Originally posted by jsobecky
I mean, I don't understand, BH. You managed to pick out and comment on this passage, but you can't figure out what the debate is about:

It's beginning to look to me as though most of the past 5 pages of this thread are just argument for argument's sake.

So what are you doing here, BH?

Good question.

For now...

Originally quoted by jsobecky
'm not afraid of words. I dislike your divisive attitude; you need to divide things into antagonistic groups.

The term is yours. Deal with it. And don't come crying to me anymore about a truce the next time you are getting your tail kicked because of your divisive attitude.

I haven't sent you a u2u, have I? So don't worry. But I cannot dismiss, that it is this time that your tail is getting kicked and you're yelping because you can't keep your debate straight.

And I beg to differ about the "divisive attitude". You got yourself into this one with your own attitudes and ideas surrounding civil liberties and national security. Don't forget, you bemoaned the fact that it would be either grimreaper or myself that would bring up the "racist element". So, it is you including "divisive language" in your ideas.

So don't blame me for my opinion. You unapologetically put out your ideas on this topic, including a partially "terroristic" post about what you would do if someone threatened your family. And that was chilling, if not disturbing to read.

Are you not the antagonist?

But let's get down to brass tacks.

You really would turn in your own neighbor for the sake of your own comfort. Why not admit it instead of being condescending?

But alas. You can't even explain your side simply. You can just insult people needlessly until you don't have to answer anymore. That is always your tactic.

Hypocritical, nevertheless, but I guess useful for you. I guess you couldn't hug the collaborator on this one. Ah, but you can sure dish it out when you're cornered.

So please do explain your side clearly. Or will you be yelping out condescending remarks again? My guess is the latter. But, there is always some inkling of hope that tells me that you'll do the honorable and kind thing. But I'm sure, I'll be proven wrong, yet again.

You must know, jsobecky, being lord and master over freedom of expression is a hard job, isn't it? The crown not fitting on your head anymore?












[edit on 28-5-2006 by ceci2006]

Who was it that said "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty"? Indeed it is.

The Net was born out of liberty. For you newbies, I am referring to Fidonet, the grandaddy of them all. This tradition was carried on into the Internet, and it always has been the bane of the regressive.

We don't live in a free society any longer. It has mutated into some kind of market driven military ram. And that, IMO, is because the people have fallen asleep. Ideas, which are harder to kill than people, have taken root in our nation like weeds in a garden. Ideas like learned helplessness, and moral highground.

That is why we are being attacked, not because we pose a physical threat, but rather because we represent a large faction opposed to this kind of wrong thinking. We don't want to treat the symptoms, we treat the cause.

Originally posted by Matyas
The Net was born out of liberty. For you newbies, I am referring to Fidonet, the grandaddy of them all. This tradition was carried on into the Internet, and it always has been the bane of the regressive.

Fidonet? And here I always thought it was Arpanet that transformed computers from over-priced calculators into something useful and fun.

But upon reflection, we're both wrong - it was Al Gore that invented it all. I suppose we should call it the GORENet.

Originally posted by ceci2006
I haven't sent you a u2u, have I? So don't worry.

Sure you did, ceci. Want a memory refresher?

You must know, jsobecky, being lord and master over freedom of expression is a hard job, isn't it?

It's a tough job, but somebody has to do it.

Back on topic, 797, I still believe that freedom and liberty are achievable at the same time. There is a price to pay, but it is not one at the expense of the other.

BH, you're right - this "debate" is stuck in the mud. I'm outta this thread.

Originally posted by jsobecky
I always thought it was Arpanet that transformed computers from over-priced calculators into something useful and fun.

Not the hardware, the wetware.

Originally posted by jsobeckyBut upon reflection, we're both wrong - it was Al Gore that invented it all. I suppose we should call it the GORENet.

Absolutely! Isn't Al a genius?

I have a theory, about the INet's scalability. It led me to my hypothetical UURL (Unidentified Universal Reference Link). I can tell you about it off the forum

Nope, jsobecky. I truly didn't send you a u2u this time. However, I did send you a u2u for the blowup we had last time.

