From: perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: The return of vaudeville. (was: Re: Nilges)
Date: 29 Aug 92 07:52:04 GMT
Organization: HJF AIDS Research Project, Washington DC

In article <1992Aug28.221117.10458@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <2516@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays) writes:
>>
>>In article <1992Aug28.183705.16502@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>>>Ah, so the humor was anti-Semitic (in the sense of anti-Jewish) and
>>>anti-Irish.
>>
>>I have never seen anyone squirm around the facts so much to place a 
>>label on something.
>>
>>"It's Anti-Irish!  What?  Shean isn't Irish?  German, eh?  Anti-German!
>>He's Jewish!  Aha!  It's Anti-Jewish!"
>>
>>All this after having admitted that he has never heard the routines he
>>passes judgement on.
>
>I may have heard the routine, which patronized two men being polite to
>one another (for Real Men are never polite to one another, I suppose:
>instead, they flame each other, right?), once or twice.  Because it was
>insulting to the two men, whatever their race, and not specially funny,
>I ignored it.  I'm a bit older than many of the TV brains on the net,
>which regard knowledge of bad comedy routines and Gilligan's Island as
>on par with knowledge of the history of their own country, and as such I
>regard Trivia as, well, Trivial.

If it is trivial to you, to the point where you don't bother to know
it, why do you presume to speak clearly about it?

>Not remembering the forgettable
>routine, I did see it, initially, as insulting to Irishmen, since
>"Shean" could have been the original poster's corruption of "Shaheen."

Oh, he "remembers" that he saw it as insulting some time ago, although
he cannot tell us why to save his life. If he could, he would not have
failed to do so.

Guess we have no choice but to concede to you the last word, Ed... NOT!

>The dedication to accuracy on the part of at least two discussants in this
>thread has already been demonstrated in a bug rate of exactly 100% in
>the C code posted by Knucklehead Morton and Henry Schaffer.

Ed's trying to *wish* his arguments true again. Ed, intellectual
laziness is not pretty.

>
>Then a poster told us that the Shean character was German and while I
>found this unlikely I elected to remind the discussants in this thread
>(given their ignorance of all save bad vaudeville trivia) that at the
>same time Irish were "funny", Germans were "funny" too.  Then we were
>informed that Shean was Jewish, and of course this shows anyone who
>finds the routine amusing to be an anti-Semite.  Jews were "funny" at
>roughly the same time Irish and Germans were "funny".
>
>The point is not the specific race of two men in a vaudeville routine
>which should join Amos 'n Andy in the dust-bin.  It's that you can be
>certain that Shean and Gallagher were not "ordinary Americans."  They
>were immigrant ethnic stereotypes, and the same sort of vile people who
>laughed at them now join Quayle in attacking feminists, Hilary, gays,
>blacks and anyone else who's not what they define as an 'merican.

If you have no idea *what* racial stereotype is being attacked, you
don't know *if* a racial stereotype is being attacked.

If you knew what you were talking about, Ed, you never would have
confused an attack on the stereotypical immigrant with an attack on
a more specific racial stereotype.

>
>My argument was less "squirming" than exceedingly powerful and
>general-purpose and flameproof, even if I must say this myself.

Ed Nilges, a legend in his own mind. Once again he looks stupid using
a peppered-with-flaws argument as a basis for self-aggrandizement.

>>
>>What are you resting your case ON, Ed?  You admit that you know nothing
>>about the routine.
>
>It appears, however, that I know far more about the historical
>provenance of the routine than you do, and this is what is important.
>Do I have to watch every episode of Amos 'n Andy in order to reject it ?
>(hint: I rented one, and found it nauseatingly racist and not specially
>funny, which is how I remember Gallagher and whoever.)

How about enough episodes really to know what it's about and not to
play the fool yet again when someone shows that you are not the World's
Greatest Authority on <any subject matter requiring more work to learn
than Ed Nilges wants to put forth>.

>
>>
>>He hasn't described the humor at all.  He's merely told you the ethnic
>>background of Gallagher and Shean, because YOU made an incorrect 
>>assumption about it.  Evidently, you find the sound of Irish names 
>>humorous and assumed that's why others find Gallagher and Shean funny.
>
>No, Americans in their benign moments used to find Irish names
>(including many of my forbear's names) funny.  In their not-so-benign
>moments they said "no Irish need apply."  I don't find Gallagher funny.
>>
>>Should the government have the right to suppress speech because it can
>>be defined as hate speech?  Yes or No.  Responses?
>
>No, Joe, because the Constitution (specifically the bill of rights)
>specifies that this is forbidden.  The St Paul law enhanced the
>punishment when a tort or crime had already been committed, and the
>state is well within its rights to withold some Constitutional rights
>when a crime is committed.  Viktora's actions were not speech by even
>the most liberal interpretation of the word,

So when I scream "die, communist scumsucking pigs" as I blow them away,
I have kept my mouth shut. Come on, get real. You need to do some hard
thinking about the ideas you proclaim. Then you wouldn't need to
obfuscate more and more to cover for your arguments' deficiencies.

>and please don't fling flag
>burning in my face, for I happen to view flag burning as wrong, and an
>insult to the men who had no choice but to follow the flag to their
>deaths.  Got it yet?

Whose flag is it? Why is flag-burning anything more than expressing an
opinion? Why did those men have no choice? Were they slaves? Does
spitting on the master offend the slave?


-- 
==========================================================================
That which is necessary is never evil. If an evil seems necessary, look
to your context; that's where its root lies.  - Charles Perez
==========================================================================