Re: ISOC -Reply -Reply -Reply

[Michael Sondow <msondow@iciiu.org>]

Roeland M.J. Meyer a écrit:

> Yes, some Americans say some pretty egregious things, under the covers of
> freedom-of-speech, but isn't that the point? I'd say that you are doing a
> good job, measuring your character out in public this way. It may satisfy
> you to know that the insulter is doing the same.

The word "racist" is not a dirty word. It's a simple noun, a
descriptive term. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines racism
as: "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits
and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent
superiority of a particular race."

Many of the people on these lists pretend that the use of the word
"racist", or any other that describes a pernicious and reprehensible
action or way of thought, is evil. I say that it is the action or
way of thought that is evil, not the use of the word that describes
it.

By attempting to outlaw the use of the word, you attempt to keep
people from accusing you. This happens always and everywhere that a
society becomes evil. Words are outlawed, words that point a finger
at those who practice the evil. The American society is racist, so
it attempts to prohibit the use of the word that accuses.

It is not the word racist that is evil, not the accusation of racism
that is bad. It is the thought and action of racism, of racial
superiority, that is evil and bad, because it diminishes another
human being, just as Kevin Connolly diminished another human being
when he said "In other words, stop complaining about opaque
processes behind closed doors -- the opacity may be due to nothing
more than your looking in the wrong direction and the perception of
the closed door may well evaporate once you knock politely", in
reply to an honest request for information, suggesting that the
person who made the request was ignorant and impolite.

Mr. Connolly always tries to diminishe people. It's his principle
tactic. In his very first response to me, in the thread "NSI Domain
Name Dispute Stats", after I had posted Chuck Gomes' statistics with
a brief analysis, Mr. Connolly referred to my posting as "spewed"
and "drivel". Is this the attitude of someone who respects other
human beings? Or is it the attitude of someone who believes himself
superior?

When Mr. Connolly's belief in his own superiority and his practice
of diminishing other human beings is directed against me or another
American, it is just egotism, although no less damaging for that.
When it is directed against someone from another country or another
culture, it is racism, and much more destructive.

You, the people who have posted on these lists that I am wrong for
having denounced Kevin Connolly, who support his paltry defense of
his damaging and reprehensible actions by a counter-attack that I
"insulted" him, are trying to prohibit the accusation, trying to
make the use of the accusatory word a crime, rather than stop the
act it refers to. Why are you doing this? Because you worry that it
might some day be levelled at you?