From: matus (matus@matus1976.com)
Date: Tue Jun 17 2003 - 00:31:53 MDT
Note: The first part of this message pertains to Vietnam and Harvey's
comments on evidence of list members persuasions, and the second part
pertains to the general discussion of honest debate.
Harvey said:
>
> It is true that the exact phrase "war crimes" was not used in
> the incidents I complained about. Try looking for people
> being accused of supporting communism
AND
> Wrong. When someone is accused of being supporting communism,
> terrorism, or the enemy without any evidence,that is slander.
AND
> I disagree. There is no tiny kernel of truth. None of these people
> have ever given any indication of supporting the enemy.
I find this particular example interesting. Harvey, what if someone
accuses somebody of one of these and has evidence to support that, even
a 'tiny kernel', what then?
I note in the thread "Re:META: Dishonest debate (was "cluster bombs")"
That I presented evidence that a list member and extropian, Jeff Davis,
'supports' communism and finds the current North Vietnamese communist
government a legitimate one. Considering Eliezer's emotional reaction
to absurdity of the notion of an extropian supporting this type of
government (noting that FreedomHouse.org ranks Iraq and Vietnam both at
the lowest ratings in their measurements of freedom), I am surprised
that this post garnered NO response from the list in general.
Here we have, on the extropian list, an extropian, suggesting (I
contend) not only that the communist north Vietnamese government is
legit, but that the atrocities it has committed, and perhaps any
atrocities committed by communist governments are actually because
capitalists wouldn't simply leave the communists alone. However, since
'supports' requires adequate semantic definition of its own, perhaps I
am inferring incorrectly and Jeff actually does not think that the
communist north Vietnamese govt is a legit one. Perhaps Jeff would make
the record official on that question? I refer readers directly to
Jeff's relevant comments, see what you think he means...
"[there is] No "enslavement" by the communists, just a different form of
government facing the difficult task of rebuilding a country savaged by
124 years of foreign dictatorships, and made all the more difficult by
the opposition of the political elite of the world's richest and most
powerful country. An elite filled with hostility by their defeat at the
hands of a people with the brains, discipline, and courage to pay the
enormous price required to "refuse" the tyranny of foreign dictators"
And
"All governments have laws for the maintenance of social order. Freedom
of speech has its limitations. I may not cry "fire!" in a crowded
theater, nor advocate the violent overthrow of the US government.
Communists (and their subsequent governments), under siege by the
capitalists from before the ink was dry on the "Manifesto", feel the
need to protect themselves from foreign subversion"
And
" by suppressing dissent and political competition.Not the American
tradition, for sure, but neither uncommon nor necessarily the demon evil
that your ideological psychosis screams in your head and out into the
world. It is easy to pass judgment on others. But that judgment,
informed only by the passionate animus of ideological fantasy is a
"twisted" cartoon of genuine, thoughtful ethical practice."
Further, Harvey, since you have made a good presence at suggesting what
could be considered to be good conclusion to reasonable draw from others
comments, I wonder how you interpret Jeff's statements? Since this
revelation on Jeff's part sparked no comments, then perhaps I inferred
completely incorrectly and every other extropian out there is thinking
'That's not what Jeff was saying, idiot!' Or, alternatively, perhaps no
one founds Jeff's comments startling at all, even though they found my
interpretation correct (or not). Or, third, perhaps no one saw the
post, as I am no doubt the member of many kill files. At the risk of my
being confused with a barking dog, perhaps the issue could be readily
cleared if Jeff takes an official stance on the legitimacy of the North
Vietnamese govt, or the legitimacy of communism in general. Would you
consider Jeff's comments to a be kernel of evidence suggesting he
supports the 'enemy' (in this case, a clear enemy of extropinism, a
corrupt totalitarian repressive state)
[end of Vietnam stuff]
Harvey later noted:
"Do you realize that this is ad hominem? You are no longer discussing
the merits of the paper. You are discussing the merits of the person
who wrote it. You are no longer questioning the points he made. You
are now questioning the person who made those points."
