Ken,
You are violating some of the Cardinal Rules of Blogging (and those don't mean the Rules at Stanford--sorry--bad joke): your posts are thoughtful, well-crafted, and not inflammatory! Keep it up!
我完全同意你的观点，我一直在为不宽容的相对主义的优点辩护，尤其是在我的各种伦理课上。(Mark Ravizza和我在《伦理学:问题与原则》一文的引言中，以一种初步而粗略的方式为这种方法辩护。)重要的是要看到，许多关于相对主义的“标准”担忧并不适用于不宽容的相对主义:它意味着“一切皆有可能”，我们必须是和平主义者，我们必须允许其他国家做任何他们想做的事情(只要他们是一致的)，等等。此外，绝对主义不会比经验上不可避免的分歧和冲突更好:人们对什么是绝对的伦理真理存在分歧。显而易见的是，世界历史上和目前许多最棘手的冲突，都发生在各方都不是“相对主义者”(任何形式的)的地方!(各种各样的原教旨主义，或者至少有一些，可以被称为“不宽容的专制主义”!)
One issue that I think is troubling to the critics of intolerant relativism pertains to justification for our actions. That is, how exactly, they ask, can an intolerant absolutist be justified in imposing his or her values on someone who does not accept them? I believe that the answer has to do with the Rawlsian idea of wide reflective equilibrium; when one's views are in WRE, this gives us all the justification we can have (perhaps at least), and all we need. On the absolutist approach, justification comes from a connection with absolute values; but then how are we justified in exhibiting to others that we are so connected? (This pertains to Ken's previous post about legislating values and another Rawlsian idea of Public Reason...)
马克·吐温这样评价瓦格纳的音乐:它并不像听起来那么糟糕。同样，相对主义也不像听起来那么糟糕……

Ken,
你说，“除了我们自己的最高能力的反思背书……能成为约束我们的规范"但是，我们能想象一个恶毒的反犹分子不会(即使经过了充分的反思，不管你怎么解释)支持一种反对杀害犹太人的规范吗?那么，难道不是这样的，这个规范实际上对反犹分子没有约束力吗(即使我们有权要求他遵守这个规范)?我必须说，这个结论仍然让我觉得非常可怕。X是否真的受到一种禁止杀害无辜者的规范的约束，并不取决于X的心理构造的变幻莫测。也许这至少是David Velleman说道德是普遍存在的部分原因。

Sam:
It does follow that the virulent anti-semite would not be bound by a norm against the murder of innocents. It also follow, though, that those of us who are bound by such a norm do not stand in normative community or "ratioanl solidarity" with such a person.
We stand in rational solidiarity with another, roughly, when we are governed by a set of mutually endorsed norms. When we stand in rational solidarity we entitle each other, roughly, to hold one another to our mutually endorsed norms. We are bound together by a set of reciprocal and reciprocally binding obligations and commitments. Rational solidarity with others is something for which human beings seem to me to hunger.
这将是一个非常美好的世界，如果所有理性的人真的站在完全理性的团结彼此。但我认为，我们并不是生活在这样一个世界里。在我们生活的世界里，有很多我称之为“理性的尊严”的东西——与理性的团结恰恰相反。所谓理性永恒，我指的是一些复杂的东西。简化一点，这大致与我是否将约束你的规范作为我的理由的来源，以及你是否将约束我的规范作为你的理由的来源有关。如果这两个问题的答案都是否定的，那么我们就处于理性的永恒之中。对于反犹分子，我们中的许多人都处于一种理性的无惧状态。也就是说，我们不认为反犹分子受到允许杀害无辜者的规范的约束，从而产生任何理由让我们与他的杀害无辜者的企图合作，或尊重他杀害无辜者的权利，等等。他可能有他的理由、承诺和自我权利，但他的理由不会直接对我们产生任何压力，让我们尊重、合作或分享这些理由、权利和承诺。
我认为许多对相对主义的批评，包括Velleman的，完全没有注意到的是，这种情况与一种相对主义是完全相容的——我称之为不宽容的相对主义。
现在，我们许多人，包括我在内，赞同建立一个普遍规范的社会的计划，在这个社会中，所有人在所有人面前都是平等的，所有人都受到同等的重视和尊重。这是一个伟大的项目。但它只是一个项目，一个针对特定历史时期和特定文化的项目。这还没有实现。让你害怕的是，没有任何先验的保证——我确实在我的书中说过，没有这样的保证——我们实际上可以实现这个计划，建立一个包容所有人的道德共同体。这意味着，人类历史真的有可能终结于彻底的理性空泛，而不是彻底的理性团结和道德共同体。
That last possibility actually frightens me too. That is part of the reason that I do very much endorse the project of building an all inclusive moral community.
Still, I recognize that project as merely a project, but a deep and important project that largely defines the liberal secular modernity to which I owe a deep allegiance. But despite my deep allegiance to secular liberal modernity, I recognize its moral aspirations for universal community as merely the spirations of a particular historical epoch and a particular culture or set of cultures.
Bottom line. The reality of virulently anti-semitic people is of course very very frightening in the first place. But both the (intolerant) relativist who aspires to build a univeral moral community and the "universalist" who somehow thinks we've already got one should be frightend to the same degree by the reality of anti-semitism and its ugly effects as far as I can tell.
Well, maybe not. I guess there is this difference. Perhaps the universalist can take comfort in the belief that reasonable people reasoning rationally and competently will eventually converge on a shared moral outlook in the long run. Since my intolerant relativist thinks there is no guarantee of this (though she does grant the possibility of this) maybe the intolerant relativist should feel more discomfort than the universalist at our current moral fragmentation. But that belief in the rational inevitablity of moral convergence seems a pretty thin reed to hang hope on largley unsupported by an honest look at the history of normative community. Afterall, the universalist admits that moral matters are and have always been intensely and hotly disputed. So what would be the source of the confidence in long run rational convergence?

Ken,
我不能接受这样一种道德理论，即某些人，仅仅因为他们的心理构造，就不受禁止杀害无辜者准则的约束。在我看来，这只是道德理论的简化。
There is plenty of evidence to suggest convergence in the long run. Take the norms governing punishment, for example. We no longer accept public floggings, drawing and quartering, severing limbs, or various other medieval punishments I could (but won't) describe. We no longer accept torture as a means of extracting confessions. We have moved a long way from a society in which gathering firewood on the sabbath or masturbation is punishable by death.
