From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: Shibboleth (was: Re: Censorship)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 04:43:05 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

me:
| >And so Hillel replies
| >
| >| That was very nice, now please tell us if you, *personally* see
| >| see MacKinnon's anti-porno legislation as censorship.
| >
| >As I said -- this is twice now, although in different words
| >-- I find the term "censorship", devoid of context,
| >virtually meaningless.

barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
| 	While it _is_ amusing to watch someone who thinks of himself as
| "liberal" squirm, as he attempts to justify his support of repressive
| ideas, 

I haven't supported repressive ideas.  And most people would
not call me a liberal, except in a very general sense.  You
haven't read much of my stuff, have you?

kb:
|        I think I can help you out by rephrasing Hillel's question.
| Rather than stumble around in arguments over the precise definition of
| censorship, ask yourself this: are you in favor of _more_ or _less_
| restraint on free expression than we have, today? And if more in some
| areas, less in others, same question applied specifically to modes of
| sexual expression: more repression, or less?

In almost all areas, less.  I already answered the question 
in the very article you're following up.  I guess I have to 
reply to questions three or four times before the answers sink
in.  I don't think that's what Hillel's interested in,
though.  The point of using a term like "censorship" is
to generate propaganda, as I've now pointed out a half
dozen times or so.

gf:
| >If you mean by it "tending to more
| >restriction of expression than I myself care for" then, yes,
| >MacKinnon's law is "censorship", and so is Playboy (an ongoing 
| >cultural project, Kenn) and quite possibly your politics as 
| >well.

kb:
| 	This sentence no sense.

I cannot be responsible for the failures of the educational
system to teach you how to parse a complex sentence.  I said
that MacKinnon and _Playboy_ favor more restriction on freedom
of expression than I do.  And I added that Hillel's politics
might also, although I'm not sure.  Does rephrasing the
sentence help?  Should I Dick-and-Jane it?

gf:
| >I'm pretty radical on freedom of expression.

kb:
| 	This must be a definition of "free expression" with which I was
| previously unfamiliar.

Could be.  It's evident that you're unfamiliar with a number
of my ideas.  I must be too reticent.

gf:
| >But that's not the point, is it?  The point is to conjure 
| >the demon DworkinMacKinnon, and thereby attack feminism in
| >general.

kb:
| 	Credit where credit is due, Gordon. Dworkin and MacKinnon have
| worked very hard to achieve the notoriety they have gotten. I have
| nothing against feminism _qua_ feminism. I have spent more time on the
| net arguing _against_ Hillel on child support issues than arguing
| against you on censorship, and I have always characterized Dworkin and
| MacKinnon as pseudo-feminists, since it is clear to me that their
| hysteria about pornography has the usual roots in sexual neurosis, and
| has nothing to do with feminism, properly defined.

You haven't been arguing with me on censorship, because I
haven't been arguing about censorship.  I've been arguing
about the way in which one feminist writer, MacKinnon, is
demonized, and the false image then used to attack all of
feminism.

| 	I think you're projecting. Whenever pushed to the wall you can
| be found whispering faintly, as if you hope no one will hear, that you
| _don't_ support the Dworkin-MacKinnon nonsense. Yet you seem to want to
| project a facade of solidarity with them. Why?

The "solidarity" is part of your barricade thinking.
Evidently you see a discussion as taking part between
two teams, one of which "wins" while the other "loses."
I've not only been arguing against this kind of 
restricted thinking, I've been demonstrating that it
isn't necessary.  I'm not interested in winning; 
victory is poison.

| 	You've found a high platform from which to speak, but failed to
| notice the noose and the trap door, and are carrying a petard in your
| pocket. Every movement in history has had a lunatic fringe. You aren't
| required to turn in your feminist credentials to recognize a Dworkin or
| a MacKinnon as such. Open your eyes, and see who's really arguing
| heartfelt beliefs, and who's just loyally rooting for those he believes
| are the home team.

I don't think your forte is political poetry, Kenn. 
Otherwise, you might well apply the last sentence to
yourself.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism