making necessary some amendments, and some redefinitions to reflect our situation— October 15, 2009 1:19 a.m.
Columbus--The Man, The Myth...The Mercenary!
(cont 3). #73, Pete: “As soon as we start"banning"certain ideas,words and thoughts,this country is dead. DOA! Dead. It's no longer America.” No one is talking about a complete ban of any words or ideas. Freedom of speech exists, but we have a few reasonable, necessary limits. Hate speech is incitative of violence, and carries with it the history I mention. You as an individual cannot control that history, nor can you change or defuse such derogatory slurs. You should have the choice to use pretty much whatever language you want, but you should also be aware of its historical usage and meaning. #75, Pete: “Why is it that a woman can use the word dick willy-nilly and men don't get offended but those same men cannot call a woman a kunt without those same dick calling women getting their panties in an uproar? There's a double standard when it comes to race relations nowdays and it makes me sick to know that a supposed"free"country allows it and encourages it to happen.” Actually, you are bringing up two double standards, one of gender and one of race. I agree about the gendered bias; although there is a long history in this country of treating the female as a less capable entity, both physically and intellectually, it still isn’t a great idea to simply reverse the bias and propagate anti-male sentiment. This is why I don’t appreciate stereotyping of males such as one finds in these viral email jokes about the male “mentality.” I don’t need to assert any “rights” to define men as silly or stupid, which just continues the kind of irrational hatred and systemized disempowerment women have historically suffered. By the same token, reversing racist rhetoric is equally useless and dangerous (calling whites “crackers,” etc.) I do believe, however, that in order to address and redress past social inequalities, it is important to take some steps to level the playing field for people of color in this country. Again, if you do not deny history as false, and you pay attention to exactly how racism still works in this country, through visual stereotyping based on skin color and manner of dress, and continuance of facile judgement of a person’s way of speaking or living, then you realize that inequalities do demand some different treatment. We can talk about this further, too.— October 15, 2009 1:18 a.m.
Columbus--The Man, The Myth...The Mercenary!
(cont 2). #78, AG to refried: Not a big-picture view of what works for the entire culture (including its children and others easily influenced/confused), just what works for one particular individual. #79, refried to AG: P.S: Good luck with your new language. It didn't work a thousand years ago, but perhaps you're all very much smarter that they were. Refried, I don’t think AG is proposing a “new” language, just that we take more thoughtful care of the one(s) we use. She has a good point in that we are paring down to some fundamental political differences between us; she and I tend toward the notion that society really does need some regulation when it comes to social relations. If we are to raise a next generation of thoughtful, openminded individuals who prefer dialogue and discourse over “words as weapons” and unexamined scapegoating, we need to set some ground rules and a good example for them. Plato thought as much with his conception of a Republic, and so did the founding fathers. What I mean by ground rules and setting an example is that we regulate hate speech, not all speech. It is not ok to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theatre, and it is no more ok to shout “N****r!” at a brown-skinned person. Words are powerful, and we need to exercise some common sense with them. The more we encourage our future ruling citizens to engage in thoughtful and responsible dialogue, the more we can hope for a responsible society. Sure, there should be the option to turn the dial, but there should also be plenty of education. This is not about “political correctness,” which in my opinion is a term used rather crudely to just try to shut down dialogue. This is about common sense, philosophical rigor, and a sense of social responsibility and trust with the great freedoms we enjoy. #71, Pete: “There's NOTHING historical about it. Liberals want to inject history in situations like I pointed out JUST to add high drama. Remove the false history you speak of and it's the exact same crime.” Denial of the power of words historically is a dangerous weapon, called willful ignorance. The more you learn about history, the better care you will take with the words you sling at others. There is no good philosophical or political reason for yelling “N****r,” and rather than expand the realm of free speech, it just serves to sustain and nurture the virulent hatred ingrained within the word, along with its history of slavery and a reliance on denigration of others as the only way to assert your own existence and classist superiority in this society. There is not the same genocidal history behind the shouting of “Cracker!” and the most we can say is that it repeats the same kind of dangerous logic.— October 15, 2009 1:18 a.m.
Columbus--The Man, The Myth...The Mercenary!
