Chris Mahan wrote,
which begs the question, what do you mean by "communicative?" I assume you mean that the only thing it does is to describe or express something else, but has not force in and of itself.
Your assumption was incorrect.
But judging from the rest of his response, my assumption was correct. Chris, you just do not understand the point. I suggest you read Austin's book and perhaps take a couple of courses in the philosophy of language.
It looks like few people have interest in the question of hate speech, so I will not belabor the point. But for everyone besides Chris, I do want to add one more thing, to clarify my earlier points. One of Wikipedia's key policies is to respect contributors, and an important behavioral guideline is to avoid personal attacks. One reason I am so concerned about hate speech is that I do not feel it is strictly covered by this policy and this guideline -- because hate speech is impersonal. Strictly speaking, I did not feel WHEELER was attacking me "personally," I felt he was attacking me "impersonally." It was not directed at me personally (which is explicitly against our policy) because it was not about me, personally. But it was about Jews, so since I am a Jew it is about me, just me, impersonally. If this is not clear, all I can ask is that you read any of the countless explanations of the rationale behind hate speech legislation or hate crime legislation. The point is not that you should agree that we need hate speech legislation, just to understand how hate speech is different from other forms of rude or insulting or disrespectful speech. Perhaps all I have been asking for is recognition of another reason for mediation or arbitration beyond the ones listed.
Steve
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.690 / Virus Database: 451 - Release Date: 5/22/2004
--- "steven l. rubenstein" rubenste@ohiou.edu wrote:
But judging from the rest of his response, my assumption was correct. Chris, you just do not understand the point. I suggest you read Austin's book and perhaps take a couple of courses in the philosophy of language.
I do get your point, unfortunately, just not agree with it. Anyway, I'll look it up someday in my spare time.
It looks like few people have interest in the question of hate speech, so I will not belabor the point. But for everyone besides Chris, I do want to add one more thing, to clarify my earlier points. One of Wikipedia's key policies is to respect contributors, and an important behavioral guideline is to avoid personal attacks. One reason I am so concerned about hate speech is that I do not feel it is strictly covered by this policy and this guideline -- because hate speech is impersonal. Strictly speaking, I did not feel WHEELER was attacking me "personally," I felt he was attacking me "impersonally." It was not directed at me personally (which is explicitly against our policy) because it was not about me, personally. But it was about Jews, so since I am a Jew it is about me, just me, impersonally. If this is not clear, all I can ask is that you read any of the countless explanations of the rationale behind hate speech legislation or hate crime legislation. The point is not that you should agree that we need hate speech legislation, just to understand how hate speech is different from other forms of rude or insulting or disrespectful speech. Perhaps all I have been asking for is recognition of another reason for mediation or arbitration beyond the ones listed.
I would like to add that I personally find that people who use ethnic or group-based insults even less savory than those who direct curses directly to individuals. I agree that any form of insult, be it group-based or individual-based is generally in poor taste and does little to foster a collegial environment where productive work can take place.
As far as mediation or arbitration, perhaps others can best describe the difference between disagreement on an article's content and clashes of personalities.
There may be a "I don't want to work with this person" complain, replete with a restaining order or two, as long as article content is itself not an item of contention.
Thoughts?
===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail