Locking topics and banning people

190 posts / 0 new
Last post
Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Nov 29 2011 22:18
Quote:
my primary points remain.

Yes, they remain shown to be inaccurate.

radicalgraffiti
Online
Joined: 4-11-07
Nov 29 2011 22:20
Spikymike wrote:
On the other claimed reason for lines banning.....

I think lines got the impression purely from libcom that Solfed might well be dominated by individuals with an academic background and his reference to 'dissertations' etc was just shorthand for testing that out.

Frankly I cannot see why this could not have been fairly easily responded to by:

1. Indicating the numerical proportions of academic and non academic members of Solfed.

i'm not in solfed but if someone made that kind of allegation about afed and expected us to work out the proportion of academics in our organisation, for the sake of refuting some made up crap on the internet then the can get fucked, we don't need to respond to anyone who wants to talk shit about us an nor does solfed.

bzfgt
Offline
Joined: 25-02-09
Nov 29 2011 22:41
Pikel wrote:
Devrim wrote:

I thought that you were doing a Ph.D. You said you were doing a dissertation. Isn't that something you do for a Ph.D?

Devrim

Bachelors degree = dissertation (maybe masters too? don't know).

Ph.D = thesis.

Ah sorry Arbeiten's already pointed this out.

In the US, thesis=Master's Degree Dissertation=PhD

bzfgt
Offline
Joined: 25-02-09
Nov 29 2011 22:50

Sorry, that was already said. Anyway if someone told me they were working on a 'dissertation' I would have thought they were working on a PhD, until today.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Nov 30 2011 01:05
Quote:
As far as I am aware, we don't have any academics

A fair few academics were at NLSF's last meeting for some reason but that's not the norm, afaik we only have one dues-paying member who's doing a PhD.

Lemert
Offline
Joined: 28-11-11
Nov 30 2011 01:17
Arbeiten wrote:
Lemert wrote:
Take what I said in context and besides, yes, some women do lie about being raped. Crucify me for it.

I find it pathetic that this is supposed to be your big revelatory* political insight into feminism.

* 'crucify me for it' cheers Jesus, you harbinger of uncomfortable truths...

wall

I never said it was my "big revolutionary political insight into feminism" - I said thats one reason not to use violence against the accused.

tastybrain
Offline
Joined: 11-11-07
Nov 30 2011 01:20
Rob Ray wrote:
Quote:
As far as I am aware, we don't have any academics

A fair few academics were at NLSF's last meeting for some reason but that's not the norm, afaik we only have one dues-paying member who's doing a PhD.

Purge 'em! The mind-jailing bastards....

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Nov 30 2011 01:26
Red Marriott wrote:
Quote:
my primary points remain.

Yes, they remain shown to be inaccurate.

I'm sorry but you seem to have lost the plot; my primary point was about the article and your claim it was mildly criticized. You've turned the conversation on one sentence (actually one word) as if it was what I was getting at.

Lemert
Offline
Joined: 28-11-11
Nov 30 2011 01:34
Khawaga wrote:
CRUDE wrote:
Taken in context no my comments weren't offensive ( to a rational person).

Typical misogynistic bs. Men are rational, women are irrational; men who are concerned about rape culture is irrational. Do you even think before you write, CRUDE? On that thread almost everything you wrote was out of the textbook for men wearing blinds.

I wasn't aware I was even talking to a woman. The irrational people in the equation are the people who banned me. There you Eddie Haskells go again twisting things I say/type.

Yes, anyone who was offended by my comments in that thread I see as irrational - it was originally addressed to the male mod who banned me (as I said) but I'll call whichever woman who complained irrational as well. If thats all it takes to be offended then you guys are in for a rough life.

This is a perfect example of how liberal/radical feminism (identity politics) causes more division than anything. In trying to create a better world sometimes people go a tad overboard and end up creating extremely restrictive environments. That's not the sort of world I want to live in - I also don't want to live in a world of inequality no matter what race/gender.

At this point no matter what I say is going to be attacked as misogynist - I could say the earth is round and I'd be called names. That was pretty lame saying my use of the word "irrational" was misogynistic.....pretty weak....you're going to have to do better than that. Just throw a bunch of shit at the wall and see what sticks smile

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Nov 30 2011 03:14

CRUD- the use of the word irrational has long been a way of 'putting women in their place.' Whether you intended it this way or not is kind of beside the point because given the history, it is far from irrational to interpret it that way. Much like if you used the word uppity to describe a person who is Black, words have meaning that is often outside a simple dictionary description. Though to be honest, it's very difficult to believe you could be unaware of this.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Nov 30 2011 03:41

Yes, CRUDE, it's men that are really the victims here. Victims of political correctness gone mad... And people wonder why women shy away from forums like this and are almost always a minority in political organizations. It is because of the kind of ignorant and indignant crap from the likes of you.

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Nov 30 2011 13:28
bzfgt wrote:
In the US, thesis=Master's Degree Dissertation=PhD

right, also tho' what you write for a BA honors degree is called a thesis too.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Nov 30 2011 17:23
Khawaga wrote:
And people wonder why women shy away from forums like this and are almost always a minority in political organizations. It is because of the kind of ignorant and indignant crap from the likes of you.

I don't think that this is always the case or even generally the case. The last political organisation I was in, the ICC in Turkey, had a female majority, though it is far from true about the organisation as a whole. Many political groups have a majority of women.

Devrim

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Nov 30 2011 17:47
lzbl wrote:
Devrim, you looked up the definition of 'lie', but obviously only read the first line. The second is that to lie is 'to create a false or misleading impression' - so it can be EITHER the intention or the experience that creates a lie. Thus your position (that if someone does not know they're lying they can't do it) is not technically correct.

I'd been through all sorts of definitions of 'lie' including 'the position of a golf ball' that I just copied what ı was looking for when I saw it. I am not sure about that second one though. If you look at Cambridge it isn't there:

Cambridge wrote:
[I] (lying, lied, lied) to say or write something which is not true in order to deceive someone
Are you lying to me?
Don't trust her - she's lying.
I suspect he lies about his age.

I think that it is pretty unfair to accuse someone of lying if they don't know that something is untrue.

lzbl wrote:
In addition to which, lines was told the assertion was untrue, and then repeatedly reposted it. So your assertion that lines did not know he was lying is also incorrect.

I have been told lots of things, which I didn't believe.

Fall Back wrote:
Devrim wrote:
But it still could be a genuine mistake.

Yes. It is possible that someone with a long history of trolling and telling untruths about Solfed and other class struggle groups over a period of several years and has openly declared they groups should not exist,...

I think that in general it is better to be more tolerant of these sort of things when coming from your critics. It is annoying and unpleasant, but it is a better way.

radicalgraffiti wrote:
Spikymike wrote:
Frankly I cannot see why this could not have been fairly easily responded to by:

1. Indicating the numerical proportions of academic and non academic members of Solfed.

i'm not in solfed but if someone made that kind of allegation about afed and expected us to work out the proportion of academics in our organisation, for the sake of refuting some made up crap on the internet then the can get fucked, we don't need to respond to anyone who wants to talk shit about us an nor does solfed.

Of course you don't need to. It isn't that difficult though. Martinh does it here very well.

He also makes this point:

Martinh wrote:
but an allegation that we are led or controlled by academics is laughable and reflects far worse on whoever is doing the alleging.

I think that it certainly deals with allegations better than deleting them.

Fall Back wrote:
...and now I am spending the eve of the biggest strike in my lifetime arguing this shit on the Internet.

Fuck this.

You could have just put a note saying that you were busy and would address it later.

Devrim

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Nov 30 2011 20:13
Devrim wrote:
I don't think that this is always the case or even generally the case. The last political organisation I was in, the ICC in Turkey, had a female majority, though it is far from true about the organisation as a whole. Many political groups have a majority of women.

Devrim

Sure, I was taking that one a wee bit to far in me being pissed off with CRUDE. I guess I was speaking more from my own experience with political organizing. The only time there was a majority of women was in the NGO type organizing, but then it was a far majority (like 75%). Most radical organizing I've been involved with has almost exclusively been male.

lzbl's picture
lzbl
Offline
Joined: 19-09-11
Nov 30 2011 21:51
Devrim wrote:
I think that in general it is better to be more tolerant of these sort of things when coming from your critics. It is annoying and unpleasant, but it is a better way.

He's not a critic, he's a troll. They are not the same thing and can't be treated in the same way. Trolling is a fairly clearly defined behaviour rather than experience. I think the admins will respond to criticism but trolling is beyond reason, beyond debate and beyond the acceptable bounds of forum behaviour. It is explicitly against the posting guidelines. I don't see why people who give up their own time to run libcom should put up with personal threats and smears.

mciver
Offline
Joined: 3-12-09
Nov 30 2011 22:28

Devrim, Post 71

Quote:
If it were the case that another organisation, say, just for example, the ICC, were to ask you to delete something in a post made about them that they considering to be a lie, and to be honest, in the large amount of rantings of one user in particular, there must be more than one thing that is factually untrue, would you then delete it?

