From: perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Hate Speech Okay, says the Supreme Court
Date: 26 Aug 92 22:11:23 GMT
Organization: HJF AIDS Research Project, Washington DC

In article <1992Aug25.161515.27726@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.135329.10526@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil> perez@mgr.hjf.org (Charles Perez) writes:
>>
>>The market does not *invade* the sphere of ideas. As long as people
>>choose for themselves what concepts are to become part of their
>>thinking, the realm of ideas *is* a market, it is not "infected" or
>>corrupted by a market.
>
>A market is where I make contracts for mutual advantage; I do not make a
>contract with the author of a book to believe his ideas.

A market is where you make *deals* for mutual advantage. Every contract
is a deal, but not every deal is a contract. You do not agree to *believe*
ideas, you arrange to have them *transmitted* to you, by paying for a
book, for example. What you do with the ideas in the book is your
business. The general market indeed arranges for the transmitting of
ideas.

>
>>
>>>The picture of the metaphor is of
>>>a bazaar of equal small businessmen hawking their ideas
>>
>>Who besides you says that the said businessmen have to be equal, except
>>under the law? Some business people are more sucessful than others.
>
>This is the connotation of the market metaphor.  As such, it deludes
>people without market power into believing that they have the market
>power of a New York Times or a Knight-Ridder.

Does the common man have so little intelligence that he cannot realize
that some people may be more sucessful in business than others?

>As such, it deludes
>people without market power into believing that they have the market
>power of a New York Times or a Knight-Ridder.
>
>>
>>>whereas the REAL
>>>marketplace consists of giant media corporations mercilessly eliminating
>>>competetition, not in the name of truth but in the name of a bottom
>>>line.
>>
>>Back this up, please, and leave out examples of political pull
>>accomplishing this.
>
>In our society, poltical "pull" has an ECONOMIC foundation.  You are
>deluded if you believe that there is something called the Eastern
>Liberal Establishment that has, for some mystical reason right wingers
>have never been able to explain, political "pull."  There is an Eastern
>establishment, all right, but it's not liberal and it has an ECONOMIC
>foundation based on the fact that it has made devils' bargains with the
>Sunbelt (George Bush's 1946 hegira to Texas is an excellent
>illustration of how the Eastern Establishment retained economic and
>poltical power by appearing to become good ole boys.)

That money can translate into political pull is an indictment of the
*political* system, not of business. Political interference is an
*abrogation* of market principles, not an example of them.

>
>>
>>
>>Ideas are useful to honest people when they are true, and to dishonest
>>people when they make convenient rationalizations. This is the way the
>>*marketplace* of ideas works.
>
>Thank you for explaining that to me.  It's the usual libertarian
>shuffle.  Libertarianism purports to be a philosophy.  Upon inspection, it
>is always found to deal in pre-philosophical distinctions which are
>never unpacked and which have, in America, a racial and class-based
>foundation.

This fallacy is known as Straw Man, as I am not a Libertarian.
Libertarians, furthermore, are not dishonest rationalizers just
because *you* say so, and neither am I.

>I suggest that many of your ideas are convenient
>rationalizations; prime among them is the comfortable view of a benign
>market mechanism which (surprise) rewards white males.

Do you know my skin color? If you do not presume to know, what is
your point? FYI, if the epithet "spic" is used within earshot of me,
I have good reason to take it personally (note my surname). Before you
accuse me of rationalizations, look at my reasoning. Wait for us to
go back and forth several times getting to the respective roots of our
arguments before presuming to know my motives. Oh, I forgot. You don't
generally go to the roots of *your* arguments, you usually change the
subject instead.

>
>>
>>>I am of course aware that the American
>>>electorate has been making decisions in the marketplace of ideas based
>>>on its comfort for twelve years, with disastrous results.
>>
>>The marketplace of ideas is not the election. It is what ideas people
>>take for themselves, not what they use to make 1/200,000,000 of a
>>decision to select a president.
>
>People in Eastern Europe have been willing to DIE for 125e-6 of the
>chance to vote for the candidate of their choice, and democracy is more
>than voting booths.  It's the entire collection of abilities to vote, to
>pass local laws (including hate speech laws, under attack by the Supreme
>Court), to persuade others to your view.  
>
>>
>>>But I would vastly increase subsidies for public
>>>read/write access to media of all sorts, from the Internet to public
>>>television.  This would do far more for the free exchange of ideas than
>>>your fictional "marketplace."
>>
>>Then the authorities that run the subsidized net would define "free" as
>>"responsible", then supress what they consider irresponsible, and run
>>the net to suit Ed Nilges. ;-)
>
>The lack of solidarity,

Huh?

>the terminal uniqueness,

What?

>of the repeated attacks
>on me merely because of oddball views

No, Ed, not merely and NOT. Your views are, sadly enough, not
particularly oddball. They are all too common. The term for them is
"statism". Every political value judgment you make favors an
authoritarian regime that holds as its domain the livelihood and
thoughts of the people and just happens to agree with you. This
system is tried time and again, and ends up destroying the people
or itself ending. Witness what has happened in Eastern Europe and
the late Soviet Union. You believe in statism, Mr. Nilges? I would
love to see it practiced on you. Move to China, become just an
average citizen, then see what statism does to you. Remember
Tianenmen? Your spiritual brothers secretly rejoiced when the Chinese
military put down that protest, killing and maiming. This is your
"freedom bounded by common sense". No, your views enjoy widespread
practice still.

