Association Smear Tactics
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Sat Mar 13, 2004 8:19 am
Subject: association smear tactics
One of the first things that lead me to study
the WC archives, was a post by D Dugan where he mentions how
little nazi boys were pulling up the dresses of the girls in
a Waldorf School in NY (I couldn't find the post but I will keep
looking). I noticed the association smear tactic right away.
Here are just a couple of conversations that I was involved in
where the commom association smear tactic is routinely and subtly
implied.
ME:
One thing that holds me
back from calling Steiner racist is the fact )that he is dead.
I cannot walk up to him and look him right in the eye )and ask
him.
Peter S:
I think that's a bad reason
to withhold judgement on such a question. You don't hold yourself
back from calling Hitler a racist, do you?
And D Dugan said to me once:
"I would urge them to
reject it because it's wrong. [a POF] Steiner's thesis was universally
rejected by other philosophers. That rejection may have been
a major cause of his turn inward to the adoration of a cult of
ignorant followers to get the adoration that he craved. The parallel
with Hitler's rejection as an artist and its effect on his subsequent
career is instructive."
Notice the subtleness of these associations,
that get repeated over and over and over....[excuse me for a
minute while I go to the bathroom and Puke]
These are a minute portion of my personal
experience; I'm sure that many others can expound upon this much
more eloquently than I. But you know what? If an uneducated fool
like me can see and understand this kind of Hate-group behavior,
than I'm sure that many others will see it for what it truely
is.
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Mar 13, 2004 9:53 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] association smear tactics
The WC people do this all the time, all the
time. Check this out:
Jan 25, 2004
[long link]
Tarjei:
"If it is important
for the PLANS-WC cult to establish that Anthroposophy is a religion
and not a science, they should treat Anthroposophy as a religion
all the way, in a way that a religion deserves to be treated:
With respect and honor. Otherwise, they defeat their own purpose
with their utterly despicable and morally bankrupt conduct."
Peter S:
Taking a somewhat different
tack from Walden's, I'd say there are several things wrong with
this picture. First, on general principles: it is a very bad
idea to say that all religions as such deserve to be treated
with respect and honor. One obvious example is The Creativity
Movement, formerly the World Church of the Creator, which urges
its adherents to engage in "Racial Holy War" against
Jews and people of color. The doctrines of this religion deserve
neither respect nor honor.
Sacreligious greetings to
all,
Peter Staudenmaier
**************************************************************************
Mon, 07 Mar 2004
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/2949
[from
the thread "Kabbala Tuesday"]
Tarjei:
If the arguments of an anthro are racist
or anti-racist, it's disturbing nevertheless and makes your skin
crawl. Whenever an anthro utters the word "race," it
gives you the creeps. That's why you guys keep urging us to discuss
race, race, and nothing but race.
Diana W:
No, you're missing it at this point, though
you come closer later. It's not because an anthroposophist says
it that it bothers me. Anthroposophists are surely not the only
ones with odd racial notions or prone to saying questionable
things about race mixing, and I do indeed have the same twitchy
reactions to hearing these statements in different places. I
admit, it is particularly perversely strange among anthroposophists,
because anthroposophists believe their views are all progressive.
I expect to hear my somewhat red-neck neighbor down the street
say dubious things about blacks, for instance; I don't spend
much time arguing with him.
This is only the tip of the iceberg.
Tarjei
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Sun Mar 14, 2004 6:56 pm
Subject: Re: association smear tactics
Take a day or two off here, and God knows
what you people are talking about. I've flagged a few things
. . .
Tarjei, you quote the exchange between us
below as, apparently, an example of smear tactics. It burns me.
You either fail to follow your own logic or else you deliberately
bait me, which is it? You attribute statements or attitudes to
me removed exponentially from what I said (and strangely our
objective historical researcher Daniel says nothing!!!). You
stated – I assume rhetorically, in order to get me to deny
it – that I only have a skin crawling reaction to things
anthros say, whether racist or anti-racist. I replied that (of
course) that is not the case, I object to racist remarks wherever
I hear them. I was explaining that it is the remarks themselves
rather than who is making them. I explained this *to correct
your impression that I single out anthroposophists in my disdain
for racist remarks*. You set this up for me to correct –
I correct it – and then you state that I have made these
remarks in order to smear you.
