A dangerous precedent
The Dangerous Precedent: A Statement of the Core Issue
There are two underlying issues afoot here, one of which—obviously—is how we regard S.A.M. as an individual in our community. That one, it seems, can carry on to Judgment Day without making a whole lot of progress.
But the less apparent, and perhaps more important issue is an exploration of the implications surrounding "the S.A.M. issue".
Gustav pointed to a recent discussion of "the S.A.M. issue", and therein we find a practical reminder. If you follow Gustav's image captures, you come up with a number of old links, one of which is
James' indictment of S.A.M. in September, and another being
my response.
In the current issue, some would suggest that S.A.M. is being treated fairly, though moderators viewing the back room discussion are aware that we have invoked a new standard for S.A.M. that has not been applied in the past; specifically, we are invoking a new perspective to strip from S.A.M. benefits we have reserved for members in the past. Over the long run, one can certainly argue that this is the a more appropriate outcome, but those watching with a critical eye might suggest it awfully convenient that S.A.M. should be our starting point.
Analogously, in American history, the early drug war took place against Chinese laborers imported for the railroads and other projects in the western territories. Over time, nobody really said much about opium use. But then white people started using it, and Chinese dealers stared making money. The crackdown began. We went through the same thing with marijuana; as long as it was viewed as something nonwhites did, that was fine, but as soon as whites started giving minorities money for drugs, it was time to get involved. Does anyone recall that methamphetamine rose in the American west long before the 1990s? Sure, it was a "problem", but the laws didn't start to toughen up until the latter half of the nineties, coincidentally when hispanic gangs emerged as the primary beneficiaries of the market. (Did you know that at least until the late nineties, methamphetamine was regarded as
less addictive and
less harmful to users than marijuana?) And for how long did the essentially racist federal crack standard hold sway?
It is not necessarily a behavior or the problems it causes that, historically, have led Americans—at least—to action, but rather a question of
who is behaving in a given way.
And for many, this suffices. That the transition occurs on a visible identifier such as ethnicity or creed is merely coincidental, and cannot
possibly be intentional—after all, psychology is bunk, so there's no way underlying prejudices that people have repressed or sublimated could possibly influence their actions, right? It just turns out that these thresholds magically coincide with objective, circumstantial evidence that suggests we must necessarily make
this transition
now.
And that's what is going on. Whether you hold with the sinister or the virginally blameless suggestion, we have reached a threshold. And that is what I would like people to stop and consider. After all, it seems well and fine for many to treat S.A.M. this way, but what will they say when it is them?
Thus, I would ask that people go back and review James' former indictment of S.A.M., as well as my response to that indictment, and consider whether or not you want such standards applied to you. Indeed, we had a recent backroom discussion in which the very rules of grammar apparently distorted under the force of S.A.M.'s gravity.
So remember, the standard we face now has both nothing and everything to do with what you write. It has nothing to do with what you write because what you write is now entirely subject to elective, arbitrary, or prejudiced interpretation and assignation. That is,
you write the words, and
we decide what you mean. And, secondly, it has everything to do with what you write because
you will be held responsible for what
we decide you have written.
And if my fellows should choose to object to this characterization, I would ask for their explanation of how and why we got down to splitting the hairs of what words like "will" and "for" mean.
And therein we achieve escape velocity: We can now orbit the issue without S.A.M.
Do our members really want moderators and administrators deciding what they mean? Do our members really want us thinking
for them? How will you feel about our judgment and assessments when we argue over what you meant by a
three-letter conjunction?
If we apply James' "S.A.M. standard" equally, that is exactly what members should expect. We literally argued about the meaning of the conjunction "for".
To the other, I do wonder whether other members, aside from S.A.M., will be treated that way at the outset. When you quote a sentence and then make an assertion which can only be true if you erase half of the sentence?
This is the new, "fair" standard members should expect. And my dissent from this administration and some of my fellows in this matter, even when we remove S.A.M. herself from the equation, stands quite squarely on my objection to this manner of application.
And that's just the beginning. As my esteemed colleague
Bells, said, "[S.A.M.] may prove to be the catalyst".
Convenient? Perhaps. We should never wonder why the catalyst was never disgraceful conduct that echoed sentiments more familiar to our sensibilities. And we should certainly never wonder why the catalyst wasn't actually what he voices of condemnation claimed it was.
Of course,
she also suggests that catalyst, the misrepresentation of a member by an administrator, is the beginning of fairness.
I would ask the Sciforums membership to consider very carefully where this is going. Yes, we are arguing over the use of conjunctions at this point. Of course, we could have skipped that part if an administrator simply acknowledged that the word existed, and what it meant.
People get ready. My only question is, "Are you?"
____________________
Notes:
"for". Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. January 3, 2010. Merriam-Webster.com. January 3, 2010. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/for
