Let me see if I have it right now, based on responses from Derrick
Pitard, Michael Hynes, Alasdair McIntosh, and J. H. Arnold:
Christians and right wing extremists may be insulted but no one else
should be because Christians and right-wing extremists are intolerant?
And, it is self-evident that they are intolerant while their opponents
are merely "intolerant of intolerance" which justifies the second
intolerance but not the first? If the reason why the Queer Conference
posting is legitimate on this list (and I believe it is legitimate--I
disagree respectfully with Mr. Pope on this point) is that all viewpoints
must be tolerated, then why is Mr. Pope's viewpoint intolerable on this list?
Or, perhaps (I think this is what J. H. Arnold meant in
invoking power: Christians are self-evidently wrong in their views, so they
may be legitimately insulted (or rather "civility may not always be the
best rhetoric)?
If I have it right now, this being translated would mean: "wrong people
must not be tolerated"--only right people can be tolerated. (I think
this is about what Mr. Pope said: homosexuals are wrong and thus news of a
conference about them should not be tolerated on this list.) And
anti-gay people are clearly, self-evidently wrong, so they should be
insulted?
I think this is called the "they have it coming" justification for what
otherwise would be considered impolite behavior. It is also known as
the "blaming the victim" self-defense.
And the limericks are okay because their makers have a better take on
medieval sensibilities than modern venerators of the medieval objects of
the limericks? The last time I looked, this was called "reading one's
own predilections back into history" and was denounced roundly on this
list after having been laid at my feet.
Please note, in the current round, I did not claim that modern venerators
of medieval holy men and women and sacred objects have a "better read on medieval
sensibilities"; I simply pointed out that some modern folk do venerate
medieval holy things. It would be considered impolite, I hope, to make a
joke mocking a Hindu or Sikh holy man or temple. Or am I wrong? May we
simply insult each other at will?
Civility is not always the best rhetoric, we are told. Who decides when
it is and isn't? The one who shouts the loudest or who has the greatest
numbers on her side? Or are we to assume that the Truth is self-evident,
i.e., that it is self-evidently true that Joe Pope baiting is legitimate
because his views about homosexuality are self-evidently wrong?
If those who shout the loudest or are the most assertive or have the
greatest numbers on their side (in this case, Joe Pope's adversaries),
then, in that case, civility will never be the best rhetoric.
I surely hope that civility is in fact always the best rhetoric. If it
is not, I'll need to work on my incivility skills in order to compete for
power.
Dennis Martin
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|