Thanks for the PM,s. Here is the clarification I promised. Some of the messages coming my way entirely misunderstood my decision, so this is intended to clear matters up.
QUESTION
Are you leaving SI because you are angry?
ANSWER
Not at all. Anger is a healthy response to fools and nitwits. I am disappointed in the infantilism of SI and I am bored with the shortage of authentic thought and legitimate debate--and I am saddened by the sandbox uselessness of so many of these nut bars.
QUESTION
Can you explain what you mean by “infantilism”?
ANSWER
I’m talking about immaturity and arrested emotional development on the three basic bully fronts of hypocrisy, censorship, and toadyism.
QUESTION
Then why are you leaving SI and for how long?
ANSWER
The benefits of SI (given the current level of hypocrisy, segregation, and mindless contempt for civilized values) do not reach a level that would justify an investment in time or effort just now. I will probably not post for six months to a year. After that time I will consider whether or not the infantilism of SI justifies any investment of my time.
QUESTION
What are the main problems with SI at this time?
ANSWER
The Terms of Use have been replaced by the personal tyranny of juveniles practicing segregation, censorship, and exile on individual sites. This reduces SI to a parlor game of "winning" rather than learning through dialogue and debate. Robust discussion has given way to toadyism and the muzzling of opinion: The "Galileo" Syndrome.
QUESTION
What is the goal of censorship and segregation?
ANSWER
To “win”.
QUESTION
What is the goal of the invitation to dialogue and debate?
ANSWER
To learn.
QUESTION
But what about "ignore". Isn't that a good feature?
ANSWER
"Ignore" is a pretend feature.
QUESTION
Why do you say, "pretend"?
ANSWER
Because, in fact, they simply click on the link and read it exactly as one normally does!
QUESTION
So what are they pretending?
ANSWER
Firstly, that they are not reading the links!
Secondly, that they are unable to choose between reading and not reading posts, between responding and not responding to people!
Also, they use ignore as a weapon.
QUESTION
How do you mean?
ANSWER
Well, for instance, it is used to justify censorship and segregation (the childish game of “banning”). One thread moderator even went so far as to count all the ignores the children had used to score (in their minds) points against one another--and used the results to justify muzzling them as being unworthy people! :-)
QUESTION
That sounds so stupid. What was his REAL reason for banning these people?
ANSWER
He is a control freak. He did not like their opinions. Allowing their opinions on his thread would compromise his extreme leftist propaganda.
Bannings are ALWAYS done as expressions of dislike, fear, and prejudice. The most common reasons are race, color, gender, religion, political opinions, or other expressions of free speech and free opinions.
QUESTION
Why would a civilized person “ban” someone from sharing their opinions and ideas when they have not violated the terms of use?
ANSWER
A civilized person would not.
There are four basic reasons why immature people do:
1). They want to impose their own opinions on the SI tapestry without being challenged by superior intellects,
2). They want to impose an environment of sycophancy and toadyism where they may cling to an abysmal ignorance and nurture it without challenge or disturbance,
3). They believe it is their “right” to PREVENT freedom of association based on their personal caprice--whether it be skin color, race, gender, politics, religion, or anything at all,
4). They are expressing a maniacal totalitarianism: not only do they abstain from dialogue with the lawful SI member but they selfishly prevent all others on that thread from engaging in desired dialogues with those of their choosing. Thus, they impose a pathetic puerility on their betters and prevent the opportunity to learn and grow.
QUESTION
You mentioned freedom of association. Don't the people who enjoy "ignore" and "ban" favor freedom of association?
ANSWER
LOL! Just look at your question!
QUESTION
Ok. I see what you mean. But I don't understand. They pretend they want freedom of association. What is it with that?
ANSWER
Let me give you a long answer here. Not everyone can log on to SI. It is a private community, a virtual community, a gated community if you will. One can then see all the threads on SI as a virtual mall available only to the contracted members of SI. There are wine stores, book stores, health stores, etc. The members meet one another in these stores and they discuss wine, books, politics, or whatever. But there is a current problem with control freaks, aka bullies.
QUESTION
What does banning have to do with bullies?
ANSWER
Well, normally when one sees somebody in the wine shop whom they wish to chat with, they simply go into the wine shop and browse and chat. But these new kids on the block believe in censorship and segregation. They have bullies stationed along the corridors of the mall and when they see someone they dislike because of skin color, religious affiliation, politics, or anything else, they prevent them from entering the store.
QUESTION
How can they justify this?
ANSWER
They can't. They are control freaks. Their rationale is that if they don't want to talk to you, then nobody else can talk to either. If they don't like you, then nobody else can enjoy exploring issues with you of their own volition. They create totalitarian threads that despise all the values humanity has worked for centuries to achieve.
QUESTION
What does such a thread look like?
ANSWER
Basically, it narrows down to 3 or 4 people who harbor a mutual contempt for one thing or another. The postings are typically rank with prejudice and self serving tripe. Precious hours, days, and years of life are wasted--full of sound and fury and signifying nothing.