#70 and #76, refried: Why is Huck Finn banned…if WE are supposed to KNOW the difference, then why is it banned? I would rather trust that people get it. I would certainly grant freedom of speech, even if they don't, based on the message rather than the language. …it is unconscionable to pretend that because the usage of a word is deemed as offensive, then the right to use such a word is prohibited, regardless of the perceived result. The very next application of "new-speak", once everyone is held to a strict adherence of speech rules, will be thought rules. Liberty is far too important, in my opinion, to even consider the beginning of limiting free speech. Turning the dial is a better option. Refried, this is getting rather hyperbolic, and smacks of the kind of drama Pete accuses the “liberal” of attempting to inject into debate on free speech. New-speak? Thought control? Let’s put down 1984 for a moment. Orwell was prescient about many things, but in order to have some clarity, I think we need to define and sort out, case by case, what is incitative of violence, and what is peaceable, though potentially controversial. Since you invoke aesthetics, however, I’ll use a familiar example: some think artist Robert Mapplethorpe’s photographic nudes promote pedophilia, and others think his work simply celebrates the human body. My point is that we need to open dialogue about such issues, rather than blindly adjudicate or condemn. Case by case. What is the HISTORY behind reception of Mapplethorpe’s work? If we allow the social history of his work and person into consideration, we discover that because he is gay, there will be a contingent of folk who do not appreciate homosexuality, and who are consequently suspicious about his concentration on the young male body, and automatically presume that he is sexualizing this body. Let’s bracket off whether or not this is actually true, and just think about this example qua example of what it means to examine a situation from as many angles as possible. Continuing in this vein, we ask about Mapplethorpe’s conduct as a person, and how reception of his work is unavoidably affected by his history.— October 15, 2009 1:16 a.m.
Columbus--The Man, The Myth...The Mercenary!
Pete #67: "If I walk up to a white guy and yell"CRACKER!" and beat the crap out of him,I get charged with a misdemeanor. If I walk up to a black guy and yell"JIGABOO!" and beat the crap out of him,I'm now charged with a state and/or federal hatecrime. Why? It's the exact same crime." Pete, what is it with you that you just cannot consider the historical implications of your examples? No, these situations are not at all analogous, except on a very superficial level. It is the kind of analogy on a multiple choice that would be the red herring.— October 14, 2009 10:13 p.m.
Columbus--The Man, The Myth...The Mercenary!
#64: That does not constitute the kind of hate speech we are talking about, gringo, and the general public mostly knows the difference between historical usage and incitative contemporary usage as well as you, hopefully. I like AG's quote of Sartre @55: radically free AND radically responsible. Isn't this more along the lines of your anarchist values, refried? #60: The chicken or egg: I don't think it matters whether we decide that language constitutes social reality or vice versa (I tend, along with cultural linguists, toward the former). The fact is that we are embroiled in a situation where things can potentially change quickly, due to the high rate of speed of our modes of communication. Roughly, for our purposes we can say that we are reflecting with language the dynamics of current events, and our children react developmentally to what we demonstrate is ok to do with language and cultural expression.— October 14, 2009 10:10 p.m.
Columbus--The Man, The Myth...The Mercenary!
Looks like AG @#50, as usual, has been taking care of what would have been my side of the argument, with: "So, let's not confuse the issue of government censorship against individual patriots appropriately critiquing the government (a legit concern) with a-holes who like to use the "N" word or get as close as they can to it, just to stir the sh*t for ratings. Big difference." And refried and CuddleFish, I think you both have valid points: refried, I know tolerance is the name of your game, and as much freedom as you can garner. Aside from this, you are simply pointing out that anyone should know Rush Limbaugh is an opportunistic showbiz type, spewing today's trendy hate. We should keep in mind that his show is a spectacle. As Pete points out, I have known "liberal Dems" who listen to Rush just to hear what latest horrors and idiocies might issue forth from his rotten maw. Guess they hear the ads, too. However, I am also with CuddleFish on principle. Hate is hate, whether you are selling it or spewing it in earnest, for free (and when it comes down to it, people like Hedgecock and Limbaugh turn to it like ducks to water--their true natural enviros). Because you are making a cynical profit does not excuse it. And Pete, just because I boycott hate speech doesn't mean I am trying to get it totally censored. It means that I choose to make a better decision about what constitutes sane and intelligent rhetoric, and hope others do the same.— October 14, 2009 9:51 p.m.
Rare Burgers? Rarely
re: #20: "Or because chickens can't fly, you won't eat those either?" By that logic, Joe, I'd only eat flying fish :)— October 14, 2009 4:50 p.m.
Rare Burgers? Rarely
Never mind eating her, poor CuddleFish--I'm glad we didn't name you Betta after all... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33300456/ns/us_news-w…— October 14, 2009 4:48 p.m.