Re: Joe

From: Scott Chase (
Date: Tue 03 Dec 2002 - 00:21:12 GMT

  • Next message: Scott Chase: "Re: Ted"

    >From: "Dace" <>
    >To: <>
    >Subject: Re: Joe
    >Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2002 10:09:48 -0800
    > > Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 12:26:13 -0800
    > > From: Jon Gilbert <>
    > >
    > > >Tsk, tsk, Joe. I can see that you haven't read any of my postings on
    > > >Israeli-Palestinian dispute during the last year plus....
    > > >
    > > >Anti-American? How little you understand! And how little you know!
    > > >
    > > >People on the list do tend to need to counter your diatribes by
    > > >(or trying to remind you) of the flip side to your arguments, so it is
    > > >true that we end up presenting a litany of facts and concepts that try
    > > >correct the imbalance we perceive in your views. But we have never had
    > > >real discussion with you about the US and its foreign policy, Muslims,
    > > >Arabs, Jews, Israel or Palestine, because instead of a real discussion,
    > > >get in to futile efforts to break through your prejudices and anger, as
    > > >do to pound your views into us.
    > > >
    > > >I am told that you have been kicked off another list (CoV), and warned
    > > >least one other, not because of the substance of your views but because
    > > >the way you behave on the list. I do find that it makes true discussion
    > > >quite difficult and wastes a huge amount of time of people who
    > > >have a lot to offer each other and learn from each other.
    > > >
    > > >There are a lot of interesting things that we should be discussing, and
    > > >need to find a way to do it without your impeding the process.
    > > >
    > > >My hope, Joe, is that we can let this calm down, and that you can
    > > >the effect you have on the list's interactions, and find some way to
    > > >more effective for both yourself and the rest of us on this list.
    > >
    > >
    > > Hate to say this Larry but you seem to be the one that has the
    > > problem here, not Joe, whose only issue seems to be that he has too
    > > much time on his hands and thus posts an extraordinary amount of
    > > stuff. It's not a crime to be opinionated or to argue vehemently,
    > > which is what he seems to do. But I do take issue with the fact that
    > > you only engage in ad hominem attacks and avoid any direct engagement
    > > of the points he makes. All it does is make you look bad, not him.
    >How long have you been on this list, Jon? As I wrote last week, Lawrence
    >merely articulating what most of us who've been here awhile know perfectly
    >well. Nothing ad hominem to it-- which is Joe's specialty-- just
    >constructive criticism. Lawry's only error is to hope that Joe can reform
    >in some way and become a responsible member of the list. Not gonna happen.
    >Joe is the Darth Vader of the memetics list. The psychiatric term for his
    >condition is antisocial personality disorder. Yes, there's a human being
    >somewhere in there, and sometimes individuals with this condition do take
    >off the helmet, so to speak, but it's very rare. Most sociopaths are stuck
    >for life at the emotional maturity of a 6-year old, and Joe does not appear
    >to be an exception. He's incapable of recognizing when he's wrong and
    >believes he's scored some kind of great rhetorical victory when all he's
    >done is to repeat for the 50th time his unreflective views. It's a problem
    >of the ego. "I'm right because I'm me." The reason he can't recognize
    >Israel's slow-motion genocide against the Palestinian people is that he
    >*identifies* with Israel. It's the pathological ego that makes people
    >vulnerable to pathological memes, in this case the "Palestinians are evil
    >terrorists" meme.
    So, Joe rails against militant Islam. You're railing against Israeli Zionism. Are either of you better than the other? At the root of each approach is the assumption that one side is good and the other bad. Joe goes overboard in his posting about Islam, but it's no better to go overboard loading it up against the Zionists. The best approach would be cold, rational detachment from the topic and present the situation on both sides and the underlying ideologies and the nuances that make people on each side heterogenous. Just as Islam (and Palestinian Arabs) may have many facets, so it is with Zionism (and Israeli Jews).

    Getting all worked up in a rabid lather about supposed Israeli genocide upon Palestinans is no better than getting worked up in a rabid lather about Islam, yet you are letting your own biases get aired out while you attack Joe's.
    >As Lawrence wrote, Joe is an interesting case study. Indeed, he is highly
    >useful to a memetics list. All pathological memes are functions of
    >pathological egos, whether those egos exist at the level of the individual,
    >as with Joe, or at the collective level, as with the United States or
    Or other countries in the Middle East. If we are going to merely cast aspersions, why limit the playing field. And don't you think that your attack on Joe here is going to resolve anything? In my estimation it's just going to result in his posting an attack on you and you will retaliate in kind and so on.
    >Many individuals diagnosable with a personality disorder exert a degree of
    >"charm." The dark side certainly has an allure. It's always dangerous to
    >expose a personality disorder, as people tend to side with the disturbed
    >individual against those who would "attack" him. Unfortunately, you've
    >demonstrated this tendency all too well.
    Free psychoanalysis? Oh goodie. Where's your couch and pipe? Do you charge by the hour?

    There's some who feel that these threads on Islamic and/or Zionist ideology have steered from the central topic of the list. IMO speculating on Joe's personality foibles goes much too far.

    I think any posting in the future about any middle east related topics should focus on analysis of the issues (such as ideologies prevalent and how they have influenced behavior and history). Joe's posting of URL's, Lawry's pinpricks of Joe, Kenneth's diatribes etc. ain't getting close to anything substantive. As someone has mentioned these are hot-button topics and it may be extremely difficult to do a decent job at presenting the material at hand in a cultural evolutionary relevant way, without casting blame or looking through the lenses of ones own worldview. I know the difficulties I have encountered with biases of my own.

    But when I see people posting diatribes that I see as no less biased than those they are trying to correct, I have had a hard time letting it pass by unnoticed.

    _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.

    =============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue 03 Dec 2002 - 00:23:43 GMT