[Vision2020] Re: Liberal Moscow (and Dear Ted)

[Ted Moffett]

Joan et. al.

"*The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge.*"

Bertrand Russell
-------------------------

I did not realize till today that this e-mail from you was posted to
Vision2020.  I read the content at first thinking it was only sent
privately.  I am, frankly, honored you take my thoughts on this matter so
seriously.

I did not attack Chas as a person.  It is astonishing how difficult it is
for people to separate rational fact based discussion from emotion laden
personal ad hominem attacks.  And in no way was I "spoiling for an online
fight," as you phrased it.

My two posts commenting on his posting behavior discussed the fact he posted
109 times to the Vision2020 list in one month, an amount far over the
informally accepted posting limit, and the one post he authored that
contained no significant arguments or facts, but focused on making a
derogatory personalized attack on another person.  For someone who is
sponsoring a monitored blog, it seems that the questionable posting conduct
of said person is a relevant topic?

I agree that Chas was not "trolling," but he agreed that one of his posts
was "flaming."

I respect the thoughtful and intelligent content both you and Chas present
to Vision2020.  Perhaps this is why I  have been disturbed to find posts
from both of you that in some respects express the very conduct you would
find objectionable if aimed your way.

As I wrote to Chas in a private e-mail, my sensibilities were not the issue
regarding my objections to the quantity of, or content of, some of his
posts.  The issue is attempting to maintain a rational fact based discussion
environment on Vision2020, that leaves room for a variety of voices and
views, probably a futile effort, but then world peace is probably a futile
effort also, while many continue to work towards this end, with hope.

Many of the posts sent to Vision2020 should be ignored, in my opinion, due
to the lack of fact based rational content coupled with extreme hyperbole
and an inflammatory ad hominem tone.  I don't mean colorful or controversial
content should not be posted, as long as there are serious ideas or
arguments, and respect for reasonable dialog and exchange of facts,
contained within.

However, there are times when ignorance and hatred must be questioned, given
the truism that silence is sometimes complicity, so I am ambivalent
regarding the general approach of ignoring "trolls," or those who refuse to
dialog with integrity and respect, even when they think they are.
Nonetheless, responses should not sink to the level of the "trolls," in my
opinion.

Why is it so hard for many to pause before hitting the send key and edit out
questionable content?  I can understand being out of control in a heated
person to person confrontation, or even in real time on the phone, but we
are talking about words on a computer monitor, a device that so far has
never attacked me.

Concerning your comment "We have one and all lost our equilibrium on
Vision2020" let me point out the following:

After surveying all of my posting content to Vision2020, I found the most I
posted in one month was 59 times, an amount that no doubt some would regard
as excessive.  But I have never (at least not that I could find) threatened
anyone with physical harm on Vision2020, even after I was threatened on the
list, nor have I posted a purely derogatory personalized attack that
contained no attempt at engagement using substantive ideas or facts.

I try to approach Vision2020 in the same spirit that I found so valuable and
calming in many of the discussion groups I participated in while attending
the U of I.  All ideas could be presented, but going negative in a purely
personal manner meant to degrade another human being, and threats of
physical harm, were unthinkable.

This open unmoderated public list is a rare privilege.  It is a chance for
discussion and dialog and the presentation of facts without censors
and editorial bias.  It is free speech and pure democracy in action at the
grass roots level.  Yes, the list is abused intolerably by some, but we all
play a part in establishing the tone of content.

I don't think it is unwise to hold everyone to a high standard, if for
nothing else than to show those who abuse the list in egregious fashion that
the principles that inform many on Vision2020 apply to all, even those we
usually agree with and feel to be "comrades," if I may use that term devoid
of the political baggage it connotes.

This quote below may seem off the subject of this post, though it certainly
relates to the US occupation of Iraq in its discussion of the "worship of
Force" and the "creed of militarism."  But it makes a case for the value of
free thought insofar as it offers the possibility of lifting the spirit of
humanity to the better side of our nature, that perhaps might inform the
thoughts of Vision2020 members as they post:

>From "A Free Man's Worship" by Bertrand Russell:

But the world of fact, after all, is not good; and, in submitting our
judgment to it, there is an element of slavishness from which our thoughts
must be purged. For in all things it is well to exalt the dignity of Man, by
freeing him as far as possible from the tyranny of non-human Power. When we
have realised that Power is largely bad, that man, with his knowledge of
good and evil, is but a helpless atom in a world which has no such
knowledge, the choice is again presented to us: Shall we worship Force, or
shall we worship Goodness? Shall our God exist and be evil, or shall he be
recognised as the creation of our own conscience?

