dm_johnson@manana.DEC (01/13/86)
Ken Arndt. I had the privilege of working with Ken for about a year. My ranting and raving at him then was over politics. And sometimes religion. If you think his attitude towards gay culture is poor..... After awhile I realized that, despite his protestations, he mostly doesn't care about the content of what occurs. He cares about the process. One thing that conservatives have on their side is facts. Lots of facts. They are mostly grounded in the past and unwilling to try new things. They tend to get involved in pseudo lawyer debates calling up historical references in support of their position. Pity the poor liberal who can only call up statistics and say "I think the trend is there and the idea is good and it deserves a chance." Generally, you will find conservatives a very fearful people. They have much to lose and need strokes to believe they are "ok" and won't lose what they have. That is why the idea of a chaotic universe, as opposed to a God determined universe, is so threatening. That is why they like history and use it as support so much. "This worked before so it must be right." Being able to argue with solid, historically based facts is actually giving them strokes that they are ok. They are ok because they are winning an argument, their philosophy is the right one after all, and they have nothing to worry about. I've only somewhat recently joined motss and have seen that Ken uses the same technique here. He protests that all he really wants is dialogue and the chance to learn from others. In reality, he phrases his communications in such a manner that he closes communication before it ever gets started. Then as people, in anger, spit and sputter towards him he can act cooly and logically, getting reinforcement that he is ok and "they" are not. So the content is not so important but the process is. Why else would one hang around a group with a philosophy so diametrically opposed to his own. Why else would one harass ( or bait) from the relative safety of a terminal rather than face to face. Why else would someone be so out of touch with feelings and heavily involved with logic. One persons thoughts. Denny ps - Mark me as one of the bisexual sane bunch.
on@hpda.UUCP (Owen Rowley) (01/15/86)
>In article <405@decwrl.DEC.COM> dm_johnson@manana.DEC writes: >I've only somewhat recently joined motss and have seen that Ken uses the >same technique here. He protests that all he really wants is dialogue >and the chance to learn from others. In reality, he phrases his >communications in such a manner that he closes communication before it >ever gets started. Then as people, in anger, spit and sputter towards >him he can act cooly and logically, getting reinforcement that he is ok >and "they" are not. And isn't it strange that when Ken gets a dose of his own medicine by someone , he ignores them. I make a point of replying to most all of Kens postings (I do it in private mail because if you reply to ken on the net you get a flood of mail from those who don't want us to get him all worked up!.) and Ken never seems to find time to reply to ME?? I make a point of telling ken that I think he's OK even if he does come across as a bigot and a bully. perhaps its not the kind of reinforcemnet he wants, or that he might not be able to remain cool and logical . > >So the content is not so important but the process is. Why else would >one hang around a group with a philosophy so diametrically opposed to >his own. Why else would one harass ( or bait) from the relative safety >of a terminal rather than face to face. Why else would someone be so out >of touch with feelings and heavily involved with logic. This is actually on of the points I have brought up to Ken! Why else indeed, could it be that the philosophy of motss is only diametrically opposed to the stance Ken takes to the outside world? could it be that these contradictory lifestyles play out there battle within Ken and all we are seeing is the fallout ?? Could it be that Kens terrorism is an elaborate mechanism to keep himself in line. LUX .. on
cycy@isl1.ri.cmu.edu (Christopher Young) (01/16/86)
I disagree with the remark that conservatives have a lot of facts and use good logic to back their facts. I have a degree in history, and have also had a number of debates with conservatives. I've found that most conservatives (actually, conservative is probably an overbroad catagory, but for convience I use it here) are in possession of few, or, even worse, incomplete facts. Their analysis of historical events and situations is usually facile and inaccurate. Their logical is frequently circular, and normally the ommission of facts is what makes their case. -- Chris.