Off topic discussions that began on the micro-aggression thread

76 posts / 0 new
Last post
seahorse
Offline
Joined: 5-08-15
Sep 20 2016 19:22
Off topic discussions that began on the micro-aggression thread

I thought I'd do us all a favor and make a thread available. Hopefully if people want to continue these other discussions they will do so here.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Sep 20 2016 19:31
Noah wrote:
Steven wrote:
Factvalue, desist from the personal slagging. This is a warning
edited to add I have now had to go through and unpublish a load of off topic comments.

Fact value, this is a further warning for you, if you post one additional comment with your tedious ramblings you're banned.

And as usual if anyone else wants to complain about an admin decision, start a new thread, don't derail an existing thread, and don't derail existing threads with personal chitchat.

This is posted on here so I'll respond on here, ok?

Firstly, it's pretty ironic that the post above this is a graphic piece of personal slagging. I guess that's ok coz it's not posted by FV?

Secondly, when has tedium been a banning offence? Fuck, we should all be banned by that measure.

Thirdly, since when were you or anyone else anointed as the arbiter of tedium?

Libcom is very frequently easily the best political website in existence but the groupthink and lack of tolerance sometimes exhibited here puts me in mind of a bunch of blue rinsed anarcho Mary Whitehouses. And as for the lack of consistency, words fail me. Ffs, threads so often wander off topic(should we all holler 'digression' every time it happens?) or are purposely derailed but very rarely does this sort of action ensue.
It's been well documented that I greatly appreciate the sterling efforts of the admins in building, maintaining and contributing to this site but the lack of consistency kind of shits all over that. Shame.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Sep 20 2016 19:35

Noah, to help out the admins, I unpublished your post initially. I've now moved it here.

A serious question: do you always have to have the last word? I understand that desire, but sometimes it's just not very useful and in this particular case, you kept on with the derail even after being asked to post on another thread. I don't get it. It's not just you and FV derailing shit, but there are topics on certain threads where you should know better. It happens too much in those that deal with sexism and racism. Why is that the case? (and here, I am not just saying that you're the sole offender btw).

seahorse
Offline
Joined: 5-08-15
Sep 20 2016 19:41
Khawaga wrote:
Noah, to help out the admins, I unpublished your post initially. I've now moved it here.

I'm confused. You're not admin but you were able to unpublish someone's post? Is this something regular forum users can do?

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Sep 20 2016 19:42

Thanks seahorse. The thing is though, the inconsistency, accusations, personal slagging and general double standards are displayed on that thread. Removing the discussion from it's context will, I feel, be a bit of a whitewash.
The very least that can be expected is an explanation of why RM's(admittedly very amusing) picture remains yet FV's hasn't. Of coarse though, it's difficult to explain personal prejudice and that's what the problem is. We don't have to like everyone but Libertarian communists should at least cut everyone the same amount of slack.

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Sep 20 2016 19:47

Objectivity is not a state of mind but a continuing task that takes courage and practice. Objectivity is no guarantee that a point of view is true, but it's certainly better than the alternative.

Now to me this is all just internet goonery but with reference to what Noah wrote, if you want to judge for yourself whether or not the web entity known as 'Steven' has been exercising his objectivity muscles enough or whether he has even got himself off the couch, ask yourself why he allowed the image posted by the entity 'Red Marriot' to remain in the thread but removed this one:

factvalue wrote:
Steven, why are you allowing people to point out the hot air and illogic in Red Marriot's streams of consciousness? I demand that you put a stop to it immediately!

'And, and.. can we draw the same cartoon as last time dad?'

As for being tedious, my two year old finds non-perturbative quantum field theory tedious, but I really like it. So?

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Sep 20 2016 20:12

No, I really don't have to have the last word at all. It's more that I'm persistent if I'm not even offered any sort of response to my question. I think my posting history shows that I'm more willing than most to put my hands up and review my position when a good argument or explanation is presented to me.
I fully concur that personal chit chat is innapropriate on a thread whatever the topic but here I'm simply asking why one poster is given different treatment to another and why nobody else is pointing out the same inconsistency.

Edit: Why is it that you wish to help the admins in this way? Aren't you curious why one picture was removed and another left in place? From what I know of you I would have thought fairness was of some importance to you so what's the score here?

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Sep 20 2016 20:12
Seahorse wrote:
I'm confused. You're not admin but you were able to unpublish someone's post? Is this something regular forum users can do?

I've got some moderator privileges. I help out with removing spam and such, edit library articles etc. (before that I used to publish a lot of library articles, original translations and news pieces). I don't know how many posters have such privileges, but there are some.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Sep 20 2016 20:17
Noah wrote:
Edit: Why is it that you wish to help the admins in this way? Aren't you curious why one picture was removed and another left in place? From what I know of you I would have thought fairness was of some importance to you so what's the score here?

