[ExI] How Corporate Media distorts Hawaiian Protests
William Flynn Wallace
foozler83 at gmail.com
Sat Aug 31 00:21:35 UTC 2019
You are somewhat unusual, in this day and age, in defining reason as a
I would like for you to expand on this, if you will, and supply data if you
have it. bill w
On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 7:16 PM Darin Sunley via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> The reason, John, that some people are responding poorly to your righteous
> anger is that, by expressing it in those terms, you demonstrate, with utter
> clarity, that you have been /thoroughly/ infected with one of the most
> cancerous memes in the history of humanity: that the possession of a
> virtue, is this case "reason", justifies the acquisition, continued
> possession, and exercise of power over those that lack it.
> You are somewhat unusual, in this day and age, in defining reason as a
> virtue, but that doesn't matter. It's the general template of regarding a
> virtue, /any/ virtue, as a justification for power, that kills entire
> societies. From this innocuous-looking hellmouth has sprung every atrocity
> in Western Civilization since the fall of the Roman Empire, from the
> Crusades, through the Reformation, the Shoah, the Antifa riots, and most
> mass shootings in America today. It is a mental illness so universal and
> pervasive that, like water to fishes, it is almost completely invisible
> until it is pointed out.
> You may take solace in the fact that you are not alone in this condition.
> Nearly every politically conscious adult in Western Civilization is
> infected. Every political party on the entire spectrum strongly encourages
> it, and every media channel is a carrier.
> When one's political opponents are seen, by literally everyone in every
> faction, not merely as mistaken but as literally evil, civil war, or the
> brutal authoritarianism necessary to temporarily suppress it, is very close
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019, 5:34 PM Darin Sunley <dsunley at gmail.com> wrote:
>> For myself, I prefer a telescope to exist there than not.
>> The right to build a telescope there is contingent on ownership of the
>> land. Those who can acquire and maintain ownership of the land have the
>> right to determine its disposition. Acquiring and maintaining control if
>> the land is a political power contest, one which is by no means resolved.
>> I remain troubled by the characterization of our opponents in this
>> contest as "barbarians". Barbarians stand opposed to reason, yes? But they
>> only became opposed to reason when we seized the mantle of reason as a
>> justification for the exertion of power we had already acquired. When we
>> define ourselves with reason, what else can our opponents do but oppose it?
>> They are barbarians only in response to our identification of ourselves as
>> The current toxicity in modern politics began when one side, finding
>> itself ineffective on policy disputes, began to define their disagreements
>> with the other party as moral. The other party then has no option but to
>> define themselves in opposition to that morality, or to cease be able to
>> define themselves at all.
>> And people would literally rather die, ideally fighting, then surrender
>> that definition of self.
>> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019, 5:10 PM Dan TheBookMan via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>> On Aug 30, 2019, at 3:44 PM, John Clark via extropy-chat <
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 6:31 PM SR Ballard via extropy-chat <
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>> *> I support the scientists and not the protestors. I hope that clears
>>>> up any confusion.*
>>> I'm very glad to hear you say that! But I'm still confused, I still
>>> don't understand why you're more angry with me than the protestors.
>>> Let’s say you support a given cause. Let’s say there’s another person
>>> who supports that cause too. Let’s say, though you agree with her on
>>> supporting the cause, that she unfairly attacks those who don’t support the
>>> cause. Is it really hard to understand why you might criticize her — even
>>> if you both support that same cause?
>>> Likewise, one might be against a cause someone else supports yet still
>>> see that the supporter of a cause is, while wrong (by your lights?) about
>>> the cause is still fair-minded, open to discussion, and doesn’t scold
>>> everyone who disagrees with her as if they’re supporting the worst evil to
>>> ever be conceived by the human mind.
>>> I believe the above should be 101 level stuff in dealing with
>>> controversies and disagreements. Of course, some folks here seem to believe
>>> sneering louder, longer, and more frequently is the road to resolving all
>>> disagreements. You know, folks who believe the ends always justifies the
>>> means. ;)
>>> Sample my Kindle books at:
>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat