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: The Philosopher who wrote (76480)	10/5/2003 12:38:31 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

The mojo scenario is now focused on 'harm'? The question has been raised and studied at some depth by tim, karen, x, neocon, myself and I'm not sure who else. At this point no-one remains who is claiming that mojo is doing any direct harm. The following link is a review of my view point offered at karen's request (sort of). In it I have discussed all levels of harm that could be alleged, and specifically I've specifically addressed the question of 'discrimination'. Message 19366003 I would be very interested in knowing if your concerns have been addressed (not just how much you are against discrimination, that is a given). At this point the position of mojo criticism is as strong as it was at the start but the justification has evolved a bit. As I said the critics are not able to define a specific harm but are certain harm exists, they feel it in their gut, and it is apparently of an undefinable insidious nature. That even if mojo isn't doing anything harmful, the attitudes that could propogate from the mojo scenario are. Even that the harm is there but the harmed just can't detect it (tree in the forest analogy). I am not being sarcastic this is the reality of what has become of the mojo scenario. Some people have copped to being suspicious that there is a dangerous muslim undercurrent that is the real motivation in the whole thing. I think there is merit in that suspicion (being what is the real concern of the critics), more for some than for others. Since it was refuted as part of the Hypo, it is not a valid reason to attribute harm to the mojo scenario. Solon being the most outspoken about it. Solon specifically included you in that allegation and as an affiliate of his twisted reversioning revisioning and gigantic leaping to conclusions.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (76480)	10/5/2003 9:13:44 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

If you want to get more specific, I'll try to address a specific question The specific question is about what harm there may be so long as Mojo stays under the radar, not hanging out a shingle and taking clients only by word of mouth so that he's not in a position where he overtly rejects any clients. I have intentionally constrained the scenario to the level of Mojo activity I'm prepared to tolerate--the under the radar level. I think that X, Solon, and I all agree that there is a sort of generalized, bad-karma type of harm to society when that kind of discriminatory attitude is present. Solon and I think that the specific harm to individuals, though, is unlikely and minimal. X claims a specific harm from denial of service, even if the denial isn't rude, where the mere absence of the services of one masseur is effectively a denial of service. I agree with her, but we both agree that that type of harm isn't measurable or actionable. And, of course, that the bad-karma harm isn't actionable, either. So the question is, do you see those harms? Other harms? Which, if any, harms? Remember that we're talking about the under the radar scenario only. If Mojo gets above the radar, that's another matter. When Jewel first posed this scenario there was no suggestion that he would be practicing below the radar so people saw lots of harms. Still do, I assume. But I thought it would be useful to look first at the constrained version of the scenario. Jewel conceded pretty early in the discussion that Mojo couldn't actually post a no-gays sign. He hasn't so far as I've noticed acceded to the full, below the radar scenario, but if we can sort out this constrained version, then perhaps we can deal constructively with the other.