Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (23238)	8/20/2001 9:51:31 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Steven, I just asked pretty much the same question of Neo in a PM because I wasn't sure I wanted to get things here started again, but since you asked publicly, here's my PM to Neo: Neo, could I interest you in explaining how you can make this statement <<Since X has expressly spoken against the human ability to discern truth, the mutability of the concept of justice, the inability to ground morality in self- evident principle, and the like>> and claim that the statement from brees <<I am sure that truth, justice, human values or principles have nothing to do with it since you've repeatedly mentioned how distasteful such things are to you. >> differs only in harshness, not in accuracy?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (23238)	8/20/2001 9:57:26 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Whatever hostility there is is grounded in personal interaction with X. I have already said that I think it went too far. I did not say that the positions described were unreasonable. I simply said that she had taken them, which you confirm. Therefore, again, even if brees characterized them harshly, he was not simply inaccurate......

To: Dayuhan who wrote (23238)	8/20/2001 9:59:51 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Any of these positions could be contested, butI do not understand how they can justify the outpouring of virulent hatred that has been directed at X. I've taken all of those positions at one time or another myself, and have suffered little worse than an occasional insult and a few suggestions that I am probably a dangerously amoral individual and an unfit parent. Do you believe that anyone whose perception of truth, justice, and morality differs from yours deserves persecution? Perhaps it is easiest to explain that the posting of responses which are derisive, hypocritical and contemptuous should be expected to breed angry responses. I don't hate anyone on SI. I have never, with the exception of Neo and Edwarda, come to know anyone on SI well enough to do so. I suspect neither brees or Neo "hates" anyone in this way either. I suspect that posters like E and Poet do not "hate" me either although they often have posted unkind words, as I have for them. But I have formed some judgments based on the posts I have seen on SI which is the only reference I have. JLA

To: Dayuhan who wrote (23238)	8/20/2001 1:21:59 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

I promised myself that I would no longer read this thread, and I expect that soon enough I shall wish I hadn't broken that promise. That's like promising yourself you won't scratch that mosquito bite. Your intentions are honorable, but you just can't help yourself. For all the undercurrent of personal invective that one has to wade through here, this is now about the only political thread where open discussion among people of vastly different positions is possible. And, thanks to moderating influences like kholt, sometimes actually happens. The other main political threads, both LWP and RWET, have each gone overboard in moderating off people of divergent views. They are little more than back-slapping cliques of the left and right, with little if any vigorous discussion of issues and ideas. Both are heavily screened to prevent any unpleasantness from creeping in, with the result that any dissent from the party line is in both cases censored out. 'he result is, IMO, a boring sterility. For their adherents they are safe places to retreat to and wallow in the self-congratulation of fellow travellers, sort of like the old English clubs, where the riffraff were kept out by the imposing oak doors and sturdy porter and only the "right" people and "right" ideas were allowed through the smoking room door. But they are hardly places which require or reward much thinking or thoughtful debate among people of significantly differing views. . Not that I'm saying thoughtful debate is always the case here. The facts disprove that. But it is ONLY possible here. Which makes this still a valuable place to be, despite the occasional pile of garbage one must wade through. Knowing you and your penchant for thoughtful debate and your willingness to mix it up with people of divergent views, I think this means you will continue to be tempted to scratch that mosquito bite. Which, personally, I hope you do, since although we don't always see eye to eye on everything, I do enjoy many of our robust discussions.