Re: Re: Re Horowitz article

I appreciate the overall change in tone, and shall strive to be nice.

On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, Greg Konig wrote:

> I did not have any disagreement with the other points you made in your 
> article.

Cool.

>  However, I believe I addressed your first and second points.  I 
> apparently upset you by misattributing an implicit point that I thought you 
> were making, but you are misunderstanding my points too.

There's a difference between mis*attributing* a point (even a so-called
implicit one) and mis*understanding* a point (though, of course, there's
some boundary cases).

The point you misattributed wasn't even an *implicit* point of
mine. (Actually, you misattributed several points.) Nor is is a
*consequence* of what I wrote. I quote:

""">  > just a matter of
>  > scale, right?  A non-minority would be prosecuted if he pulled a
similar
>  > stunt, and subject to school disciplinary action as well.
>
> Wrongly so, IMHO. Why would you think otherwise?
>
> Ah yes, because you're an uncharitable bigot, who assumes that I'm a
> special pleader *because* of certain views I hold. Note, I charge that
you
> *attribute* certain stupid and nasty views which I didn't express
> *because* I'm a "leftist". Grow up."""
 
No where did I say, or suggest, or imply, or implicitly claim that it's
only theft if done against a minority. It might be something *despicable*,
it might be *illegal* (if part of harrassment), but I still am very
unclear why we'd call it *theft*.

Note this isn't *mere* nitpicking. Calling it theft invokes state, school,
and social apparatus against the newspaper takers (to pick a neutral
phrase). In Rosenthal's article, it's coupled with "thuggery",
"intimidation", and "brownshirts".

This is heavy duty artillity. Even if it's wrong, it doesn't seem *that*
wrong.

Now this holds *no matter who does it*. The *theft* point holds *no matter
why they do it*.

The *nastiness* of the misattribution is that in order to "infer" that as
a consquence of my views, you have to add the presumption that I'm a
flaming, stinking hypocrite, and either wildly stupid not to notice how
easily my words could be turned against me, or so contemptuous of people
that I think they're too dumb to notice.

Thus, it *is* an implicit, even if not intended, assertion of your
misattribution that I'm a slimy character

Indeed, one might call your characterization of my view an instance of the
strawman fallacy --  no one could successful defend a view like that.

(To anticipate, note that I call you an *uncharitable bigot* for assuming
that I, a leftist, is the kind of stupid scum who'd hold such views. You
misread that, even though it's not remotely ambiguous.)

> First point: Although we can disagree about whether ads by "monied 
> interests" are right or not, my point was that if a paper is going to accept 
> them at all, they should make a point to be impartial about which ones they 
> accept. 

As Kendall said, that's just not remotely reasonable.

The New York Times is *obliged* to run the Jerry Fawell in an outhouse
having sex with his mom cartoon (of the famous libel case) as a
paid for editorial ad *because* they accept Mobil Corporation editoriads
(on their *op-ed* page, not less; gross)?

That's silly. Refusing such ads isn't even *remotely* a free speech issue.

> The tone and point of the ad should be irrelevant.

Why? I *understand* your point, but you haven't offer a smidgeon of
evidence or argument in support of it, and it's a wildly implausible view
on its face.

Do you think a newspaper *has* to run an ad *it knows* will kill its
circulation? That sure makes it *easy* to cripple newspapers.

>  It is a fact 
> that many (I'll bet most of them accept editorial ads of one kind or 
> another) of these papers are hypocritical if they accept some editorials but 
> not others.

And that's not true either. First, policies change. Most editors of
*school* papers are there for a year. So it's not clear that many have
*actually* done what you say, even if the *paper* has done so.

Even if so, why is it *hypocritical* to run ads that will *boost* your
circulation and not run ads you think *won't*? Or run ads you think
compatible with the style and tone of your paper? (This kind of thing
happens *all* the time. Very few people have *carte blanc* to place
whatever kind and style ad they'd like. "I want a fourcolor, glossy, full
page ad." "Sorry, we don't accept those." "But you ran one last
year." "Yes, and we decided we're not going to do it
anymore." "Hypocritical free speech suppressor!" "Goodbye now.")

> Second point:  Your second point is entirely ridiculous.

No it isn't. Plus, you still don't get it.

>  You can deny it is 
> theft,

As I do.

> but then why is it a problem to take them for a week?

While still not theft, it might move into harrassment. And that's a
judgement call. Note: I didn't say it wasn't *a problem* to take all the
papers for a day, *just* that it wasn't theft and it probably wasn't
illegal.

Remember that I think it's *easy* to make it theft. A sign saying, "Only
one paper per person, honor system. If you want more, please contact the
paper's sales office."

I thought conservatives *cared* about property rights.

>  What do you 
> call it then?  If a week isn't ok, then it must be either 2,3, or 4 days 
> that is acceptable.

Or 1.

Note that I only make the concession because of a long discussion that I
pointed you to where in someone made the point that the paper taking may
be like a denial of service attack. (As kendall pointed out, that cuts
both ways since, if the analogy holds, it's not going to be *more* than a
DOS.)