This could have been said quite simply like this:

If it were the case that another organisation, like the ICC, were to ask you to delete something in a post made about them that they considered to be a lie, would you then delete it?

But it wasn't. Instead, Devrim couldn't resist his charming and innocent little 'what if', to cast insidious aspersions against critics of the ICC.

Yet why would the ICC feel with the moral authority to ask Libcom to delete anything the ICC interpreted as 'lies' or 'flaming' against the ICC? Though such chutzpah passing off as fairness would be understandable from the ICC, presumably it would be up to Libcom to agree to this impertinent request or utter a well-deserved fuck off. Libcom is defined as a 'libertarian communist' portal. The ICC is an opponent, a 'left communist' organisation, proudly proclaiming its Bolshevik credentials. As is well known, once in power in Russia the Bolsheviks wasted little time in exterminating anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists, ie, the Libcoms of that time. This physical destruction of (all) political opponents has never been denounced by the ICC, except as unfortunate 'mistakes' by Lenin's Bolsheviks. What authority indeed would the ICC have to request (or more like it, demand) that posts be deleted on Libcom? But Devrim assumes it has, even if he disagrees with deleting posts.

ICC posters on Libcom act not as individuals but as members and recruiters of a dying latter-day Bolshevism. In other words, inheritors of a clique that could in all justice be called the first Red Nazis. Devrim is an apologist of that tradition. The presence of the ICC on Libcom is tacitly accepted or tolerated by Libcom, but it may not be forever, so apparatchiks (including Devrim) shouldn't push their luck.

However, Devrim isn't advocating deleting even 'lies'. Magnanimous and versatile, he concedes: People will always tell lies about others [always??], and will also make factual mistakes. I don't think that deleting posts is a way to deal with this. As irksome and tiring as it may be, I think it is necessary to publicly refute them, and that deleting posts just fuels rumor mongering. (Post 1)

Fair enough about deleting posts, and true about people making factual mistakes. But this doesn't absolve Devrim from casting innuendoes against individuals. Voilá the tantalising morsel: ... and to be honest [sic], in the large amount of rantings of one user in particular, there must be more than one thing that is factually untrue, ... (Post 71)

Could Devrim honestly point out ONE example of a factually untrue thing (or lie) 'ranted' against his favourite racket? Does he mean the fearless exposés of Ingram and other ex-CBG members? Isn't Devrim's tantalising morsel so similar to the most honest ICC claims that 'parasites' were agents of world capital? Or did the ICC only mean must be agents? And how did it know? How does Devrim know that the 'ranter' or 'ranters' (read ICC critics) must have stated untruths? Is he now, if not a member, an ICC free-lance statistician?

Or, if not Ingram, is Devrim alluding to McIver's comprehensive denunciation of the ICC's sinister raids of 1981, and its subsequent rabid campaigns against 'parasites' from 1998 to around 2009? Where are the lies and untrue facts? Instead of spreading lazy and underhanded aspersions, and thus rumor mongering, Devrim should himself 'publicly refute' lies and untrue facts about the ICC. Do as you preach, or zip up. Better still, as the really sordid stuff happened 'before his time', he could have appointed Alf to carry out these public refutations, or accept a 'Jury of Honour' but one organised to examine the destructive history of the ICC. Yet no coherent and exhaustive ICC refutations appeared on Libcom. And, as is also well known, nothing of what Ingram, the late Knightrose or McIver wrote against the ICC has been revealed as lies or factually untrue. So those posts should not be deleted. Surely Devrim would agree with that.

gypsy
Offline
Joined: 20-09-09
Nov 30 2011 22:31

Devrim is no longer in the ICC

Wellclose Square
Offline
Joined: 9-05-08
Dec 1 2011 00:30

I didn't get the impression that Devrim was defending on this thread, the ICC as such - certainly not explicitly, and even an implicit defence is open to question. Instead, I think he was pointing out the apparent contradiction between the eagerness of predominantly SolFed-oriented admins on Libcom to defend their organisation(s) against what they characterise as 'lies' or 'trolling', while letting other groups (Devrim used the, perhaps unfortunate, example of the ICC - but we could substitute 'primmos' or Dupontists) be 'lied' about, or facilitating the trashing of certain (anti-)political currents.

