Re: from the village voice (pc)

["anthony_r" <anthony_r>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "sonic5" <sonic5>
To: <babel-list>
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 8:35 PM
Subject: Re: from the village voice (pc)


>
>
> On 21 Jun 2002, at 19:30, anthony_r wrote:
>
> >
> > I believe you were criticized by sonic5 awhile ago for seeming to
> > support the idea that killing innocent civilians is somehow justified,
> > which of course you weren't saying anything of the sort,
>
> Wow, I'm flattered to be remembered. But for the record, I questioned
> a post that was unclear (as did a few others). Dlofdahl answered my
> question and I thanked him. (and my question came from a similar
> situation - Dlofdahl posted an article [or excerpt from an article as
> I recall ] with no comment. So I had no idea what he/she was trying
> to convey. Without some comment how am I to know if the poster
> agrees/disagrees with the source they've quoted?)


Well, I didn't quite remember the exchange exactly. Dlofdahl responded to your
recent post by saying, in part, "my point is that i am ashamed that i was so
surprised that you, someone who has met me, could ask me if i supported terrori
sm,
that i silenced myself", and I recalled that you had said something to that
effect, so I went back and found:


On 25 Apr 2002, at 9:36, Dlofdahl wrote:

> >> I've never heard a group claiming responsibility for a suicide
> >> bombing say "We've done this so that the ignorant Americans will
> >> understand our plight and rescue us from the oppressive Israelis."
>
> not just americans.  they are trying to get the worlds attention,
> including the other arab states.  and it has worked.
>

okay, i'll bite....are you saying this is a good thing? killing
innocents is okay as long as you get attention? maybe Nadar
should consider that strategy. He could use more press coverage...
(wrapping up all these threads in one ludicrous bundle....)

please don't respond by lecturing me....i know that facts and you're
never going to convince me that the murder of civilians is a good
publicity move (and I don't care what religion, ethnicity or country
endorses that, okay? its just morally wrong, no ifs, ands or
attempts at rationalization.....)


s5


As if that is what he was suggesting (that the murder of civilians is a good
publicity move), and I'm confident you are intelligent enough to know that wasn
't
what he was suggesting, so you are being disingenuous when you say you didn't k
now
what he was trying to convey. I think we can all assume (and should assume) tha
t
everyone here pretty much agrees with the general rule that killing innocent
people is not, as Martha Stewart would say, a good thing. I really think you kn
ow
the situation is a lot more complicated than that. Dlofdahl is saying that
unfortunately terrorism has the effect of getting one's attention, and it's all
the worse when the perpetrators of the terror are members of the larger group
asking for help.

> The reason I hate seeing politics brought up here is not because I
> think its unacceptable subject matter per se, but because its never a
> discussion, but rather a monologue, and very often a diatribe - and
> ultimately a slug-fest of sorts, with folks feeling the need to
> personally disparage anyone who disagrees. (as above. I mean, why
> exactly was it  necessary to attach a value judgment like
> "criticized" when mentioning a past question of mine? Indeed the
> whole sentence is written so as to make me appear "wrong.")
>

I'm sorry, but the entire tone of your post to Dlofdahl quoted above ("please
don't respond by lecturing me"...etc. -- oh, and as an aside, now THAT sounds l
ike
lecturing!) justifies my use of the word "criticized", imo. If what you wrote
can't be characterized as "criticizing", then I shouldn't have passed any of my
College English courses. And regarding "wrong" or "right", it's more a matter o
f
agreeing or disagreeing. It's natural for anybody who has a point of view to
believe their view is "right" and the other is "wrong", but within the context 
of
discussing an issue hopefully one's mind isn't totally closed or it can end up,
 as
you say, as a monologue and diatribe.


> And certainly that's not restricted to this list. It happens almost
> every mailing list and usenet group I read.  Online forums tend to
> become PR vehicles for folks who want to convert the world. I
> appreciate the passion, but, speaking only for myself, lectures
> rarely convince me to do anything except have flashbacks of my
> parents.
>

Speaking as a psych major, I have to ask you why you see passionate diatribes a
nd
monologues as equivalent to parental "lectures". I mean, sure, you ~can~ see it
 as
lecturing if you want, I suppose, but why would you? That only closes your mind
 to
the subject all the quicker (since it is wont to give you flashbacks that have 
a
negative emotional response). Why not just see it as a passionate diatribe, and
don't feel you are being personally lectured to. That's just a suggection, I'm 
not
lecturing...


> I speak only for myself when I say, just because I may choose not to
> reveal my position on some things or because I question certain
> posts, it doesn't necessarily mean I disagree with you. But if I do
> disagree, please recognize that I have come to my opinion with as
> much research and thought as led you to your view. And I would like
> the same respect as you request.
>


Yes, absolutely, but you'll have to allow that passionate discourse (and/or
diatribe) is inevitable, since it's hard to discuss or respond to the deaths of
hundreds and thousands of innocent people with dispassion. Oh, and I totally
understand why anyone would NOT want to speak on this matter here: the FBI has
been given carte blanche to "listen in" on all open discussions and gatherings,
and unfortunately all of our posts appear within a day or so on the Web for
anybody to see.


Anthony