Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 17:07:37 -0600
Subject:  Re: Fraud over "rec.music.white-power:" Cui bono?


[Tallpaul, this post was delayed because you posted it from an
address at which you are not subscribed.  This has been fixed for the
future, so you can post from either address.  Any questions, contact
me privately.  Lisa]

To: marxism2-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: Re: Fraud over "rec.music.white-power:" Cui bono?
From: tallpaul-AT-nyc.pipeline.com (tallpaul)

I am bewildered by R. Mahajan's post below on a wide variety of
levels. 
  On Apr 30, 1996 12:03:05, 'rahul-AT-peaches.ph.utexas.edu (Rahul
Mahajan)' wrote: 
 
  >Tallpaul,  >  >Your "cui bono" argument is, of course, no more
legitimate than an ad 
>hominem or post hoc ergo propter hoc argument. 
  This compares aadrvarks and apples and oranges. 
  Ad hominem arguments are less arguments than personal attacks. 
  Post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments constitute informal fallacies
in arguments. 
  "Cui bono?" is a permissible tool in the analysis of data; it is
not an argument like ad
hominem or post hoc. 
  My use of the "cui bono?" tool might be valid or invalid, but
neither assertion that I
misused it or comparison of an analytic tool to informal fallacies
make it so. 
  >  > I can just imagine Holocaust  >deniers saying, "Who benefits
>from these ridiculous
stories of gas chambers  >and crematoria? Why, the Israel lobby, of
course."  > 
  So can I. So what? 
  They ask a question. They provide a true answer. The answer does
not contain the entireity
of the truth but I do not consider this a problem here (the word
"ridiculous" aside.) 
  The Issael lobby benefits; so do other antifascists who bring it
up. That is one of the
reasons the people who talk of nazi genocide actually talk of nazi
genocide -- they benefit
>from it. Why should they not? 
 
  >I was rather upset over the whole way the rec.music.white-power
vote was  >handled by
the left cyber-activists (those I saw). There may be some  >history
here of which I'm
unaware, in which case I would be happy to be  >enlightened. 
  With all due respect, there has been an enormous amount written. It
seems to me that you
have the obligation to enlighten yourself, not to seek enlightenment
>from other people. (If,
e.g. I come onto the list wondering about _Capital_ I should read it,
not expect activists to
teach it to me.) 
  >  >The question raised in my mind by this aggressive attempt to 
>keep fascists from
discussing their musical preferences in their own little  >private
space was, of course, the
hackneyed "How are we better than them  >then?"   > 
  Bewilderment all around. 
  One: what form of "agression" occured? 
  Two: as even antifascist rightists on the net pointed out, the
nazis did not justify any
significant traffic on white-power music that justified creation of a
new group devoted to it,
according to normal USENET rules. 
  Three: the nazis have some six groups in the "alt" hierarchy to
discuss their music already. 
  Four: "alt.music.white-power" was set up in the middle of the
political dispute. Thusfar
there has been exactly *one* relevant non-cross-posted message in the
group about
white-power music, 
  Five: Unmoderated USENET groups are not "owned" by anyone, thus
"rec.music.white-power" would not and could not have been "[the
nazi's] own little private
space." 
  Six: I am unaware of anyone arguing "the hackneyed 'How are we
better than them  them'?" 
(BTW: does not the use of the word "hackneyed" constitute the
informal fallacy called "well
poisoning?" 
  >  >For those of you allergic to ethical issues, that's not what
I'm  >talking about, anyway. 
> 
  I am not aware of anyone allergic to ethical issues. (And if this
isn't what you are taking
about anyway, why write it and post it for public discussion?) 
  >  > I'm saying how is the middle, or simply the  >non-left, going
to percieve this
aggression?  > 
  As before, what "agression?" 
  >  >It will certainly look as  >though we're no more tolerant of
freedom than they are. The
largely  >libertarian culture of the Internet offers the left a
unique opportunity to  >garner
support and fellow-traveling, at least on some issues. Instead, we 
>just look as if our
jackboots point the opposite way.  > 
  Again, massive beweilderment. 
  I am not sure if we are to be fellow-travellers with the
libertarians or they with us. I find
either alternative distasteful. (I do not vote for the
Democrats but I am not going to form a far-right/far-left bloc
against the
middle-of-the-capitalist-road forces. Nor does my support for "well
regulated militias" include
the right of libertarians to personally accumulate quantities of
nerve gas or bacteriaological
weapon sufficient for mass destruction. etc. etc.) 
  >  >I'm not some idiot who talks about parliamentary measures while
the  >fascists are
kicking our teeth in on the street, but on the Net we have our 
>space and they have theirs.  > 
  To some, myself included, this is part of the problem in the world,
but we live in
post-Faustian times. 
  Such "personal spaces" include e-mail, the WWW, and discussion
lists.
Nobody challenged the nazi areas in these three parts of net
technology.
The challenge was in USENET where groups get voted on. They did not
have
"their" area until granted the area by the net citizens; that was
what the debate was about. 
  >  > If we try to limit freedom in this basically  >unprincipled
way now, what will happen
when we come into power?  > 
  More bewilderment. 
  One: what freedom was limited? 
  The nazis had the freedom to write a REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION. They
did.
Their freedom was not limited. 
  The nazis had the freedom to issue a CALL FOR VOTES. They did.
Their freedon was not
limited. 
  The nazis had the freedom to argue for people to vote in favor of
their proposal. They did.
Their freedom was not limited. 
  The nazis had the freedom to vote YES on their proposal. They did.
Their freedom was not
limited. 
  (I realize that many people, for other reasons, will object to all
of this nazi freedom as the
nazis proceed to impinge on other people's freedom, but under present
historical and
technological conditions that is the nature of the internet.) 
  Two: what "unprincipled behavior?" 
  Did the VOTE NO campaign kill nazis? No. Did it launch mail bomb
attacks on their
personal e-mail accounts? No. Did it launch denial of service attacks
on their internet service
providers? No. Did it physically attack nazis in the street? No. Did
it call the cops reporting
that nazis molested children, etc. and seek their arrest? No. Did it
firebomb nazi
headquarters? gas nazis? burn them in ovens? Lynch them? Bash them on
the streets? No to
all of these questions. 
  What unprincipled act (singular, not plural) did any member of the
VOTE NO campaign
commit? I'd really like to know for if you can name a single action I
will condemn it. 
  >  >Only if the  >fascists make serious inroads on our or somebody
else's space is this kind
>of hysterical response warranted.  > 
  This sentence (assertion) again bewilders me. Growing numbers of
"men" in the street have
questions over whether the nazi genocide against the Jews
"really happened." Increasing numbers of black churches are burning
down in the South.
Attacks on the homosexual community continue unabated. 
  Nazis on the net freely advocate genocide. They wage an unremitting
campaign of hate
against homosexuals. They urge that black people be lynched. etc.
etc. 
  But when we urge people to VOTE NO against a special privledged
expansion of nazi hate
we're being "hysterical" and organizing in an unwarranted way???
(BTW: the use of the word
"hysterical" is also well-poisoning.) 
  >  >Rahul  > 
  --tallpaul 
  PS: The on topic single-post to alt.music.white-power was from me,
asking where I could
locate the videos of Wagner's entire Ring Cycle that was broadcast on
TV about two years
ago.







     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---