Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84 chuqui version 1.7 9/23/84; site nsc.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!nsc!chuqui From: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Zonker T. Chuqui) Newsgroups: net.news.group Subject: Re: mod.all and net.fascism Message-ID: <1618@nsc.UUCP> Date: Thu, 18-Oct-84 05:09:52 EDT Article-I.D.: nsc.1618 Posted: Thu Oct 18 05:09:52 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 19-Oct-84 02:00:03 EDT References: <1614@nsc.UUCP> <385@amdahl.UUCP> Organization: The Warlocks Cave, Castrovalva Lines: 152 Hmm.... this may end up becoming the next net.abortion. Net.mod.flame, anyone? Oh, well, lest anyone start thinking I might actually be starting to believe Gordon here are my latest rebuttals to his rebuttals of my rebuttals of his comments on my comments. Or some such. Please note that I'm going to do some strong philosophical posturing and use some vague generalities to attempt to handle gordon's in an appropriate manner. People with weak stomachs should probably stop reading. > While there were the intolerant anti-gay types making appearances in > net.motss, it wasn't that much. Further I am of the view that > Ken Ardnt was actually a valuable contributor to that forum. If you consider thoughtless rhetoric, biased commenting, excerpting quotes out of context and sexual bigotry valuable, then yes, I'll agree that Ken was a valuable contributor. If you use him as a role model of what you DON'T want to invite to your next net party, then yes, he was a valuable contributor. If you feel he made constructive comments to the topics of discussion, I'll have to disagree. > He was one of the better read people in that group, and he was > asking a lot of questions that people frequently could not answer; > he was also a realist, in that he was not pretending that gay people > were experiencing a New Era of Tolerance. [Ed. note: satiric comment ahead] Was that 'read' or 'red'? [end of satiric comment] My feeling of his 'realism' is that it might have been appropriate for the Spanish Inquisition or the McCarthy trials-- there are areas in the country that still believe that McCarthy was right, of course, but I think that adopting a dogmatically negative attitude (yelling loudly and sticking carrots in your ears to make sure you won't have your mind changed by the subversives) isn't a good way of dealing with it. > He was also abrasively humorous, if one could not take it so personally. I happen to know you aren't gay, Gordon-- it's a lot easier for you to not take his comments personally than someone who is. I'm not gay either, but I found a lot of Ken's comments repulsive because a good percentage of my friends ARE gay. > All I'm really flaming about, then, is how someone like Ken can > be so easily dismissed as ``irrational'' (he wasn't), because people > didn't like what he had to say. The word isn't irrational. It's bigoted. And it wasn't because they didn't like what he had to say, they were repulsed by it. > With the mod.all groups you sow the seeds of your own limitations. [ed. note: broad generalization warning] As a good friend says: 'Life is a bitch and then you die' [end of broad generalization; philosophical spouting warning] People who see life as a limitation will see limitations in all that happens in life. People who view life as a challenge will see challenges in all of life. [end of philosophical spouting] Actually, I'm not sure how relevant that is, but it sounded as good as his and made about as much sense. > > > It amazes me how you redefine free speech (with all its problems) > > > as censorship. > > Free speech can be censorship. If I stand up to talk, I am exercising my > > right to free speech. But if you want to talk as well, and I won't let you > > because I'm exercising my right, am I not also infringing upon yours and > > censoring you? If we BOTH talk and I talk louder, and I also not censoring > > you? The problem is that usenet is not really a great medium for 'free > > speech' because it is a dedicated line-- you can hear only one voice at a > > time. If someone decides to use his right to the exclusion of others, there > > isn't much that the listeners can do about it, and the moderators are one > > way of helping to minimize this problem (just because you have the right to > > talk doesn't mean we have the responsibility to listen). > > The analogy is imperfect (excercise left to the reader). [ed note: philosophical generality warning] The rebuttal is incomplete. (Describe the history of the world to date and how it affects world cotton prices. Be complete, reference sources. Use back side of page if neccessary. you have 5 minutes) [end of philosophical generality] > Ken violates the rules of polite society and gentlemanly behavior. > He probably doesn't even wear a tie. I dread the day we loose such > people, even if they are offensive. I agree, to a point-- offensive people are the people who keep reminding me why gentlemanly behaviour and polite society were invented. But I would much rather keep them in a cage where they belong and bring them out when neccessary rather than have them forced into my existence on a continuing basis. > I see your point. There probably is a lot of noise in net.singles > and a few other groups. And I have 'n'-ed overthings in a Pavlovian > way only to discover I need to back up a few articles .... > but this is not to be taken as an implicite approval of moderated groups. No, it looks more like an explicit approval of moderated groups. you've agreed that the exact things we are trying to solve is a problem, even for a person as aware of them as you. > My case is against mod.motss and the motivations for its creation. > I have not seen a need for it but rather a sickening attempt to > censor what some people have to say. I'm not talking about the > religious bozos, either. The people that net.motss (and mod.motss) were designed for seem to disagree with you. They don't see these discussions as an interesting philosophical or theoretical discussion of an obscure subject-- they see it as a practical and very real attack on them, their way of life, and the values that they have set for themselves. It is a lot easier to be able to step back and rant about the 'proper' way of doing things when it isn't your ego, your life, and your self-esteem at stake. The gay people don't want to spend all of their time defending the fact that they are gay-- they want to get together to discuss what being gay means to them in a world that frowns at their existence and how to succeed in being what they want to be. Having someone constantly at their throats makes that purpose much, much harder. > I have seen something in Ken Ardnt that facinates me, and I don't > want to see him driven away. Well, if he fascinates you, why not take him out to lunch and talk to him. Or talk to him by mail. It's fairly obvious that he doesn't fascinate most of the motss readers. [ed note-- final summary (hopefully the final, final summary)] Gordon and I have a basic philosophical difference-- he doesn't like mod.motss, I do. I also feel that the majority of motss readers disagree with him. My comments above have been enlarged, generalized, muddied, warped, expanded and wierded out beyond recognition because I realized that we weren't accomplishing anything besides posturing and I felt it was time to wind down the argument before feelings got hurt or the volume grew to infinity. No offense to any party was intended, although I've probably insulted someone. My apologies. Gordon seems to feel that a moderated group will be limited by the viewpoints of the moderator, a censorship of content based upon the ideologies of the 'censor'. I disagree with this-- I feel that it is possible for a person to put aside his personal feelings and deal with situations in a way that are appropriate for a group in general, even if they might disagree with them. I don't have to like someone to deal with them in my life (although it does help)-- I often have to do things that I personally disagree with because I feel that it is in the best interest of the people around me. By implying a content censorship, Gordon is implying that the moderators will be manipulating the net for personal issues rather than serving the net. I don't believe this is the case, or I wouldn't be involved in it. [ end of final, final posturing] [random pithy saying] A wise man once said 'it is not realistic to hide an elephant behind a peanut-- the elephant will usually eat it at an inconvenient time.' [finis] -- From the Department of Bistromatics: Chuq Von Rospach {cbosgd,decwrl,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA (Editors note: Bistromatics is NOT a typo. Bistromathics is the study of math on an italian waiters checkpad. Bistromatics is the study of Italian cooking on females of the human species. Please quit sending me mail) I'd know those eyes from a million years away....