Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site ubvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!amdcad!cae780!ubvax!tonyw
From: tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: defining racism -- Laura on compassi
Message-ID: <397@ubvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 9-Jan-86 16:39:14 EST
Article-I.D.: ubvax.397
Posted: Thu Jan  9 16:39:14 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 13-Jan-86 17:56:50 EST
References: <336@l5.UUCP> <28200431@inmet.UUCP> <394@ubvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch)
Organization: Ungermann-Bass, Inc., Santa Clara, Ca.
Lines: 32

In article <394@ubvax.UUCP> tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) writes:
>(my firm's site has had some machine problems recently ...)
>

I mentioned in that article that I thought my attitude towards racism
was a "defenseable moral opinion", but I really shouldn't have put
it that way.  Too interventionist, and defensive.  Call it
instead a "reasonable personal attitude" or a "reasonable
attitude to a moral question [for power or for the powerless]"
and the sense might be more accurate.

My writing style often becomes more plodding when my thoughts
get more schematic and architectonic.  On USENET my writing splits
into personable and theoretical modes, sometimes badly mixed.

The worst is when, as in this discussion about racism, I get a little
morally incensed at an issue I would be better in arguing about if I
just dealt with it on a level of formal reason.  Easier to say
than to do.

I'll try to watch that in the future.

We may inhabit the same body each time we sit at a keyboard and write,
but in my case different people within me write, and they often don't
agree on much.  I get into arguments with myself.  I may have a different
perspective on reason from others here on the net in large part
because of this.

Another article for that, sometime, perhaps.

Tony Wuersch
{amdcad!cae780, amd}!ubvax!tonyw