So, don't worry about it. No harm, no foul.

It's time to move on anyway to the next topic in this thread. I'll be interested to read it in the morning.



[edit on 28-5-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by Matyas
I have a theory, about the INet's scalability. It led me to my hypothetical UURL (Unidentified Universal Reference Link). I can tell you about it off the forum

Absolutely. Feel free to u2u me, or maybe start a new thread on it.

Taking Liberties

When discussion turns to one another, it inevitably turns away from the topic.

I believe it is possible to discuss any opinion without making the mistake of jumping to conclusions about the person expressing it.

One method for avoiding such errors is to consider any opinion you see here as if it had been posted by your closest friend, regardless of who actually posted it.

Would you call your best friend a "collaborator" for disagreeing with you?

Choice Of Freedom

In a discussion of liberty, it is ironic that we can so easily allow ourselves to become enslaved to our own prejudices.

The fact that we have a right to do so doesn't mean it is right to do so.

SkepticOverlord is absolutely correct: maintaining liberty is the hardest thing to do.

But it becomes much easier in an atmosphere of mutual respect, because without that, there can be no liberty.

Victory On The Home Front

We may not necessarily be the closest of friends, but as ATSers, I am convinced that we are more alike than different.

To the extent we remember this, and conduct ourselves accordingly, we can celebrate what differences we do have, because our continuing ability to express our differing opinions is the undeniable proof that we are truly free.

Recognizing and respecting this fact is a choice each of us must make for ourselves, but it is a choice I wholeheartedly endorse.

Majic, for what it is worth, I think this is an important topic. And when I introduced the word "collaborator" and "freedom fighters", I thought these words would also add to the issue because there are elements like this in society.

I don't see how "collaborator" was used in a hateful way. In fact, I was just calling it as I see it. So, I mainly used it as an example of what people could possibly do if they have fear hanging over their shoulder and what they might do to violate civil liberties of other people to achieve safety. Why should people be offended by this word? After all, I have learned that other people aren't offended by other words. And in fact, they use those words that offend others with the utmost regularity without seeing the offense. So why should the word "collaborator" be any different?

Civil liberties are important. But fear must not be allowed to conquer our freedom. And that's how I see this subject matter. Collaborators restrain liberties in this country while trying to maintain a patriotic front. For the most part, there are collaborators that exist all through history. Fear had transformed them into spies. And as a result, people who engage in self-expression are often the targets of jittery people like the collaborators. The moment creative people engage society in a provacative manner on-line or in other public media, the "collaborators" are the ones who put a stop to it by crying "terrorism" or "danger".

The next thing you know, somebody is thrown in Gitmo mainly because of "suspicion".

That is why it is important to think about this. Anyone can be a "collaborator" without thinking while restraining the rights of the next person.






[edit on 28-5-2006 by ceci2006]

Collaborative Effort

The first step toward oppression is labeling those to be oppressed.

Once that has been accomplished, the oppresed may then be isolated, demonized and dehumanized.

Once that has been accomplished, there is no limit to what may be done to them.

But the first step is to label them.

It is the easiest step to take, and the most important to avoid -- lest one become a collaborator oneself.

Oh, now the light is coming to me. I see exactly what you mean. You put it in such elegant terms. Majic, where were you with that erudite explaination when it had to do with the word usage of "tar baby" and "illegal" in their respective threads? I surely hope that others would learn from this lesson about "oppression".

After all, knowing the tools of "oppression" is very important, isn't it? Too bad that others don't see how words can "dehumanize" people different from they are. Unfortunately, they continue to use words that "oppress" because they cannot see how it hurts other people's feelings--especially if they don't comprehend how those words have a negative connotation.

Wow. I guess people really are sensitive about words. We will just have to be a little more careful about what we use. After all, we just can't throw anything around.

Well, I'll remember that lesson for next time when I make my next post. I'm very sorry for that. I didn't know that I was "oppressing" someone with my usage of "collaborator".

