Labels

[Charles Drago]

Albert,

Much has been written by Jan, myself, and a broad range of colleagues -- both on DPF and, over the past 20 years, in print and electronic media -- on the deep political origins of operations to perpetuate usage of the terms "conspiracy theorist," "assassination buff," and "conspiracist."

First and foremost, repeated use of the "CT v. LNer" parallel construction reinforces the fallacy that there exists legitimate doubt in relation to the basic nature of the assassination of JFK. Further, it implies that the LN "argument" is in all respects worthy of respect as an honestly posed, logically defensible point of view supported by uncontested evidence.

The offense you take at being labeled a conspiracy theorist is understandable and wholly justified. Such terms are designed to marginalize and demonize members of our community of honorable JFK assassination students and scholars.

In being so targeted, we are in good and noble company. My thoughts turn immediately to those labeled "nigger lovers" from the birth of American Abolitionism, to the January 1, 1863 issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation and enactment of the Thirteenth Amendment on January 31, 1865, to this very day.

As I wrote in my essay "In the Blossom of Our Sins," we are obliged to define ourselves lest the enemy define us:

"We are the Lakota of AIM. We are the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. We are the Viet Cong of Tet. We are the Palestinians - of Sabra and Shatila. We must know ourselves to be freedom fighters."

http://home.comcast.net/~johnkelin/fifty/jump.html

In noting that, "The use of such labels does nothing but underwrite the status-quo framing", you hit the nail squarely on the head.

Thank you Charles for confirming this (and reminding me of your essay, which I have indeed read; I have also read "From Truth to Justice: A Road Less Traveled", in Assassination Research 1.1, which conveys the same powerful urgency).

There is indeed demonization involved here, but, as you say, the most insidious part of it is like what the mass media does: neutralizes the position of the mathematician who proves that pi is a transcendental number by inviting somebody on a "balanced panel discussion" to claim that pi is rational.

But beyond that, I do not in general like labels. They reify positions in order to close off thought, let alone discussion. One of my favorite JFK quotations (at least I believe it is attributed to him): "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."

I guess what I was asking, too, was, short of practicing censorship, would it not be worthwhile to tell newcomers to DPF of this view, so that they will not transfer here automatically that usage practiced on other forums?

Interesting.

Perhaps we could create and pin a Tutorial thread in which newcomers could review this and similar issues.

As for the practice of censorship: It may be argued that the refusal of DPF owners to publish defenses of the Warren Commission's findings constitutes a form thereof.

However, we are under no obligations whatsoever to support the spread of lies, disinformation, misinformation, or other forms of enemy propaganda. For this is war.

After all, I can't imagine the NYT publishing press releases from Al Qaeda (even if Al Qaeda existed).

Then again ...

Okay ... bad analogy.