> However, I want to register in the strongest terms my disagreement with
>Nathan Newman's off-list protest, which prompted Doug to act and Louis to
>depart. (It is noteworthy that Nathan and the other touchingly tender, easily
>offended complainers were scrupulously silent a few months back while Louis
>hammered me with much harsher words than he has ever applied to Rakesh. Not
>all of them, though; some of today's civility gang directed their own colorful
>insults my way.)
>
> The kernel of my viewpoint is this: If white supremacy in the United States
>does not offend you sufficiently to bring forth intemperate words (at
>minimum), who could ever rely on you as a comrade in struggle? If the
>exemplar of courage in opposing white supremacy will not bestir you to stand
>and be counted, who ever will?
>...
I disagree with your position, here. In my view, being civil to one another is an absolute, bottom-line requirement for any group worth the name. Criticising someone's ideas is fine; criticising someone for having the ideas is inappropriate, in my opinion. There is no ethical fault in being mistaken; none of us has been granted sole access to The Truth. Anyone who imagines se has such access probably has other problems too.
If we cannot get along even to the extent of treating one another well, how can we ever expect to build a more humane world. A socialist world _depends_ on people being civil, fair, and decent to one another! It _depends_ on each of us giving the other the benefit of every possible doubt, of always being ready to think ourselves mistaken, of not taking more than our share. That's what it's all about! How can we possibly build such a world if we're not even ready to be fair when the stakes are no more than words?
And if we're not interested in building such a world, what the hell are we doing here?
Margaret