From: Replicant00@aol.com
Date: Wed Mar 22 2000 - 11:00:13 MST
In a message dated 3/21/2000 10:13:19 AM Pacific Standard Time,
sentience@pobox.com writes:
> The odd and
> paradoxical 'behavior' of saying something bad about your own group, or
> something good about an enemy group, is a modern innovation confined to
> small groups of peculiar individuals; it is too infrequent to be
> considered as a possible interpretation in social interactions.
> --
This is a very true statement.
I have found that this is just as much an anomaly on this list as anywhere
else.
I disagree that this is a behavior in the sense you speak of: ie: of a
programmed response to being shunned by one's peers. That happens, but it is
not always the case.
If someone says something bad about one of the "good" ideas so popular here,
a gang flame usually ensues, and the person is assumed to be a
"non-extropian" and is called socialist or deathist or luddite or irrational
or spiritual or some other heinous insult : - )
...More to the point, they are assumed to hold *every* belief mentioned
above, if they don't tow the party line on every issue as the majority sees
it, and as the FAQ represents and are sometimes flamed off the list [IMO this
goes *against* the principles, but it still happens all too often]. Bad
"behavior" (insults, profanity, lies, slander, etc.; -) is far less punished
on this list than disagreeing with a fundamental principle.
We are mentally aligned to be associated with a "party", political or
otherwise.
"Good and "bad" are more than just social propositions, they are hugely
debatable axioms that we rely upon for guidance through the murky sea of
conduct.
Note the use of the suffixes like "ist" and "ian" which strongly imply an
adherence to a particular bias. Group mind as Keostler calls it.
I agree with you that it is *rare* to find people who think for themselves
and find potholes in dogma, but it's not a recent development, just an
unusual one.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:27:35 MST