From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Tue Aug 05 2003 - 17:39:00 MDT
Eliezer writes
> Lee Corbin wrote:
> > Speakers on a forum such as this, where the currency is in
> > ideas, ought not to have to suffer personal attacks, or have
> > their character besmirched for advocating...[things]
> > An even more sinister component [of personal attacks is
> > "you'll be sorry for saying that" and "we will get you",
> > which are conveyed to the target at the subconscious level,
> > and is meant to instill fear.
>
> A strict reading of these rules would suggest that it is okay for me to
> advocate the assassination of Robert Bradbury, but not to insult him.
LOL! Never let it be said that you are not highly appreciated
here for things like this :)
> This is actually a logically possible interpretation of what you said,
> i.e., it is okay to calmly and politely call for a fellow list member's
> assassination and then debate the idea, but not to insult someone or call
> them names. Would you agree with this?
I actually would *much* rather discuss any logical and
rational analysis of the reasons that Robert Bradbury
should be assassinated than read zero-content whining
and berating from some overly sensitive type who
prefers to emote than explain.
> (Lest anyone mistake me, I am emphatically not calling
> for the assassination of Robert Bradbury or anyone else.)
Too late. You know how "dangerous" this list is. He's
probably already as good as dead, because after all, there
exists *google*! And millions of people will have mis-
understood! His goose is cooked. Thanks to you.
But (as if it will do any good now), I also not only do
not wish a hair on Robert's head to come to an unseemly
harm, but don't even believe that there *exist* logical
or rational reasons to assassinate him.
(And that definitely includes character assassination.)
> It seems to me that you're calling for total openness,
> and yet simultaneously placing a restriction on speech.
No, there are two (2) huge differences. For one thing,
I am definitely *not* calling for an *enforced* restriction
of any kind. Two, what I am urging that people do is to
desist from giving vent to their feelings on this list
---especially unsupported by argument.
> Personally I would hope that someday, people will be free
> to say anything they damn well please,
hear, hear!
> and people will also be free to be offended and say so in
> no uncertain terms, and, yes, besmirch the character of the
> person they dislike.
Oh, crap. I will still think very poorly of, and denigrate
so long as I breathe, many kinds of inappropriate, insulting,
visceral, and disgusting speech. Just because people ought
to be free to say what they want, I'm sure that you will
agree that they ought to aspire to the highest standards which
we can conceive of.
> If you enjoy, on mailing lists, that form of local politeness
> which calls for not posting offended reactions, why is that
> particular custom okay, but not that alternate form of politeness
> which calls for not advocating genocide?
The answer is that it's not a form of *impoliteness* to
advocate anything. One must not confuse the medium with
the message, the manner in which something is said with
the content. Railing at people has close to zero content,
except to communicate the emotional state of the speaker.
Ultimately, that is merely boring and crude. On the other
hand, any *proposal*, no matter how outrageous, if it is
supported by rational argument deserves as much attention
as people have time for.
> Are they not both restrictions on speech? On SL4 I don't
> hesitate to impose both restrictions, in the name of
> preserving the glorious Signal and triumphing over Noise.
Yes, while on the one hand you say---and I agree---that
you hope "people will be free to say anything they damn
well please", yet you enjoin people from doing so on
your list. But I *do* totally understand and concur:
different lists have different purposes, and I'm sure
that you'd argue that there is no contradiction in what
you are saying.
But we both, evidently, are urging others to adopt
standards of "good taste", and I think that analyses
of proposed assassinations and genocide can be in
good taste so long as they are carefully argued,
and, IMO so long as they provide a little obeisance
to traditional wisdom and people's sensitivities in
some way or another.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Aug 05 2003 - 17:49:44 MDT