Roger,
It's okay. I think that I was just babbling again. I have no idea
what I might have written. Sometimes rattling off babble helps me
think when I'm involved in another issue.
Carl Jarvis
On 7/27/19, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I thought we were talking about all sorts of stuff on this list and from
what I've read and observed, social class and economic class can become
unlinked from each other. I think about people brought up in the old line
white Protestant wealthy families. I'm actually reading a novel about
several generations of such a family right now. People are brought up with
a set of traditions and behaviors that are associated with the opportunities
that having all that money allows. But then, after a few generations, the
money might disappear. The world has changed. The income isn't what it was.
The descendants still follow the family traditions. They still have the
same kind of educations and enjoy the same pastimes. Their social class
identification hasn't changed, but their economic class has.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx On Behalf Of Roger Loran Bailey
(Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2019 3:20 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Carl Jarvis <carjar82@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: the many complexities within our human
beehive
Carl, I didn't know this message was from you until I checked the address
field. I checked it because this seemed to be a quote of a message from
Miriam and I wanted to be sure that it came from Miriam before I replied.
Whatever you attempted to say seems to have been lost.
But here is what I was going to say in reply to what Miriam said. The word
class is very frequently used without a modifier because the context tells
us what kind of class is being talked about. Technically anything that has
been classified in any way is in a class. We can talk about classes of
minerals, for example. There are sedimentary rocks and there are igneous
rocks and so forth. Those are classes. However, I thought that whenever we
talk about class on this list, because of the kind of topics that we
normally talk about here, we are talking about economic class and that it
would only be necessary to specify the kind of class - the class of the
class, if you prefer - if we start talking about another kind of class.
---
Voltaire
??? Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit
atrocities. ???
??? Voltaire,
On 7/27/2019 11:14 AM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
On 7/26/19, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
That is the economic definition of class and it's true, as far as it
goes.
But of course, as you say, our world is complex. It's divided in a
lot of ways, one of them being regional like The Mid East, Asia,
Africa, The West, and there's Eastern Europe and Western Europe, and
all of those are divided into nation states, and we have societies,
each with a culture which differentiates how its people live and what
they believe, from other societies. And within our own country, there
are vast differences from region to region. People who live in our
coastal cities tend to have different lifestyles than those who live in
the middle of the country.
People in the Northeast are different from those in the South East.
People who live on the West coast tend to have habits that are
different from people on the east coast. And when we talk about
class, there's economic class and there's social class and these are
usually the same, but not always, and how they are manifested, will
differ from place to place. So one can make a political point by
providing a simplified picture and that picture will be accurate, as
far as it goes. And then there's the complicating factor which is
that when politicians talk, they actually do talk as if everyone were
a member of the economic middle class. They seldom use the term, working
class because they think that the term is an insult.
And they never talk, in their speeches, to the poor or the
unemployed. And that practice causes everyone to feel that, of
course, they must be middle class.
My parents had a group of friends with whom they socialized every
month for decades. They met when they were young and all working and
living in New York City. All of them were Jewish and all of them had
parents who had emigrated here from Europe in the early 1900's. Over
the years, the circumstances of most of the couples changed. Some of
the men attended college. One became a school teacher. One became an
optometrist. A third became an accountant. I don't know what the
fourth one did for a living, but my father remained a factory worker.
All of the couples except for my parents and one other couple, moved
to the suburbs. Eventually, the accountant moved from the first
suburb to a very affluent suburb in Westchester County where he owned a
colonial style home on an acre property.
The monthly gatherings moved from one couple's house to another's.
The gatherings were warm and friendly. No one thought or talked about
social class and no one resented the more financially successful group
members.
Interestingly, my daughter and son-in-law have a somewhat similar
social situation. I don't know much about the couples with whom they
socialize, but I do know that many of the men grew up together in
Levittown which is a blue collar, working class Long Island suburb.
My son-in-law is probably the most financially successful of the
group. He is a partner in a business. My daughter is an attorney,
employed by a law firm. I do know that one couple who are their
friends, consists of the husband who is a butcher, and the wife who
is an aide in a school. I suspect that the more recently formed social
groups are more financially homogenous.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2019 8:43 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: This sounds like Mostafa.
In the beehive, there is the Queen. She exists for one single
purpose, to populate the bee colony. The rest of the bees break into
two groups. The smaller group are the Drones, whose job is to spend
their lives having sex with the queen. This is a tempting place to
find oneself, except when sex is over, the Drone is murdered and tossed
out of the hive.
The final class of bees is by far the largest. The Workers. Their
sole purpose in life is to tend to feeding the little baby bees; and
to protect the queen; and to fan the air to cool the bee hive; to run
off intruders who are bent on eating the sweet syrup that nourishes
the baby bees; and finally, to clean all debris from the hive.
So the vast majority of bees are in the Working Class. They all have
different tasks, but all are directed toward serving the Queen.
In a much more complex world, we humans mimic the bees. We workers
are divided into many sub groups, with many tasks, all directed
toward serving the needs of our Ruling Class. Instead of one Queen
Bee, our focal point is divided into sub Ruling Class groups. We
serve, expecting to be taken care of. But with so many "Queen Bees",
we often find ourselves working at odds with one another. And just to
add another layer of confusion, our "Queen"
also includes a bunch of Drones. In our human model, the Drones are
not murdered and tossed out of the Hive, as they should be. Instead
they slink about, always on the take, contributing nothing except to
make trouble for the rest of us(see, Donald Trump).
Whether I build weapons to defend my Hive, or empty bed pans, I am
serving my human version of the Queen Bee. I can either like it, or
I can join a small group who are nurturing a new Queen, whom we plan
to sneak off to start our own Colony.
Finally, in our own complex, confused world, we have no more freedom
of choice than do our friendly little honey bees. We are all rushing
about trying to serve our Queen.
Carl Jarvis
the social group consisting of people who are employed for wages,
especially in manual or industrial work.
On 7/26/19, Frank Ventura <frank.ventura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Roger, I too take issue with "middle class". It implies a certain
class that is supposed to be somewhere in the middle of the absolute
poor and the ruling class. The implication usually implies to the
working class. If there was truth to that moniker folks like us
would have wealth about half of that of the ruling class. Obviously
that is far from the truth and our actual wealth is much closer to
the absolute poor than it is to the working class.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2019 10:14 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Miriam Vieni
<miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: This sounds like Mostafa.
I am a Marxist, but that remark in there about the phrase middle
class is an example of exactly what I am talking about. Just what
does my distaste for the phrase middle class have to do with
Marxism? Once before, after I had explained over and over why I have
a distaste for that phrase, you said that you thought it was because
it was not one of the classes that Marx had delineated. I never have
figured out why you thought that after I had explained the real
reasons I don't like it so many times. And that is why I get so
frustrated. I explain and explain a concept over and over and you
just don't get it and you just did it in this very message. As for
Mostafa, this is something else I have explained over and over. If
Mostafa would just express himself then he could just express himself.
But he doesn't do that.
He is a relentless bully who insists on forcing his nonsense on
people. I am giving him back what he gives and I do notice that he
is one of those people who can dish it out, but can't take it.
---
Voltaire
??? Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit
atrocities. ???
??? Voltaire,
On 7/23/2019 3:39 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
Roger,
Am I mistaken in thinking that you are a socialist and that most of
the nonfiction material that you read is influenced by Marxist
theory? Haven't you criticized people who call themselves socialist
when they do not adhere to classical socialism? Do you not write
disparagingly of anyone whose opinions seem to you to be Liberal or
bourgeois? Do you not disparage the use of the term, middle class,
and accuse those who define themselves as such of being snobs? Do
you not sneer at Democratic Socialists because they aren't in favor
of what you consider to be real socialism? Having seen all of these
themes in your posts for a good number of years, I have come to the
conclusion that you are a Marxist Socialist, whatever that actually
is. You have very fixed ideas about socialism and you continually
try to indoctrinate people with those ideas when you complain that
some of us are refusing to understand you and that, therefore, you
are forced to explain a particular concept to us, yet one more
time. So, on the few occasions that your utterances aren't
motivated by your close adherence to socialist theory, I think I
can be forgiven if I mistakenly think that they are. But for those
infrequent moments, I apologize.
As for Mustafa, he may very well behave in all the ways that you
describe.
But which response you make to his behavior, is your choice. An
alternative to what you invariably do, is just to allow him to
express his beliefs and his assertions and his anger and his sense
of superiority anddo or say nothing at all. How long do you imagine
that he would continue to insult you if you ignored him?
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2019 9:22 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: This sounds like Mostafa.
You would do a lot better if you just dumped the assumptions and
accepted the stated motivations that are clearly given. To allude
to just another example, you might stop calling my personal
opinions Marxist theory when they have little to do with Marxist
theory and when I point you to a book that I have never read the
synopsis of which makes me think it might explain what fascism is
you wouldn't assume that it gave some kind of Marxist definition of
Marxism. But again with Mostafa. He does not just explain his
religion. He does not just discuss it. He seeks people out and puts
them on his personal mailing list and won't let them go and when
they ask to be removed he just keeps bombarding them with his
proselytizing anyway.
That is not exercising his freedom of speech. That is out and out
harassment and I see no excuse for it. As for telling him that his
preaching is not welcome on this list, I set up this list with the
full intention of moderating it by not moderating it. As far as I
am concerned he or anyone else can say anything they want here and
I have never banned or altered any post that he has ever made here.
He can exercise his freedom of speech here, but he has to face up
to the fact that some people will disagree with him and say so. I
not only say so, but I show him where he is wrong. Of course, with
faith on his side he will not admit it no matter how well I show
him to be wrong, but I still show him to be wrong
---
Voltaire
??? Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit
atrocities. ???
??? Voltaire,
On 7/22/2019 5:16 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
I didn't mean that you literally represent the American empire.
What I meant was that all of us on this list, represent the
American empire to Mustafa. We're all in America. He's writing to
us about what our government does. Why do you suppose that he does
that?
I suppose that you're correct when you say that I'm making
assumptions about people's motivations. That's what most people do
and I do that a lot because of my professional training and
because of my personal inclinations. And I don't always accept the
reasons that people give for their behavior as their true
motivations. I can see how that might make you angry.
As for proselytizing, there were two times in my life when someone
tried to convince me to believe in God. Each time, I responded
that I had my own beliefs and value system, that I respected their
right to believe as they did, and I would appreciate it if they
would respect my right to do the same. It was friendly and there
were no arguments. So I suspect that when Mustafa began to write
about religion, you could have chosen not to answer those
particular posts, just as I did, and there would have been no more
discussion.
Or you might have written that you respected his right to his
religious beliefs, but you would appreciate it if he did not share
them on this list. I don't know what his response would have been
to that. But you chose to debate him instead. You made a decision
that if anyone began attempting to convince you to believe as he
or she did about religion, it was your right and your duty to fight
back.
When Mustafa has written about religion on other lists, other
people have made similar choices. Given the results of these
discussions, I wonder why people keep having them. The only
conclusion which I can draw is that you derive some kind of
emotional satisfaction from endless argument. From your
explanation to me, it sounds like what you're saying is that you
are seeking revenge because you say, " I don't know why you want
to try to pretend to read minds when I so clearly lay out to you
why I am actually doing something. Mostafa is a bully and a harasser
and I am giving it right back to him."
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx On Behalf Of Roger
Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2019 3:43 PM
To: blind-democracy<blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: This sounds like Mostafa.
On two levels you seem to have never paid attention to anything I
have ever said. It is a real stretch to say that I represent U.S.
imperialism. I have denounced imperialism over and over. But on
the second level you are trying to read minds, both mine and
Mostafa's.
Does it not even occur to you to accept stated motives rather than
pretend to know what people are thinking and base your guesses at
motives on your assumed telepathy. Okay, let me explain it again.
While I may get some gratification out of winning a contest of
logic against Mostafa that is not why I do it. I also do not do it
to convince him of anything. I have said over and over that no
matter how religious a person might be, if they don't bother me
about their religion I don't bother them about their religion. But
when it comes to those religious harassers it is another matter. I
am talking about the ones who follow you around trying to beat you
over the head with their religion. I am talking about the ones
will not leave you alone no matter how much you tell them that you
are not interested. I am talking about the kind of people who will
follow a blind man down the street screaming at him that god has
struck him blind because he turned his back on Jesus. I got fed up
with those ass holes years ago, but no matter how much I tell them
that I am fed up with them insulting my intelligence with their
harassment they won't stop. So here we have a religious harasser.
He is the first Muslim harasser I have come across unless you
count the one who would not let me off his email list back before
Mostafa came along, but he is still a religious harasser. He first
came to my attention when other people started to complain about
him on various email lists. He harvested email addresses and
bombarded people with his proselytizing and when they asked to be
removed he refused. When people blocked him he tried to get around
the blocks. This is outright harassment. It is bullying. So I
fight back. I may not fight back in the same way that others fight
back, but I fight back.
I engage him in logical debate because he insults my intelligence
and since this is an argument that I always win I always manage to
point up who the real idiot is. And don't say that I win in my own
mind. When I make a logical argument or point out a logical
fallacy in his arguments and he has no refutation, but only
launches into a tantrum of name calling, insults and threats, I
win and my win is right there for you and anyone who is reading
the exchange to see. I take on the challenge because if he wants
to insult my intelligence it is like saying, okay, let's see who
the real fool is. Now, I have told you my motives again. There is
no reason for you to ignore what I have said that my motives for
taking on Mostafa are.
I don't know why you want to try to pretend to read minds when I
so clearly lay out to you why I am actually doing something.
Mostafa is a bully and a harasser and I am giving it right back to
him.
---
Voltaire
??? Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you
commit atrocities. ???
??? Voltaire,
On 7/22/2019 9:27 AM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
I forgot one more factor and that is a political one. In these
debates, Roger inadvertently represents the US, the super power
of the world, the country that overthrows democracies in favor of
dictators who support it and then provides military aid to the
dictators. It has proclaimed, since W Bush's administration, a
Christian crusade, with many members of the military saying this
explicitly. Mustafa is a citizen of one of the multitude of
countries that the US dominates. When Mustafa proclaims his
version of the truth on our list, he is also proclaiming his rage
at the US for how it behaves in the Middle East. Roger's self
satisfaction when he believes that he has won a logical argument,
doesn't undo any of what is really going on. Winning an argument
with logic doesn't obliterate religious belief or the anger of
people in other countries or Mustafa's need to assert himself.