We no longer hold that interracial or interfaith marriages are moral abominations. We do not deny the right to vote to the poor, to women, to immigrants, to blacks, and so on. And I could go on and on. One of the things I tell my relativist students is that there is far more agreement on moral issues than there is disagreement. It's just that the issues on which we disagree tend, for obvious reasons, to get a lot of press.
I believe in moral progress. I believe in the Enlightenment. I believe that there are moral truths to be discovered, and that the available evidence suggests that humanity has discovered, and continues to discover, many of them.

Sam:
"I can't accept" "I can't believe" sound like professions of your own faith or psychological limitations to me.
确实存在一定程度的道德趋同。任何理论，包括我自己的理论，都不应该解释为什么会有这么多的趋同，趋同的来源，道德变化的动力等等。关于这一切，我有一个理论，太复杂了，无法在此总结。我想说的是，收敛性并不能得到理性的保证。我不是说这是不可能的。我也不是说一定会分裂。但我也不否认彻底分裂的可能性。
你所说的一切都不需要被我的相对主义所否定，如果我的解释正确的话。但它确实需要正确的解释。比如，我怀疑你太看重“被束缚”了，而没有意识到“有权坚持”的重要性。但也许你就是不认同宽容和不宽容的相对主义之间的区别。但这只是猜测。无论如何，我认为真正的挑战不是说对方受什么约束或不受什么约束，而是说相对主义者是否有合理的理由让对方遵守在相对主义者看来，对方不受约束的规范。我认为，只有在没有被约束的情况下，才能证明坚持的失败，才真正等于任何一种还原。你不同意吗?为什么?
By the way, if you substitute "moral truths to be constituted" for your phrase "morals truths to be discovered" I might even be able to accept that. So I guess I think you're making too much of what is a small -- but still important -- disagreement between the universalist and the intolerant relativist.
顺便说一下，我对启蒙运动深信不疑。但是，我对启蒙运动的理解和你们的不一样。我认为启蒙运动是道德共同体历史上的一个决定性时刻——在这一时刻，文化的出现为自己设定了普遍道德共同体的项目。你认为把启蒙运动看作一项工程——一项理性上有争议的、历史上偶然的、文化上特定的工程，究竟有什么害处?也许你担心以这种方式构思，项目不能保证成功，部分原因是它因此被认为是理性的可选择的。当然，有时我们都可以从众多选项中选择相同的选项。有时候，看似真正的选择，在我们探索它们之前，结果是死胡同。
Over historical time, humanity has explored many different possible configurations of moral community. Some have withered and died, because they have not proven to be life sustaining or enhancing. Others have proliferated and spread -- and they have spread in a variety of ways. In what configuration of the moral order will human history culminate? I don't claim to know the answer to that. I'm merely exploring the space of possibilities and trying to understand and re-problematize our actual historical walk through that space of possibilities.

Ken,
我当然更喜欢不宽容的相对主义而不是宽容的相对主义。但是，在我看来，宽容的相对主义还远远不够。假设A受规范N的约束，(因此?)也有权持有B到N。进一步假设~N是与N相反的规范。正如你所看到的，B很可能受~N的约束，(因此?)也有权持有A到N。那我们该怎么办?在一种无法解决道德冲突的情况下。假设你和我都同意a，我们所能希望的就是强权在我们这一边。我认为，这与启蒙运动的计划不一致，启蒙运动包括达成共识的目标，不是历史偶然的结果，也不是在刺刀下，而是通过理性的辩论。

not as a result of historical accident or at the point of a bayonet, but by means of rational argument.
在我看来，如果A想要一个不情愿的B遵循规范N，那么A的选择就是说服或强迫，不管A是一个不宽容的相对主义者，一个绝对主义者，或诸如此类。A认为存在非偶然的道德真理是如何在这个任务中提供优势的?我认为不宽容的相对主义者会比绝对主义者更倾向于说服而不是强迫，因为她意识到她不能声称她的规范是普遍真理。

Ken B,
My point was that A has no hope of *convincing* B if intolerant relativism is true. The *only* alternative is brute force. If the absolutist is right, at least there's hope of coming to some consensus as the result of rational argument.

Sam:
Not true. You assume that reflectively endorsed norms must be endorsed "once and for all." But that need not be true.
There's a complicated story to tell about the growth and decay of moral community over historical time. The dynamics are quite complex and quite interesting. Sometimes force and coerciion are, indeed, involved. The Civil War and World War II, for example, were instrumental in bringing about a moral reconfiguration that could not have been brought about in any other way. It is even possible that the most "rational" option for both sides to a moral conflict is war and force of arms. But force and coercion are not the only ways in which moral reconfiguration happens.
The intolerant relativist can allow that we are engaged in a constant struggle to constitute ourselves in moral community with others. She could even allow that its of the very nature of at least some distinctively moral norms not only that we endorse them as norms for the entire rational order but that we, in a sense, offer them up for ratification to the entire rational order. If that would true, distinctively moral normas would have another kind of universal purport. But if the universalist were to sieze on this point and say "see, I told you so," she would be missing the deep point that even if the norms that I offer up to others for their ratification are rejected, they may still stand as binding on me, and may still stand as entitling me to hold others to them, even when those others reject and so are not bound by those very norms.
同样，人类经常试图与他人建立道德共同体，有时成功，有时失败。我的不宽容的相对主义不仅与这一切一致，而且试图解释我们成功的条件，我们失败的条件，以及随着时间的推移，规范共同体的增长和衰退的条件。
那些认为相对主义是某种使规范共同体不可能存在的布吉人的人只是被混淆了。

Moral relativism is wrong. Either there are some moral absolute truths or there are none. I am of the opinion that there are moral absolute truths such as the right of a person to have freedom. What theologians and religious leaders are angry about is how the mass of human beings are led like sheep from one moral point of view to another. Skilled persuaders such as marketers, lawyers, politicians, and other types of sorcerers know how easy it is to persuade people; it is the skill they use to feed themselves and their intellectual pride/beauty. Priests, the best persuaders, also know how easy it is to lead people towards a lie. A person with the skill to persuade is not even required to believe in what they are saying in order to persuade another, they just need to possess the skill.
A persuader starts by building their skill in persuading, then he takes pride in persuading, then he figures out how easily people can be persuaded through real skill, he reaches a point where he wishes that people would think for themselves, but finally comes to the conclusion that people in general do not take the time to think and must be lead towards the truth/ideas that lead towards the well being of humanity. Persuaders such as Adolph Hitler mastered the persuasion of an entire nation.
