During our WWI Civil Liberties presentation, we talked about the Shenck v. United States Supreme Court Case. Justice Holmes referred to shouting "fire" in a theater to illustrate his point; that Schenck was posing a clear and present danger while passing out anti-conscription (conscription = compulsory military service) leaflets.
I began to wonder, does creating a facebook group targeted at a specific group of people that incorporates violent aims pose a clear and present danger? Should pop culture make it justifiable? Should their be a punishment set forth for the creator of this event?
What do you think?
You bring up a very interesting debate. I don't really understand the whole ginger thing, but the facebook event seems very mean and almost discriminating. It's hard to tell whether those types of things pose a clear and present danger or if they are simply just a joke. I attend a lot of events on facebook that I might not actually go to so it's hard to measure sometimes how many people in fact are going to participate in it and its seriousness. I find the whole situation to be really sad and it's obviously getting out of control.
ReplyDeleteIf I may, I disagree with you both. Obviously a kid being beaten up is never good. However, we can't blame this on the "ginger" branding trend.
ReplyDeleteGinger is a playful term I use with my friends (some themselves redheads). I think that this is more a bullying and teasing issue. It is a group of kids who took a joke too far with unfortunately devastating consequences. The day is designed for playful kicking (a foot tap) rather than agressive violent, "Chuck Norris-esque" round house kicks.
No one watches south park and then proceeds to beat up any of the (probably thousands) of racial, ethnic, or religious groups satired in the show. I think we need to treat this rare case as it is; a rare case.
We need to punish the kids who attacked the ginger. Stopping somewhat offensive jokes and face book groups would most certainly not stop bullying and teasing.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThat's a really impressive comparison. I think that a facebook group that targets a specific group of people can pose a clear and present danger, but it is not always so. For instance, I'm a member of the group "ginger slayers", which at first glance appears very aniti-ginger, however, it's really just a group my ginger friend made for laughs. Anything anti-ginger can't really be taken seriously. I don't think anyone harbors genuine hatred for red-heads, kids like the ones you mentioned just took something silly a bit far. If a group was made that discriminates against black people and gave a time and date when the lynching of a specific person would occur, then there would be a clear and present danger that could be taken seriously. I don't think the creator of that group should be punished. It was probably dumb to make that group but I doubt he/she expected real violence to result from it. Also that South Park episode is hilarious, I highly recommend watching it. And then beating on a ginger.
ReplyDeleteI agree with all of you because a lot of this Facebook stuff is created for a laugh and not very seriously, but what Michelle said about laughing when you shouldn't got me thinking. These tiny little events, groups, jokes, tv episodes all seem harmless. But is it not a clear and present danger to our minds if we are constantly bombarded with things that separate different people from us? Does it (not) create a mindset that may be affect how we, the people around us, and those to come think? I'm not saying that there will be an all out Anti-Ginger movement or something in the future because of these itty bitty little things but ya never know..
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWow, that's really interesting, what class did you learn about projection in? I definitely feel like projection plays a rather large role in our world. The more I think about it, the more it seems like human nature. My mind was definitely thinking about other ethnic groups and not so much gingers (which by the way, I never thought I'd write about this much) when I wrote my last comment, so I'm very glad you raised this question.
ReplyDeleteIt brings me back to good ol Foner when he wrote about John Locke's idea that men are different in that they have the ability to reason. Thomas Jefferson only considered the presumption that Blacks were inferior, irrational beings as a "suspicion." Jefferson wrote passionately about it, felt strongly that there could be an integration between Indians and Whites, but not Blacks. He made sure to take care of his slaves, but wanted to free only 5 in his will. It makes me wonder why Foner put these two men together, when it seems like a different kind of rational had occupied space in Jefferson's mind.
It makes me wonder how he felt about himself. It makes me wonder why such "suspicions", even today, determine the reputation of people so markedly.
Sorry if that didn't make sense, sometimes I like to be irrelevant..
Agh god! I'm really sorry, my computer's been having so much trouble with Blogger! Not only have I triple posted, I've also managed to delete all of my comments, too. I'll repost my second attempt at an original comment and then respond to your response (agh, epic fail!)
ReplyDeleteYou raise a good point.
In one of my classes, at the beginning of the year, we were talking about Perceptual Defenses, which are ways that humans deny reality (reality in themselves, in others, in society). They're sort of like false memories that we learned about earlier in AIS, because both can be used to change the way one perceives things in order to make life more liveable/rational to a person, among other things.
One of the defenses was called Projection. Here's the description of it from one of our readings (it's long, sorry!):
"PROJECTION Projection is similar to denial in that one is unwilling to accept the realities of one's own self. In projection, the faults and shortcomings, the taboo urges, of an individual are seen not as present in one's self, but rather in others. This is caused by an urge to do morally unacceptable things, which is then repressed subconsciously. From there, one's inability to commit the act, and the urge's subsequent repression, can manifest itself this way. Projection is when an individual blames another individual or group for exhibiting behavior, desires, or feelings that the person feels himself but is unconscious of and denies. While watching a movie or TV show, a person can identify with either a villain or a hero. The character epitomizes those traits the person unconsciously desires, yet deny in himself. It is never the person’s fault; blame is projected onto another person or group."
One example our class observed of this type of Perceptual Defense was watching an old tv show about an extremely racist white man. The audience in the show laughs at this man's racist actions, and he is made the fool of throughout the show. But is the audience perhaps racist itself without acknowledging it, considering they're encouraging racist behavior in the main character for laughs?
On one hand, I think the example of gingers isn't the best to fit this, because it's just way insane. And some people could argue making fun of different groups of people shows tolerance, because everyone is criticized. But what if that's not the case at all? And what about other images we have portrayed by the mass media? And in comedy? We reinforce a lot of stereotypes about people in the types of shows/movies we watch and music we listen to. Although they may be all in good fun, stereotypes have an overwhelming effect on how we see other groups of people."
The class is Integrated History & Science (not to be confused with IGSS). We started off the year with a Truth unit and it was awesome.
ReplyDeleteI hadn’t thought of that connection, and it’s a fair one to make. I think the idea of “suspicions” remains the same today. What I find to be an interesting difference is that back then, their science flat out sucked, but today we may still have a lot of nasty stereotypes about different races based on their current struggles/associations. Instead of wondering about why certain geographical locations or different communities may be poorer or have different problems from others, we might think less critically about them by buying in to stereotypes. Instead of looking in to historical context for things, and modern day problems, and thinking of modern day solutions, people may have some doubts on what problems can be fixed.
(That was sort of vague and not based on any actual knowledge...)