From: Chris Hibbert (chris@pancrit.org)
Date: Sun Sep 22 2002 - 23:38:34 MDT
Sorry about the subject line, but I am weighing in late on the primary
question that Lee asked when the subject was changed to this one. I've
mostly been a lurker here recently, but I do read most of what is posted
on extropians.
In Hal Finney's analysis of and response to Harvey's charges against
Lee Corbin, Hal wrote the following (the four quoted paragraphs are
all from Hal's message):
HF>I think there are other cases as well where Harvey has
HF>misrepresented (or at least carelessly misunderstood) Lee's
HF>position. This paragraph in a message from Harvey to Lee on May 23
HF>is an example:
> Proposing that we judge people by race, value people by gender, kill
> or abuse children, assassinate Luddites, reprogram people for their
> own good, initiate force because we're right, govern people against
> their will, and other "final solutions", without addressing the
> principles first is bound to fail. Most people will look at your
> new proposals and point out that they will break everything else we
> believe in.
HF>Lee replied:
> *My* new proposals? This is slanderous. I NEVER said anything
> about assassinating anyone, valuing people by gender, going for
> "final solutions", initiating the use of force, or several other
> things on your list.
HF>I don't want to take the time now to look at these point by point,
HF>but I believe that Lee is right, and that Harvey has here taken
HF>viewpoints by a number of people and carelessly ascribed them to
HF>Lee. If necessary I will be happy to go through the archives more
HF>carefully to track these points down.
My recollection is different from both Hal's and Lee's. I think that
Lee has brought up subjects just like these. (I haven't checked the
archives. I might be wrong about the precise subjects. But please
pay attention carefully to what I say next.) But I don't think that
Lee has "proposed" these ideas, (i.e. endorsed them). I think that he
has proposed that we talk about them. I think he has sometimes
brought up these kinds of issues and tried to find out what the
extropian position might be. Other times he has tried to understand
why certain topics are hot buttons for some people.
My offering to this discussion is the idea that one thing that Lee
does that some people can't stand (and that they don't recognize as
causing the problem) is that he goes meta. He wants to know why
people can't talk about some issues, or why some issues should be left
out of the discussion. He wants us to talk about delicate issues and
reach conclusions. He doesn't understand when others think the issues
shouldn't even be broached.
I suspect (and this is a separate suspicion) that some of the time,
those who see themselves as on the other side of the political
spectrum from Lee see his proposals to talk around an issue as
stalking horses for Lee to be able throw in digs at their position. I
suspect this might also be the place where their (apparently
inarticulate) suspicions that Lee is being manipulative come in. They
don't understand why he would want to find a roundabout way to bring
up the subject, and so they ascribe nefarious motives to him.
Lee, I hope this helps. I don't think that you should stop going meta
in order to stop setting people off, but if you think there's
something to this hypothesis, you might try looking for other ways to
introduce your subjects to see if it makes any difference to the
reactions you get. The thing that other people should consider doing
is to read Lee's posts more carefully. I don't have trouble
distinguishing between your proposals to talk about a particular
issue, and your endorsements of particular viewpoints, but I get the
impression that others do have trouble. Since I don't have trouble, I
wouldn't recommend that you try to be clearer. If you did, I would
take it as condescending. :-)
And the bad news for Eliezer here, is that I don't think any of this
has anything to do with him. Whatever problem you might have
communicating with people, Eliezer, this isn't it.
In Liberty,
Chris
-- It is easy to turn an aquarium into fish soup, but not so easy to turn fish soup back into an aquarium. -- Lech Walesa on reverting to a market economy. Chris Hibbert http://discuss.foresight.org/~hibbert chris@pancrit.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:14 MST