> No, I don't wish to start a flamewar -
No, I bet you just want to make yourself look good at the expense of others. That's sooo cheap...
> But if Mr den Otter has changed his views completely in the meantime, and
> really was just being playful, I withdraw my remark.
On the issue of this particular remark (sig): once again, yes it was playful and not in any way related to previous critical posts on the race issue. Apparently an offhand remark is immediately transformed into a "conspiracy" against racial minorities (or whatever) in Mr. Broderick's paranoid mind.
As for the other ('97) posts: though their essence(1) can easily stand the test of reason -which is what really counts-, their formulation may have been somewhat crude and more offensive than intended, as happens often in the heat of a flame war. Still, this is no excuse for Mr. Broderick's hysterical, dogmatic reactions, IHMO.
(1)Racial differences are more than just "skin deep". Otherwise "racial discrimination" wouldn't be much of an issue right now, and "3rd world country" would be a meaningless term. Why is it that if you say "people with red hair are stupid" everybody just laughs at your silliness, yet when you say "people with black skin are stupid(2)" you get flamed (or a lot worse) from here to infinity. What's the big difference?
(2) Note that I personally don't support this particular phrasing, in case anyone is looking for cheap shots.
But I don't intend to drag out and repost
> the more explicitly racist crap from den Otter's achived posts.
Hmm, what's the name again of this dirty rhetorical tactic?
> context is there for inspection. (You will recall that he agitated to have
> a special invitation-only list set up so such discussion - which he
> labelled `politically incorrect', thereby proving himself a brave rebel -
Well, I bet that *you* think you're some kind of hero, while in fact you're nothing but a mouthpiece of the establishment (corny but true). There is no glory in spewing forth your PC nonsense knowing that you have the "moral majority's" backing, i.e. that everyone is either brainwashed to believe this crap or is too chicken to speak out against it. Wow, what a fucking hero you are!
> could go on away from public scrutiny.)
More precisely: could go on in an environment that's open to reason, where honest, open debate isn't nipped in the bud by cheap demagogues like yourself. Ah well, there probably wouldn't be enough people to maintain such a list anyway. Being a transhumanist is rare. Being a transhumanist *and* being able to think rationally about certain really BIG taboos (of our time) is rarer still (and isn't ironic, don't you think?). And daring to speak up, well...
Anyway, if you (Mr. Broderick) want to attempt a real conversation on this matter, feel free to do so on-list or off-list. You could start by defining your personal version of "racism", for example...Where *do* you exactly draw the line?