Re: [silk] Fascism?
On 10/5/07, Abhijit Menon-Sen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 2007-10-05 09:04:40 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > Because the tyranny of the masses is still a tyranny. > > > > Where did tyranny come into the picture? [...] > > Not "allow" was used in the sense of using public outcry to make a > > person stop. > > Oh, you mean those genteel demonstrations of disagreement that one reads > about when someone insults Shivaji or publishes cartoons about Muhammad > or makes a film about Hindu widows in Varanasi? ams...enjoyed that one thoROUGHly...! Deepa. On 10/5/07, Abhijit Menon-Sen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 2007-10-05 09:04:40 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > Because the tyranny of the masses is still a tyranny. > > > > Where did tyranny come into the picture? [...] > > Not "allow" was used in the sense of using public outcry to make a > > person stop. > > Oh, you mean those genteel demonstrations of disagreement that one reads > about when someone insults Shivaji or publishes cartoons about Muhammad > or makes a film about Hindu widows in Varanasi? > > -- ams > >
Re: [silk] Fascism?
On 10/4/07, shiv sastry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thursday 04 Oct 2007 3:05 pm, ashok _ wrote: > > AIDS > > actually originated from an american polio vaccine trial gone wrong. > > Isn't the polio vaccine designed to make Muslims infertile? Timba! Cheeni
Re: [silk] Fascism?
At 2007-10-05 09:04:40 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Because the tyranny of the masses is still a tyranny. > > Where did tyranny come into the picture? [...] > Not "allow" was used in the sense of using public outcry to make a > person stop. Oh, you mean those genteel demonstrations of disagreement that one reads about when someone insults Shivaji or publishes cartoons about Muhammad or makes a film about Hindu widows in Varanasi? -- ams
Re: [silk] Fascism?
Thaths wrote: > Because the tyranny of the masses is still a tyranny. Where did tyranny come into the picture? Don't remember anybody ordering someone to cease and desist. I used "tell" someone to cease and desist. Not "allow" was used in the sense of using public outcry to make a person stop.
Re: [silk] Fascism?
Venky TV wrote: > I know only one other "Venky" here. The other one is a "Venkat". Nah > nah nah nah naaah nah! So there! This is the "other Venkat". You are right, I prefer Venki not Venky.
Re: [silk] Fascism?
On Thursday 04 Oct 2007 3:05 pm, ashok _ wrote: > AIDS > actually originated from an american polio vaccine trial gone wrong. Isn't the polio vaccine designed to make Muslims infertile? shiv
Re: [silk] Fascism?
On 10/3/07, Venkat Mangudi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why is "allowed" always associated with a government? Can it not be that > the people don't "allow" someone to write crap by telling him to stop > doing it? I say "allow" in the humblest form, if there is one, where > people tell a writer to cease and desist from publishing material that > is "irresponsible". Because the tyranny of the masses is still a tyranny. Thaths -- Bart: I want to be emancipated. Homer: Emancipated?! Don't you like being a dude? -- Homer J. Simpson Sudhakar ChandraSlacker Without Borders
Re: [silk] Fascism?
On 10/4/07, Biju Chacko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd say gullibility would be belief in something illogical without > realising it's illogical. Religious belief (very often) is a > conscious choice to believe in something irrational. Fair enough, though I'd expect the majority of the hard-core religious believers to be of the former kind. Like the ones who ignore evidence to the contrary and continue believing that the world was created in 7 days or that Adam's bridge was built by humans, just because a holy book says so. > > Venky (the Second). > > I think you'd be Venky (the Third) because > > a. There were at least two silklist Venkys before you. > > b. Somehow "the third" seem appropriate for you. viz > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Madness_of_King_George I know only one other "Venky" here. The other one is a "Venkat". Nah nah nah nah naaah nah! So there! Venky (the Second)
Re: [silk] Fascism?
On 10/4/07, Venky TV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/3/07, Deepa Mohan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 10/3/07, ashok_ wrote: > > > > >If people are gullible enough to believe something, > > >they should be allowed to. > > > > Well..I would take exception, on principle, to that word "gullible", > > which I think is a value judgement. In matters of religious faith, > > there are only different beliefs.. > > Isn't that what gullibility is all about -- belief in something illogical? I'd say gullibility would be belief in something illogical without realising it's illogical. Religious belief (very often) is a conscious choice to believe in something irrational. > Venky (the Second). I think you'd be Venky (the Third) because a. There were at least two silklist Venkys before you. b. Somehow "the third" seem appropriate for you. viz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Madness_of_King_George -- b
Re: [silk] Fascism?
On 10/3/07, Deepa Mohan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/3/07, ashok_ wrote: > > >If people are gullible enough to believe something, > >they should be allowed to. > > Well..I would take exception, on principle, to that word "gullible", > which I think is a value judgement. In matters of religious faith, > there are only different beliefs.. Isn't that what gullibility is all about -- belief in something illogical? > if someone has a belief that hes > horse is the tenth avatar of Vishnu, do I have rationally acceptable > proof to the contrary? Why would you need to provide proof? It would be up to the "believer" to do that. Until that happens, you are perfectly justified in assuming the person is gullible. (Well, technically not gullible in this case -- just cuckoo -- unless it was someone else who convinced him his horse is divine.) > It is only when people begin interfering with > others' lives in the name of those beliefs that mischief brews. This make a leap from gullibility to being a menace to society. I did not see any such correlation implied here. Venky (the Second).
Re: [silk] Fascism?
On 10/4/07, Srini Ramakrishnan wrote: > > Call me gullible, I found the piece believable. The right wing think > tanks have some pretty wild ideas, I wouldn't put it past some of them > to dream of a right wing dictatorship. > I don't think its being gullible. many of these conspiracy theories go both ways - and many of them have a valid historical basis (while others of course, dont). One that I find very common across africa is the theory that AIDS actually originated from an american polio vaccine trial gone wrong. most western commentators dismiss this as having no basis, yet a large number of the africans and african medical fraternity believe this to be true [most prominently the kenyan nobel prize winner wangari maathai] Given the history of botched medical trials, and unlawful medical experimentation by various pharmaceutical companies in the last few decades, its not possible to entirely dismiss the medical trial theory.
Re: [silk] Fascism?
On 10/3/07, Venkat Mangudi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > Of course she should be allowed to write. Of course it was an opinion > piece. It may have some truth in it. But it is misleading and the > gullible believe it to be the truth. If they believe in the "rapture", > this is much more believable. Call me gullible, I found the piece believable. The right wing think tanks have some pretty wild ideas, I wouldn't put it past some of them to dream of a right wing dictatorship. The only recent conspiracy I've been witness to is what M$ did to Linux via SCO and the patent scare. Thank goodness that one ended well. Cheeni
Re: [silk] Fascism?
On 10/4/07, Venkat Mangudi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Why is "allowed" always associated with a government? Can it not be that > the people don't "allow" someone to write crap by telling him to stop > doing it? I say "allow" in the humblest form, if there is one, where > people tell a writer to cease and desist from publishing material that > is "irresponsible". > > I accept the sense you use "allow"... and in this sense, you are quite right, of course. But how does anyone tell a writer to cease and desist beforehand?...when seen as objectionable, the material has already been published, and one can only say, "no more of the same"...and in a free society, that can't be enforced, either. Recently, on another email list that I belong to, one very vociferous person DID write crap. Several of us pressurized him, by various direct and indirect messages, to cease and desist, but the moderator of the egroup had to a. allow his opinion in the first place; b. let him have the opportunity to answer us; and c. allow him to give a final apology (well, that was a pretty qualified one!)...but he did so AFTER the crap email was sent out! If one tries to say, beforehand, "you can't write this, and this, and this," that is construed as inhibition of freedom. The crap email was posted in spite of general guidelines existing about what to post on that egroup! So that's why I feel that only bodies of authority (eg, the government) can "allow" or "disallow" something. Deepa. On 10/4/07, Venkat Mangudi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Why is "allowed" always associated with a government? Can it not be that > the people don't "allow" someone to write crap by telling him to stop > doing it? I say "allow" in the humblest form, if there is one, where > people tell a writer to cease and desist from publishing material that > is "irresponsible". > >
Re: [silk] Fascism?
Udhay Shankar N wrote: > > If that doesn't make sense, consider this one: "Virtue is triangular". > True or false? Discuss. V, r and u are the three points of the triangle. I,t and e are the sides.
Re: [silk] Fascism?
Deepa Mohan wrote: > And I also object to anyone being "allowed" to do anything...it > reminds of the Omani minister who told me, "in Oman women are allowed > to be the equal of men." Why is "allowed" always associated with a government? Can it not be that the people don't "allow" someone to write crap by telling him to stop doing it? I say "allow" in the humblest form, if there is one, where people tell a writer to cease and desist from publishing material that is "irresponsible".
Re: [silk] Fascism?
ashok _ wrote: > Going by that argument, the first thing that would disappear would be > religious freedom. If people are gullible enough to believe something, > they should be allowed to. Good idea, let's do away with religion.
