12-30-2010, 06:22 PM
@Mauka: anonymity. I would have let it go but you typed it that way twice.
@MarkP: Well done. Loved the backstory. Loved the relevant point about all the Hawaiian occupiers throughout the course of her history.
@Lack: Yes, you are too a troll. And it was a bad joke, in bad taste, and masks an intolerance of others not like you.
@Rob: What is so wrong about priming the pump of a discussion? Why is argument immediately condemned here?
@KeaauRich: Apt observations. But is Chris Rock allowed to joke about n*iggas, while Michael Richards is vilified? Or should there be a level playing field? Most comedy relies on someone being the butt of a joke. Jerry Seinfeld, Jon Stewart (and a raft of others) poke fun at Jews all the time. And we laugh. Are Gentiles who laugh at Seinfeld merely closeted anti-semites? No. So at the end of the day, it is a complex topic at best. Lack's joke was not funny, and I don't defend it. But follow the logic to its extreme, and no joke would ever pass muster, as there would always be a party who might claim to have been offended. (Told any "blonde" jokes recently?)
@All Who Played The Free Speech Card: Lack's joke is precisely the kind of speech that requires protection. Kind and loving words filled with Aloha do not engender a desire in anyone to have them suppressed. If we begin parsing the kind of speech that "deserves" protection, we have lost Free Speech forever. (Some would argue that we already have...)
@PunaWeb: Great forum. Great thread. Peace.
@MarkP: Well done. Loved the backstory. Loved the relevant point about all the Hawaiian occupiers throughout the course of her history.
@Lack: Yes, you are too a troll. And it was a bad joke, in bad taste, and masks an intolerance of others not like you.
@Rob: What is so wrong about priming the pump of a discussion? Why is argument immediately condemned here?
@KeaauRich: Apt observations. But is Chris Rock allowed to joke about n*iggas, while Michael Richards is vilified? Or should there be a level playing field? Most comedy relies on someone being the butt of a joke. Jerry Seinfeld, Jon Stewart (and a raft of others) poke fun at Jews all the time. And we laugh. Are Gentiles who laugh at Seinfeld merely closeted anti-semites? No. So at the end of the day, it is a complex topic at best. Lack's joke was not funny, and I don't defend it. But follow the logic to its extreme, and no joke would ever pass muster, as there would always be a party who might claim to have been offended. (Told any "blonde" jokes recently?)
@All Who Played The Free Speech Card: Lack's joke is precisely the kind of speech that requires protection. Kind and loving words filled with Aloha do not engender a desire in anyone to have them suppressed. If we begin parsing the kind of speech that "deserves" protection, we have lost Free Speech forever. (Some would argue that we already have...)
@PunaWeb: Great forum. Great thread. Peace.