Curtis, I actually read this message from Doug rather differently. The section below seems to be referring to younger TMers at the university who are pointing out to older TM-movement types that some of the language they use contains these "micro-inequities." The young people are not so trained in TM-speak as the older ones, so they are trying to educate them about the limitations or unconscious biases of the TM-speak that has been second nature to TM campus folk for thirty years and more. Here's the passage I am referring to: Interestingly, the millennial meditating generation that is present participating in this is not sitting still at all for old patriarchal ways and they are quite studied in their push and their holding some elder feet to the fire.
If I am correct, this actually would be a positive development from the point of view of those who dislike traditional TM-speak. It's not always possible to tell from Doug's posts exactly what he has in mind, so I could be wrong, but that is how I read it. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <dhamiltony2k5@...> wrote : Yes, as some are affirming here the Yahoo-groups guidelines are a lot about civility and how things are said. Yes it is about civility and facilitating communal well-being for individuals in [safe] collaborative communal organization. With this it seems a lot of thought has been put in to the Yahoo-groups guidelines by folks at Yahoo. Me: If I didn't know who wrote it, I would have to assume this was a parody. You are taking the approach that is appropriate for the pre-schools I teach in or an exclusive POV group like TM. Two things stick out for me: One is the assumption that the unenforced Yahoo guidelines are some kind of Vedic scripture and were not banged out by 20 something's from the corporate lawyer's guidelines. You are taking them as some kind of profound message for how to both condescendingly coddle and at the same time control other adults engaged in free conversations. Two is that you are following a long historical line of people who value form over content and seem incapable of tolerating the way people who care about content engage in the process. When I am in a heated debate and someone calls me a name, it is very easy to label it for what it is, a sophistic tactic to distract from the weakness of the argument or their lack of ability to mount one. Often the back and forth of diverse opinions can inspire someone to mouth off a little. But that is because they are engaged, they care, they give a s-- oh wait, I just got a memo from the inhibitory part of my brain that alerts me that in your mind, you might bounce me if I use bad language.... You don't want passionate people who are emotionally behind their ideas and willing to hash it out in discussion. If I put some new age music behind what you wrote I could use it to go to sleep. You are taking the Kim Kardashian approach to the exchange of ideas. All Spanx and nothing behind the eyes. Buck:The yahoo guidelines seem very much like a re-structuring and looking at language that is happening a lot of places and also ongoing within the TM movement itself to help folks figure out civil processes. Like between and within the different elements as in the case of TM, of what or who is TM. I was in movement working committee meetings yesterday on campus where a focus of discussion was looking for actionable remedy to some really poor behavior and culture in language-ing that can hold 'stealth-mores' and 'micro-inequities' that some may not realize they are sharing as they speak. The process comes to these same themes of facilitating and moving civil discourse. Me: A lot of chilling PC euphemisms here. It reminds me of why Jerry Seinfeld (see meditator reference so it must be good kids) said he doesn't perform on college campuses anymore. This line made my veins run with ice water: Buck: "looking for actionable remedy to some really poor behavior and culture in language-ing that can hold 'stealth-mores' and 'micro-inequities' that some may not realize they are sharing as they speak." Me: This is on the campus with a committee discussing actionable remedy for free speech if they detect "micro-inequalities" in what you have said. Am I really the lone voice in the wilderness who believes that this is the language of oppression? Is this what we lived through the 60's for? I am fundamentally opposed to every idea that is expressed by this POV. Buck: Interestingly, the millennial meditating generation that is present participating in this is not sitting still at all for old patriarchal ways and they are quite studied in their push and their holding some elder feet to the fire. This is not just about a hurtful violence endemically perpetrated like exampled here Me: Again with the conflation of violence and speech. This is critical to the sophistic goal of combining our natural civilized aversion to violence and pair it with someone calling another adult a name in a heated discussion. It is like an advertiser putting up a picture of their product next to a woman who looks as if she might be able to effectively nurse her child using a lady part that cannot be referenced directly because it might reveal the micro-inequality of sexism and might draw down the fire of an actionable remedy. (such creepy lawyer speech to hide creepy intentions.) Buck: by some behavior of some individuals in character as was on FFL but finding actionable cultural movement in progressive civil discourse that seems more broadly afoot otherwise. Me: You know what I hear in this tortured use of language? Intellectual insecurity. I hear this in education circles a lot. People afraid to state something simply and directly because they don't want you to really be able to evaluate the flimsy idea embellished by sophistic lawyer talk BSery. I can clear up the ideas easily: Buck is saying that he is very interested in figuring out ways to punish people whose speech uses any language that he determines holds such vague concepts as micro-inequalities to mask his agenda to just boot people off this group who he doesn't like. By using vague references to violence he hopes people will support his small minded approach to interfering with how adults discuss things that matter to them in a way that they decide for themselves. And it is all wrapped up in the carob coating of doing it for their own good and the good of the "community", all presumably babies who cannot be trusted to decide these things for themselves. Buck: The collaboration in practice seems to require some willing studied [conscious] self-control of self-moderation for participation in the engagement. Also known as, civility and how things are said. Me: People who are terrible bakers spend a lot of time talking about the icing. -JaiGuruYou! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : Doug is right here, and I think calling this new group Free Speech is a misnomer, as Doug implies. It's more a question of civility than free speech. IIf, say, you go to a party and spend your time there insulting and ridiculing and misrepresenting others, you will likely be asked to leave. But would it be fair to call that a curtailment of your right to free speech? I don't think so. It would just be an adverse commentary on your boorish social behavior, which you would be well advised to amend. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <dhamiltony2k5@...> wrote : As someone pointed out down at Paradiso Cafe in Fairfield, Iowa this morning about the creation of FFL2 for the FFL-banished, these fox may not have fun for long by themselves without also having hens to pick on. Making straw-men may suffice for some while and keep them from tearing at each other for some time. The Yahoo-groups guidelines eventually will find and rule them where ever they may go as they meet up with kind people in civil society. A character of violence in civil society often is that it is self-limiting in nature and the asocial tend to isolate themselves. Thanks for better facilitating that, Alex. -JaiGuruYou ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <awoelflebater@...> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <j_alexander_stanley@...> wrote : On a whim, I made a FFL free speech zone. Use it. Don't use it. Doesn't matter to me. Just letting you know it's there. Yahoo! Groups https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FFL-2 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FFL-2 Yahoo! Groups https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FFL-2 Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content. View on groups.yahoo.com https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FFL-2 Preview by Yahoo Thank God, now maybe we can get some peace around here from all the whining. I think you might have wanted to call the new site "australia".
