'Group Dynamics'; a crock of shit? [was Sexual Violence]

139 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pepe
Offline
Joined: 26-11-04
Oct 27 2006 13:03
revol68 wrote:
you've always spouted ill thought out shite and worse you've never had the intellectual honesty to atleast try and reason out your positions.

So I shouldn't post anything unless I'm 100% confident and unswayable about my beliefs, and I shouldn't admit when I was wrong?

revol68 wrote:
P.s. if you thought i was a prick you could have said so at dinner, as it was i thought we'd just put it downt to internet banter and to be honest i felt kind of bad for being a prick to you before but now i just think my supsicions have been confirmed.

Because I don't have a problem with you in person, AT ALL! You seem perfectly nice! I think it IS just internet banter. I won't spell out again the problems that I have with your internet persona and the general atmosphere I think you create again. I mean I thought we'd buried the hatchet until that Cosmo thread. I really don't want us to argue. I mean you're really well read etc. and usually have something of value to contribute to a discussion, but lately I, and I think alot of others, find it increasingly difficult to take your aguments seriously because of the way that you present them.

Quote:
Also why the fuck do you need JDMF to say shit for you? Aren't you a feminist of some variety? Isn't it a tad pathetic to hide behind a big man rather than to say it yourself? I mean has feminism moved from being about affirmed womens equality with men to a talking shop for whinging about your inability to assert yourself. If some women lack the confidence to assert themselves or their opinion then that's something they have to deal with. It's not about asking others to be less assertive. Women like Rosa Luxemburg, Emma Goldman, Sylvia Pankhurst and the Mujeure Libres didn't sit around whinging about "loud, confrontational" meetings or internet forums, they instead spoke up and asserted their voices, made people listen through the power of their arguments, rhetoric and ability.

So if a man says something I agree with, i shouldn't acknowledge that out of some bollocks principle? It's not like I've been pretending that I don't have a problem with you, and only felt secure saying it after a man was the first to raise the issue.

revol68 wrote:
also if you think this is about one up manship or some other bollox it's not, i'm just expressing how i feel about your behaviour.

I don't know why you do it in the manner that you do. Maybe you think it makes you look cool, or don't realise you're doing it. But it feels like bullying, and I'm not the only poster to think this. You can't just dismiss how we feel, I think you really need to take a look at yourself.

JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Oct 27 2006 14:42

hey i didnt have time to read all posts sorry, but i dont like the innuendo from revol of my motives of saying what i did and stuff. You would be much more on the mark on blaming the inherent genetic liberalism instilled into me by century of social democracy in finland.

And in the end we just have to agree with revol - he is right, he is correct and there is nothing wrong with his behaviour. Never mind that scores of people have left libcom/enrager because of it (and similar behaviour) and many do not come active participants in the community because of it.

And if you would like to dismiss them as weak pussies if someone avoids libcom because of its discussion culture (which is by the way wrong, there is only couple people acting like top dicks) you would be right. At least from my personal experience people who tell me they dont bother visiting libcom forums because of the way things are discussed here are mainly women. One of them being my wife.

This is not because she is a shrinking violet, far from it, its just that she has better things to do with her time than subject herself to a barrage of insults and deliberate humiliation. So she just doesnt bother posting. Well done mate. I guess if you would step up your attacks even a bit more you could have just the most hardcore left who really could wage a proper class war and stuff.

sovietpop
Offline
Joined: 11-11-04
Oct 27 2006 15:48

Once more you ignore that many people find the way you post offputting. I do. JMDF wife does. At the anarchist bookfair in Dublin countless people gave out to you all day. I met people in London who similarily wanted to meet you to give to you. Many people on this page in the last couple of days have criticised your posting style. And still you dismiss and ignore all of us. What does it revol for you to realise that you have a problem? Will you ever admit this? Will you ever try to change?

Thora
Offline
Joined: 17-06-04
Oct 27 2006 15:55

Is this what's known as an 'intervention'?

