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 : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (67767)	9/13/2005 7:52:56 PM
From: JF Quinnelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71178

"Mandated politeness"- that's pretty much the rationale that was used for prosecuting Lenny Bruce, once a cause celebre of political liberals. Should we be surprised to see the same rationale now embraced by a faction that once argued for extending the limits of what is permissible speech? For political cynics like me, not at all. Likewise for the decidedly non-conservative Nat Henthoff, and although it is possible that he secretly sneers I always saw him cheerful when being interviewed.

To: epicure who wrote (67767)	9/15/2005 11:05:31 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 71178

Mandated politeness in narrow confines might be better then the other extreme of open hostility and slurs and attacks within those narrow confines. At least if the mandate isn't the function of law. Maybe, just maybe it might be better in some cases. But the other extreme is not the real alternative. Neither extreme is a good thing. Also if such "PC" restrictions go beyond a narrow specific context where they might be important, I'd rather deal with the other extreme then extreme PC, if those really where the only alternatives. Certainly somewhere in the vast middle would be best. I would lean toward the more permissive side of the middle in most contexts. Tim