Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 00:31:11 +0200 From: Erik <anarchie-AT-buelinckx.net> Subject: Re: Invitation to Aynarchism At 21:28 +0200 26-09-2000, Thomas Gramstad wrote: > >> A lot of things can be wrong with a flame fest: it can >>> intimidate people, scare people away, waste a lot of time; >>> flaming can be a fucking patriarchal power trip, that's what's >>> wrong with it. > >> A flame fest is what you make of it. > >Yes, but must one always make (something out of) a flame fest >in the first place? Why is allowing a flame fest to drown out >other voices anarchistic and freedom-loving, while creating a >space for those other voices is not and cannot be? By creating that space you destroy some other space and in the process you violate a (one the few) fundamental idea of anarchism which poorly translates to this: my (your) freedom preferably ends where yours (mine) begins. A flame fest is a series of words, that's all. On the other hand: denying people to speak out because you don't like what they say is a an authoritarian (and therefor unarchistic) way of running things. What makes it worse is that no member of such moderated list will know if, why, when someone is muzzled. > > By banning something out of a patronizing sense of PC you do not >> create the basis of anarchistic cooperation. > >I don't really worry a lot about accusations about "PC". Most of >the time such accusations come from patriarchalists, or the >Patriarchally Correct. But the focus here was not the term "PC" but the idea of anarchistic cooperation. Nice try but missed. Erik
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005