Flaming on Libcom

147 posts / 0 new
Last post
madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Dec 31 2006 16:55

Well I'm sick of a small minority of posters here blaming all the percieved problems with the culture on this forum on one or two individuals. It's fucking rediculous and there's no excuse for it.

You can't blame all the flaming on here on revol and then turn around and say it's okay when you do it.

georgestapleton's picture
georgestapleton
Offline
Joined: 4-08-05
Dec 31 2006 17:11

But thats not what has happened. People are saying that there is a problem with flaming and abusive behaviour on the boards and people need to stop doing it. Everyone bar revol agrees.

So how to go forward? Well in my opinion you cant go forward unless you at the very least accept that flamming should be in some extremely rare circumstances a banable offence.

-----------------------

And in the spirit of defending being abusive.
Spot the difference:

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

Quote:
You can't blame all the flaming on here on revol and then turn around and say it's okay when you do it.

Quote:
You can't oppose war when you riot. How can you call for peace when you are violent. Its hypocritical.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Dec 31 2006 17:22
Quote:
You can't claim that war is never your fault when you deliberately start wars that are exactly identical to the ones you are opposing. Its hypocritical.

I fixed your shit analogy for you smile

georgestapleton's picture
georgestapleton
Offline
Joined: 4-08-05
Dec 31 2006 17:27

Tch you could have at least put in something funny and abusive. You're no fun.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Dec 31 2006 17:27
georgestapleton wrote:
So how to go forward? Well in my opinion you cant go forward unless you at the very least accept that flamming should be in some extremely rare circumstances a banable offence.

That's already the case. As the admins have already explained, if it gets to the point where flaming and agressive posting makes sensible discussion impossible, the posters involved will be warned and, if they persist, temporarily banned to allow things to calm down.

Unfortunately, the committee of ten are apparently having some net access troubles, so obviously this isn't going to be as rigidly enforced as it might be in an ideal world.

I'm the first to admit that sometimes my attitude is offputting and my posting style can be unecessarily agressive. Nobody's perfect. But I wouldn't turn around try to blame every problem with these boards on revol when I know I've contributed to those problems myself. If you don't want a thread to descend into flaming and derailment, don't rise to it.

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Dec 31 2006 17:28

double post

Peter Good
Offline
Joined: 18-04-05
Dec 31 2006 19:33

Dear Madashell,

Thanks for replying. However, I still think flaming is a close equivalent to bullying in the "real world."

I cannot see how cyberspace somehow insulates posters from everyday emotions. We are all flesh and blood and most of us hurt when we bleed.

The great sadness is that some comrades feel the need to reinforce their arguments with assaults an another's personality.

I can think of lots of alternatives in relating to fellow comrades other than as rat shit: How about with pride, respect, courtesy, teasing, friendliness, a recognition of our interdependency? We don't have to agree to get on with each other.

The danger that's happening here is the same that many revolutionary groups have undergone: Comrades get frustrated when their message isn't being readily embraced in the outside world so they turn inwards upon their fellow comrades to battle out the minuatae of dogma.

Have a Happy New Year.

Peter Good (TCA)

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Dec 31 2006 19:58

Revol's amalgam techniques and disingenuous use of words when dealing with criticisms of his miserable behaviour would earn him a job as a spin doctor. Quite alot of regular users of these boards are fed up with the behaviour of general flaming and he, IMO, doesn't really give a toss about that. He pays lip service to it and has toned it down since it's become a live issue at the mo, but, e.g., he and arf still drag their repetitive and irrelevant squabbles across any thread they feel like, so he and co. are disruptive as ever - just without so many gratuitous personal insults. That is really selfish and unnecessary behaviour. The gap between his behaviour and most others on here is large, and for a reason. If, after all this debate, he can't grasp the reason for that gap, and is content to just rationalise it - ie mystify it - into 'oh I'm just more passionate and robust in my manner than others', then he's either incapable of appreciating why people are pissed off or he's just playing another game.

This nonsense about the 'authoritarianism' of those who don't want him to dominate this site in the way he does is a smokescreen;

revol wrote:
As i've said before the revolution is not about people being nice to each other it's about smashing structures that uphold and perpeuate oppression and inequality, afterall primmitive accumulation didn't happen because people called each other cunts, it was only able to happen because some people had real power structures behind them, and in that sense the people calling for more policing powers on the board are actually seeking to use structural power to their own means,

Leaving aside the weakness of the analogy of libcom with the conditions of early accumulating capitalism(!) - his argument is a plea for the sanctity of individual liberty - his defences are like stirnerite individualist egism (OK, maybe that's unfair - to Stirner). So if a collective of people are pissed off with a certain behaviour, and it is particularly embodied in one person, then they shouldn't act collectively to challenge that, but either let the most loudmouthed and aggressive dominate or just compete with them? However he tries to defend that with fancy references to primitive accumulation etc, basic human solidarity says something quite different. Sorry if that doesn't correspond to his notion of libertarian 'communism' which seems more and more like rampant individualism. Libertarian , maybe - communist, no. So now those who complain about shitty behaviour are selfish oppressors wielding structural power over him? Well we're not simple democrats, so that argument doesn't really phase me.

Revol uses a hierarchical judgement of intellectual capability in his treatment of posters - if, in his opinion, their ideas are wrong then they are often subjected to abuse and
ridicule - yet the fom of expression only distracts from the point he is making and has other bad consequences. As if the revol persona was born fully formed as a well-read Marxist/Zizekian blah blah etc and never had a 'wrong' idea in the process of formation needing to be clarified without getting shot down by some big ego. It's a matter of degree - if we all occasionally fall into that crap it's partly cos the regular flamer encourages that behaviour, the crudest way of dealing with disagreement.