It's absurd, it's bizarre, it's pretzel logic,
through the looking glass. Just a comment - aside from no injunction
against ad hominem here (which I'm starting to relax into), no
one seems to have a problem with posts that are either 1) free
of any discernible relevance to list topics or 2) reveal the
poster to be fullblown batshit crazy.
Diana
Tarjei:
If the arguments of an anthro are racist
or anti-racist, it's disturbing nevertheless and makes your skin
crawl. Whenever an anthro utters the word "race," it
gives you the creeps. That's why you guys keep urging us to discuss
race, race, and nothing but race.
Diana W:
No, you're missing it at this point, though
you come closer later. It's not because an anthroposophist says
it that it bothers me. Anthroposophists are surely not the only
ones with odd racial notions or prone to saying questionable
things about race mixing, and I do indeed have the same twitchy
reactions to hearing these statements in different places. I
admit, it is particularly perversely strange among anthroposophists,
because anthroposophists believe their views are all progressive.
I expect to hear my somewhat red-neck neighbor down the street
say dubious things about blacks, for instance; I don't spend
much time arguing with him.
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Mar 15, 2004 9:11 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: association smear tactics
At 03:56 15.03.2004, Diana wrote:
Tarjei, you quote the exchange between
us below as, apparently, an example of smear tactics. It burns
me. You either fail to follow your own logic or else you deliberately
bait me, which is it?
How can I fail to follow my own logic by quoting
you verbatim, just like you guys quote Steiner? Do you bait Steiner?
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Tue Mar 16, 2004 12:43 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: association smear tactics
Diana,
Sorry that I can't give all the exchanges
the same attention that I give Mr. Staudenmaier (I saw my name
here as I was skimming through). If I have failed to jump on
Tarjei, it is because I was not paying attention, and not because
I hold him to different standards. Just wanted to be clear on
that....
Daniel
Diana wrote...
<snip>
(and strangely our objective historical
researcher Daniel says nothing!!!).
<snip>
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Mon Mar 22, 2004 6:25 pm
Subject: Re: association smear tactics
[from the thread "Polemic
and History"]
Daniel
wrote:
My point is that polemic in particular
tempts human nature, because of what the writer is attempting.
Daniel, I do not think polemic is more "tempting"
to dishonesty or distortion (or self-delusion), necessarily,
than a false veneer of objectivity or a pedantic insistence on
proper research, applied, of course, selectively only in reply
to those one disagrees with. (Think Bradford is never tempted
to embroider the facts? Think Bradford considers all "complementary
material"? Think clairvoyant readings of the Akashic Record
are considered sound sources among academic historians, Daniel?)
I asked:
Why would it not be in the interest of
someone writing a polemic to consider the objections that might
be raised or all complementary material?
You wrote:
For the same reason that a defense attorney
does not make the prosecutions case more effectively than the
prosecution. If you are trying to win an argument, you want to
present your case more strongly that the case against your case.
That would be a poor defense attorney. The
defense has to understand and be able to argue the prosecution's
case even better than the prosecution, if they hope to win.
By the way. You left one of my questions unanswered
too, while peppering Peter S. with multiple requests for follow-ups.
Where is the data to back up the claim that Waldorf is the "fastest
growing" educational movement in the world?
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Mon Mar 22, 2004 7:17 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: association smear tactics
Daniel:
My point is that polemic in particular
tempts human nature, because of what the writer is attempting.
Diana:
Daniel, I do not think polemic is more
"tempting" to dishonesty or distortion (or self-delusion),
necessarily, than a false veneer of objectivity or a pedantic
insistence on proper research, applied, of course, selectively
only in reply to those one disagrees with. (Think Bradford is
never tempted to embroider the facts? Think Bradford considers
all "complementary material"? Think clairvoyant readings
of the Akashic Record are considered sound sources among academic
historians, Daniel?)
