From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Mon Sep 23 2002 - 18:16:59 MDT
Chris writes
> Sorry about the subject line, but...
No problem. I have *no* problem with people *replying*
to messages, if it's really about this subject. Now,
the *propriety* of changing the name of a thread to
something that almost amounts to an ad hominem attack,
well, that's different. While it wasn't quite as
outrageous as perhaps many people think, the person
who chose that subject line should have tried "Response
to Lee Corbin's Invitation to Criticism", or something
like that.
I *do* wish that people would stop using my name as the
subject line of threads that don't have anything to
do with me directly, or with my e-personality. It's
exactly as bad as the extremely poor taste that drove
the so-called "JOHN PERRY 9/11/02" thread way beyond
the point where it had nothing to do with his memory.
But now that it's been started, I appreciate the
feedback, regardless of the title.
> My recollection is different from both Hal's and Lee's.
> I think that Lee has brought up subjects just like these.
Yes, that's so. I've even advocated proposals *like*
these, but *not* those. That's why I denied the charges,
and why I was right to complain that I'd been
"slandered", and Hal was right to substantiate that.
> I haven't checked the archives. I might be wrong
> about the precise subjects.
Yes, you're wrong. Yet one of Harvey's charges *was* correct
(compared to exactly six incorrect charges), namely I had
indeed argued for the possibility of limited infanticide.
But I specifically left that out of my complaint about
what Harvey said. (One should check your post or
Hal's to see the whole exchange.)
> 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).
Well, in effect, I *did* endorse *one* of the charges.
> 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.
Sorry to pick nits, but I deny that we should think
of *the* extropian position on anything, unless it's
been specifically addressed in Max's principles.
> Other times he has tried to understand why
> certain topics are hot buttons for some people.
Yes, quite so.
> 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.
Thank you for spelling it out so clearly.
> 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.
You're batting a thousand! This hadn't occurred to me until
I received the following in an off-line message to me a couple
of days ago:
I think that right in the midst of a heated debate
which was encompassing almost all threads on the
extropian list, you entered at a different meta level,
questioning why people held views consistent along
party lines/ideologies/or whatever (that detail isn't
important to this). This pissed off those who
generally disagree with you, or that generally fit the
stereotype,... So then you boldly trudged on to ask a
general 'why people got on edge about you', opening
it up for anyone bothered by you to try and justify
their frustration.
Chris, it seems to me that my offlist correspondent said it
even better than you! ;-)
Yes, I really *don't* understand exactly why people don't
like to "meta". And that's exactly why I started a thread
entitled "*Why* People Won't Discuss Differences Objectively?".
Some were ticked that I was making an assumption here,
obviously---but while perhaps not perfect, my subject line
was certainly within the bounds of decorum. People are always
free to disagree, just as I actually disagree with the
assumption behind the title of the current thread!
> 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.
Yes, I think that's a very big part of it.
> 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.
Sound advice. I shall heed it.
> 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.
And I fully understand why they would. Sometimes
the issues *seem* inextricably mixed. For example,
to say "it's okay to talk about race" is tantamount
to many people to saying "there might be significant
differences in races", and so *is* taking one side
(at least to a small degree).
> ...I wouldn't recommend that you try to be clearer.
> If you did, I would take it as condescending. :-)
Well, ;-) that's paradoxical, but true. If you *do*
go too far with clarity (especially in technical
discussions) there is a risk of appearing condescending,
and it's possible that I'm just not as good as some people
on this list at achieving clarity without condescension.
The *key* point about a public forum is that *anyone* could
be reading, and that affects the writer. But even more it
affect the reader, who then reads a post in the worst possible
way. That's why the medium supports flame wars, as of course
you know. But just so, every post ought to be read with a bit
of extra tolerance, for who or how big a class of people
the author had in mind.
Thanks for the insightful contribution.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:15 MST