deleted from the union thread?

56 posts / 0 new
Last post
Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Aug 10 2010 10:15
Quote:
If "irritation" is grounds for deletion then there'd be no discussion other than mutual appreciation societies

Fair enough, I'll add in "with irrelevant guff." Specific enough?

Quote:
RobRay more than merely irritates me

Quote:
this decision is political.

No a decision to ban you from the site would be political (unless it was just because you were being a troll), this was you being shifted off a thread where you were disrupting what the original poster wanted to achieve with it. I assume you weren't hoping to be disruptive for the sake of it, in which case you shouldn't mind being moved.

Oh incidentally, I didn't see you arguing against the EDL members being banned, which actively was a political decision to no-platform, why was that? Is censorship okay in certain circumstances?

dinosavros
Offline
Joined: 5-05-10
Aug 10 2010 10:26
Samotnaf wrote:
Anyway, you can hardly accuse him of derailing the discussion before anyone had the chance to respond to what he said - usually when people apparently go off on a tangent they're ignored (though this wasn't the case with the toothbrush history thing - but you never stopped what was clearly a derailment). If then people follow that train of thought and it continues off the mainline rail, then you could simply say "If the thread continues any further off topic then all further off topic discussion will be deleted." Instead you used blunt censorship: not Stalinist Russia, but a tiny bureaucratic collective.

This makes a lot of sense to me.

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Aug 10 2010 10:41

mostly when i come across fdg posts i go fdg: dr

Samotnaf wrote:
devrim wrote:
One ICC member agreeing with some members of Solfed doesn't make the respective organisations 'united' in anything.

But they are united in their acceptance of organising an organisation, even if the content of their respective organisations are quite different.

nazis organise organisations .'. therefore solfed &the icc are united with nazis

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Aug 10 2010 12:04

The picture of me, RobRay, makes me look older than I am - obviously put through photoshop; and I'm really sorry if my more than irritated response to you causes you as much pain as me bawling through the night - just hope you can get some efficient earplugs next time.

Enough of these silly contentless wind-ups aimed to roll out some endless self-defeating sparring contest.

Quote:
I didn't see you arguing against the EDL members being banned, which actively was a political decision to no-platform, why was that? Is censorship okay in certain circumstances?

Implicitly comparing fdg's (admittedly far too abstract) post with the EDL is just part of this wind-up culture, a clever clever polemic that clearly doesn't want to get to grips with what's happening here - ie - accusations of a "derailment" that was merely potential to hide a political decision. Why have admin not publicised the messages that went on between them? And what about those admin (Mike Harman, gav, Jack and pingtiao) that have avoided stating an opinion on this.
1. EDL should never have been allowed on what is suposedly an anti-State, anti-capitalist site to begin with. I am definitely in favour of "censorship" applied to those who don't fit even the minimum definition of opposition. They never had anything pertinent to say and were just trying to publicise themselves and to sharpen their arguments so that they could recuperate ideas into their sickening activity. I was amazed they were permitted to go on and on. I am not an "anything goes" liberal. I also didn't even really register that they'd been - at long last - banned.
2.fdg is not an organisation, nor an individual who organises anything remotely comparable to the EDL scum.
3. None of you say what in fdg's post was particularly objectionable ( aside from "nihlist meta-discussions"). It could have been ignored - instead Ed was pissed off with him for various personal and political reasons and so contacted the others to have him deleted.

Quote:
Quote:
they are united in their acceptance of organising an organisation, even if the content of their respective organisations are quite different.

nazis organise organisations .'. therefore solfed &the icc are united with nazis

They are united in the sense of the above, though, as i said,

Quote:
the content of their respective organisations are quite different.

The germ of fascism is in fascistic behaviour - just a germ, but it needs to be subjected to a thorough dose of antirobotics if it's not to contaminate the whole of the body politic. Don't you think the germ of Stalin was in Lenin, and that the germ of Lenin was in Marx's manipulations? That the germ of the sell-out by CNT leaders was already there before '36? "Revolutionaries" are not "pure" just because they claim to be "revolutionary". Most of us are, at times, control freaks, or express some other element of hierarchical behaviour; most of us, at times, assert a hierarchical self-contradictory ideological attitude to others; the point, however, is to recognise when we do this and to stop doing it, or rather, to recognise that when others tell us we're doing it, we stop doing it, and find a different way of asserting ourselves.

fort-da game
Offline
Joined: 16-02-06
Aug 10 2010 12:21

My main issue was with lack of communication. I accept the biased nature of the site, and as I am not belonging to that bias I accept the losses in arguments as to be expected. I am therefore pleased with the gains that I have made over the last few months.

The point about 'indulgence' is that Ed has already made the comment that my posts were becoming more and more indulgent... I was merely making light of this. Of course, I do not think my contributions are particularly more indulgent or derailing than anyone elses. I put a great deal of work into my contributions and this demonstrates my commitment to a communist transformation of society, and this in spite my aversion to the character traits of many communists.