Quite a lot of FV and RM's posts I just skimmed and skipped; the images that were posted I didn't even bother looking at. In most cases I would never unpublish stuff unless it's spam, but on a thread about sexism and racism that I found to be quite interesting and also something I could learn from, I just wanted to get all the bs out of the way. What I suspect will happen, however, is that all the discussion will now take place here.

Now that I've taken a look at that thread again, sure. It's strange that RM's image was left up and not objective. But so what; the thread is fucking derailed and that's what pissed me off to begin with. This he said, she said stuff is so tedious. And it happens all the time.

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Sep 20 2016 20:37

Oh, I don't know. You don't care about consistency, I do. Who's right? Or wrong?
I guess the difference here is that you think discussions on inconsistency detract from the subject being discussed where as I think that inconsistency makes a mockery of that subject as it removes a sense of trust in the honesty of those taking part.
That's how I honestly feel and for all my tomfoolery this is something that matters to me and strongly affects my view of the discussion itself. Maybe that makes me a pedantic dick or maybe it means that I find principle a rare but important thing.
Hopefully that's my last word but I sincerely hope it isn't the last word.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Sep 20 2016 20:38

This is exactly the way the kids at school waste time.

seahorse
Offline
Joined: 5-08-15
Sep 20 2016 20:48
jef costello wrote:
This is exactly the way the kids at school waste time.

By arguing on libcom? Shit Jef, I wish I coulda gone to your school!

seahorse
Offline
Joined: 5-08-15
Sep 20 2016 20:49
Khawaga wrote:

I've got some moderator privileges. I help out with removing spam and such, edit library articles etc. (before that I used to publish a lot of library articles, original translations and news pieces). I don't know how many posters have such privileges, but there are some.

Ah, I get it. Thanks.

There are spies among us! tongue wink (joking)

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Sep 20 2016 20:50
Noah wrote:
I guess the difference here is that you think discussions on inconsistency detract from the subject being discussed where as I think that inconsistency makes a mockery of that subject as it removes a sense of trust in the honesty of those taking part.
That's how I honestly feel and for all my tomfoolery this is something that matters to me and strongly affects my view of the discussion itself

That's fine. I do also care about consistency, but if I were so pissed off about it, I'd start another thread about it. There is this wonderful thing the web has enabled: linking. The reason why I am pissed off about the microagression thread in particular was that I thought the discussion was actually getting somewhere. Had it been a thread on the Marxist LTV, I couldn't have given two shits (even though, those are threads I tend to post heavily in).

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Sep 20 2016 20:51
Seahorse wrote:
Ah, I get it. Thanks.

There are spies among us! tongue wink (joking)

You better watch yourself there wink

Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
Sep 21 2016 07:50

I feel threads going off topic are almost inevitable. As a discussion develops different aspects are explored. Because this happens in a way where these aspects are mixed together and appear as a linear progression, though are in fact a product of time laps, it becomes a pick ‘n’ mix. People find themselves responding to what they consider to be inappropriate examples/metaphors, ill-considered remarks, lapses of logic, etc.

I do not envy a moderator on this site. Unlike a referee in a game of football they are allowed to kick the ball – so are open to a charge of bias (which of course a soccer ref could have as well). The latest example of someone on this site being shown a yellow card prompts the question, why were both offenders not given the same warning. I would suggest two possible reasons. One party was known as a problem player and also talked back to the ref.

This fuss arose from a dispute opaque and irrelevant to most readers/players. I suggest the guilty parties get their managers to broker a reconciliation.

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Sep 21 2016 12:24

I don't think we have a problem player. What we have is someone that's a bad fit for the socially pedestrian culture often on display here. With that in mind My suggestion is that a bit of acceptance and fair mindedness be put into practice by those to whom integrity has some value and the remaining disengenuous shitbags go and fuck themselves.

Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
Sep 21 2016 14:36

Noah #17
‘I don’t think we have a problem player.’

You may well be correct, though I think it fair to say, as you observed on the other thread (post #106) the party tends to rub people up the wrong way. If you’re correct that there is often a pedestrian culture on libcom, then (deliberately?) rubbing people up is only descending to another level (all can be guilty of this trait).

I think people see the same thing in different ways and being condescending is not helpful. To describe posters as ‘disingenuous’ is not offering the acceptance and fairmindedness you value. It’s all about perception of other people, and unfortunately we cannot enter our own field of vision.

A very old joke:
The kilties were marching down the Broomielaw, in Glasgow. A woman cries out, “There’s our Jimmie, an’ he’s the only b***er in step!”

