LBO = flame city? (was RE: Survivor!)

Christopher Susi chris at susi.net
Thu Oct 26 01:08:06 PDT 2000


Not to open up the entire debate again. Just to step in and make some points.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Rob Schaap
> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2000 1:50 AM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: Re: LBO = flame city? (was RE: Survivor!)
>
>
> G'day Doug,
>
> >I was a bit taken aback by your comments on the treatment of Comrade
> >Susi. I have no problem with philosophical differences or a lack of
> >expertise. What bugs me is when people spout a lot of conventional
> >opinions as if they were transgressive, and tediously familiar stuff
> >as if it were fresh. Those are close to unpardonable sins, especially
> >if committed simultaneously.

These are tediously familiar stuff to the list, but fresh and transgressive to myself. Granted I did state something to the effect of "to challenge others", while this was intended to entice it only served to insult. I'll learn.


>
> Well, my view on it doesn't matter, but I'd've thought thinking the things
> that characterise the society that produced you is wholly pardonable. And
> anyway, sometimes people don't realise their views are conventional.
>
> And we could have stretched all kinds of threads out of the issues
> Christopher introduced in his first post to the list (the one
> which started
> it all): about the functionality of sexual reproduction, the spectre of
> downloadable human consciousness, and the nature of progress as
> immanent in
> the nature of evolution.
>

Indeed, I'd hoped to see more expansion on these areas than the little side-point I posted at the end that got all the attention.


>
> I disagreed with everything Chris wrote and said so. In reply, Chris
> wrote: "On the other hand, there is another part that says "This is life
> in it's rawest grittiest form. This has happened for hundreds of millions
> of years, and will likely continue to happen in one form or another for
> another hundred million years or more." Who am I to change that process?"
>
> And we were off! 'Bewdy,' we thought, 'a Spencerian social-Darwinist
> misanthropic, bourgeois reactionary! Let's put in some boot!'
>
> So we didn't discuss any of the other things he brought up. Nope, we'd
> found a politically incorrect line (one it is not hard to take apart in
> enlightening fashion - Singer, Gould and Lewontin have all done
> it in clear
> friendly English) sufficiently artlessly expressed to make room for a
> self-affirming feeding frenzy. All heat and very little light.
>

Yes, as the thread progressed the way it did I hoped to see arguments on those lines. Of course while they may seem obvious to yourselves I may never have been exposed to them.

Interestingly, I feel I was on the receiving end of one of my tirades against a tech-worker when I think they ask a stupid question (like how to debug a TCP/IP network). Of course, the mentality is probably very much the same. I assume that because they are in technology they should know this, and when such a basic question is asked I get annoyed and will answer it condesendingly. If talking to another tech-geek this type of attitude would seem appropriate. If talking to a neophyte or someone outside the culture it comes off as rude. Similarly, there was probably an assumption that because I was here that such concepts were known. Between two established individuals in the community such bantering intermixed with pot-shots might be appropriate and fun. With an outsider it comes off as being condescending and inappropriate.


>
> If Christopher is genuine, we punish him for it. If he is not, he doesn't
> care either way, and the rest of us have burned bandwidth on bugger-all.
>

When I was 15, being a twit and annoying people online just to be a twit and annoy people online was fun. While I still enjoy engaging people, life's too short and I have better things to do than be without some form of purpose other than trying to be a troll.


>
> Never mind Chris had brought up lots of interesting issues, had said he's
> not wholly committed to the view, and had been unfriendly to no-one.
>

I wasn't un-aware of that my statements could be taken as being very offensive and therefore was meticulous in many of my arguments and responses not to make personal attacks (though I did respond in kind to some). Had it been many other topics I might not even have cared, but given the sensitive nature of the discussion it was too easy for things to get out of hand quickly. Frankly, I'm surprised Hitler references never got brought up(which, as they say on DC-Stuff, it's not a thread until Hitler is brought into it).


>
> And, anyway, if he is a radical individualist, I imagine the question 'why
> be moral"' is indeed an important one for him.
>
> So I do reckon we've a propensity for sounding off from high moral ground,
> antagonising, intimidating or boring people beyond our cult-like
> convocation, and preferring to focus on the adversarial swopping of
> respectively known and fixed Truths rather than engaging in the process of
> knowledge; which, as I thought most of us would agree, is definitively a
> process of social production, ever a movable feast, and best done in a
> democratically tolerant spirit (Carrol's pronouncement that only
> one lister
> here may talk about evolution would be a prime example of ensuring that a
> mailing list become a static pissing contest, for instance).
>
> That said, I like LBO-Talk lots and learn heaps - most of the
> time. And it
> ain't just LBO I'm talking about. Happens everywhere lefties
> come together
> - really and virtually.
>
>
> Well, you did ask ...
>
> Cheers,
> Rob
>
>
>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list