[AktiviX-request] Re: [AktiviX-discuss] aktivix and academic/activist projects: principled objections?
gdm at fifthhorseman.net
Wed Jan 11 18:14:53 UTC 2006
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
this is an interesting discussion!
Josh Robinson wrote:
>> agreed. but i was referring to this case, whereby the implication
>> seemed to be
>> that we should host the list as they were giving us money.
> It has also been argued (I forget whether here or on the request list)
> that we should support the project regardless of whether we receive any
> money from it.
i would agree with that - i don't care about money, i'm working to establish
systems that are not dependent on money, etc. if the politics/aims etc are good,
give it a chance ;-) the money is irrelevant.
>>>> just because you are an academic, doesn't mean you can't be an
>>>> activist as well; however, i see no way at all that being an academic
>>>> automatically makes you an activist, even if you are taking part in
>>>> "research related to activism"
>>> I agree with that (I know hundreds of academics who are in no way
>>> activists) -- my claim was that 'reasearch related to activism' does not
>>> (necessarily) imply 'not activism'.
>> and i agree with you here - although i'd have to add the claim that
>> related to activism' does not (necessarily) imply 'activism' either.
>> in fact, i
>> think that it is actually pretty much a "non-description" in that it
>> really say anything at all about the research ;-)
> I would agree. Your initial email, in contrast, said
> '"research related to activism" i.e. not activism.'
> That _is_ arguing that 'research related to activism' does imply 'not
> activism'. Have you changed your mind? Or was that post not an accurate
> reflection of your views?
no, i think it's all been taken a bit out of context now:
the context _was_ [my paraphrasing]: "please give us a list cos we are academics
who do some activism and now wanna do some research and we'll give u money." i
think the "research related to activism" line was mp's and there was no
explanation about how it was related, therefore i interpreted it as irrelevant
information. i guess i was also being a bit antagonistic ;-) - sometimes i do
this to provoke a response.
in summary, i haven't changed my mind, but that first post could be interpreted
as being limited with the truth (kind of like a white lie might be).
love and solidarity,
i have a NEW key:
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 594B97C2
Key fingerprint = 7B70 F22D F275 D111 3A04 F9EE 0E25 4944 594B 97C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the AktiviX-discuss