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: epicure who wrote (57413)	9/11/2002 5:21:34 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"Don't confuse people's posts with their real thoughts. That is as bad as confusing posts and people." This is what you were doing. You thought the post was the person writing the post! Which is quite naive, you know! "you see only censored thoughts and censored feelings (or even faked feelings) highly censored in most cases- though often censored bizarrely, for this medium" Most on SI tend NOT to overly censor their behaviour--not nearly so much as face-to-face (the reasons for this are obvious, and need not, I think, be dwelled on here). As a consequence of this it may perhaps be argued that SI is a less civilized milieu than many others; but that is not what we were discussing; and your introduction of censoring vitiates any argument that they are unnatural people. In fact, people on SI have little to hide other than their address which is best done by disguising their birth name. It is funny that you would introduce the off-topic of censoring with such a tone of disapproval. Can you possibly, as an educated adult, be unaware that assessment of behaviour for appropriate expression is the hallmark of ethics, of social structure, and indeed of civilization itself. The history of our civilization is inseparable from the type and prevalence of censoring which informed our personal and social values and ethical precepts. Look, you don't lick your plate in front of the kids; you don't tell your banker how ugly her new dress looks; and you don't make sexual noises while daydreaming about the night before while pushing your cart through the supermarket. To consider that the ability to censor shows an inability to assess, evaluate, and judge one another on SI is certainly self contradictory; and it certainly says nothing about their ability to form loyalties, alliances, and friendships based on the type and degree of their information sharing. There can be little doubt that most people are more authentic on SI where they MAY lick their plate and scratch their feet without losing their waitressing job. But it may be reasonably argued that SI is less "civilized" overall than face-to-face, due to the less proximal nature of the intercourse. But that was not your argument! Your comments on censoring seemed ill considered (and frankly--quite silly). "And I don't see why you have to keep using pejorative words. I'm trying hard not to insult "you"- whoever you are" LOL! BUT of course you are trying very hard...<g> I do hope I did not use pejorative words. I would be unhappy with myself if I had. You must remember, if you ever find a pejorative word to you from me (and I surely hope you don't)--that SI members are less prone to censoring their authenticity in this informal medium.

To: epicure who wrote (57413)	9/11/2002 7:27:34 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

Part ONE Rather than continue to entertain posts which appear entirely unresponsive to my irrefutable points, and which, in addition, seem designed to mislead or deceive--I will do better to summarize the reasons why your behaviour was intrusive, overbearing, and ill-considered with regard to the CH/Poet issue, and to explain why I felt it was necessary for someone in the SI community to challenge the false premises with which you had constructed your straw castle which you floated in air. The issue has never been whether or not you had the right to consider yourself unreal, but whether or not it was rude and irrrational to attack others for being "unfair" and mean while pretending that they themselves had no claims to unfairness or being hurt because (unlike Christopher)--THEY weren't real people. Firstly, the CH situation invited a collaborative community response of many people posting their thoughts, opinions, and feelings over a lengthy period of time as they combed through the evidence. Eventually a certain consensus was formed by a "jury of peers"--just as groups of people have done for countless centuries outside of fascist or totalitarian interference. As is always the case, this community "judgement" was expressed against behaviour which apparently fell short of conclusive legal authority. The community decided to censure CH's behaviour, and to look for some signs of contrition and genuine remorse. Again, this is how people have always operated since they first made value judgements in the interest of the group--and ultimately of the species. You then took it upon yourself--not merely to add your voice to the jury--but verily to dismiss all other voices (except the subject and perhaps one or two others), and to dictate an opinion that the subject was treated unfairly. Clearly you made a value judgement that CH was real and that he was knowable and that his behaviour could be evaluated, , and fairly judged. One may presume you would not have made such a value judgement based on whim and fancy. It would be a contradiction in terms. It is natural that people resented you for presenting in such a dismissive manner and with such contradictory "logic". It is natural for the group to always put its own interests for justice and harmony ahead of the self serving interest of one individual--especially where that one individual insists that the fears, hurts, concerns, opinions, and feelings of all others involved were irrelevant. This, of course, indicates that THEY are irrelevant. Such pejorative sentiment needed to be challenged. We are in an age of interpersonal connection by cell phone, email, ICQ, bulletin boards, etc. This way of life existed only in the imagination of visionaries, but now exists as a commonplace. But there was another vision often expressed by those science fiction writers and futurists: the vision of a depersonalized and dehumanized society where people were dismissed as a name and a number, while their thoughts, feelings, and humanity were considered irrelevant or superficial.. Often they were depicted as being herded into a mindless and heartless group of automatons with the machine like quality of the society which had informed them. I was surprised to see you spearheading this very type of dehumanization and to notice you waving the flag of "I don't care" as you were only dismissing "disembodied voices" and not real people. We have seen this sort of thing before (and NO, I am NOT calling you a Nazi, nor suggesting even the slightest relationship). I am trying to suggest a parallel and an extension which may be understood as to the path which dehumanizing and depersonalizing people may lead. I am trying to show the linkage between dehumanization and the frightening consequences of shedding civilized values. I trust you will be gracious and competent enough to not internalize a message which is NOT about you...but about a concept. The word "JEW" became a reference to a physical body rather than to a thinking feeling human being. By not acknowledging their thoughts and feelings (and by eventually, forcibly denying their expression), these REAL people were reified into disembodied voices, and were recognized only as a name...a JEW.