Yet, we don't attack you for this. Our attacks are different from
eachother because each of us has something different to say. Our
solidarity comes from the common reason we flame you. It is because
you are a pompous ass. Certain affectations of speech such as "I am
of course..." and "I suggest" or "I submit" before a statement we
would rather have backed up by facts can be tolerated by themselves.
By themselves, they are not condescending. When you have a different
version of history to tell, however, you make as if to sing, "Don't
know much about his-tory" as if naked ridicule will make you right.
When another poster seems slow to get your point, you take on the
voice of an intellectual thug, saying "LEMME EXPLAIN IN SIMPLE WORDS
SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND...". When I put up arguments, you don't find
the holes and jump 'em, thus challenging me to fill the holes or
recant. No, you accuse me of rationalizing to suit myself, and you
fail to address my points. You talk as if you are the high priest of
truth, and you act like a petulant child when the rest of us don't
see you that way.

Under these circumstances, it is edifying to slam you. It's fun.
You have it coming, and more. Ultimately, Ed, you are of little
consequence. Nothing you spout is new, and the arguments you do
put forth aren't particularly good. You should learn to think and
act for yourself. Learn to spot holes in a line of reasoning, and
what might fill those holes. Learn to verify facts, and to see the
actual assumptions behind any given statement. All of this requires
honesty and hard thinking. It's difficult, I know, but it's what you
need to stand on your own two feet intellectually.

>points up the decadence of a
>technically-educated segment of the populace, the segment with netnews
>access, more than anything else.

Another personal attack, and a presumption, too.

>Has it ever occured to you that I
>might be so ordinary as to have a lot in common with many of you, and as
>such we might share certain ideas?

Ordinariness was never an issue.

>
>This process, especially marked on the net but in evidence ever since
>the manufacture of Lee Harvey Oswald as the "lone nut" and most recently
>in evidence in the bashing of Hilary Clinton, is quite simply the
>manufacture of the monstrum horrendum figure, the inhuman "gunman",
>"liberal", "feminist" or "homosexual" to bear one's own sins.  

It is the laughing at a self-manufactured clown.

>
>I remain convinced that the net needs moderated rather than unmoderated
>groups and I would regard the position of moderator as more onerous than
>anything else.

Mandatory critics, in other words. It should be illegal to operate
a movie theater without at least one critic approving every movie
that plays.

>Peter Neumann does an excellent job of running
>comp.risks without preferring one set of views over another

Just because one moderator or ten does a good job doesn't mean that
unmoderated groups are evil.

>and indeed
>the unmoderated groups are the most inimical to that dialog that is a
>necessary part of free speech, since the unmoderated groups devolve most
>rapidly to flamefestivals.

Let the individual control her own signal-to-noise ratio.

>
>Oh and Chuckie: I am of course aware that Socrates' "writings" were
>recorded by others and then written down, but I am amused, for the most
>part, by the hysterical reaction to the phrase "the writings of
>Socrates."

You are a pompous ass, Ed, which is why I do not hesitate to laugh at
your silliness.

>I do not regard it as dishonorable to write and as such I am
>not concerned with preserving Socrates' masculine honor in this peculiar
>way.

I never implied that it would have been shameful for Socrates to
have been a writer, just that he *wasn't*.

>As far as I am concerned, Socrates is part of the written
>philosophical tradition whether he likes it or not.

However, *he* didn't write about himself. That makes writing of his
wisdom "writings about Socrates" or "sayings of Socrates" or even
"wisdom of Socrates" but not "writings of Socrates"

>The hysterical and
>pants-soiling reaction to the phrase is in point of fact part of the
>monster-manufacturing culture which fastens on fetishized details
>including Hilary Clinton's law review articles and phrases like "the
>writings of Socrates", in order to transfer your fears of family
>breakdown (a result of capitalist economics more than anything else) and
>of being an irrelevant academic dweeb to a "monstrum horrendum."

A laughingstock is hardly a monster, Ed.

>Do not
>bother to reply to this paragraph; the issue of "the writings of
>Socrates", shorthand in the same way as the phrase "the author of
>Beowulf" or "the writings of Homer", is closed.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but an issue is not closed just because
*you* say it is. "Writings of Socrates" is semantically equivalent to
"Socrates' writings", and that phrase marks him as the author. Just
because shorthand is acceptable doesn't undo this. Above, I gave
several correct examples no longer than "writings of Socrates".
Another one that is as good for people in the know is "Plato's
writings". It was Plato who undertook to be Socrates' literary
mouthpiece, and if you had known this, I suspect you would not have
failed to bring it up.

I love the way you post helps to make so many of my points.

P.S. For those of you who didn't see my previous post in this thread,
here is what Ed edited out without a trace before replying to it with
his last paragraph:

Is this really your quote, Eddie? <my comments paraphrased; I *did* call
                                   him Eddie>

"I am of course experienced in teaching and have read the writings of
Socrates"  -- Ed Nilges

I'm busting to know.
<end of insertion>

Happy netting, all!


-- 
==========================================================================
That which is necessary is never evil. If an evil seems necessary, look
to your context; that's where its root lies.  - Charles Perez
==========================================================================
Newsgroups: misc.legal