Posted by OddipusRex on January 14, 2003, at 16:55:48
In reply to Re: anti-Semitic language--Rex, posted by Noa on January 14, 2003, at 16:10:25
> I have revised the subject title, if that helps.
Yes it does. I think that's a lot clearer.
>
> To me, I am willing to give any poster the benefit of the doubt, and think of the comments as an error in judgement, an "oops" that with a reminder from Dr. Bob, would not be repeated. No big deal at that point.
>
> But to me the bigger deal is Dr. Bob's error in judgment about the impact of the comments, or his assessment of them as being "gray area", which I disagree with, and that is where I felt I needed to comment.~~~~I don't consider anti-Semitism civil, but at the same time I think there can be gray zones. For example, someone might put down particular members of a group without putting down that whole group...~~~~~~Quote from Bob
Noa do you think it is ever possible to put down particular members of a group without putting down the whole group? Should the phrases hypocritical Christian or pedophile priest or drunken Irishman or Black drug dealer or white lynch mob or treacherous female be forbidden too? How would you word a rule on forbidden phrases? Were you offended that his tormenters were identified as Jewish or just the particular insulting phrases used?
Actually I cringed when I read the post too but I've cringed at other things posted on Babble too.
poster:OddipusRex
thread:8766
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20021128/msgs/8797.html