Daniel:
We have gotten away from my original post,
where I talked a lot about the intentions of authors and how
the intention will influence the method or approach. Go back
and re-read my origial point and see if you agree or disagree
with that. I justified my position in some detail.
Persuing knowledge for its own sake is something
entirely different from arguing ones own interpretation, whether
or not you understand why you are arguing or how you formed your
own interpretation.
Diana:
Why would it not be in the interest of
someone writing a polemic to consider the objections that might
be raised or all complementary material?
Daniel:
For the same reason that a defense attorney
does not make the prosecutions case more effectively than the
prosecution. If you are trying to win an argument, you want to
present your case more strongly that the case against your case.
Diana:
That would be a poor defense attorney.
The defense has to understand and be able to argue the prosecution's
case even better than the prosecution, if they hope to win.
Daniel:
For some reason you have missed the point
here. It is of course necessary for the defense attorney to understand
the prosecution's case as well as the prosecution does, if not
better. However, the defense would never actually present the
prosecution's case to the jury better than the prosecutor! (Even
and especially if the defense were capable of it). The defense
is supposed to make the prosecution's case look weak, not make
it look strong!
By the way. You left one of my questions
unanswered too, while peppering Peter S. with multiple requests
for follow-ups. Where is the data to back up the claim that Waldorf
is the "fastest growing" educational movement in the
world?
Sorry about that. The claim is floating all
over - I can send you to a dozen places where it is quoted. I
haven't been able to find the original source. You origianlly
asked for the source, which I did not have the time to locate
(sorry, who first said it is just not that important to me -
I am only interested in whether or not it is true). Now you ask
for data to back it up. First let's use a little common sense.
Do you suspect the claim to be untrue? What independent educational
movement do you think is growing faster? If there are any that
are close, we can then start a rigorous survey (once we have
settled on the definition - What constitutes a bona fide educational
movement? How do you measure growth? Students? Schools? Textbooks
sold? Number of articles in educational journals?). This will
bring us to Mark Twain's "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics"
namely that we could probably form a survey to back up any view
we choose to support just be selecting only those criteria that
will show what we want to demonstrate.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Mon Mar 22, 2004 7:48 pm
Subject: Re: association smear tactics
Daniel:
We have gotten away from my original post,
Yes we have. Funny how that happens in discussions!
:) One person posts, then another person posts. It isn't done
to offend you, Daniel.
where I talked a lot about the intentions
of authors and how the intention will influence the method or
approach.
And so you think that a bad intention causes
someone to decide to write a polemic, and it must be a good intention
that causes them to choose to write sober and proper history?
Sorry don't agree.
Daniel:
It is of course necessary for the defense
attorney to understand the prosecution's case as well as the
prosecution does, if not better. However, the defense would never
actually present the prosecution's case to the jury better than
the prosecutor! (Even and especially if the defense were capable
of it). The defense is supposed to make the prosecution's case
look weak, not make it look strong!
You said, if I recall (and if I recall incorrectly
I'm sure you will rapidly provide the verbatim passage), that
the person writing a polemic would not feel the need to consider
the "complementary" material. I think we've established
that the opposite is the case.
I ask for:
data to back up the claim that Waldorf
is the "fastest growing" educational movement in the
world?
Sorry about that. The claim is floating
all over - I can send you to a dozen places where it is quoted.
That's okay. That is the reason for my question,
yes indeed it floats all over, doesn't it? and always, to my
recollection, free of any explanation of the basis of the claim.
Perhaps someone here can prove me wrong.
I haven't been able to find the original
source. You origianlly asked for the source, which I did not
have the time to locate (sorry, who first said it is just not
that important to me - I am only interested in whether or not
it is true).
Er, yes, that's generally the point of requesting
the source. I'm not terribly interested in the individual's name,
either, I'm interested in the data that show Waldorf to be the
fastest-growing educational movement. (In the world, it often
says.)