Re: [silk] Fascism?
Deepa Mohan wrote [at 12:25 PM 10/3/2007] : Well..I would take exception, on principle, to that word "gullible", which I think is a value judgement. In matters of religious faith, there are only different beliefs..if someone has a belief that hes horse is the tenth avatar of Vishnu, do I have rationally acceptable proof to the contrary? Is that a falsifiable statement? If that doesn't make sense, consider this one: "Virtue is triangular". True or false? Discuss. Udhay -- ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
Re: [silk] Fascism?
On 10/3/07, ashok_ wrote: >If people are gullible enough to believe something, >they should be allowed to. Well..I would take exception, on principle, to that word "gullible", which I think is a value judgement. In matters of religious faith, there are only different beliefs..if someone has a belief that hes horse is the tenth avatar of Vishnu, do I have rationally acceptable proof to the contrary? It is only when people begin interfering with others' lives in the name of those beliefs that mischief brews. And I also object to anyone being "allowed" to do anything...it reminds of the Omani minister who told me, "in Oman women are allowed to be the equal of men." Deepa. On 10/3/07, ashok _ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/3/07, Venkat Mangudi wrote: > > The "allowed to write" was directed at us, the receivers, not the powers > > that be. I believe that some percentage of people who read such articles > > are gullible enough to believe it. Freedom of speech is abused big time > > to such a point that it has become a joke. > > > > Going by that argument, the first thing that would disappear would be > religious freedom. If people are gullible enough to believe something, > they should be allowed to. > >
Re: [silk] Fascism?
ashok _ wrote: > On 10/3/07, Venkat Mangudi wrote: > > that be. I believe that some percentage of people who read such > articles > > are gullible enough to believe it. Freedom of speech is abused big > Going by that argument, the first thing that would disappear would be > religious freedom. If people are gullible enough to believe something, > they should be allowed to. It gets worse when organizations that claim to guard free speech abuse it. http://hserus.livejournal.com/15144.html
Re: [silk] Fascism?
On 10/3/07, Venkat Mangudi wrote: > The "allowed to write" was directed at us, the receivers, not the powers > that be. I believe that some percentage of people who read such articles > are gullible enough to believe it. Freedom of speech is abused big time > to such a point that it has become a joke. > Going by that argument, the first thing that would disappear would be religious freedom. If people are gullible enough to believe something, they should be allowed to.
Re: [silk] Fascism?
On 10/3/07, Venkat Mangudi wrote: > > Funny, I was reading this piece on the same topic. Nice one in the New > Yorker... > > http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/08/071008fa_fact_hersh?currentPage=2 > > What struck me most about the speech, were the answers that the audience expected. I think its a cultural difference more than anything. People asking questions during the Q/A wanted Yes-or-No answers, while the iranian president gave answers with more depth - in that he pointed out it was not possible to give a simple yes and no answer to everything (which seems to be the prevailing black-or-white american foreign policy, with-us-against-us etc). Equally odd was what seemed to be an obsession of some members of the audience with gay rights in Iran. It might be a relevant issue in the US or in Europe, but in all honesty there is no reason why the leader of iran would give a damn about it. The audience didnt seem to have grasped that - its like they wanted an Iran, in their own black-and-white american image.
Re: [silk] Fascism?
ashok _ wrote: > I watched the full speech and qa of ahmadinejad at columbia Univ. It seemed > to me (by the nature of some of the questions put to him) that he has > been painted as some kind of modern day hitler by the media in > america. Its probably just a matter of time > before bombs start raining down on teheran. > Given the jerry springer-like reception he had at the university, I > think the guy handled > all the questions pretty well. Funny, I was reading this piece on the same topic. Nice one in the New Yorker... http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/08/071008fa_fact_hersh?currentPage=2
Re: [silk] Fascism?
On 03-Oct-07, at 7:21 AM, Thaths wrote: Naomi Klein is a fairly respected writer among the Left in the US. And the article you referred to was an opinion piece. Even if Naomi's opinion was misled or wrong (one cannot have false opinions, merely wrong-headed ones), I think she deserves being "allowed to write". Different Naomi, Thaths. This one's a Wolf.
Re: [silk] Fascism?
