From: kerryg@stat.rice.edu (Kerry Go)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asian.american
Subject: Re: Accountability, or rather, JJ's lack of it.
Date: 29 Aug 1992 20:47:35 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Statistics, Rice University

In article <1992Aug12.161930.3447@island.COM> fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
>In article <SHAW.92Aug11021118@whopper.lcs.mit.edu> shaw@whopper.lcs.mit.edu (Andy Shaw) writes:
>Then put him in a 'kill' file.

I already have, thank you.

>>anyone's lawn, electronic or real: if somebody burns a cross on my lawn, I
>>want to know who that person is, but not for the purpose of burning a cross
>>on their lawn.  I want to know because if _I_ know, everyone knows, and
>>that person is less likely to go around doing things like that for fear of
>>disapproval from society and stigmatization from his community -- because
>>he is afraid that people he will meet in the future will know the beliefs
>>he holds because of the actions of his past.
>
>This is, after all, a forum for exchanging ideas. If you don't like the
>IDEAS, you can a) refute 'em b) ridicule 'em c) ignore 'em d) whatever else
>you like.

Be careful... "Whatever else you like" leads to solutions like visiting
someone and adminstering a hammer to someone's forehead.

>Makes no difference if they are anonymous or not. It is the IDEAS you
>should judge.

That's what Andy is saying, isn't it?  He wants to be able to judge someone's
ideas and make that person accountable for those ideas, right?

>And actually, you sound like a McCarthey'ist here; you WANT him to be 
>stigamatized in the future for his posts here

Depends on what he posts.

>>Everyone reading this _knows_ who I really am: if I meet them in real life
>>for a job interview, at a conference, while they are reviewing my papers,
>>what I say here will affect my real life.  What James says has no effect on
>
>Pity. At a conference, the content of your PAPERS should be evaluated, not
>the content of your posts to scaa. All GOOD scholars will behave in this
>fashion. Those that do not are probably not that good.

But, in any place where you have to interact with the person, e.g., considering
someone for a job, I think the personality *is* important.

>>There would be a hell of a lot less KKK members, if they didn't go around
>>wearing those hoods and hiding their identities -- people will say and do
>>anything if they are not held accountable in real life.
>
>There'd probably be a "hell of a lot less" AA memebers as well, if it weren't
>anonymous. Anonymity has NOTHING to do with the discussions here; evaluate the
>content of a post.
>
>>He would be taken a lot more seriously if he simply signed his real name --

That would be a problem.  Many people take the stuff said on here too
seriously as it is.  Then others take advantage of this to spread their
own hateful agenda.

>Signing one's real name is now guarantee of being taken seriously. And how 
>do you KNOW if someone has signed their real name? Since you don't KNOW,
>if you are giving more weight to any post that LOOKS like it has a legit
>signature, then YOU are making a mistake.

Of course you don't know for sure if it's a real name unless you see his
birth certificate or some other legal documentation.  I'd be satisfied with
people's calling themselves on s.c.a.a what they would be called in real
life.  And, for some people, I *do* know what they are called in real life
because I have met them in real life.  As for the rest of you, I have no
reason to believe what you say.  That doesn't mean I think you all are lying.
It just means, like any media, I have to take what you say with a grain of
salt.