Factvalue, desist from the personal slagging. This is a warning
edited to add I have now had to go through and unpublish a load of off topic comments.
Fact value, this is a further warning for you, if you post one additional comment with your tedious ramblings you're banned.
And as usual if anyone else wants to complain about an admin decision, start a new thread, don't derail an existing thread, and don't derail existing threads with personal chitchat.
This is posted on here so I'll respond on here, ok?
Firstly, it's pretty ironic that the post above this is a graphic piece of personal slagging. I guess that's ok coz it's not posted by FV?
Secondly, when has tedium been a banning offence? Fuck, we should all be banned by that measure.
Thirdly, since when were you or anyone else anointed as the arbiter of tedium?
Libcom is very frequently easily the best political website in existence but the groupthink and lack of tolerance sometimes exhibited here puts me in mind of a bunch of blue rinsed anarcho Mary Whitehouses. And as for the lack of consistency, words fail me. Ffs, threads so often wander off topic(should we all holler 'digression' every time it happens?) or are purposely derailed but very rarely does this sort of action ensue.
It's been well documented that I greatly appreciate the sterling efforts of the admins in building, maintaining and contributing to this site but the lack of consistency kind of shits all over that. Shame.
Noah, to help out the admins, I unpublished your post initially. I've now moved it here.
A serious question: do you always have to have the last word? I understand that desire, but sometimes it's just not very useful and in this particular case, you kept on with the derail even after being asked to post on another thread. I don't get it. It's not just you and FV derailing shit, but there are topics on certain threads where you should know better. It happens too much in those that deal with sexism and racism. Why is that the case? (and here, I am not just saying that you're the sole offender btw).
Thanks seahorse. The thing is though, the inconsistency, accusations, personal slagging and general double standards are displayed on that thread. Removing the discussion from it's context will, I feel, be a bit of a whitewash.
The very least that can be expected is an explanation of why RM's(admittedly very amusing) picture remains yet FV's hasn't. Of coarse though, it's difficult to explain personal prejudice and that's what the problem is. We don't have to like everyone but Libertarian communists should at least cut everyone the same amount of slack.
Objectivity is not a state of mind but a continuing task that takes courage and practice. Objectivity is no guarantee that a point of view is true, but it's certainly better than the alternative.
Now to me this is all just internet goonery but with reference to what Noah wrote, if you want to judge for yourself whether or not the web entity known as 'Steven' has been exercising his objectivity muscles enough or whether he has even got himself off the couch, ask yourself why he allowed the image posted by the entity 'Red Marriot' to remain in the thread but removed this one:
factvalue
Steven, why are you allowing people to point out the hot air and illogic in Red Marriot's streams of consciousness? I demand that you put a stop to it immediately!
'And, and.. can we draw the same cartoon as last time dad?'
As for being tedious, my two year old finds non-perturbative quantum field theory tedious, but I really like it. So?
No, I really don't have to have the last word at all. It's more that I'm persistent if I'm not even offered any sort of response to my question. I think my posting history shows that I'm more willing than most to put my hands up and review my position when a good argument or explanation is presented to me.
I fully concur that personal chit chat is innapropriate on a thread whatever the topic but here I'm simply asking why one poster is given different treatment to another and why nobody else is pointing out the same inconsistency.
Edit: Why is it that you wish to help the admins in this way? Aren't you curious why one picture was removed and another left in place? From what I know of you I would have thought fairness was of some importance to you so what's the score here?
I'm confused. You're not admin but you were able to unpublish someone's post? Is this something regular forum users can do?
I've got some moderator privileges. I help out with removing spam and such, edit library articles etc. (before that I used to publish a lot of library articles, original translations and news pieces). I don't know how many posters have such privileges, but there are some.
Edit: Why is it that you wish to help the admins in this way? Aren't you curious why one picture was removed and another left in place? From what I know of you I would have thought fairness was of some importance to you so what's the score here?
Quite a lot of FV and RM's posts I just skimmed and skipped; the images that were posted I didn't even bother looking at. In most cases I would never unpublish stuff unless it's spam, but on a thread about sexism and racism that I found to be quite interesting and also something I could learn from, I just wanted to get all the bs out of the way. What I suspect will happen, however, is that all the discussion will now take place here.
Now that I've taken a look at that thread again, sure. It's strange that RM's image was left up and not objective. But so what; the thread is fucking derailed and that's what pissed me off to begin with. This he said, she said stuff is so tedious. And it happens all the time.
Oh, I don't know. You don't care about consistency, I do. Who's right? Or wrong?
I guess the difference here is that you think discussions on inconsistency detract from the subject being discussed where as I think that inconsistency makes a mockery of that subject as it removes a sense of trust in the honesty of those taking part.
That's how I honestly feel and for all my tomfoolery this is something that matters to me and strongly affects my view of the discussion itself. Maybe that makes me a pedantic dick or maybe it means that I find principle a rare but important thing.
Hopefully that's my last word but I sincerely hope it isn't the last word.
I've got some moderator privileges. I help out with removing spam and such, edit library articles etc. (before that I used to publish a lot of library articles, original translations and news pieces). I don't know how many posters have such privileges, but there are some.
I guess the difference here is that you think discussions on inconsistency detract from the subject being discussed where as I think that inconsistency makes a mockery of that subject as it removes a sense of trust in the honesty of those taking part.
That's how I honestly feel and for all my tomfoolery this is something that matters to me and strongly affects my view of the discussion itself
That's fine. I do also care about consistency, but if I were so pissed off about it, I'd start another thread about it. There is this wonderful thing the web has enabled: linking. The reason why I am pissed off about the microagression thread in particular was that I thought the discussion was actually getting somewhere. Had it been a thread on the Marxist LTV, I couldn't have given two shits (even though, those are threads I tend to post heavily in).
I feel threads going off topic are almost inevitable. As a discussion develops different aspects are explored. Because this happens in a way where these aspects are mixed together and appear as a linear progression, though are in fact a product of time laps, it becomes a pick ‘n’ mix. People find themselves responding to what they consider to be inappropriate examples/metaphors, ill-considered remarks, lapses of logic, etc.
I do not envy a moderator on this site. Unlike a referee in a game of football they are allowed to kick the ball – so are open to a charge of bias (which of course a soccer ref could have as well). The latest example of someone on this site being shown a yellow card prompts the question, why were both offenders not given the same warning. I would suggest two possible reasons. One party was known as a problem player and also talked back to the ref.
This fuss arose from a dispute opaque and irrelevant to most readers/players. I suggest the guilty parties get their managers to broker a reconciliation.
I don't think we have a problem player. What we have is someone that's a bad fit for the socially pedestrian culture often on display here. With that in mind My suggestion is that a bit of acceptance and fair mindedness be put into practice by those to whom integrity has some value and the remaining disengenuous shitbags go and fuck themselves.
Noah #17 ‘I don’t think we have a problem player.’
You may well be correct, though I think it fair to say, as you observed on the other thread (post #106) the party tends to rub people up the wrong way. If you’re correct that there is often a pedestrian culture on libcom, then (deliberately?) rubbing people up is only descending to another level (all can be guilty of this trait).
I think people see the same thing in different ways and being condescending is not helpful. To describe posters as ‘disingenuous’ is not offering the acceptance and fairmindedness you value. It’s all about perception of other people, and unfortunately we cannot enter our own field of vision.
A very old joke:
The kilties were marching down the Broomielaw, in Glasgow. A woman cries out, “There’s our Jimmie, an’ he’s the only b***er in step!”
That is a brilliant joke and demonstrates your point perfectly. I still have my issues though.
I'm certain that FV sometimes intentionally rub people up the way but the point I'm making is that mostly he doesn't do it purposely and when he does it's not surprising considering the constant harrranging he gets for simply communicating his thoughts in a certain way, a way that is perfectly natural to him and shouldn't be subject to such scrutiny. But even that isn't the broader and more important point I'm making here, namely, that inconsistency and dishonesty should not be such an accepted part of the discourse on here. it really is incongruous to the principles that I thought we were about.
As for my accusation of disengenuousness I see a big difference between calling out shifty pea and shell work and giving someone a fair go regardless of whether you like them or not. With FV as an example, regardless of what position he takes there is very often someone there to pick him to pieces and bring up other topics as a means of getting at him and there is another well liked and respected(by me as well) poster who only has to fart on a thread and the up votes hit double figures in no time. This would appear to be because people on here are subject to groupthink, clickyness and a desire to fit in with the general consensus, if not of opinion but rather what constitutes an acceptable personality. What a fucking bore and what a fucking let down.
I'm sure this will all get written off as a load of old waffle by the majority but that's no surprise as the majority seem to care not one whit for fair play unless it suits them at the time.
This fuss arose from a dispute opaque and irrelevant to most readers/players.
It's not that opaque. It arose from the kind of thoughtless click and send mentality that web entity RM was criticising in its post #84 of that thread. That post seemed to me riddled with logical inconsistency whose source was a false dichotomy – that you can’t draw universal conclusions from local perspectives - leading to the same sort of relativism that certain interpretations of intersectionality as sectarianism lead to, and which has produced the idle chatter about ‘narratives’ that blots out reality. In other words, I thought that, since we were on the subject, I’d point out that from what it had posted in #84, it seemed as though entity RM’s position was not logically dissimilar to the very thing it was criticising, so that those clickers who upped post #84 were themselves engaging in the self-same activity RM had been bemoaning in that post. This didn’t seem irrelevant to the ongoing discussion so I asked if this was indeed the case and was told in reply:
Red Marriot
I think by drawing that ‘conclusion’ from what I’ve said you’re just using my statement as a peg to hang one of your pet topics onto so as to expound a concept.
Followed by the cool, marble-like clarity of
Red Marriot
There are particularities of experience that have varying relationship to more generalised and universal experience – I wasn’t making any greater absolute universal claims or philosophical laws than that (which are maybe what you’re searching for), as I think I clearly expressed… My understanding is that part of the appeal of privilege theory, intersectionality etc is to assert the particularity of particular social group experience and demand that they’re not subsumed and diluted within universal abstractions such as ‘working class’.
Complaining about a lack of clarity on my part, RM then posted this:
Red Marriot
Quote:
Using this standard of representation, does ‘micro-aggression’ reflect the fact that it is concerned with an explication of injustice and inequality? Is it an advance from a less to a more exact expression of the same concept? Is it just ‘crap’ or does it express something new?
I don’t think you’ve really defined the “standard of representation” you want to introduce as a measure so won’t comment. But the way you’re pursuing and presenting this debate – presumably, your use of language is to try to express meaningful concepts – doesn’t, to me, express the clarity you seek in others and so doesn’t incline me to carry on with it. Thank you and goodnight.
