[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 
  >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 
  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 
  "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 
  To: kclark@computek.net
  Cc: Multiple recipients of list 
  Subject: Re: Spin isn't an argument (Re: FW: MS's 
  response to Nader)
  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
  >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.
  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