It's kind of like getting into a fist fight in a bar. You win the
fight and you feel good momentarily, but nothing has changed.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Loran Bailey
Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2019 9:54 PM
To:blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Miriam Vieni
<miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [blind-democracy] Re: This sounds like Mostafa.
Name calling and insult throwing is not an example of poor
English skills. It is just hostility and tantrum throwing. I
bested Mostafa in a debate in logic. He has been throwing a tantrum
ever since.
---
Voltaire
??? Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you
commit atrocities. ???
??? Voltaire,
On 7/21/2019 9:18 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
There may be several factors involved in the faulty
communication between Roger and Mustafa. One of them is
Mustafa's limitations in expressing himself in English. He may
be sounding more emphatic than he means to because he doesn't
know the idioms and nuances of the English language. Roger may
not always truly comprehend what Mustafa is attempting to say.
Another problem is that they come from totally different
cultural backgrounds. They don't start from the same
assumptions. That fact certainly impedes positive communication.
A third factor may be that each is emotionally invested in his
point of view. When they become involved in verbal confrontations,
each feels that his manhood or his is involved.
And there's one more thing. Roger apparently believes that it is
his duty to educate everyone or, to put it another way, to
convince everyone to think as he does. Mustafa may have the same
compulsion. I don't enjoy battles so I don't read their email
debates. I just delete them. I remember one night when Joe and
Frank were engaged in a terrible email fight. That was an awful
experience and it was the last time I ever read battling emails.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx On Behalf Of Roger
Loran Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2019 8:41 PM
To:blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Carl
Jarvis<carjar82@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: This sounds like Mostafa.
By all means, any of us can have a gap in our education. That
was a point I was making in my other message about whether there
is such a thing as a stupid question. If it is an honest
question asked in an attempt to learn it is not a stupid question.
Sometimes it can be a bit frustrating when you realize that in
order to answer it in a way that the questioner will understand
you will have to start educating that person from an elementary
school level and I, for one, cannot do that.
However, if it is an honest question asked with the intention of
learning I can try to do my best to answer. However, an honest
attempt to learn is not what Mostafa is doing with his ignorant
questions and pronouncements. He proudly shows his ignorance in
order to discredit entire branches of science. He shows his
ignorance in order to discredit me. At least that is what he is
trying to do. But he manages to actually ask questions that have
to be called stupid questions. They are stupid because when he
gets an answer he refuses to accept it. He just keeps repeating
the ignorance that he has been caught up in. That is a refusal
to learn. It is just a hostile act. And what he discredits more
than anything is himself.
---
Voltaire
??? Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you
commit atrocities. ???
??? Voltaire,
On 7/21/2019 1:02 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
It's frustrating. But I would point out that any of us can
have a gap in our education, or a lack of ability to grasp
information that is well understood by other people.
The value of an opinion based list, such as this one should be,
that we can expose our lack of education and receive positive
guidance without feeling threatened or put down. But that
calls for an open mind on our part, and understanding people
who give their information and opinions in a helpful and caring
manner.
Carl Jarvis...who has learned a great deal through interaction
on this list.
On 7/20/19, Roger Loran Bailey<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I just had to tell you guys about this. This sounds exactly
like something Mostafa would say. There is a Facebook
discussion group on the subject of science that I subscribe
to. It is open to all, but I would expect that people who
would subscribe would have some interest in science and so
would have some kind of knowledge of science even if only
rudimentary. Apparently that is not the case.
Someone just showed up and said that we all know that
combustion requires the presence of oxygen, so is there oxygen
in the sun to make combustion take place there? Some others
started to give answers explaining that chemical combustion
takes place in the presence of oxygen, but that what is
happening in the sun is nuclear fusion. Personally, it seems
to me that if a person could seriously ask that question then
it is unlikely that he would understand such answers. I would
not be surprised if he did not even know what nuclear fusion
is. I did not even bother to try to answer him. With someone
like that the only way to give a good answer would be to go
back to elementary science class and teach him that and to
continue to teach him until he finally reached a point that he
could understand. This is exactly how I feel when Mostafa asks
questions like, if we descended from monkeys then why are there
still monkeys?
How can you give a meaningful answer to someone that ignorant?
It is exasperating. It is also similar to another one I saw
once. I don't know if this was supposed to be a joke, but if
it wasn't it is about just as exasperating. Someone from
Nigeria once asked, if the Earth really rotates then why am I
still in Nigeria?
--
---
Voltaire
??? Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you
commit atrocities. ???
??? Voltaire,
