From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Followup-To: alt.flame
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 14:29:20 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.131936.6196@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>Transposed?  You can meaningfully transpose two characters.

No you can't. There's no meaning to the transposition of characters.

>But in the
>context, "Iago" was not transposed with anything.

Sure it was, as anyone familiar with cognitive psychology can attest.
It just wasn't transposed with another word in the posting.

>Admit it.  You
>mistakenly said "Iago" because you weren't thinking.

Oh, sure, I admit the slip. Every now and then one is so stunned with the
viciousness and willful stupidity of another poster that it affects one's
typoing and proofreading. In a sense, most examples of misspeaking and
misstyping are examples of "not thinking." But, unless you're even more
ignorant of human psychological processes than you appeared to be, this is
not the same as a "Freudian slip." 

>Since you entered
>this thread on the wings of a flame about my "literacy", your error is
>especially laughable.

I didn't flame your literacy.

>Next time, engage brain before posting.

Only a very ignorant person could suppose that an example of misspeaking
or misstyping means that one's brain is not engaged. I suppose we have
uncovered still another gap in Nilgean knowledge.

>>Your own racism is apparent in your assumption that I am white.
>
>Your "race" or skin color is not relevant.

I agree. But you assumed I was white.

>I'm relieved to hear it.  However, actors of Shakespeare are not
>especially good critics.

Actually, some are and some aren't.

>Also, I said that your subconscious is at war
>with your conscious.

Where did you get your training in psychology? It seems to be lacking in
this instance. Almost everything you've said about my error is grounded in
the kind of fatuous pop psychology that infects the net. You don't seem to
have any actual knowledge of cognitive psychology at all.

>You "know" that Posner meant Othello, you
>unconsciously substituted Iago because you also know that you, and
>Posner, are both fools when you describe the Othello of Act 1 as a
>monstrous black miscegenator.

Is there anyone besides Ed Nilges who believes this? Not impossible, I 
suppose, but it seems unlikely.

>Any?  How about (Romeo and Juliet)
>
>
>     "...it seems that she hangs on the cheek of night
>     As a rich jewel in an Ethiop's ear."
>
>
>This notices the skin color but in a neutral or even flattering sense
>(in that Shakespeare is complimenting the Ethiop on his dress.)

You fell right into the trap. The reference to the Ethiop's ear is not
complimentary. The jewel's beauty is *contrasted* with the darkness of the
Ethiop's ear. 

I knew that if I referred to "Ethiop" I might be able to trick you into
this blunder. It worked.

>And in
>your example, no scholar believes that the Dark Lady of the Sonnets was
>black, sinply that she was of a dark complexion.

Right. But no one said otherwise. Darkness of complexion, in the Dark
Lady, is seen as reflecting a dark soul. Or are you really admitting not
knowing this very basic fact about Shakespeare?



--Mike





-- 
Mike Godwin,     |"Of the many definitions of poetry, the   
mnemonic@eff.org | simplest is still the best: 'memorable speech.'" 
(617) 864-0665   | 
EFF, Cambridge   |                     --W.H. Auden 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh