Flaming on Libcom

147 posts / 0 new
Last post
arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Dec 29 2006 23:09

do you honestly see what you do as "being sharp in your criticisms"?

honestly?

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Dec 29 2006 23:35

i call that a really bad analogy. but whatever. it seems like this is just going to run and run. i wont be surprised in another year when the exact same thing comes up again.

i think this is the worst sort of libertarianism - the type that puts the right of some to be discriminatory, disrespectful, and just plain nasty, over the right of every one else to be taken seriously, and treated with respect - even in disagreement.

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Dec 29 2006 23:53

i gave links already, and the ones i gave are not in agreement over all of those, and like i said, they all have their own links, etc. as for never backing stuff up, you're guilty of that yourself, in fact you've accused me of stuff on thread after thread that isnt true, and that you have no evidence for. but you're just right arent you, you dont actually require evidence, evidence is beneath revol68.

btw, i dont call myself a libertarian, and i doubt i ever will.

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Dec 30 2006 00:07
revol68 wrote:
arf, if someone came on here arguing that women could prevent conception by drinking magic water would you think their views should be treated with the same respect and the person taken seriously?

depends. if people i had no reason to distrust, maybe even liked, were telling me that it worked for them, i'd listen, and i'd be skeptical, but i would want to give it a fair trial. and id probably try it myself, because i'm reckless like that.

i wouldnt just ignore their evidence, anecdotal though it might be, shout them down, insult them, refuse any other evidence they produce on grounds it's "unscientific" without any actual knowledge of the methods used and whether or not they are in fact 'scientific' etc etc. i wouldnt just stick my fingers in my ears and shout "fuckers!" as loudly as possible over and over again.

you've gone stale revol. there has been no development, that i have seen, in either the way you relate to people, or in your political position, in years. you think you know it all and have nothing left to learn, and you're wrong.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Dec 30 2006 02:06
Quote:
arf, if someone came on here arguing that women could prevent conception by drinking magic water would you think their views should be treated with the same respect and the person taken seriously?

Revol this is an unfair misrepresentation. It would be water with minute traces of semen in it. roll eyes
Don't make me pm an admin on you wink

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Dec 30 2006 02:12
Quote:
I might be rude and short with people but i do not have a reputation for being a passive aggressive, manipulative bully

Quote:
passive-aggressive
There are certain behaviors that help identify passive-aggressive behavior.

* Ambiguity
* Avoiding responsibility by claiming forgetfulness
* Blaming others
* Chronic lateness and forgetfulness
* Complaining
* Does not express hostility or anger openly
* Fear of competition
* Fear of dependency
* Fear of intimacy
* Fears authority
* Fosters chaos
* Intentional inefficiency
* Making excuses and lying
* Obstructionism
* Procrastination
* Resentment
* Resists suggestions from others
* Sarcasm
* Sullenness

A passive-aggressive may not have all of these behaviours, and may have other non-passive-aggressive traits.

I think you probably match way more of those than I do.

Quote:
ma·nip·u·la·tive
Serving, tending, or having the power to manipulate.

Again - that describes you revol, not me.

Quote:
bul·ly
1. A person who is habitually cruel or overbearing, especially to smaller or weaker people.

And once again - a description that matches what you do, and I think you pride yourself on it - check this thread for examples galore. I don't like bullies, and I never have, and that is why I dislike you so much.

And here's one last definition for you:

Quote:
pro·jec·tion
8. Psychology
a. The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or suppositions to others.
b. The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or desires to someone or something as a naive or unconscious defense against anxiety or guilt.

all from http://www.thefreedictionary.com

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Dec 30 2006 02:21

it was a joke revol, and you know it was.

as for the links - you're continued harassment of me across threads for links that i have already given, is a classic example of the above three accusations that you chucked at me - you are yourself indulging in absolute transparent passive aggressive manipulation and bullying.

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Dec 30 2006 02:24

well done for not meeting one of those on 'the list'. did you find any more?

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Dec 30 2006 02:27

i dont believe that you can have - seeing as each site in that collection of links has itself a number of other links to check out, and each one has tens or maybe even hundreds of posts and articles, and most have comments threads full of discussion and disagreement and agreement and all sorts. no, i just dont believe you. it takes me hours to update myself to new posts every time i check, and i'm supposed to believe what, you just absorbed it all like Johnny 5?

ticking_fool
Offline
Joined: 12-03-05
Dec 30 2006 08:53

Actually arf, Revol is not the only person who's asked you direct questions you've refused to answer, he's just the only one who can be bothered chasing you up on it.