有一些道德真理是存在的。像牧师、哲学教师、上诉法官这样的知识精英们不能轻易放过自己。没有人会期望市场营销人员、律师和一般的政治家会坚持绝对的真理。但我认为，最伟大的哲学思想，将有助于将人类永恒的道德传递给后代和世纪，应该为后代坚定。他们的奖赏是什么?按照波伊提乌的说法，一个平静地把自己的生命交给命运，把死神骄傲地踩在脚下的人，能够坦然地面对命运，不论好坏，他都能表现出不屈不挠的神情。大海的狂怒和威胁并不能使他动摇，尽管大海从深处激起了汹涌的巨浪:维苏威火山?美国的熔炉可能永远不会这样频繁地喷发，他可能会让烟和火向上翻滚;闪电的习惯是要击毁高耸的塔楼，它可能会在它的路上闪电，但是这样的人将永远不会移动。(波伊提乌，哲学的慰藉)?他也可能开始理解伊曼努尔·康德?我头顶的星空，我内心的道德法则。

非常有趣的讨论，我的祝贺。
"By the way, if you substitute "moral truths to be constituted" for your phrase "morals truths to be discovered" I might even be able to accept that."
This is the locus. Either a higher moral order exists or it does not.
The relativist will and must constitute them. The classical philosopher believed they already existed, discrete from man's invention or imagination, and could be derived by reason. It is possible to be agnostic about their origin, but not their existence.
The Enlightenment ("modern") project has run aground because it is founded on that First Principle, yet has rejected it.
All men are not created equal, and that's the empirical fact. Some are faster, stronger, smarter. That they are equal is either an unprovable philosophical assertion as First Principle, another noble lie if you will, or it is based on a higher moral order, the possible existence of which has long since been discarded.

(NOTE : Here below is a polemic essay ?what some will call a rant, and many pomo relativists or those influenced by them, may very well call ?crackpot? or ?kook? stuff ?because it insists on old ?passe? ideals of integrity and other virtues ?which the relativist opinion-respecting sell outs would be wont to reject as being ?so yesterday?. Yes, it?s long-winded but makes sense ?damn good sense ! ) .
Posted: Aug 25, 2006 1:36 PM
EVIL, THY NAME IS AMBIVALENCE
邪恶?你的名字叫矛盾，你的名字叫暧昧。邪恶，你拒绝质辩?你寻求中间立场/平衡。邪恶，你拒绝过度分析。你讨厌极端精确/讨厌明确的界限。Evil, thou are known by refusing to be single-minded !
The voice of evil has a message and if we care about what Plato called :THE GOOD (and we should care) and if we care about Beauty (and Beauty is NOT in the eye of the beholder) if the beholder does NOT gaze rightly --i.e. does NOT think rightly) , then we should reject the message that tells us to embrace double-think .
The voice of evil has a message and the message it tells us is : ?Don?t be so single minded? and we should indeed always REJECT that message .
The voice of Good (if I may use that rhetorical phrase) has another message. The voice of Good tells us , ? DO be so single minded ! Always be single minded ? .
After all ambivalence?the tendency to balance what is intrinsically virtuous with that which is intrinsically crass ?is the ESSENCE OF MEDIOCRITY . Intrinsic virtue we should always seek to take to extremes , ladies and gents !
And the worst sort of mediocrity ?is respectible mediocrity !
然而，所有这些讨论都应该反思我们的社区正在发生的事情的细节?我们的文明正在发生什么特别的事情?以免它看起来像一个纯粹的学术讨论?思考一下，发现有趣的一段时间，然后同样的人回到他们的日常生活，日复一日的乞讨，人们问，?什么?S在电视上??
好了吗?年代什么?电视上的那个?S THE PROBLEM FOLKS !
I .SOULLESS SPECTACLES AND TOLERANT SELL-OUTS
What?s on t.v ought to show everyone who hasn?t come around to insight just how ROTTEN the sensisbilty of that weird, mediocre , pusiilanimous , pansy-effeminate thinking called relativism (or postmodernism, anti-foundationalism?or what funky new name they are calling it lately) which is that ?conflicted? tendency of thought to respect beliefs or so called ?points of view? regardless how crass , unfounded or otherwise skewed such beliefs are (i.e. selling out) ?how pathetic it is !
What?s ON T.V.IS THE APPARENT MURDER AND RAPE OF A LITTLE GIRL IN COLORADO TEN YEARS AGO BEING TREATED *AS IF * IT WERE SOME SORT OF ENTERTAINMENT !! !! Hello people if there is anything that ought to show those who still have some shred of caring for some semblance of wholesome sentiment towards how life should be lived it is that , and hence if there is anything that should show people that the whole ever so weird insipid tendency to respect opinions ? (or even partially respect them) no matter how crass those opinions are ?and this present weird decade of might-boggling crassness ?is TOTALLY WRONGHEADED AND WORTHLESS it is the disgusting news and entertainment media circus that treats the rape and murder of a child as something to have fun gossip about .
If there is anything that show the stragglers that still want to be tolerant and respect points of view and ?look at it from different perspectives?/ be conflicted ?want a balance between the light and dark ?and all similar insipid garbage ideology ?who still have some portion of nurturing feeling towards other living beings left ?to wise up and promote that nurturing feeling single-mindedly and with a robust intensity (and say politically correct tolerance be dammed ) then it should be that : seeing that so many have become tolerant of journalists gossiping about the rape and murder of a child like it were some entertaining thrilling spectacle to gossip about . These days the postmodernist/relativist crowd has tried to mislead us into thinking that we somehow shouldn?t have an us versus them approach. Well the us versus them approach is Good . The vindication of Truth, Beauty, Justice and all that is Good demands an us versus them approach !
Ladies and gents, news has become entertainment and entertainment has become news and that ugly sordid trend has been going on for 12 some years now and building and getting more and more sordid each month !
What we are seeing ?and it is indeed totally contrary to the enterprise of philosophy and hence the concern of philosophy with the Good of civilizations is a trend that should be best called CULTURAL ENTROPY .
在解释“文化熵”这个词之前，最好先把注意力转向四个黄金公理，我们迟早会重新思考和记住它们。这些明摆着的公理早在几十年前就应该被每个人承认了。
AXIOM 1 : *NOT* every belief ?including not every belief regarding matters of morals and/or esthetics is mere opinion . There
AXIOM 2 : NOT every opinion deserves any respect .
(How unspeakably bizarre it is that so many people in this present era , speak AS IF the mere fact that some people ?or even many people ?express a belief is somehow grounds for giving a belief some ad hoc respect. Would you respect, say, the belief where someone expresses the notion that having an interest in sordid celebrity gossip is even partially okay ? IF SO that is pathetic !)
