Favorite Living Intellectuals

144 posts / 0 new
Last post
Boris Badenov
Offline
Joined: 25-08-08
Jun 10 2010 18:02

YOUR CHANCE TO PREVENT WHAT IS TO COME IS RAPIDLY RUNNING AWAY FROM YOU.

Farce's picture
Farce
Offline
Joined: 21-04-09
Jun 10 2010 18:03
oisleep wrote:
Hughes wrote:
Knowing I'm so unwelcome here, I should probably just leave. That said, I don't know of many other socialist forums where the conversation is as intelligent as it is here, and I'd miss that. So I'm reluctant.

don't be daft, don't pay any attention to shite like that

Yeah, what oisleep said.

choccy wrote:
They don't make threads like that anymore sad

I dunno, I think John Hadley would disagree. Also CRUD and Marsella's 500 accounts.

Choccy's picture
Choccy
Offline
Joined: 9-12-04
Jun 10 2010 18:04

Oh don't get me wrong, those posters had much more stamina and spread it out.
But watching GUNSHOW live and hitting refresh was some intense lols!

Boris Badenov
Offline
Joined: 25-08-08
Jun 10 2010 18:09

Hughes, no offense but even your most 'controversial' stances, like support for the maoists, voting for Obama, etc., have been treated with civility by most posters here. I suggest you start taking internet "put-downs" with a grain of salt (unless you believe the internet is serious business), and stop repeating the same old "guise let's just be nice k?" line, which, tbh, is bound to have the opposite effect, esp. as no one here is "after you" in any sense.
That said, SHUT THE FUCK UP IMBECILE. YOU DONT KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. FUCK YOUR IDEOLOGY. THE IWW IS CONTROLLED BY RAPISTS AND MURDERERS.

Nate's picture
Nate
Offline
Joined: 16-12-05
Jun 10 2010 18:52

This thread would be cooler if someone gave someone else herpes. I nominate Vlad.

Boris Badenov
Offline
Joined: 25-08-08
Jun 10 2010 19:04

Nate, you COLLEGIATE SNIEVELING MIDDLE CLASS SACK OF SHIT TAKE THAT POST OFF RIGHT NOW OR I'M CHECKING TRAVEL TIMES.
(ok this is getting too libcommunitish, unless someone is willing to claim that Kenneth is their favorite living intellectual, in which case it's all legit).

Nate's picture
Nate
Offline
Joined: 16-12-05
Jun 10 2010 20:11

Your right that this is verging on libcommunity, sorry. Hughes, in all seriousness, sorry stuff is getting to you. Hang in there.

Hughes's picture
Hughes
Offline
Joined: 21-05-10
Jun 11 2010 00:39
Vlad336 wrote:
Hughes, no offense but even your most 'controversial' stances, like support for the maoists, voting for Obama, etc., have been treated with civility by most posters here. I suggest you start taking internet "put-downs" with a grain of salt (unless you believe the internet is serious business), and stop repeating the same old "guise let's just be nice k?" line, which, tbh, is bound to have the opposite effect, esp. as no one here is "after you" in any sense.
That said, SHUT THE FUCK UP IMBECILE. YOU DONT KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. FUCK YOUR IDEOLOGY. THE IWW IS CONTROLLED BY RAPISTS AND MURDERERS.

I'm fine with internet put-downs, though I think they're generally unnecessary, diminish the quality of the conversation, and create a toxic environment. But I've been accused of being have too thin a skin before. I'm working on it.

It really only begins to cross a line when someone creates a fake account, based on mine, which genuinely tricks other posters so that I have to go through and follow the troll, letting everyone know it isn't me. That can be a pain in the butt. But yeah, I'll stick around and grow a thicker skin.

EDIT: I can see the moderators have deleted all evidence of the troll. So none of this will make much sense.

waslax's picture
waslax
Offline
Joined: 6-12-07
Jun 11 2010 00:57

Yeah, whoever did that should be ashamed. In Libcommunity, whatever, but not here. Sorry I assumed it was you. Still, I stand by my substantive points.

circle A-K's picture
circle A-K
Offline
Joined: 20-07-06
Jun 11 2010 03:33

Sorry for off-topic:

Vlad336 wrote:
I suggest you start taking internet "put-downs" with a grain of salt (unless you believe the internet is serious business), and stop repeating the same old "guise let's just be nice k?" line, which, tbh, is bound to have the opposite effect, esp. as no one here is "after you" in any sense.

