[lbo-talk] Where we stand today

Michael Dawson MDawson at pdx.edu
Fri Nov 12 17:01:55 PST 2004


Nate, here are your own words:

"I think you should demand not just etiquette from folks but a reasonable basis of knowledge before people claim things are true that are just not....

So if you are going to rap peoples knuckles for impoliteness, how about a bit of discipline on those who spread clearly false information?

Nathan Newman"

Do you not call for "discipline" against Lance because of the content, rather than the politeness, of what he said?

What is "discipline," if not what we all know it to be -- probation (screening by Doug) and then expulsion?

You can't claim Doug arguing back is "discipline" and that that's all you wanted from him. He argues back all the time, and everybody knows that's not "knuckle-rapping" or "discipline."

I'm tired of this spat, but it would be nice if you could at least admit what you yourself said.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
> On Behalf Of Nathan Newman
> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 2:51 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Where we stand today
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Dawson" <MDawson at pdx.edu>
>
>
> -Crap, Nathan, you asked Doug to muzzle Lance because he, according to
> you,
> -lied. You weren't just disagreeing or condemning his "lie." You were
> -asking Doug to shut him up because of it.
>
> Actually, I wasn't asking Doug to "shut him up" since Doug never does
> that.
> I was responding to Doug criticizing John Lancy-- which is an exercise of
> Doug's free speech rights -- and I suggested he should criticize Lance as
> well for the false statements that had led to John's ire.
>
> But frankly, even if Doug was censoring people, that's not a violation of
> free speech, since he's not the government. He can "edit" this list as
> much as any editor might want to on a letters to an editor page. Doug
> chooses very light editing which is all to the good, but no "freedom of
> speech" is involved in how heavy editing he does.
>
> Nathan
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org
> [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
> > On Behalf Of Nathan Newman
> > Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 1:40 PM
> > To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> > Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Where we stand today
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Michael Dawson" <MDawson at pdx.edu>
> >
> >
> > -I would shine the mirror right back on you, bud. The freedom of speech
> > -includes the freedom to lie, unless the lie is material to a crime.
> And
> > so
> > -it should be.
> >
> > "freedom of speech" is a silly phrase to throw around in this context.
> No
> > one is suggesting that the government throw anyone in jail or censor
> them.
> > The issue is whether telling untruths is a legitimate form of debate, a
> > very different issue.
> >
> > George W. Bush had the right to lie (or just stubbornly ignore the truth
> > if
> > he's stupid) about WMDs and 911. No one hear would applaud that kind of
> > politics coming from the Right. Why should it be acceptable from the
> > left?
> >
> > Nathan
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org
> > [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
> > > On Behalf Of Nathan Newman
> > > Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 12:52 PM
> > > To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> > > Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Where we stand today
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Michael Dawson" <MDawson at pdx.edu>
> > >
> > >
> > > -If you don't believe in free speech for your enemies, you don't
> believe
> > > in
> > > -the freedom of speech.
> > > -And it's legit to criticize SEIU, even though it's critical of the
> > > AFLack.
> > > -I know this jars your sensibilities, and it may indeed be misinformed
> > and
> > > -wrong, but Lacny's the problem in this one, not Lance.
> > >
> > > Michael, you are completely deaf or just so blindly ideological that
> > it's
> > > pretty useless to say anything.
> > >
> > > Of course it's okay to criticize anyone. It's not okay to make up
> lies
> > as
> > > part of the criticism.
> > >
> > > Those are two different things. The fact that you can't tell the
> > > difference between them explains most of what's wrong with almost
> > > everything you say. There are folks on this list like Yoshie who I
> > > disagree with on most things, but they have the basic intelligence to
> > > recognize the difference between opinion and fact. You don't have
> that
> > > capability.
> > >
> > > Nathan Newman
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org
> > [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
> > > On Behalf Of Nathan Newman
> > > Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 9:24 AM
> > > To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> > > Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Where we stand today
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Michael Dawson" <MDawson at pdx.edu>
> > >
> > >
> > > -It's called free speech, Nate. And, anyway, it is certainly within
> the
> > > -bounds of reason to criticize the AFL-CIO for insufficient
> organizing.
> > > -You might want to rethink your own particular theory of truth. If I
> > > recall,
> > > -you are the one who thinks everything's on the right path. Not
> quite,
> > > eh?
> > >
> > > Michael-- the issue is not criticism of the AFL-CIO, a bizarre claim
> > since
> > > we are talking about SEIU's criticisms of the AFL-CIO. The issue is
> > > factual inaccuracies about whether Local 1199 in NY is a separate
> local
> > > from other locals with 1199 in their names.
> > >
> > > The idea that lies and falsehood is a form of free speech is just the
> > Fox
> > > News version of truth. Hey, huge percentages of the population think
> > > Saddam Hussein was involved in planning 911. So if Fox repeats that
> > idea
> > > as fact, they're just engaging in free speech, which is fine and
> dandy?
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, there are far too many LBOers who think making up facts
> > is
> > > a
> > > form of ideological argument, and they really don't seem to be able to
> > > tell
> > > the difference between stating an opinion and making things up.
> > >
> > > Nathan Newman
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org
> > [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
> > > On Behalf Of Nathan Newman
> > > Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 8:36 AM
> > > To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> > > Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Where we stand today
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Doug Henwood" <dhenwood at panix.com>
> > >
> > >
> > > John Lacny wrote:
> > > >Christ, can you READ?
> > >
> > > -Why do you have to be so damned nasty? We know how you feel about
> this.
> > >
> > > Doug, your worry about ettiquette is reasonable, but you should be
> more
> > > bothered that folks like Lance are spouting completely untrue
> statements
> > > and then spouting opinions based on those fake facts. Do we really
> have
> > > to
> > > speak nicely to the leftwing equivalent of FoxNews? Is everyone
> > entitled
> > > not just to respect for their own opinions but to their own false
> facts?
> > >
> > > I think you should demand not just etiquette from folks but a
> reasonable
> > > basis of knowledge before people claim things are true that are just
> > not.
> > > Everyone screws up on a fact occasionally, but when the fact asserted-
> -
> > as
> > > in Lance's contention that all the SEIU locals are a single
> centralized
> > > local -- is the main point being made, and it's reasserted even after
> > > being
> > > corrected, there is some right to frustration.
> > >
> > > Repeating a lie over and over again does not deserve respect or even
> > > politeness after a while.
> > >
> > > So if you are going to rap peoples knuckles for impoliteness, how
> about
> > a
> > > bit of discipline on those who spread clearly false information?
> > >
> > > Nathan Newman
> > >
> > > ___________________________________
> > > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> > >
> > > ___________________________________
> > > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> > >
> > >
> > > ___________________________________
> > > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> > >
> > > ___________________________________
> > > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> > >
> > >
> > > ___________________________________
> > > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
> >
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list