I must say I find this to be a valid point. Focus on the arguments, not
the arguer. However, in attempting to do this, If I should point out
that (for example) Jeff's arguments are in support of communism, am I
not directly implying that he is also, since he is the one making those
arguments? Thusly, I could be accused of an ad hominem, even though I
am attacking the argument, and not the arguer. I suppose the only way
to avoid this is if one qualifies any arguments that they present by
distancing themselves from the argument, i.e. "The typical counter
argument to that would be..."
Harvey also noted:
> terrorism, Saddam, bin
> Laden, being a traitor, or giving aid and comfort to the
> enemy. These are the phrases you will find. Also look
> specifically in the threads about the Iraq war. This is
> where these accusations are being made.
Harvey, I would be interested in seeing some examples if you have them
readily available, especially if you feel I am guilty of any of the
behavior you mention as I was recently informed that there have been
complaints about my posts. Though no specifics were provided, I am
always up for self-improvement.
For reference, I would be interested in seeing also examples where
people use phrases contextual similar to 'brainwashed patriot'
'jingoist' 'red neck' 'flag waving automaton' etc. etc. I notice the
complaints you launch tend only toward a particular ideology, and are in
defense only of people who tend to share similar ideologies, e.g.:
> 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.
Ron, Lee, Myself, MaxPlumm, John Clark, and people who profess
ideologies similar to our group have received such wonderful
descriptions as those above, and had similar amazing statements such as
"Foaming tribalist fanatics" "To the extent that patriotism switches on,
the brain switches off. To the extent that the brain stays on, it's
because patriotism is being kept on a leash", "Patriotism skews people's
ability to analyze which side, if any, is in the right." "tired war
drivel" etc. etc.
Personally, I have been called a red neck, a liar, dishonest, compared
to a barking dog, out of my mind... among many other colorful
descriptions.
I note that as good as you have been a pointing out dishonest debating I
don't recall you ever criticizing statements like the ones above
directed toward people who have a generally different ideology. I also
never once saw you criticize Humania for making such comments to me as
"You (plural; the patriots here) twist around the words of your
opponents"
"you (plural) were fucked up by your humble servants called Bush
administration"
"could it be that your Pentagon and-White-House-dominated thinking in
union with adrenalin-aided visualizations of smashing those Middle
Eastern bastards which amplifies the already existing territorial
bullshit in your brain"
"vicious circle of astonishingly flexible ancient lizard brain circuits
that spread the message towards the cortex to merely defend"
"If in June 2003 you are still on the same level as your fellow
republican US politicians while dealing with ultra conservative monkey
business like territorial pissings with funnily talking Arabs who
stubbornly deny wearing blue jeans and display this strange effeminate
outfit while unexpectedly rejecting the American way of life altogether"
"Meanwhile I am trying to find a new language to communicate my extreme
disgust at the way some incurable patriots here still stick to His
Phoniness George "Proud 'n' Pray" W. Bush and his gang of deathists,
called US government How many more times must you be fucked up by these
dilapidated religious fundamentalists"
"Bombing for peace is like fucking for virginity."
"I will not stop shouting, I am against THIS war. You are deadly wrong
and you should hear it again every day!"
Do *any* of these statements belong on this list?
Of course, as you note, just because you did not speak out against it
does not mean you supported it! However, I would say, if anything,
Humania is *at least* as guilty as any particular member of the opposing
ideology at emotional rhetoric, name calling, and generally vitriolic
posts.
In fact, I submit, that this is nothing more then an ideological
division, with one side saying the other is resorting to name calling,
rhetoric, and baseless accusation while the other side insists the same.
There is no doubt that people of all persuasions are at least somewhat
guilty of this, and we can all certainly stand to make an effort to
improve. But to single out only those that are in opposition to your
ideologies (again, noting that you assert your silence is not the same
as support, and noting that perhaps you have criticized comments similar
to those mentioned above made by people who generally share a similar
ideology to yours but that I do not know of) seems to me to be a
generally inaccurate way to represent the current list goings on.
Hopefully no one found that post offensive
Regards,
Michael Dickey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 17 2003 - 00:07:31 MDT