I had learned from another thread that such "oppressing" words are ignored and as a result they don't mean anything. In fact, I also gathered that people who believe in that "nonsense" are to be described as having issues. And especially I realized from other threads that when people who are oppressed use "concepts" to explain about why oppressing and offensive words are used, it is seen by others as a conspiracy. What a relief to learn that there are concepts that actually exist that explain this type of "oppression".

Wow. I am enlightened by this knowledge.

Well, Majic. You set me straight. "Collaborator" will be used more judiciously for now on--especially when it brings out such sensitivities in other people. And of course, they don't have issues if a word oppresses them, is that right? They are mainly trying to get their experiences out there to let others empathize with the negative connotations of such an offensive word.

Now I recognize jsobecky's experiences especially with his dislike of the concept,"collaborator".

Again, I thank you very much. I will be sure to think of that in my next posts. You've taught me a lot about "freedom of expression", "sensitivity" and of course being more empathetic when describing certain people with such "proclivities" towards being mouthpieces and spies for the government.

I will continue on with more tact and civility.


















[edit on 28-5-2006 by ceci2006]

Jsobecky, I can be protected by my government in a physical sense, without them taking pre emptive action. All they have to do is be around, and if they see some one walking into a shop with a gun, then they can arrest them or whatever needs to be done. They dont need to check this guys records while hes watching TV at home, see if he has a gun, and if he does, arrest him because he could possibly use it.

The way i see it, a pre emptive attack on crime, is like crushing freedom itself. You dont allow them to make the choice of whether or not they will do it, you make it for them and deem that they will do it.

The Kindness Conspiracy

Originally posted by ceci2006
I will continue on with more tact and civility.

Now there's an endeavor with which we should all collaborate.

So how are we supposed to work out the issues regarding freedom of expression and the Internet? Better yet, who gets to choose what is described as "good" content opposed to "bad" content?

Or does civil liberties rest in the hands of the (I know I'm not supposed to use that word that starts with a "c" to describe people who tattletale to the government for the sake of national safety) people who feel threatened at the shake of a hat?

Principal Principle

Originally posted by ceci2006
So how are we supposed to work out the issues regarding freedom of expression and the Internet? Better yet, who gets to choose what is described as "good" content opposed to "bad" content?

Who decides what you post?

The answer to that question determines the answers to all the other questions.

It is hard to maintain but Imust tell you if you got rid of advisor it would be easier. scum like that who will keep letting you hang yourselves. just see what has been done does it help. one day he is going to find what he islooking for and you all will pay for it

Originally posted by Lurker
It is hard to maintain but Imust tell you if you got rid of advisor it would be easier. scum like that who will keep letting you hang yourselves. just see what has been done does it help. one day he is going to find what he islooking for and you all will pay for it

Oh yes, it is all someone else's fault, be sure to not take any responsibility. ADVISOR this, ADVISOR that, well, according to that track ADVISOR is pretty omniscient. I don't even have to visit your warn tags to see what they are about.

I bet the majority are going to just ignore you, but hey, I like to get down and dirty with the condemned. Here, would you like a light?

Well, Majic, that isn't the question. The main truth is you can post what you want to. However, it is other people who decide what is "right" or "wrong".

There are always those who perceive one's work differently and negatively if it doesn't reflect their outlook or political views. And therefore, a group of people who espouse a certain political view would perceive what the said poster's contrary ideas as being "dangerous" or "hateful" or "divisive". Unfortunately, it is a fact that happens all too common lately. But right away, the people who think they are bestowed the right to "absolute patriotism" above others have pegged the content as being "dangerous" without taking consideration of what was being said in its full context.

That's what I mean. It is simply too easy for a group of people who "espouse" a sort of politics to get away with branding others as "terrorists" just because that poster does not agree with a certain politics. In fact, writers and posters expressing particular point of view should be heard.

However, how do people who express an alternative point view contrary to what is "accepted" and "safe" get heard if they are constantly shouted down by people who express their misgivings and discontent all the way to the government. For the "c's", it would be easier for them to get alternative voices locked away in Gitmo than allow such heresy to happen.

I have read of other people who post their fear of being called a "terrorist" or "unpatriotic" because their views do not jibe with those on particular threads concerning politics.

That's not only a shame. That is intimidation.