Gary wrote:
> What I find extremely troubling is that there is a concern that Don's
> response is degrading to Michael and those of you who find some
> merit in his postings while there is not an equal concern that many
> of us find Michael's posts degrading. This is not the bar where the
> good ol' boys can sit around and tell off color jokes. This is a
> professional group and there should be some concern that we all act
> professionally.
I agree.
But do you consider it "professional" to degrade individuals who you
prefer not to read by labeling their posts: "Re: <fill in any name you
choose> latest idiotic posting?"
To me, that is hardly a professional response to a message--it's rather
like posting "Re: Another stupid post by a N_gg_r," isn't it?
If you don't want to read someone's posts, fine. But to claim that you
oppose discrimination and immediately argue that an individual should be
labled as an idiot _is_ rather hypocritical, isn't it?
The "professional" response is simply to ignore (or kill file) messages
by the poster you don't choose to read--or to kill file entire threads
instead of reading them then complaining about their content. I don't
happen to like watching sit-coms on TV (for that matter, I don't happen to
like watching network TV in the first place). It would be rather foolish
for me to sit down and watch a sit-com then complain throughout it that I
didn't like it, wouldn't it? Yet that is precisely what is happening here.
I--like many members of the group--sincerely oppose prejudice and
bigotry. And being treated as a member of a "bar where the good ol' boys
can sit around and tell off color jokes" is not only offensive, it is
inaccurate. The fact that I support free speech and believe that the
correct response to prejudiced words is not censorship or ridicule but
open discussion hardly qualifies as unprofessional. To me, the
"unprofessional" conduct is to gripe and complain because the content of
the messages doesn't suit the desires of the individual doing the
complaining.
Michael's thread would have died days ago if no one had jumped in to
complain and respond. This thread would never have even come about. You
complain about the nature of the threads, but you (and others) continue to
post to them, thus continuing the very discussions you claim to oppose. Is
_that_ what you consider "professional" behavior?
> I am not suggesting any form of censorship. However I would like
> to be treated with respect. If Michael would like to make a
> comment let him act a little less impulsively and think about what
> he is saying and how it will affect his colleagues.
There are many times that I, myself, disagree with Michael's posts. If
you notice, while I may support his freedom of speech, I do NOT support
the statements he makes--nor do most of the other people on the list who
are supporting his right to free speech.
Like many other members of this list, I feel deeply for what Linda has
experienced--and I sincerely hope she will not leave the list. But that
does not justify ridiculing or degrading Michael. He, like Linda, is
entitled to his point of view--and he is just as entitled to express it as
she is her own. No one is suggesting that posts from Linda be marked "Re:
Another post from a Jewish apologist" and if they were they would be
resoundingly (and justifiably) flamed by the entire membership of this
list. But when it is Michael who is being ridiculed, it appears to be
acceptable.
Sorry, but to me EITHER is wrong. If that isn't "professional" then
either you have a very peculiar definition of the profession of psychology
education, or I'm in the wrong field entirely.
> I have been a consistent Sylvester deleter. I got sucked into
> this thread by reading a response by Linda. Once someone responds
> and if Michael's name isn't in the subject I don't know this is
> a thread that I will find offensive and degrading. If the group
> thinks that it is ok to have mail that offends their colleagues
> then there should be someway to identify those posts as such.
> Don may have been a bit dramatic in his suggestion but what he
> intended (remember how important intention is) would be helpful.
No, what he intended was to ridicule Michael. That isn't helpful to
anyone.
For people who state they oppose discrimination, many posters seem
remarkably willing to make an exception in Michael's case. If you want to
argue that ALL message threads should include the name of the original
author (i.e., this would read "RE: Michael Sylvester's inanities [Gary
Klatsky]," I would have no problem with that. But if you want to single
out one poster for the "honor," then you make it clear that you only
oppose _certain_ forms of discrimination, not all.
It's easy to find if a thread is offensive. Read a few lines of the post,
and if it is, ignore the rest of the thread. No one will care if you do
so, no one will expect you to read them all, and you will only be part of
threads you enjoy. We all do that--there are many threads I have no
interest in (including many with no offensive content--merely content that
I'm not personally interested in) that I ignore after reading a few lines
of a message or two. THAT, not "identification" is the appropriate
response in Michael's case.
> I am getting to the same point Linda is at. Where is the civility and
> professionalism of this group. One would be hard pressed to see
> this as a group of Psychologists. Having spent 15 years working in
> the commercial world I am amazed that academicians are more willing
> to accept a hostile work environment then they were in the defense
> industry. It is not my problem that Michael continuously says things
> that I find offensive.
Then don't read them!
Why is that so difficult to understand by people here? It's a common rule
on the Usenet--and there the population is _far_ less professional and
less well educated than is the case here.
It isn't a question of accepting a hostile work environment--this is NOT
our work environment (I'm not being paid to be here, are you?), it is a
source of communications and information. And it isn't a question of
accepting a hostile environment, it's one of granting EVERYONE freedom of
speech. Look at it this way, from a personal perspective, I find the
comments of many of the people calling for Michael to be censored to be
FAR more offensive and hostile than I find Michael's own. Does that make
it acceptable for me to call for those posters to be ridiculed or
censored?
One thing I find particularly interesting about responses to my messages
calling for free speech is the fact that it is assumed I am comfortable
with prejudiced speech, that I am one of the "good 'ol boys," and that I
am a typical WASP academic. Yet there isn't a single person on this list
who has the vaguest idea what my race, ethnic background, religion, or
sexual orientation is. Are you SURE I am one of the "good 'ol boys" with
no personal reason to oppose discrimination? Or could I be a member of one
or another minority group myself who simply feels that any personal
offense I may take at a comment is less relevant than my commitment to
free speech? Unless you can answer _that_ question accurately, you really
have no justification in grouping me with the "good 'ol boys," do you?
Maybe I _am_ a WASP, but maybe I'm as much a target of bigotry and
discrimination as is Linda or any other minority member of the list.
You indicate that you oppose stereotypes--yet you automatically
stereotype those of us who don't oppose Michael's posts.
Think about it.
Rick
--
Rick Adams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Department of Social Sciences
Jackson Community College, Jackson, MI
"... and the only measure of your worth and your deeds
will be the love you leave behind when you're gone."
Fred Small, J.D., "Everything Possible"
