[223] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
extropians
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Susan M Buchman)
Fri Apr 27 09:00:07 2001
Message-Id: <200104271259.IAA25069@all-night-tool.mit.edu>
To: mit-talk@MIT.EDU
cc: spa-discuss@MIT.EDU
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 08:59:38 -0400
From: Susan M Buchman <susan1@MIT.EDU>
>>It was definitely a discussion topic among freshmen that year, huh.
>>The upperclassmen all had reason to hate it (without reading it),
>>but all the frosh found it interesting. It was critical of MIT, but
>>laid out compelling arguements.
where interesting is defined as "horrifying and disgusting"? i know
two freshmen who called up their second-choice school after receiving
the pahmplet and asked if it was too late to change their mind; one
actually decided to go to princeton instead.
but i'm sure instead of appreciating the magnitude to which this
pamphlet hurt some people and agreeing that spending your four years
in an environment full of sexist assholes is something no one should
have to put themselves through, many of us will claim she just wasn't
tough enough for our MIT, right?
>>Nothing in it was racist or sexist, but people who disagree with
>>their point of view found it convenient to label them as such. They
>>were definitely weird, and reading their mailling I was convinced
>>that there were two extropians :), but it was an interesting read.
>>However, lambasting them as racist and sexist seems misinformed.
>>Their view may not be popular, but it didn't appear to be an attempt
>>to insult people for race and gender.
lovely. you do realize you've made the exact sort of argument you
claim to find disappointing anti-extropians, namely "if you disagree
with me (a white male, perchance?) that a pamplet explaining why women
and minorities don't belong here isn't offensive, you can't possibly
be justified, you're just uninformed."
yee-haw.
susan buchman
p.s. i'm moving this to spa-discuss, and will only respond to
spa-discuss.
