From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Tue Sep 17 2002 - 10:19:09 MDT
On Tuesday, September 17, 2002, at 02:15 am, Lee Corbin wrote:
> Samantha writes
>> A bit of reluctance might stem from being pigeon-holed from the
>> get-go, don't you think?
>
> That's possible! Honestly, it didn't occur to me.
How many times do people have to tell you to stop stereotyping other
people or prejudging other people before you get the message? It is
hard to believe that it never occurred to you that pigeon-holing other
people's beliefs by your own assumptions instead of their own
statements might upset them. You seem to have frequently offended
people or twisted their words or assumed their meaning, and then a few
weeks later you are playing naive again. It's not so bad that you
never learn, but you deny ever having considered the possibility of
the problem in the first place.
> Even though
> there exist very clear and obvious correlations between almost all
> of one's views and those of certain other people, one might be
> reluctant to admit it out of fear of being "labeled" or
> pigeon-holed. I'm implying that they would resist being found
> out to be a member of a class, because this would threaten
> their self-image of uniqueness. I think that you are on to
> something here. (See my list of issues below before replying,
> thanks.)
Strangely, you just blasted me in another thread and said that you
never claimed that people were afraid to discuss their difference
objectively. Now you are expressing this same concept again.
>> Hmmm. I feel like I may be being set up, but exactly why do you
>> believe no one cares about such things but you? Do you really
>> believe no one else cares? Perhaps they just don't frame the
>> "problem" in quite the same way.
>
> Um, confession time: I created the title to this thread a
> bit out of frustration.
Of course. You frequently do this. But when someone complains about
your semi-trolling tactics, you play all innocent and pretend that it
never occurred to you that your posts might be frustrating to other
people. You constantly play games that seem intended to annoy other
people. Then when you are called on it, you pretend it never
happened. Given Gina and now Samantha, you seem to be the biggest
cause of people threatening to quit the list than anyone one else.
> I still was not sure that
> there would be any takers, now I see that there are a
> few (though half want to just inform me that I'm mistaken
> and misguided in my quest here).
Strangely, you don't realize that those who inform you that your
preconceived notions are mistaken and misguided are actually answering
your question. Why won't people discuss this topic with you that you
repeatedly try to get started here? For some, it is because they find
the basis of your topic invalid. That is the answer to your
question. But you reject this answer and pretend that they aren't
answering your question.
>> Actually I believe that most people, regardless of intelligence
>> and level of fundamental goodwill, tend to be caught in certain
>> primary modes or stages of consciousness that hopefully evolve
>> over time.
Yes. It is obvious that you believe this. Another reason no one
wants to discuss these questions with you is that you aren't really
seeking answers. You already have all the answers worked out. Your
goal is to lead others to your answer or preach your theories to
others in response to their participation. If you have a theory to
present, just present it. You don't have to play games pretending to
lead up to your pronouncements or lead other people to ask the right
questions so you can answer them. This is also part of the reason
that no one wants to discuss your issues. You won't let the
conversation flow wherever it will. You have an end-game already
planned and twist the conversations toward your goals to the point
that real discussion becomes impossible.
> Yes, of course. But if we were to draw up some extensive
> list of issues such as:
>
> profiling
> invading Iraq
> global warming
> gun control
> reparations
> affirmative action
> social safety net
> Monica Lewinsky and Bill
> Vietnam War
> immigration
Why are these the top-ten issues on this list? Why aren't we
discussing the extropian principles instead? I believe that all the
above are off-topic and should be permanently banned. We can create
an alternate extropians-politics list for people who must discuss
these issues. But on this list, we should be discussing transhumanism.
>> Precisely why are you yourself apparently putting down all
>> others and denigrating their strawman motives as concocted
>> by yourself?
>
> Hmm. Sounds like a loaded question 8^D
No, I'm pretty sure she was serious. Your postings seem to be arguing
with yourself. You almost never respond to what people really say.
Instead, you go off on your own tangent arguing strawman positions
that you yourself invented. Of course, this seems natural given your
insistence that you can predict other people's political viewpoints
even before they express them. You see one or two points and
immediately pigeon-hole people. From then on, it doesn't matter what
they do or say, you keep responding to your own predictions instead of
literal reality. I am not sure how useful this is or why you need the
rest of us to participate in this conversation at all.
> But I'm not sure I answered your question.
>> Well, it doesn't look very honest when you claim that all but
>> yourself do not care about the problem and list a set of reasons
>> for that that are almost all rather disparaging.
Until you figure out why people keep calling you dishonest, you will
never understand why people don't want to discuss your issues on your
terms. I know I am being rude and blunt here, but seriously. this is
the answer to why nobody wants to play with you. It's no fun. It's
not some deep-seated fear that other people have about facing
themselves. Frankly, they just don't want to face you. The fact that
this keeps happening should give you a clue.
> It *is* honest; I do *in fact* have
> a poorer opinion of those who cannot engage in constructive
> dialog aimed at bringing to the surface the real roots
> of the "conflict of visions", or who adamantly deny that
> opinions are strongly grouped (e.g. my list above).
This is the problem. You dismiss those who disagree with you as not
facing the truth. Those who already agree with you have nothing to
say. I don't see how anybody can hold this conversation with you at
all given the way you are trying to frame things.
> This is typical of the stubbornness that often prevents
> exploration of honest differences. You've made it quite
> clear here that at least half the people contributing on
> this list have views that are simply unacceptable and
> are so obviously and foolishly wrong that discourse with
> them is impossible (unless, I suppose, they shape up).
This is why politics are so useless here. Both sides of every issue
are acting exactly the same, but they don't see it. The more you yell
at Samantha, the more ironic it is to see you doing the exact same
thing. I still can't figure out why we discuss politics here at all.
Nothing new is being added, and nothing ever changes. What's the
point? Extropians should change things.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:07 MST