Intention is not necessary to be racist. We know that people, who do not
think they are racist will still act in a prejudicial manner. I for one do
not think Linda is making false claims. I was offended by Michael's post.
If we believe him when he says he is not anti Semitic then it is incumbent
on us to point out to him why his statements are offensive. I for one
disagree with taking a conservative approach. That just serves to make
offensive statements acceptable and we become more tolerant of bigotry. It
is not ok to be "almost" anti- Semitic or anti-black or anti-gay.
Rather than being mocked, we should thank Linda for providing a factual
response to a "superficial, tasteless, insensitive, misinformed, ignorant,
silly, and dumb" statement that was also derogatory.
Gary
Gary J. Klatsky
Department of Psychology [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Oswego State University (SUNY) http://www.oswego.edu/~klatsky
Oswego, NY 13126 Voice: (315) 341 3474
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Stephen Black
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 1999 10:25 AM
To: TIPS
Subject: Michael Sylvester, an appreciation (sort-of)
The content of this message is more personal than is usual on
this list, but I think the topic calls for it.
Michael's posts are outrageous. They are often provocative,
superficial, tasteless, insensitive, misinformed, ignorant, silly, and
dumb. Linda Woolf thinks they're also anti-Semitic. But are they?
I concede that Michael pushes the limit, and his insinuations come
close, or may cross the line. But when labeling a comment racist or
anti-Semitic, a conservative approach is best. We should set the
criterion high enough that we limit false alarms. Crying wolf devalues
the gravity of this charge, and leaves us open to comparison with the
politically-correct, who denounce as racism any opinion with which
they disagree. So if a comment is to be labeled racist or
anti-Semitic, there should be no doubt at all. Linda has no doubt, but
others on this list are less certain. So who decides?
I think Michael knows this, and has cleverly worded his posts to stay
close to the boundary. He's doing this not because he's anti-Semitic
but because he wants to be provocative. He likes being a gadfly and
pushing people's buttons. And I think he knows what button to push in
Linda's case.
But the curious thing is that his posts nevertheless contribute to
this list. Despite their ignorance and provocative nature (or perhaps
because of it), they frequently lead to some of the best discussions
we've had. In particular, they've resulted in expert contributions by
Linda on topics related to Judaism and the Holocaust, posts which were
scholarly, informative and interesting. If it takes Michael's
provocations to produce comments of this quality, let's have more of
them.
But I find one thing ironic. While we should remember a boy who cried
wolf, it seems that only on this list do we have a Woolf who cried
goy.
-Stephen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Black, Ph.D. tel: (819) 822-9600 ext 2470
Department of Psychology fax: (819) 822-9661
Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lennoxville, QC
J1M 1Z7
Canada Department web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