To clarify I responded with:
factvalue
The idea is that if we came to recognize that the concepts we were currently using for thinking about a subject like inequality or injustice may no longer be adequate, then taking the view that we should aim to describe concepts as we find them, and that measures we adopt should not be more precise than the concepts they represent, if one of the things we already know implicitly about the concept of inequality is that it is inherently imprecise and resists simple rank ordering, then the measure we should provide for it should not impose some strict ranking, but if it is to describe inequality accurately in an assessment of inequality, it should preserve its inherent ambiguity i.e. accuracy of description in assessments of inequality is to be distinguished from unambiguous, fully ranked claims and assertions. I was asking if ‘micro-aggression’ lives up to such a measure if adopted.
Love you RM! Bye-bye!! Bye!!
and as a result was judged to be
Red Marriot
spouting a lot of imprecise waffle at great length that is not inspiring to reply to.
There’s no pleasing some entities.
So Noah, why would you want to be popular in a web space like this? With so much emotional impoverishment and unconsciousness passing for honest to goodness revolutionary praxis, when we’re still so obviously deep in prehistory, what does it matter?
Popularity is neither here nor there. I'm simply trying to make sense of a reactionary culture that does nothing to further the cause of libertarian communism which I always imagined to be the purpose of this site. I use you as an example in my posts because;
A. You have been the one subject to the inconsistency in this case
B. You're a good example generally
3. However 'deep in prehistory' you do or don't think we are, you do post here and presumably think that there is some purpose in participating
I'm not that bothered about being popular(which is just as wel!) but I don't deny I'd rather be liked than not, unless of course it means a compromise of integrity.
I'm just glad Noah is back, and looks like he hasn't lost anything of his stride.
Well thanks, my stride was never in question though. Just as well, despite today's news about head transplants I don't think they've mastered stride transplants yet!
On the question as to why the difference in treatment, it's basically because Factvalue began being condescending and pointscoring, and more importantly he was already on a warning for the same kind of disruptive behaviour on many previous occasions
I'm just glad Noah is back, and looks like he hasn't lost anything of his stride.
Well thanks, my stride was never in question though. Just as well, despite today's news about head transplants I don't think they've mastered stride transplants yet!
Any comment on the matter at hand comrade S?
Actually not......although gratified that Steven is being his usual.........Steven. Wouldn't want him to change... not ever. Keep the corn cob firmly place, S.
So there we have it. FV, if you can hear me there from your position on the naughty step, the reason you got different treatment is that you're a bad bad boy. To make things clearer I think we should all get marked for our behaviour and at the end of each week get an appraisal from our appointed admin. So downmarks for being tedious, a bit different, too cheeky, having an interest in morality or because your admin just happens to not like you very much. Upmarks for being normal, cold hearted, passionless and liking The Clash. Of course there are variations such as if you're one of the popular kids you get upmarked for everything including all of the naughty things above and especially, pulling the ears of those weirdo bad boys. Don't forget everyone, that if you tow the line you might get to stand in the lunch queue with those popular kids. Oh my! Think what a cred boost that will be. You might even finally get to be normal like everyone else!
So downmarks for being tedious, a bit different, too cheeky, having an interest in morality or because your admin just happens to not like you very much. Upmarks for being normal, cold hearted, passionless and liking The Clash.
And that behavior would be despicable and a cause worth your passion Noah, except that you left one tiny, little "motheaten" trait off your list of reasons why FV is 'persecuted.' This is the genesis of most of the antipathy toward him/her around libcom*, and not the vapid, excruciatingly tedious content you accurately describe.
That FV regularly and quite intentionally derails many threads of interest into the same mundane argument that became unreadable 500 posts ago in 5 different threads is indeed an incredibly annoying behavior. It's counter-productive, most likely drives people away from discussion, and does FV no favors in earning any 'social capital' around here.
That FV--given ample opportunity to clarify their positions, more benefit of doubt than they've earned, but continues to hold positions that charitably can be described as trivializing anti-Semitism and engaging in anti-Semitic tropes--has been tolerated, in any way, on a libertarian communist website for this long is something that is beyond my understanding. This behavior is what is anti-communist in this situation and not others' reaction to FV's tedium.
Noah, I don't doubt your sincerity, but I think you've hitched yourself to the wrong horse this time.
I read your post several times and recognise the validity of a number of your observations. However attempting to correct other posters on a thread is a thankless task. Better just to state your own point of view and leave it at that. It may be impossible not to be influence by the up and down votes though they may be totally misleading. Why some people vote could have several motivations including wishing to be with the in-crowd, mischief making, or agreeing/disagreeing. Possibly at times a mix of all three. I am resisting giving an example of my own reaction to some posts, my own and other peoples, as I’m obviously prejudiced.
To me the bottom line (to coin a phrase) is that libcom presents an open window to the world to propagate libertarian communist ideas and discuss a range of topics and opinions. Popularity contests, personalities and bickering (though perhaps unavoidable) is totally irrelevant to any onlooker and not worth bothering about.
So downmarks for being tedious, a bit different, too cheeky, having an interest in morality or because your admin just happens to not like you very much. Upmarks for being normal, cold hearted, passionless and liking The Clash.
And that behavior would be despicable and a cause worth your passion Noah, except that you left one tiny, little "motheaten" trait off your list of reasons why FV is 'persecuted.' This is the genesis of most of the antipathy toward him/her around libcom*, and not the vapid, excruciatingly tedious content you accurately describe.
That FV regularly and quite intentionally derails many threads of interest into the same mundane argument that became unreadable 500 posts ago in 5 different threads is indeed an incredibly annoying behavior. It's counter-productive, most likely drives people away from discussion, and does FV no favors in earning any 'social capital' around here.
That FV--given ample opportunity to clarify their positions, more benefit of doubt than they've earned, but continues to hold positions that charitably can be described as trivializing anti-Semitism and engaging in anti-Semitic tropes--has been tolerated, in any way, on a libertarian communist website for this long is something that is beyond my understanding. This behavior is what is anti-communist in this situation and not others' reaction to FV's tedium.
Noah, I don't doubt your sincerity, but I think you've hitched yourself to the wrong horse this time.
*speaking only for myself here.
On tedium, see my comment above but I think you could probably go on a lecture tour with that as your title, maybe using slides to accompany that agonisingly pointless little autobiography you vomited up for our delectation a while back, that was a real libcom lowpoint, perhaps barking out the same shrill pre-conscious accusations over and over as you've yet again treated us to above, which would certainly be convenient if correct except that I've been 'unpopular' with the in-entities round here for a lot longer than that (where have you been little one?) - I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I wasn't, although there's no evidence that most of these entities are even bipedal let alone libertarian communist revolutionaries. So just you keep on dancing from foot to foot and shaking your thin little fist if it pleases you, whoever or whatever you are.
It seems to me that the very structure of libcom forums (and similar places) almost create a role-waiting-to-be-occupied for certain personality types; people whose insecurities they attempt to hide behind aggression, competition, arrogance & cliquey ‘humour’. Note that the short fuse usually goes off soon after they can’t get quick agreement with their views and/or any doubt is shown as to their correctness. One of the earlier performances in similar vein; http://libcom.org/forums/general/intellectual-dishonesty-01052016
The self-justification for this is that they’re supposedly more radical, more willing to push the boundaries than the rest of us sheepish flock or ‘herd’. So inevitably they paint themselves as maverick outlaws and claim that’s why they’re supposedly unfairly treated by ‘the herd’ – ie, all those who criticise the content of their statements and, when necessary, how they say it. The possibility that the content and how it’s expressed simply isn’t as great as they like to think; that the criticism may be valid; that there are better & worse, more & less mature and sociable ways of responding to disagreement etc don’t seem to be taken into account. In their circular ‘logic’ this becomes ‘if we’re being slagged it’s cos they resent the truth we’ve exposed about them and can’t tolerate our radical, challenging boundary-pushing’ – so any criticism becomes validation for these martyrs of the conservatism they so bravely struggle against;
NF
I don't think we have a problem player. What we have is someone that's a bad fit for the socially pedestrian culture often on display here. With that in mind My suggestion is that a bit of acceptance and fair mindedness be put into practice by those to whom integrity has some value and the remaining disengenuous shitbags go and fuck theirselves.
We see predictable behaviour patterns; tipping back & forth between aggression & humour. Firstly – a proposition posted as a vehicle for approval. And when they’ve replaced the failed search for acceptance of their views with angry antagonism this leads on to the aggressive/sarcastic ‘aren’t we cool and ironically amusing’ performance - as a barrier to block any further serious consideration of what others say and as a message to others of the non-worth of any criticism. We prob all have a bit of these traits in us but most are able to see – rather than wearing it as a badge of pride - the desirability of not letting such things dominate our behaviour.
This creates a recurring problem for the forums as a whole; eg, by commenting at all am I here contributing to perpetuating what I criticise? Maybe, but that’s the Catch-22. Threads are degenerated into personalised antagonism – and people are left with few options but to either suffer silently the derailing of the selfish/insecure or call them out on it and so feed the flames. Win-win for the attention seekers and tedious lose-lose for the rest.
startling how im the only person on this site with an actual human soul. you would think the other guys on here have one, but no— wint (@dril) September 10, 2015
sometimes it seems like i'm the only person who cares about, intelligence-related things, on the entire online.— wint (@dril) August 16, 2014
Blimey RM, I didn't know your beef was so deep seated, in fact I didn't know there was any beef at all.
Anyways, I guess there only one thing for it - a sarcastic, snarky but decently humorous response to your excellent critique. So...
Hey, have you been talking to my shrink? If not your venture into my psyche is breathtakingly similar to hers, although she seems to think it's all connected to my desire to wear ladies knickers which I guess you have too delicate and chivalrous sensibilities to mention?
After she shared her analysis I asked the question could it not be that I happen to value different things to many people and don't mind exposing myself to their ridicule and giving considerably better than I get but she said no, it's definitely because you want to wear ladies knickers. So I guess you're right, I'm an insecure asshole.
Anyhow, I am trying and the 2 prescriptions she issued, one for an anti-psychotic and another for a visit to Matks and Spencer's ladies underwear department to buy a selection of pantygirdles are starting to work. Once they kick in properly we can visit the boring bastard club together. The start of a beautiful friendship. xxx
Edit: I've just been soundly told off by a friend for making a transphobic post so to put some context to this;
I did actually tell my shrink a long time ago that I wanted to wear ladies underwear. This was to fuck with her as I was not a voluntary patient. The absurdity was not whether or not I wanted to wear such underwear(I didn't) but that my shrink asked me about nothing else in all our sessions after I told her and spewed out such reactionary nonsense as 'latent homosexual tendencies' etc.