Now you ask for data to back it up.
You make it sound like I'm becoming more and
more demanding and unreasonable :)
First let's use a little common sense.
Do you suspect the claim to be untrue?
I have no idea if the claim is true. I doubt
there is actually an individual or organization somewhere who
knows whether this claim is true. It is a nice little legend.
What independent educational movement do
you think is growing faster?
Nice try. The burden is not on me to propose
some alternative scenario that would cast doubt on the claim.
If this little factoid has no data to back it up, or if no one
can remember what drawer they filed this data in, it shouldn't
be quoted.
If there are any that are close, we can
then start a rigorous survey (once we have settled on the definition
- What constitutes a bona fide educational movement?
How interesting that you expect me
to define these terms. I am not interested in splitting hairs
with you, Daniel. I want the source of this statistic, or rather
this claim that probably does not have any statistics to back
it up.
How do you measure growth? Students? Schools?
Hon, these are my questions to you, or your
movement that is making the claim.
It would certainly present some interesting
measurement challenges. I would venture a guess when the mysterious
someone originally noted with delight that the movement was growing
quickly, and saw the PR value in this, they might have been counting
new schools opening. Wonder if they also counted schools that
closed in the same time period. And what other "educational
movements" they compared Waldorf with, and whether the measures
used for comparison were valid, and well, it does all strike
me as a bit unlikely that there is anything solid behind the
claim.
Textbooks sold? Number of articles in educational
journals?). This will bring us to Mark Twain's "Lies, Damned
Lies, and Statistics" namely that we could probably form
a survey to back up any view we choose to support just be selecting
only those criteria that will show what we want to demonstrate.
I rest my case.
At best, "fastest growing" would
be a moving target. I'm sure with your conscientious attention
to strict honesty, Daniel, you'll be after AWSNA to sort this
out.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Mon Mar 22, 2004 8:43 pm
Subject: Re: association smear tactics
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
diana.winters wrote:
Nice try. The burden is not on me to propose
some alternative scenario that would cast doubt on the claim.
If this little factoid has no data to back it up, or if no one
can remember what drawer they filed this data in, it shouldn't
be quoted.
"It is odd, actually,
that the public knows so little about Waldorf schools, because
they've been operating in this country since 1928 and have collected
quite a few famous followers (Waldorf parents have included Paul
Newman, Joe Namath, John DeLorean, and Mikhail Baryshnikov; graduates
include Victor Navasky, the publisher of The Nation, and Ken
Chenault, the president of American Express). During the past
twenty-five years in particular, Waldorf schools have proliferated
vigorously; roughly 130 now operate in the United States, and
700 worldwide. Waldorf schools are quite possibly the world's
fastest-growing independent school system; David Alsop, the chairman
of the Association of Waldorf Schools of North America, calls
them the world's "best-kept education secret."
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Mon Mar 22, 2004 8:37 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: association smear tactics
Daniel:
We have gotten away from my original post,
Diana:
Yes we have. Funny how that happens in
discussions! :) One person posts, then another person posts.
It isn't done to offend you, Daniel.
Daniel:
It doesn't offend me, but when I find myself
going in circles, I start to wonder what the point is.
Daniel:
where I talked a lot about the intentions
of authors and how the intention will influence the method or
approach.
Diana:
And so you think that a bad intention causes
someone to decide to write a polemic, and it must be a good intention
that causes them to choose to write sober and proper history?
Sorry don't agree.
Daniel:
Not exactly. Read the original.
Daniel:
It is of course necessary for the defense
attorney to understand the prosecution's case as well as the
prosecution does, if not better. However, the defense would never
actually present the prosecution's case to the jury better than
the prosecutor! (Even and especially if the defense were capable
of it). The defense is supposed to make the prosecution's case
look weak, not make it look strong!
Diana:
You said, if I recall (and if I recall
incorrectly I'm sure you will rapidly provide the verbatim passage),
that the person writing a polemic would not feel the need to
consider the "complementary" material. I think we've
established that the opposite is the case.
