From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sun Aug 05 2001 - 08:25:01 MDT
Joe writes
>> You cannot suppose that your own ideological allies don't
>> behave the same. Moreover, it doesn't really matter if they
>> egg each other on or not. What matter are the tone of the
>> discussion and the logic of the arguments.
>
> When you get sent 1200 emails in the space of three days filled
> with inane comments and bald insults, they are not playing a
> quality game, but a quantity game - it's called 'overwhelm'.
Yep, I'll take your word for it that this really happened either
on extropians or on some other list. It should be condemned in
either case.
> Their nature seems to be to pigeonhole everyone who does not agree with them in
> every particular as either hopelessly dense, a clueless dupe or a bright but
> malevolent ringer (see my posts on the structure of extremism, to which they
> took immediate and vociferous offence, even though they were not named in
> them).
Did you know that I am now in an online conversation with someone
on this very list who believes that *I* am in that category? That
I am either pretending to be obtuse, or am just trying to bait
people?! You are so right. It is their nature. I would like to
see your posts on the structure of extremism. Frankly, given
the rather lurid and extreme nature of what you wrote the other
day, I'll very much want to see that. :-)
Again, you wrote
> Their nature seems to be to pigeonhole everyone who does not
> agree with them in every particular as either hopelessly dense,
> a clueless dupe or a bright but malevolent ringer.
What if they have no choice? That is, what if you are so right
about it being "their nature", that they simply *cannot* consider
the possibility that their ideological adversaries are sincere?
This indeed could be a form of mild paranoia; I think that some
conspiracy theorists are afflicted with something similar. But
remember: (and perhaps you have to practice saying it over and
over to yourself, as I implied in the thread "Letting the voice
of reason into your life", a phrase partly due to J. R. Molloy),
"Intemperate and intolerant behavior, including extreme vindictiveness,
afflicts some people of *each* political persuasion, including my own."
Presumably, saying this to oneself (not that you, personally, haven't
already done so), will then allow the further damning thought:
"Yes. We progressives have among our ranks many
wholly intolerant and almost irrational partisans."
(This last sentence will be too much without careful practice of the
former, I believe.) These days I can say, without flinching a bit,
Yes. We conservative-libertarians have among our ranks
many wholly intolerant and almost irrational partisans.
>> Anyway, name-calling unsupported by argument needs to be
>> dropped from everyone's behavior. But again, isn't it
>> objectively true that there are quite a number of posters
>> with collectivist and socialist leanings? Naturally, one
>> should make clear at least in context what one means by
>> such terms; here I mean...
"collectivist",
"socialist",
>> Do you consider those just insult words? For example, calling anyone
>> a "fascist" or a "racist" on this list is quite wrong and is name-calling,
>> unless you back it up awfully well. This is true because not a soul
>> admits to such a description! But if you do as I have done, to wit
>> (in reverse) by, e.g., saying that some people have made racist
>> statements, then it of course has to be demonstrated by quoting the
>> precise source. So do you think that "socialist" and "collectivist"
>> as adjectives are often misapplied?
>
> I believe that they are the intended moral equivalent, to those who use them,
> of employing racial and/or ethnic slurs, just as nazi name-calling is.
Well, I'm not fully decided. It's a rather difficult question. You
see, what if you have truly identified a partial tendency towards
(socialism | racism)? Then you are saying only what you believe to
be factually true about the essay or person. Then what is one to do?
So it's not so simple to demote "socialist" or "racist" to a slur,
unless, as I said, these terms are used unsupported by argument.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:09:28 MST