[extropy-chat] Open and hidden fascism in Exi forum

[Adrian Tymes]

--- Samantha Atkins <samantha at objectent.com> wrote:
> On a discussion list it is quite appropriate to
> discuss what the 
> discussion space is and is not for including what is
> and is not 
> reasonable discourse and topics.   It is also
> appropriate to react to 
> what is discussed honestly.   If these things are
> not important then it 
> is not a "discussion list" at all.

This is true and correct.

> The "attack"
> was on a topic under 
> discussion that was designed and delivered to be
> inflammatory to start 
> with.

That is not what I have perceived, from reading the
same posts.

> That it got some flame is honestly to be
> expected.

True.

> And no, I do 
> not agree that we should only discuss
> dispassionately the murder of 
> hundreds of thousand, the razing of sacred sites of
> no less than three 
> western religion or declaring ourselves at war with
> a world religion.   
>   We are not dispassionate computers weighing the
> hypothetical results 
> of unleashing such violence.  Nor should we be.

Where we get passionate about something, there are
often good reasons for that passion.  Someone who does
not understand the reasons - for instance, does not
intuitively understand why nuking the Middle East is
wrong - can be made to understand the reasons, or can
be silenced by impassioned means.  I have found the
former approach to be dramatically more effective, if
the one being addressed is willing to listen.  (And if
not, once this is confirmed, *THEN* apply the emotion
to try to get them to open their ears and their
hearts.  But this case seemed to be a genuine
question.)

For example, when arguing for greater funding for life
extension research, it rarely works to start off by
accusing those who might possibly consdier spending
their resources elsewhere of trying to kill us all,
for that is (almost always) not their intent.