01/03/02 - 00:40:47
IP: 188.8.131.52 Browser: Mozilla/4.76 (Macintosh; U; PPC)
I read it differently, Keith, & your reaction gives me something to think about.|
First, I didn't see MC as suppressing dissent; what I saw was, in his own words, a "take no prisoners" -- over-the-top, full-blast reaction to a provocative post.
I've been considering whether it's hypocritical of me to have minded Mickey Hart being called a "twit", but to have laughed out loud at MC's barrage. I'll think about it. It may be, but I think one difference was the provocation; another was that I admit to enjoying fiercely colorful speech; finally, I think the difference that matters most to me is that it's part of an exchange (not side-swiping & driving off). Scot's perfectly free to go to his thesaurus & hurl back his own favorite expletives... In no way does M.C.'s post seem to me to be inherently suppressing dissent. Amping up the volume, yeah. Name-calling, yeah (though, to my ear, there was a comic-book quality to the ones in this post that would make me take them less seriously than others I could imagine).
Back to my main point here: What does this have to do with inhibiting dissent? M.C. was dissenting, Scot was dissenting, now I'M dissenting...
There have been lots of times when someone on the board has told someone else the equivalent of "I don't like your tone" or "I find you intimidating" -- whatever, & that's something that can be & has been taken up productively between the individuals involved. Maybe that'll happen in this instance, maybe not. But nowhere do I hear anyone being told he or she can't hold a contrary view. It's just that, as the Boy Scouts say, you have to "be prepared..."
For Further Reading
Jefferson Starship Message Board Main