I suppose having indirectly instigated this thread I should weigh in with my views. I think there's an important distinction to be made between occasional outbursts of rudeness or snark (which I myself indulge in if my nose is out of joint) and a chronic motivation of contempt and disrespect for individuals, groups and ideas that don't conform to one's own. What I objected to was not an outburst but an insidious theme, one of the tentacles of which is "Jew = Zionist = predator," another of which is "anyone who disagrees with or criticizes my views = predator." Trust me, I've read enough Thorstein Veblen to tell the difference between his critical analytical use of the term and its appropriation as a catch-all slur.
People sometimes say things I think are asinine or simply glorified cliches. I've got no problem with that. I can criticize or I can ignore them. But slander and defamation I won't tolerate or accommodate. These are not just unfortunate incidents, they are the perpetrator's motivation. Sorry to be inflexible but it is also clear to me that there are people I would want to engage in conversation who would have a lower level of tolerance for this kind of thing than I do. On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 8:54 AM, Arthur Cordell <[email protected]>wrote: > I am trying to manage things so that a core group of interested people can > contribute in a civilized way. I happen to think that Bullshit is > inappropriate and is an expression of anger. How about saying: I think you > are wrong. Or how about saying nothing. Not every post has to be responded > to. Too often it seems that people feel compelled to respond in one way or > another. While in the law silence is consent on the FW list silence is just > that. Silence. I often open a posting, see that is of no interest or it is > something that is strictly opinion (which I have heard before) and gently > delete. > > > > Imagine that we are a group of people who have gathered outside a lecture > hall where a lecture on the future of work had taken place. We are > informally chatting and offering up suggestions, ideas and thoughts. > Informal. Gentle. And then someone angrily offers an expletive. There may > be a temptation to walk away from the group and find a more congenial > setting or just walk away and devote time to other pursuits. > > > > Let’s give things a week or so to sort out. > > > > > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *D and N > *Sent:* Thursday, November 25, 2010 11:41 AM > *To:* Keith Hudson; RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION > > *Subject:* Re: [Futurework] Lets get back to the future of work and away > from pushing and shoving > > > > Keith. I, as everyone in this world is confronted by or offered > bullshit every day of our lives. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. From > politicians. From Big Business. From teachers. >From down-and-outers on the > street. It's a fact of life. It's in the dictionary. We even step in it > ourselves all too often and pass it around as we walk through life. Not > everything that comes from "lettered folk" is *AWE*some. All too often, in > retrospect, ideas are shown to be ill-conceived or just plain wrong. *But*, > bullshit, once worked through the "filters" of the world, can be the > fertilizer of the mind. Is it that the cradle is still too tight around you > that you continually slip back to it? > > > Darryl > > On 11/25/2010 7:39 AM, Keith Hudson wrote: > > Arthur, > > When I wrote my very careful description of what I thought to be the > relevance of the new discoveries of epigenetics on the perseverance of > culture from generation to generation -- to which REH responded with > "Bullshit" -- then I wish I had had Oliver Wendell Holmes's amazingly > prescient quotation to hand. In poetic language this describes exactly what > I was attempting to discuss. > > I won't be writing to Futurework again until there are clear signs that REH > and Christoph Reuss understand and observe the normal rules of courtesy. Or > you can delete me from the list. I won't mind either way. I have had enough > of both of them to last me for quite a long time to come. > > Keith > > > At 10:03 25/11/2010 -0500, you wrote: > > Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0046_01CB8C88.0B442F90" > Content-Language: en-us > > Lots of good and constructive responses to how to nurture the health and > integrity of the list. > > > > This morning up popped this sobering Thought for Today > > > > *A THOUGHT FOR TODAY: > * > We are all tattooed in our cradles with the beliefs of our tribe; the > record may seem superficial, but it is indelible. You cannot educate a man > wholly out of the superstitious fears which were implanted in his > imagination, no matter how utterly his reason may reject them. -Oliver > Wendell Holmes, Sr, poet, novelist, essayist, and physician (1809-1894) > > ----------------------- > > So like the myth of Sisyphus we continue. And where possible we try to > recognize what is going on in us and what is going on in the world around > us. And we try accept that there are filters that we know about and filters > that we dont know about that cause us to interpret the world in one way or > the other. > > arthur > > > > > > > > *From:* [email protected] [ > mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]>] > *On Behalf Of *Gail Stewart > *Sent:* Thursday, November 25, 2010 12:36 AM > *To:* RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION > *Subject:* Re: [Futurework] Lets get back to the future of work and away > from pushing and shoving > > > > Hi Arthur and all, > > > > I'm uneasy with the notion of excluding people from the list, especially > long-standing participants. On their behalf, I'd like to suggest that it is > at first distressing and then perhaps increasingly irritating not to have > one's perceptions or deepfelt convictions addressed, especially when the > issues raised are clearly related to issues of work and hence the FW list, > e.g. predators, on Chris's part, and cultural perceptions, on Ray's. > > > > While I don't pretend to have read everything everyone has said, I try to > keep up with a general sense of where the discussion on FW is going. I don't > recall seeing any sustained attempt to address Chris's "predators" whether > psychologically, politically or economically (for example). We seem to have > treated the matter more as a conspiracy theory personal to Chris. The theory > is surely more prevalent than that in our society, although under a variety > of names and is not irrelevant to "work and working." Maybe we could give it > a more thorough going-over than has been done. > > > > Similarly, I think we have been rather dismissive of Ray's attempt to > illuminate our understanding of his culture, tending often to see it as > merely a variant of our own. (I hope I'm not being unfair -- it is at least > my impression that we are not treating his participation as coming from a > different (forgive me but the term may be more familiar as denoting radical > difference) "paradigm." > > > > If I'm not mistaken, it is near impossible for those of us immersed in > conventional Western culture to perceive the world as I suspect Ray must > perceive it. Making a couple of guesses, I would suggest that, rather than > seeing the environment as we do, as "out there," he may see it as context, > so that all of us are "in here." I've known very few persons non-native to > North America who can even glimpse that perspective, let alone sustain it. > (My own glimpses of life lived that way around, which involve a Copernican > shift in my "Western" outlook, have been few and unsustainable.) > > > > Similarly, human relations are perhaps perceived differently by Ray, his > culture possibly being far more accepting of us (i.e. other persons) than we > who are of Western culture are of other persons. Indeed the FW list is so > biased itself in terms of the gender of its participants that dialogue with > Ray comes heavily from the odd angle of male rather than Western culture > more inclusively. (The list would of course be enlivened, made more > intelligent and empathic with more balanced participation from both genders. > But perhaps I'm biased myself. <grin>) > > > > A wise woman I knew insisted, "we are enriched by our differences." Rather > than, on this list, trying to argue each other into abandoning other > outlooks in favour of our own, perhaps we might re-embrace our current > "transgressors," avoid an "our way or the highway" approach, value our > differences -- and get back to discussing "work." > > > > Ray, would you please say something again about the perception of "work" in > the community in which you grew up? A friend of mine, an aboriginal elder, > shocked me when he insisted that, in his village, they didn't have an > "economy" but only "a way of life." As an economist it took me a while to > understand how it was possible not to have an economy, let alone the > important implications of this for our Western concept of work. In a very > practical way it seemed to me these implications might be used to strengthen > the arguments for the basic income of interest to Sally and others -- and > indeed could helpfully affect a number of our policies. > > > > All this said, I do deplore the decline in civility which has occurred and > have been surprised and saddened by it. I hope that era is behind us. > > > > Regards, > > > > Gail > > > > P.S. Apologies for all the Western culture talk -- I wish there were a > better term. Any candidates? > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Harry Pollard <[email protected]> > > To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, > EDUCATION'<[email protected]> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 5:24 PM > > Subject: Re: [Futurework] Lets get back to the future of work and > awayfrompushing and shoving > > > > My experience, Mike, is that when restrictions are placed on a list to make > it better, it tends to disappear. > > > > We must be careful about any actions we take. > > > > Harry > > > > From: [email protected] [ > mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]>] > On Behalf Of Michael Gurstein > > Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 9:38 AM > > To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION' > > Subject: Re: [Futurework] Lets get back to the future of work and away > frompushing and shoving > > > > Arthur, > > > > What you seem to be suggesting for list governance is rather more of the > "hidden hand" market place--bad actors will be shunned and correct their > behaviour as a result. It appears that for whatever reason some of those in > the marketplace don't respond to the same set of product cues in the same > way as others do hence the bad behaviours are in many cases engaged with > rather than shunned. > > > > If the list were in fact self governing rather than left to the laissez > faire of the open market there would be some process of collective > self-regulation/governance. > > > > Having been involved in several such efforts I know that they can be > tedious in the extreme but perhaps as list coordinators you folks might like > to suggest a few simple rules for collective self-government as for example > along the lines of "formal complaints by two members of the group to the > coordinators and then there is a public process of voting people "off the > island" -- or some such. > > > > M > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [ > mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]>] > On Behalf Of Arthur Cordell > > Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 6:29 AM > > To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATION' > > Subject: [Futurework] Lets get back to the future of work and away > frompushing and shoving > > I received this message from an active FWer. And I am adding my own plea > to FWers below. > > > > ======================== > > > > Arthur, > > I won't participate in the futurework list as long as racist and venomous > comments continue. This kind of talkdoesn't contribute anything to the list > but bile. > > > > ========================== > > > > My open plea to FWers. > > > > > > FW was set up to discuss the future of work but seems to go off track from > time to time. The conversation soon leads to schoolyard type of talk I said > this, no you said that&you are a creep, no you are a creep. Pointless > schoolyard pushing and shoving. > > > > If people want to engage in this virtual pushing and shoving please do it > off list. One to one. So that others dont have to be party to what are > private shoving (pissing?) matches. > > > > I have asked individual FWers to not respond to those FWers who provoke in > this way (you know who you are) thinking that by shunning those who behave > this way would cause them to change their ways or drift off to another list > where this sort of behavior is tolerated. But for whatever reason a few > (you know who you are) seem to want to pick a fight and so things heat up. > > > > Now is our chance to be a self-governing group. Lets not do or say > anything virtually that we wouldnt say if we were talking face to face. > > > > I prize civility and exchange of ideas. How do other FWers feel about > this? Suggestions and ideas welcome. > > > > > > Arthur > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > Keith Hudson, Saltford, England > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Futurework mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > -- Sandwichman
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