Turn it around. If taking one paper isn't theft, then why is taking all of
them?

Anyway, I didn't say any were acceptible. I can see an argument that
taking the papers, once, is a protest. Taking the papers *systematically*
*might* be something else. I made an analogy with "shouting down". If I
shout down Horowitz in *one* forum *in order to make a point* it might be
unpleasant, but legit. If I follow him around and shout him down
everywhere, that might be harrassment.

If I follow him around with a big pa system, but always keep it under the
local noise level limits and have my permits and everything, then, while
nasty, it may well be entirely legal.

Why do you find this so hard to understand?

Contriwise, even if it *was* theft, if done for protest it might fall
under civil disobedience.

We make these distinctions *all the time*.

>  How many days is it permittable before it reaches the 
> level of "theft" or vandalism, and what logical basis do you use to come to 
> that conclusion.

I wouldn't ever say it reached teh level of theft or vandalism, though if
that were happening and the newspaper *didn't* make it theft by posting
the appropriate sign, I would say that they were damn stupid.

Note that the students, by their student fees, have paid a good chunk of
the papers' expenses. I think they have more stakeholding in them than
lots of other people. Of course, I haven't heard anyone argue that they
were stealing them *from the other students*. While marginally
interesting, I don't think you can make much out of that.

> Why should he give lectures on campus about reparation when he can reach a 
> much broader audience by submitting an ad?  That would be stupid.

Well submitting isn't running. He should be happiest now, then, he'd
gotten a way broader audience than he would if no one had paid attention.

Why should I publish on Monkeyfist when I can reach a much broader
audience by putting it on the NYT's op-ed page. Oops, you mean I
*can't*?!??

He's already pubbed it on Salon. He's already published it far and
wide. The *real* point is, as Kendall put it, if this were about
*exchange* of ideas, there's a lot *better* routes. Or at least
alternative routes. He doesn't own the papers after all.

(Plus, you haven't responded to the "getting paid" vs. "paying". If he
gave lectures, odds are he'd get paid.)

(Plus, if not many people would come to his lectures, then why do you
think he'd *reach* a broader audience in any meaningful way? Most folks
prolly would just skip it.)

(Finally, why not just run an ad pointing to where it is on the web?)

> Finally, I am a bigot for making a point that references gay date 
> classifieds??  

No, but you do exhibit your bigotness by making that misreading. I didn't
*say* you were a bigot for making a point that references gay date
classified. See above for what I *did* say.

>What do you mean?

I mean that you are either functionally illiterate or so blinded by
hostility and negative prejudice against leftists that you consistently
misattribute noxious views and consequences based on those prejudices.

Your ready spread beyond uncharity into misrepresentation. *That's* what I
meant by "uncharitable bigot". Bigot *against me* qua leftist. The
evidence being your misattributions. Do I have to say it again? Is it
clear now? Do you understand?

Frankly, if I were you I be HUMILIATED that my complaint about being
called a bigot EXHIBITED the very bigotry I was charged with. Without my
noticing.

Now, how horrid a bigot is it to be this kind of bigot? Not worst than an
anti-gay, woman, black, etc. etc. except, of course, anti-leftist bigotry
usually fits in with the rest.

> Seriously, if a bunch of drunk white frat boys ran around trashing papers 
> one morning because of a negative article on binge drinking, there would be 
> a concerted effort to track them down and punish them.

In your fantasy land. And the leftist adminstration would fire all the
conservative business school professors. Bah. Not in any university I've
been in or heard of.

>  I was pointing out 
> an obvious double standard, nothing more.

Sure, just one that no where holds. And one that I, contray to your
outright claims and insinuations, don't advocate.

I've *been* on a campas where the School Senate finance committe members
received DEATH THREATS for cutting off funding for the pan-frat concil for
their FORMAL. As I recall, no investigation occurred (though I may have
just missed it).

On another campas I attended, there was some vandalism (perhaps, but not
clearly, connected with black student protests) and we had the FBI in,
though not for the vandalism that involved anti-black racial slurs.

I'm going to presume that you think that *that* double standard is wrong.

Of course, maybe the frat boys are just playing pranks and the other
vandals are doing revolution. *We'd need to know much more* before we
could make such distinctions. But there are such distinction to be made.

>  If that makes me a bigot,

No, ignorance and prejudice, plus a will to act on it, are what make you a
bigot. But hey, I could be wrong, maybe you're just illiterate.

Note you can avoid the charge of bigotry by being more judicious in your
presentation. Try reading twice. Or asking what I meant. Or quoting
instead of working from memory.

You can beat this; I have faith.

> I 
> really feel for the two-faced administrators who go soft on the "protesters" 
> "protesting" the reparations ad.

You lose me here.

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.

P.S. Ok, I got a little passionate along the way, but so did you. Hey, for
all I know you'll be *proud* to be a anti-leftist bigot!

Anyway, I'm more interested in the justification and evaluation and
understanding of the situation, not in scoring points. Unless you start
tracking better what I'm actually saying, we won't make much progress.