Why though?

This isn't meant as an argument directed directly to you vlad, or to single you out as in anyway responsible - just picking up on this thought and speaking generally, to all members now...

I don't understand why some people on forums (particularly ones with this sort of theme), are so willing to tolerate needless provocation, mockery, ridicule between members - as if it is likely that this is acceptable to all members (instead of suiting those who enjoy that 'culture'), or that the environment of discussion would not be infintinately improved if this sort of thing was dispensed with.

Is it because the idea of having a forum without a culture of flaming or mockery, on the internet, just seems counter-intuitive? Impossible? Certainly i think it would be worthwhile to try.

That said, I expect as a result of this post that i'll be flamed or mocked in some way (as if these same concerns raised in a group or organisation offline would be treated that way, or should be). That i will be derided as 'thin-skinned' etc. by wise-old internet heads who have discovered the magic rule of the internet - rudeness rules! Which only reinforces my point - it's less acceptable to find this kind of shit needless, unproductive, and humourless then it is to make excuses for it, or even to personally perpetuate it. How did that happen?

On some forums this problem boils down to the board structure - I.E. often the admins or mods of a site are amongst the most prolific flamers - which in turn makes flaming more acceptable for others, or hypocrties of the admins for selective enforcement of the communities rules. Either way, it establishes a negative standard for all that is easy to follow.

Also i think some people (usually those who enjoy a good flame), fail (or refuse) to see the similarities between 'flaming', i.e. 'you're a cock' - and intellectual mockery, basically flaming without using swear words, i.e. through ad hominem. That, or they simply don't care.

This sort of culture really only suits the perpertators of it - people who on the internet at least, are prone to be aggressive, to use put-down others, etc. all ostensibly 'for a laugh' or worse, like because in their eyes the recipient 'deserves it' - as some kind of punishment for having an 'incorrect' political position, see this post for a mild example:

Quote:
...If you want to play with radicals and you have perspectives and ideas that are really not that radical and you insist on sticking to them rather than appreciating that radicals are trying to get some salient points across to you, then you will be ridiculed. Get used to it or take your marbles and go play with a cluster of other like-minded folks.

This is hardly the 'worst' example of what i'm talking about, it's just that it was immediately available to me (it's a post made today in a thread i read).

However, in no offline community, interaction, collective, meeting of radicals etc. are these attitudes acceptable or tolerated - so why online? Saying 'that's the internet' or something akin, is not a justification - it's an excuse.
Obviously people use the anonymity of the internet as a shield, allowing an individual to hit and run as it were, with no consequences for themselves personally. The effect however is a rather unpleasant, exclusionary climate - which over-time reproduces itself over and over - turning off or driving away people not interested in this sort of interaction, whilst de facto encouraging and enabling the least amiable and establishing this as a board norm.

Boris Badenov
Offline
Joined: 25-08-08
Jun 11 2010 03:45
circle A-K wrote:
I don't understand why some people on forums (particularly ones with this sort of theme), are so willing to tolerate needless provocation, mockery, ridicule between members - as if it is likely that this is acceptable to all members (instead of suiting those who enjoy that 'culture'), or that the environment of discussion would not be infintinately improved if this sort of thing was dispensed with.

Is it because the idea of having a forum without a culture of flaming or mockery, on the internet, just seems counter-intuitive? Impossible? Certainly i think it would be worthwhile to try.

What I appreciate about libcom the most is that is does not attempt to create an artificial "discussion forum" but is actually closer to what a conversation between individuals who broadly share the same political and social views, would be like IRL. If you want a forum where no one is allowed to say anything off-topic, where even the slighetst taunt or joke is interpreted as ad hominem and grounds for banning, take a look at ABC. Personally, that is not my idea of a productive strategy.
I think if you treat people fairly, don't lose your temper, and show a bit of a sense of humour now and then, you will not be the subject of any actual mockery or flaming (flaming is first of all kept under control pretty well in the relevant parts of the forum)
So to answer your question (even as I am aware that this thread is now going way off on a tangent), I don't see any of the "culture of flaming" that you are talking about. If someone advertises "unconventional"(or even ridiculous) ideas, there might be some friendly taunting and banter, but nothing that could in good faith be considered a "culture of flaming." To take the example of Hughes, since he started this thread, I don't think he has been subjected to any outrageous sort of attacks on here (not sure how he feels about it though). But some of his positions are not common amongst most anarchist communists and syndicalists, which is why he occasionally gets called a liberal and so forth. But I doubt anyone does this to hurt and intimidate. It is just the type of thing people do when they're having a real conversation.
The thing is, sometimes someone will get real angry over a perceived insult and that will result in things degenerating into a so-called "internet breakdown" and a subsquent spamming of the forum by the offended party with the result of them getting banned. These things happen relatively rarely however, and Hughes has proved that he is, for all his controversial political stances, a levelheaded and intelligent fellow who is not prone to explosive hissy fits.

