C writes
> On Tue, 09 Jun 1998 20:23:06 +0100, F wrote:

> 
>>  (a) any fair dealing with any work for the purposes of private
>> study or research;
>> 
>> So assuming our AT is telling the truth about his purposes copyright
>> law does not protect any poster.
> 
> Yes, but it isn't private study or private research (like all bad laws,
> this is ambiguous). The results will be published publicly.

Doesn't matter. Usenet material is in the public domain and unless you post with a legal statement to the contrary, there's nothing you can do about it (that's also why DejaNews can legally store everyone's posts without their implicit agreement)

MS

On Tue, 09 Jun 1998 16:15:39 GMT, AT wrote:

> The whole point of the research was for people not to realise they were
> contributing as this makes for a less biased result.

Yes, but that does not make the practice ethical.

> And it was the universities idea to use the internet as a way to reach diverse
> groups of people rather than a controlled experiment which would inevitably
> produce less varied results.

Yes, but the results are more invalid *because* there is no control. You have no idea about the type of people who replied, therefore very few conclusions can be drawn (other than very vague ones).

I'm sorry, it still smacks of bad practice.

c.

Hmmmm.... Is this that Lone Ranger and Tonto joke again...

AT wrote...
> This has been a very interesting few days.

FD)

FD wrote:

> Hmmmm.... Is this that Lone Ranger and Tonto joke again...
> 
> AT wrote:
>> This has been a very interesting few days.
> 
> FD)

*What*................?!!!!!!!!!!!

R

AT wrote:

> 
> This has been a very interesting few days. I'll let you into a bit of a
> secret, purely because I'm getting sick of this thread. My cousin Kaitlin (in
> Eire) asked me to help her with her dissertation which is on the reactions
> people show to apparent racism and racial stereotypes for a psychology
> degree. We devised this idea to post a joke which could be construed as
> either racist or not, depending on your point of view. You've been wonderful,
> some of the points of view are excellently made (a la R) others are not.
> It's interesting to see how some people came over very PC and others took it
> as a linguistic joke. It is of course a joke aimed at the linguistic traits
> of the Irish but does of course help if you are aware of the Irish=Thick
> stereotype. It is of course a very bad joke ad not at all funny. Sorry for
> drawing out this prolonged thread but you've all been wonderfully helpful.
> 
> Sorry,
> 
> AT.
> (ps. I'll try and make Kaitlin's dissertation available on the net sometime
> after the summer)

Impressed, want to read !

N

AT wrote:

> This has been a very interesting few days. I'll let you into a bit of a
> secret, purely because I'm getting sick of this thread.

I think the discussion has moved on far past the joke itself, actually. Your post was the catalyst.

> My cousin Kaitlin (in
> Eire) asked me to help her with her dissertation which is on the reactions
> people show to apparent racism and racial stereotypes for a psychology
> degree. We devised this idea to post a joke which could be construed as
> either racist or not, depending on your point of view.

Grrrrrrr. ;)

> It's interesting to see how some people came over very PC and others took it
> as a linguistic joke.

My hackles still rise when people say "PC", because the term is often used to describe people reacting the way they *think* they're supposed to, rather than the way they really feel. And I doubt that any of us arguing the anti-racist side are doing so because we think it's expected of us. These sentiments run deep in some of us.

> It is of course a joke aimed at the linguistic traits
> of the Irish but does of course help if you are aware of the Irish=Thick
> stereotype.

Well, I still reckon it's *at least* as much a "thick Irish" joke as a linguistic one, but you may disagree.

> It is of course a very bad joke ad not at all funny. Sorry for
> drawing out this prolonged thread but you've all been wonderfully helpful.

We aren't just having the discussion for your benefit, you understand... :)

> (ps. I'll try and make Kaitlin's dissertation available on the net sometime
> after the summer)

Please do!

J

AT wrote in article <6lirst$sc9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> This has been a very interesting few days. I'll let you into a bit of a
> secret, purely because I'm getting sick of this thread. My cousin Kaitlin (in
> Eire) asked me to help her with her dissertation which is on the reactions
> people show to apparent racism and racial stereotypes for a psychology
> degree. We devised this idea to post a joke which could be construed as
> either racist or not, depending on your point of view.