Ramona's picture
Ramona
Offline
Joined: 19-09-03
Oct 27 2006 16:14

edit - nah forget it

sovietpop
Offline
Joined: 11-11-04
Oct 27 2006 16:19

Revol you're a bully, you are rude, you are abusive, you constantly personalise people's posts, belittle, mock and attempt to intimidate off these boards.

I really don't understand why you are tolerated on these boards since you have no intention of ever changing. This is question to the mods here; Why, given what he has said above (telling people to fuck off if they aren't willing to put up with his destructive behaviour) do you continue to allow him to post. Genuinely. Please tell me why.

sovietpop
Offline
Joined: 11-11-04
Oct 27 2006 16:30

again the personal attack "winge" "middle class tea party". that is your standard method of debate.

I do tend to ignore you revol by staying off these boards. But occasionally there is an interesting debate on a subject that is important to me, like in the last few days. And then I have confronted with you derailing threads, bullying other people and if I actually post I know I'm leaving myself open to personal attacks, sneers and belittling (as you did to me on the other thread). You are a bully, and what you want is the freedom to continue bullying other people, without anyone pulling you up on it.

Lone Wolf's picture
Lone Wolf
Offline
Joined: 1-03-06
Oct 27 2006 16:42

Er.. I am gonna attempt to build a bridge over troubled waters here if I may.. (I can but try.. )

IMHO, Revol I can see quite clearly that your intention isn't to see anyone off but to engage them..

But I think it is an incorrect assumption to say that we are expecting you to accomodate people via treading on eggshells around them etc etc...

My earlier comments about communication issues relate more to asking the kinda qs that open and encourage the debate and not - however inadvertantly - shut it down - or divert it into ego/point scoring stuff. So therefore I don't really think it is about the victim thing...

BTW I think confrontation is fine.. when it is confronting ideas and not nec. the individuals presenting the ideas nec. as that will then lead on to personal stuff and detract from the debate...

That is all.

For me personally I have not felt at all intimidated by you at any stage this week..mebbe I can see cos its not intentional I dunno.. I disagreed with one post you said, posted back and there was an end to it so for me it was fine.

I'm just - its just a shame to see decent peeps - inc. you - upset so had to try me mediation bit..

Love

LW X

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Oct 27 2006 17:10

Hi

Quote:
divert it into ego/point scoring stuff

The people who do it don't see it like that. You need to cite some of it to allow the perps to explain their position in more detail.

Love

LR

sovietpop
Offline
Joined: 11-11-04
Oct 27 2006 17:16

its a personal attack because you are attacking what you precieve to be my background rather addressing what I am saying. You are trying to belittle me as person and undermine my ideas in that way (which is what you also did on the other thread)

And tbh, I treat people with respect and expect the same respect back in all aspects of my life, not just in the political sphere, but in my social life and in my work life. I don't think this is unreasonable. It's nothing to do with "safetly zones" (another mis-representation of my point). It's about having a bit humanity and the ability to behave with a bit of decency towards other people.

sovietpop
Offline
Joined: 11-11-04
Oct 27 2006 17:22
Lone Wolf wrote:

But I think it is an incorrect assumption to say that we are expecting you to accomodate people via treading on eggshells around them etc etc...

My earlier comments about communication issues relate more to asking the kinda qs that open and encourage the debate and not - however inadvertantly - shut it down - or divert it into ego/point scoring stuff. So therefore I don't really think it is about the victim thing...

BTW I think confrontation is fine.. when it is confronting ideas and not nec. the individuals presenting the ideas nec. as that will then lead on to personal stuff and detract from the debate...

Exactly. Put it much better than I could myself.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Oct 27 2006 17:30

Hi

That's a fair point revol. Where I come from we're constantly taking the piss out of each other for fun, the funny thing we stop when there's ladies around, or we tone down the swearing. It makes them uptight and stops them from having it off with us at office parties.

Love

LR

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Oct 27 2006 18:00

''its a personal attack because you are attacking what you precieve to be my background rather addressing what I am saying. You are trying to belittle me as person and undermine my ideas in that way (which is what you also did on the other thread)''

I wouldnt be to worried about what Revol says (although there is some good stuff in there sometimes), reminds me of this little character-

Except when you poke him enough, rather then doing a few little giggles, he lashes out with a string of obscenities.