I was actually prompted to write this post though by the fact that my partner was shopping on Amazon for some pregnancy knickers for me to wear(which is definitely absurd ) to help with the ascites(fluid retention) I am currently dealing with. Right now I have around 7 litres of fluid trapped in my abdominal cavity which is extremely uncomfortable and restrictive.
So I was using my personal experience to make a joke rather than making any comment about trans men. That said, I'm sorry if I offended anyone.
This creates a recurring problem for the forums as a whole; eg, by commenting at all am I here contributing to perpetuating what I criticise? Maybe, but that’s the Catch-22. Threads are degenerated into personalised antagonism – and people are left with few options but to either suffer silently the derailing of the selfish/insecure or call them out on it and so feed the flames. Win-win for the attention seekers and tedious lose-lose for the rest.
I keep hoping that excruciating 'This' bullshit will die out and then FUCK there it is again AAARGH!! The trouble with the mind-bogglingly unconscious 'we're trying to have an in-depth discussion' gambit is that as you seriously start trying to have one it's exactly the people attempting this ploy who run for the hills spitting abuse over their shoulders and refusing to budge from their homely little bunkers.
But while there are serious people posting on here, the root of the problem, the true reason there's little point even attempting to have a really deep discussion with most of the web-entities hereabouts, is that libcom was founded by a matey clique of backslappers, and principled understanding is really only the surface appearance, formed by the sloshing back and forth and round and round of an agreed vocabulary and vague set of stances passing for insights, between entities known only to each other who strut around posing as revolutionaries. If principle had anything to do with it, why the voting, why the flagrant double standards, why Aufhebengate, for fuck sake?
Unfortunately there is no International to take one's case to concerning the daily slanders which go on in this strange little club, so as I said earlier Noah, what's the point? There can be some decent people contributing so all you can do is just wait around for them to show up occasionally and, since it's a club, why not have a drink?
Great knickers btw way comrade, lovely cut, nice firm buttocks for a man your age.
That FV--given ample opportunity to clarify their positions, more benefit of doubt than they've earned, but continues to hold positions that charitably can be described as trivializing anti-Semitism and engaging in anti-Semitic tropes--has been tolerated, in any way, on a libertarian communist website for this long is something that is beyond my understanding. This behavior is what is anti-communist in this situation and not others' reaction to FV's tedium.
I must admit I haven't seen evidence of this "anti-Semitism", and I don't think any of the other admins have either, could you give us a link?
That FV--given ample opportunity to clarify their positions, more benefit of doubt than they've earned, but continues to hold positions that charitably can be described as trivializing anti-Semitism and engaging in anti-Semitic tropes--has been tolerated, in any way, on a libertarian communist website for this long is something that is beyond my understanding. This behavior is what is anti-communist in this situation and not others' reaction to FV's tedium.
I must admit I haven't seen evidence of this "anti-Semitism", and I don't think any of the other admins have either, could you give us a link?
Hang on, this is blatantly false, not because I'm an anti-Semite, since I'm not, but because admin-entity Ed (who I was disagreeing with, imagine that) was one of the entities on the 'Is anti-Zionism anti-Semitic?' thread who was suggesting that I was engaging in 'anti-Semitic tropes' so surely some appropriate form of construal can be found if necessary?
Why are you calling people entities? It's such a pointlessly snide little insult. I feel that it's pointing out the obvious but if you don't want to hang out with the proto-human, lower level of consciousness, unprincipled bunch of lumpen idiots that we are, why do you bother showing up? It clearly brings you no joy.
BRB, just typing up the agenda from the monthly Libcom Groupthink Meeting, where we set out the principles that we all religiously adhere to and delegate the Head Sheep of the Month who the rest of the group needs to follow.
The 'entity' thing isn't an insult, just a statement of fact which comes both from things you have said in the past about posting on here, and from entity RM's post #84 on the micro-aggression thread
Red Marriott
And that’s to leave aside the often extreme divorce between many people’s offline and online personalities and behaviour – the gap often not being a positive thing...
and as I said above, there are some serious-minded, objective people who post, so it's a matter of tuning out the word golf. Could I ask that a copy of the minutes of that meeting be passed from the Head Rhetorician to the minister in charge of distortion and caricature?
BRB, just typing up the agenda from the monthly Libcom Groupthink Meeting, where we set out the principles that we all religiously adhere to and delegate the Head Sheep of the Month who the rest of the group needs to follow.
Hehehe, comedy gold. Come on Fleur, we need to team up and hit the comedy circuit, we'll smash it. The anarchy Cannon and Ball. Fuck whether we agree or not, let's just make some dollar! You know it makes sense!!!
Ah, Fleur beat me to it with the groupthink! (I'll wear that as a badge of honor...unlike Noah's knickers. Which, btw, is the name of my new band.)
Am I to be constantly publicly humiliated? I dragged myself out to a DJing job last night and as I ambled through the crowd of 20somethings with my walking stick some geezer pointed at my record box and hollers out 'what you got in there grandad, Elvis Presley? Cheeky fucker! I would have battered him but I couldn't batter a bit of fish at the moment(not that UV would let me be involved in the death of a fish!)
At the risk of bumping a thread that appears to have died down, Steven. asked for examples of factvalue's problematic posts. I haven't had the time until now to collate a list
But really quickly this:
factvalue
not because I'm an anti-semite, since I'm not
To my memory is one of the 1st remotely anti- racist declarations FV has made on the topic of anti-Semitism. This is progress. To FV's credit, they also did, at one point state that if Israel ceased being of strategic importance, the US would drop it's support. Unfortunately, these are the only two examples I can give of a positive POV in FV's posts on the matter.
In fairness to admins, the thread in question was an absolute cesspool, and included Zeroisnowhere's apparent outing as having fash sympathies. So given all of that, it would be easy to over look FV's much more subtle use of questionable language.
No one needs a relitigation of that thread, so I will attempt to describe the contents of FV's posts as neutrally as i can muster. Obviously, I have a strong POV on the matter, so being objective is probably impossible. So, all that said, FV if you feel my summary misrepresents your positions, please correct the record.
On a couple of occasions, I have also included posts from others on here because I feel their contributions effectively demonstrate why FV's assertions are seriously problematic.
From the Is Anti-Zionism Anti-Semitic thread:
Post # 140, 142, 144
FV suggests anti-semitism is caused by Israel's actions
Post # 192
FV posts a picture of native american traditional garb (maybe it's Village People?), seemingly attempting to be funny, saying this is why Native American struggles aren't taken seriously.
Post #250
In a discussion about the use of the phrase 'Israel's tentacles are everywhere,' FV suggests there could be other possible explanations of the phrase which are not anti-Semitic.
Post #252
FV seems to equate the state of Israel with all Jews. FV also appears to be saying most Jews support ethnic cleansing.
Post # 257
- seems to suggest anti-Semitism isn't really a problem, and favorably quoted someone who states that Jewish people have a sense of ethnic superiority. FV also states that Jews are generally rich and powerful.
Post #260
S Artesian, who had previously been arguing a similar position as FV, feels FV crossed a line and presents a very effective take-down of FV's positions
Post #261
FV appears to suggest Jews are rich.
Post #263
FV states all (or was it most?) Jews support Israel
Post #265
Reddebrek presents a list summarizing FV's points and makes an effective argument as to why this slips into the territory of anti-Semitism.
Post #271
FV appears to suggest most modern anti-Semitism is a myth.
Post #279
FV appears to be saying that Israel's attrocities implicate Jews, generally.
Post #286
FV states it is nonsense to say Jews are targeted for murder. FV also states the following:
1) Most Jews are Zionists or support Zionism
2) Jews have an outsized influence per capita
3) Anti-semitism isn't racism
Post #327
FV states there is not a scrap of evidence that anti-semitism is a major problem
Post #332
FV states that the claim that anti-semitism is on the rise is Zionist propaganda--and it is ludicrous to claim there is a worrying rise in anti-semitism in the Western World. FV also states that rising anti-semitism is impossible (unlikely?) in a society in which Jews are so successful.
Post #338
FV states that 90-95% of the Israeli population supports every massacre committed by the Israeli state. FV also suggests that US Embassies are ratcheting up accusations of anti-Semitism.
.
.
.
Phew, I feel like I need several back-to-back showers after wading through that thread again. Apologies that I didn't link to each post, but I'm on my phone and it would have been very difficult.
Yeah, there's no need for me to correct 'the record' because this isn't the record, it's more of a stuck record, a skewed recording of 'the record' on high bias. The record is there on the thread along with the context so let me know if you have anything objectively, unequivocally demonstrating anti-Semitism - as opposed to anti-Zionism - whenever you get to a bigger keyboard, unless you're alleging something more 'subtle' (or you're a mind-reader) in which case you're going to have to explain exactly what you mean and make your case much more fully, put the leg-work in and stop making excuses about hardware etc.. If you do manage that (because you haven't so far), it may take some time for me to reply because work is very busy at the moment. Good luck!
At the risk of bumping a thread that appears to have died down, Steven. asked for examples of factvalue's problematic posts. I haven't had the time until now to collate a list
But really quickly this:
factvalue
not because I'm an anti-semite, since I'm not
To my memory is one of the 1st remotely anti- racist declarations FV has made on the topic of anti-Semitism. This is progress. To FV's credit, they also did, at one point state that if Israel ceased being of strategic importance, the US would drop it's support. Unfortunately, these are the only two examples I can give of a positive POV in FV's posts on the matter.
In fairness to admins, the thread in question was an absolute cesspool, and included Zeroisnowhere's apparent outing as having fash sympathies. So given all of that, it would be easy to over look FV's much more subtle use of questionable language.
No one needs a relitigation of that thread, so I will attempt to describe the contents of FV's posts as neutrally as i can muster. Obviously, I have a strong POV on the matter, so being objective is probably impossible. So, all that said, FV if you feel my summary misrepresents your positions, please correct the record.
On a couple of occasions, I have also included posts from others on here because I feel their contributions effectively demonstrate why FV's assertions are seriously problematic.
From the Is Anti-Zionism Anti-Semitic thread:
Post # 140, 142, 144
FV suggests anti-semitism is caused by Israel's actions
Post # 192
FV posts a picture of native american traditional garb (maybe it's Village People?), seemingly attempting to be funny, saying this is why Native American struggles aren't taken seriously.
Post #250
In a discussion about the use of the phrase 'Israel's tentacles are everywhere,' FV suggests there could be other possible explanations of the phrase which are not anti-Semitic.
Post #252
FV seems to equate the state of Israel with all Jews. FV also appears to be saying most Jews support ethnic cleansing.
Post # 257
- seems to suggest anti-Semitism isn't really a problem, and favorably quoted someone who states that Jewish people have a sense of ethnic superiority. FV also states that Jews are generally rich and powerful.
Post #260
S Artesian, who had previously been arguing a similar position as FV, feels FV crossed a line and presents a very effective take-down of FV's positions
Post #261
FV appears to suggest Jews are rich.
Post #263
FV states all (or was it most?) Jews support Israel
Post #265
Reddebrek presents a list summarizing FV's points and makes an effective argument as to why this slips into the territory of anti-Semitism.
Post #271
FV appears to suggest most modern anti-Semitism is a myth.
Post #279
FV appears to be saying that Israel's attrocities implicate Jews, generally.
Post #286
FV states it is nonsense to say Jews are targeted for murder. FV also states the following:
1) Most Jews are Zionists or support Zionism
2) Jews have an outsized influence per capita
3) Anti-semitism isn't racism
Post #327
FV states there is not a scrap of evidence that anti-semitism is a major problem
Post #332
FV states that the claim that anti-semitism is on the rise is Zionist propaganda--and it is ludicrous to claim there is a worrying rise in anti-semitism in the Western World. FV also states that rising anti-semitism is impossible (unlikely?) in a society in which Jews are so successful.
Post #338
FV states that 90-95% of the Israeli population supports every massacre committed by the Israeli state. FV also suggests that US Embassies are ratcheting up accusations of anti-Semitism.
Phew, I feel like I need several back-to-back showers after wading through that thread again. Apologies that I didn't link to each post, but I'm on my phone and it would have been very difficult.
Yeah, well maybe you should have stayed under the water longer, since you seem to attack FV as being anti-semitic for holding exactly the same position EDIT: on "blow back" as the well known anti-anti-semite Ed:
Ed post 248
As an interesting aside, I think factvalue's point about "genuine anti-semitism" rising alongside massacre by the state of Israel is a fair assumption (though obv needs verifying with stats). I would agree that much anti-semitism is driven these days by the very real atrocities committed by Israel. But then this is basically my point: there does exist "genuine anti-semitism" in the pro-Palestine movement; surely our goal is to challenge (and, in time, defeat) it?
Or maybe you should use more cold water so you might clearly understand FV's post 263, where he is citing Ed as the source for the "most Jews support Israel" assertion and is using that assertion to make distinctions among Zionism, anti-zionism, and anti-semitism, and where, apparently invisible to you, FV clearly states his opposition to anti-semitism.
Or maybe no water at all so you might see the distinction between being anti-semitic, and arguing that anti-semitism is not a major threat in the Western world. The former being "problematic"-- the latter being a question of evaluation and not "problematic" or indicative of anti-semitism.
Oh, and for the record, my "takedown" in post 260 had nothing to do with crossing some kind of line, but simply that the information FV provided is absolutely irrelevant to the issue of whether or not anti-zionism is anti-semitic, or can/does some anti-zionism contain/conceal/succor anti-semitism. Guess you missed that part, except it wasn't "part," it was the ganze megillah, as we say in Yiddish.
But hey, let's not bring that whole thread again. Let's only bring up the parts that one party finds "problematic," which problem boils down to "If you don't think anti-semitism is a major major persistent persistent threat, then that in itself is proof that you must be anti-semitic."
Personally, not that it matters, I find the distortion you traffic in problematic.
Nice post S. Still, it's a popular sport so I think I'll sling some mud at FV too. Did you know he once chose a crumpet instead of a bagel? How much more proof do you want?
Honestly, what a fucking shit pool this is.
Note: edited to stay on topic. I don't want my balls cut off for that too.
So, I have literally no intention of getting drawn back into this but, S Artesian, if you say this:
you seem to attack FV as being anti-semitic for holding exactly the same positions as the well known anti-anti-semite Ed
Then you are guilty of exactly the same kind of distortion you accuse jesuithitsquad of (namely, a tactical omission of some of FV's more ambiguous statements)..
FWIW, no, I don't think FV hates Jews. But I do think they lack concern about anti-semitism (charitably, I'd say perhaps as a response to Zionists over-egging the anti-semitic cake) and sometimes strays into the territory of argumentation that leads to anti-semitic conclusions..
I find it interesting that the attention so far from some has focused on factvalue's less controversial comments instead of addressing--head-on--the more problematic remarks. Out of the 400 some odd posts I attempted to hit the most important points. If others feel there are posts that should have been included, knock yourself out--have at it!
Certain concepts like 'blow-back' aren't particularly controversial in and of themselves, but they are part of the larger conversation. So, when someone like Ed talks about blow-back it is a completely different thing than when factvalue talks about it, given the context of all of their other comments.
As I said, factvalue's welcome to point out any distortions they feel I may have made, but it seems as if they're disinterested in doing that. Instead, telling me to 'do the work' as if rereading that thread and summarizing their posts was anything other than a time consuming shitshow.
SA in the meta anti-Semitism thread, libcom managerialism or what the fuck ever, you described your intervention thusly. .
I challenged fv, as did others, on his assessments and links of "disproportional Jewish representation."
whether your objection was about irrelevance or not makes no difference. It doesn't change the fact that the notion of disproportional Jewish influence is essentially the basis of every single anti-semitic trope in history.
Was fv's usage of this and other tropes intentional? Only fv can answer that. When I challenged fv about the tentacles trope, also in the meta thread, factvalue implied they were aware of it, so it's clearly not a case of ignorance.
At every single opportunity to clarify, fv refuses. It's like I've said before, if a comrade says 'hey, I'm not really cool with the way that sounds,' the appropriate thing to do is to take a step back, and explain how/why what you meant to say had been misinterpreted, that the offense was unintentional and apologize for your part in the misunderstanding. But fv always just doubles down and completely refuses to engage constructively.
Now, does that make them an anti-semite? No, not in and of itself. But it sure as fuck makes them a bad communist and an unpleasant human being, at least online.
I've a touch more time now, so I will address a few specific things. .
factvalue
The record is there on the thread along with the context so let me know if you have anything objectively, unequivocally demonstrating anti-Semitism - as opposed to anti-Zionism -
I've never once accused you of being anti-Semitic. I've consistently said that you are jesuithitsquad
trivializing anti-Semitism and engaging in anti-Semitic tropes
and I've yet to see a single, credible reason presented why this assessment is wrong. I do think I agree with Ed's assertion that it's likely you've just bent the stick too far the other way in reaction to Zionist zeal, but I don't know. You know why I don't know? Because you won't say.
Tell us why you think I'm wrong. I'd love to be, honestly. I can't, for the life of me, understand why you won't make a few, simple declarative statements clarifying your POV unless: a) are a seriously stubborn motherfucker b) you suffer from an anti-social personality disorder (which online is pretty much indistinguishable from (a) or c) you really do hold some unfortunate views on the topic.
And before anyone pipes in with a "have you stopped beating your wife?" analogy, when one or two people misunderstand me, it's might be their fault; when dozens misunderstand me, there's clearly something wrong with either what I'm saying or how I'm saying it.
SA
But hey, let's not bring that whole thread again. Let's only bring up the parts that one party finds "problematic," which problem boils down to "If you don't think anti-semitism is a major major persistent persistent threat, then that in itself is proof that you must be anti-semitic."
I'm sorry SA--can you direct me to posts in that thread where other people are engaging in questionable behavior? (Aside from zeroisnowhere). Or is your false equivalency just a poorly used rhetorical device attempting to minimize the opinions of the many people who found problems with factvalue's posts?
and this part
"If you don't think anti-semitism is a major major persistent persistent threat, then that in itself is proof that you must be anti-semitic."
is just lazy and beneath you. It's actually very reminiscent of factvalue's sophomoric analysis masquerading as 'deep thoughts.' You can do better than this strawman.
SA
Or maybe you should use more cold water so you might clearly understand FV's post 263, where he is citing Ed as the source for the "most Jews support Israel" assertion and is using that assertion to make distinctions among Zionism, anti-zionism, and anti-semitism, and where, apparently invisible to you, FV clearly states his opposition to anti-semitism.
Here is factvalue's post #263 in it's entirety:
factvalue
Ed has already said that internationally Jews overwhelmingly support zionism. What does he mean by zionism? What do you mean? Do you mean that Israel has a right to exist within its pre-June 1967 borders in accord with e.g. UN 242? Then I am a zionist. Do you mean that the original ethnic cleansing of the population of Palestine was fine? Then I am anti-zionist. Do you mean that zionism as actually occurring state terrorism currently being practised by the state of Israel in the region is perfectly fine? Then I'm anti-zionist. Do you mean that there should exist a religious, racist state anywhere? I'm anti- that. Does this mean I'm anti-semitic?
Please point to the part where "FV clearly states his opposition to anti-semitism," because it is, in fact, invisible to me.
It was Steven post #49, who asked you for evidence:
‘jesuithitsquad wrote:
That FV--given ample opportunity to clarify their positions, more benefit of doubt than they've earned, but continues to hold positions that charitably can be described as trivializing anti-Semitism and engaging in anti-Semitic tropes--has been tolerated, in any way, on a libertarian communist website for this long is something that is beyond my understanding. This behavior is what is anti-communist in this situation and not others' reaction to FV's tedium.
I must admit I haven't seen evidence of this "anti-Semitism", and I don't think any of the other admins have either, could you give us a link?’
I agree with Ed #63 that FV posts can appear to lack concern about anti-Semitism. He’s careless or oblivious about how others may read his opinions. Like some other posters here, if criticised FV will not give an inch. To me so far the ‘evidence’ is circumstantial rather than conclusive.
Jesuithitsquad #66: ‘So, when someone like Ed talks about blow-back it is a completely different thing than when factvalue talks about it, given the context of all of their other comments.’
Which proves to me FV may well be a bit of an oaf at times, as for the rest…
I'm sorry SA--can you direct me to posts in that thread where other people are engaging in questionable behavior? (Aside from zeroisnowhere). Or is your false equivalency just a poorly used rhetorical device attempting to minimize the opinions of the many people who found problems with factvalue's posts?
