Mark Hall offers another view of my Mr. Johnson should be "filtered,"
claiming that since HISTARCH is a moderated list, the moderator can decide
what goes on or off the list. Anita has very generously noted that HISTARCH
is not moderated, so I suppose there is no real need to deal with this
particular claim.
Moving on, Mark suggests that I consult the Chronicle of Higher Education. I
suppose this is in response to my point that it seems improper to expect
individual to meet standards that are, at best, uncodified and, at worst,
illusionary. With a subscription of only 96,980 I would hardly consider the
Chronicle of Higher Education to be a publication of the "masses." I continue
to maintain the position that it is unreasonable to defend "filtering" by
references to some vague etiquette. In fact, I am willing to venture that
Miss Manners would most likely suggest the same thing I have suggested --
that Mr. Johnson simply be ignored. I rather suspect that she would find it
abhorrent that "etiquette" is being used to justify "filtering" an
individual.
And finally, Mark believes that unless "God . . . tells us what to do . . .
we . . . have to deal with mob rule or majority rule." I suppose this depends
on what he means by "deal with." If he means, by "deal with," debate,
question, and perhaps even oppose, then he is correct. If he means that since
God isn't standing here telling us what to do that we should just abandon
moral reasoning and become passive sheep to be lead by mobs, then I must
disagree.
I find this arguement to be increasingly use to justify all sorts of awful
actions. And I can't believe that Mark, or anyone else on this list for that
matter, really accepts the implications of this statement.
The world is full of "mobs" and (in some places) "majorities" -- Nazis,
segregationists, anti-semetics, dictators, and on and on. Certainly, Mark and
others don't believe that the only chose is simply to accept their rule?
Certainly Mark and others aren't saying that hatred and lack of respect for
basic human dignity should be accepted simply because 51% of the population
appear to have voted for it?
Of course they aren't -- but this example shows how dangerous the path is
that we are walking down. It shows how easy it is to "filter" one person and
then suddenly be forced to defend all sorts of other horrible behaviors. It
clearly reveals the point that I have been making all along -- you can't
"filter" one person without putting everyone at risk. You take away the voice
of one person, no matter how irrational you feel it to be, without
endangering the voice of everyone else.
Mark suggests to me that if I want to read Mr. Johnson's posts I should
subscribe to some other list. I've heard this one before and I have tried to
make it clear that it doesn't matter that there are other lists. It doesn't
matter that I could start my one list. The point is much simpler -- it has to
do with the moral and philosphical issues involved in "filtering" Mr.
Johnson.
Of course Mr. Johnson is his own worse enemy. And it pains me that I am
compelled to defend someone who is not, on the surface, a particularly nice
person. After Mr. Johnson's recent posting alleging lies and threatening
lawsuits, I received a post from an individual who called Mr. Johnson a
"bastard" and asking if I really wanted to "bow to threats and blackmail."
I suggest that it is no nicer to make threats than it is to call someone a
bastard. The chances are, however, that we have ALL done both at some time or
another. I believe that this simply continues to point out that the simple,
and rational, use of the delete key would solve much of our problem. Instead
we, as a group, have tried something more heavy handed. That is unfortunate
-- especially since we are seeing what it leads to. Perhaps it proves the
maxim of "act, don't react."
Mike Trinkley
Chicora Foundation, Inc.
PO Box 8664
Columbia, SC 29202-8664
803/787-6910
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
|
