[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Sounds good to me ;)

Miller, Jeremy JMILLER at ci.albany.or.us
Fri Jun 21 19:38:26 UTC 2002


> > Yes, but I submit that I can still call it the American Dream.  
> > Because Americans wish to attain it... holding it in common as a
> > Dream.  (Well, maybe not all but I think you get what I mean.)  This
> > makes the term accurate.  I don't think it implies that we had the
> > idea first, or that we are the only ones who share it.
>
> Well, what if you decided to call it "the Male Dream"?  
> Doesn't that imply
> that women DO NOT share that dream?  Or that somehow the desire is
> stronger in men?  Or, worse, that everyone who has that 
> desire is trying
> to be a man?

OK, you win that one.  Sortof.

> Substitute "American" for "man" or "Male" and "non-Americans" for
> "women" and you see what I was trying to express (hopefully).

Yes, I do.

> It's not INACCURATE,

Then we agree.  This part was my point, because...

>but it's fairly misleading.

I can see this, and won't argue with that.  (And didn't think I was.)

I don't remember if that is what you said originally, though.  Someone
stated something, and called it the American Dream.  You responded: "It's
not the American Dream. It's older than the American Dream."

I'm just calling the first half of that inaccurate.  It is both the American
Dream, and the dream of others.  


> Clearly you know very little about anarchism as a philosophy.
> 
> If you did, you would realize that saying self-determination 
> and control
> of one's own destiny is the Anarchist Dream is not going out 
> on a limb at
> all.  That is perhaps the fundamental principle of anarchism.

I'll just mention that I mainly said "out on a limb" for the benefit of
those who would definitely consider it to be "out there" and not listen any
further just because I used that term in conjunction with a positive
concept.


> They're not mutually exclusive.  I don't think they are and I 
> didn't mean
> to imply that they were.

I actually didn't believe that you would think they were.  But your choice
of wording came out that way, and was sure to be seen that way by some.  I
just wanted to point out a distiction, and figured you'd handle it and
explain...

>  But it's misleading.

...that this is what you were really meaning.

(In other words, I meant my post more for than the benefit of the
discussion, and not really as being a grammar nazi or anything. :)


> > But I'm just playing word games, I guess.  I'll stop. :)
> 
> No, it's fair.  I'm trying to tell you that I think your 
> statements are
> all technically correct, but have connotative meanings that 
> you probably
> don't mean to express.

If you can explain that without turning the person's ears off (by telling
the person that they were wrong), they might go away educated and maybe even
wary of how they use the term in the future.  Perhaps not, but I think you'd
stand a better chance.

> As someone who has a great difficulty with accidental expression of
> connotative meaning, I try to be pretty sensitive about that sort of
> thing.

And some people are pretty sensitive about being told they are wrong.
(Especially if technically, they aren't.)  Another thing to remember...  in
this sort of case accidental means unintended.  And be careful while
explaining, to avoid inadvertantly suggesting that it WAS intended.  People
usually interpret that as putting words in their mouth, and practically
burst into flame at the very idea. :)  (Then they ignore the point you were
trying to make.)


> (I called the technical manager at my new office a "hobbyist" 
> the other
> day and said that the network services he'd deviced were a "barely
> glorified home network".  I didn't mean these as personal insults, but
> rather as descriptions of what I saw.  Needless to say, he 
> was pissed.

I'm not suprising.

> However, he acknowledged that he didn't really have any professional
> standards in place.)

And you probably could have communicated the fact (and got him to
acknowledge it) without crushing his self-esteem.

We want the world to be a better place, right?



> > Human nature seems to dictates that that ability will always exist,
> > simply due to the fact that not everyone is alike or thinks alike.  
> 
> There will always be personality conflicts and struggles with 
> philosophy,
> but I really believe we're improving.

As do I.

> I really don't think people took the concept of "improving the lot of
> humanity" to heart until the Enlightenment really nailed the 
> philosophy
> down.  Now we're just having trouble with implementation details.

I think many did... but society as a whole did not yet.  (Or at least only
gave it lip service, or used it in ploys for personal or national gains.)

We're getting better.  Slowly.  Very slowly.

> > And that no matter how we set a system up, it can and will 
> be abused.  
> 
> That's why we need eternal vigilance.  Every system can be abused.  
> Minimize the abusability while retain the key features that make it a
> benefit to humanity.

I think that can be done within a system containing a government, and laws.
(Probably less, and simpler laws.)  I may be wrong, but so far I really
think it can.

> > I like to think and hope it can happen anyway, in spite of those
> > facts.
> 
> Aye.  I'm with you, brother.

:)





More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list