To: DMB, Gav and John
From: Risky
Re: The intellectual art of flaming
I already responded to this yesterday by asking David to stick to the issues.
However, in light of folks like John accepting David's rhetorical dismissal
of my competence to express a view as one of the greatest posts of all time,
and by David's continued refusal to address the issues of the actual
discussion, I think it is important that I respond to his comments.
DMB:
I think its pretty clear that disagreement and criticism really bugs some
people. For some reason it seems to bother some people more than others.
This is unfortunate insofar as it tends to turn honest debate into an
exercise in defensive posturing. This is not good insofar as it turns
discussion into a clash of egos. Roger, for example, was apparently
offended at my criticism of the USA's foreign policy and answered it with
lots of personal attacks upon me. His answer was, ironically, to call me
petty and mean-spirited.
RISKY:
No, I said "This list is petty and mean spirited." I then clarified how it
was petty and mean spirited and biased. Care to address my points? (After
all, I could be wrong). There were no other insults in this post other than
my saying that you and Horse are "master planners who are convinced that
everyone else is an idiot or exploited stooge." Your response here which
dismisses my views as that of an exploited stooge to the giant (see below)
pretty much confirms the accuracy of this statement though, doesn't it?
D:
Its understandable because nobody likes to be
insulted, but I'd beg everyone to try and rise above hurt feelings because
that kind of response doesn't help to move the conversation forward. Quite
the contrary. I'll admit that there's part of me that just wants to return
the favor, but I'll try to resist that impulse. Instead of tossing out
insults I'll try to turn my response into something useful and interesting.
Wish me luck. I'm only human.
R:
This from the person that has called me "philosophically irresponsible and
intellectually dishonest"? David, we can tease each other and argue (and we
have), but quit posturing yourself as so superior.
DMB:
This seems like a pretty healthy attitude. If we identify too closely with
our country, we can get kinda crazy. We can't rightly take credit for a
nation's greatness or folly. Our nationality is strictly an accident of
birth and we have no more choice over it than we do our hair color. ...
Now this brings us to the part where I have to resist the temptation to be
merely insulting. I hope that it is taken as criticism with a purpose. It
may feel every bit as unpleasant as petty name-calling, but I promise that
the intention is much more than that. To take criticism of your nation as a
personal attack only shows that you indentify yourself with the giant. It
demonstrates an attachment to social values and an enslavement to the giant.
And clinging to this third level value system is immoral to the extent that
it contradicts intellectual values. The highest ideals of the USA are
intellectual values and the long list of foreign policy follies that so
offended Roger contradict those values. They are a list of the antics of the
giant and they represent the unprincipled actions of an imperial empire.
R:
David, is there any possibility -- any at all -- that I simply find your LIST
petty and mean spirited? In other words, is it possible to take my comments
on as written without dismissing them as defensive, immoral, enslaved,
anti-intellectual attachment? What possible good would that do? Btw, I was
not offended, I intellectually disagreed with some (not all) criticisms. I
have an open mind though for you to show me how terrorism is somehow
justified by us previously supporting the Afghanistanies against the USSR or
by Kissinger's alleged problems in Chile, or our economic sanctions against
totalitarian thugs. Please explain yourself rather than dismissing my views.
D:
Roger wants to believe that my criticism are inventions or
distortions. He wants to believe there are good reasons for all the
objectionable actions of his country. He wants to believe that the USA is
among the most generous of the developed nations and when the facts flatly
contradict that he wants to find good reasons for that too. Mirrors.
R:
No, David. I called the US a "laggard" and offerred that we increase our
funding to .7% and added that we must ensure that it is used wisely
(countering conservative arguments that it is all a waste). Why are you
saying this? Why are you misrepresenting my view and dismissing me as a
stooge to the giant?
Is it because I previously suggested you hate America's ideals? OK, this WAS
a cheap shot and somewhat dismissive itself. I apologize. However, I do
believe you abhor free enterprise. Correct me if I am wrong. Just say it
isn't so...
D:
He
looks at the USA and sees himself. He looks at criticism of the USA and sees
criticism of himself. He sees criticism of corporate power and sees a threat
to his own power. Its a painful ego trap. His insulting reactions express
the anger of the giant. It leads him to see insult where none is intended.
R:
How can you read so much into my disagreements with the context of your
criticisms? David, you are trying to totally trash my competence to discuss
the issue. I have asked 3 times now for you to respond directly to my
counters to your list. Instead you are flaming me and in a most assuredly
non-teasing manner.
D:
It causes distortions in interpreting the MOQ too. I don't mean to pick on
Roger. Nobody is immune to the mirrors. In fact, they're very important. But
to get trapped in this way is not just patriotism, it is nationalism and
extreme nationalism is pretty much the definition of fascism. That's why
flag-wavers make me nervous. When it get out of hand, extreme nationalism
doesn't just result in name-calling or philosophical distrotions. It leads
to lots of cruelty and death. In such a situation offending people is the
least of our problems.
R:
Talk about moral high ground! Now I am a sad, fascist, dangerous,
name-calling, flag waver. Could we actually have the discussion prior to
dismissing me? I think I have a strong record of versatility in terms of
changing my position when presented with contradictory facts. How about we
discuss first and then draw conclusions later?
D:
I'm not interested saving face so much as saving heads.
R:
It must be a difficult burden to bare.
Risky
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:59 BST