[4365] in Depressing_Thoughts
Re: selling my soul
adwright@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (adwright@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Mon Feb 28 17:30:12 1994
mhbraun writes:
- PS adwright, it would behoove you not to try to break into my machine again,
- it is bound to cause you a lot more hardship than you have bargained for.
Cake what? Ex-jizz me?
Enlighten the hell out of me, please.
While I'm here, ...
sorokin writes:
- adwright, I think you missed the point. I wasn't saying you couldn't
- have an opinion because you're not an activist. My mother has done more
- for your ideals than you have and she would be seriously offended if you
- said "fuck" in front of her.
So, that's her one little hang-up. That's okay, everybody's got at least one.
- I don't want to hear it either.
Well, shit, I guess there's nothing left but to go and have those darn ears
of yours surgically removed.
Don't know what to tell ya. 'Cept, maybe a bit of advice: get used to 'em.
For your own sake. 'Less of course, you've got some proven effective method
for ensuring that such a word never alights upon yon delicate ears of yourn.
- My *little* *sister* has done a fair amount of work for your goals
Good for her. She is fortunate to have been born into a family such as yours.
And, to have a sister like you, to show her the activist ropes.
No sarcasm here.
- and I would be really pissed if you swore that much when talking to her.
Then maybe you oughtta just kip her away from people who swear over your
proscribed level of "decency". Kip her wondrously sheltered from such lingual
deviancies, that's the way to do it, yeah, yeah. I mean, man, if the child
gets ahold of those damn wordal bound-steppers, there's no telling what havoc
she can (and will) wreak! So yes, definitely, protect her from them, and
ultimately, from herself, do, do.
- Or my currently-next-door-neighbors who went to Nicaragua for a year. Or any
- of a lot of my friends who *agree* with your overall positions.
They *agree* with my overall position?
Then, vhat's, all, the kvetching, about, hein?
A misplaced "dammit" here or there, and they are fucked for life, is that the
picture? Hay-zeus, get these people a freckin' seltzah.
- Does that make us complacent, conformist, fat-assed corporate wimp-outs?
- I think not, and I find it offensive that you think so.
Nice. Rill, rill nice. So, that's my position in a nut-bag, eh?
Great to see yer so attentive.
And where did "corporate" come into all this?
There are varying shades, various phyla, differing types, of complacencies.
We gotcha complacencies, in twenny different cullahs. Pick-an'-choose,
pick-an'-choose. You wan' 'em, we got 'em.
So, you're not complacent in one way? So, good for you. But that doesn't
automatically over-ride the possibility of your having a bit of a quo-mainten-
antish attitude with respect to some other area: language, for example.
People aren't solids-or-stripes, black-or-white, one-or-the-other. Come on,
now. Allow for the possibilities. You, of all people, should be good at this.
- I wonder if you think smacking people around verbally
Ah, we love flinging around these little ditties, don't we? "Smacking around","abuse", "assault", "battery". And, even given that you may be speaking
metaphorically (would you own up to that? or are all "abuse"'s equal in your
mind?), the fact remains, that I wasn't addressing any particular person. If
you chose to be the "poor, innocent, meek victim" of my "viscious, brutal,
barbaric, needless onslaughts", then that's your pre-fucken-rogative.
Of course, I don't think you have any reason to be upset, to take my comments
personally, unless you are one of the "military-buffs" I referred to. In that
case, well, then I think you are worthy of a little verbal haranguing. At
least.
So, if you agree with me, then why did you choose to put yourself into the
victimized stance? You did it yourself. It is your fault you are offended.
And, please, please, don't liken this to a situation of a rape trial where
the victim is berated with "why did you put yourself into a position where his
dick could accidentally penetrate you? how irresponsible". If you make that
analogy with this type of situation, then you disgust the fucking shit out of
me.
- is more important that trying to change people's minds by getting them to
- listen to you.
Who says I was trying to change people's minds? I don't have any control over
others' minds, nor do I want any. I simply aired my view, which I felt to
be appropriate to the running thread.
If you read it, then you listened to me. Simple as that.
And if you can't take it, and if all you gotta do is chastize me for "heavens!
language!", then tough shitters; you're opinion ain't worth muchofa much, to
me.
And, if you're offended by my attack on the term, "defense", then toughie-
noughie to that, too. I could care less. In fact, I do.
- That's certainly the impression I've gotten. I can't, honestly, respect
- that a lot.
And I can't, honestly, respect your stance a lot, either, since there seems to
be more important things to rage over, than someone's "goddammit fucking shit".It still befuddles me, bewilders me, and befangles me, that you, of all fuckingpeople, are attacking me for this.
- I was raised in a tradition of activism, not philosophy.
Good for you (about the activism thing), much maybe you oughtta take a closer
look at your philosophies. You've got 'em all right. And they're a christing
mess.
And, finally, in response to marc:
- adwright, I don't get offended at language.
Good.
- Frankly, I could care less.
Cool.
- However, on the net, language is all you have to try to
- convince people of your beliefs. Many people will see your language,
- and will decide you are a flaming, offensive net.asshole, and ignore
- your posts entirely.
Those people, (who would cast aside my comments with summarist disdain at their"language"), are morons. Good god-damn riddance to the like. I can think of
better ways to waste my time than to spend hours and hours trying get these
people to listen to me. Fuck 'em. Let 'em go read their USA Today.
- If you think that such people are irrelevant to your cause,
First of all, I don't have an allfired intricately-organized "cause" here.
I was airing. And I did air, with one post.
- then you have no
- need to change. But I find that
- sophisticated, mature writing which uses logical argument and not
- invective is much more effective in making people see my viewpoints.
Yes. I agree with you completely.
Had I been interested in ensnaring the abovementioned "morons" with my verbal
cavorts and caveets, I would, in fact, have toned down (or eliminated, given
the sensitivity level prevalent here) the ichor, and employed more persuasive
tactics such as sophisticated, "mature" (I'm a bit iffy on what others consideron what others consider "mature", but, in the hypothetical, I'd humer them)
language, and above all would have used logical argument (I think what I said
was highly logical, but not necessarily an argument, when standing alone like
it does, with no one exerting themselves in the slightest to address the pointsI made). And, though, I think invective is a little bit of a subjective thing.And not necessarily something to be banned from the proceedings. An argument
can become very heated, and one participant, exasperated at hir slipping-up,
can cry "invective! invective! gratuitous use of invective!" to silence the
opposing party. It's done all the time, on the netty.
- If you think that such writing forces it to be innocuous and inane,
No, I do not.
Just, my point was that, certain individuals (all too populous in this society,in my opinion), are averse to touching any bundle-of-info-or-ideas, if it
doesn't read like a fucking comic book (i.e.: Newsweek, Inside Edition, Today,
and such ilk).
- I'll be happy to show you some essays which are moving and effective,
- without being acrid in tone.
Yes, there are many, indeed. And many have I read.
