If we cannot situate ourselves somewhere within the spectrum
of logical, rational discourse concerning issues we nevertheless feel
passionately about (and that emotional component itself should ring a
plethora of bells), then we are no more than savage apes, beating our
linguistic chests, protecting and defending our memetically infested
ideological and personally meaningful and dear symbolic and
informational turf, and sadly and blatantly demonstrating our animalistic
natures. The tired, jaded game of considering oneself a member of the
cognoscenti if one is in opposition to a generally accepted position, and
considering those who do not agree with you when you unholster
volumes of nonobjective and contrary marginally-sourced-and-accessed
vitriol to be unenlightened and uninformed, is a common net fallacy
easily detectable within the phenomenology of the extremist. Quantity
has never and never will be consonant with quality, or any semblance
of veracity. Netsearching for those anti and alternative sources that
support one, and discarding the bulk of those that don't, does nothing to
enhance one's credibility. It is nevertheless less than a scintilla of
paranoia and suspicion between the positions exhibited by many of the
posters here and the miasma of scatflinger's contemporary right-wing
(or left-wing neosocialist - in an ideological circle, they meet at the
extreme margins, as demonstrated by Karl Hess, a Nixon speechwriter
and tax resister, in his book DEAR AMERICA) neonazi superstitions.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:16 MDT