AXIOM 3. The beliefs that a person expresses are NOT at all part of the person. Such beliefs are NOT at all a part of their identity. Merely because they have some relation with the self doesn?t mean they are a part of the person?s self . (Though if a person supports ugly beliefs long enough , they can take on a rather ugly demeanor though) .
公理4。既然信仰不是一个人的一部分，那么告诉别人他们所支持的信仰是完全错误的、毫无价值的、毫无价值的，就完全不是没有同情心或没有爱心的。你能为一个人做的最好的事就是贬低他们的观点。如果这个观点是粗鲁的、懒惰的或模糊的，我已经表达过了。这样做当然不是没有同情心的，也不是粗鲁的(只要你避免以个人方式使用这些术语)。If MTV told you otherwise then they told you wrong folks .
(Always keep in mind that judging a belief that someone has /condemning the belief is NOT necessarily the same as judging or condemning the person who supports it . It is good to always keep that in mind ?lest some relativist should quote the adage, ?judge not that ye be not judged? *out of context* as I?ve often seen them do . Furthermore, the part about , ?he that is without sin let him cast the first stone? ?applies to real physical stones?it does NOT apply to verbal criticism . )
Us versus them is good . It is helpful even to the them, as well as to Truth, Beauty, ect .
II CULTURAL ENTROPY
With those four golden axioms in mind let us turn attention to the term cultural entropy . By entropy I am NOT specifically referring to the thermodyamic context of the word entropy ?but I am referencing what Webster?s On-line Dictionary apparently lists as
3. CHAOS , DISORGANIZATION
Such chaos is NOT liberating . It is certainly not to be confused with the far separate creative ferment and unbouding energy of the freewheeling artist eccentric . Such chaos is NOT that ?so its important that noone should equivocate , for such creative artistic ferment is NOT chaos ?as some refer to it . By chaos I?m NOT referring to fractals so don?t equivocate off onto that tangent . By chaos , I?m NOT referring to the primordal stuff in ancient cosmoganies either?so don?t equivocate off into that separate topic .
The CHAOS of cultural entropy is a meta-theme that subtends the various interrelated themes of death ?and the glamourization of death , breakdown, dysfunctionality, polymorphous perversity, hype , fractious modes of living and thinking . In this present yuppie influenced, media -saturated era (and the yuppie subculture , by the way, is pervaded by the characteristics I just previously described and it is they who provide much of the supply and demand , in this present news and entertainment saturated state of affairs )?morbidity coupled with crass and tacky, sex- laced kitch has become the dominant motif .
According to Erich Fromm , Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza once wrote of two contrasting/opposite dispositions (that a culture or a person could support). The good one to support was apparently called the biophillic . The biophillic disposition was life affirming it was enamored of living organic beings and was interested in the ferment of ideas ?one would imagine vital ideas ones that were characterized by a mood of vigor of inclination .
相比之下，恋尸癖倾向于迷恋死亡。这是病态的——肯定死亡，而不是肯定生命。If memory serves righly, it was also pervaded by a venal liking for monetary wealth (the mystification of wealth)
The collective pop culture mood fostered by the mass entertainment and news media?which has creeped into many households in this present weird yuppie decade and desensitized a lot of people into partially accepting vapid, unwholesome, dysfunctional modes of thinking and living)?is necrophiilic .
After all ?WHY IS THE STORY OF JON BENET RAMSEY BEING RAPED AND MURDERED FEATURED ON A PROGRAM LIKE ENTERTAINMENT TONIGHT ? Jon Benet Ramsey was NOT a Hollywood actress ?and it?s bad enough they make sordid, weird unwholesome gossip about actual hollywood actresses that were killed or experienced tragedies ?but she wasn?t even a hollywood actress nor was she a rock star ! Here is a social phenomenon so bizarre that so nmany treat AS IF it were some normal par for the course affair. Just 20 years ago , It?s a safe wager, that if Entertainment Tonight had aired a story about a little girl being raped and murdered ? many of the media pundits would be dripping and spewing with shock and so would much of the general public ! 40 years ago if a t.v. entertainment show had tried to peddle lurid voyeuristic trash that gossiped about a little child being killed?it?s a safe wager that there would be so much outcry that it would be the last show such a program ever did ?and the producers would have to look into chapter 11 pretty darn quick ! The proverbial frog in the kettle is already half cooked . Now creepy shows like that grotesque skanky yuppie-minded Nancy Grace Show on CNN go swimmingly in this present creepshow of a decade !
And don?t believe any postmodernist pip queak who even implies that that trend is some sort of progress it isn?t .
III .THE MOST DERISIVE ADJECTIVES SEEM AN UNDERSTATEMENT .
I could churn out derisive adjectives like , HIDEOUS , FIENDISHLY VAPID, SOULLESS, DEPRAVED, MEDIOCRE , SKANKY ?and a host of other off the charts vehement adjectives enough to fill a giant almanaac and keep on deriding the worthless opinions of those that think it?s okay (or even almost partially okay) to bandie about sordid details of tragedies, like the Jon Benet Ramsey case, till what might seem like the 12th of never , and yet lately even the most vehement adjectives and descriptions at ther most caustic level seem like an understatement?even seem NOT nearly hard enough on these ugly worthless opinions of those that support the ugly society of the spectacle .
IV .WARNING SIGNS
就在有人一心一意地谴责那些支持肮脏、肮脏、平庸的电视饱和郊区现状的人所表达的丑陋观点时，经常会有一个或几个人扮演侏儒，用这些典型的当代但同样怪异的、pod人的反应，比如说??好了吗?这只是你的意见吗?或不?不要这么武断?或者从另一个角度看问题?或者另一边??and similar limpwristed comments all of which are just euphemisms that try to get the person to sell out /to settle/ to accept/ to embrace the mediocrity by balancing light with a little darkness .
Here are some warning signs that the person who is responding has gone over to the dark side ?some tell tale phrases that evince the ugly worthless ideology called relativism . Some phrases , statements , and questions that are indicative of relativism are : the use of the term ?self-righteous? to lambast those that aspire to be single minded about principles and, hence, REFUSE to sell out . Someone asking a person ?are you ever wrong??, when that person they ask is making a single-minded claim as to some value , is another warning sign of the ugly ideology of relativism being near. Someone who speaks or posts AS IF ?always being right or always ?having to be right? were somehow bad, is another warning sign ! Someone speaks of ?finding a balance? or any sort of balance?if they speak or post of such balance with approval? on some issue where there is some crass tendency happening . Someone who speaks or posts claiming ?that there is another side? on some issue or claiming that allegedly there is somehow more than one side ?to an issue . Someone referring to being ?preachy? AS IF being preachy were somehow undesirable is another warning sign . Someone referring to so-called ?shades of grey? and claiming an issue is not black or white is another warning sign . Someone claiming that someone else is allegedly ?arrogant? or ?pompous? because that other person that they (falsely) accuse of being ?arrogant? REFUSES to sell out/REFUSES to respect opposite beliefs , is another warning sign that the person communicating that is a relativist .
Another warning sign is if a person uses the word ?totalize? AS IF totalizing were something bad?which postmodernists often do . Describing people who are single-minded in outlook as ?fanatics? or ?fanatical? is another warning sign . Referring to being rigid AS IF it were somehow bad to be rigid (it?s NOT bad to be rigid) is another warning sign . Another warning sign is if the person accepts being conflicted as if somehow it were okay. ?Learning to accept ? or ?learning to adapt? or ?adjust? ?when people approve of such terms being applied to crass activities is another warning sign . Another warning sign is the weird tendency of some people, in recent decades, to claim ?life is give and take? and apply that to even situations that are sordid, crass, or otherwise unjust.
另一个警告信号是不健康的奇怪倾向，指的是一个人过着被庇护的生活。AS IF living a sheltered life were somehow bad .
这句话往往暗含着这样一种意思:被庇护的生活。好像这是不好的意思是说如果一个人没有?他学会了接受和适应肮脏、怪异的思维和行为方式，并将其作为生活的一部分。据说这个人有问题。事实是，那些学会接受肮脏、武断、粗俗的行为方式的人，才是有问题的人。事实是:每个人都应该过一种有保障的生活。有庇护的生活是好的。It is weird that the sordid now has become treated as the yardstick for guaging what is tolerable .
V .PEOPLE WHO DEFEND WHAT THEY COMPLAIN ABOUT .
In this weird present era?there are a lot of people that don?t like superficiality , don?t like sordidness and want to foster a more nurturing , life -affirming culture , but weirdly enough among some of those people there are what might be called the ?ambivalent progressives? or ?ambivalent humanitarians? who have embraced the weird ambivalent ?conflicted? outlook that is tolerant of ambiguity . Such an outlook doesn?t want to get rid of superficiality, sordidness in human affairs altogether but instead wants to settle for a sell out ?balance? between what is noble/life-affirming ect, and the opposite: that which is sordid . They don?t want to get rid of the sordid altogether they just merely want to tone it down . Such a weird ambivalent ethos often wants to accept sordid modes of thinking and acting as ?part of life too? . They want to ameliorate the intrinsically bad- but *not* try to get rid of it altogether . They want an ameliorated good and an ameliorated bad . They want a lukewarm , diluted middle ground between the inherently good and inherently bad .
改善好的一面，改善坏的一面，而不是最大化本质的好，摆脱本质的坏，这种奇怪的自动倾向有多奇怪?that ameliorating middle of the road tendency- characterizes the spirit of this present weird age .
Virtue requires that when it comes to intrinsic virtue WE SHOULD EITHER FISH OR CUT BAIT .
Aside from the ownership fallacy which is also equally depraved and ridiculous , the most ridiculous notion in human history is the ever so bizarre notion that seems to think as if somehow a virtue somehow becomes a vice when taken to extremes . It does NOT ! Intrinsic Virtue when taken to extremes does NOT become a vice .
Taking an intrinsic virtue to extremes means ?MORE VIRTUE . It truly is that simple !
LET US THUS REFLECT ON TWO OTHER AXIOMS .
AXIOM 5 : An intrinsic virtue when taken to extremes does *NOT* in any case become a vice . When an intrinsic virtue is taken to extremes it results in ?.MORE VIRTUE !
The notion that an intrinsic virtue (and that is different from a mere extrinsic sort of virtue) when taken to extremes becomes a vice is a false cockamamey notion people .
AXIOM 6 : Rigid consistency in mentally supporting intrinsic virtue in thought and belief is always right . That is concurrent with axiom number 5 .
Yet these present days there are the ambivalent humanitarians/ the ambivalent sorts of caring people who defend what they complain about ! These people often enough often express a lot of passion and outrage and campaign for good causes ?but then they wax weirdly ambivalent in thought and say stuff ?well there?s another side?, and ?let?s have a balance? and speak of going beyond the us versus them and want to sell out by respecting or partially respecting the opinions that are CONTRARY to good causes /contrary to an edifying society .
同样，“我们对抗他们”的方法是好的，只要它不是基于非法暴力(“我们对抗他们”的方法并不总是会导致非法的身体暴力)，爱人的敌人在任何程度上都不涉及尊重他们表达的错误意见!我吗?m让我想起了我在1997年秋天认识的一个年轻人，他是一个动物权利组织的成员，我是其中一员，他以典型的矛盾MTV一代相对主义的方式，发表了一种软软的、矫情的声明，意思是，动物权利对我们是正确的，(但对那些支持为了虐待而杀害动物的人来说)，这在某种程度上对他们是正确的。！IF SO then why bother .
It is not just important that we have the right actions that support the right cause. We should also NOT be *duplicious* in belief towards supporting inwardly the right ethical causes either . Duplicious thinking betrays good ethical causes in a way that is far more fundamental in terms of meaning ?then actions that do not fit the cause .
虽然行为上的伪善是不好的?duplicity in belief is often ultimately worse ?and a worse betrayal of the ethical or esthetic goal one is supposed to be striving for .
The problem, by the way ?is not in the complaining?the problem, by the way, is in people defending what they complain about . Complaining can be good?but don?t defend what you complain about . Be consistent .
To respect the opinion of those that intentionally support that which is crass or murky , if one is disappointed by the situation supported by that opinion ?is DEFENDING WHAT YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT !
(In deriding the ugly tendency of people to respect opinions they do not agree with , I am not by the way referring to the civil right of someone to express that opinion . There is a difference between respecting the civil right of someone to express an opinion no matter how worthless that opinion is ?and the separate matter of respecting the opinion itself . respecting the right of somebody to express an opinion does NOT to any degree involve respecting the opinion itself . It is high time that the MTV Generation ?by the way?stop glossing over that difference !)
IIV .NOT A MATTER OF GOING ?OVERBOARD? .
Relativism is totally worthless and a culture that accepts the creepy portrayal of the rape and murder of a little girl as fodder for gossip and entertainment evinces that worthlessness . It is NOT a matter that relativism has gone overboard since relativism is intrinscally worthless and, hence, never had any good points to it to begin with . Another factor in this present era that is all so disgusting is even among some of the people that express some disapproval of relativism ?there is an odd ambivalence where even some of these people want to find a middle ground between absolutism (with its high ethical and esthetic standards) and relativism.! Ladies and gentlemen, there is NO ?too much ? absolutism . Such finding a middle ground between relativism and absolutism is selling out .
对邪恶的相对主义(以及它容忍并常常巧妙地培养的没有灵魂的流行文化)采取一种要么全有要么全无的方法是早就该采取的。我们不应该偶尔像相对主义的豆荚人那样谈论，或者在周四的几分钟，然后在一周的其余时间里坚决地谈论价值观。我们应该一直坚持高标准。这篇文章的作者经常很厌恶过去的自己，因为过去的时候不坚决，所以不要?t presume (as relativists sometimes weirdly do presume) that he holds himself above reproach .
这是相当令人震惊的看到，即使是那些主要的绝对主义者中的*一些*人，也会奇怪地对所谓的“不同的视角”做出那些奇怪的自动声明。而且，偶尔(偶尔)会感到矛盾，想要尊重别人的观点。?We should go all the way with absolutism go the distance .
Ugly sordid opinions that endorse crass activities like media gossip , racism , wife-beating , watching something on t.v. ?because there?s nothing else on? , and other murky tendencies should NEVER be respected at any hour of the day .
All so many people these days have lowered standards /have ?learned to accept? to be ?realistic? in accepting sordid , crass situational reality .
Like the men in the Dylan Thomas poem (who the poet with apparent sarcasm says and one would most likely imagine uses the term wise men ?sarcastically) ?know dark is right because their words had forked no lightening? , they accept /resign themselves a little ?to mediocrity .
We?ve got to ? RAGE , RAGE AGAINST THE DYING OF THE LIGHT .?
Piss on the tolerance and acceptance that allows tragedy as fodder for media gossip . Away with the respectible mainstream mediocrity of those who have learned to settle for the so called ?different perspective? of duplicity .

POMO KID AND THE MISADVENTURE THROUGH TIME
NOTE : The following is a fictitious (though it is an appropro portrayal of relativist/postmodernist thinking) story that depicts a young man (age 24) who supports postmodernist/relativist ideology . He is sent back in time from circa 2007 A.D. to 1855 Oneida, New York (by a University sociology department) to engage in discussion with an abolitionist orator. The young man is called in the story : Pomo kid ...'pomo' being an abbreviation for postmodernist . He is sent back into time with a special hidden video and audio device designed to record sound and image of the discussion that he will have with Benjamin Obadiah Whittaker --an abolitionist and former slave, who is scheduled on that June evening to give a speech on the evils of slavery at the Shaker meeting house during a meeting hosted by the Oneida abolitionist society .
The exchange between Pomo Kid and the abolitionist leader is a cautionary tale presented in a format similar to a one-act play designed to reveal the incongruity and general murkiness of postmodernist/relativist thinking .
PREFACE :Pomo kid has gotten in the time machine and the controls have been set for June 25, 1855 . Since the machine is the first of its kind and time travel with it expected to be slow going on what the scientists back at the lab call it's "maiden voyage" , Pomo Kid has taken some magazines: the UTNE reader (bought for him by his limosine- liberal parents who read it themselves ) and Relevant Magazine .
Pomo Kid——多年来长期观看MTV所培养出的注意力持续时间很短——还带了一个特制的CD播放机和一些CD来让他保持快乐。当他到达1855年的纽约奥内达时，他奇迹般地发现了CD播放机和CD的工作——尽管他在乘坐时间机器时很难让它们工作。他拿过的CD如下:《珍宝精选集》、乐队癞蛤蟆的CD、吉米吃世界的CD、《道森河》电视节目原声、乐队“赤光女郎”的CD、弗利特伍德麦克的《传闻》(这张CD是他从父母那里借来的)，and a CD from a singer named Dan Hasletine .
The time machine soon arrives in a dairy cattle field in 1855 Oneida,
纽约。他戴着CD头戴在耳朵上走出时光机，隐藏的微型摄像记录装置翘起，伪装成他的一个穿孔。当他走到埃兹拉·豪厄尔·德拉蒙德的农场时，没有人看到机器降落，也没有人看到他出现。奶牛们呆呆地瞥了他一眼，然后又继续在广阔的青翠草地上吃草。He looks at a minature digital map device and proceeds to walk to the shaker meeting house to hear the speech by Obadiah Whittaker .
He arrives on time and sits down . Some of the abolitionists and interested town folks noticed Pomo kid as he arrives and are somewhat baffled by his odd appearance --as his clothes , hairstyle and general demeanor do not look period, but do not approach him . They are more interested in the speech by Mr. Benjamin Whittaker . Benjamin Whittaker presents a cogent and eloquent indictment of the evils of chattel slavery in the antebellum south. He especially highlights the treatment of slave women by slavemasters, overseers, and their cronies and acquaintances who from time to time rape the slave women on the plantations .
Pomo kid allows his CD headspeakers to droop a little so he can hear the speech ---and gives a skimming of the main elements . As the speech draws to its close Pomo kid hears the anti-slavery orator sum up the directive set before good citizens everywhere in a way that does NOT mince words .
' And so good citizens of Oneida , we can send forth the clear message ...both to posterity , to others who have shared and will share the North American continent, and to all nations and every town and village abroad , that we will no longer accept, nor even partially accept, a wicked commerce of bodies and souls that treats marriage and kinship as makeshift gambits in some sordid game , where transgression of the convenants between man and women is done with impunity . We will stand with the men , women, and children who long to have the stability accorded to man and wife by civilized society. We make no caveat to the forces of darkness and depravity that would settle for anything less! '
There is a roar of applause and even a few Amens from the audience .
Soon the speech is then over and there is time for handshakes and entreties from the audience .
Pomo Kid then approaches the abolitionist orator .
POMO KID:“嘿，惠特克先生，老兄。我喜欢你的演讲。我能看出他们对种族压迫之类的问题很有激情，但有些事我想和你讨论一下。我知道奴隶制是一个糟糕的场景，奴隶被对待的方式是虚假的，但你必须学会尊重那些想强奸他们的奴隶妇女，把他们的孩子卖给其他种植园的人的意见，也要从他们的角度来看待这个问题。你太武断，太说教，太教条……所以偏袒那些想要强奸女奴，殴打她们，把她们的孩子卖到下游的人的意见。就好像你想说教而不是讨论……你传。你得学会从其他角度看问题。你所做的是美国和他们对抗那些压迫和剥削奴隶的人。美国和他们的做法并不好。 It's fanatical to take the us versus them approach . The us versus them way is, like, so yesterday . Everything is connected . it's all connected. Really the slavowner and the oppressed slaves are really part of the same thing . Making distinctions is so passe /so yesterday . It's all one . It's all how you look at it .
You know there's many sides to every issue. Stuff like slavery is not all black and white there are shades of grey. It's not totally bad being oppressed as a slave . You got to look at it from other points of view . Learn to accept that problems are part of life...a growing experience . You know, getting raped and being sold away from your family just goes to show that life is give and take . If nobody ever got raped or exploited then you wouldn't have give and take ...and so you wouldn't have reality ; it would be all idealistic . We can't have stuff being idealistic all the time. Life is supposed to be a mixture of things . People are a mixture of things. It's all the duality of man . In the time period I come from, we study deconstructionism and post-structuralism at my college and I've been getting into Michel Foucault , and Lyotard, and Richard Rorty. They teach us not to totalize . What your are doing is totalizing ...making people out to be villans if they don't agree with rigid moral constructs . It's all just language games --the divisions of beleifs that people have . There aren't any absolute truths ...or if there are, there aren't very many...or we can't be sure what they are .
You got to learn something Mr.Whittaker: don't be so single-minded ....
(Pomo小孩停顿了很长一段时间，摆弄着他的CD播放机，把Jewel CD换成了Dawson's Creek CD。他把声音调小了一点，这样他就能隐约听到奥巴马的声音。请听本杰明·惠特克的讲话。)
Benjamin Whittaker stares at Pomo Kid with a look of utter credulity and disgust at the weirdly pusillanimous , and convoluted statements that have poured forth from the young man's mouth . He then speaks
BENJAMIN WHITTAKER SPEAKS : Young man, I scarcely know where to begin to disabuse you of the false , and weirdly ludicrous statements you have put forth here. You claim I must respect the vile opinions of those who support the exploitation and tyrrany which oppresses persons of African descent--and , moreover, exploits women whose virginity has been taken from them by force! What on earth have such opinions done to merit such respect, or to even almost halfway earn such respect .? Young man I can scarcely help wondering if you have fallen in with revelling hooligans in Manhattan that smoke opium in houses of ill repute and, that such riotous living has altered your febrile brain to such an extent that you find it a habit to talk nonsense . Young man, I do not know where you are from ---
(然后Pomo Kid打断了惠特克先生的话。Pomo kid毕竟是MTV一代的后现代主义者，他认为公平和等待别人讲完话是过时和过时的交流实践，他不想与之有任何关系。后现代小孩喜欢更前卫、更开放的方式。)
POMO KID发言:(决定开始循环思维)伙计，强奸女奴隶是不对的，或者残忍地殴打和剥削奴隶，把他们的孩子卖给他们是不对的……这对我们来说是错误的，但对那些支持剥削和强奸奴隶的人来说不是……这样做对他们来说是正确的。道德和真理是相对的，是主观的。对你真实的可能对他们并不真实。只是视角不同而已。如果你说人们剥削和强奸他们的奴隶是绝对错误的，而不是说这对我们是错误的，那么……你像希特勒。现在你可能不熟悉希特勒是谁……但到了20世纪，出现了一个叫希特勒的人，他掌权并剥夺了人们的权利。如果你说某些信念是完全错误的，而另一种信念是完全正确的，那么你就像希特勒一样。 Just like these holocaust survivors that the nazis put into concentration camps and came out being all bitter and one sided and preachy and say what the nazis did was wrong and don't respect the nazi point of view a little---well they're like Hitler too ! Just like a person who always stops a bully from bullying people and won't look at it from a bully point of view a little...well that makes that kind of one-sided person who is against bullying, a bully too and just as bad as the real bully . Also, just by saying that some belief or practice is wrong--- just by verbally calling that belief wrong, you violate their right to free expression to say that opposite belief...even without any physical violence against them ...without a single shot being fired .
你也要明白，如果有人说某些信仰不是绝对的，那么这就证明它不是。假设2+2=4。Well as long as somebody disagrees with the idea that 2+2=4 then that automatically shows that the idea that 2+2=4 isn't absolute, otherwise every person would have to say they agreed with 2+2 being = 4, otherwise it's not absolute .
在我所在的历史时期(20世纪末21世纪初)，有一个节目叫《真实世界》。因为电视在1855年还没有发明，你可能对这个词不熟悉。我所在的那个时代的电视就像你所在时代舞台上的戏剧。电视有点像戏剧——只是更有趣。我来的时候有个节目叫“真实世界”……节目里的人有时会有不同的信仰，所以他们可以走到一起，真实地谈论困扰他们的问题。这个节目教人们走出他们的舒适区(Pomo Kid通过记忆库找到更多的新词和短语，并找到了一些)，因此他们可以对彼此的生活产生影响，并对彼此的想法给予反馈。现在那些在奴隶种植园里被主人和监工强奸，殴打，剥削的人他们不能再一边倒了，他们要从另一个角度看问题，走出他们的舒适区，不再把强奸和剥削描绘成完全不好的事情。然后他们可以和奴隶主和监工们聚在一起告诉他们他们的感受然后让奴隶主和监工们也走出他们的舒适区，也许可以稍微缓和一下强奸和剥削。That way you don't have an us versus them .
有些人会说我说的没有多大意义。这是不一致的/矛盾的思维(这是出卖思想的另一种说法)，但我不叫它出卖。我称之为“从另一个角度看问题”。关于那些声称后现代主义的人就像我一直在努力让你们支持的那样，没有多大意义，它不需要有意义。讲道理太过时了…所以昨天。区分已经过时了。我不关心严格的区别。我开始有了一种横向思维……这并不全是关于差别的。横向思维不一定总是有意义的。
You Mr. Whittaker are a linear thinker ...that consistent thinking is so out of style....so outmoded . Lateral thinking, that postmodernists such as me go for doesn't bother with having to make sense ...it tolerates ambiguity . You mr. Whittaker are so rigidly consistent /so single-minded ...a fanatical ideologue that goes to extremes of consistent thinking. You aren't conflicted about anything !!!!
在我出生的那个年代，有一个叫莫比的歌手——他过去对动物权利事业非常教条和片面，但最近他学会了不要对那些不支持动物权利的人的意见如此武断。他尊重现在那些反对动物权利的人的观点——尽管他支持动物权利。同样的灵活性也适用于任何社会事业。毕竟，有一次我在课堂上遇到一位教授，他引用了这句话:“愚蠢的一致性是心胸狭窄者的妖怪”。我明白了背叛并不是那么糟糕。'
(Pomo小孩暂时把《Dawson’s Creek》的原声带弄掉了，把它捡起来放进了《Toad the Wet spprocket》CD。He changes CDs about as quickly as a chain smoker replaces cigarettes)
BENJAMIN WHITTAKER : (Still flabbergasted, begins to speak) 'Without consistency of thought human affairs descend into meaninglessness....
