Re: Another Censorship . . . .

Timothy R. Butler wrote:

>>Nonsense. Everyone has a different opinion about what constitutes obscenity.
>>    
>>
>
>  I didn't say otherwise. Simply that there is a certain indescribable
>set of characteristics that make up "obscenity." I can't make a
>technical checklist for it. Likewise, neo-Nazi/racist groups. When you
>encounter one, it is obvious.
>
>   And like obscenity, not everyone will agree what is racist. But you
>can take an "average" and see where the border most likely falls. 
>  
>
I'm sorry but I'll have to disagree with your logic here. Obscenity is 
in the eye of the beholder, and whether an individual identifies 
something obscene is based on their emotional makeup, their upbringing, 
and their personal beliefs. This is why there is no technical definition 
for obscenity; it describes a completely arbitrary set of things that 
provoke a certain undesired reaction in a completely arbitrary individual.

OTOH, you can make a very clear definition of what is racist and what is 
not. Anything which discriminates against certain individuals or groups 
on the basis of race is racist. Anything else is not.

Nazism, too, has quite a clear definition. It refers specifically to the 
body of political doctrine that existed in Nazi Germany. 'Neo-Nazism' is 
any modern attempt to replicate Nazism, whether in Germany or in other 
countries. That means that they replicate some or all of the following 
features of Nazism:
* Belief in the supremacy of a certain 'master' race (usually western 
europeans) over all others
* Belief in the supremacy of a certain nation (originally Germany).
* Belief in the right of that nation to expand its territory at the 
expense of others in order to gain more living space for the 'master' race.
* Belief in the socio-economic and political principles of Fascism.
* Possibly: Belief in the specific inferiority and culpability of a 
certain race (usually Jews), although in the case of Hitlerian Nazism 
this was (IIRC) something of an afterthought, albeit a horrific one.

There might be a little argument over this, like whether the term should 
be limited to white supremacists, but in any case i don't think anyone 
would seriously object to that as a technical definition (1). And if you 
do accept it, it seems to me that Israel currently resembles Neo-Nazism 
in at least 3 of these, and arguably all 5.

(1) I only wrote it 'off the cuff', so it surely needs some work.

I think you could write a piece of software to identify both Nazism and 
Neo-Nazism, if you had the time and/or inclination. The fact that both 
terms are frequently misused by the media to the point of public 
confusion is of no consequence.

(As a completely irrelevant sidenote, I personally believe it is 
possible to imagine a society where nothing is considered obscene, and 
that perhaps that is an ideal to which we should aspire. Obscenity by 
definition is harmful only when people take it as such.)

Kde-cafe mailing list - [email protected]
http://ofb.biz/lists/listinfo.cgi/kde-cafe

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this mailinglist are the personal
opinions of the author and do not represent OfB.biz: Open for Business, KDE or the author's employer.