Re: now what post-JED?
Sat, 23 Oct 1999 20:30:32 -0900 (PDT)
[: hacktivism :]
Batz seems to be proposing we seek a (Habbermasian)
rational communicative space.
I really do not believe such an
communicative environment exists or can exist. I also
have serious doubts that such an environment is
desireable. I don't think checking "identity politics"
or any politics at the door is a positive move. It
leaves me pretty dry.
> If there can be some agreement about not baiting, nor taking the bait,
> then we can learn from each other.
> Asking that ad homonim arguments, appeals to authority, unsubstantiated
> or unreferenced statistics, and identity politics be saved for
> Usenet, might foster a more communicative environment.
> Who decides what is On Topic?
> Ultimately anyone that posts to the list is dictating what is
> on topic. As long as people re-read their posts and make sure
> they are speaking for the benefit of the further information
> of list members, it should be sane.
I don't see this list as just information exchange. It's
dialogue, clarification, rhetoric, theory, politics.
> Are you contributing new facts or evidence to a discussion?
> Is your question rhetorical or do you actually require clarification?
Can I point out,( and this is certainly not for the
purpose of the furthering the information exchange to
benefit list members), that the above question is a
Okay, so the point of that point was to try and be cute
and clever. But the other point is that we can't talk
"for the benefit of all" or to get at some ideal
communicative action. Our words are political moves even as
they purport to be apolitical; they are almost always
rhetorical power moves.
> Can your post be shortened and maintain its original meaning?
> (this message ends real soon now)
Now this rule, I'm down with ;)
Anway, I'm also down with Stefan Wray's proposal to add a
radical filter to the list.
[: hacktivism :]
[: for unsubscribe instructions or list info consult the list FAQ :]
[: http://hacktivism.tao.ca/ :]