QUESTION
I thought that tyranny went out with the age of enlightenment?
ANSWER
Nothing ever goes away forever. The seeds will be there as long as there are morons and people without conscience. It has been said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. And so it is.
QUESTION
What about people who “disrupt” a thread?
ANSWER
It really can happen only momentarily. The terms of use set limits for reasonable speech and interaction. Violating these tolerances invites appropriate sanctions.
QUESTION
What about people who say things like: “would everybody please put a and b on “ignore” so they stop disrupting the thread!”??
ANSWER
These people re control freaks. It is obvious to anyone that “ignoring” people or not responding to them has nothing to do with preventing them from having a dialogue, nor is there anything but totalitarian pushiness behind such a desire. They are implying, firstly, that they are helpless to not read or not respond to people who post opinions or ideas on the thread that they disapprove of. Secondly, they are pretending to have the right (or the “duty”) to censor the ideas of others--tell them what they are permitted to think, as it were...and who they may discuss issues with and learn and benefit from.
QUESTION
But how can they possibly tolerate the terrible feeling of two or more people debating an issue!?
ANSWER
I don’t know! It must be terribly “disruptive”! I run into the same dilemma when I try to pick up a few books from the library. I get disrupted by all the thousands of books on the shelf. I try to walk past the ones that don’t interest me but it is next to impossible! And the librarian refuses to ignore them or ban them for me! Hard to know what to do about the matter…
QUESTION
I am beginning to see what you mean. But you say you are not angry at these nitwits?
ANSWER
That is correct. I am disappointed, of course. I am angry that these forces that chip away at civilized progress must continually be fought against over and over and over again throughout history. There will always be control freaks ("can't everyone just stop a and b from talking! Just put them on ignore!"), and there will always be dictators and insufferable asses. But there will always be such as myself to tell it like it is.
QUESTION
Ok. Back to you, Solon. And a slight change of direction. Some have accused YOU of being leftist. Anything to that?
ANSWER
It is strange that after thousands and thousands of posts anyone should misunderstand anything about me! Sometimes misunderstanding is deliberate! :-) I have been accused of being left wing, right wing, anti-American, pro-American, anti-Christ and…
QUESTION
What are the facts?
ANSWER
Well…once again: I grew up very Conservative and right wing. Later I moderated that position somewhat and took what I thought was the best from all parties and thinkers and discarded the worst. That put me somewhere right of center. Of course, the term center has been corrupted on SI and is not the best term to use here.
QUESTION
How is it corrupted?
ANSWER
A left wing extremist thread was started for the purpose of attacking President Bush and Republican policies and agendas. The thread had the effrontery to pretend a centrist philosophy although all centrists were immediately banned on first postings (including myself). One token right winger is allowed to post there provided he does not truly express an opinion that pisses off the thread. So the term “centrist” smells too rank for me to use on SI. I am comfortable with right of center, although some of my views are held by the extreme right.
QUESTION
Is there anything else on SI that has moved you to the right of center?
ANSWER
Yes, there is. My experience on SI has been that the left wing extremists tend to be more entrenched and less open to dialogue and genuine debate. I am sure it would be unfair to think these generalizations are without exception but the inferences to character defects and social insufficiencies and intellectual confinement are difficult to avoid. Also, they are the only ones attacking the leaders of their country--and by extension their nation. There is something the matter (and very disquieting) in their rabid and relentless (and usually mindless) attacks on their leaders.
The left wing extremists appear to be indistinguishable from religious fanatics who attack everyone and everything which does not fall within the circle of their ill considered “certainties”.
I>QUESTION
Aren’t you being hard on the left wingers?
ANSWER
I don’t think so. Certainly. Some right wing extremists exhibit some of the similar fanatical entrenchments. However, the disrespect and the outright contempt of the left for their leaders and for western principles of civilization seem to be peculiar to the rebellion against authority and individual rights and freedoms which is at the basic root of “reactive” liberalism. These people want to feel important and they want to have a cause but they have their heads stuck up their asses when it comes to truly understanding the world.
To have a "cause ("meaning" for them)...they must first hate the way things are. Hence, they embrace the other side (Communism, Islam, and such). Everything they were told to believe as good must become bad. Mindless political and religious ideologies become "Holy". So we have crap like the "view from the center" put forth as the "view from God"!
The bottom line is simply this:
When one logs on to a web site of supposedly mature investors and worldly people--and the most prevalent behavior one encounters is the sniveling and whining of brats counting “ignores” and “bans” and keeping “score” on one another…then one has a choice to climb into the sandbox with this gang of idiots...or of finding something useful to do. I have decided to spend my time doing things that are enjoyable and useful.
I will look at SI occasionally and I will probably come back to it in a few months or a year if I can find a way to make it useful. The way it is going, I see little hope for it as a vehicle for mature and rational people. It becomes more juvenile every day, as people too gutless to defend their ideas use the ignore and ban options to shut down dialogue and debate. So every little group of toadies have their own little sandbox and can spend hours out of every day doing what mindless mental midgets do. |