The answer to this question is very momentous, and affects profoundly our
whole morality. The worship of Force, to which Carlyle and Nietzsche and the
creed of Militarism have accustomed us, is the result of failure to maintain
our own ideals against a hostile universe: it is itself a prostrate
submission to evil, a sacrifice of our best to Moloch. If strength indeed is
to be respected, let us respect rather the strength of those who refuse that
false "recognition of facts" which fails to recognise that facts are often
bad. Let us admit that, in the world we know, there are many things that
would be better otherwise, and that the ideals to which we do and must
adhere are not realised in the realm of matter. Let us preserve our respect
for truth, for beauty, for the ideal of perfection which life does not
permit us to attain, though none of these things meet with the approval of
the unconscious universe. If Power is bad, as it seems to be, let us reject
it from our hearts. In this lies Man's true freedom: in determination to
worship only the God created by our own love of the good, to respect only
the heaven which inspires the insight of our best moments. In action, in
desire, we must submit perpetually to the tyranny of outside forces; but in
thought, in aspiration, we are free, free from our fellow-men, free from the
petty planet on which our bodies impotently crawl, free even, while we live,
from the tyranny of death. Let us learn, then, that energy of faith which
enables us to live constantly in the vision of the good; and let us descend,
in action, into the world of fact, with that vision always before us.

Bertrand Russell

--------------------------------

Vision2020 Post by Ted Moffett


On 6/13/06, Joan Opyr <joanopyr at moscow.com> wrote:
>
> On Jun 12, 2006, at 11:21 PM, Ted Moffett wrote:
>
> > All:
> >
> > Look in the mirror, chasuk at gmail.com!
> >
> > So chasuk at gmail.com thinks he has not engaged in conduct similar to
> > trolls and flamers on Vision2020? I disagree. Everyone read the post
> > from Chasuk at gmail.com forwarded below.
> >
> > While some Vision2020 participants represent viewpoints I disagree
> > with vehemently, and I feel like attacking them with no restraint, the
> > following post by chasuk at gmail.com should not, in my opinion, have
> > been sent to this public list, regardless of how much he foundhis
> > opponent offensive and/or morally corrupt. Send this sort of crap
> > privately, please! Your post below does not contain one significant
> > element of reasoning or fact, but solely aims to use derogatory
> > language and images to vilify an opponent. While I agree with chasuk
> > at gmail.com that the person this post was aimed at has posted hate
> > speech to this list (at least I think chasuk at gmail.com would agree
> > with me on this point), this does not excuse returning hate for hate
> > with no significant ideas or reasoning.
>
> I have to admit, Ted, that your continued posts attacking Chasuk puzzle
> me.  (And, yes, I use the word "attack" advisedly.)  Why focus on him?
> You have wide selection of genuine trolls to reprimand, and yet you
> choose to berate a man who will freely admit that he has quite often
> lost his temper around here.  At this point, who hasn't?  Why ask
> Chasuk to look in the mirror?  Why continue to provoke?  We have one
> and all lost our equilibrium on Vision 2020.   A few bad apples have
> managed to rot the barrel.  We've seen that it takes only a few posters
> committed to endless, juvenile provocation to turn a valuable forum
> into a wretched pissoir.  You are not a troll, Ted, and Chasuk is not a
> troll.  I therefore ask that you please stop beating him over the head
> with his intemperate posts gone-by.  I see no point in it.  Worse, I
> see one decent man spoiling for an online fight with another.
>
> I know Chasuk somewhat better than I know you, Ted, but you both have
> my respect.  Chasuk I know to be a decent, kind, and personable man.
> And you?  You have terrific taste in music and make the most elegant of
> arguments: logical, coherent, and thought-provoking.  Why did Chasuk
> and I band together to create the Liberal Moscow blog?  Precisely
> because we have grown tired of having the worst elements around here
> bring out the worst in us.  Neither of us wants to be unpleasant, and
> yet that's just what we have been.  Vision 2020 has turned into a
> bullies' playground, and we are faced with the choice of continuing to
> hang around here and bloody noses or find somewhere else to carry on a
> reasonable conversation.  Will Liberal Moscow be as freewheeling as
> what goes on over here?  No.  And I never said it would.  But many
> self-identified Republicans and conservatives (and Republican
> conservatives) have already joined Liberal Moscow, so the charge that
> we've created a one-sided echo chamber is patently false.  That's not
> our intention, that's not our goal, and that's not what we have done.
>
> Do I want to walk away from Tony Simpson and Doug Farris?  Yes.  I want
> to walk away from the constant temptation to shoot fish in a barrel.
> It's harmful to this list and of no particular good to me.  I have
> counseled many Vision 2020 detractors over the years to use their
> delete key and their Bozo filter, but I now find that I have over
> thirty names on block, and I'm adding new Bozos every day.  If I were
> invited to a party with thirty guests I liked, and thirty I couldn't
> stand, I'd make my excuses and go to the movies instead.  I've gone to
> the movies, Ted, and I've invited the fun folk to come along with me.
> We'll carry on over on Liberal Moscow -- and some of us will carry on
> here -- and we'll hope that the trolls get tired and find another
> sandbox.  (Too many cats using this one.  Someone's going to get
> impetigo.)
>
> Of course, the disadvantage of Liberal Moscow is that it is decidedly
> not "anything goes."  The advantage is that you won't find yourself
> flung off the Tilt-O-Whirl, feet first into a pile of crap.
>
> Joan Opyr/Auntie Establishment
> www.joanopyr.com
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060624/576ebf2e/attachment-0001.htm