This made me chuckle more than anything else I've read on UMR in a while! I'll be interested to read the dissertation when it's done................

AT wrote:

> Huge apologies to all and sundry. Didn't mean to offend. Although I must say
> I've sent this joke to my cousins and they've circulated it around their
> school (in Eire) with no complaints. I shall refrain from any humour
> forthwith.
> 
> AT.

If the only kind of humour you can come up with is racist, then yes, please, refrain.

F

AT wrote:

> R wrote:

>> 
>> 
>> Well there we are then. People will interpret the joke in different ways.
>> As this is the case, perhaps it's best not to make it at all.
> 
> 
> Huge apologies to all and sundry. Didn't mean to offend. Although I must say
> I've sent this joke to my cousins and they've circulated it around their
> school (in Eire) with no complaints.

As I've said, a joke within a group, for a group may be different - it's not a difficult concept to grasp now, is it?

I shall refrain from any humour
> forthwith.

Good to see that you've given the topic the consideration it deserves - not.

R

R wrote:

> 
> AT wrote:

> 
>> R wrote:

>>> Well there we are then. People will interpret the joke in different ways.
>>> As this is the case, perhaps it's best not to make it at all.
>> 
>> Huge apologies to all and sundry. Didn't mean to offend. Although I must say
>> I've sent this joke to my cousins and they've circulated it around their
>> school (in Eire) with no complaints.
> 
> As I've said, a joke within a group, for a group may be different - it's
> not a difficult concept to grasp now, is it?

I've been tossing this point around in my head over the weekend, and I'm afraid while I can see where that view's coming from, I can't agree. It relies too much on the "them and us" concept. I find the idea that certain things could be acceptable behaviour within a certain racial group, but that the rules change as soon as any other racial groups are involved quite a frightening concept, because whilst, as in the case of jokes, it may be pretty harmless, if certain jokes can only be told within your racial group, it's a small step (particularly for the less intelligent, who I think we've agreed are in the majority among racists) from that, to other ideas only being expressable within your racial group. I can handle people not saying certain things to certain people based on their sensitivities, but not based on colour of skin, whatever the circumstances.

N

N wrote:

> (particularly for the less
> intelligent, who I think we've agreed are in the majority among racists)

While I can see your point, I think it's too easy to overlook the fact that many racists are intelligent, articulate, and in positions of great power and/or influence. That ranges from police to prospective employers, from magistrates to MPs, and all kinds of other folk.

And racism is merely one form of prejudice - there's a whole load of other kinds out there, too.

Not saying you (or anyone else) didn't know this already, N, I just wanted to make the general point, to reinforce it. :)

J

J wrote:

> 
> On Mon, 08 Jun 1998 13:08:38 +0100, N
> wrote:

> 
>> (particularly for the less
>> intelligent, who I think we've agreed are in the majority among racists)
> 
> While I can see your point, I think it's too easy to overlook the fact
> that many racists are intelligent, articulate, and in positions of
> great power and/or influence. That ranges from police to prospective
> employers, from magistrates to MPs, and all kinds of other folk.

I have my doubts however, about whether the majority of the intelligent and articulate who stand up for such views actually believe in them, or are simply using them to further their own positions, especially the younger ones, a lot of older people with such views are simply dinosaurs from a bygone era, who never questioned such views, and now can't, or find it very hard, as it would mean questioning their whole lives.

> And racism is merely one form of prejudice - there's a whole load of
> other kinds out there, too.

Very true.

> Not saying you (or anyone else) didn't know this already, N, I
> just wanted to make the general point, to reinforce it. :)

N

N wrote:

>> While I can see your point, I think it's too easy to overlook the fact
>> that many racists are intelligent, articulate, and in positions of
>> great power and/or influence. That ranges from police to prospective
>> employers, from magistrates to MPs, and all kinds of other folk.
> 
> I have my doubts however, about whether the majority of the intelligent
> and articulate who stand up for such views actually believe in them, or
> are simply using them to further their own positions, especially the
> younger ones, a lot of older people with such views are simply dinosaurs
> from a bygone era, who never questioned such views, and now can't, or
> find it very hard, as it would mean questioning their whole lives.

I pretty much agree with that, N. Not a lot else to add to it, for that matter. :)

J

N wrote:

> R wrote:

>> 
>> AT wrote:

>> 
>>> R wrote:

>>>> Well there we are then. People will interpret the joke in different ways.
>>>> As this is the case, perhaps it's best not to make it at all.
>>> 
>>> Huge apologies to all and sundry. Didn't mean to offend. Although I must say
>>> I've sent this joke to my cousins and they've circulated it around their
>>> school (in Eire) with no complaints.
>> 
>> As I've said, a joke within a group, for a group may be different - it's
>> not a difficult concept to grasp now, is it?
> 
> I've been tossing this point around in my head over the weekend, and I'm
> afraid while I can see where that view's coming from, I can't agree. It
> relies too much on the "them and us" concept. I find the idea that
> certain things could be acceptable behaviour within a certain racial
> group, but that the rules change as soon as any other racial groups are
> involved quite a frightening concept, because whilst, as in the case of
> jokes, it may be pretty harmless, if certain jokes can only be told
> within your racial group, it's a small step (particularly for the less
> intelligent, who I think we've agreed are in the majority among racists)
> from that, to other ideas only being expressable within your racial
> group. I can handle people not saying certain things to certain people
> based on their sensitivities, but not based on colour of skin, whatever
> the circumstances.

I can see where you're coming from too.....however,I used the word *may* because the issue is such a complex one - in a previous posting I used the word 'maybe' when talking about the soundness or otherwise of jews telling jewish jokes to other jews - but I digress (!)

What I am trying to say is that when a joke is told by a member of a minority group to other members of that group, then IMO it would be hard for it to be construed as being racist. Is it not acceptable for people to laugh with themselves - not necessarily in a negative 'them and us' way? If this is not OK then I suppose any humorous reference to cultural/other differences could never be referred to at all. This is as unlikely as it is daft!

In a previous post you said:

"I think such things have to be weighed against who you're with and whether sensibilities are going to be offended. In a public forum maybe the rules are tighter. "

I should say so......

"If a joke could be interpreted as the teller having a go at the group made fun of, then it's getting dicey, and if it's going to offend, then it's also not a good idea."

Indeed, the problem of interpretation is the whole point - if it's offensive then that speaks for itself.

"On the other hand I know quite a lot of racist and sexist jokes, that I will only tell in groups of people who

a) know me well enough to know I don't mean anything by it <snip>"

Point taken, but from an outside perspective, that could still be construed as being racist ie. making distinctions based on race/culture, etc. which aren't yours to make. Also, why is it OK to only tell the jokes to a group of people that know you but not OK for a group of people who are intimately aware of the sensibilities of their own cultural group, to tell jokes about themselves. IMO, the first scenario could definitely be seen as racist, the second can't possibly be seen as such.

"b) don't contain anyone who would be offended (not the same as not containing anyone from the group who are the Butt)."

Depends what level of tolerance the group has. The group might not contain the butt but(!) could contain people who see nothing wrong with terms that to others could be seen as being racist....

"E.g, I'll be very surprised if many here are offended by this racist gem:

Q) How can you tell when a plane load of English have landed in Sydney ?

A) The engines have stopped, but you can still hear the whining!"

Perhaps, but as F says in a previous post, it could make a difference, for instance, to someone applying for a job in Australia (all a bit far fetched, I know but this is how prejudice is perpetuated). Furthermore, you can't guarantee the sensibilities of all here (and I don't mean this in a derogatory way), but unless you know each and every member of this newsgroup intimately, you must see that you are on dodgy ground. You say that you will tell racist/sexist jokes to groups of people who know you well but here you are telling a "racist gem" to anyone who will listen...........perhaps it's better to get out of the habit altogether and then you will not risk offending anybody and the general tolerance for racist/sexist and any other "ist" jokes will be lowered all round - which can only be a good thing, surely?

My head hurts.......... :)

R

R wrote:

> I can see where you're coming from too.....however,I used the word *may*
> because the issue is such a complex one - in a previous posting I used the
> word 'maybe' when talking about the soundness or otherwise of jews telling
> jewish jokes to other jews - but I digress (!)
> 
> What I am trying to say is that when a joke is told by a member of a
> minority group to other members of that group, then IMO it would be hard
> for it to be construed as being racist. Is it not acceptable for people to
> laugh with themselves - not necessarily in a negative 'them and us' way?
> If this is not OK then I suppose any humorous reference to cultural/other
> differences could never be referred to at all. This is as unlikely as it
> is daft!

