[ExI] italian politics as exi-chat subject

[Lee Corbin]

Estropico writes

>>  I urge that all avoid using any person's name as a subject line,
>
> I think that was me - apologies if I've broke the list's rules, I
> didn't mean to.

Understood, and it may not have been you. No problem. We
all learned something from this. I myself had forgotten that it
is almost always a bad idea.

>>  and of course always refrain from personal
>>  attacks.
>
> Mmmm... that's not as clear-cut. In my understanding, a personal
> attack would involve talking about someone's family, sexual
> orientation, the way they look, whether they are late on their
> mortgage repayments, etc, i.e. subjects that have little to do with
> what's being discussed

You're right.  The line is exceedingly difficult to draw. I vote that
ad hominem be forbidden http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

>An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of 
>replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument 
>or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.
<

> What we have been discussing, though, is whether Vaj's version of
> transhumanism has, or hasn't, anything to do with neofascism. Vaj says
> that it doesn't and that he has nothing to do with the far right, but
> I'm far from convinced, given his writings. I have also come across
> something that, in my view, shows pretty clearly what his political
> leanings are, but the problem is that this very telling bit of
> information is effectively hidden away (as the person in question
> introduced himself as "Vaj" on this list, but the information is on
> his real-name's website). That is why I felt that I had to bring up
> the subject of Vaj's real identity.
>
> So, the question now is: am I a whistle-blower or a troll?

Well, none of the Italian contributors to the discussion, who have
been on the whole well-behaved, would be classified as trolls.
But "name-calling", e.g. saying that so-and-so generally lies,
goes too far, whereas saying that "what is said <here> or <there>
by so-and-so is not true" is all right.

Just my 2 cents.

Lee