Path: news.cac.psu.edu!news.math.psu.edu!hudson.lm.com!newsfeed.pitt.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!news.duke.edu!agate!msunews!netnews.upenn.edu!news.cc.swarthmore.edu!haneef
From: [email protected] (Omar Haneef '96)
Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk
Subject: Re: Dystopia, at last...
Date: 11 Sep 1995 01:09:21 GMT
Organization: Swarthmore College Engineering, Swarthmore PA
Lines: 23
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.engin.swarthmore.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]


I've been reading this debate between Sourcerer and Technical Boy and, well,
the langauge has a great, hip beat poet quality about it (cp influence?) but
I'm a little unsure of the arguments. This post is a question: I want to
know if I've understood the two positions.

Technical Boy
(1) There are stupid people and there are smart people
(2) Activism is a good thing and can potentially achieve good goals
(3) Part of activism is making stupid people smart; also smart people are
better at activisim

Sourcerer
(1) Stupid is the how the rich elite describe the masses
(2) Activism is pretty much useless talking

Is this a correct assessment?
All the terms here are mean't in theor "popular" usage. That is to say that
I could tell try to argue that perhaps the fall of western civilization as
we know it is a cause that we could activate towards but this is not the
common usage of the word.

-Omar Haneef

[Next appendix] | [Return to index for Appendix A4] | [Return to index for Appendix A]