Can I point to posts where other people are engaging in "questionable behavior?" No-- because I don't think that anyone engaged in "questionable behavior." I think Zero engaged in outright anti-semitic remarks. I think FV was mistaken in several areas. But.....no "questionable behavior." Nothing that was "problematic." I despise euphemism. Euphemisms really are pointless when we're discussing questions of racism, anti-semitism.
Others saw "questionable behavior" all over the place. In fact, I was the poster boy for questionable behavior.
You produce a veritable scroll to make the point that you think FV is anti-semitic, and then to seal the deal, you claim you are not asserting FV is anti-semitic.
If that doesn't trigger a gag reflex, I don't know what will.
At first I thought this thread had strayed so far from the original, but all the hubbub about approximate anti-Semitism confirms that it is indeed genetically related to to the 'high minded' moral purism induced by academic/liberal identity politics and multiculturalism.
Euphemism is no doubt a part of it; instead of racist or stereotypical arguments which could be rejected and argued against, we have statements which are 'problematic' or 'micro-aggressions' and so on. We build the case against a person based on statements which can be viewed in a somewhat negative light, etc.
factvalue claims that other people in the thread that think anti-Semitism is an issue are conned by pro Israel organisations, he also spends a considerable amount of time "Holocaust industry" which has no relevance to the thread, but he apparently believes its vitally important to bring up when ever someone mentions anti-Semitism.
He claims here #229 that east European anti Semitism is motivated by being unjustly forced to pay for sized jewish businesses etc
I think that genuine spikes in anti-semitism occur concurrently with public revulsion with massacres carried out by the Jewish state and that Israel could prevent these by giving up both the massacres and the exclusivity (I'm none too fond of states and religions tbh). Another source of genuine anti-semitism in Europe has been the shakedown of Eastern Europe by the Holocaust industry of Jewish 'charities'.
though out the thread he refuses to acknowledge that anti Semitism has any existence interdependent of the actions of Israel/"Holocaust industry" post 243
SF - I think there are genuine intermittent rises in anti-semitism caused by massacres committed by the state of Israel, which atrocities are themselves being encouraged and enabled by Israel's connections with a destructive, right wing gang of war mongering, rich Jews in the US who like to destroy any chance of peace in Palestine and the rest of the region from their threatened bunkers in the Hamptons, Martha's Vineyard, Beverly Hills or Florida, and who have a vested interest in a holocaust industry that imprints death ('remembrance') deeply into the minds of Israel's young people, conditioning them to a paranoid, spartan, siege and conquest mentality in order to perpetuate a situation that they believe will accomplish their insane objectives and those of their ultra right wing allies in Israel, such as, most recently, a war with Iran.
As I wrote in post 229 'Another source of genuine anti-semitism in Europe has been the shakedown of Eastern Europe by the Holocaust industry of Jewish 'charities', run by the self-same rabid, right wing loonies, who are also responsible for concocting the cover of a 'new anti-semitism' within and somehow inherent to western countries (all modern socioeconomic and cultural indicators to the contrary notwithstanding) every time there is any heat on Israel. In other words, these bastards are not trying to root out anti-semitism, they have no interest in getting rid of it because they only exist to defend ultra right wing Israel at all cost and to line their pockets in a contemptible misuse of the Nazi holocaust.
If the actions of the Israeli state make a person want to collectively punish Jews, that person is probably already inclined to anti-semitism (or at least a dubious notion of collective racial guilt).
So the actions of the Israeli State could (probably) have no influence on how easily bigoted opinion could spread, or influence the less well-informed or intelligent, because of the discovery of the bigotry gene or something? Is the 'notion of collective racial guilt' dubious through being obviously illogical, or because besides being illogical it is based upon 'race', and particularly so since Judaism is a religion?
claims that people are only seeing anti Semitism because of being conned by the ADL etc post 250
Ed, something occurred to me upon reading your commentary around the "Zionists have their tentacles everywhere" 'trope', as you characterised it: bearing in mind what you said about the overwhelming support for zionism from Jews internationally, are Jews excluded from networks of power and privilege? And if they aren't but, on the contrary, are disproportionately well connected, as the leader of the ADL recently said regarding e.g. media and publishing, is yours the only possible interpretation of that statement, or was the statement merely an empirical observation? Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Stop the War or Galloway or any other Stalinist, but how much might you be responding to theatrical, choreographed foreboding propagated by the likes of the ADL that there's a holocaust lurking around every corner?
I don't know what factvalue actual thinks, but what he actually does is to deny anti Semitism.
he posted this immediately after someone got banned for saying hitler was right post 327
Anyway, there's not a single scrap of evidence to support the ludicrous claim that anti-Semitism poses a major threat in the Western world, so a large part of this thread has amounted to little more than people mistaking (bewilderingly ponderous) political posturing for political positions and I've totally lost interest. Good luck to you.
in the context of the rest of the thread its clear that his contribution was to attack any discussion of anti-Semitism and reduced it to, people reaction to bad stuff Israel did, people reaction to bad stuff Jewish charities did and lies by the ADL etc
This isn't really fair but I've been admitted to hospital and put in a ward of three. I've been told I have a 'life threatening' infection in my abdominal cavity, the guy in the bed next to me has just been taken to theatre for a combined liver and kidney transplant(now that's a biggy) and the guy next to him who has mental health problems and lives alone on benefits has been told he has untreatable cancer and the best the docs can do is pain relief. In this context the Internet head butting seems a bit silly.
Thanks. I'm ok, they're pretty sure they've caught it I time. I know my contribution to the debate hasn't been very serious and I've now massively decontextualised it but I guess you see what I mean, eh?
I couldn't agree more Noah. I've nothing like your situation to cope with but even being a bit snowed under at work has pushed this stupid shit underneath the bottom of my list, where it previously held pride of place.
Let me know if there's anything I can do mate, be thinking about you and hope it goes well - looking forward to seeing you at the bookfair. Love and solidarity brother.
Noah wrote: Steven
Noah
Noah, to help out the admins,
Noah, to help out the admins, I unpublished your post initially. I've now moved it here.
A serious question: do you always have to have the last word? I understand that desire, but sometimes it's just not very useful and in this particular case, you kept on with the derail even after being asked to post on another thread. I don't get it. It's not just you and FV derailing shit, but there are topics on certain threads where you should know better. It happens too much in those that deal with sexism and racism. Why is that the case? (and here, I am not just saying that you're the sole offender btw).
Khawaga wrote: Noah, to help
Khawaga
I'm confused. You're not admin but you were able to unpublish someone's post? Is this something regular forum users can do?
Thanks seahorse. The thing is
Thanks seahorse. The thing is though, the inconsistency, accusations, personal slagging and general double standards are displayed on that thread. Removing the discussion from it's context will, I feel, be a bit of a whitewash.
The very least that can be expected is an explanation of why RM's(admittedly very amusing) picture remains yet FV's hasn't. Of coarse though, it's difficult to explain personal prejudice and that's what the problem is. We don't have to like everyone but Libertarian communists should at least cut everyone the same amount of slack.
Objectivity is not a state of
Objectivity is not a state of mind but a continuing task that takes courage and practice. Objectivity is no guarantee that a point of view is true, but it's certainly better than the alternative.
Now to me this is all just internet goonery but with reference to what Noah wrote, if you want to judge for yourself whether or not the web entity known as 'Steven' has been exercising his objectivity muscles enough or whether he has even got himself off the couch, ask yourself why he allowed the image posted by the entity 'Red Marriot' to remain in the thread but removed this one:
factvalue
'And, and.. can we draw the same cartoon as last time dad?'
As for being tedious, my two year old finds non-perturbative quantum field theory tedious, but I really like it. So?
No, I really don't have to
No, I really don't have to have the last word at all. It's more that I'm persistent if I'm not even offered any sort of response to my question. I think my posting history shows that I'm more willing than most to put my hands up and review my position when a good argument or explanation is presented to me.
I fully concur that personal chit chat is innapropriate on a thread whatever the topic but here I'm simply asking why one poster is given different treatment to another and why nobody else is pointing out the same inconsistency.
Edit: Why is it that you wish to help the admins in this way? Aren't you curious why one picture was removed and another left in place? From what I know of you I would have thought fairness was of some importance to you so what's the score here?
Seahorse wrote: I'm confused.
Seahorse
I've got some moderator privileges. I help out with removing spam and such, edit library articles etc. (before that I used to publish a lot of library articles, original translations and news pieces). I don't know how many posters have such privileges, but there are some.
Noah wrote: Edit: Why is it
Noah
Quite a lot of FV and RM's posts I just skimmed and skipped; the images that were posted I didn't even bother looking at. In most cases I would never unpublish stuff unless it's spam, but on a thread about sexism and racism that I found to be quite interesting and also something I could learn from, I just wanted to get all the bs out of the way. What I suspect will happen, however, is that all the discussion will now take place here.
Now that I've taken a look at that thread again, sure. It's strange that RM's image was left up and not objective. But so what; the thread is fucking derailed and that's what pissed me off to begin with. This he said, she said stuff is so tedious. And it happens all the time.
Oh, I don't know. You don't
Oh, I don't know. You don't care about consistency, I do. Who's right? Or wrong?
I guess the difference here is that you think discussions on inconsistency detract from the subject being discussed where as I think that inconsistency makes a mockery of that subject as it removes a sense of trust in the honesty of those taking part.
That's how I honestly feel and for all my tomfoolery this is something that matters to me and strongly affects my view of the discussion itself. Maybe that makes me a pedantic dick or maybe it means that I find principle a rare but important thing.
Hopefully that's my last word but I sincerely hope it isn't the last word.
This is exactly the way the
This is exactly the way the kids at school waste time.
jef costello wrote: This is
jef costello
By arguing on libcom? Shit Jef, I wish I coulda gone to your school!
Khawaga wrote: I've got some
Khawaga
Ah, I get it. Thanks.
There are spies among us! :P ;) (joking)
Noah wrote: I guess the
Noah
That's fine. I do also care about consistency, but if I were so pissed off about it, I'd start another thread about it. There is this wonderful thing the web has enabled: linking. The reason why I am pissed off about the microagression thread in particular was that I thought the discussion was actually getting somewhere. Had it been a thread on the Marxist LTV, I couldn't have given two shits (even though, those are threads I tend to post heavily in).
Seahorse wrote: Ah, I get it.
Seahorse
You better watch yourself there ;)
I feel threads going off
I feel threads going off topic are almost inevitable. As a discussion develops different aspects are explored. Because this happens in a way where these aspects are mixed together and appear as a linear progression, though are in fact a product of time laps, it becomes a pick ‘n’ mix. People find themselves responding to what they consider to be inappropriate examples/metaphors, ill-considered remarks, lapses of logic, etc.
