RE: Tolerance for Dissent on Extropians

From: Joe Dees (
Date: Sat Aug 04 2001 - 18:10:58 MDT

('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is) > "Lee Corbin" <> <> RE: Tolerance for Dissent on ExtropiansDate: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 15:02:23 -0700
>Joe Dees scorches
>> There is, on this list, a roaming pack of socioculturally ludditic
>> conservatives poorly disguised as libertarians, who routinely practice
>> collective rugby scrum pile-on attacks on anyone they suspect might have
>> possibly put forward something possessing the slightest whiff of the items
>> Michael Wiik enumerates. These are the people who tend to impart a rather
>> self-contradictory flavor to what is advertized as a forward-looking list, and
>> are responsible for some progressives feeling that they have to keep their
>> membership and participation here a 'dirty little secret', and for some others
>> not tarrying long. Their jihadically intolerant take-no-prisoners blatantly
>> memebotic scorched-earth warfare pogram has the unfortunate result of skewing
>> the median, or at least the most vociferously and frequently enunciated,
>> opinion of this list to a point somewhere between John Birch and William Pierce.
>Oh for heaven's sake, Joe. In most cases that I've seen, those
>pile-on "attacks" have merely been *many* people expressing their
And you don't think these people talk to each other, and each cheer what the others write, and egg each other on? It's like Rush and the Dittoheads here sometimes.
>AND TALK ABOUT TAKING NO PRISONERS. Look at what you wrote, Joe.
>Now honestly, do you not perceive that---even in the slightest
>way---your criticism could just as easily be directed at your
>own post? May we not lower the level of denunciation just a
>little *here*---just for a while (I'm not calling for complete
>elimination of denunciation, by any means).
Of course the level of denunciation was high; I was giving a doppelganger object lesson in what I have been repeatedly dealt; phrases like 'pinko social collectivist hand-wringing bleeding heart commie LIBERAL".
>>>And Joe Dees believes that soon Eric will be accused of being
>>>a troll. This is completely incorrect, if not paranoid. Very
>>>few people are accused of being trolls, and none are who provide
>>>reasoned discourse (such as Eric is doing).
>> I did not make the statement in question to Eric. However, I have been
>> accused, by those trolling for progressives to slander, of trolling for retros
>> to hand a reaming. Such self-righteous-wing people seem to have a highly
>> developed sense of psychological projection which proves to be rootless with
>> respect to logical coherency or factual reality.
>Let's count the emotionally loaded words in this. (First, you *were*
>warning Eric about the libertarians on this list, I was not in error.)
Please cite the post in the archives; I honestly don't remember doing so.
>Okay. 1 - by those trolling 2 - slander 3 - "self-righteous-wing"
>(I think that Joe means right-wing).
I mean self-righteously right-wing - the secular equivalent of the religious right, and just as absolutist, messianic and condemnatory.
>And then there is the statement
>about his adversaries being (or projecting) logical incoherence and
>not being rooted in factual reality. Your typos would diminish if
>you became less emotional in all of this; you are among friends, I
>assure you.
It was no typo; it is a statement that such psychological projections genuinely do not apply to those for whom they're intended, either in a logicval or factual sense, but are better suited to characterize their authors' dogmatic and hegemonistic tendencies.
>(I will omit the part of Joe's post alluding in a sense
>that I did not entirely follow---and didn't attend to
>very much, I confess---to people mailbombing him off
>some list or other.)
It was a failed attempt to do so on THIS list; check it out in the archives.
>>>And what the devil is this "accuse" you of being a "socialist"?
>>>That's making it sound as though being a socialist or having
>>>some socialist beliefs is a necessarily reprehensible view, or
>>>as though criticisms of those with socialist beliefs were
>>>devoid of real substance (but consisted only name-calling).
>> I understand what the person was saying even though I did not type the comment;
>> this particular extremist clique uses words like 'liberal', 'socialist',
>> 'collectivist', etc., or the more vague yet ominous "I know what you are", as
>> if once they invoke these supposed curses, the person to whom they apply or
>> misapply them is magically discovered, discredited and defeated.
>Yes! Good, right! I have seen libertarians do exactly what you
>say. They'll effectively dismiss arguments and posters by sentences
>containing such terms *without* supplementing those phrases by
>rational explanation. But then, on the other hand, some people
>write things like "socioculturally ludditic conservatives", etc.
>So, you see, it happens from all quarters.
I'd have to drop a Spruce Goose load of such denunciations to go to even begin to tilt the balance towards something remotely resembling parity around here.
>>> No one should expect to voice any view that is not subject to
>>> criticism, and to sometimes powerful, convincing, and yes,
>>> embarrassingly accurate criticism. It's the price that should
>>> be gladly paid in the free exchange of ideas.
>> At least I am often granted the amusement of receiving
>> misapplied and ineffectual ad hominem epithets as if they
>> actually said something about me rather than about their posters.
>Um, sorry. What is your meaning here? Did you think that that
>statement was directed at you alone? (JUST ASKING! No implication!)
>Or were you referring to the general situation where you are
>amused by the name-calling people do to you?

Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL! compares book price at 41 online stores.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:02 MDT