Le Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:22:43 -0800,
inspiré Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> écrivait la plume alerte :
....
Accepting that distinction did not make them racist.
Nobody owns the
word.
Yes, you are right, so I clearly stated in the definition it was a
"cache sexe" for racism.
....
Why shouldn't they be? If these phenomena exist,
they need to be
described fairly. That doesn't mean agreeing with them. A racist
article and an article about racism are two different things.
This is easy :
racism means there is a difference between race. If in the article we
show there is no such things as human races, how can you use a term such
anti-caucasian racism without implying first there are different races,
and as a consequence that regarding the race that are concerned the
racism is different !!! If racism are different regarding the «race» you
can compare them and say : oh anti-negro racism is worse than
anti-caucasian racism or else.
We face a contradiction in term like military music, and it also means
we are not self consistent in our definitions.
> >However, I do not support the idea to
block people who write racist
> >articles. It's counter-productive. It's better to correct their
> >articles and show them the limit (as defined by the law in France).
> >And this as long as they are few and we can correct their articles.
> >
Yes, but how should we face a massive and biased change of the
definition.
The difficulty here is who decides what French law
means?
It is secondary, first how do we handle conflicts regarding the
infringement of the editorial rules concerning objectivity.
> Eclecticology
Ethylocology,
--
Julien Tayon
http://www.tayon.net/ http://libroscope.org/
Si la vérité est une femme, essayons de la séduire avant de la saisir.