I would say the fall-out from this has followed lines of allegience as perhaps would be expected, we have all had our prejudices confirmed. To me, samotnaf and Wellclose Square seem like excellent chaps and the rest are much of a muchness. The exceptions (up to a point) are the comments made by 888 and Django which at least indicate some independence of opinion (incidentally, I assumed Django was a Libcom group member because he could see my 'unpublished' posts whilst I couldn't). But we all have our sympathies and allegiences and these will continue to play out around certain polarisations as would be expected.

In general terms, I would say that a huge amount of work has to go into this (again quoting Ed) communist 'shit' and that the vast majority of it is irrelevant. I would argue that space should be allowed for individuals to conduct their analysis and investigate the questions and issues which most interest them. Just because a particular work does not seem to have immediate relevance, it does not follow that it is irrelevant... personally, I am accepting that others do not have time to read what I contribute here, I don't have a problem with their non-engagement. I understand that others have their own priorities – I undertake some work on this site because some of the questions raised here stimulate my own activities. However, it seems to be one of the problems with organisationalism that adherents cannot trust thought or activity which does carry their brand. To counteract this, in my opinion there should be an instituted bias/assumption of the users' good faith within any communist project and that this would best be expressed in not singling out individual contributors for condemnation (particularly my administrators).

On the subject matter itself. My post appeared within a 'thought' thread, not a history, organisation, news or announcement thread and therefore it is natural as with any discussion within that context to demonstrate a tendency towards a content where 'thought' is predominant. Many of the posts in that thread contradicted the terms which Ed set out in the opening post, particularly where he stated 'unions fuck up our struggles' (approx quote).

Ed wrote:
Wellclose Square wrote:
How can we be sure that the stated hostility of admins to FDG and his posts (articulated by Joseph Kay and Ed, for example) is not politically motivated?

Well, I don't know how else to do it really, apart from that other people we have political differences don't have their posts moved.

A. the post wasn't moved, it was 'unpublished'. B. of course, a difference (in communications theory) is only a difference where it produces a different effect (i.e. in this case where it produces a move to unpublish it), where a difference is tolerated, it is not a difference.

My final set of questions: is/was there any intent to ban me? Was it a testing of the waters? Or is this all a sort of random one-off, basically your problem not mine? Or is it likely to continue as a set of skirmishes based around politics? Am I allowed to participate on any threads that are not 'mine', or am I banished to my reservation? Even after two days, it is still not clear to me what the Libcom group intended or what outcome they are seeking to achieve.

Finally, Ed, I did not make myself an issue as you claim, I simply posted a comment; you made me an issue by unpublishing it. You are the one with the problem, I wonder if you have even considered what it is that I am supposed to have done wrong beyond irritating you? You may be surprised to know that I also have other things to do.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Aug 10 2010 12:22
wrote:
How about when me and JK mention libcon stuff down the pub?

fucksake, now they know we're all state assets cry

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Aug 10 2010 12:51
Quote:
Implicitly comparing fdg's (admittedly far too abstract) post with the EDL is just part of this wind-up culture, a clever clever polemic that clearly doesn't want to get to grips with what's happening here

Actually no it isn't it's an attempt to find out how the posters above are perceiving this situation.

If it's as a big "censorship is WRONG" thing covering everything then consistency is key, hence asking about the EDL angle.

If it's not then what we're talking about is merely what the admins should and should not define as out of order, which frankly is up to them. This isn't a posters' co-op it's a workers' co-op basically, they do the work maintaining the service so they get the final say.

Now personally, I think deleting it was a bit harsh - Steven. has actively apologised for that and said it was a mistake. However given the position I've noted above, if they had a vendetta against you you'd already be banned by now and not you nor I would have the slightest ability to change that (though I would certainly argue against your banning).

However you aren't, and you have a free platform on this thread to criticise them, while another thread has already been set up by FTG which remains resolutely up. So to shout censorship is just inaccurate. Beyond that, to demand that the admins change their ways and stop abusing their positions completely misunderstands how this site actually operates.

Quote:
Don't you think the germ of Stalin was in Lenin

The germ of Lenin was more probably in Stalin, but regardless, it's a bit of a stretch to compare SolFed to either even in potentia.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Aug 10 2010 12:47
xurbanpiratedreamerx wrote:
A good litmus test is to read the thread aloud to a co-worker and get their opinion on it.

ahh, "the Flood test"

Samontaf wrote:
The germ of fascism

Can you call Godwin on a germ?

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Aug 10 2010 13:03

Isn't this just more endless complaining in one of the few places where it will be listened to and tolerated?

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Aug 10 2010 13:24

That's partly what was reminding me of thetollinggang, complaints of censorship/victimisation in the one place where they reckon they can get away with it (making the whole process a largely pointless exercise).

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Aug 10 2010 14:21

the persistent will to misunderstand and quote out of context shows a lack of integrity and desire to deceive yourselves that makes all further discussion here an even further waste of time and effort. I'm off this thread ("at last!").