I do not envy a moderator on this site. Unlike a referee in a game of football they are allowed to kick the ball – so are open to a charge of bias (which of course a soccer ref could have as well). The latest example of someone on this site being shown a yellow card prompts the question, why were both offenders not given the same warning. I would suggest two possible reasons. One party was known as a problem player and also talked back to the ref.
This fuss arose from a dispute opaque and irrelevant to most readers/players. I suggest the guilty parties get their managers to broker a reconciliation.
I don't think we have a
I don't think we have a problem player. What we have is someone that's a bad fit for the socially pedestrian culture often on display here. With that in mind My suggestion is that a bit of acceptance and fair mindedness be put into practice by those to whom integrity has some value and the remaining disengenuous shitbags go and fuck themselves.
Noah #17 ‘I don’t think we
Noah #17
‘I don’t think we have a problem player.’
You may well be correct, though I think it fair to say, as you observed on the other thread (post #106) the party tends to rub people up the wrong way. If you’re correct that there is often a pedestrian culture on libcom, then (deliberately?) rubbing people up is only descending to another level (all can be guilty of this trait).
I think people see the same thing in different ways and being condescending is not helpful. To describe posters as ‘disingenuous’ is not offering the acceptance and fairmindedness you value. It’s all about perception of other people, and unfortunately we cannot enter our own field of vision.
A very old joke:
The kilties were marching down the Broomielaw, in Glasgow. A woman cries out, “There’s our Jimmie, an’ he’s the only b***er in step!”
That is a brilliant joke and
That is a brilliant joke and demonstrates your point perfectly. I still have my issues though.
I'm certain that FV sometimes intentionally rub people up the way but the point I'm making is that mostly he doesn't do it purposely and when he does it's not surprising considering the constant harrranging he gets for simply communicating his thoughts in a certain way, a way that is perfectly natural to him and shouldn't be subject to such scrutiny. But even that isn't the broader and more important point I'm making here, namely, that inconsistency and dishonesty should not be such an accepted part of the discourse on here. it really is incongruous to the principles that I thought we were about.
As for my accusation of disengenuousness I see a big difference between calling out shifty pea and shell work and giving someone a fair go regardless of whether you like them or not. With FV as an example, regardless of what position he takes there is very often someone there to pick him to pieces and bring up other topics as a means of getting at him and there is another well liked and respected(by me as well) poster who only has to fart on a thread and the up votes hit double figures in no time. This would appear to be because people on here are subject to groupthink, clickyness and a desire to fit in with the general consensus, if not of opinion but rather what constitutes an acceptable personality. What a fucking bore and what a fucking let down.
I'm sure this will all get written off as a load of old waffle by the majority but that's no surprise as the majority seem to care not one whit for fair play unless it suits them at the time.
Auld-bod wrote: This fuss
Auld-bod
It's not that opaque. It arose from the kind of thoughtless click and send mentality that web entity RM was criticising in its post #84 of that thread. That post seemed to me riddled with logical inconsistency whose source was a false dichotomy – that you can’t draw universal conclusions from local perspectives - leading to the same sort of relativism that certain interpretations of intersectionality as sectarianism lead to, and which has produced the idle chatter about ‘narratives’ that blots out reality. In other words, I thought that, since we were on the subject, I’d point out that from what it had posted in #84, it seemed as though entity RM’s position was not logically dissimilar to the very thing it was criticising, so that those clickers who upped post #84 were themselves engaging in the self-same activity RM had been bemoaning in that post. This didn’t seem irrelevant to the ongoing discussion so I asked if this was indeed the case and was told in reply:
Red Marriot
Followed by the cool, marble-like clarity of
Red Marriot
Complaining about a lack of clarity on my part, RM then posted this:
Red Marriot
To clarify I responded with:
factvalue
and as a result was judged to be
Red Marriot
There’s no pleasing some entities.
So Noah, why would you want to be popular in a web space like this? With so much emotional impoverishment and unconsciousness passing for honest to goodness revolutionary praxis, when we’re still so obviously deep in prehistory, what does it matter?
Popularity is neither here
Popularity is neither here nor there. I'm simply trying to make sense of a reactionary culture that does nothing to further the cause of libertarian communism which I always imagined to be the purpose of this site. I use you as an example in my posts because;
A. You have been the one subject to the inconsistency in this case
B. You're a good example generally
3. However 'deep in prehistory' you do or don't think we are, you do post here and presumably think that there is some purpose in participating
I'm not that bothered about being popular(which is just as wel!) but I don't deny I'd rather be liked than not, unless of course it means a compromise of integrity.
I'm just glad Noah is back,
I'm just glad Noah is back, and looks like he hasn't lost anything of his stride.
S. Artesian wrote: I'm just
S. Artesian
Well thanks, my stride was never in question though. Just as well, despite today's news about head transplants I don't think they've mastered stride transplants yet!
Any comment on the matter at hand comrade S?
Sorry Noah, should have used
Sorry Noah, should have used 'one' re: popular. As for the point of posting, apart from yourself and three or four others, I'm not so sure.
On the question as to why the
On the question as to why the difference in treatment, it's basically because Factvalue began being condescending and pointscoring, and more importantly he was already on a warning for the same kind of disruptive behaviour on many previous occasions
Noah Fence wrote: S.
Noah Fence
Actually not......although gratified that Steven is being his usual.........Steven. Wouldn't want him to change... not ever. Keep the corn cob firmly place, S.
So there we have it. FV, if
So there we have it. FV, if you can hear me there from your position on the naughty step, the reason you got different treatment is that you're a bad bad boy. To make things clearer I think we should all get marked for our behaviour and at the end of each week get an appraisal from our appointed admin. So downmarks for being tedious, a bit different, too cheeky, having an interest in morality or because your admin just happens to not like you very much. Upmarks for being normal, cold hearted, passionless and liking The Clash. Of course there are variations such as if you're one of the popular kids you get upmarked for everything including all of the naughty things above and especially, pulling the ears of those weirdo bad boys. Don't forget everyone, that if you tow the line you might get to stand in the lunch queue with those popular kids. Oh my! Think what a cred boost that will be. You might even finally get to be normal like everyone else!
Quote: So downmarks for
And that behavior would be despicable and a cause worth your passion Noah, except that you left one tiny, little "motheaten" trait off your list of reasons why FV is 'persecuted.' This is the genesis of most of the antipathy toward him/her around libcom*, and not the vapid, excruciatingly tedious content you accurately describe.
That FV regularly and quite intentionally derails many threads of interest into the same mundane argument that became unreadable 500 posts ago in 5 different threads is indeed an incredibly annoying behavior. It's counter-productive, most likely drives people away from discussion, and does FV no favors in earning any 'social capital' around here.
That FV--given ample opportunity to clarify their positions, more benefit of doubt than they've earned, but continues to hold positions that charitably can be described as trivializing anti-Semitism and engaging in anti-Semitic tropes--has been tolerated, in any way, on a libertarian communist website for this long is something that is beyond my understanding. This behavior is what is anti-communist in this situation and not others' reaction to FV's tedium.
Noah, I don't doubt your sincerity, but I think you've hitched yourself to the wrong horse this time.
*speaking only for myself here.
Firstly comrade could you
Firstly comrade could you clarify if you are assigning this to many of the Libcom inhabitants or or to FV himself.
factvalue #20 I read your
factvalue #20
I read your post several times and recognise the validity of a number of your observations. However attempting to correct other posters on a thread is a thankless task. Better just to state your own point of view and leave it at that. It may be impossible not to be influence by the up and down votes though they may be totally misleading. Why some people vote could have several motivations including wishing to be with the in-crowd, mischief making, or agreeing/disagreeing. Possibly at times a mix of all three. I am resisting giving an example of my own reaction to some posts, my own and other peoples, as I’m obviously prejudiced.
To me the bottom line (to coin a phrase) is that libcom presents an open window to the world to propagate libertarian communist ideas and discuss a range of topics and opinions. Popularity contests, personalities and bickering (though perhaps unavoidable) is totally irrelevant to any onlooker and not worth bothering about.
Auld Bod You're so level
Auld Bod
You're so level headed and reasonable. How do you do that?
Noah #31 The answer my friend
Noah #31
The answer my friend is blowin' in the - no it’s not, it’s by pretending not to be a supercilious auld git.
jesuithitsquad
jesuithitsquad
On tedium, see my comment above but I think you could probably go on a lecture tour with that as your title, maybe using slides to accompany that agonisingly pointless little autobiography you vomited up for our delectation a while back, that was a real libcom lowpoint, perhaps barking out the same shrill pre-conscious accusations over and over as you've yet again treated us to above, which would certainly be convenient if correct except that I've been 'unpopular' with the in-entities round here for a lot longer than that (where have you been little one?) - I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I wasn't, although there's no evidence that most of these entities are even bipedal let alone libertarian communist revolutionaries. So just you keep on dancing from foot to foot and shaking your thin little fist if it pleases you, whoever or whatever you are.
AB - thanks for that, I'll
AB - thanks for that, I'll have a think about what you've said, it seems like very sound advice on a first reading.
It seems to me that the very
It seems to me that the very structure of libcom forums (and similar places) almost create a role-waiting-to-be-occupied for certain personality types; people whose insecurities they attempt to hide behind aggression, competition, arrogance & cliquey ‘humour’. Note that the short fuse usually goes off soon after they can’t get quick agreement with their views and/or any doubt is shown as to their correctness. One of the earlier performances in similar vein; http://libcom.org/forums/general/intellectual-dishonesty-01052016
The self-justification for this is that they’re supposedly more radical, more willing to push the boundaries than the rest of us sheepish flock or ‘herd’. So inevitably they paint themselves as maverick outlaws and claim that’s why they’re supposedly unfairly treated by ‘the herd’ – ie, all those who criticise the content of their statements and, when necessary, how they say it. The possibility that the content and how it’s expressed simply isn’t as great as they like to think; that the criticism may be valid; that there are better & worse, more & less mature and sociable ways of responding to disagreement etc don’t seem to be taken into account. In their circular ‘logic’ this becomes ‘if we’re being slagged it’s cos they resent the truth we’ve exposed about them and can’t tolerate our radical, challenging boundary-pushing’ – so any criticism becomes validation for these martyrs of the conservatism they so bravely struggle against;
NF
We see predictable behaviour patterns; tipping back & forth between aggression & humour. Firstly – a proposition posted as a vehicle for approval. And when they’ve replaced the failed search for acceptance of their views with angry antagonism this leads on to the aggressive/sarcastic ‘aren’t we cool and ironically amusing’ performance - as a barrier to block any further serious consideration of what others say and as a message to others of the non-worth of any criticism. We prob all have a bit of these traits in us but most are able to see – rather than wearing it as a badge of pride - the desirability of not letting such things dominate our behaviour.