So, just to remind you:

Would you defend excluding trans people from rape crisis centres?

Would you defend physical attacks on lesbian s&m clubs?

Are you going to give us your definition of radical feminism and say something about false consciousness?

Or are you going to continue ducking any serious engagement in favour of vague assertion and slinging accusations of misogyny, rape complicity and sexism whenever someone doesn't agree with you instantly and unconditionally?

arf
Offline
Joined: 25-11-06
Dec 30 2006 12:52

or in other words you want me to show my papers?

Quote:
Would you defend excluding trans people from rape crisis centres?

Rape crisis centres are unable to offer much help to anyone - like I said my local one only runs a helpline twice a week, and they offer counselling to as many people as they can.

If it was my refuge that I ran and got funding for and spent my week volunteering at, and all decisions were down to me alone, then I wouldnt turn away anyone who needs help or support based on their gender. I couldn't do it myself. But I do think that women-only space, especially in the context of escaping male violence, is necessary, and i would try to ensure that there was space for women born women (and i hate that phrase) to be seperate if they needed to be.

I think it's worth noting, once again, that transmen are accepted into most women only comunities. And I also want to say, again, that I think it's fucking outrageous the way that aspersions are being cast on refuges and rape crisis, i mean noone here has offered any evidence of transpeople being turned away from anywhere. There has been no evidence or discussion of any specific circumstance - just insinuations that the women who set up and run these centres are all transphobic cows that either enjoy or dont care about transpeople who are hurt.

It's like the hypothetical that wont go away - topic: feminists, specific may be radfems. "I demand to know, would you turn away a transwoman from a refuge?" I don't see this sort of harassment as any different as if I were to stomp around demanding of any of the men here, Would you rape a woman? There hasnt even been any pretence at discussion - just a set up of an extreme view with no context whatsoever, and then demands that I state my position on it.

As usual in these discussions, nobody cares to discuss the men who hurt them in the first place, and as usual, it is mostly men who do the hurting. Of course, I'll be seen as making a horrific and anti man generalisation by saying that most violence against transpeople, as against everyone else, is committed by men. But it's somehow okay for people here to make generalisations about the women who work at and run refuges - what an interesting contradiction.

I havent time to answer your other demands right now, but I encourage you to examine why you think it's okay to set up these hypothetical extremes, then demand that I answer to them, as if they are in any way connected to me - it's fucking out of order, and no less out of order than if i insinuated you are all rapists until you prove otherwise. I also think you should examine how a bunch of you have continued to harass me with the same questions across a bunch of threads despite all this. I guess some people are just guilty until proven innocent.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Dec 30 2006 14:22
Quote:
me being rather sharp in my criticisms of homeopathy,

Revol, you actually know nothing about homeopathy as the thread revealed. Your arguments were probably some of the worst. Other posters were much sharper in their criticism than you. You might think you were, but just slagging somthing off is not "sharp", it's just a refuge from serious discussion.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Dec 30 2006 14:59
Quote:
mate i know enough to know it is just water

ignorance again. it can come in sugar pills as well. so it is clearly not just water. in any case I wasn't referring to that, but to the philosophy of homeopathy, how remedies work, defintions of healing and disease etc. those aspects you clearly know nothing about. lots of MDs practicing modern medicine (and big pharma) do use the homeopathic principle, though without remedies. Revol, you do know a lot about a lot of things, but you know next to nothing about this subject.

anyhoo, I'm gonna stop feeding that little troll in your brain.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Dec 30 2006 15:02
atlemk wrote:
ignorance again. it can come in sugar pills as well. so it is clearly not just water. in any case I wasn't referring to that, but to the philosophy of homeopathy, how remedies work, defintions of healing and disease etc. those aspects you clearly know nothing about. lots of MDs practicing modern medicine (and big pharma) do use the homeopathic principle, though without remedies. Revol, you do know a lot about a lot of things, but you know next to nothing about this subject.

I think this and the feminism argument really need to be separate threads in thought.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Dec 30 2006 15:05

Radical feminism, again

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Dec 30 2006 15:41

As predicted, an attempted meta-discussion about the conduct of posters merely serves to rip the scabs off old wounds. Perhaps Serge is right and this place really is a mess, I'm not really sure.

