Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 523
Netizens-Digest Wednesday, April 30 2003 Volume 01 : Number 523
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re[2]: [netz] What is a netizen? Commitment
Re[3]: [netz] What is a netizen? Commitment
Re[2]: [netz] What is a netizen? Commitment
Re[2]: [netz] What is a netizen? Commitment
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 21:11:18 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re[2]: [netz] What is a netizen? Commitment
>It is hard to have an exchange as one's words are distorted and
>one wonders why it is being done in such a hostile way, Howard.
Ronda, I may disagree with your views without being hostile to you
personally. I am rapidly coming to the conclusion, however, that it
is not possible to have a useful discussion. I would observe that
several people have indicated they are going to a listening mode, and
I am about to do so.
>
>So a useful discussion began about what is a citizen and there
>was the basis after discussing this to explore how it related to
>the sense of a netizen.
>
>As part of this I made the effort to distinguish a public official
>from a citizen and a paid job that one has (even in a public capacity)
>with acting as a citizen.
>
Ronda, what is there to explore? You have said you distinguish
between the two positions. I do not make that distinction. To the
contrary, a person paid to serve the public, I believe, may have a
job that puts their life on the line for the values of citizenship --
a firefighter, a soldier, a police officer.
Is it possible to get this discussion back to something that deals
with how people work socially with the Internet. Why can't we agree
to disagree?
>
>In the process the discussion gets changed to are someone's views
>"anti-capitalist" and that if you make money at something you
>are or aren't a netizen.
You are mixing several things. I believe it was your statement that
one could not be a citizen, and thus a netizen, while working for an
employer. You spoke of people having no rights while employed, which
has not been my experience.
>
>The discussion of citizen is over.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> I think it is totally confusing the democratic message of netizenship
>> to bring in the special cases of one being paid or not paid, or an
>> elected official or not.
>
>We were discussing what a citizen is.
>
>And whether a public official is a citizen as well or serving
>citizens.
>
>That is confusing?
Yes. I believe a public official is a citizen as well as serving
citizens. I believe that many public officials take their jobs
seriously as an extension of being a citizen.
>
>I felt it was useful but for some reason you don't want to consider
>this. I wonder why it seems so sensitive an issue for you.
It's not "sensitive." I simply don't see any useful distinction. I
did bring up specific data, obviously pertinent to the USA, of the
Constitutional requirements for a public official, requiring
citizenship but in no way changing citizen rights after election.
>
>After trying to clarify some differences about our views of
>citizens it seemed it might be easier to understand what the
>difficulty is discussing about netizens.
>
>But you don't want to clarify differences about citizens.
>
>Instead you want to declare the discussion off limits.
I have not declared the discussion off limits -- I have said that I
do not agree with your differentiation. Are you saying that if I say
I disagree with you, I have declared the discussion off limits?
>
>Why are you proposing that a discussion about the nature
>of citizens is off limits on the netizen list?
I have not proposed it is off limits. I do not, however, see it as
particularly related to the exercise of political rights via the
Internet, and the latter seems to me to be the heart of practical
netizenship.
>
>If this may help us to examine the concept of netizen
>and if we have different concepts of netizens.
>
>Instead you want agreement on your concept of netizens.
>
>The discussion about citizens is over.
>
>Any distinction we might have gotten at about citizens
>which may have been helpful about netizens is over.
>
>I was asking you if government and scientific leadership is
>anti-capitalist since you claimed that talking about public officials
>and citizens is confirming your sense that the problem is
>that there is anti-capitalist discussion going on on the netizens list.
>
>The people who developed the Internet were working for government(s),
>or on government contracts which is interesting as they had the ability
>then to have a broader purpose than is often possible working for a
>private company.
But not impossible to have while working for a private company.
>
>I was thinking that that is important to remember.
>
>But instead you are jumping and drawing your conclusions and cutting
>off any discussion.
I am disagreeing. I don't consider that cutting off. If a discussion,
however, consists of the parties repeating themselves, it doesn't
seem to go anywhere.
>
>Why do you think you can predict the conclusion of the discussion?
I didn't think I was doing that.
>
>Why aren't your open to hearing a different point of view?
I'm perfectly open to hearing a different point of view. That is not
the same as agreeing with another point of view.
Are you open to someone not agreeing with your point of view,
agreeing to disagree, and moving on to something we can agree about
and produce something?
>
>Is it that there is a different view of government and the value
>of government, and of citizen and the desired activity of many
>who are citizens?
That is probably true. I generally consider government, at least of
the USA, generally benevolent and willing to listen. "Willing to
listen" doesn't mean that the government will always do what I want
it to do.
>
>I am trying to sort this out.
>
>But I don't get the sense that you are.
>
>Instead you seem hostile.
>
>Why?
I am not attempting to be hostile. We _may_ have fundamental
disagreements about the philosophy of government, but that doesn't
preclude our working together on other issues.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 01:23:00 +0200
From: Dan Duris <dusoft@staznosti.sk>
Subject: Re[3]: [netz] What is a netizen? Commitment
RH> I realize there is a set of libertarian ideology that is anti
RH> government. That is *not* what netizens is about.
Actually, I would disagree. I could be a libertarian as well as
netizen. Libertarian ideology that is anti government? That's either
anarchism (not libertarian then) or extreme libertarianism (anarchism?).
Libertarians are against state control or rule and for minimizing the
state government. So in this case, when I stand for libertarianism and
fight for minimal state am I not netizen as well?
dan
- --------------------------
email: dusoft@staznosti.sk
ICQ: 17932727
*- see ya somewhere in the time -*
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 10:32:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>
Subject: Re[2]: [netz] What is a netizen? Commitment
On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
> >It is hard to have an exchange as one's words are distorted and
> >one wonders why it is being done in such a hostile way, Howard.
>
> Ronda, I may disagree with your views without being hostile to you
> personally.
I would hope that you wouldn't be hostile. But I have gotten the sense
that you are.
In fact the disagreements can be a treasure when they are discussed
and clarified.
But that doesn't seem to be welcome.
> I am rapidly coming to the conclusion, however, that it
> is not possible to have a useful discussion.
This is some of what is being said instead of trying to clarify
the disagreement. As soon as there is a disagreement, it gets
characterized and conclusions drawn from it and then there are
statements that the discussion is impossible.
> I would observe that
> several people have indicated they are going to a listening mode, and
> I am about to do so.
You may also remember that someone left the list because he was
frustrated with what was happening. It didn't seem that there was
the effort to change what was happening. I have made the effort
to point out the problem and the result is that I am told you
are going into listening mode.
That is certainly your choice. But it is a different response
from trying to hear and learn from the disagreements.
>
> >
> >So a useful discussion began about what is a citizen and there
> >was the basis after discussing this to explore how it related to
> >the sense of a netizen.
> >
> >As part of this I made the effort to distinguish a public official
> >from a citizen and a paid job that one has (even in a public capacity)
> >with acting as a citizen.
> >
>
> Ronda, what is there to explore? You have said you distinguish
> between the two positions. I do not make that distinction. To the
> contrary, a person paid to serve the public, I believe, may have a
> job that puts their life on the line for the values of citizenship --
> a firefighter, a soldier, a police officer.
>
Then we have a disagreement over the question of citizenship. Not
a big problem. Not a reason to jump to conclusions about what
the other person thinks about netizens.
This is a useful distinction to recognize.
Why isn't it treated this way?
> Is it possible to get this discussion back to something that deals
> with how people work socially with the Internet. Why can't we agree
> to disagree?
>
We can agree to disagree. And also to understand the disagreement.
And then to look at how we view citizens.
That is a helpful process.
And that can then help to understand how we view netizens.
> >
> >In the process the discussion gets changed to are someone's views
> >"anti-capitalist" and that if you make money at something you
> >are or aren't a netizen.
>
> You are mixing several things. I believe it was your statement that
> one could not be a citizen, and thus a netizen, while working for an
> employer. You spoke of people having no rights while employed, which
> has not been my experience.
>
Then you can of course say this isn't your experience. Why instead
would you begin to speak about whether one is "anti-capitalist"?
Michael and I both felt that it would be good for people to be
paid to be netizen.
This would be available to all who were netizens to make it possible
for them to put the time and effort into their participation.
This would be perhaps a bit like the way jury duty is paid citizen
work (in the US - but not with all employers).
But that is something available to all, not something one can arrange
for ones self while others cannot arrange it.
I hadn't made any statements about netizens and paid employment.
I was looking at the situation for citizens and being paid to
do the activities of citizens.
However, this discussion was stopped in various ways.
> >
> >The discussion of citizen is over.
> >
> >
> >
(...)
> >
> >We were discussing what a citizen is.
> >
> >And whether a public official is a citizen as well or serving
> >citizens.
> >
> >That is confusing?
>
> Yes. I believe a public official is a citizen as well as serving
> citizens. I believe that many public officials take their jobs
> seriously as an extension of being a citizen.
That is part of a disagreement.
I would hope all public officials would take their jobs seriously
and serve the citizens.
We can disagree but why does this stop the discussion and bring
threats of going into listening mode?
>
> >
> >I felt it was useful but for some reason you don't want to consider
> >this. I wonder why it seems so sensitive an issue for you.
>
> It's not "sensitive." I simply don't see any useful distinction. I
> did bring up specific data, obviously pertinent to the USA, of the
> Constitutional requirements for a public official, requiring
> citizenship but in no way changing citizen rights after election.
That one is to be a citizen to be eligible to run for office
does not impact whether in office one is a citizen, or one
is a public official and the distinction.
Again we can disagree on this.
But it seems that no other view is appropriate to be expressed.
>
> >
> >After trying to clarify some differences about our views of
> >citizens it seemed it might be easier to understand what the
> >difficulty is discussing about netizens.
> >
> >But you don't want to clarify differences about citizens.
> >
> >Instead you want to declare the discussion off limits.
>
> I have not declared the discussion off limits -- I have said that I
> do not agree with your differentiation. Are you saying that if I say
> I disagree with you, I have declared the discussion off limits?
No - the point is you changed the topic and then said you were
going into listening mode.
Unfortunately, I don't have time to go on now.
Ronda
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 11:01:16 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re[2]: [netz] What is a netizen? Commitment
First, Ronda, thank you for this response, which I find quite
helpful. I think it clears several obstacles.
>On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
>
>> >It is hard to have an exchange as one's words are distorted and
>> >one wonders why it is being done in such a hostile way, Howard.
>>
>> Ronda, I may disagree with your views without being hostile to you
>> personally.
>
>I would hope that you wouldn't be hostile. But I have gotten the sense
>that you are.
>
>In fact the disagreements can be a treasure when they are discussed
>and clarified.
>
>But that doesn't seem to be welcome.
That's not my position. At the same time, there comes a point when
each side has stated its position, including some things that are
axiomatic for that individual. At that point, we need to agree to
disagree and move on to something else. Ideally, that something else
can encompass both positions.
For the first time, and please understand this may have been a matter
of my learning the way you write, I feel you are open to agreeing to
disagree. That helps me enormously.
>
>
>> I am rapidly coming to the conclusion, however, that it
>> is not possible to have a useful discussion.
>
>This is some of what is being said instead of trying to clarify
>the disagreement. As soon as there is a disagreement, it gets
>characterized and conclusions drawn from it and then there are
>statements that the discussion is impossible.
Sometimes, the core of the disagreement is an axiomatic matter of
faith for the individual, and simple discussion isn't going to
resolve it. For example, let's take a hypothetical that I feel safe
in saying neither of us believe: the ideal form of government is an
Orwellian totalitarian regime, and the political purpose of the net
is to communicate from the ruling class to the ruled, and for the
ruling class to spy on the ruled so the secret police know who to
target.
If someone held this position, and you or I believed in some form of
government that was based on consent of the governed, I don't think
there's much to explore in that particular context. If,
hypothetically again, the totalitarian did believe that there was
valid use of the net for education, then that might become a common
and useful goal of discussion.
>
>> I would observe that
>> several people have indicated they are going to a listening mode, and
>> I am about to do so.
>
>You may also remember that someone left the list because he was
>frustrated with what was happening. It didn't seem that there was
>the effort to change what was happening. I have made the effort
>to point out the problem and the result is that I am told you
>are going into listening mode.
>
>That is certainly your choice. But it is a different response
>from trying to hear and learn from the disagreements.
I would be delighted to participate if we can accept the idea that
certain disagreements won't get resolved by discussion, after a fair
test of discussing them, and then moving on to something that can be
agreed on.
Is that cutting off discussion? To me, as long as the differing
views have been heard, the participants say they disagree on an
axiomatic basis, it's simple pragmatism to move on.
> >
>> >
>> >So a useful discussion began about what is a citizen and there
>> >was the basis after discussing this to explore how it related to
>> >the sense of a netizen.
>> >
>> >As part of this I made the effort to distinguish a public official
>> >from a citizen and a paid job that one has (even in a public capacity)
>> >with acting as a citizen.
>> >
>>
>> Ronda, what is there to explore? You have said you distinguish
>> between the two positions. I do not make that distinction. To the
>> contrary, a person paid to serve the public, I believe, may have a
>> job that puts their life on the line for the values of citizenship --
>> a firefighter, a soldier, a police officer.
>>
>
>Then we have a disagreement over the question of citizenship. Not
>a big problem. Not a reason to jump to conclusions about what
>the other person thinks about netizens.
This may have been a miscommunication. I read your response as not so
much a proposal or hypothesis, but a definitive statement of
netizenship.
>
>This is a useful distinction to recognize.
>
>Why isn't it treated this way?
>
>> Is it possible to get this discussion back to something that deals
>> with how people work socially with the Internet. Why can't we agree
>> to disagree?
>>
>We can agree to disagree. And also to understand the disagreement.
>
>And then to look at how we view citizens.
>
>That is a helpful process.
>
>And that can then help to understand how we view netizens.
On this we agree.
>
>> >
>> >In the process the discussion gets changed to are someone's views
>> >"anti-capitalist" and that if you make money at something you
>> >are or aren't a netizen.
>>
>> You are mixing several things. I believe it was your statement that
>> one could not be a citizen, and thus a netizen, while working for an
>> employer. You spoke of people having no rights while employed, which
>> has not been my experience.
>>
>
>Then you can of course say this isn't your experience. Why instead
>would you begin to speak about whether one is "anti-capitalist"?
>
>Michael and I both felt that it would be good for people to be
>paid to be netizen.
>
>This would be available to all who were netizens to make it possible
>for them to put the time and effort into their participation.
>
>This would be perhaps a bit like the way jury duty is paid citizen
>work (in the US - but not with all employers).
>
>But that is something available to all, not something one can arrange
>for ones self while others cannot arrange it.
>
>I hadn't made any statements about netizens and paid employment.
Again, I will say that there may have been misunderstanding. It was
my impression that you were saying that any kind of payment meant
that one could not exercise citizenship. You made the distinction
about public officials not being citizens. Would you agree it's not
useful to go back into the archives and find exactly what was said,
but simply to agree there was confusion and to move on?
>
>I was looking at the situation for citizens and being paid to
>do the activities of citizens.
My position is that payment should never motivate one to act as a
citizen. That's not the same as saying that you can be a citizen only
if unpaid; it's that payment is irrelevant. My position is also that
a public official, elected or appointed, is a full citizen. The
extreme case demonstrating that is a public worker -- fire, EMT,
police, military, public health, etc. -- putting their life on the
line for their fellow citizens.
>\
>That is part of a disagreement.
>
>I would hope all public officials would take their jobs seriously
>and serve the citizens.
>
>We can disagree but why does this stop the discussion and bring
>threats of going into listening mode?
I'd appreciate clarification. When we see there is fundamental
disagreement and the positions have been aired, are you saying that
it's stopping the discussion to say "the positions have been aired
and noted, and there's probably nothing to be gained by continuing to
restate the same things."
>
>>
>> >
>> >I felt it was useful but for some reason you don't want to consider
>> >this. I wonder why it seems so sensitive an issue for you.
>>
>> It's not "sensitive." I simply don't see any useful distinction. I
>> did bring up specific data, obviously pertinent to the USA, of the
>> Constitutional requirements for a public official, requiring
>> citizenship but in no way changing citizen rights after election.
>
>That one is to be a citizen to be eligible to run for office
>does not impact whether in office one is a citizen, or one
>is a public official and the distinction.
>
>Again we can disagree on this.
>
>But it seems that no other view is appropriate to be expressed.
I'm a little confused here. It seems to me as if we both expressed
our views. No one view was accepted; we agreed to disagree.
If I say I disagree with you, that, in my mind, is hardly saying that
no other view is appropriate to be expressed.
Howard
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #523
******************************