This creates a recurring problem for the forums as a whole; eg, by commenting at all am I here contributing to perpetuating what I criticise? Maybe, but that’s the Catch-22. Threads are degenerated into personalised antagonism – and people are left with few options but to either suffer silently the derailing of the selfish/insecure or call them out on it and so feed the flames. Win-win for the attention seekers and tedious lose-lose for the rest.
startling how im the only
Blimey RM, I didn't know your
Blimey RM, I didn't know your beef was so deep seated, in fact I didn't know there was any beef at all.
Anyways, I guess there only one thing for it - a sarcastic, snarky but decently humorous response to your excellent critique. So...
Hey, have you been talking to my shrink? If not your venture into my psyche is breathtakingly similar to hers, although she seems to think it's all connected to my desire to wear ladies knickers which I guess you have too delicate and chivalrous sensibilities to mention?
After she shared her analysis I asked the question could it not be that I happen to value different things to many people and don't mind exposing myself to their ridicule and giving considerably better than I get but she said no, it's definitely because you want to wear ladies knickers. So I guess you're right, I'm an insecure asshole.
Anyhow, I am trying and the 2 prescriptions she issued, one for an anti-psychotic and another for a visit to Matks and Spencer's ladies underwear department to buy a selection of pantygirdles are starting to work. Once they kick in properly we can visit the boring bastard club together. The start of a beautiful friendship. xxx
Edit: I've just been soundly told off by a friend for making a transphobic post so to put some context to this;
I did actually tell my shrink a long time ago that I wanted to wear ladies underwear. This was to fuck with her as I was not a voluntary patient. The absurdity was not whether or not I wanted to wear such underwear(I didn't) but that my shrink asked me about nothing else in all our sessions after I told her and spewed out such reactionary nonsense as 'latent homosexual tendencies' etc.
I was actually prompted to write this post though by the fact that my partner was shopping on Amazon for some pregnancy knickers for me to wear(which is definitely absurd ) to help with the ascites(fluid retention) I am currently dealing with. Right now I have around 7 litres of fluid trapped in my abdominal cavity which is extremely uncomfortable and restrictive.
So I was using my personal experience to make a joke rather than making any comment about trans men. That said, I'm sorry if I offended anyone.
Red Marriott wrote: This
Red Marriott
This.
I keep hoping that
I keep hoping that excruciating 'This' bullshit will die out and then FUCK there it is again AAARGH!! The trouble with the mind-bogglingly unconscious 'we're trying to have an in-depth discussion' gambit is that as you seriously start trying to have one it's exactly the people attempting this ploy who run for the hills spitting abuse over their shoulders and refusing to budge from their homely little bunkers.
But while there are serious people posting on here, the root of the problem, the true reason there's little point even attempting to have a really deep discussion with most of the web-entities hereabouts, is that libcom was founded by a matey clique of backslappers, and principled understanding is really only the surface appearance, formed by the sloshing back and forth and round and round of an agreed vocabulary and vague set of stances passing for insights, between entities known only to each other who strut around posing as revolutionaries. If principle had anything to do with it, why the voting, why the flagrant double standards, why Aufhebengate, for fuck sake?
Unfortunately there is no International to take one's case to concerning the daily slanders which go on in this strange little club, so as I said earlier Noah, what's the point? There can be some decent people contributing so all you can do is just wait around for them to show up occasionally and, since it's a club, why not have a drink?
Great knickers btw way comrade, lovely cut, nice firm buttocks for a man your age.
There really should be a
There really should be a libcom version of Godwin's Law but for Aufhebengate...
jesuithitsquad wrote: That
jesuithitsquad
I must admit I haven't seen evidence of this "anti-Semitism", and I don't think any of the other admins have either, could you give us a link?
I simply must say that there
I simply must say that there should really be a meta-Godwin law for easily-anticipated mention of Godwin's Law.
Steven.
Steven.
Hang on, this is blatantly false, not because I'm an anti-Semite, since I'm not, but because admin-entity Ed (who I was disagreeing with, imagine that) was one of the entities on the 'Is anti-Zionism anti-Semitic?' thread who was suggesting that I was engaging in 'anti-Semitic tropes' so surely some appropriate form of construal can be found if necessary?
Why are you calling people
Why are you calling people entities? It's such a pointlessly snide little insult. I feel that it's pointing out the obvious but if you don't want to hang out with the proto-human, lower level of consciousness, unprincipled bunch of lumpen idiots that we are, why do you bother showing up? It clearly brings you no joy.
BRB, just typing up the agenda from the monthly Libcom Groupthink Meeting, where we set out the principles that we all religiously adhere to and delegate the Head Sheep of the Month who the rest of the group needs to follow.
The 'entity' thing isn't an
The 'entity' thing isn't an insult, just a statement of fact which comes both from things you have said in the past about posting on here, and from entity RM's post #84 on the micro-aggression thread
Red Marriott
and as I said above, there are some serious-minded, objective people who post, so it's a matter of tuning out the word golf. Could I ask that a copy of the minutes of that meeting be passed from the Head Rhetorician to the minister in charge of distortion and caricature?
Quote: BRB, just typing up
Hehehe, comedy gold. Come on Fleur, we need to team up and hit the comedy circuit, we'll smash it. The anarchy Cannon and Ball. Fuck whether we agree or not, let's just make some dollar! You know it makes sense!!!
It's the sweetness of the
It's the sweetness of the ready
That makes the bell ring on the till
And if they say they'll pay you next week
You know they never will
Take the K.A.S.H
Don't let them pay you in kind
Wreckless Eric
Showing yer age there old son
Showing yer age there old son - when was the last time you met a till with a bell on it?
You're right about the kash though - I'm loving the bangers!
jesuithitsquad wrote: There
jesuithitsquad
Also, "censorship" and "groupthink"
Ah, Fleur beat me to it with
Ah, Fleur beat me to it with the groupthink! (I'll wear that as a badge of honor...unlike Noah's knickers. Which, btw, is the name of my new band.)
Chilli Sauce wrote: Ah, Fleur
Chilli Sauce
Am I to be constantly publicly humiliated? I dragged myself out to a DJing job last night and as I ambled through the crowd of 20somethings with my walking stick some geezer pointed at my record box and hollers out 'what you got in there grandad, Elvis Presley? Cheeky fucker! I would have battered him but I couldn't batter a bit of fish at the moment(not that UV would let me be involved in the death of a fish!)
Well, come out to one or our
Well, come out to one or our gigs, then. They're pretty brief, but we're pretty tight. Silky smooth lines.
Chilli Sauce wrote: Well,
Chilli Sauce
If your modelling yourselves on my drawers you're probably full of shit.
This friendship is gonna be
This friendship is gonna be on the skids if you keep up with those sorts of remarks. ;-)
Noah Fence wrote: Showing yer
Noah Fence
Rock n Roll saved my life.
And still does
At the risk of bumping a
At the risk of bumping a thread that appears to have died down, Steven. asked for examples of factvalue's problematic posts. I haven't had the time until now to collate a list
But really quickly this:
factvalue
To my memory is one of the 1st remotely anti- racist declarations FV has made on the topic of anti-Semitism. This is progress. To FV's credit, they also did, at one point state that if Israel ceased being of strategic importance, the US would drop it's support. Unfortunately, these are the only two examples I can give of a positive POV in FV's posts on the matter.
In fairness to admins, the thread in question was an absolute cesspool, and included Zeroisnowhere's apparent outing as having fash sympathies. So given all of that, it would be easy to over look FV's much more subtle use of questionable language.
No one needs a relitigation of that thread, so I will attempt to describe the contents of FV's posts as neutrally as i can muster. Obviously, I have a strong POV on the matter, so being objective is probably impossible. So, all that said, FV if you feel my summary misrepresents your positions, please correct the record.
On a couple of occasions, I have also included posts from others on here because I feel their contributions effectively demonstrate why FV's assertions are seriously problematic.
From the Is Anti-Zionism Anti-Semitic thread:
Post # 140, 142, 144
FV suggests anti-semitism is caused by Israel's actions
Post # 192
FV posts a picture of native american traditional garb (maybe it's Village People?), seemingly attempting to be funny, saying this is why Native American struggles aren't taken seriously.
Post #250
In a discussion about the use of the phrase 'Israel's tentacles are everywhere,' FV suggests there could be other possible explanations of the phrase which are not anti-Semitic.
Post #252
FV seems to equate the state of Israel with all Jews. FV also appears to be saying most Jews support ethnic cleansing.
Post # 257
- seems to suggest anti-Semitism isn't really a problem, and favorably quoted someone who states that Jewish people have a sense of ethnic superiority. FV also states that Jews are generally rich and powerful.
Post #260
S Artesian, who had previously been arguing a similar position as FV, feels FV crossed a line and presents a very effective take-down of FV's positions
Post #261
FV appears to suggest Jews are rich.
Post #263
FV states all (or was it most?) Jews support Israel
Post #265
Reddebrek presents a list summarizing FV's points and makes an effective argument as to why this slips into the territory of anti-Semitism.
Post #271
FV appears to suggest most modern anti-Semitism is a myth.
Post #279
FV appears to be saying that Israel's attrocities implicate Jews, generally.
Post #286
FV states it is nonsense to say Jews are targeted for murder. FV also states the following:
1) Most Jews are Zionists or support Zionism
2) Jews have an outsized influence per capita
3) Anti-semitism isn't racism
Post #327
FV states there is not a scrap of evidence that anti-semitism is a major problem
Post #332
FV states that the claim that anti-semitism is on the rise is Zionist propaganda--and it is ludicrous to claim there is a worrying rise in anti-semitism in the Western World. FV also states that rising anti-semitism is impossible (unlikely?) in a society in which Jews are so successful.
Post #338
FV states that 90-95% of the Israeli population supports every massacre committed by the Israeli state. FV also suggests that US Embassies are ratcheting up accusations of anti-Semitism.
.
.
.
Phew, I feel like I need several back-to-back showers after wading through that thread again. Apologies that I didn't link to each post, but I'm on my phone and it would have been very difficult.
