[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: New Front Desk members



Anthony Towns asks,

> Is there any reason why grammar, porn and spam debates
> are attracting so much traffic?

There is a reason, I think.  Characterizable visions
fundamentally conflict.  Although innumerable subtle
shadings of viewpoint are found, one does notice that,
by and large, the same people tend to come down together
on the same sides of such issues.  Lacking distinctive
uniforms, we nevertheless divide ourselves roughly onto
two opposing sides: the left and the right.

With reference to the three specific topics
listed---grammar, porn and spam---and at the risk of
inadvertently choosing inapt words, one might illustrate
the two conflicting visions as follows.

  Left: grammar should not discriminate; porn offends
  some people but so does bible-kjv; censorship is
  evil.

  Right: grammar should not mangle the ancient tongue;
  pornography is evil; community demands standards of
  behavior.

There are three statements on each side, and if on the
surface you can agree with all six statements then you
stand in good company.  But what the words mean to you
may not be quite what the same words mean to the guy on
the other side; and even when the words do mean the
same, the emphasis differs critically.

Such conflicts of vision are no new thing under the sun.

For the two sides even to discuss the specific issues
sensibly is very, very hard.  Each side finds the other
not only incorrect but inherently unreasonable.  Each
tends to talk past the other, as it were.  Frustration
simmers.  Agreement is not found because the topic
discussed on the surface is seldom the real topic: it is
proxy for a deeper matter of the heart.

What the two sides agree on, in this venue, is the great
principle of software freedom.  On such an honorable
common ground slumbers fitfully the long, uneasy truce.

-- 
Thaddeus H. Black
508 Nellie's Cave Road
Blacksburg, Virginia 24060, USA
+1 540 961 0920, t@b-tk.org

Attachment: pgprOnIC9Cf2h.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: