My point was not that you disagree with the formulation of "we are all complicit", I was rather making the prediction that nobody was gonna have a go at JaP for saying it, which has been borne out.
Conversely people people felt very free back then to make pretty strong attacks, not just on the suggestion of personal complicity, but asking who the heck I thought I was for making the slur. Let's be honest I am not noticeably intellecutally equipped to refute protestations of innocence from those who are prepared to write at length a philosophical version of Bart Simpson saying "You can't prove anything guv". But JaP is, .... so crickets chirp.
Others here have discussed the extent of complicity in a representative democracy. They may not represent every view you hold but, via constituecy obligations, they represent you directly. Others have asked the depth of guilt in which people voted for Bush despite knowing what was being done in their name.
But that was not my point, and you proved it. keep to the Fen Causeway
I did remember you writing "We are all complicit" a while back, and I remember replying "Why am I complicit?"
(Beyond that I don't remember.)
So, fair enough. What will I say now? Well,
I'll say what I said then:
should be (if one asssumes good faith!) translate as: I will repeat here [here = in public, in Jerome's diary]
etc...
Let's be honest I am not noticeably intellecutally equipped to refute protestations of innocence from those who are prepared to write at length a philosophical version of Bart Simpson saying "You can't prove anything guv". But JaP is, .... so crickets chirp.
Not sure what the Bart Simpson part is about, but my question ("Why am I complicit?") is here in this diary. Jerome (or anyone else) is free to deal with the question--that's why I wrote it again--to counter the suggestion that I (we? I'll come back to that) wouldn't ask such a thing if Jerome were reading, ready to reply.
Conversely people people felt very free back then to make pretty strong attacks, not just on the suggestion of personal complicity, but asking who the heck I thought I was for making the slur.
I don't remember any of that--if it was me, I apologise!--
(I presume the written records are stored in the ET historyfile somewhere--I can't find them.)
If your point was that I needed prodding--well, my reasons for not replying were varied, but not to do with only picking on those who can't argue back--if you see it that way, I'm sorry--it certainly wasn't and isn't my intention--
(I was hoping...heh!....that my reply would counteract that--can you see? I did it to invalidate any suggestions--not an ego thing, more a 'stand up for others' sense--the 'other' in this case was you!--that Jerome was somehow not to be argued with.)
Or--gah! I took on board your point (as I understood it) that [negative quality --->] the individual doing the stating is more important than the statement--a hierarchy thing--and I tried to negate the hierarchy thing by [attempt to remove the negative quality -->] re-stating as an open question the same point such that it would be clear that at least for me this wasn't a hierarchy thing.
That was my intention. ...
But assuming there were more people involved, I can't invalidate it on my own--
Assuming those other people are reading, of course!
And assuming I haven't missed the point again (I am a slow learner!) Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
A number of people around here are simply noticeably more pissed off with our rulers now than they were six months ago. It may be that the my own perceptions have changed (in fact, I'm pretty sure they have), but I do think that the appeals to some sort of active resistance have wider appeal than they used to have.
Of course, the Admin effect is probably a factor in the relatively less... vociferous nature of the criticism (picking flamewars with a Root is something you don't do unless you're terminally stupid).
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