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Aug 10 2010 16:28

Ah yes, the patented Samotnaf flounce. "I'm right, you just don't want to understand!"

It's an agenda, it's a conspiracy, it's liberals masquerading as radicals (or fascists masquerading as liberals), we're all in on it, we're just defending the status quo...

Must be tiring being the only genuine radical in the world.

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Aug 10 2010 17:06
Samotnaf wrote:
usually when people apparently go off on a tangent they're ignored (though this wasn't the case with the toothbrush history thing - but you never stopped what was clearly a derailment).

odd that this is used as an example of derailing. ire made a claim that was false, it was tidied up in 2 posts, then back on the discussion, and the requirement of brushing was challenged as an attempt to illustrate the tyranny of adults over children, which was within the scope of the OP of the thread.

mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Aug 11 2010 07:13

888 Post 22 Aug 10 2010

Quote:
To be fair McIver does derail any thread that even tangentially involves the ICC with incredibly long and tedious rants about typewriters from thirty years ago, FDG's derailments are nowhere near as bad and certainly not as boring. And you have to expect that after a certain number of posts a thread will stray from its original topic - although the union thread was still pretty new.

Your malevolent aspersions about my 'derailing threads' expose you as a fake. You don't cite one example.

My posts dealing with the ICC are relevant to the issue at hand. Two are my own threads and the other posts challenge affirmations or scornful opinions by ICC members or 'friends of the ICC' or what are, in my view, just misinformed posts. After all, the ICC's slanders and fabrications against 'parasites' have colonised Libcom since 2006 from what I can see. The weight of their version of past events is therefore considerable. Your cynical caricature that the criticisms are 'rants about typewriters from thirty years ago' confirms that the ICC's version won many adepts, even among professional pooh-poohers.

The other threads are:

-- Why are some communists considered to be to the 'left' of others? (167 replies)

-- Acronyms (43 replies)

-- Platformism (68 replies)

-- The communist left and internationalist anarchism (248 replies)

-- Racketeerism and parasitism (156 replies)

-- The deal with the Communist Manifesto (46 replies)

-- Anatomy of the International Communist Part[y/es] (24 replies)

These active threads were not 'derailed' by McIver or anyone. You overestimate posters whose ideas you dislike, in order to slyly insinuate a future banning.

However, the case could be made that the ICC have continuously 'derailed' countless threads and posts on Libcom for years, to channel them towards their links and site, in order to gather names for their database of possible recruits. I don't see this as 'derailing'. It's what happens on social media marketing and I assume this was always noticed here. It's up to the posters and those who want to engage with the issues to react as they want, by debating and polemicising. Or ultimately finding themselves in the cult they crave for.

Instead of waffling on about 'derailments' by FDG or McIver, why don't you accept that certain threads or topics just don't turn you on? OK, they are not video games, but what you may find to be dull and 'derailing' may interest, inform or amuse others, so instead of fabricating 'derailments' say: not my thing, not my cup of tea. Or have the decency of admitting; 'in my opinion, this is derailing', because you speak only for yourself, about your boredom levels, so your 'to be fair' sally has no objectivity, it's merely your humble opinion. And, in my opinion, it's a worthless and uninformed one in this case, and surely not humble.

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Aug 11 2010 04:50

I'm forced to return to this dreadful thread by this lie by Petey:

Quote:
Samotnaf wrote:
Quote:
usually when people apparently go off on a tangent they're ignored (though this wasn't the case with the toothbrush history thing - but you never stopped what was clearly a derailment)

then Petey says:

Quote:
odd that this is used as an example of derailing. ire made a claim that was false, it was tidied up in 2 posts

First mention of brushing teeth begins on post 310 on that thread, then really picks up on post 325 and continues to 331; 332 says "talk about thread drift" and then the thread goes back on topic; so the derailment was at least 7 posts. fdg's "derailment" - just 1 (his own). So, though this seems utterly petty, petey, your lie is used to support a cracked political decision. If you, or anybody else, reply to this without admitting that you've lied here in order to evade the question of what was obviously hierarchical behaviour on the part of admin, I shall never ever answer any crap you say again ("well, that's a relief").

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Aug 11 2010 08:12

bless. i didn't read every post, i only saw it when ire mentioned it (responding to something D said), and i really very obviously didn't use it to defend fdg's post's deletion about which i know little, having read that thread not at all. so unless you admit that by imputing things to me you lied here, Samotnaf, i shall grin never ever answer any crap you say again. besides, as i already explained, those toothy comments came within the purview of the OP on that thread. maybe fdg's did too on the unions thread. as i say, i wouldn't know.

ps - my screen name is lower-case and by typing it capitalized twice you are lying.

Entdinglichung's picture
Entdinglichung
Offline
Joined: 2-07-08
Aug 11 2010 16:49
Samotnaf wrote:

SolFed and the ICC - anarchists and Bolsheviks - united. Obviously not as historically significant as Montseny and the Stalinists in '36-'37, ...

SolFed & ICC 2010 = Amigos de Durruti & POUM 1937 ?!