Thaths wrote: > Your precise wording was: "and outrageous if they are not and allowed > to write". The outrage in that statement seems to be directed equally > at the falsity (if the report was false) and at the journalist being > "allowed to write". The "allowed to write" was directed at us, the receivers, not the powers that be. I believe that some percentage of people who read such articles are gullible enough to believe it. Freedom of speech is abused big time to such a point that it has become a joke. > Naomi Klein is a fairly respected writer among the Left in the US. And > the article you referred to was an opinion piece. Even if Naomi's > opinion was misled or wrong (one cannot have false opinions, merely > wrong-headed ones), I think she deserves being "allowed to write". Of course she should be allowed to write. Of course it was an opinion piece. It may have some truth in it. But it is misleading and the gullible believe it to be the truth. If they believe in the "rapture", this is much more believable.
Re: [silk] Fascism?
On 10/2/07, Venkat Mangudi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2. It these events are not true and the "journalists" are writing it, I > find it outrageous that they are misleading the readers. Outrage is justified. > Where is free speech being attacked? Besides, how on earth does it > matter to anybody if I find things outrageous? Your precise wording was: "and outrageous if they are not and allowed to write". The outrage in that statement seems to be directed equally at the falsity (if the report was false) and at the journalist being "allowed to write". Naomi Klein is a fairly respected writer among the Left in the US. And the article you referred to was an opinion piece. Even if Naomi's opinion was misled or wrong (one cannot have false opinions, merely wrong-headed ones), I think she deserves being "allowed to write". Thaths -- Bart: I want to be emancipated. Homer: Emancipated?! Don't you like being a dude? -- Homer J. Simpson Sudhakar ChandraSlacker Without Borders
Re: [silk] Fascism?
Thaths wrote: >> Outrageous if they are true, and outrageous if they are not and allowed >> to write... > > I find your position on free speech fascinating. I would like to find > out more about where else you would like to not "allow" people to > express their opinions. Please add me to your mailing list. Kindly explain. I said nothing about free speech. 1. I find it outrageous if the events are true. What has the world come to, etc etc. 2. It these events are not true and the "journalists" are writing it, I find it outrageous that they are misleading the readers. Where is free speech being attacked? Besides, how on earth does it matter to anybody if I find things outrageous?
Re: [silk] Fascism?
Thaths wrote: On 10/2/07, ashok _ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: we are "at war" in a "long war" - a war without end, on a battlefield described as the globe We are at war with East Asia. We have always been at war with East Asia. Huh? weren't we at war with Eurasia? ... sorry, I've been reading Goldstein. I'll report myself to the Ministry of Love. Cheerio, M -- Madhu M Kurup /* Nemo Me Impune Lacessit */ mmk222 at cornell dt edu
Re: [silk] Fascism?
On 10/2/07, ashok _ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > we are "at war" in > > a "long war" - a war without end, on a battlefield described as the > > globe We are at war with East Asia. We have always been at war with East Asia. Thaths -- Bart: I want to be emancipated. Homer: Emancipated?! Don't you like being a dude? -- Homer J. Simpson Sudhakar ChandraSlacker Without Borders
Re: [silk] Fascism?
On 10/2/07, Venkat Mangudi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Eugen Leitl wrote: > > Do you think the things are outrageous because they are true, or > > because they are not true? > Outrageous if they are true, and outrageous if they are not and allowed > to write... I find your position on free speech fascinating. I would like to find out more about where else you would like to not "allow" people to express their opinions. Please add me to your mailing list. Thaths -- Bart: I want to be emancipated. Homer: Emancipated?! Don't you like being a dude? -- Homer J. Simpson Sudhakar ChandraSlacker Without Borders
Re: [silk] Fascism?
> we are "at war" in > a "long war" - a war without end, on a battlefield described as the > globe I watched the full speech and qa of ahmadinejad at columbia Univ. It seemed to me (by the nature of some of the questions put to him) that he has been painted as some kind of modern day hitler by the media in america. Its probably just a matter of time before bombs start raining down on teheran. Given the jerry springer-like reception he had at the university, I think the guy handled all the questions pretty well.
Re: [silk] Fascism?
Eugen Leitl wrote: > Try reddit and heise (achtung, kraut) as well. Thanks, will try. > Do you think the things are outrageous because they are true, or > because they are not true? Outrageous if they are true, and outrageous if they are not and allowed to write...
Re: [silk] Fascism?
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 06:44:45PM +0530, Venkat Mangudi wrote: > A new twist on the "state of the nation". > > Maybe I am just finding the time to read more emails and del.icio.us, Try reddit and heise (achtung, kraut) as well. > but I am reading an increasing number of articles stating totally > outrageous things. Is it just me? Do you think the things are outrageous because they are true, or because they are not true? -- Eugen* Leitl http://leitl.org";>leitl http://leitl.org __ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