I think Devrim has a point, but I'd like to qualify it. I don't think that Devrim believes for a moment that Libcom could function as a free, public forum for those that use it: such a belief would a) not be borne out by the facts of those posters who have fallen foul of selectively-applied rules and b) be belied by the proprietorial attitude of the admins, a proprietorial attitude founded on the fact that Libcom is a private domain - non-SFers and others out-of-synch with the 'organisational' (racket-oriented?) bias of the site are only here on sufferance. Some - lines, Blasto, for example - have tested the limits of tolerance of this attitude. Personally, I could bash the ICC (as an organisation) till the cows come home, but it is disingenuous to hail, or at least suggest, Libcom as the inheritors of the torch of anti-Bolshevism (as mciver appears to do), when 'quasi-Bolshevist' tendencies (fed by platformism or their professional career profile? Who knows? But let's ask anyway - in other spaces if necessary) are evident in the practice of Libcom admins and the political philosophy they seem to espouse, a political philosophy described elsewhere as 'third estatism', a kind of 'Blairite Anarchism', an attenuated version of the Leninist 'long march through the institutions'.

I also think that Devrim has come out against the deletion or 'unpublishing' of any critical stuff (including stuff critical of the ICC).

tastybrain
Offline
Joined: 11-11-07
Dec 1 2011 00:43

Quasi-Bolshevist tendencies? Really?

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Dec 1 2011 00:56

I like that this thread has become a catch-all for anyone with an axe to grind. Now if only the ABC folks would start posting...

wojtek
Offline
Joined: 8-01-11
Dec 1 2011 01:21
Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Dec 1 2011 02:32

Spikeymike, I am still (believe it or not) really confused as to why one (yes numerically small, but apparently really significant) SolFed member doing a PhD (which still hasn't been confirmed yet) is a problem? This is pretty much the dictionary definition of associational shit slinging. Throw some more please, because most of it is still not sticking.

Devrim, it is still a fucking lie, until proven otherwise it is a lie. Say what you want with your pathetic reference to CNN but you still reproduced a lie. Like the shitty right-wing populist media, your reproducing 'facts' that could be potentially untruths (lies, if you will).

This thread is fucking pathetic, are you people not bored of your shit slinging yet?

bzfgt
Offline
Joined: 25-02-09
Dec 1 2011 05:16
gypsy wrote:
Devrim is no longer in the ICC

He did say this:

Quote:
Is he now, if not a member, an ICC free-lance statistician?

What is remarkable is not the actual sequence of events: an untruth or lie is told, said untruth or lie is deleted--it is the affective reaction, the vehemence with which the law was enforced, and is now defended. That some people arguing that academics have a middle class status that tends to be counter-revolutionary have so offended those who disagree with them by hurling the worst mud that can ever be slung--calling someone an academic. That those who are arguing that the involvement of academics in working class organizations is harmful have so offended those who disagree by suggesting that there are academics involved in their working class organization. It is completely inadequate to hide behind some mythological purity of the law, to continually point to the legal structure of the action as though some impersonal fate speaks through the hand of the administrators of the law, without hearing what people are saying about selectivity, circumstances, and affect, which can't just be scrubbed away to leave a shining white statue of justice, but actually constitute the heart of the matter, in the eyes of many on this thread.

RedEd's picture
RedEd
Offline
Joined: 27-11-10
Dec 1 2011 05:16
RedHughs wrote:
I would like to know why this rather poisonous post by Nate is still up on (A) thread where there's been so much effort to attack inappropriate comments by others. The "be civil" at the top is not enough folks.

And yes, I think Blasto went over the line on thread but only by a hair's breadth. Nate's comment, on the other hand, is just despicable, the second coming of Kevin Keating. Is "retard" considered a technical term here? What about "niger" or "kike". May I now salt my comments on positions I oppose with adjectives like "cuntish" and "cock-sucking"? Or perhaps "retard" stands alone in accept adjectives? Please inform.

I'd like to echo RH's comments here on the term 'retard'. I'll probably make people think I'm a PC arsehole by saying this, but whatever. People with learning disabilities are routinely fucked over in British society. For example, employers can pay them less than minimum wage if they are on a government 'scheme'. They can have their kids taken away from them with virtual impunity. They suffer significantly higher rates of physical and sexual abuse than average. In one recent case a person with a learning disability was not allowed to get married after social services deemed her unfit to make the decision despite everyone else in her life not even imagining there might be an issue. So yeah, people with learning disabilities, the people who were originally designated as retarded in medical terms, are amongst the most vigorously screwed over people about. So if admins think that language that perpetuates ideas about certain groups and therefore normalises their marginalisation ought to be avoided, they ought to include retard. Nate argued that the word was the same as fuckwit. This seems obviously wrong to me. If anyone needs explaining why I can. Admins wouldn't allow the term jew or kike to be slung around to refer to people who were tight with money, they wouldn't tolerate people calling feminist women 'hairy man-hating dykes' and they shouldn't allow the term retard to be slung around to refer to people assumed to be stupid.

tastybrain
Offline
Joined: 11-11-07
Dec 1 2011 05:40
bzfgt wrote:
gypsy wrote:
Devrim is no longer in the ICC

He did say this:

Quote:
Is he now, if not a member, an ICC free-lance statistician?

