<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The fairly recent acrimonious political
debate in this forum and the airing of the WTA 'dirty laundry' has made me
wonder a little about the reliability of the 'gut-feeling' as an arbiter of what
intelligent life ought to be listening and paying attention to.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>In the case of Danila Medvedev: To be sure, I am no
apologist for Stalin: But - I do believe in free speech. I see no benefits
whatsoever in sweeping unpalatable political facts - or
even unpalatable political fictions and delusions - beneath some
metaphorical carpet. We are reasonable people (or should be) and able to
engage/reject a topic with reason and informed debate.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>So I was somewhat taken aback some time ago when I
mildly remonstrated against the ad-hominem attacks Danila Medvedev was being
subjected to on the WTA list and was promptly denounced as a 'commie' and an
admirer of Hitler and Pol-Pot. Almost immediately the signal to noise ratio made
further discussion impossible. Pity - because something important was lost.
Reasoned response was sacrificed (eventually moderated out) because a few
individuals persisted in their pejorative attacks - making it clear that their
sacrosanct world view was not to be threatened on THEIR
list... </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>But, if you read Danila's posts, it is clear that
he is not an idiot, and that he is capable of presenting useful viewpoints on a
whole range of topics. Ok - most of us disagree with him concerning Stalin
- so what? If he has other useful things to contribute, why should you or
I care if he indulges in the odd whacko belief? Is it worse than Mormonism?
Seventh Day Adventism? The Moonies? Catholicism? Flying Spaghetti Monsterism?
Adulation of Mao? Che? Eva Peron? Or even, God help us - George W?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I often disagree with the neo-conservative and
libertarian viewpoints as expressed here on this list. To me these opinions
often appear to lack the rigor of a truly subjective (international as opposed
to Amerocentric or occasionally Eurocentric) viewpoint. For me these
opinions smack too much of the home-comforts of a select and highly
privileged group. OK - it is true that the future will be built by groups like
this. But also, and perhaps more importantly, probably equally - the
future will be built by the Stalinist and Holocaust revisionists, the
theocrats, cultists, communists, anarchists, totalitarians, corporate entities,
democrats, socialists, petty dictators and the myriad others who make up the
current population of this world. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>This list, this group, and the values it
generally shares (values which some members sometimes seek to ferociously
protect) has no comfortable sanction on what will and will not be a part of
our extropian future. We each have our subjective reality. All the
things that this group (or some elements of it) might seek to exclude
will continue to be factors influencing the future regardless of your
willingness to admit them or not. So what is the point of limiting debate? The
truth is - there is no point - if you admit that reality is more important
than the maintenance of some fictional comfort-zone. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>In fact, moderation should not be about
limiting debate, it should be about limiting personal abuse. Nor is there any
merit in shunting unpalatable topics off to sub-lists with headings like
'politics', 'technology', 'personal development', etc - there are NO neat
dividers. Everything merges into everything else - and no
overview/synthesis/synergy is possible as long as some elements are
denied.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Names like 'Bush,' 'Clinton,' 'Mao,' Stalin,'
'Hitler,' 'Saddam,' 'Pol-Pot,' 'Chavez,' <!--StartFragment --> 'Ayatollah
Khomeini' are so loaded with semantic association it is difficult to imagine any
useful dialogue that does not quickly revert to the 'gut-feeling'
of emotion and personal attack. Usually the call is to banish the
topic, limit it, or divert it elsewhere: Anything but face up to the fact that
the past we refuse to come to grips with and reconcile NOW - is still a very
real part of our future,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Just my opinion: But moderation might be (could
be):</FONT></DIV>
<OL>
<LI><FONT face=Arial size=2>Anything goes - provided it has an extropian
angle.</FONT>
<LI><FONT face=Arial size=2>Politics, religion and sexual preference are
exclusively the preserve and prerogative of the writer. Respect them.</FONT>
<LI><FONT face=Arial size=2>Although you may seriously doubt the mental health
of the poster - you may attack the concept/proposition as
outlined in the post ONLY on reasoned, rational grounds. <FONT face=Arial
size=2>Under NO circumstances will you resort to pejorative
labelling: ie, telling the author s/he is crazy/commie/anarchist/etc etc, or
otherwise attempt to discredit the person rather than the argument. If you do
so - </FONT>you will get moderated out of the discussion
forthwith. </FONT>
<LI><FONT face=Arial size=2>If you find something offensive - you may protest
by stating: "I find this offensive because...reason 1)...2)...3) etc. You may
then choose to have nothing further to do with either the subject or the
poster. You do NOT have the right to demand that the moderator support
your world-view - no matter how worthy it is - by suppressing a poster who is
able to present a cogent argument contrary to your principles. (rubbishy,
rantings, ravings and vilifications can be trashed of course)</FONT></LI></OL>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I know that the downside of this is that you have
to put up with a certain amount of lunatic fringe activity. But the consequence
of not adopting some such rule set is that free speech is the preserve of some
inner elite who perpetually reserve the right to quash dissent.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Free speech needs the odd crackpot to reassure
us all that the system is working.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Jack Parkinson</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>