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Dec 30 2006 19:30

The last umpteen messages on here are totally friggin unbelievable! How the fuck did it turn into yet another slanging match between revol68 and arf over radical bloody feminism? As far as I'm concerned, the pair of you are like a couple of big daft kids who need their heads banging together. This thread has now gone completely mental (as do so many threads on here) and really does show how dire Libcom forums is actually becoming.

Admin people, if I were you I'd now be thinking seriously about what you want to see happen with Libcom. If you do nowt, then my money's on it going right down the pan.

georgestapleton's picture
georgestapleton
Offline
Joined: 4-08-05
Dec 30 2006 20:22
Serge Forward wrote:
Admin people, if I were you I'd now be thinking seriously about what you want to see happen with Libcom. If you do nowt, then my money's on it going right down the pan.

I agree.

Peter Good
Offline
Joined: 18-04-05
Dec 30 2006 21:13

Me to. As I've written before - successful bullying begins to overshadow everything. Eventually it weaves itself into every post before it all collapses. Amen.
Peter Good (TCA)

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Dec 30 2006 21:22
Peter Good wrote:
Me to. As I've written before - successful bullying begins to overshadow everything. Eventually it weaves itself into every post before it all collapses. Amen.
Peter Good (TCA)

Whether you like it or not, flaming on an internet bulletin board is not bullying.

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Dec 31 2006 00:12
Quote:
everyone knows that these kind of threads do nothing but invite flaming, don't be so niave... Serge I think what you are wanting is the impossible... I think flaming is a fact of life... stop crying serge you old hippy...

You well may be right, revol, and perhaps I am being naive. But I have very little experience of these internet forums outside of Libcom. And if the conclusion is that we can't discuss things civilly, then wouldn't it follow that the whole anarchist communist project would also be naive - what with our goal being a free, egalitarian, equitable and stateless society? In other words, if you're saying, "that's the way forums are, so lets treat each other like shit," then couldn't we equally say, "that's how society is, so let's replicate every other capitalistic and authoritarian norm"?

Well, I'm optimistic. Although I see anarchist communism as something improbable, I don't believe it is impossible. Cutting down the flaming on a libertarian communist internet forum however, is actually a piece of piss in comparison. The only thing we need is the desire to do it.

By the way, I was only a hippy for a very short time and that was when I was a kid. I was also a skinhead, a suedehead, a 1970s football hooligan, a bike chain and brass knuckle street fighter, a scally and a punk. After all that, I grew up and became an anarchist wink

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Dec 31 2006 03:24

If Libcom goes down the pan (what does that mean exactly?), it'll be more demonstrative of the current level of class struggle than cos of Revol's histrionics. To be honest, I don't think that adopting a confrontational attitude towards ideas and theories that are just plain wrong to be a necessarily bad thing. The British anarchist movement (and class struggle as a whole) needs some serious introspection, and it needs to cut loose all the fanciful deadweights. Like I said, why should some moron parading (inaccurately) under the banner of anarchism be given anymore time than someone who calls themselves a hippy, liberal or Leninist? In fact, it'd probably be more prudent to hound them out of the milieu.

That doesn't really apply to most posters on here, since the flipside of the obnoxious board dynamic is a sense of shared experience which leads to a general consensus on (most of) the central kernels of class struggle anarchism. The pseudo-hippies defending individualists and blaming computer games for kids being rude maaaaaaan are more popular in the Daily Mail editor's office than here, thank fuck.

That said though, there are definite antisocial behavioural patterns on here that are perpetuated by most of us that we need to confront and remove. They're probably evident in this very post, to be fair.

Dundee_United
Offline
Joined: 10-04-06
Dec 31 2006 03:30
Quote:
me and dundee had a disagreement

I disagree with John. a lot. I would never push for him to be banned (leaving aside that he's a moderator tongue ), and disagreements are usually civil and productive. Very rarely do you not launch ad hominem attacks, derail threads and generally present an anti-organisational influence. That's why I want to see you banned. I couldn't care less whether you agreed with me or not and I certainly don't view my actions in this regard as personal or motivated by the numerous pointless slurs you've flung at me over the years. Believe it or not I'm bigger than that. It's just organisationally necessary because of the role you play here.

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Dec 31 2006 09:48

Revol, that's all well and good, but to me it smacks of a very convoluted way of defending piss poor behaviour on these boards. I have no problem with heated arguments developing but I do have a problem with people being shot down in flames as a first response (which happens all to often).

Alan, the British anarchist movement is probably in a far healthier condition now than at anytime during the last thirty years. This might not be anything great but hounding people out of the movement because they are accused of in some way being leninists, liberals or hippies doesn't sound that good to me.

