Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (4910)	2/26/2003 11:53:20 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 7720

Yes, that is true.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (4910)	2/26/2003 12:14:11 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 7720

Too bad his action is so bigoted, not allowing that individual citizens of France and Germany may be soul brothers of his. Public opinion in those countries isn't monolithic any more than it is here. What he's doing makes a funny story, perhaps even a heart warming one, but it's still bigotry. That people can so easily condone bigotry amongst those among their friends or on their "side" is why we must always speak out against it. Shortly after the "q" incident, I clipped this column. I thought it wise. Hard to apply her approach in cyberspace, though. Bigoted remarks deserve a response, but rebuke not always best By Carolyn Hax * Dear Carolyn: Do you have any advice for how to handle situations in which people, whether it be relatives, friends, acquaintances, co-workers, service providers, whoever, make hateful comments or jokes that are anti-Semitic, anti-black, anti-gay, anti-Hispanic, you name it? I am way too old not to know how to handle these situations. I don't encourage the remarks in any way, but I don't condemn them either. I usually just stand there looking like an idiot and try to change the subject. - Spineless Well, wait. Don't be so quick to dismiss the awkward pause and the subject-change. When circumstances demand a sleek, non-humiliating reproach - say, when the hateful egg-layer is your new client, out to dinner with you and your boss - the two can be a formidable and eloquent pair. "(Pause.) Well. About those Mets." No huffs, no puffs, no conceivable doubt where you stand. Nevertheless, I think the Vocal and Righteous Objection is almost universally seen as a virtue - despite the fact that few of us ever manage to rip one off under pressure. When our golden chance to do so presents itself and we just stand there dumbly instead, we usually conclude, as you did, that a skeletal failure's to blame. I'm not so sure that's the case. When it's your kid or student or charge, yeah, it's your duty to scold. When it's a spouse or close friend, you talk about it. Close relative, you can say, "OK, that was really offensive." When a casual acquaintance tells a rude joke, not laughing will likely suffice - or the genial but unequivocal "I'm pretending I didn't just hear that." The degree to which you're obliged to protest should reflect the degree to which you are responsible, by association, for this person's comments. Marrying a homophobe, for example, says tenfold more about you morally than working next to one, and so you should actively deplore in a spouse what you might eye-roll away in a cubemate. Likewise, if a politician makes a racist comment, the onus to take a stand against it lies most heavily on both the constituents who elected him and the party that claims him. Not every battle is yours. Gray? Absolutely - but lobbing scold bombs regardless of context can put people on the defensive and undermine lofty intent. When in doubt, aim for the most proportionate way to make it clear that you don't agree.