> Yo, Paul, Did you actuallly READ what I wrote??
Absolutely. But did you read yourself? Any more carefully than you read Bladwin?
> Engage me, don't caricurature me!
> 1) I did not write "against ideological struggle in cyberspace in favor
> of getting (my) head beat in as a morally superior path." There is
> absolutely nothing in what I wrote to support such a criticism.
How about the following:
>> Well, Paul, it seems that we might disagree on what a serious political
>> struggle is. If what you mean by serious struggle is the critical
>> exchange of political ideas, then, yes, it is certainly true that SOME
>> real political struggle is taking place in cyberspace. What I meant,
>> however, by a serious political contest is not simply the struggle over
>> ideas, which is, needless to say, critically important, but the actual
>> struggle for power. In the actual struggle for power against our
>> rulers--whatever shape that might take or is taking--much is likely to be
>> sacrificed, including a lot of lives...maybe mine. Ain't nobody riskin'
>> much of anything in cyberspace.
You may not LIKE my characterization of what you've said. If so, challenge it. But I think I've captured the essence of your folly rather aptly.
> Furthurmore, it's a patently absurd one given my participation on this
> (and other) political chat lines. Where the hell did you get the idea
> that I "celebrate" the spilling of blood?
I didn't mean to imply you were out for other people's blood. We're all much too far into narcissism for that.
> 2) Actually, that quote from Baldwin had nothing to do with supporting
> what I wrote.
I know that, Chris. THAT'S JUST THE POINT! It's just your brand of radical chic.
> 3) But while we're at it, there is nothing inconsistent about what I
> wrote and what Baldwin said in that 1960 essay--not to mention many of
> his other writings. You imply that I am not interested in helping to
> create the necessary moral climate to facilitate change. Show me the
> evidence, homey.
The above quote where you valorize your own death foretold and condesecend toward mere ideas.
> 4) When did I ever say or imply anything about ignoring cyberspace
> because of lack of "minority" participation or for any other reason?
Once again, in the passage quoted above you put down the importance of cyberspace. You went on to further justify your choice in racial terms when you wrote:
>> Like everything else, cyberspace is racialized: Enormous numbers of young
>> "WHITE" people are online. Young Black people are, for all intents and
>> purposes, out of the loop and getting more pissed by the day. Who is more
>> likely to disturb the political status quo? Cyberitized "white" kids or
>> marginzlized and enraged Black kids?
> By the way, how can you use that term so breezily after reading that
> Baldwin essay?
> Also, I should tell you that as a Black person (politically and
> culturally, happily, but racially only by virtue of science
> fiction masquerading as social fact), I do not appreciate being
> reffered to as a "minority." Just letting you know, though, of
> course, you are free to ignore my sensitivies.
Political correctness ad absurdum, eh?
> In sum: I don't know who you were responding to but it wasn't me.
It was your text, man. But that's cool. I'm not down with Derrida, so I know it wasn't you.
-- Paul Rosenberg Reason and Democracy rad at gte.net
"Let's put the information BACK into the information age!"