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.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (73113)	8/22/2003 9:03:59 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Lemon is an interpretation of the constitution, by the Supreme Court, as such it is a very important interpretation of the constitution and is BINDING. The part of your post about children with physical differences is too ugly for me to contemplate. I don't want to post to you anymore about this.

To: TimF who wrote (73113)	8/23/2003 6:32:34 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 82486

I don't see how no barbies looking like them is an attack on them. They don't have to have Barbies. Of all the arguments I've heard, this type is the most perplexing and frustrating--the argument that if you don't like the rock you don't have to look at it or you don't have to have a Barbie. Well, no, you don't HAVE to. And you don't HAVE to look out of your upstairs window and see that the neighbors are having a BBQ in their back yard and that everyone has been invited but you for no other reason than the color of your skin or your religion. Yes, you can just stay in your basement, after all, where people of your skin color or religion belong. Alternatively, you can drop out and hang with people of your own "kind" and not participate in the larger culture. And this is good for society, how? This is nice, how? Let's be clear here we're not talking about constitutionality or even legality. This is a cultural issue--the dominant culture sending a message that some people are beneath them--and to what extent that matters. I understand your point about bald Barbies. There is always a question of slippery slopes and squeaky wheels and PC and all that crap. I also understand your point about freedom of association, even though you didn't make it today. <g> It's hard to find the right balance. But putting black Barbies and the TC in courtrooms in a class with bald Barbies ain't it. Maybe "attack" isn't the best word but I'll use it anyway because that's the word that's been used throughout. If everyone is invited to the BBQ but the one non-white in the neighborhood, all other things being equal, then that is a form of attack--attack by message. It shows contempt. Contempt is a hostile act. TC in the courtroom is a hostile act, intentional or otherwise. Producing only white Barbies in a culture where every seven year old girl lives and breathes Barbie is a hostile act. It says that the dominant culture doesn't want you. Just because you're not bleeding doesn't mean you haven't been attacked. Dismissiveness, contempt's weaker cousin, is also hostile, just more passive. Putting black Barbies and bald Barbies in the same category, IMO, is at best dismissive. As is suggesting that no one needs a Barbie and you don't have to look at the rock. Does that mean that you have to invite your neighbor to your BBQ? Of course not. It only means that nice people avoid attacking other people. The TC in the courtroom is perceived by many as an attack. Nice people at least try to understand and be sensitive to that and reach out. Nice people don't go around waving a banner that says that some people are beneath them.