Mike Lorrey, <email@example.com>, writes:
> firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > Mike Lorrey, <email@example.com>, writes:
> > > While some may take peruile pleasure at seeing themselves as such,
> > > especially if they are of a socialist or pro-borg bent, some of us do
> > > not.
> > Being a socialist has nothing to do with whether you consider yourself
> > a cyborg. You seem to have gotten confused by the Star Trek name "Borg"
> > and think that cyborgs are collective entities. Instead, cyborgs
> > are cybernetic organisms, that is, organisms which have cybernetic
> > enhancements or implants. It has nothing to do with socialism.
> > Cyborgs could be of any political party whatsoever.
> Yes they could, and I did not confuse the names. The Borg is a
> collective mind of cyborg drones. The problem with the term cyborg is
> that it is forever associated with a zombie-like, less than human
> condition, arising from idealization of the unaltered, uninjured human
> form: Robocop may be strong and smart and a good shot, but he is cripped
> emotionally by the corporation programming and editing of his memories.
> Delightedly using the word as a self referent automatically triggers
> emotional and preexisting reflexes in people's minds from cheap B movies
> and bad TV scifi. Its just a bad move in the war of semantics.
Perhaps so, but how does that relate to socialism? You wrote, "While
some may take peruile pleasure at seeing themselves as such, especially if
they are of a socialist or pro-borg bent..." Why did you say that people
would enjoy characterizing themselves as cyborgs especially if they are
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:42 MDT