From: Jeff Davis (jrd1415@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Jun 25 2002 - 17:52:40 MDT
Brian Atkins et al,
--- Brian Atkins <brian@posthuman.com> wrote:
> ...usually I have no
> problem with spirited
> disagreement, but I think Jeff's comments went too
> far
I understand your point, and agree. As regards tone,
but not as regards content. It was a rant, and I
should have labelled it as such. Almost by definition
a rant "goes too far", and that is understood.
There's a substantial component of 'venting' of
emotion.
> and certainly have
> no relation to myself.
Again, I agree. You qualify as a grown-up. Your name
was mentioned only to accurately identify the origin
of the thread. My remarks were not pointed at you.
Although you posted the article, which implies that
you found it worthy of inspection at least, if not
reasonable--
as you wrote:
> I ran across the article ...and posted it
> ...since it seemed to give a rather logical
> sounding other side of the story.
your history of fair-minded discourse preceeds you, so
I didn't associated the villany in the piece with you
personally or with your views. You have a
'conservative' edge to you, and we would certainly
disagree strongly on any number of issues,...but so
what? Reasonable people disagree, but respect
remains.
The piece you passed along was propaganda, crafted
with consummate skill, memetically-engineered to suck
you in and coopt your political support. It caught
you, infected you, and used you to propagate itself.
Not your fault. We all live in a sea of virulent
memes, and suffer the ravages of infection, and could
all do with an augmented and enhanced defenses.
You said:
> Hmm, ok so apparently qualifying as being one of the
> "appropriately socialized adults" means
You're suggesting that the character of my remarks
disqualifies me as an "appropriately socialized
adult". This may be the case. It's an individual
judgement call. (Just as it is when I use the phrase.)
But it's a separate issue, because "appropriately
socialized adults" is not about me. It's about basic
human respect, usually born of an innate sense of
compassion, and enhanced by a rational awareness of
enlightened self-interest. It means a principled
opposition to the autocratic human tendency to
ruthlessly violate others. It means opposing the
propaganda that leads to tyranny, and the 'history'
that conceals it behind a tissue of lies.
> grossly over-reacting,
I wondered myself if I was over-reacting, and
consulted a friend to see if I was 'losing it'. It's
a tough call. I know it's not just me that is
concerned with the danger of the moment, caught as we
are between the 'terrorist/Islamic' threat and the
threat of Ashcroftian 'diligence'. Am I
over-reacting? I sure hope so, 'cause if I'm
under-reacting, we're in deep trouble!
> attacking the source of an article
> rather than what it says,
If you mean attacking you, then as I mentioned above,
that's not the case. If you mean the Jewish World
Review and it's plan for the world, then
unequivocally, yes.
As to addressing the content of the article, well,
sorry, but beyond what I've already written--the three
paragraphs ending in:
"The current "free market" in Africa doesn't care a
fig for human dignity. And the great powers--but
mostly the West (liberal Democracies, blah, blah,
blah) are ONE-FUCKIN'-HUNDRED PERCENT responsible for
this state of affairs."--
I don't want the job. But I'll gladly--and I mean
that sincerely--help by pointing you in the right
direction (though you're gonna absolutely hate it).
Read Chomsky. Then read Chomsky again. Then read
David Horowitz. Then read Chomsky again. Then read
the Jewish World Review. Then verify their source
materials and evaluate their logic. If that doesn't
do it--but I have confidence in the good faith and
intelligence of almost all the list participants--
there's the Planck eventuality.
> and borderline slanderous labeling comments:
>
> "If you go there and like what you see, then slap on
> a nazi armband, cause you're home."
>
> "crypto-fascist mythology"
>
> "Maslow-challenged cannibal wannabes"
If any of these 'shoes' fit, then it's important to
know about it. Check the facts, then we can revisit
the above comments.
> There's more, but now I remember why I usually
> delete threads without reading them between this
> particular group of posters.
"Usually" is good enough for me. What with time
constraints, we all do winnowing as required.
> I'd never even been to that Jewish site so I have no
> idea (or care) about what it may happen to espouse.
> Actually I didn't detect anything in it that
> qualified as "grotestque abomination of the Joseph
> Goebbels's school of rhetoric" but apparently it
> pushed Jeff's buttons. Perhaps it stepped a litte
> bit on his "sacred meme set". Oh well... --
Scared the shit out of me is what it did. (The JWR
site in toto, not the post-colonialism piece.)
Best, Jeff Davis
"Enjoying being insulting is a youthful corruption of
power. You lose your taste for it when you realize how
hard people try, how much they mind, and how long they
remember."
Martin Amis
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:01 MST