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Sep 21 2016 15:21

That is a brilliant joke and demonstrates your point perfectly. I still have my issues though.
I'm certain that FV sometimes intentionally rub people up the way but the point I'm making is that mostly he doesn't do it purposely and when he does it's not surprising considering the constant harrranging he gets for simply communicating his thoughts in a certain way, a way that is perfectly natural to him and shouldn't be subject to such scrutiny. But even that isn't the broader and more important point I'm making here, namely, that inconsistency and dishonesty should not be such an accepted part of the discourse on here. it really is incongruous to the principles that I thought we were about.
As for my accusation of disengenuousness I see a big difference between calling out shifty pea and shell work and giving someone a fair go regardless of whether you like them or not. With FV as an example, regardless of what position he takes there is very often someone there to pick him to pieces and bring up other topics as a means of getting at him and there is another well liked and respected(by me as well) poster who only has to fart on a thread and the up votes hit double figures in no time. This would appear to be because people on here are subject to groupthink, clickyness and a desire to fit in with the general consensus, if not of opinion but rather what constitutes an acceptable personality. What a fucking bore and what a fucking let down.
I'm sure this will all get written off as a load of old waffle by the majority but that's no surprise as the majority seem to care not one whit for fair play unless it suits them at the time.

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Sep 21 2016 16:39
Auld-bod wrote:
This fuss arose from a dispute opaque and irrelevant to most readers/players.

It's not that opaque. It arose from the kind of thoughtless click and send mentality that web entity RM was criticising in its post #84 of that thread. That post seemed to me riddled with logical inconsistency whose source was a false dichotomy – that you can’t draw universal conclusions from local perspectives - leading to the same sort of relativism that certain interpretations of intersectionality as sectarianism lead to, and which has produced the idle chatter about ‘narratives’ that blots out reality. In other words, I thought that, since we were on the subject, I’d point out that from what it had posted in #84, it seemed as though entity RM’s position was not logically dissimilar to the very thing it was criticising, so that those clickers who upped post #84 were themselves engaging in the self-same activity RM had been bemoaning in that post. This didn’t seem irrelevant to the ongoing discussion so I asked if this was indeed the case and was told in reply:

Red Marriot wrote:
I think by drawing that ‘conclusion’ from what I’ve said you’re just using my statement as a peg to hang one of your pet topics onto so as to expound a concept.

Followed by the cool, marble-like clarity of

Red Marriot wrote:
There are particularities of experience that have varying relationship to more generalised and universal experience – I wasn’t making any greater absolute universal claims or philosophical laws than that (which are maybe what you’re searching for), as I think I clearly expressed… My understanding is that part of the appeal of privilege theory, intersectionality etc is to assert the particularity of particular social group experience and demand that they’re not subsumed and diluted within universal abstractions such as ‘working class’.

Complaining about a lack of clarity on my part, RM then posted this:

Red Marriot wrote:
Quote:

Using this standard of representation, does ‘micro-aggression’ reflect the fact that it is concerned with an explication of injustice and inequality? Is it an advance from a less to a more exact expression of the same concept? Is it just ‘crap’ or does it express something new?

I don’t think you’ve really defined the “standard of representation” you want to introduce as a measure so won’t comment. But the way you’re pursuing and presenting this debate – presumably, your use of language is to try to express meaningful concepts – doesn’t, to me, express the clarity you seek in others and so doesn’t incline me to carry on with it. Thank you and goodnight.

To clarify I responded with:

factvalue wrote:
The idea is that if we came to recognize that the concepts we were currently using for thinking about a subject like inequality or injustice may no longer be adequate, then taking the view that we should aim to describe concepts as we find them, and that measures we adopt should not be more precise than the concepts they represent, if one of the things we already know implicitly about the concept of inequality is that it is inherently imprecise and resists simple rank ordering, then the measure we should provide for it should not impose some strict ranking, but if it is to describe inequality accurately in an assessment of inequality, it should preserve its inherent ambiguity i.e. accuracy of description in assessments of inequality is to be distinguished from unambiguous, fully ranked claims and assertions. I was asking if ‘micro-aggression’ lives up to such a measure if adopted.

Love you RM! Bye-bye!! Bye!!

and as a result was judged to be

Red Marriot wrote:
spouting a lot of imprecise waffle at great length that is not inspiring to reply to.

There’s no pleasing some entities.

So Noah, why would you want to be popular in a web space like this? With so much emotional impoverishment and unconsciousness passing for honest to goodness revolutionary praxis, when we’re still so obviously deep in prehistory, what does it matter?

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Sep 21 2016 17:11

Popularity is neither here nor there. I'm simply trying to make sense of a reactionary culture that does nothing to further the cause of libertarian communism which I always imagined to be the purpose of this site. I use you as an example in my posts because;

A. You have been the one subject to the inconsistency in this case

B. You're a good example generally

3. However 'deep in prehistory' you do or don't think we are, you do post here and presumably think that there is some purpose in participating

I'm not that bothered about being popular(which is just as wel!) but I don't deny I'd rather be liked than not, unless of course it means a compromise of integrity.

