[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "Racism, Satanism, & Fanaticism" A clarification.
On Mon, 17 Nov 1997 10:03:04 -0800, Tod Landis
wrote to G.T. Livezey:
>What message are you responding to? What is
its subject header?
>I see nothing called "Racism, Satanism, and
Fanaticism"
>so I don't know what you're talking about.
In the interest of clearing this up for all concerned I
am posting this response.GTL
Racism, Satanism & Fanaticism was my
paraphrase of the posts I had read most
recently. I do tend to get behind and respond
"offline" to the digests. Sorry to
confuse the issue(s). I should have provided the
context for my comments.
Let's start from Digest 44, topic 6. You will find a
post by Declan McCullagh. (Subject
Re: Spin isn't an arguement (Re: FW: MS's
response to Nader))
- hence "(Digest 44)" in the subject line of my
reply.
Previous posts had included references to
Facism, Racism, Sexism. In the course of
a continuing "discussion" of the exclusion of
peoples from information and online content,
the exchange had drifted to sidebars of racism. I
suggested that it did not suit the current forum
- hence RACISM in the subject line.
I alluded to all of Mr. McCullagh's colorful
references to ""the Antichrist", the "scent of
sulphur",
"horns of the devil" and the "mark of the beast", in
his attempted satire.
- hence SATANISM in the subject line.
I responded to his whiplash-inducing either/or
extremeism (eg "Its time to do away with
capitalism! Clearly Cuba is the economic model
we must adopt") - more satire.
- hence FANATICISM in the subject line.
And then I proceeded to cover what the name
calling had not addressed. Mr. McCullagh
was attempting to equate, or by metaphor
describe, purchasing a single copy of printed
material as his "logical" extension of the concept
proposed by Mr. Kendall .G. Clark, that of
"excluding others from information for profit". I
suggested that he missed the mark.
>> And I think you missed a much more important
point of misinterpretation. Buying a single copy of
>> a magazine at a newsstand does not restrict
anyone's access to information. The more
>> revealing metaphor would be underwriting the
entire American education system, with the
>> requirement that all children be taught to read,
speak and write only "MSEnglish" while
>> simultaneously allowing only MS sanctioned
publications to use "MSEnglish" to convey their
>> informational content. It isn't necessary to "do
away with capitalism" in order to avoid the
>>creation of harmful monopolies, anymore than it
is necessary to "do away with breathing" in
>> order to avoid the poisoning of our air. We have
laws; we simply need to apply them
>> equally to everyone, not just those who can't
afford to buy an exception to the rule.
>> When are we going to get rid of this theme of
"its either A or Z, there are no other letters in
>> between"?
I hope that I have made myself clear. I have
included the McCullagh post to follow.
And to Mr. McCullagh - our antidiscrimination laws
do not require that you punch anyone in the nose
to be guilty of a racist act, and to be punished
accordingly. You do have the right to make
extremely hateful and ignorant, yes racist,
statements, so long as the repercussions of such
"speech" are not ultimately translated into bodily
harm of another (that's why you can't yell
FIRE in a crowded movie theater). And you have
the right to make extremely biased, misleading
,and, yes stupid, remarks about any topic, such
as.... Microsoft's business practices, but with
the same caveat - the absence of ultimate harm.
And THAT sir, is what the discussion is about
at its core; the ultimate harm to the consumer and
MS's competitors which delineates the limit of
MS's "rights" and the crossover into a breach of
the law.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------
Topic No. 6
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 1997 19:57:24 -0500
From: Declan McCullagh
<declan@pathfinder.com>
To: kclark@computek.net
Cc: Multiple recipients of list
<am-info@essential.org>
Subject: Re: Spin isn't an argument (Re: FW: MS's
response to Nader)
Message-ID:
<v03007809b093f0585e46@[204.254.22.5]>
At 18:35 -0500 11/15/97, Kendall G. Clark wrote:
>I heard Rev. Jesse Jackson on CNN this week
say that ``exclusion is a form of
>violence.'' He was, of course, talking about
racism and sexism, but couldn't a
>similar moral point be made against MS?
Jackson is over the top. Violence violates your
right to be free from
assault, from someone punching you in the face.
Racism and sexism (though
not violence) is protected by the First Amendment;
I have a right to
express my racist/sexist beliefs as long as I don't
punch you in the face.
"Exclusion" does not violate your "rights."
>Granted, it is not politically fascistic like Stalin,
Mao, or Hitler for them
>to exclude others from information for profit. But it
is, nevertheless, a form
>of or desire for totalitarian control.
Obviously excluding others from information for
profit is a sign of the
Antichrist. Every time I buy a magazine's worth of
information from the
corner newsstand, I can smell the scent of sulfur.
When I buy a book's
worth of information from Barnes and Noble I see
the horns of the devil on
the head of the cashier. When I have to PAY (oh,
the horrors!) for a
compact disc, I recognize the mark of the beast.
You've convinced me: It's time to do away with
capitalism! Clearly Cuba is
the economic model we must adopt. Their
technology is, of course, superior
to none.
>Those facts may be important to evaluating their
credibility (the degree to
>which you can take their avowals at face value),
but they are irrelevant to
>the logic of the arguments themselves.
Agreed. The logic of an argument does not
depend on who's arguing.
Microsoft should have answered them head-on. It
would have been useful
(from my perspective) for some of their executives
to be there, even if
elsewhere in the hotel where they could have
answered some of these hard
questions.
>That's not an argument, and it's not a refutation of
an argument. It's just
>pure spin, it's propaganda.
Which (let's be honest) was in plentiful supply at
the Nader conference too.
-Declan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------
Glenn T. Livezey, Ph.D.
Director of Perinatal Research
Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine
Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology
University of Nebraska Medical Center
600 South 42nd Street
Omaha, NE 68198-3255
Phone- 402-559-8064
FAX- 402-559-7126
e-mail glivezey@netserv.unmc.edu