Revol consistently characterises a more general flaming tendency - it is not exclusively a problem of him, but he is a convenient and ever-present example. The issue boils down to - do you want the site to be dominated by the revol-type modus operandi and lose a considerable number of good posters or not? Do you want there to be less participation in debates cos revol (and sometimes others) is setting the tone and level of aggression? If the answer is yes then just hand it all over to revol now. Enough has been said - I think it's clear how many people feel about this and how much revol takes account of others' feelings, so it's now simply a question of action or inaction.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Jan 1 2007 03:08
Quote:
mate i know enough to know it is just water, i'm beginning to think there might however be more than homeopathic benefitial concentrations of lead in your tap water.

Actually, the lead poisoning I get from the healthy Cairo air. Just eight times the maximum recommended content... fucking constant sore throats.

Re. slagging off homeopathy. Please go ahead do that, but do so intelligently. Not just saying it is vomit.In any case, it wasn't the homeopathy thread I was complaining about; you raised that thread as me being flamed. I seriously can't remember you flaming me in that thread Revol. It is also indicative that when anyone mentions flaming it has to be about you.

My issue was the privilege thread and a couple of other threads (where you Revol (gasp) wasn't the the one I got pissed off about). I was relatively new to the boards then and I was shocked with the general animosity displayed. Come the homeopathy thread I had developed a tougher skin so that now I can't remember being flamed.

The tone of these forums are aggressive and I can't fucking imagine what would happen if all the libcommers would come together and have these types of discussions in the flesh. It would not be pretty.

pingtiao's picture
pingtiao
Offline
Joined: 9-10-03
Jan 1 2007 16:17

Good post Ret Marut- sums up what I think very nicely.

Revol, I understand that you feel the need to defend yourself when so many people seem to be attacking you- but there really is something underneath it that is a collective criticism of your behaviour. I urge you to listen and take it on board.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jan 2 2007 00:27
pingtiao wrote:
Good post Ret Marut- sums up what I think very nicely.

Revol, I understand that you feel the need to defend yourself when so many people seem to be attacking you- but there really is something underneath it that is a collective criticism of your behaviour. I urge you to listen and take it on board.

Yes - and it's not an issue of "let's all be nice" but a recognition that most pissed off workers aren't used to the aggressive atmosphere that dominates almost all online discussion forums. And indeed this forum is different to almost all other ones since it brings together people who mostly have one aim - building workers' power towards a libertarian communist society. And a useful thing which assists that is not making everyone who is a libertarian communist look like a nasty little twat who insults people the whole time, and treating people who haven't yet arrived at decent politics with respect.

That said bluntly saying certain things are bollocks, if there is no rational basis for (like racism, fascism, Christianity, homeopathy, nationalism, = astrology, etc.) it is not flaming, and fair enough. Although depending on circumstances it's often better to phrase things in a more measured way - particularly when it comes to things on which libcoms may disagree - like religion, homeopathy, animal rights, etc.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Jan 2 2007 11:45
Quote:
That said bluntly saying certain things are bollocks, if there is no rational basis for (like racism, fascism, Christianity, homeopathy, nationalism, = astrology, etc.) it is not flaming, and fair enough. Although depending on circumstances it's often better to phrase things in a more measured way - particularly when it comes to things on which libcoms may disagree - like religion, homeopathy, animal rights, etc.

Well put John. Though there's obviously a part of the post i disagree with wink

madashell's picture
madashell
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Jan 2 2007 12:27
John. wrote:
That said bluntly saying certain things are bollocks, if there is no rational basis for (like racism, fascism, Christianity, homeopathy, nationalism, = astrology, etc.) it is not flaming, and fair enough. Although depending on circumstances it's often better to phrase things in a more measured way - particularly when it comes to things on which libcoms may disagree - like religion, homeopathy, animal rights, etc.

This is probably the most sensible way to look at it. I can't see how being unambiguous in our rejection of dangerous, irrational nonsense is a problem (though as it happens, I thought Feeder actually put on a pretty good show at Leeds 2006 wink), but causing big arguments for no good reason is never a good idea.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Jan 2 2007 12:52
revol68 wrote:
To be honest I think idiots get off too lightly in our oh soo inane idiotic tolerant all embracing capitalist culture. People walk around thinking their idiotic beliefs have some inate right to be "respected", that they shouldn't be offended, how many times has some retard told you "well it's just a matter of opinion"? Of course it's a matter of opinion unfortunately for you, you Feeder listening, Homeopathic using hippy cunt, yours is worthless, you can't just reconcile two necessarily opposed viewpoints, homeopathy can't work and work both at the same time.

Well I agree with your line on RHCP and Homeopathy but I have to say the Feeder video which is clips of fans dancing in their bedrooms is quite fun. So your hard-line position is preventing a more nuanced evaluation of it.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Jan 2 2007 13:00
revol68 wrote:
your noncing desire to see teenage girls dancing around in their bedrooms is preventing you from seeing the truth.

I was pretty sure most of them were boys embarrassed
If I wanted to see teenage girls I'd follow the links you put up in your profile.

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Jan 2 2007 13:04
revol68 wrote:
your noncing desire to see teenage girls dancing around in their bedrooms is preventing you from seeing the truth.

This from someone with a Suicide Girls account?