Michael Perelman wrote:
> I agree with Ravi here 100%. If we cannot address each other respectfully,
> how can
> we expect to be able to work on a larger scale. There is no need for
> antagonism
> here.
>
Thank you, MP. For whatever it's worth, I do not subscribe to
alternative theories of 9/11 simply because I do not know enough data to
make a decision either way (though some alternative theories are so
internally inconsistent that they can be safely set aside).
I agree with Mark Lause that these can become distractions. But better
distraction than disenfranchisement/disengagement. The left faces the
danger of blowback when we use slang (especially the sort of slang
effectively employed by the right) such as "conspiracy". A good example
I can offer is the term "politically correct", which I hear
leftists/liberals use naively (IMHO). This term, merely through
repetition, becomes an accepted means to dismiss a broad range of
marginally similar arguments. Proponents of such ill-substantiated
theories as "the evolutionary advantage of rape" can now quickly fall
back to "politically correct censorship" as a retort to any questioning
by feminists of their theories.
Apologies for preachiness.
--ravi
