RE: Tolerance for Dissent on Extropians

From: Joe Dees (
Date: Sun Aug 05 2001 - 02:13:40 MDT

('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is) > "Lee Corbin" <> <> RE: Tolerance for Dissent on ExtropiansDate: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 20:46:20 -0700
>Joe Dees writes
>> [Lee wrote]
>>> In most cases that I've seen, those pile-on "attacks" have
>>> merely been *many* people expressing their take.
>> And you don't think these people talk to each other, and
>> each cheer what the others write, and egg each other on?
>Yes, they do. So what? You cannot suppose that your own
>ideological allies don't do the same. Moreover, it doesn't
>really matter if they egg each other on or not. What matter
>are the tone of the discussion and the logic of the arguments.
When you get sent 1200 emails in the space of three days filled with inane comments and bald insults, they are not playing a quality game, but a quantity game - it's called 'overwhelm'.
>>>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".
>Yes. There has been some of that. But I think damned little;
>though here one's impression would depend heavily on whether
>one was the target. By the way, thanks very much for discussing
>this further without any more name-calling. "Getting even" only
>makes things worse, and accomplishes nothing more than ensuring
>that your ideological adversaries pigeon-hole you.
Their nature seems to be to pigeonhole everyone who does not agree with them in every particular as either hopelessly dense, a clueless dupe or a bright but malevolent ringer (see my posts on the structure of extremism, to which they took immediate and vociferous offence, even though they were not named in them). Anything but a person possessing rational reasons for not becoming an acolyte at theri ideological altar. If you were around when this was happening onlist you could not make such a (damned little) statement.
>>> 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.
>A thousand apologies! I cannot figure out why I thought *you*
>wrote it. It was Tiberius Gracchus who wrote it. He send it
>at Sat 8/4/2001 6:46 AM:
>"Oh my. The extropians are not gonna like you. They are going
>to call you a troll and a socialist."
>No wonder you couldn't remember it!
Well, I'm somewhat relieved; I considered that I might have eaten the wqrong hamburger!
>>> 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;
>Yes, it was, I was referring (and I quoted) the following:
>> Such sellf-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. I have even been told by one...
>:-) So I'm not completely crazy, there are two "l"s there. Small typo, I guess.
Oh, THAT typo; I thought you meant a grammer or syntax error.
>>> 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.
>Well, I've not seen much of it lately. Anyway, name-calling unsupported
>by argument needs to be dropped from everyone's behavior. But again,
>isn't it objectively true that there are quite a number of posters with
>collectivist and socialist leanings? Naturally, one should make clear
>at least in context what one means by such terms; here I mean by
>"collectivist", state-sponsored actions on a large-scale for purposes
>of redistribution of wealth or on-high enforcement of majority-decided
>moral norms of the non-traditional variety (e.g., outlawing some kinds
>of personal freedoms that were, say, usual in America in 1850, e.g.,
>discriminating against whomever you pleased for whatever reason you
>pleased). Same, I think, for "socialist".
>Or do you consider those just insult words. For example, calling anyone
>a "fascist" or a "racist" on this list is quite wrong and is name-calling,
>unless you back it up awfully well. This is true because not a soul
>admits to such a description. But if you do as I have done, to wit
>(in reverse) by, e.g., saying that some people have made racist
>statements, then it of course has to be demonstrated by quoting the
>precise source. So do you think that "socialist" and "collectivist"
>as adjectives are often misapplied?
I believe that they are the intended moral equivalent, to those who use them, of employing racial and/or ethnic slurs, just as nazi name-calling is.

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