From: "Mark Waller" <malcontent-AT-ev1.net>
Subject: RE: on alpha males
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 15:39:23 -0500


I take your questions as essentially rhetorical, so let me know if I'm wrong
on that and you actually have some question.  Otherwise I believe we simply
disagree and I don't see much point in carrying it further.  As always: take
what you can use and ignore the rest.
-m

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-anarchy-list-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
[mailto:owner-anarchy-list-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU]On Behalf Of Sandi
and Scott Spaeth
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 3:08 PM
To: anarchy-list-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Subject: RE: on alpha males


At 01:55 PM 6/18/04, Mark Waller wrote:
>You are essentially saying we should accept it because that's the way it
is.
>If that argument is valid for this list, then it is also valid for
>capitalist, statist society.  If it is not a valid argument for supporting
>capitalism and statism, then it is not a valid argument for this list.

What?   This sounds like one of those "all rules must be universal" type
arguments that makes paternalism such a complete annoyance.   What does
"anarchists aren't likely to be timid" have to do with statism?


>If we knowingly take actions that discourage the timid and thin-skinned
from
>participation, then we who are not timid and thin-skinned are defining
>ourselves as the only ones worthy of participation.

Well, in the sense that the only people worthy of participation are people
who are up for participating, then yes.   A world, country, commune,
virtual pub, etc. designed for its most fragile possible member is a
serious annoyance for everyone else.

>  That is so-called
>"natural selection", or survival of the fittest - an essential plank of
>fascism.

No it isn't.  Seriously, read up on fascism.  Besides, this would be
survival of the most determined rather than fittest as internet arguments
go to the poster with the most free time and willingness to continue the
argument.

>   Those who might think this forum, or any other, is too combative
>to participate in democratically, are not likely to have stuck around long
>enough to back me up in voicing my concerns.

The funny thing about voluntary associations is that you get precisely
that.  The other funny thing is that polite, non-combative lists tend also
to be dead lists.  Coincidence?

>You say that most people here are hard-headed, have no problem propounding
>their ideas, etc.  So what happened to those who weren't so assertive?

Don't know, don't care, because I can't do anything about them.

>   Did
>they just never stop by here to begin with?  Did they simply fail to exist?
>
>I repeat: I am not asking for anyone to restrain anyone else.  I am asking
>everyone to consider how they can help everyone else feel empowered to
>participate.  I strongly believe in self-sovereignty and self-empowerment,
>so that each of us individually is responsible for deciding whether we
>should or should not do anything differently.

Until you're in the grip of an idea worth arguing about, you probably won't
want to get involved in an argument.  No matter how comfortable anybody
tries to make those people, if they don't have anything to say, or haven't
thought it through well enough to defend it once said, then there's nothing
to be done for them.   I can't make people convinced of their own ideas.

>  I am trying to ensure that
>everyone has sufficient information to make informed decisions in this
>regard.

again, what?

cheers,
scott