From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Fri May 31 2002 - 21:55:28 MDT
Phil Osborn wrote:
> Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com) wrote
> on Wed May 29 2002 - 20:29:32 MDT
>
>
> The point of the 12 paragraph story was that you don't
> have to be offensive, deliberately or accidentally,
> for people with hidden agendas to attempt to score off
> you. There are people and organizations out there who
> actively search for targets, infiltrate organizations,
> and then subvert them via intimidation or other
> strategies. The PC crowd is in fact notorious for
> this kind of behavior.
>
I know what you mean. I think you have been attempting to
"score off of" a lot of us here lately and you have created a
lot of chaos in the process. I hope you are happy at least.
> Growing up as a radical anti-racist Yankee in the Deep
> South in the '50s and early '60's, I watched how a
> minority of ruling Crackers kept everyone - white or
> black - from seriously challenging the status quo by
> taking out or intimidating those individuals who spoke
> up. My personal policy that grew out of that
> experience is to fight the pressure to not speak up at
> every opportunity.
>
That sounds good, depending of course on whether you know the
difference between somenone wanting to shout you down and
"oppress" you and someone honestly saying you are on a bender
and that it is hurting them and other people unncessarily.
> I did not speak my mind on some issues that certain
> intolerant people found offensive in order to push any
> limits of expression. Nothing I said was inherently
> that radical. The problem was that I wouldn't be
> intimidated. That alone - that I was the recipient of
> nasty little attempts to shut me up - would have been
> good and sufficient cause to continue, although that
> was not my motivation. It is just SO FRUSTRATING to
> repressive people when someone keeps replying. Too
> bad.
>
So, your agenda is to push anytime you feel pushed? Interesting.
> The surrender to those who would stifle free
> expression in a forum that is dedicated to the
> exploration of limitless growth would be a supreme
> irony - and the death of that forum as such. If
> extropians were so intolerant of expression that a
> discussion of the kind that has gone on recently had
> to be shut down or if that was even on the table as a
> serious alternative, then the forum itself would be a
> sham, another little venue for the PC crowd.
>
Saying directly (not even implying) that women are of less value
than men hasn't a damn thing to do with "limitless growth" or a
viable future. On the face of it, it is very much in the way of
that. I am sorry you have a set of filters that seems to see
all limits and all objections as still being in the deep south
fighting the crackers. So what happens when you are around
anti-crackers? Do you then become a cracker yourself to
continue the good fight?
> Not every issue is one of sweetness and light, and if
> serious disagreements are reason to avoid a topic,
> then what is the point?
>
Serious disagreements are one thing. Going out of your way with
blatant and unsupportable prejudice is quite another. Of course
you have probably edited reality enough by now to totally be
oblivious to your own actions and effects. Too bad. I do hope
you get over it.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:32 MST