Lone Wolf's picture
Lone Wolf
Offline
Joined: 1-03-06
Oct 27 2006 18:24
sovietpop wrote:
Lone Wolf wrote:

But I think it is an incorrect assumption to say that we are expecting you to accomodate people via treading on eggshells around them etc etc...

My earlier comments about communication issues relate more to asking the kinda qs that open and encourage the debate and not - however inadvertantly - shut it down - or divert it into ego/point scoring stuff. So therefore I don't really think it is about the victim thing...

BTW I think confrontation is fine.. when it is confronting ideas and not nec. the individuals presenting the ideas nec. as that will then lead on to personal stuff and detract from the debate...

Exactly. Put it much better than I could myself.

smile

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Oct 27 2006 20:11

Hi

The trigger point occurs when someone counters a point like so…

Quote:
who has even suggested that there would be a way to find out how to directly prevent something like that - i dont think that is even an issue here.

As if they’re being personally accused of that, which they’re not. Moreover they take great trouble not to just counter the assertion, but the person who is making it via an implied attack on their character. Red rag to a bull I’m afraid and is bound to lead to…

Quote:
a) you clearly haven't been reading my posts, as I haven't said people shouldn't challenge sexism, infact most of my posts have mentioned the fact we can only tackle sexual violence indirectly.

And we have a fight on our hands. Two people are now debating each other’s relative merits rather than cooperating to develop a political perspective or some shared sense of the truth, and of course it escalates as one of the counterparts become angrier and more irrational whilst the other unleashes their well rehearsed and deeply humiliating “mental torture”…

Quote:
and you havent read anyones posts if you are STILL talking about direct intervention. We are all discussing indirect effect as far as i can see.

Quote:
The other thing is people wording issues like "what can we do to stop sexual violence" and then imagining that some tiny wee thing they're group has done to "address" (and let's be honest by address they mean "talked about") the issue is imminently relevant.

JDMF wrote:
hypocrite warning. Considering the lengths you have gone to… etc

Physician, heal thyself.

revol68 wrote:
I know it's not your first language but…

It’s like a witty version of gangster.

Then it all goes back to civilised discussion, and suddenly…

Quote:
On dyamics, isn't it interesting that on the first thread, a number of women participated a number of times, and on this thread, the debate is a back and forth between revol68 and other male posters.

And then later, from the same poster…

Quote:
its a personal attack because you are attacking what you precieve to be my background rather addressing what I am saying.

Hypocrite warning indeed.

Quote:
Here's me chearleading for JDMF

Exactly. This “support group” ethos riddles the anarchist movement. It’s developed from its flawed ideology and accounts for its ineffectiveness at achieving its proclaimed goals. Which is just as well.

Love

LR

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Oct 28 2006 13:20

''Exactly. This “support group” ethos riddles the anarchist movement''

Dont be upset because you havent got one, im sure it'll come in time.

georgestapleton's picture
georgestapleton
Offline
Joined: 4-08-05
Oct 28 2006 13:32
Quote:
I've been called authoritarian which whilst being hilarious is also a scary indication of how many people understand anarchism and it's anti authoritarianism. I mean do I have a gun? Do i beat people up? Have I bought up all libcom accounts and stopped others from posting. No, i'm authoritarian because I refuse to change my manner of expression.

I don't think anyone is calling you authoritarian and just becasue someone did once doesn't really matter. I don't think you are being authoritarian. I think you are being a prick. And thats my problem. You're being a prick, and it's difficult to have a civil discussion when someone is being a prick.

Quote:
It also might explain why I come across as arrogant twat online but in real life i'm actually quite quiet

Another part of the gulf between how you act online and how you act offline is the fact that if you were as much of a prick offline as you are online you'd get your head kicked in. I'm only bringing this up because you have said to people "how do you deal with the real world if you can't deal with me" a number of times. Well in the real world if someone was as much of a prick as you are online to me or my friends I'd tell you to fuck of, I wouldn't talk to you. If you were as much of a prick as you are online in a meeting I'd try to get you kicked out. And although I wouldn't I know that if you were as much of a prick as you are online offline someone would knock you around.

So you don't do it. Unfortunately, here we tell you to fuck off but you don't. And the chances of you getting permanently banned are slim to none.

Quote:
the reason your wife doesn't post here is probably because she doesn't think an anarchist internet forum is relevant to her life.

You arrogant prick who do you think is better informed as to why JDMF's wife doens't post on here. You or JDMF? Jesus.

Quote:
Here's a radical idea, if i bother you so much just ignore me.

This is the biggest load of liberal crap the the worst head the balls that you get in anarchism come out with. Yeah we can't like kick someone out of a meeting or a group or a discusssion cos we like have to tolerate differences. You know cos anything else would be authoritarian. So if someone wants to fill the balls with saline at a bookfair we can't ask them to leave. If someone want to dominate an anti-war meeting with 9-11 conspiracy crap we can't kick them out. And if someone dominates a discussion be being rude and abusive we cant get rid of them cos to do so would like you know authoritarian.

Cop yourself on.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Oct 28 2006 13:42

Hi

Quote:
This “support group” ethos riddles the anarchist movement. It’s developed from its flawed ideology and accounts for its ineffectiveness at achieving its proclaimed goals. Which is just as well.

Quote:
Dont be upset because you havent got one, im sure it'll come in time.

There you go, a remark about a general political current is met with a personalised derogatory retort. This ad-hominem style is characteristic of the type of psychologies that espouse social-issues oriented victim politics. The whole ideological basis for Anarchist groups' flawed dynamics is exposed by such behaviour.

Love

LR

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Oct 28 2006 15:17

''The whole ideological basis for Anarchist groups' flawed dynamics is exposed by such behaviour''

Im sure you'll be happy to know im no part of any anarchist group, so I have no real influence in derailing any anarchists groups' workings and I dont see how some comments can be seen as a 'flawed dynamic' for anarchist groups overall, I doubt anarchism is much worse of by some peoples silly comments.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Oct 28 2006 15:24

Hi

And so my point is made even more eloquently than I would be able to do myself. This has nothing to do with PTTI personally, but is merely an observation of a general tendency within the anarchist milieu as reflected in their group dynamic and ideological totems.

Ironically, that tendency is demonstrated by the irrational desire to take remarks personally. It's indicative of the victim mentality responsible for anarchists' and the left’s reactionary politics and also their ineffectiveness in implementing them.

Love

LR

Nate's picture
Nate
Offline
Joined: 16-12-05
Oct 28 2006 18:14

I was happy to see this thread initially raised and it's collossal failure is really, really frustrating. I've not read the new thread yet. If that one goes south in a similar fashion, then I'd like to request a chaired or moderated discussion. If some of the posts here were said out loud at meetings I'd make motion that the person be censured, and if the behavior continued then I'd move that the person be kicked out of the meeting. This is far too important issue to descend into the drivel that this thread turned was hijacked into.

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Oct 28 2006 19:09

Hi

Quote:
This is far too important issue to descend into the drivel that this thread turned was hijacked into.

If you’re referring to anything I’ve posted, I suggest you cite it directly in order that I might be able to defend it. This thread, like the “gender issues” one, is an excellent demonstration of the problem it seeks to address, so there should be something more concrete than dismissing it as “drivel” before one starts shouting the odds.

Love

LR

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Oct 28 2006 19:37

jesus revol you poor bastard, you can really be a prize bell-end sometimes.

Dundee_United
Offline
Joined: 10-04-06
Oct 29 2006 08:46
Quote:
i'd rather kill myself than live in a world organised along your puritanical lines.

It's all shits and giggles here at libcom...

We need chaired discussion

JDMF's picture
JDMF
Offline
Joined: 21-05-04
Oct 29 2006 11:31
revol68 wrote:
Aye it is but it's not like JDMF or Soviet Pop are at all funny.

i know i am not funny, but if i was constantly offending a large part of an online community i would have enough self criticism to take a look what i am doing wrong.

The touble with online boards apart from moderating is that they rely on same social controls than any other situation in life - generally people dont want to be seen as arseholes and hated by a lot of people which is why online communities kind of manage to work and progress.

