From: jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
Subject: Re: The White Man's Burden of Proof
Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
Date: 4 Sep 92 23:33:53

In article <9209050403.AA00183@cfdev1.shearson.com> mtaranto@shearson.com (Mark Taranto) writes:

   Clayton Cramer asked why people mistake his views.  I responded that
   people mistake his views because he uses language similar to those
   who hold the views that he does not claim as his own.  I said that
   this might not be right, but is happens.

   Professor McCarthy mistook what I wrote, so I responded:

   >> I'd like to believe that Cramer is using a standard definition of
   >> these words, as opposed to stating them with insidious intent.
   >> But the fact remains that if he continues to use the same language
   >> as these fringe groups, people will assume that he is sympathetic
   >> to their views.  It is a shame, but it is a reality.

   Professor McCarthy responds with:

   > I think it is Taranto who is obliged to avoid reading into Cramer's
   > or anyone else's words meanings different from what he says.

   I find this amusing -- since he is telling me to do something which I am
   advocating myself.  We seem to be in agreement here.

   > To hell with this "insidious intent".  Once that becomes an accepted
   > consideration, the way is open to every kind of bullying.

   If Professor McCarthy will reread what I wrote, he will see that I do
   not believe that there IS insidious intent, and that I was just giving
   my impression as to why Mr. Cramer is assumed to believe that which
   he claims he does not.  So, once again we are in agreement.

   > Mark Taranto can't bully Cramer and he can't bully me, but there
   > are probably people who will be shy of posting what they want to
   > say for fear Taranto will find an insidious intent.

   I believe that this is the first time in my life I have ever been accused
   of being a bully.  It is a shame that it has to be based on a simple
   misreading of what I wrote.  Perhaps when Professor McCarthy realizes
   that we are in agreement, he will once again claim that he did not read the
   articles, does not know any of the players, and pleads the fifth amendment,
   as he did the last time I showed him that he was wrong.

   Are all of Stanford's professors this dotty?

   Mark

Let me spell out the part about bullying, so it will be the second
time in Taranto's life that he has been accused of attempted bullying.

As I understand what he said, he is telling Cramer and anyone else who
reads him that it is insufficient to refrain from racism; it is
necessary to be obsequious enough to the platitudes of the time so
that no-one can even intentionally misinterpret what you say as
racist.  Taranto is like one of those Ibsen characters who says that
it is not enough to be moral; one must appear to be moral.

Voltaire put Taranto's point this way:  "When one is with wolves, one
must howl a little."  (I learned to put it this way in college).

If Taranto doesn't believe Cramer is racist, then he should defend
Cramer rather than just tell him to kiss a few more asses.  (I learned
to put it this way in the Army.)



--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
*
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.

Newsgroups: rec.arts.books