> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Gautam Mukunda
... > I feel some level of satisfaction in that this is > _exactly_ what I said in one of my last posts - I may not have read it; if I did and failed to acknowledge it, I apologize. I'm not keeping up with the list as well as usual. (I'm not sure if I've mentioned here that my new company has won its first contract, so work is getting busier... and I spent far too much of my weekend under my desk, solving a CPU temperature problem on my primary computer. I now know far more than I really wanted to about Vcore voltages, air flow, etc.) > anti-war people who are themselves criticized > instantly cry censorship. What nonsense. I agree that it is nonsense. Especially given that most of those we hear from are those who are getting media exposure! > If you > don't think that many of the most prominent anti-war > critics are not, in fact, anti-American, you haven't > been paying attention. Could you give your definition of "anti-American?" I think that would go a long way toward helping me understand why you say this. > Read some Noam Chomsky and > tell me that one again. As a student of linguistics, I've read a lot of Chomky's writings on that subject. (And "a lot," for Chomsky, can mean a few dozen pages, it sometimes seems; dense stuff.) His apologies for anarchy I find fascinating because they are a rare thing -- an extremist position that has a ton of intellectual foundation. I appreciate Chomsky similar to the way I appreciate Erik's fairly extreme position in this forum -- their voices are a realiable pull away from the usual directions. And if it isn't already obvious, I value being pulled in many directions. I think it's a good way to ensure that I see all the choices available, a prerequisite to deciding where I stand. > It isn't trying to stifle > dissent (something that isn't happening, and that no > reasonable person could think is happening, or why > haven't the brownshirts taken over the New York Times > yet?) to call a spade a spade, or to point out the > real motivations and actions of some of the people on > one side of this debate. We can only speculate on the "real motivations" of others, can't we? It was an eye-opener for me to recognize and admit that I am never completely certain of my own motivations, which has made me quicker to apologize. No reasonable person could believe that there are no attempts to stifle dissent? I'm more than a little surprised that you'd say that. I don't see censorship, per se, but the first thing that comes to mind is the management of protestors at presidential appearances, to ensure that they don't appear on camera. I'll quickly add that this is not a Republican phenomenon; I saw the same thing happening at a Gore rally I attended during the last election. Perhaps I should emphasize that I'm far more concerned about polarization of issues than the stifling of dissent. On the other hand, polarization inevitably stifles dissent because it eliminates all points of view that don't fit into "pro" and "con." > Just as in Vietnam, when > Jane Fonda revealed her true colors when she went to > Hanoi, some members of the far left in this country > are showing those with eyes to see what really > motivates them. And what, exactly, is it that motivates "them," and what is your definition of the "far left?" Honestly, I don't know what you are alluding to. > those of us who > spend some time and effort point out what's really > going on are closet fascists, but no one outside that > echo chamber is even going to take you seriously, > because it's so obviously not the case. Eh? If that's not a straw man, I've never seen one. Nick _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