What is remarkable is not the actual sequence of events: an untruth or lie is told, said untruth or lie is deleted--it is the affective reaction, the vehemence with which the law was enforced, and is now defended. That some people arguing that academics have a middle class status that tends to be counter-revolutionary have so offended those who disagree with them by hurling the worst mud that can ever be slung--calling someone an academic. That those who are arguing that the involvement of academics in working class organizations is harmful have so offended those who disagree by suggesting that there are academics involved in their working class organization. It is completely inadequate to hide behind some mythological purity of the law, to continually point to the legal structure of the action as though some impersonal fate speaks through the hand of the administrators of the law, without hearing what people are saying about selectivity, circumstances, and affect, which can't just be scrubbed away to leave a shining white statue of justice, but actually constitute the heart of the matter, in the eyes of many on this thread.

Yes, a terrible miscarriage of justice has occurred roll eyes

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Dec 1 2011 06:09
bzfgt wrote:
without hearing what people are saying about selectivity, circumstances, and affect,

and herein lies the problem--a very succint way to understand a good deal of the trouble here over the last couple of months. It's not that the arguments haven't been heard; they've been heard and rejected as illegitimate, or met with indifference. But those making various claims of wrongdoing assume their position to be so righteous that, if only they were heard, their points are impossible to reject. So, they just begin repeating themselves louder and louder assuming that if they can just shout the 'truth' one more time, surely they will finally be understood. This approach will never serve to convince your 'opponents'.

It sucks to have a minority opinion. All of us here, as communists, surely understand that. But at some point, once your argument has been rejected, you have to move on.

lzbl's picture
lzbl
Offline
Joined: 19-09-11
Dec 1 2011 07:51

RedEd - I totally agree. There are issues about use of the word mental as well, which I know I am as guilty of as anyone else. Even if you think or know someone has mental health problems, dismissing their argument on those grounds is as offensive as dismissing me because I'm a woman.

Everyone on this site is more than capable of making their point without resorting to insults that perpetuate oppression, so maybe we could all use a little more imagination when we're mud slinging, insulting each other, trolling, having a little cry about the mean mean admins and whatever else we're doing to create our ideal society wall

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Dec 1 2011 08:24
lzbl wrote:
He's not a critic, he's a troll. They are not the same thing and can't be treated in the same way. Trolling is a fairly clearly defined behaviour rather than experience. I think the admins will respond to criticism but trolling is beyond reason, beyond debate and beyond the acceptable bounds of forum behaviour. It is explicitly against the posting guidelines. I don't see why people who give up their own time to run libcom should put up with personal threats and smears.

I don't think that he is a troll. I don't share his opinions in any way, but I don't think he is motivated by a desire to 'troll', but by a desire to communicate with people. Nor do I think that he has made any personal threats, and what is a smear is very debatable.

Devrim

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Dec 1 2011 08:41
mciver wrote:
Yet why would the ICC feel with the moral authority to ask Libcom to delete anything the ICC interpreted as 'lies' or 'flaming' against the ICC?... What authority indeed would the ICC have to request (or more like it, demand) that posts be deleted on Libcom? But Devrim assumes it has, even if he disagrees with deleting posts.

I think you have misunderstood what I meant. I used the ICC as an example as I know that they are pretty unpopular here. My point was that you should defend political organisations from allegations against them by deleting things.

I don't think that the ICC are in any way suggesting that things about then should be deleted.

mciver wrote:
Could Devrim honestly point out ONE example of a factually untrue thing (or lie) 'ranted' against his favourite racket?

No, I couldn't to be honest I rarely read all that you write, but I can remember you saying things that weren't true about myself, and what I believe. As you don't know me though I will put them down to honest mistakes. I certainly don't intend to go back through everything you have written to find them.

mciver wrote:
Could Devrim honestly point out ONE example of a factually untrue thing (or lie) 'ranted' against his favourite racket?

It isn't my favourite organisation by the way. As you know I left. Personally I think that the ICC has probably been responsible for damaging the revolutionary movement more than any other political organisation.

mciver wrote:
And, as is also well known, nothing of what Ingram, the late Knightrose or McIver wrote against the ICC has been revealed as lies or factually untrue. So those posts should not be deleted. Surely Devrim would agree with that.

Yes, I obviously would.

Devrim