[GPSCC-chat] discussion vs. contention
Brian Good
snug.bug at hotmail.com
Thu May 16 17:57:25 PDT 2013
"Disinformation" is a loaded term because it implies that someone is deliberately
seeking to deceive, i.e., some kind of "agent".
In the Truth movement we had a lot of ugly wrangling because the movement
attracted more than its share of "imaginative" (and sometimes downright wacko)
types, and we'd have trust issues if that new guy taking notes at the meetings had
hair that was too long or too short or whatever somebody wanted to get anxious about.
And some of us remembered the paranoid stories of infiltrating agents provocateur in
the antiwar movement in the seventies, and remembered that when the Frank Church
Commission looked into Cointelpro it turned out that most of those stories were true.
And then many of us saw no need to go beyond what had been in the NYT and WaPo,
and we felt that those who wanted to push their colorful (and sometimes very goofy)
conspiracy theories were at the least irresponsible, and maybe worse. When after
long, patient discussion they still insisted that those squishy brown things they were
putting in the punch bowl were tootsie rolls, we questioned their motives and their
sincerity. Were they deliberately trying to make us look bad? It sure looked that way
sometimes. But if we took steps to try to reduce their influence, they'd insist that we
were government agents trying to cover up the fact that they'd got the key to the
Crime of the Century and By God nobody was going to take their place in history away
from them! (One of these clowns, who thought it was cute to advocate arson and
armed insurrection and bigoted conspiracy theories, still maintains a web page where
he suggests that I might be a room full of government operatives.)
But ultimately most of us learned not to speculate about people's motives, and instead
to focus on disruptive behaviors. A very thoughtful bunch of activists came up with some
guidelines to that effect. http://www.truthmove.org/content/2008-declaration/
With respect to Move to Amend, I tend to feel that the goal of a Constitutional
Amendment may be somewhat impractical, but the same can be said for the goal of
putting Jill Stein in the White House. In the meantime it's a good nexus for organizing,
and the San Jose meetings are well attended.
I heard the talking point John's talking about (Supreme Court ruling establishing
corporate right not to speak) brought up at the MtA rally in Palo Alto. I'd assumed
this had something to do with San Francisco's ordinance requiring cell phone retailers
to disclose health concerns, but apparently not. It seems to involve whether the NLRB
can require employers to post information about their labor organizing rights.
https://movetoamend.org/court-rules-corporate-right-not-speak-trumps-workers-right-information4
As to David Cobb, I was inspired by his talk at the Humanist Society in Palo Alto
a year or so back ( I think Gerry and Andrea and Carol and Dana were there), so
much inspired that I downloaded the one-hour video and started cutting it into
an 8-minute version. http://vimeo.com/29985937
What had most excited me were two pretty mind-blowing claims:
1. That the Boston Tea Party was not really a protest against taxes but rather a
protest against tax BREAKS granted to the East India Company
2. That at the time of the Constitutional Convention only 5% of the population
of the USA qualified to vote (you had to be male, white, and a property owner).
I was disappointed to find that verifying these claims was taking more time than
I was willing to spend. I dropped the project. If anybody can verify those claims,
I'd pick up again, but life is too short for "Because Thom Hartmann says so, that's
how I know!"
B
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 15:16:02 -0700
From: rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com
To: spencer.graves at prodsyse.com
CC: sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org
Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] discussion vs. contention
Sure, that sounds like a great idea Spencer. Thanks for the creative input! Green is GO!
Drew
~*~*~*~Dr. Jill Stein and Cheri Honkala leading
the 100 member Green Shadow Cabinet to A Green New Deal for America
http://greenshadowcabinet.us
Dr. Stein's Campaign website: http://www.jillstein.org/
Climate Voter Power Pledge: http://www.jillstein.org/dc_climate_protests
First TV Ad http://tinyurl.com/JillStein1stAd
From: Spencer Graves <spencer.graves at prodsyse.com>
To: Drew <rainbeaufriend at yahoo.com>
Cc: Caroline Yacoub <carolineyacoub at att.net>; "sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org" <sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: [GPSCC-chat] discussion vs. contention
Hi, Drew, John, et al.:
On 5/16/2013 1:22 PM, Drew wrote:
If it is only about personalities (which this is not)
I agree with this sentiment, however just as any false or
harmful statement made in public against others it needs to
be challenged also in public.
I see two problems here:
1. One persons "facts" are another's potentially "false
or harmful statements".
2. Sometimes the more I say, the less I communicate.
This is particularly true with a long string of emails in the same
thread in a list like this. I haven't paid a lot of attention to
this thread other than to see that Drew and John each have strong
positions about something -- and the issues are easily
misunderstood, because an email thread like this is a very poor tool
for promoting understanding and reconciliation.
Would Drew and John mind moving this discussion to Wikiversity
under the "Broad political discourse" initiative I'm trying to start
there (http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Broad_political_discourse)?
In this forum, I would ask the discussion to be organized like a
table with three columns with titles something like "heterodox" and
"orthodox" with "research needed" between the two. This would allow
each side to present their case with the supporting evidence and the
other to raise questions about the evidence. With a little luck,
after some formal analysis and organization of evidence, you can
develop a consensus statement that could then be reposted back to
the group.
I can provide technical assistance in creating a Wikiversity
page for this and helping answer questions about the Wikimedia
markup language so the discussion is actually productive, and it is
easier to understand the different positions, the evidence behind
same, and how a consensus might be reached.
Spencer
Green is GO!
Drew
~*~*~*~
Dr. Jill Stein and Cheri
Honkala leading the 100 member Green Shadow Cabinet to A Green
New Deal for America
http://greenshadowcabinet.us
Dr. Stein's Campaign
website: http://www.jillstein.org/
Climate Voter Power Pledge:
http://www.jillstein.org/dc_climate_protests
First TV Ad http://tinyurl.com/JillStein1stAd
From:
Caroline Yacoub <carolineyacoub at att.net>
To:
sosfbay-discuss <sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org>
Sent:
Thursday, May 16, 2013 1:08 PM
Subject:
[GPSCC-chat] discussion vs. contention
When something on our discussion list
devolves into a personal contention, I
think those involved should address their
postings to each other rather than to the
entire list.
Caroline
_______________________________________________
sosfbay-discuss mailing list
sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org
http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss
_______________________________________________
sosfbay-discuss mailing list
sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org
http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss
--
Spencer Graves, PE, PhD
President and Chief Technology Officer
Structure Inspection and Monitoring, Inc.
751 Emerson Ct.
San José, CA 95126
ph: 408-655-4567
web: www.structuremonitoring.com
_______________________________________________
sosfbay-discuss mailing list
sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org
http://lists.cagreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sosfbay-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20130516/b3d0daf9/attachment.html>
More information about the sosfbay-discuss
mailing list