circle A-K's picture
circle A-K
Offline
Joined: 20-07-06
Jun 11 2010 06:40
vlad wrote:
What I appreciate about libcom the most is that is does not attempt to create an artificial "discussion forum" but is actually closer to what a conversation between individuals who broadly share the same political and social views, would be like IRL.

But not every individual member views or experiences the interactions/discussions on a web forum in the same way.

Do you really think your experiences here are comparable to a new member?
Or someone who tends to post only from time-to-time, like me?
Or to someone 'new' to libertarian communist politics?

I mean, obviously we will not all be treated the same by other members, afforded the same respect in reply or indeed acidity as the case may be (this can be affected by our 'board reputation' - what sort of posts we make, in what forums, on what topics, how often etc.).
I also disagree with the idea that the discussions that exist here are mere reflections of how a conservation between individuals with like politics would occur offline. Firstly, libcom is not a place strictly for discussions between like-minded individuals - see the thread on education workers as prison guards for example. There are real and defined political differences between the people that use the site - so regardless of general political affinity libcom is not politically homogenous (a strength) - and so there is always space for tension - strong disagreements, all seeds for inter-personal nastiness.

Unlike an offline conversation, the interactions here are broken down into tiny frargments or posts - which are often dissected more closely than anyone would points made in general speech; language becomes much more important as our words choices become an individuals only tool of communication. In real life much of our communication is non-verbal - body language/gesticulation, tone, inflection etc. None of the subtely of our interactions are conveyed meaningfully in an online setting. The result of which can often be misunderstandings, straw-men, flaming etc.

There is also the obvious impact of distance - we are completely unaccountable for our words. Given the impunity that the internet provides, the idea that things here would so closely mimic are offline interactions seems to me to be counterintuitive.

Also, i'd like to clarify something you have attributed to me - i never suggested or intended to suggest, that libcom had a 'culture of flaming' - the focus of my post was to instigate discussion on the attitudes and behaviours of individuals not the community at large (specifically flamers, and the idea that this is 'normal' and 'ok'), to this end it's not even necessary to talk about libcom as a specific case.

vlad wrote:
If you want a forum where no one is allowed to say anything off-topic,

Where did i say that? o0

My last post was itself off-topic!

Quote:
where even the slighetst taunt or joke is interpreted as ad hominem and grounds for banning, take a look at ABC. Personally, that is not my idea of a productive strategy.

Nor mine, the above quote represents a strawman argument.

As for the rest of your post, I don't think you've directly engaged with much of what i actually said. But suffice to say that i disagree that it's acceptable to 'mock' other members who in the minds other essential strangers 'lack a sense of humour'. Like, as if we are all supposed to find the same things funny, or socially acceptable.

Hughes's picture
Hughes
Offline
Joined: 21-05-10
Jun 11 2010 11:16
Vlad336 wrote:
To take the example of Hughes, since he started this thread, I don't think he has been subjected to any outrageous sort of attacks on here (not sure how he feels about it though).

I wouldn't call any of it outrageous, but dealing with the trolling impostor, sorry "satirist," yesterday was a significant turn-off in terms of feelings for Lib-Com.

You're probably right that I'm thin-skinned. In real life, while timid as a shrew, I'm 6'4 and 200 pounds. Its rare I'm mocked so viciously--at least to my face!

