[CIMC-work] (Gehrig's response -- (repeats)) Fwd: [imc-us-process] a response

[Chris Kaihatsu]

----- Begin forwarded message -----
From: David Gehrig <zemblan at earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 12:28:42 -0600 (GMT-06:00)
To: imc-us-process at lists.indymedia.org
Subject: [imc-us-process] a response
Reply-To: David Gehrig <zemblan at earthlink.net>, "A process discussion list for U.S.-based IMCs" <imc-us-process at lists.indymedia.org>

A few short notes.  I've been super-busy over the last few days, and
this is my first chance to respond.

(0) This list is not the place to discuss one-state versus two-state,
but I do think it's a legitimate place to discuss to what degree the
political opinions of one or more IMC newswire editors justify the
suppression of opposing points of view.

(0a) This list is also not the place to discuss whether or not a given
political stance is officially "racist."  It is, however, a place where
we can note that there are opinions -- widely held -- which suggest that
there is no firm consensus either nationally or even within the IMCs on
the question.  As has been noted, there are many more people -- left,
right, and center -- who believe what I do than there are who believe
what the SF-IMC editor does.  This does not make me right.  But it does
make the question an open one, despite the bombastic assertion from
SF-IMC that the question is closed.

(1) Let me spell it out explicitly, since I've been accused of "racism"
so many times: I believe that all humanity is created in the image of
God, no matter where or when, and that all humans contain a spark of the
divine, and that each of us contain both altruistic and selfish sides. I
am *deeply* offended that someone is playing the "racism" card over what
is clearly a political difference.  I am not a racist.  I shouldn't I
have to say that just because I've got a political difference with
someone.  I have, note, never accused the certain SF-IMC editor of
antisemitism.

(2) I have looked for any rationale for my banning/getting slandered
that doesn't boil down to "all Zionists are alike, and the moment gehrig
said 'I believe Israel has the right to exist,' it became a rational and
commendable act for me to tar him with the same brush as anyone else who
has ever made such a statement, no matter how right-wing or looney, on
up to Baruch Goldstein, and it's perfectly fine to dismiss him as a
'racist spammer troll."  I haven't seen one.  Again, note that I'm not
accusing anyone of antisemitism, but there are other prejudices than
antisemitism.

(2a) Go through a certain poster's recent posts for statements of the
form "All X are liars," "All X are racists," "No X can be trusted."  Ask
yourself: Which poster here is appealing to prejudice?

(3) I do not deny that there are Zionists spamming SF-IMC.  But I'm also
clearly on record, again and again, condemning it.  In fact, the very
post of mine that's gotten spammed to SF-IMC so many times _includes_ a
condemnation of spamming, and in a post on UC-IMC there is another where
I specifically say that, in a battle between SF-IMC and the spammer,
even I would defend SF-IMC, even _as_ I'm being blamed for spamming it
solely because I support the "wrong" way of creating the Palestinian
state.

(3a) I certainly believe that spammers and racists can be removed from
participation in IMC newswires.  But I am neither of these, and am
offended to be referred to one.

(4) A certain SF-IMC newswire editor has now backed off from his earlier
statements pronouncing that I am a spammer, and now simply says that I
am a suspect, and more specifically that the reason I'm a suspect is
because of the same political difference that make him feel free to call
me a "racist."  What changed?  Only one thing -- his bluff was called.
Which certainly begs the question: if he had no evidence, why did he
bluff in the first place?  Why did he then go on to slander my IMC? Was
he carried away with his own bluster?  Again, who was appealing to
prejudice, in the form "All X are liars" ?

@%<A few short notes.  I've been super-busy over the last few days, and
this is my first chance to respond.

(0) This list is not the place to discuss one-state versus two-state,
but I do think it's a legitimate place to discuss to what degree the
political opinions of one or more IMC newswire editors justify the
suppression of opposing points of view.

(0a) This list is also not the place to discuss whether or not a given
political stance is officially "racist."  It is, however, a place where
we can note that there are opinions -- widely held -- which suggest that
there is no firm consensus either nationally or even within the IMCs on
the question.  As has been noted, there are many more people -- left,
right, and center -- who believe what I do than there are who believe
what the SF-IMC editor does.  This does not make me right.  But it does
make the question an open one, despite the bombastic assertion from
SF-IMC that the question is closed.

(1) Let me spell it out explicitly, since I've been accused of "racism"
so many times: I believe that all humanity is created in the image of
God, no matter where or when, and that all humans contain a spark of the
divine, and that each of us contain both altruistic and selfish sides. I
am *deeply* offended that someone is playing the "racism" card over what
is clearly a political difference.  I am not a racist.  I shouldn't I
have to say that just because I've got a political difference with
someone.  I have, note, never accused the certain SF-IMC editor of
antisemitism.

(2) I have looked for any rationale for my banning/getting slandered
that doesn't boil down to "all Zionists are alike, and the moment gehrig
said 'I believe Israel has the right to exist,' it became a rational and
commendable act for me to tar him with the same brush as anyone else who
has ever made such a statement, no matter how right-wing or looney, on
up to Baruch Goldstein, and it's perfectly fine to dismiss him as a
'racist spammer troll."  I haven't seen one.  Again, note that I'm not
accusing anyone of antisemitism, but there are other prejudices than
antisemitism.

(2a) Go through a certain poster's recent posts for statements of the
form "All X are liars," "All X are racists," "No X can be trusted."  Ask
yourself: Which poster here is appealing to prejudice?

(3) I do not deny that there are Zionists spamming SF-IMC.  But I'm also
clearly on record, again and again, condemning it.  In fact, the very
post of mine that's gotten spammed to SF-IMC so many times _includes_ a
condemnation of spamming, and in a post on UC-IMC there is another where
I specifically say that, in a battle between SF-IMC and the spammer,
even I would defend SF-IMC, even _as_ I'm being blamed for spamming it
solely because I support the "wrong" way of creating the Palestinian
state.

(3a) I certainly believe that spammers and racists can be removed from
participation in IMC newswires.  But I am neither of these, and am
offended to be referred to one.

(4) A certain SF-IMC newswire editor has now backed off from his earlier
statements pronouncing that I am a spammer, and now simply says that I
am a suspect, and more specifically that the reason I'm a suspect is
because of the same political difference that make him feel free to call
me a "racist."  What changed?  Only one thing -- his blustry bluff was
called. Which certainly begs the question: if he had no evidence, why
did he bluff in the first place?  Why did he then go on to slander my
IMC? Was he carried away with his own bluster?  Again, who was appealing
to prejudice, in the form "All X are liars" ?

@%<
_______________________________________________
imc-us-process mailing list
imc-us-process at lists.indymedia.org
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-us-process







__________________________________________________________ 
The 2004 US election: the case for a socialist alternative
A public conference sponsored by the World Socialist Web Site and the Socialist Equality Party
wsws.org/articles/2004/feb2004/call-f17.shtml