Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [OT] flame-fest

[Tom Lord]

    > From: Evan Powers <address@hidden>

    > I would argue that, in most discussions, acknowledging the
    > existence of a certain question is effectively identical to
    > asserting a particular answer to that question for some
    > proportion of the people listening.

How unfortunate.  When I was in elementary school (around age 10 or
so) learning not to make such mistakes was a notable part of of the
curriculum designed to teach basic reading skills.  Really, we had
quizzes on that sort of thing.   Basic literacy is one of the building
blocks of a free society.

Of course, even prior to that, the basic distinctions of which
language is capable were an informal part of the familial educational
process -- but I guess that is one my particular privileges.

Spelling, on the other hand, is something I've never quite got the
hang of.  So their.


    > One may argue that people should be more discerning in their
    > thought processes if one wants, but it's rather pointless.

I disagree that it is pointless.  On average, I think, nearly all
people _can_ be pretty smart, are even naturally inclined to be that
way until it is munged out of them, and really one should not expect
them into being dumb -- but expect them into being smart.  You might
be surprised how people can surprise you.

On political issues of substance, people are often condescended to.
"Messages" are dumbded down in ways that you suggest.  Consequently,
constructing syntactic ambiguity that will be favorably misinterpreted
by the greatest number of people has become the art of political
advisors: the political process has become adept not at exploiting
basic literacy but rather at helping to further suppress basic
literacy.

Indeed, that "dumbing down" of political discourse is precisely the
process that gave rise to the phrase "plausible deniability" that
Stephen levies as an accusation against me -- when really, as you seem
to have recognized (even if you disapprove) I am engaged in the very
opposite.

    > Therefore, I argue that the best way to facilitate smooth and
    > productive discourse is to refrain from acknowledging the
    > existence of any question for which you are not willing to
    > assert a particular answer.

Is that sort of like Douglas Adams' concept of "peril sensitive
sunglasses"?


"Screw you guys, I'm going home" -- Eric Cartman, revolutionary in the
making.
-t