Somehow you have managed to convince yourself that online discussions are detached from the world and these things dont matter, in fact you have stated that you quite enjoy getting peoples backs up and it is some kind of result when you are able to personally insult and upset someone.

I actually think that online discussions are more important than your local Organise! meeting. Its because they are read by multiple times more people, and because online communications are a new field of human interaction and we are still learning how to use it. They also are saved in history, printed off, archived and so on. At a physical meeting you can also see your bodylanguage, your facial expressions and usually you tend to meet with just the familiar people you have a history with. Online you are constantly talking to new people whose first contact to you may be for instance this thread.

Lazlo_Woodbine
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Oct 29 2006 14:06
revol68 wrote:
what's far more damaging is this idea that anyone who upsets you should be silenced, it's really quite pathetic, more in tune with David Blunkett than the principles of libetarian communism. it's a scary thought what your (slave) moralistic world would look like, no David Brents or Borats, infact i think i'd rather kill myself than live in a world organised along your puritanical lines.

It's like living in Nazi Germany. Poor revol sad

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Oct 29 2006 16:42

CROCK OF SHIT

Well I'm weighing in for the last time.
Revol, just because you can act in a certain way with certain people does not mean you can with others. I'd also like to point out, as we're going personal, that your examples all seem to show that you see yourself as the victim, voiceless, and on the internet you can feel like the big man, you can badger people shout them down and make them feel small. I bet you took real pleasure in that post to Jess. It was nasty, I hd some agreement with you at points, but you went out of your way to be unpleasant to her personally.
Georgestapleton is right, you don't act this way in real life outside of your little circle because you'd get a kicking. I don't really mind you unless I'm in a bad mood, but sometimes I can't be fucking arsed with your shit. You can be proud, along with the ICC, and a select group of posters who make me think 'life is too short' and not bother posting on threads. I've said it before and I'll say it again, you can make a good contribution. YOu just choose not to, which is fucking pointless. I wouldn't ban you from here permanently, but you need someone to tell you what a naughty boy you are. You really are looking for the wrong kind of attention.
By the way, should people accept your shitty attitude in the same way they shouldn't accept, racism, sexism or sectarianism? There are acceptable standards for debate. You deliberately make people feel small and show no respect for those you disagree with. I can understand this but to be honest when you're talking to someone closer to your opinions than average why react so violently? Is this because you can't challenge people in real-life?
This is personalised and not really on topic and being pissed off is no excuse but if revol can do what he likes then why not. The other thing to point out is that if the forums were a free for all where we could flame to our hearts' content. Then all you'd have left would be the Revols of this world, because you enjoy this kind of interaction. You have to recognise that most people don't.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Oct 29 2006 16:56
revol68 wrote:
I mean atleast I didn't threaten to smash her face in, cast doubt on her sexual adquecy, make little of her for not earning as much as me or something equally idiotic. So i'd not get on my high horse. I mean I didn't whinge to anyone that you should be banned for your behaviour nor even "need someone to tell you what a naughty boy you are". Fuck i'd even buy you pint if i didn't think you'd drip it over my head.

Fair enough. Although you have to admit you baited me alot before I started giving you shit.
If you wanted to buy me a pint you could have, the only time I've met you we were standing next to a bar tongue

EdmontonWobbly's picture
EdmontonWobbly
Offline
Joined: 25-03-06
Oct 29 2006 17:38

So is this thread a discussion or a case study?

powertotheimagi...
Offline
Joined: 24-06-05
Oct 29 2006 20:05

Why not get the thread back on topic?

I understand revol can be abit of a prick sometimes in his posts, but I think people are quite hard on him, I dont post here much and will prob just disappear back into the shadows in a few weeks, but when there is debate it is (usually) really good and I think revol can add to this. He may just well tell me to fuck of or call me something else but I dont care, I have no reason to 'defend' what he says or anything, but I think some people can be abit picky on him, what someone says on a web board isnt all that important, no reason to take insults at a face value.

After all, where is the love?

(First image I got when putting in where is the love black eyed peas into google images).