Anyway, I agree with Circle AK's points, that none of it seems necessary. Beyond that, the insular "clubby" feeling of so much of the Left is in direct opposition to its stated goal of creating a mass movement. If I wanted to be hazed I would have joined a fraternity when I was in college.

mons
Offline
Joined: 6-01-10
Jun 11 2010 12:27
Quote:
What I appreciate about libcom the most is that is does not attempt to create an artificial "discussion forum" but is actually closer to what a conversation between individuals who broadly share the same political and social views, would be like IRL

I think flaming between people who are familiar with each other, know each other in real life or have just been on the internet long enough it totally fine. I think it's pretty unecessary and nasty to do it to somebody new, or who just isn't into the kind of insulting culture that predominates. And it's totally inaccurate to say that people would be so rude in real life. Banter between friends is one thing, but that isn't what people are objecting to, and it's a strawman to say it is.
I'm also thin-skinned, so it's lucky that a) my politics seem pretty much to fit with the consensus here, and b) I don't really post here. I don't think there's anything wrong with being a bit sensitive, or at least it's unavoidable so why not respect it? I probably would post more if the culture was less bullying (sometimes in a friendly manner, I agree), and I don't think I'm alone - but of course I can's say with any certainty.

gypsy
Offline
Joined: 20-09-09
Jun 12 2010 17:25
Hughes wrote:
Vlad336 wrote:
To take the example of Hughes, since he started this thread, I don't think he has been subjected to any outrageous sort of attacks on here (not sure how he feels about it though).

You're probably right that I'm thin-skinned. In real life, while timid as a shrew, I'm 6'4 and 200 pounds. Its rare I'm mocked so viciously--at least to my face!
.

You are actually a wookie? surprised

Hughes's picture
Hughes
Offline
Joined: 21-05-10
Jun 12 2010 17:28
allybaba wrote:
Hughes wrote:
Vlad336 wrote:
To take the example of Hughes, since he started this thread, I don't think he has been subjected to any outrageous sort of attacks on here (not sure how he feels about it though).

You're probably right that I'm thin-skinned. In real life, while timid as a shrew, I'm 6'4 and 200 pounds. Its rare I'm mocked so viciously--at least to my face!
.

You are actually a wookie? :O

Not as hairy.

gypsy
Offline
Joined: 20-09-09
Jun 12 2010 17:28
Hughes wrote:
allybaba wrote:
Hughes wrote:
Vlad336 wrote:
To take the example of Hughes, since he started this thread, I don't think he has been subjected to any outrageous sort of attacks on here (not sure how he feels about it though).

You're probably right that I'm thin-skinned. In real life, while timid as a shrew, I'm 6'4 and 200 pounds. Its rare I'm mocked so viciously--at least to my face!
.

You are actually a wookie? :O

Not as hairy.

hehe

Hughes's picture
Hughes
Offline
Joined: 21-05-10
Jun 12 2010 17:29

wink

Hughes's picture
Hughes
Offline
Joined: 21-05-10
Jun 15 2010 16:30
revol68 wrote:
I love Zizek

This is a little late in the game to ask, but does Zizek defend Lenin?

http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Gates-Zizek-Lenin-Writings/dp/1859845460/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276619211&sr=8-15

As libertarians, how do you see that?

Farce's picture
Farce
Offline
Joined: 21-04-09
Jun 15 2010 17:40

Yeah, Zizek's pretty up-front about his Leninism. I see it as something that he's wrong about, but doesn't necessarily discredit the rest of his thought - Walter Benjamin, Gramsci and many other thinkers defended the Bolsheviks, but still had useful insights we can learn from, just like Chomsky being wrong about some stuff doesn't discredit everything he's ever said either.

Noa Rodman
Offline
Joined: 4-11-09
Jun 15 2010 18:44

The important point is that Zizek supports the stereotypical right-wing but also Stalinist image of Lenin. So he's not supporting Leninism at all, rather he uses 'Lenin' as a signifier for his own mixed-up politics of the Act, etc.

There's a good essay here from an anarchist perspective called:

What is Not to be Done! Everything you wanted to know about Lenin, and (sadly)
weren’t afraid to ask Zizek

Hughes's picture
Hughes
Offline
Joined: 21-05-10
Jun 16 2010 01:28

Zizek also said he critically supported Obama in certain circumstances.

http://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2009/11/381-382-interview-obama-theory

Hughes's picture
Hughes
Offline
Joined: 21-05-10
Jun 17 2010 11:45

Lenin's kryptonite: