[ExI] How Corporate Media distorts Hawaiian Protests

[Darin Sunley]

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
"civilization".

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. ;)
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
>    Sample my Kindle books at:
>
> http://author.to/DanUst
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20190830/4056c355/attachment-0001.htm>