[Peace-discuss] Joe six-pack

[John W.]

At 02:27 PM 7/27/2007, Bob Illyes wrote:

>I respectfully submit that I think Joe six-pack has a lot more sense and 
>decency than it sometimes seems, and that many of these folks, of whom 
>I've know quite a few, can actually use words as long as any of us use, 
>and know what they mean as well.

I'm not speaking of anyone's decency or common sense.  I simply submit, 
equally respectfully, that the AVERAGE person reads at something like a 
6th-grade level, and is not familiar with words like "assuage" and "flouted".

You would not know whether s/he understands you or not, because most of the 
time s/he is too embarrassed to admit that s/he does not understand the 
word.  S/he simply remains silent, seemingly comprehending.  But if you 
have a decent relationship with the person and you ask him/her, "Do you 
understand what I mean when I say 'flouted'?", s/he will admit, "No."  I've 
had the experience literally hundreds of times, with perfectly "decent" people.


>That said, we need to look at the purpose of anti-war activity. There are 
>two core purposes:
>
>1) Show solidarity with those who feel as we do, so that they will not 
>feel alone and will not give up the good fight. This is the main thing 
>that we accomplish.
>
>2) Counter the arguments of those who argue against peace. This is 
>complicated. I think that it is not necessary to over-simplify things to 
>reach the other side. Susan (and Al) did a really good job of putting the 
>case for peace briefly and accurately, but I also think that Mort's more 
>complex approach is not at all inappropriate.

Well, I don't know who Susan and Al are.  I just know that Mort's text 
(which is not, by the way, free of ideology, nor indeed can it be), is too 
long and too convoluted for the average reader.

I'll butt out.  Carry on.