I do see your point, and instinctively it sounds good, but I can't find a logical way of looking at it, without it appearing to enhance divisions.

> In a previous post you said:
> 
> "I think such things have to be weighed against who you're with and
> whether sensibilities are going to be offended. In a public forum maybe
> the rules are tighter. "
> 
> I should say so......
> 
> "If a joke could be interpreted as the teller
> having a go at the group made fun of, then it's getting dicey, and if
> it's going to offend, then it's also not a good idea."
> 
> Indeed, the problem of interpretation is the whole point - if it's
> offensive then that speaks for itself.

Quite. The acid test is if you've offended anyone you've got it wrong.

> "On the other hand
> I know quite a lot of racist and sexist jokes, that I will only tell in
> groups of people who
> 
> a) know me well enough to know I don't mean anything by it <snip>"
> 
> Point taken, but from an outside perspective, that could still be
> construed as being racist ie. making distinctions based on race/culture,
> etc. which aren't yours to make. Also, why is it OK to only tell the jokes
> to a group of people that know you but not OK for a group of people who
> are intimately aware of the sensibilities of their own cultural group, to
> tell jokes about themselves. IMO, the first scenario could definitely be
> seen as racist, the second can't possibly be seen as such.
> 
> "b) don't contain anyone who would be offended (not the same as not
> containing anyone from the group who are the Butt)."
> 
> Depends what level of tolerance the group has. The group might not contain
> the butt but(!) could contain people who see nothing wrong with terms that
> to others could be seen as being racist....

<snip crap joke> I consider this a public forum, and as such wouldn't usually post such stuff up here, and I don't think that's a particularly good joke, I was just trying to find an example of a "racist" joke that people here wouldn't find offensive. The word gem was also appallingly chosen. It was a crass way to try and make my point I can now see.

> You say
> that you will tell racist/sexist jokes to groups of people who know you
> well but here you are telling a "racist gem" to anyone who will
> listen...........

True, it was crass, as I say I was trying to find a joke that fulfilled the criteria, but wouldn't cause offence here, to show that if it's known it isn't meant, i.e. by me being a part of the group poked fun at, then it would be hard to be offended. Probably a futile exercise. This wasn't the sort of group I was talking about, but groups of very close friends.

> perhaps it's better to get out of the habit altogether
> and then you will not risk offending anybody and the general tolerance for
> racist/sexist and any other "ist" jokes will be lowered all round - which
> can only be a good thing, surely?

Agreed. Rest assured I don't wander round telling offensive jokes as part of normal life.

> My head hurts.......... :)

Mine too! I think this is the first time I've been on the other side of this sort of argument.

N

N wrote:

> R wrote:

>> My head hurts.......... :)
> 
> Mine too! I think this is the first time I've been on the other side of
> this sort of argument.

Yes, I know what you mean - the good thing is that it results in the question being looked at from many different angles. I find doing it via a written medium infinitely more difficult than via the spoken word but I find that sometimes issues get crystallized in writing more easily than they do verbally! (Does that make sense?!!!!!!!)

R

R wrote:

> 
> N wrote:

> 
>> R wrote:

> > >My head hurts.......... :)
>> 
>> Mine too! I think this is the first time I've been on the other side of
>> this sort of argument.
> 
> Yes, I know what you mean - the good thing is that it results in the
> question being looked at from many different angles. I find doing it via a
> written medium
> infinitely more difficult than via the spoken word but I find that
> sometimes issues get crystallized in writing more easily than they do
> verbally! (Does that make sense?!!!!!!!)

Yep, makes sense to me. The other advantage of the written medium is that you can actually have a discussion on this sort of thing, whereas face to face, unless people already know and respect each other, such discussions don't usually last very long without tempers flaring. Whilst totally understandably, I've always tried to avoid this when dealing with racists, as it just strengthens their resolve. Trying to work out what they use to justify it to themselves, and then attacking that can set people thinking.

N