--- In [email protected], "L B Shriver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > snip > > > (Terminology is interesting. "Pro-TMer" isn't > > considered disparaging by either those who support > > TM or its critics, yet "anti-TMer" evokes howls of > > outrage from the latter. And while "anti-TMer" is > > considered offensive by the critics, it doesn't > > bother them at all to label the pro-TMers > > "TBs/True Believers.") > > > ******** > > This is an astute observation. For example, I occasionally use the True Believer or > equivalent lable, while at the same time I usually reject the anti- TM label when applied to > yours truly. > > The moral equivalency of labels is usually an uncomfortable topic for those who like to use > them. On the other hand, it doesn't necessarily follow that what we might call the "truth > content" of the labels is equivalent.
Right, it's more a matter of what people intend when applying the labels. "True Believer," as used here, is almost always intended to demean (not necessarily by you), and it tends to be applied indiscriminately to anyone who expresses disagreement with a TM critic. Until one of the critical noisemakers here started attacking me (and others) for using the term "anti-TMer," however, I had never considered it a derogatory term. I had used the phrase "rabid anti-TMer" when I wanted to indicate an extremist position, and I used it very selectively. Yet somehow the pro-TMers are expected to refer politely to "TM critics" while humbly submitting to being labeled "True Believers." > As I'm sure you are aware, it's much easier to be impartial about topics in which we are not > personally involved. If, for example, we were having a discussion about a group of > Christian fundamentalists that was experiencing fragmentation and schism over the years, > we would probably be able to identify familiar roles being played out. Furthermore, we > would probably have no difficulty accepting the prevailing view among educated people > that the hard core membership of the organization is likely to be more narrow-minded > and paranoid than the membership at the fringe, and tend to view them more negatively > than anyone else would. Certainly. > True believership is a well-documented phenomenon, and is usually associated with some > form of cognitive or development deficit. I suspect so, which is why it should be used selectively. > Having said that, it is also only too true that those outside the core are often blind to their > own prejudices and negative thinking. In effect, their thought processes are virtually > indistinguishable from the TB's. Thank you. I've been pointing this out here for some time now, so I'm pleased to find you concur. > What a beautiful universe. Weird, but beautiful... To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