POMO KID说:如果你认为它们对你有意义，就不会。你知道，顺便说一句，在1855年，那些剥削和强奸奴隶的人所做的事情在当时被认为是正确的。我们不应该如此沙文主义，试图用后期的道德来严厉地批评奴隶主。如果你说那些剥削奴隶的人做了完全错误的事情，那么你和他们一样坏。道德在不同的时期是不同的。有些人说，不同时期的人可能会把不同的行为称为道德的……这并不是道德本质上的不同……但无论如何，这都是一样的……since I don't bother with hair-splitting distinctions like that .
(Pomo Kid's CD jams and stops playing temporarily. He pauses from speaking and, in so doing, ejects that CD and puts in the machine a CD of music by musician Dan Hasletine) .
BENJAMIN WHITTAKER SPEAKS : How are you so sure that people who exploit slaves are unaware that what they are doing is fully wrong ? (The good abolitionist has managed to put aside being shocked by the weirdly insipid statements presented by Pomo Kid long enough to get the composure to ask him that question .)
POMO KID REPLIES : Well if they thought it was wrong to exploit and mistreat slaves then they wouldn't do it .
BENJAMIN WHITTAKER SPEAKS : So let me get this straight, young man...you allege that the mere willingness of somebody to do some act is in of itself some ad hoc proof that in every such case they must be sincere in doing so.? Where do you arrive at such a facile conclusion-- if that is what you are alleging ?
(Pomo kid, who does not know a specific response to the question that can save face for how facile the previous statement he has just put forth has been...then searches his memory banks for the word he likes to bandie about whenever somebody presents an argument that is elaborate , doesn't have postmodern cliches, and one which , moreover, he doesn't want to slow down and bother to analyze . He finds that word .... the word "pseudo-intellectual" which he uses to lambast elaborate arguments from people who refuse to sell out and refuse to entertain his lazy mind . )
POMO KID SPEAKS : Dude, I realy don't have time for pseudo-intellectual questions and statements like you have been making. Mellow out, Dude . You are so single-minded . You just need to get laid .
(Pomo Kid pauses and then speaks again )
POMO KID SPEAKS : You want to know something ? If you judge a belief or lifestyle that somebody supports ...that's the same as judging them, because an emo-singer I like said so, in an interview I read about in Spin magazine . He later said the same stuff about that on a VH-1 documentary . He said that the beliefs a person supports are the person themself ---so by judging the belief your judging the person . Beliefs are people . (Pomo Kid gets oddly quiet all of a sudden )
BENJAMIN WHITTAKER THEN ASKS : So to take such preposterously silly statement to its conclusion , do you then allege that if someone no longer believes the beliefs they once supported ...they are no longer themselves .?
POMO KID ASKS : Yes , why not say that ?
BENJAMIN WHITTAKER SPEAKS : Well young man, I hope that you will reconsider those murky notions you have given a voice to . Slavery is quite ugly and the others here know that .
(Pomo Kid then takes out the Hasletine CD and puts in a CD of Rumors by Fleetwood Mac in his CD player and adjusts the headset .) .
POMO KID说话:(采用了年轻后现代主义者有时会采用的古怪任性的尖刻语气)“你知道吗，伙计，你就是不明白。我开始觉得跟你解释这些只是浪费时间…因为你有一个封闭的思想。我能看出你的思想很封闭，因为你总是把所有东西都拆开，你总是坚持一致的区别。惠特克先生，你还真会说话。这也是你的权力游戏。这表明世界杯赛程2022赛程表欧洲区你有控制欲，不会以不同的方式看待任何事情。你就是不明白。你用了演绎推理…但这是一种防御机制。既然你拒绝走出自己的舒适区，对任何事情都感到矛盾，那么讨论可能就没有意义了。你只是不明白……你所要做的就是成为一个真正的信徒，对别人的生活方式抱有成见。 So, like WHATEVER , dude ...that's not my problem !
(Pomo Kid then speaks again )
你可能不认为我认同受压迫者，但我认同。我的女朋友兼生活伴侣贾思敏和我已经参加了很多次晚间集会。我们抗议校园约会强奸。我知道压迫，我自己也是压迫的受害者。前年我去和维罗妮卡阿姨住在一起，因为父母把他们的房子当作已婚夫妇的冥想中心，而我是一个很难维护的人……我们觉得我会碍事，所以我去和维罗妮卡住了。但我的姑姑是一个守旧的门诺派教徒——所以她非常刻板，教条，清教徒式的，所以她不让我和贾斯敏的前男友(他是一个真正的kewl家伙，他在94年伍德斯托克音乐节上扎了我的肚脐)以及她前男友的猫在她家里一起玩群交游戏。她对性是非常教条的(如果你问我，如果她反对群体性游戏，她会有一些真正的问题)。性就像我的身份。我也理解压迫，因为人们有时看我很滑稽，因为我有很多穿孔…所以我也知道被压迫是什么感觉。'
BENJAMIN WHITTAKER SPOKE : 'Young man, I pity someone with such a murky , ridiculous attitude as you have . If you excuse me, now myself and the other people here are going to march to the town hall where we will make the protest of slavery public ... ' (He then turns away and walks toward the others who have gathered at the far door of the Shaker meeting house ) .
POMO KID SPEAKS (Runs up ahead to meet up with them): ' So you guys are going to a protest down town. Kewl ! For shizzle ...that's the shiznic ! I've been to protests with my girlfriend and our boyfriends ...we've been to take back the night ...and we've been to rallies at Lillith Fair too, so I know the routine . I once met Michael Stipe at a protest !
(Mr. Whitakker and the other abolitionists have begun already begun to file out signs en hand . They cast backwards glances of disgust and perplexity at Pomo Kid )
Pomo Kid then runs out after them , "Let's do it . End oppression now. Oppression is f--ked up . The people united will never be defeated ...the people united will never be defeated ! The people united will never be defeated ! '
(He then hearing the onset of a track on the CD playing the Fleetwood Mac song ' Don't stop thinking about tommorrow then begins to sing in echo to the song ---as if it were a marching chant ...As he runs out into the starlit roads of 1855 Oneida, New York he soon finds he wishes he had a latte to round out the day) .