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Sep 21 2016 17:45

I'm just glad Noah is back, and looks like he hasn't lost anything of his stride.

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Sep 21 2016 17:55
S. Artesian wrote:
I'm just glad Noah is back, and looks like he hasn't lost anything of his stride.

Well thanks, my stride was never in question though. Just as well, despite today's news about head transplants I don't think they've mastered stride transplants yet!

Any comment on the matter at hand comrade S?

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Sep 21 2016 20:05

Sorry Noah, should have used 'one' re: popular. As for the point of posting, apart from yourself and three or four others, I'm not so sure.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Sep 21 2016 21:10

On the question as to why the difference in treatment, it's basically because Factvalue began being condescending and pointscoring, and more importantly he was already on a warning for the same kind of disruptive behaviour on many previous occasions

S. Artesian
Offline
Joined: 5-02-09
Sep 21 2016 21:21
Noah Fence wrote:
S. Artesian wrote:
I'm just glad Noah is back, and looks like he hasn't lost anything of his stride.

Well thanks, my stride was never in question though. Just as well, despite today's news about head transplants I don't think they've mastered stride transplants yet!

Any comment on the matter at hand comrade S?

Actually not......although gratified that Steven is being his usual.........Steven. Wouldn't want him to change... not ever. Keep the corn cob firmly place, S.

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Sep 21 2016 23:29

So there we have it. FV, if you can hear me there from your position on the naughty step, the reason you got different treatment is that you're a bad bad boy. To make things clearer I think we should all get marked for our behaviour and at the end of each week get an appraisal from our appointed admin. So downmarks for being tedious, a bit different, too cheeky, having an interest in morality or because your admin just happens to not like you very much. Upmarks for being normal, cold hearted, passionless and liking The Clash. Of course there are variations such as if you're one of the popular kids you get upmarked for everything including all of the naughty things above and especially, pulling the ears of those weirdo bad boys. Don't forget everyone, that if you tow the line you might get to stand in the lunch queue with those popular kids. Oh my! Think what a cred boost that will be. You might even finally get to be normal like everyone else!

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Sep 22 2016 05:07
Quote:
So downmarks for being tedious, a bit different, too cheeky, having an interest in morality or because your admin just happens to not like you very much. Upmarks for being normal, cold hearted, passionless and liking The Clash.

And that behavior would be despicable and a cause worth your passion Noah, except that you left one tiny, little "motheaten" trait off your list of reasons why FV is 'persecuted.' This is the genesis of most of the antipathy toward him/her around libcom*, and not the vapid, excruciatingly tedious content you accurately describe.

That FV regularly and quite intentionally derails many threads of interest into the same mundane argument that became unreadable 500 posts ago in 5 different threads is indeed an incredibly annoying behavior. It's counter-productive, most likely drives people away from discussion, and does FV no favors in earning any 'social capital' around here.

That FV--given ample opportunity to clarify their positions, more benefit of doubt than they've earned, but continues to hold positions that charitably can be described as trivializing anti-Semitism and engaging in anti-Semitic tropes--has been tolerated, in any way, on a libertarian communist website for this long is something that is beyond my understanding. This behavior is what is anti-communist in this situation and not others' reaction to FV's tedium.

Noah, I don't doubt your sincerity, but I think you've hitched yourself to the wrong horse this time.

*speaking only for myself here.

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Sep 22 2016 05:29

Firstly comrade could you clarify if you are assigning this to many of the Libcom inhabitants or or to FV himself.

Quote:
and not the vapid, excruciatingly tedious content you accurately describe.
Auld-bod's picture
Auld-bod
Offline
Joined: 9-07-11
Sep 22 2016 09:18

factvalue #20

I read your post several times and recognise the validity of a number of your observations. However attempting to correct other posters on a thread is a thankless task. Better just to state your own point of view and leave it at that. It may be impossible not to be influence by the up and down votes though they may be totally misleading. Why some people vote could have several motivations including wishing to be with the in-crowd, mischief making, or agreeing/disagreeing. Possibly at times a mix of all three. I am resisting giving an example of my own reaction to some posts, my own and other peoples, as I’m obviously prejudiced.

To me the bottom line (to coin a phrase) is that libcom presents an open window to the world to propagate libertarian communist ideas and discuss a range of topics and opinions. Popularity contests, personalities and bickering (though perhaps unavoidable) is totally irrelevant to any onlooker and not worth bothering about.

Noah Fence's picture
Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Sep 22 2016 09:55

Auld Bod

You're so level headed and reasonable. How do you do that?