From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sun Jun 15 2003 - 18:16:59 MDT
Harvey writes
> Lee Corbin wrote,
> > I'll let Mitch answer, but we're all in trouble if the likes
> > of Harvey Newstrom are enemies of the state!
>
> Thanks! But it's not just me. Amara, Damien, Eliezer, Emlyn, Hubert,
> James, Jeff, Mez, Olga, Samantha and I have all been recently accused of
> somehow supporting the enemy. These baseless personal attacks seem to
> be a widespread problem.
Aha! The usual ilk!
> > > People on this list have been accused of being communists,
> > > anti-American, traitors, terrorists, enemy combatants, etc.,
> > > simply because they don't agree with some aggressive posters.
> > > These are serious charges, some of which carry the death penalty.
> >
> > Well, we should inspect the tiny kernel of truth in such charges,
> > if any such truth there be.
>
> I disagree. There is no tiny kernel of truth. None of these people have
> ever given any indication of supporting the enemy.
Well, of course by "the enemy" you mean Saddam Hussein. I'm
sorry that I haven't followed the list so closely recently
that I have a good feeling for how excessive the accusations
have been.
> The attacks are baseless slander. They are based on these people
> not jumping on the bandwagon to support the war and the president.
> Any liberal, democratic or peaceful position is being lumped in as
> being anti-American. This is incorrect.
But doesn't it all depend on how you conceive of what your
proper duties are as a citizen? Is it not also highly parameterized
by circumstances? I'm sure that you can think of many historical
situations (or simulations) in which sufficient danger would exist,
or in which sufficient fealty would be the norm, that it would be
true that "if you are not with us, then you are against us"?
I readily understand that you cannot take insults lying down,
and that you need to defend what "anti-American" would mean to
you (not that you and others have neglected this). I myself
doubt the utility or the wisdom of such provocations---yet if
you could (and I don't know---perhaps you've tried) get those
people to explain more concretely what they mean when they use
such terms, perhaps the disagreements would be loftier.
> These are our friends being accused of war crimes. This is
> excessive. What is going on here?
What is going on is differing conceptions of what a country
or a nation should be, and the proper amount of allegiance
that is due. ;-) Your cries of "slander" are just as much an
overreaction as theirs of "war-criminal", or "traitor", though
perhaps they did start it. Sorry to keep beating on my theme
here, but it's the underlying assumptions that need to be
argued about, not the surface phenomena.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jun 15 2003 - 18:26:37 MDT