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: epicure who wrote (10202)	4/21/2002 11:36:18 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

To the thread- I was out in my garden, taking care of my new plants- and I thought to myself, who loves their garden more? The person who ignores the weeds, and says "Look at my perfect garden" or the person who sees the weeds and does something about them? Well, I know MY answer to that question. The problem of America is very similar to a garden- the very things that make hate grow, almost unlimited freedom in ideas and expressing ideas and association, is the same fertile soil that gives us so many of the other things I love. But weeds are in the eye of the beholder- if people want to hate, if some people want to question other people's patriotism and their love of country, this great country allows them to do it with impunity. I choose to point out that type of personal expression (hatred) as a weed, but seen in the greater framework, it is a rose- because it is simply another manifestation of our freedom. I choose to use my freedom to remember the incidents in our country that I consider blights on the garden. I remember because I would not like to see those things happen again. I do not think love of country requires either imbecility or amnesia. But that is certainly my opinion, and is clearly not shared by everyone.

To: epicure who wrote (10202)	4/21/2002 4:45:21 PM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

X, I'm not finished answering your post(s)... I understand that I am not worth your time, so you need not read this, let alone respond. However, your posts to me are on the record, and this is an additional reply for the record. You make very liberal use of the word "hate" when you give your views of the American people. Among your examples of "hate" are red-lining, restricted country-club memberships, and "McCarthyism." I suggest to you that either your understanding of such matters is incorrect, you are weak on word definitions, or you are deliberately seeking to inflame the divisiveness which you claim to abhor. We may used the word "hate" loosely as in "hating peanut butter", but when the word is applied seriously, as in racial matters, it is clearly meant to describe intense animosity, hostility, or destestation, sufficiently so as to often be a precondition for violent action. "Red-lining" is illustrated by the practice of insurance companies in designating some neighborhoods as bad risks to insure, especially due to high crime rates. The result of such a policy, when based on relevant statistics, is that the burden falls heavily on minority neighborhoods. To describe this practice as one of "hate" is patently ridiculous. Such a policy is based on dollars and cents, and nothing more. That it is an undesirable practice is an altogether different matter. To claim that country clubs or resorts that chose to restrict out black or Jews did so out of "hate" is highly implausible. It is no more plausible than to argue that a person who does not wish to live near blacks or Asians must, by definition, "detest" Blacks and Asians. Some people who do these things may have hate in their hearts, but most people more likely have dislike or distaste at most, or worry about property values, or prefer to be with their own kind, or have stereotyped ideas about Black and Asian behaviors, or have other reasons, all of which fall far short of hate. Again, the point is not whether you disapprove of such attitudes or actions, but whether they are commonly motivated by an emotion as strong as "hate." I watched nearly all of the "Army-McCarthy" hearings on live TV in the 1950s. "Tailgunner Joe"no doubt did detest "Commies." The hearings focused on Communist infiltration of government. It is unsettled to this day whether his charges were true or not (and he had much backing from others on his Committee). The "ism" came afterward with the loyalty oaths ("Are you now or were you ever a member of the Communist party"). They spread rapidly, and achieved particular notoriety in Hollywood. This was a Red scare episode, and cost a lot of people their employment. There are plenty of people today who think McCarthy was right all along, and plenty who think he was not. Do you honestly believe that this episode was motivated by "hate" in the same context as what we mean by racial hatred? I suggest it was motivated by fear, and fear alone. My point, X, (in case you are still reading) is that I believe you use the word "hate" much too carelessly. By ascribing hate as the motive behind all manner and sorts of conflict episodes or undesirable practices, you end up portraying the American people as a hate-filled race. Between my family and friends, I know hundreds of people rather well. While I don't particularly care for a substantial number of these people, I don't see "hatred" toward any group in a single one of them that I can think of off-hand. Do you see or sense a lot of hatred among people you know? It seems to be your idea that by painting Americans with this broad brush of hatred (a "cherished value"), you are doing your country a service, by exposing its warts. I think you are doing your country a disservice by claiming a widespread penchant for hatred among its people that does not exist in fact.