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.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (2728)	3/15/2002 9:18:31 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

One could argue that anti-semitic canards, when not personally aimed at anyone, are opinion, while insults and invective directed at a particular person constitute an attack. It is always tough for people who value free speech to shut down an opinion simply because it is offensive. Now I don't know how much SI, or Jeff, or anyone here, values free speech (based on some things I've seen here, and persecution of certain opinions- I'd have to say many of the posters don't value it at all), but that is one possible way of looking at it. I would rather read generalized canards, than see one on one attacks. At least with offensive opinions, not personalized or directed at a particular person, one can learn more about why the person who holds the offensive opinions holds them. And of course, I have always felt that many many more people are repelled by these ideas when they are put forward than are "converted". So they are sort of like an immunization. For most people immunizations keep them free of disease. A very few unlucky people catch the disease, so it is with your canards. Although why you compare anti-semitism with the very few atheists and agnostics around here, I've no idea. Seems a bit of a jump. The agnostics and atheists I know don't want to do anything to anyone else. They merely want to be protects from anti-agnosticism and anti-athiesm. And you have never really given enough respect to the posts Karen has made pointing out just how marginalized atheists and agnostics are by many who claim to represent us in government. If such things were said about Jews I believe you would feel moved to write a very long post decrying the injustice of it all.

To: Neocon who wrote (2728)	3/15/2002 10:16:40 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

The problem is not atheism, it is having atheists spew their prejudice and contempt. Cite an example, please. I find it as offensive as I do Chris Land. Chris is silly, but he provides no reason to be gloomy or depressed. I don't think those who spew venom in the other direction - if indeed you can show that any exist - provide any greater reason to be gloomy or depressed. The problem is not disagreements on policy, it is the shallowness of some of the perspectives that are common enough around here. Some might find your perspectives shallow. They have seemed so to me, often enough. That is hardly cause to moan, groan, and sink into a funk. The problem is not "inconsistent enforcement", but the fact that the same person, within a couple of days, blew off a complaint about classic anti- semitic canards and then came down much too heavily on jla. You claim that the problem is not inconsistent enforcement, and then cite a classic example of perceived inconsistent enforcement. Actually it is not even that inconsistent: anyone who has been on SI for any time knows that admin is fairly tolerant of generic canards and fairly intolerant of threats or insults directed at individual SI members. We all know, as well, that even a very offensive post will probably go unpunished if nobody complains about it, and that much less offensive posts may inspire admin action if somebody claims to have been personally attacked or threatened by them. If we don't like those realities, we should go post elsewhere; it's their shop and they've every right to run it as they see fit. Do you ever get the point? The point is that you are making a great deal of fuss and drama out of a very typical time on SI, and taking these exchanges way too seriously. The sooner you acknowledge this, and place these events in perspective - this is, after all, a very insignificant place - the happier you will be.

To: Neocon who wrote (2728)	3/15/2002 10:28:22 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 21057

When I responded earlier that "I feel your pain," the phrasing was meant as a joke, but the sentiment was sincere. I think that you and I are a lot alike in the way that we suffer fools. We may not always have the same criteria for what constitutes a fool, but I think that we treat them similarly. I know how frustrating and depressing that can be and how it can weigh on one. I frequently find myself troubled by what goes on hereabouts. Steven would say that I take it too seriously, too. In fact, I think he has said that. Perhaps partly because I encouraged you to spit out what was bothering you and partly because I can relate to your discomfiture, I feel a need to support your having done so. I think that E and Steven were too harsh in their reaction. Perhaps because you were feeling ill and there were a number of things that came down at the same time, I think you were too harsh in your assessment of the scenario. and partially because most of them are the Evil One without the anti- semitism: instead of Jews, they substitute the WASP establishment or Big Business or the nether world of spooks, but they are chockful of ill- founded conspiracy theories and half- baked leaping to conclusions about Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld that sound as stupid and mean to me as the Evil One's rants about Talmud Jews and Zionism. They are not based on evidence, they are the fleshing out of prejudices. There is a lot of that sort of thing going on here. And in the world at large. The juxtaposition of demolib pinheads and EV on one thread may lead you to equate the two but they are not the only perpetrators. We tend to notice it most when our own ox is being gored, but that stuff goes on on both ends of the spectrum. I think it is faulty to attribute it to just one side. I also think it is faulty to put the inter-partisan prejudices in a class with anti-semitism. they ridicule and slander those with belief as having imaginary friends and being too weak to stand on their own, or having a taste for authoritarianism, or some such. Well, I recognize some of my favorite words in that so I guess you had me in mind, at least in part. I've noticed a certain chill coming from your direction since the imaginary-friend discussion. I've said this before and I'll say it again, I think that finding ridicule and slander in any of that is over the top. It took me a while to figure out why you were annoyed at my complimenting TS, that you were looking at his word choice in comparison with JLA. I can appreciate that now that you point it out. I find TS's irreverence delightful. I find irreverence delightful, in general. I practice it myself. I think it is very healthy to prick our cultural bubbles every now and again when they get to full of themselves. It enables the retention of a sense of humor and facilitates change. I understand that irreverence is not appreciated in some religious and political quarters and I find that sad. If you think that anything I've ever said about either religion or politics demonstrates contempt for you, you are mistaken. I'm actually quite fond of you, although you can sometimes be a pill. Part of what you're experiencing may be that you found yourself, for a brief period in in a small space, in the minority surrounded by atheists. That must have been disconcerting... I didn't respond immediately with this. I was waiting for your mood to lift. Perhaps that has already happened. If not, then I've just been overtaken by events. In any case, here it is, FWIW. Karen

To: Neocon who wrote (2728)	3/28/2002 10:39:31 PM
From: Chris land	Read Replies (6) \| Respond to of 21057

Neocom, you don't find me offensive per se. You find my message offensive. That message I have presented is that all men are filthy rotten scoundrels in the eyes of a Just and Holy God, yet you still adamantly refuse to accept it. And because you refuse to embrace the doctrine of the depravity of man it stands to reason you also despise the remedy of becoming acceptable in God's sight. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life. Jn 3:16 Now it stands to reason that those who refuse the Son will never receive everlasting life but must face and endure eternity without end in everlasting shame, horrible torments and disgrace. It's you choice, if you were a wise man you would get on your face before God and humble yourself. Ask for His mercy and forgiveness. I'll tell you the truth, God has utter contempt for those who continue to walk in their own righteousness and haughty attitudes. Chris