The bottom line is, these Libcom forums are perceived to be a really abrasive place by a lot of people in the movement who are not leninists, liberals or hippies. Some see Libcom populated by a load of argumentative brats with nowt better to do other than rip the piss out of all and sundry. I don't see it in this way, but this negative perception of Libcom is nevertheless based on the growing day-to-day reality of these boards. The upshot of hounding out those you don't like for whatever reason, is finding that a lot of libertarian communists will also bale out.

AndrewF's picture
AndrewF
Offline
Joined: 28-02-05
Dec 31 2006 10:56

The problem with the flaming is very simple. Most, perhaps all of us know anarchists who have looked at libcom and decided not to post here because of the flaming. Some people who do post say they do so a lot less frequently because of being flammed.

Flaming is not new and so mechanisms to deal with it are not new. I posted about a couple at
http://libcom.org/forums/feedback-and-content/dealing-with-flaming-a-pos...

So the problem is no unfixable, it just requires an effort.

Peter Good
Offline
Joined: 18-04-05
Dec 31 2006 12:42

Dear Madashell,
Re definition of flaming as bullying.

Help me out on this one. What is the "real world" equivalent of flaming?

I confess my own definition is mostly empirical. Having seen it at work in barracks, prisons, trade unions, schools, I know what it is when I smell it.

Regards
Peter Good (TCA)

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Dec 31 2006 13:32
Peter Good wrote:
Dear Madashell,
Re definition of flaming as bullying.

Help me out on this one. What is the "real world" equivalent of flaming?

I confess my own definition is mostly empirical. Having seen it at work in barracks, prisons, trade unions, schools, I know what it is when I smell it.

Bullying requires an unequal power relationship, it requires one person intimidating another, whether that's through physical intimidation, verbally undermining the victim on a personal level or socially excluding them. Unless somebody shows up on here expecting to make libcom their new social circle, or they're unbelievably sensitive to being sworn at anonymously, then it's pretty much impossible to bully them without somebody who knows them in real life being involved.

AndrewF's picture
AndrewF
Offline
Joined: 28-02-05
Dec 31 2006 13:49
madashell wrote:
Bullying requires an unequal power relationship, it requires one person intimidating another, whether that's through physical intimidation, verbally undermining the victim on a personal level or socially excluding them.

Both the bits in bold are very common on Libcom and indeed what people are complaining of. To be honest I've been doing it to the cack handed left communist anti-WSM posters in the last week because I consider them a waste of space and I know I'll get away with it. I certainly came close to that line with revol last week in the context ofbaiting him about his lack of actual activity.

I'd much sooner a board where this was not allowed but as long it is I'll also use such methods from time to time when I get frustrated with the hobbyist dogmatic element. I'm thick skinned enough to not be put off posting much when others do the same to me but lots of other people are not.

Anyway the end point of lack of movement in this is obvious, a 'split' in which some of those who want a flame free board go off and create one. This would be tragic as its a stupid issue for a split to happen around but there doesn't seem to be much room for negotiation here and that is always the end result of such situations once a critical mass is reached. (To avoid misunderstandings I'll say I have no time to help with such a project even if I think we are getting to the point where it is logical).

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Dec 31 2006 16:35
JoeBlack2 wrote:
Both the bits in bold are very common on Libcom and indeed what people are complaining of. To be honest I've been doing it to the cack handed left communist anti-WSM posters in the last week because I consider them a waste of space and I know I'll get away with it. I certainly came close to that line with revol last week in the context ofbaiting him about his lack of actual activity.

*ahem*

Quote:
Unless somebody shows up on here expecting to make libcom their new social circle, or they're unbelievably sensitive to being sworn at anonymously, then it's pretty much impossible to bully them without somebody who knows them in real life being involved.

Are you going to adress this part of my post at all? Don't quote me out of context in a way that makes it look like I agree with you when I don't.

Quote:
I'd much sooner a board where this was not allowed but as long it is I'll also use such methods from time to time when I get frustrated with the hobbyist dogmatic element. I'm thick skinned enough to not be put off posting much when others do the same to me but lots of other people are not.

Well frankly, that makes you a fucking hypocrite and as much a part of the problem as anybody else.

georgestapleton's picture
georgestapleton
Offline
Joined: 4-08-05
Dec 31 2006 16:46
madashell wrote:
Well frankly, that makes you a fucking hypocrite and as much a part of the problem as anybody else.

Oh jesus. wall