Daniel:
I said that I wouldn't trust a polemical writer
to present counter-arguments fairly. Not that they would not
consider the counter arguments themselves, only that they would
not likely be fair in the presentation of such counter-arguments.
Daniel:
First let's use a little common sense.
Do you suspect the claim to be untrue?
Diana:
I have no idea if the claim is true. I
doubt there is actually an individual or organization somewhere
who knows whether this claim is true. It is a nice little legend.
Daniel:
I repeat it because I think it is likely true.
You call it a "legend" without any factual basis. I
say it is likely true because I know the growth curve for the
number of new Waldorf schools internationally over the last 30
years. I am also somewhat familiar with other "alternative"
educational movements. None are growing as fast. I don't have
this as absolute fact with exact numbers, but it is close enough
for the relative importance of the issue.
Daniel:
What independent educational movement do
you think is growing faster?
Diana:
Nice try. The burden is not on me to propose
some alternative scenario that would cast doubt on the claim.
If this little factoid has no data to back it up, or if no one
can remember what drawer they filed this data in, it shouldn't
be quoted.
Daniel:
I stand by the claim. The Waldorf Movement
is the fastest growing educational movement worldwide. Period.
If you mean to disprove me, go ahead. Otherwise you may point
out that this statement merely constitutes my opinion, but doing
so does not disprove it.
Daniel:
If there are any that are close, we can
then start a rigorous survey (once we have settled on the definition
- What constitutes a bona fide educational movement?
Diana:
How interesting that you expect me
to define these terms. I am not interested in splitting hairs
with you, Daniel. I want the source of this statistic, or rather
this claim that probably does not have any statistics to back
it up.
Daniel:
I am merely anticipating your possible objections
should I "prove" the claim using statistics. Of course
you must define the terms, otherwise we will be disagreeing about
the the proof. You seem remarkably naive about what can be "proven"
with statistics.
Daniel:
How do you measure growth? Students? Schools?
Diana:
Hon, these are my questions to you, or
your movement that is making the claim.
It would certainly present some interesting
measurement challenges. I would venture a guess when the mysterious
someone originally noted with delight that the movement was growing
quickly, and saw the PR value in this, they might have been counting
new schools opening. Wonder if they also counted schools that
closed in the same time period. And what other "educational
movements" they compared Waldorf with, and whether the measures
used for comparison were valid, and well, it does all strike
me as a bit unlikely that there is anything solid behind the
claim.
Daniel:
Are you aware of how many Waldorf Schools
have closed? What school movement in the second half of the 20th
Century has seen anywhere close to the growth that Waldorf has?
Daniel:
Textbooks sold? Number of articles in educational
journals?). This will bring us to Mark Twain's "Lies, Damned
Lies, and Statistics" namely that we could probably form
a survey to back up any view we choose to support just be selecting
only those criteria that will show what we want to demonstrate.
Diana:
I rest my case.
Daniel:
What case? Not the one I just made for you,
I hope. You seem to have missed the point I was trying to make:
that I can prove whatever I want with statistics. You need to
be a little more specific about what you are contesting.
Diana:
At best, "fastest growing" would
be a moving target. I'm sure with your conscientious attention
to strict honesty, Daniel, you'll be after AWSNA to sort this
out.
Daniel:
With my strict conscientious attention to
honesty, I will continue to make the claim until I come across
information that suggests that it is incorrect. I have not found
any with some basic research. Should some expert such as yourself
care to prove me wrong, I will adjust my opinion accordingly.
I cannot spend three months verifying beyond any doubt something
that I have every reason to believe will prove true. If I had
the slightest suspicion that it were possibly untrue, I might
consider spending the time to find out for sure.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Tue Mar 23, 2004 4:29 am
Subject: Re: association smear tactics
re: Waldorf as "fastest growing educational
movement"
Daniel:
You call it a "legend" without
any factual basis.
LOL! You got that right, though I don't think
you meant to. I call it a legend because it is without
any (demonstrable) factual basis. Prove me wrong.
