From: eric@wdl1.wdl.loral.com (Eric Scott Kuhnen)
Subject: Re: THE HOAXER PROJECT REPORT (Racist and Anti-Semitic Hoaxes and more!)
Organization: Loral Western Development Labs
Distribution: world,local
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 23:52:23 GMT

gross@befvax.uchicago.edu writes:
>>Ralph:      Never
>>Anti-Ralph: Frequent (Assigning political status where none was given,
>>                      accusations of posting under a pseudonym, etc)
>Your just wrong about this.  Ralph has called people lots of names.
>He posts articles from groups with a clear political status.  
>Pseudonym?  Ask him who he works for, where he lives, what his job is,
>what his training is.  No answer.

But the point is, Ralph never accuses others of using a psuedonym.


>>:    2. Name calling and labeling
>>Ralph:      Minimal
>>Anti-Ralph: Shitbrain, dickhead, nazi trash, etc, etc
>Ralph refers to all of his enemies as Zionists.  See what names he calls
>Elie Weisel, Simon Weinsenthal and the ADL.

The "Anti-Ralph" contingent are far from spotlessness on this point.  Further-
more, one should be above name-calling and labeling altogether, as this item
suggests.


>>:    3. Irresponsible sweeping generalizations
>>Not much on either side.
>"Zionist control of the media?"

Both parties are guilty.


>>:    4. Inadequate proof for assertions
>>Well, proof of assertions is the very substance of this debate.
>Sorry, but nothing the IHR says has ever been published in a refereed journal.
>Please look at the court case.

Your response is precisely the point the previous poster was making: proof is
the subject of the debate.  This thread concerns itself with the personalities
in the debate, not the debate itself.


>>:    5. Advocacy of double standards
>See how Ralph and his friends use historical texts.

In his distortion of historical events, is Ralph advocating a double-standard?


>>:    6. Tendency to view their opponents and critics as essentially evil
>>Ralph:       I don't think so
>>Anti-Ralph:  Assuredly
>He calls all his enemies Zionist, and says he is anti-Zionist.

"Zionism" does not carry the stigma of evil that so many of the "Anti-Ralph"
comments and invective do.


>>:    8. Advocacy of some degee of censorship or repression of their
>>:       opponents and/or critics
>>Ralph:      No
>>Anti-Ralph: Enormously
>Bullshit.  They quote texts out of context, which means they repress
>the actual content and use it for their own purposes.  
>They also publish the Ad from the Northwestern Daily without saying that
>it is an ad, and don't publish the Northwestern Daily's response.
>Pete Faust said that anyone who says that Jews were gassed is a war
>criminal.  What do you think of that?

A bit of a stretch for the definition of "censorship," don't you think?  
Misrepresentation would better characterize misquoting texts.  It is hardly
the heinous crime of repression to simply take a quote out of its context.
More importantly, though, Ralph does not ask for or advocate the repression
or censorship of his detractors.


>>:    9. Tend to identify themselves in terms of who their enemies are:
>>:       whom they hate and who hates them
>>Not much of this
>Bullshit.  They call all their enemies Zionist and call themselves anti-
>Zionist.  They also call anybody who believes in the truth of the Holocaust
>"exterminationists", and call themselves "revisionists."  What more do 
>you want.

I tend to agree with your assertions on this point, minus the expletive.  But
you must also agree that by its very name an "Anti-Ralph" group is defined
in terms of who it hates and, to a lesser extent, who hates them.


>>:    10. Tendency toward argument by intimidation
>>Ralph:      Never
>>Anti-Ralph: Frequent (censorship, removal of connection, etc)
>Apparently your not familiar with the practices of the KKK affiliated
>group the NAAWP where Ralph gets his information from.  Do you consider
>cross burning intimidation?

Cross burning is intimidating; if Ralph can burn one over Usenet, I'll be
intimidated.


>>:    11. Use of slogans, buzzwords, and thought-stopping cliches
>>Ralph:      Don't think so
>>Anti-Ralph: Nazi trash, Anti-Semite, Racist, etc, etc
>Zionist thought police?  Zionist control of the press?  Zionist control
>of the banks?  'Freedom of speech'?  'Hoax'

Yes, "Zionist Thought Police" is a thought-stopping cliche.  Your point is
well-taken.


>>:    12. Assumption of moral or other superiority over others
>>Not really relevant
>Really, when they call Elie Wiesel, the Nobel Prize winner for Peace a
>liar?  When they say that the Jews are lying about the holocaust and they
>are telling the truth?  When they say they are for freedom of speech and
>others aren't?

I should think that both sides are asserting a moral superiority over their
opponents.  Perhaps that is why the item is not relevant; it is a given.


>>:    14. Belief that it's okay to do bad things in the service of a "good"
>>:        cause
>>Not unless you include censorship.
>How about insulting the memory of the dead, and slandering holocaust
>survivors, Elie Wiesel, Simon Weisenthal, Mermelstein, and the ADL.

Sticks and stone, Sir, sticks and stones.  Insulting the memory of the dead
is as bad a quoting something out of context.  It is a common debating ploy
and hardly an advocacy of the End justifying the Means.


>>:    15. Emphasis on emotional responses and, correspondingly, less
>>:        importance attached to reasoning and logical analysis
>>Ralph:      Not guilty
>>Anti-Ralph: Guilty: name calling, mainly.
>The 'logical reasoning' in the articles they post is nonsense.  The
>motivation for the conclusions is hate, not scholarship.
>This comes from the Duke Univeristy History Department.

Yes, Ralph is guilty.  But the real point it, so are you.  That's the whole
issue with this thread: how both the Ralph and Anti-Ralph factions are just
that--extremist organizations that follow a predictable pattern.  The
various numbered items of this post identify an extremist group.  Perhaps the
more burning question is, Why?


>>:    16. Hypersensitivity and vigilance
>>Ralph:      Nope
>>Anti-Ralph: Nope: you don't need to be hyper-sensitive to be offended by Ralph
>Ralph refers to anyone who disagrees with him as a Zionist.

Agreed.  


>>:    19. Inclination toward "groupthink"
>>Well, Ralph's argument is that this is so.
>Ralph's discussion of Jews is classic group think.

But I think you will find that the majority of respondents to Ralph's postings
exhibit a kind of groupthink of their own.  Is this desireable?

"Q"
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My opinions are based upon Reason and Logic, and are therefore not connected
in any way to my employer.
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy:6245 alt.activism:7518 talk.politics.misc:17739 misc.headlines:3300 soc.rights.human:1351 soc.culture.usa:2893 soc.culture.latin-america:1923 alt.society.civil-liberty:3373 alt.censorship:3231