From: joemays@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Joseph F. Mays)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: The return of vaudeville. (was: Re: Nilges)
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:51:53 GMT
Organization: Dept. of CS Ball State University Muncie IN

In article <1992Aug28.183705.16502@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.153236.24131@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Aug28.144939.19461@samba.oit.unc.edu> Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi) writes:
>>>
>>>	BTW, your ignorance is showing.  Mr Shean spoke with a noticeable
>>>Germanic accent. I've got some of the recordings.  Gallagher had no accent to
>>>speak of.  In any case, their act involved little in the way of ethnic
>>>humor, as far as I know.
>>
>>In fact, Shean was Jewish, a pretty close relative of the Marx Brothers
>>(that's Julius, not Karl, though Karl was sometimes funnier.)
>
>Ah, so the humor was anti-Semitic (in the sense of anti-Jewish) and
>anti-Irish.  I rest my case re your disgusting racism, Chuck.  And the
>humor you describe is unrelated to the humor of the Marx Brothers, for
>the Marx Brothers did not indulge in self-hating humor; they instead
>made fun of centrist American WASPS like Margaret Dumont and of
>pompous fools.  Whereas Chuck clearly was amused and felt superior to
>the mutual politeness of Gallegher and Shean, and wanted to transfer
>that amusement to Nilges/Sherheryar in order to turn his clear defeat in
>debate into laughter at the marginalized outsider, a common (both
>statistically and morally, in the sense of low and vile) rhetorical
>trick.

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 rest my case re your disgusting racism, Chuck.  

"I admit I've never heard the routine.  It's racist because I say it
is.  Case closed."

What are you resting your case ON, Ed?  You admit that you know nothing
about the routine.  As usual, you have leveled the charge of racism
without presenting one single reason why you feel this way.  This
total accusation started when you accused him capitalizing on the "laff-
producing value of Irish names."  Informed that one of the names isn't
Irish at all (which means that you were wrong, period) you maintained
the charge without presenting any new reason.  Why don't you just
admit that the racism charge was a knee-jerk reaction without basis
and apologize?  You are damaging any credibility you had left with each
successive post on this.

>And the
>humor you describe is unrelated to the humor of the Marx Brothers, for
>the Marx Brothers did not indulge in self-hating humor; they instead
>made fun of centrist American WASPS like Margaret Dumont and of
>pompous fools.

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.

>Whereas Chuck clearly was amused and felt superior to
>the mutual politeness of Gallegher and Shean, 

No, Ed.  He just feels superior to you.  And he is.  Superior to Sherheryar?
I don't know.  It seems that Sherheryar has walked into this discussion
in the middle and is unaware of what exactly is being discussed.  He
doesn't seem to know that everyone here is every bit as much opposed
to stifling "hate speech" by blacks as much as by morons like Viktora. 
I place that in quotes, because in a racist society many of the things
Malcolm X had to say are as likely to be defined as "hate speech" by a
white power structure as Viktora's cross burning.  Quite possibly MORE
likely.  Sherheryar doesn't seem to know that we are opposed to this,
while it is fine with you.

>and wanted to transfer
>that amusement to Nilges/Sherheryar in order to turn his clear defeat in
>debate into laughter at the marginalized outsider, a common (both
>statistically and morally, in the sense of low and vile) rhetorical
>trick.

We'll discuss victory and defeat in debate when we can actually get you
to engage in one on this subject.  You consistently ignore the basic
question.  I'll phrase it directly, and perhaps we can get both you and
Sherheryar to respond at the same time:

Should the government have the right to suppress speech because it can
be defined as hate speech?  Yes or No.  Responses?

Joe