I say it is likely true because I know
the growth curve for the number of new Waldorf schools internationally
over the last 30 years.
Oh! Well, then we're getting somewhere. What
is the growth curve for the number of new Waldorf schools internationally
over the last 30 yeras? (versus other types of schools, that
is). I thought you were saying you had no such solid information,
now you suggest you do. Just post it here then.
I stand by the claim. The Waldorf Movement
is the fastest growing educational movement worldwide. Period.
If you mean to disprove me, go ahead.
What a bunch of baloney. You've just admitted
there is no substance to the claim and you don't care. I know
there are anthroposphic higher-ups on this list, I'd love it
if one of them will prove me wrong and post these numbers (with
an explanation of how they were collected).
Otherwise you may point out that this statement
merely constitutes my opinion, but doing so does not disprove
it.
Of course not. The one making claims needs
to prove them, not challenge everyone else that they can't disprove
it. Moon, green cheese . . . same way you claimed I was
supposed to show that "science" "disproves"
any usefulness to switching left-handers, rather than asking
Waldorf educators to show any effectiveness or rationale for
their own programs and policies. Other people should find the
data to back up your claims?
Once again, "proper research" doesn't
interest you unless it's going to somehow back up Steiner/Waldorf.
If it doesn't, just sneer at all questions.
Of course you must define the terms, otherwise
we will be disagreeing about the the proof.
No, love, you make a claim, you explain the
terms, the measures, etc. Then we look at whether the
claim is supported given those terms, those measures etc. We
haven't even gotten the ball in the air yet here.
If you'd like a few suggestions, though, look
back at your own post. I'll take data on any of the measures
you suggested. In this post you suggest it might have to do with
"number of new schools internationally over 30 years."
You seem pretty confident about that one. What are those numbers?
Or give me students/schools/journal articles published, whatever
you've got.
You seem remarkably naive about what can
be "proven" with statistics.
LOL! What statistics? You tell me I'm
naive about how to read the statistics after you've provided
some, okay?
Daniel:
With my strict conscientious attention
to honesty, I will continue to make the claim until I come across
information that suggests that it is incorrect.
Fascinating! So much for "proper research."
You think researchers should make any claim they like until they
come across information suggesting it to be incorrect?
I have not found any with some basic research.
No kidding? You didn't find anything to support
your claim, and you're actually acting as if that makes you feel
more in the right than ever.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Tue Mar 23, 2004 9:14 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: association smear tactics
Diana,
You are getting quite shrill.
In 1974 there were roughly 30 Waldorf schools
in the US. Today there are close to 150 (it really depends on
how you define it). That is roughly a 500% growth rate (and includes
the 6 or so schools that have closed in those 30 years). Internationally
the growth rate has been similar - from about 200 to about 1000
in the same time period (source: a number of people who have
been involved in Waldorf long enough to remember).
Montessori currently numbers about 4000 schools
in the US and 7000 worldwide (but they are not sure of the exact
number number). http://www.montessori.edu/FAQ.html
The reason for the uncertainty is that anyone can open a Montessori
school whether or not they use the methods, so determining how
a school qualifies is tricky. To have had the same growth rate,
there would have had to have been less than 800 Montessori schools
in the US and less than 1400 worldwide in 1974. However, Montessori
became popular more rapidly than Waldorf, so this is unlikely.
No other independent pedagogical movement
has thousands of schools.
Diana, I am sorry, but I am not going to do
a doctoral dissertation on the growth of 20th Century independent
school movements just to establish that this statement that is
likely true really is true, especially since you have offered
no evidence to suggest it might not be true. Also, as I pointed
out earlier, if I really wanted to, I could "prove"
it with a study, but then you could just dispute the claim stating
that I played games with the criteria to prove the hypothesis.
The whole exercise would get us no closer to the truth than when
we started, and would be a waste of my time. If this strikes
you as inconsistent, then you might consider examining the circumstances.
Daniel Hindes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Polemic
and History
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
March/April
2004
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
