snitsnat wrote:
>
> At 12:52 PM 6/15/2005, Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> >Back in February I wrote (under the subject line, The Rapture Index &
> >"white trash"):
> >
> >"Incidentally -- the sociology of the subject line must be all wrong.
> >Probably more believers in the Rapture fit the stereotype "yuppie" than
> >the stereotype "white trash"?????"
>
> Now, damn it! I remember that -- and I never understood it. You and Yosh
> have never struck me as the kind of folks who romanticize the working
> class. In fact, both of you are always on about not divisively claiming
> that there are anything other than working class and capitalists. So, you
> see, I thought he was really bitching at people like me and agreeing with
> Wojtek that I'm and others here are unabashed romanticizers of the working
> class -- or sumpin' like that. Are you sure that was directed at you
> specifically?
>
First, that was a bad post; I let my temper get away from me; what is (or ought to be) crucial here is not scoring points on Doug or indulging in venting my irritation but (a) seeing how important it really is for civilized debate to keep motive out of it and (b) understanding more deeply the social/cultural/political terrain on which we have to work towards creating a minimally coherent left in the united states. (And so thanks for not quoting the whole of my post.)
Now. Here, complete, is Doug's original post:
******* Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] The Rapture Index & "white trash" Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:13:32 -0500 From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
Marta Russell wrote:
>Incidentally -- the sociology of the subject line must be all wrong.
>>Probably more believers in the Rapture fit the stereotype "yuppie" than
>>the stereotype "white trash"?????
>>
>>Carrol
>>
>
>That is not my experience. the yuppies go to protestant churches,
>like Methodist, Episcopalian, etc., they are not Pentacostal or
>evangelicals.
>Marta
But the working class can't hold bad views - only "yuppies" and higher can. But of course Carrol doesn't want us to examine motives for holding a position, so I shouldn't have said that.
Doug ******
Yoshie wrote two posts on the topic:
<http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20050221/004082.html>
and
<http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20050221/004073.html>
Deborah responded to my post at
<http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20050221/004023.html>
-----
Just how much ascribing motive does indeed poison the wells of discourse is vividly on display in the recent thread on "Appeal to Ignorance." The exchanges in that were sharp (perhaps a few of them too sharp) but it was only with the ascription of motive that the whole exchange degenerated into flames.