Re: Sternlight on C'punks

[David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com>]

(Apologies if I answered this yesterday--I'm seeing some posts twice for
some reason.)

At 7:50 PM -0700 7/16/96, Lucky Green wrote:
>At 18:11 7/15/96, David Sternlight wrote:
>[...]
>>Nothing like a good personal defamation before even reading my posts, eh?
>>As those who have paid attention know, I post my policy views, not
>>flame-bait. The idea that I am deliberately trying to start flame wars is
>>pure paranoia.
>
>LOL. ROTF. While the poster of the message to which you are responding may
>not have read your posts, I have. Hundreds of them. Your USENET posts
>routinely lead to some of the longest flame wars I have ever seen.

That's because I hold logically supportable (and I provide such support in
my posts) but unpopular views (at least for the alt. crypto groups and this
one). If people cannot tolerate rational dissent and deal with it
rationally, they don't believe in free speech and their own beliefs are
built on sand. It's "free speech only for those who agree with them". As I
like to characterize it, it's the same cloth from which the demagogue who
cries "Power to the People!" is cut when he really means "Power to me and
my friends."

When they react by name-calling, personal attacks, and the rest of the
armamentarium of flame wars, it is THEY who are doing it.

The very concept of "flame bait" is a way of blaming the victim. It is a
close relative of the child's "he made me do it" defense.

And when on occasion (as happens) I rise to provocation, my take on it
isn't that the other guy posted "flame bait" but that I allowed myself to
be out of control. It's always possible to respond with the standard
weapons against provocation when such is deliberate: rapier-like wit,
reductio ad absurdum, literate sarcasm, or simple silence aka the filter
file. Actual contumely in a response is seldom necessary, except perhaps by
reference on rare occasion. We're not children here.

But more likely, if one feels provoked by a rational comment (as distinct
from personal defamation), that's usually a warning flag that one's own
beliefs need re-examining and may not be all that robust. In such a case a
rational discussion is the best way.

The above DOES take some learning (wanna see my scars?). Some of the more
vicious defamers in this medium never show up in "normal" polite society so
it takes a bit of experience to learn how to deal with them here. Since the
net is a free medium, such countermeasures must be learned--after trying
the standard approach of attempting to invoke "community pressure" on more
blatant defamers I've concluded it's pretty ineffective.

This medium has some historical baggage which doesn't help. There's the
contempt the newly experienced have for those a day or so behind them in
the learning process--often encapsulated in the word "luser". There's the
contempt the newly hatched super-bright have for those less bright than
they, until those super-bright types grow up and discover it takes more
than brains to have a life. Computers attract a lot of bright but immature
kids, and though the net has now pretty much "grown up" some artifacts of
the early history still remain.

>
>While starting flame wars may not be your intention, it most certainly is
>often the result of your posts.

Sure, and in my current analogy, another's theft may not be my intention
but it is often the result of my having some money. Does that make me
responsible for the theft? I think not.

> Consequently, you are one of only two
>people in my global USENET kill file. Not because I hate you, but because I
>don't enjoy reading the endless flame fests that seem to be the inevitable
>result of your posts.

I have repeatedly and publicly said that it is anyone's right to kill file
anyone else for any reason or no reason. Part of freedom is the freedom not
to listen. In fact I've posted instructions on how to kill file me on
occasion for those who asked.

>
>Deliberate or incidental, you *are* starting flame wars.

No more than the person with money is starting theft. Theft is done by
thieves, not by their victims.

>
>No offense,

None taken, but I suggest you need to think more deeply about this.

David