

Rudyard Kipling's Interview with Mark Twain (1889) - akehrer
http://storyoftheweek.loa.org/2010/04/interview-with-mark-twain.html#

======
redthrowaway
It's interesting that Twain grew to loathe Kipling due to the latter's efforts
to get the US to "take up the white man's burden" and assume Britain's
imperial ambitions as it was forced to give up its possessions. Hitchens has a
great bit about it in Blood, Class, and Empire.

~~~
acqq
White Man's Burden:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man%27s_Burden](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man%27s_Burden)

------
nsajko
Interview PDF:
[http://www.loa.org/images/pdf/Kipling_Interview_Twain.pdf](http://www.loa.org/images/pdf/Kipling_Interview_Twain.pdf)

------
S4M
“Your conscience is a nuisance. A conscience is like a child. If you pet it
and play with it and let it have everything that it wants, it becomes spoiled
and intrudes on all your amusements and most of your griefs. Treat your
conscience as you would treat anything else. When it is rebellious, spank
it—be severe with it, argue with it, prevent it from coming to play with you
at all hours, and you will secure a good conscience; that is to say, a
properly trained one. A spoiled one simply destroys all the pleasure in life.
I think I have reduced mine to order. At least, I haven’t heard from it for
some time. Perhaps I have killed it from over-severity. It’s wrong to kill a
child, but, in spite of all I have said, a conscience differs from a child in
many ways. Perhaps it’s best when it’s dead.”

I find this a great advice.

------
david-given
On a similar seriously-wtf-did-that-really-happen note, H.G.Wells once
interviewed Stalin...

[http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/04/h-g-wells-it-
se...](http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/04/h-g-wells-it-seems-me-i-
am-more-left-you-mr-stalin)

~~~
dang
Discussed last year on HN at
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7616566](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7616566).

It wasn't so surprising at that time. Stalin hadn't become 'Stalin' yet, and
Wells was on the English left.

~~~
rustynails77
Speaking of interviews, there's an interesting event in Australia at the
moment. A program on the ABC called Q&A invited a person suspected of
terrorism onto the program. That in itself isn't fascinating (at least to me).

The Australian Prime Minister has threatened one of the countries News Sources
(ie. the ABC who aired the show), this includes a change of leadership of ABC
- and as the ABC is government funded, almost certainly funding cuts. The
government has clearly threatened a media outlet - not for being prejudiced,
but for allowing a view to be expressed.

It's fascinating people think an interview between Stalin and Wells is a
W-T-F. What better way to understand differing views than to sit down and
talk. I really don't understand the notion that suppressing an argument will
make it go away. It reminds me of security through obfuscation.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _What better way to understand differing views than to sit down and talk. I
> really don 't understand the notion that suppressing an argument will make
> it go away. It reminds me of security through obfuscation._

Not only suppressing your oposition is a wrong way to go if you care about
"understanding differing views", it seems to me as a pretty lame way to do
things even if you want to just get rid of it. A better way is to figure out a
way to satisfy them somehow, so that they lose momentum.

Why not, instead of directly silencing your opponent, go to him and say: "We
hear you, we understand you're angry, people have a right to hear it. you know
what? How about we give you a late-night talk show. We can talk to the News
Source, they'll open up a slot for you. You'll even get paid properly, so you
can funnel this money into furthering your cause if you so choose."

And then you can just sit and watch how your oposition disappears into
background.

