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 : and there was no one left to speak for me -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Yorikke who wrote (215)	9/28/1998 5:04:00 PM
From: INFO_DART	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 276

Is it Nazis or Nuts? And who should speak for them? There is a world of difference between standing up for someone and dragging the culprit of some 'shout down' out into the square and 'shooting him in the head'. Although, I agree with your statement, I think it begs the question of, is that in fact what we are talking about and is it a false analogy. By analogy, I would say that, "shooting him in the head," is more what Thread Moron tends to be about. In contrast, I think here the proper analogy would be more like the study of the mechanics of extermination and the murder of truth. Perhaps in this context you could restate if you think that there is a moral imperative that I'm missing. I am not willing to participate in a discussion on this tread that targets specific SI individuals or posts for criticism. It's wrong; no matter how gallant the goal. As I have said before, I respect your desire in this regard. I will not publicly address to you a discussion of specific SI individuals or posts for analysis. If you feel I ever violate this promise, please let me know. I will try to correct it promptly. No one should be singled out. If we do so who is speaking for that person? Nobody on these threads has committed more than the crimes of arrogance and stupidity. There have been no deaths, no maimings, no forced marches. Who is to say what truth should prevail, what concepts will endure, whose message rings the clearest? Just because there are lots of whacked-out souls wandering these threads does not make what they say any less dysfunctional. I believe, it is not the message that is the issue but the method. Don't you believe that there are some truths that are not relative and not merely a matter of opinion or viewpoint? If you do not believe that there is in fact a knowable truth, then we have found a fundamental difference in our world views. Also, there appears to me a long and noble tradition in western thought regarding how to engage in discourse so that we are more likely to move our thinking towards, rather than away from the truth. Further, I think that we are not seeing merely, "the crimes of arrogance and stupidity." For example, when a long silences the voice of a short, is he more often doing it out of arrogance and stupidity, or is there something less benign going on. "If we do so who is speaking for that person?" I ask you who should speak for such a person. Who should speak for the person who murders the truth? Who should speak for Adolph Hitler? However, many will. I think it is an interesting aside that some rescuers of Jews during the holocaust subsequently rescued "former" Nazi's at the close of the war. It was the same moral imperative in each case that drove them to engage in rescue behavior. However, I see a big difference between rescuing the Nazi while he is still a Nazi and engaged in the extermination of others, and the rescue of a Nazi after the war has been won and he can do no more harm. I think we have the case of the former at SI, rather than the later. It seems that you don't want to point to the SI Nazi's because you think it is wrong to do so. I don't get it. It would seem to me to be wrong not to. Not that one needs to go on a crusade to find them all. Rather, when they cross your path to not look the other way. I can see how this would make it more difficult to get along, or might violate some aspects of the TAO. Maybe it's just a matter of priorities. What do you think?

To: Yorikke who wrote (215)	9/28/1998 7:50:00 PM
From: Bill Jackson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 276

MNMuench, Since we are violent and have agreed to sechew violence then for some the outlet is body surfing and for some it is SI. One fine day they will make attachments to computers that will allow weapon play via remote tele operation. the weapon can be like doom totally vicarious, but what about a shock through the joystick? Or through the brain. the concept is old in science fiction where a myriad games have been put forth that have a lethal option. Will people play? Only if they can grow in the group scene. In the old old days the Alpha male would kill/cow all challengers and enjoy priority mating privileges. In a remote setting what would be the reward mechanism? Who would stop cheats who play, lose and are killed on the screen but have arranged to not die in the flesh? They would have to disappear and come back on as another persona. Discos like club 54 are the primitive arena brought forward to this era and the prize is whatever dolly/donny you can take home that night. Risky warring behaviour is translated to strutting like the grouse Leks. What is the surfer reward? special surfer slaves? like Music groupies and racer chasers in skiing? Is the ultimate success one who plays that game and mates? What of those who think and make news stuff, do they lose? are we breeding mediocres by the huge rewards for sport/music/disco behaviours? There are those who toady by helping others. The same moral behaviour can be a messiah complex. You save a person who then is in thrall to you lest you turn them out to be killed. (Yes there were people who saved Jewish women and who then enslaved them sexually under fear of exposure). Does altruism exist? Or is there always a motive no matter how diffused if only the tribute paid in worhsipful appreciation. What about saving a dog who then bites you?, can you them kill the dog? I recall the fable of the tortoise and the scorpion who were stranded on an island and the tortoise could swim to land only if he took the direct route and his eyes were too low to see shore and the scorpion offered to ride his back and use his high stalked eyes to navigate. The tortoise protested "you will sting me", "no" said the scorpion, "as then we would both die" This sounde viable to the tortoise and they set out. Half way across the scorpion mortally stung the tortoise, and as they sank the tortoise gasped "why?", "you knew what I was before we started, it is my nature" said the scorpion. In the same sense I would look long and hard at any rescue of any nazi. Is he/she a true nazi who has only suspended his/her ways for venal purposes(like do not hang me) or was he/she forced into a role due to circumstances and acted like a gear in a machine? I am so remote from that era that I would like to use the judgement of the nazi hunters and not my own. I suspect they will sift those people and find those who were creative killers and those that performed under direct threat of their own death. Remember in the nazi and soviet armies they had battle police or MPs as we call them who would shoot people who did not carry out orders. As you know there are many people who have not been shot by firing squads as all the soldiers subtly shifted their aim to miss the person when they fired. (in addition to the single blank supposedly in 1 rifle) So extreme pressure to perform bad acts was placed on the low ranking soldiers and they often did them. Are they war criminals? or just saving their skin? You can say if they all protest all together then the act will not be done. Well it worked for Yeltsin. What was the policy of the Nuremberg trials? Did they look for a level of authority where you authored criminal acts and let the low echelons escape? I know they selected certain prison guards for execution, were other guards spared as they often tried to spare people even as they took them to the killing chambers? Were all the concentration camp guards and personnel killed? I know those the russians caught were killed, but they also killed those who helped jews, so they may have just killed in toto. I read that many German soldiers triued to be captured by the west even if they were cooks as they feared death from the Russians. Bill