Can't find the thread using
Can't find the thread using the search function. Got a link to the thread (not the posts)?
this is the thread
this is the thread https://libcom.org/forums/general/anti-zionism-anti-semitic-01052016
Yeah, there's no need for me
Yeah, there's no need for me to correct 'the record' because this isn't the record, it's more of a stuck record, a skewed recording of 'the record' on high bias. The record is there on the thread along with the context so let me know if you have anything objectively, unequivocally demonstrating anti-Semitism - as opposed to anti-Zionism - whenever you get to a bigger keyboard, unless you're alleging something more 'subtle' (or you're a mind-reader) in which case you're going to have to explain exactly what you mean and make your case much more fully, put the leg-work in and stop making excuses about hardware etc.. If you do manage that (because you haven't so far), it may take some time for me to reply because work is very busy at the moment. Good luck!
jesuithitsquad wrote: At the
jesuithitsquad
Yeah, well maybe you should have stayed under the water longer, since you seem to attack FV as being anti-semitic for holding exactly the same position EDIT: on "blow back" as the well known anti-anti-semite Ed:
Ed post 248
Or maybe you should use more cold water so you might clearly understand FV's post 263, where he is citing Ed as the source for the "most Jews support Israel" assertion and is using that assertion to make distinctions among Zionism, anti-zionism, and anti-semitism, and where, apparently invisible to you, FV clearly states his opposition to anti-semitism.
Or maybe no water at all so you might see the distinction between being anti-semitic, and arguing that anti-semitism is not a major threat in the Western world. The former being "problematic"-- the latter being a question of evaluation and not "problematic" or indicative of anti-semitism.
Oh, and for the record, my "takedown" in post 260 had nothing to do with crossing some kind of line, but simply that the information FV provided is absolutely irrelevant to the issue of whether or not anti-zionism is anti-semitic, or can/does some anti-zionism contain/conceal/succor anti-semitism. Guess you missed that part, except it wasn't "part," it was the ganze megillah, as we say in Yiddish.
But hey, let's not bring that whole thread again. Let's only bring up the parts that one party finds "problematic," which problem boils down to "If you don't think anti-semitism is a major major persistent persistent threat, then that in itself is proof that you must be anti-semitic."
Personally, not that it matters, I find the distortion you traffic in problematic.
Nice post S. Still, it's a
Nice post S. Still, it's a popular sport so I think I'll sling some mud at FV too. Did you know he once chose a crumpet instead of a bagel? How much more proof do you want?
Honestly, what a fucking shit pool this is.
Note: edited to stay on topic. I don't want my balls cut off for that too.
Balls up no1
Balls up no1
So, I have literally no
So, I have literally no intention of getting drawn back into this but, S Artesian, if you say this:
Then you are guilty of exactly the same kind of distortion you accuse jesuithitsquad of (namely, a tactical omission of some of FV's more ambiguous statements)..
FWIW, no, I don't think FV hates Jews. But I do think they lack concern about anti-semitism (charitably, I'd say perhaps as a response to Zionists over-egging the anti-semitic cake) and sometimes strays into the territory of argumentation that leads to anti-semitic conclusions..
Balls up no2
Balls up no2
Ed, I'll fix that: "exactly
Ed,
I'll fix that:
"exactly the same position-- singular, on the issue of "blow back."
I find it interesting that
I find it interesting that the attention so far from some has focused on factvalue's less controversial comments instead of addressing--head-on--the more problematic remarks. Out of the 400 some odd posts I attempted to hit the most important points. If others feel there are posts that should have been included, knock yourself out--have at it!
Certain concepts like 'blow-back' aren't particularly controversial in and of themselves, but they are part of the larger conversation. So, when someone like Ed talks about blow-back it is a completely different thing than when factvalue talks about it, given the context of all of their other comments.
As I said, factvalue's welcome to point out any distortions they feel I may have made, but it seems as if they're disinterested in doing that. Instead, telling me to 'do the work' as if rereading that thread and summarizing their posts was anything other than a time consuming shitshow.
SA in the meta anti-Semitism thread, libcom managerialism or what the fuck ever, you described your intervention thusly. .
whether your objection was about irrelevance or not makes no difference. It doesn't change the fact that the notion of disproportional Jewish influence is essentially the basis of every single anti-semitic trope in history.
Was fv's usage of this and other tropes intentional? Only fv can answer that. When I challenged fv about the tentacles trope, also in the meta thread, factvalue implied they were aware of it, so it's clearly not a case of ignorance.
At every single opportunity to clarify, fv refuses. It's like I've said before, if a comrade says 'hey, I'm not really cool with the way that sounds,' the appropriate thing to do is to take a step back, and explain how/why what you meant to say had been misinterpreted, that the offense was unintentional and apologize for your part in the misunderstanding. But fv always just doubles down and completely refuses to engage constructively.
Now, does that make them an anti-semite? No, not in and of itself. But it sure as fuck makes them a bad communist and an unpleasant human being, at least online.
I've a touch more time now,
I've a touch more time now, so I will address a few specific things. .
factvalue
I've never once accused you of being anti-Semitic. I've consistently said that you are jesuithitsquad
and I've yet to see a single, credible reason presented why this assessment is wrong. I do think I agree with Ed's assertion that it's likely you've just bent the stick too far the other way in reaction to Zionist zeal, but I don't know. You know why I don't know? Because you won't say.
Tell us why you think I'm wrong. I'd love to be, honestly. I can't, for the life of me, understand why you won't make a few, simple declarative statements clarifying your POV unless: a) are a seriously stubborn motherfucker b) you suffer from an anti-social personality disorder (which online is pretty much indistinguishable from (a) or c) you really do hold some unfortunate views on the topic.
And before anyone pipes in with a "have you stopped beating your wife?" analogy, when one or two people misunderstand me, it's might be their fault; when dozens misunderstand me, there's clearly something wrong with either what I'm saying or how I'm saying it.
SA
I'm sorry SA--can you direct me to posts in that thread where other people are engaging in questionable behavior? (Aside from zeroisnowhere). Or is your false equivalency just a poorly used rhetorical device attempting to minimize the opinions of the many people who found problems with factvalue's posts?
and this part
is just lazy and beneath you. It's actually very reminiscent of factvalue's sophomoric analysis masquerading as 'deep thoughts.' You can do better than this strawman.
SA
Here is factvalue's post #263 in it's entirety:
factvalue
Please point to the part where "FV clearly states his opposition to anti-semitism," because it is, in fact, invisible to me.
It was Steven post #49, who
It was Steven post #49, who asked you for evidence:
‘jesuithitsquad wrote:
That FV--given ample opportunity to clarify their positions, more benefit of doubt than they've earned, but continues to hold positions that charitably can be described as trivializing anti-Semitism and engaging in anti-Semitic tropes--has been tolerated, in any way, on a libertarian communist website for this long is something that is beyond my understanding. This behavior is what is anti-communist in this situation and not others' reaction to FV's tedium.
I must admit I haven't seen evidence of this "anti-Semitism", and I don't think any of the other admins have either, could you give us a link?’
I agree with Ed #63 that FV posts can appear to lack concern about anti-Semitism. He’s careless or oblivious about how others may read his opinions. Like some other posters here, if criticised FV will not give an inch. To me so far the ‘evidence’ is circumstantial rather than conclusive.
Jesuithitsquad #66:
‘So, when someone like Ed talks about blow-back it is a completely different thing than when factvalue talks about it, given the context of all of their other comments.’
Which proves to me FV may well be a bit of an oaf at times, as for the rest…
Quote: I'm sorry SA--can you
Can I point to posts where other people are engaging in "questionable behavior?" No-- because I don't think that anyone engaged in "questionable behavior." I think Zero engaged in outright anti-semitic remarks. I think FV was mistaken in several areas. But.....no "questionable behavior." Nothing that was "problematic." I despise euphemism. Euphemisms really are pointless when we're discussing questions of racism, anti-semitism.
Others saw "questionable behavior" all over the place. In fact, I was the poster boy for questionable behavior.
You produce a veritable scroll to make the point that you think FV is anti-semitic, and then to seal the deal, you claim you are not asserting FV is anti-semitic.
If that doesn't trigger a gag reflex, I don't know what will.
At first I thought this
At first I thought this thread had strayed so far from the original, but all the hubbub about approximate anti-Semitism confirms that it is indeed genetically related to to the 'high minded' moral purism induced by academic/liberal identity politics and multiculturalism.
Euphemism is no doubt a part of it; instead of racist or stereotypical arguments which could be rejected and argued against, we have statements which are 'problematic' or 'micro-aggressions' and so on. We build the case against a person based on statements which can be viewed in a somewhat negative light, etc.
factvalue claims that other
factvalue claims that other people in the thread that think anti-Semitism is an issue are conned by pro Israel organisations, he also spends a considerable amount of time "Holocaust industry" which has no relevance to the thread, but he apparently believes its vitally important to bring up when ever someone mentions anti-Semitism.
He claims here #229 that east European anti Semitism is motivated by being unjustly forced to pay for sized jewish businesses etc
though out the thread he refuses to acknowledge that anti Semitism has any existence interdependent of the actions of Israel/"Holocaust industry" post 243
and mocks this idea post 152
claims that people are only seeing anti Semitism because of being conned by the ADL etc
post 250
I don't know what factvalue actual thinks, but what he actually does is to deny anti Semitism.
he posted this immediately after someone got banned for saying hitler was right post 327
in the context of the rest of the thread its clear that his contribution was to attack any discussion of anti-Semitism and reduced it to, people reaction to bad stuff Israel did, people reaction to bad stuff Jewish charities did and lies by the ADL etc
This isn't really fair but
This isn't really fair but I've been admitted to hospital and put in a ward of three. I've been told I have a 'life threatening' infection in my abdominal cavity, the guy in the bed next to me has just been taken to theatre for a combined liver and kidney transplant(now that's a biggy) and the guy next to him who has mental health problems and lives alone on benefits has been told he has untreatable cancer and the best the docs can do is pain relief. In this context the Internet head butting seems a bit silly.
Hang in there comrade
Hang in there comrade
fingers malone wrote: Hang in
fingers malone
Thanks. I'm ok, they're pretty sure they've caught it I time. I know my contribution to the debate hasn't been very serious and I've now massively decontextualised it but I guess you see what I mean, eh?
I couldn't agree more Noah.
I couldn't agree more Noah. I've nothing like your situation to cope with but even being a bit snowed under at work has pushed this stupid shit underneath the bottom of my list, where it previously held pride of place.
Let me know if there's anything I can do mate, be thinking about you and hope it goes well - looking forward to seeing you at the bookfair. Love and solidarity brother.
Get well soon Noah
Get well soon Noah