My apologies for coming late to this, I've only just spotted this thread has become controversial. Many thanks for your kind words above, and may I also say that I appreciated your support when I got some abuse on Timesonline.
Please permit me to step back from the details of this controversy and make some more general observations.
Firstly, all newspapers, blogs, community forums etc. have some general orientations - more or less tightly defined, and more or less tightly enforced. We have both criticised Charles Bremner for his tabloid tendencies to personalise all commentary and focus almost exclusively on the many foibles of Sarkozy as being emblematic of France. He has found a very comfortable niche market playing into British perceptions of France and no doubt receives something of a star rating with the Times editorial team for so doing. He doesn't do heavy economic/political analysis and thus tends to report on and repeat the commonplaces of others.
ET aspires to be a less "populist" and more analytically inclined community who are less interested in personalities and more into underlying economic, political, sociological and environmental causes. As such it's stock in trade is to challenge, and sometimes refute the "common sense" assumptions of popular political discourse. In this context, challenging the notion of "mentalité d'assistés" is par for the course, although in a state as interventionist as France, it would not be surprising to find that many are dependent on the state in many ways. Hell, we all depend on the state for law and order, so it depends on how that concept is used to criticise some and not others.
I too have "issues" with some aspects of ET's self definition: Whatever its origins, I don't see the relevance of defining ET as some sort of European counterpoint to American liberal blogosphere. Whilst I am full of admiration for Jerome personally, I think ET lacks a transparent structure and process for defining/agreeing editorial policies, resolving disputes, and representing the public face of ET in the real world.
I hate the moral superiority of pre-defining ourselves as "progressive" when we should have the moral courage to allow the facts and logic takes us where they will - even if that means adopting a position others might type cast as conservative, Marxist, utopian, or whatever. I sometimes find it very cliquish and prone to setting a higher standard of evidence for dissident views than those which set the "dominant narrative" within ET.
I doubt it will ever become a very broadly based forum for a very large user population because we have a tendency to pay lip service to tolerance of diversity and yet give minority views a hard time. For a forum which prides itself on evidence based argument and high standards of behaviour, too often ad hominum and personalised attacks do creep in.
Having said all that, I think you would be hard put to find a higher or more civil standard of debate anywhere else. I think you have to be prepared to accept that your assumptions will be scrutinized, and tested against the evidence, and as newcomers here, our views will not be granted the same level of automatic approval as old-timers who have built up a certain status and with many friendships and shared understandings over the years.
I do hope you will stay because I enjoyed your posts and because I think ET needs to be more open to a wider range of views if it is to grow and prosper. Some old-timers may resist this because they prefer it as a cosy club for the illuminated few - that too is their entitlement. Almost every week we have a spat where someone threatens to leave because they are unhappy with how they have been treated, and I have been there myself.
But I hope ET will grow into something bigger than all of us and make a growing contribution to informed debate within Europe and beyond. You too have a contribution to make to that, and you shouldn't let a tense exchange with one or two other members get in the way of that. We can all be a bit precious about what we may feel to be an unfair or unsympathetic reception for our dearest thoughts. I still have a few bones to pick with others! The key thing is that we can all learn from the experience.
I hope you stay. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
But I hope ET will grow into something bigger than all of us and make a growing contribution to informed debate within Europe and beyond.
nice, as is the rest of the comment! The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it. Chinese Proverb.
I'm sure it is very exasperating to have newcomers come in and re-raise issues you thought had been sorted out and settled for good - but in the real world everything is continually being re-invented. All organisations try to initiate newcomers into their history and tradition and culture - and create a back catalogue of founding documents, key milestones, seminal works etc. - i.e. this is where we are coming from and how things are done around here.
However don't forget that newcomers here also have a past, and for all I know The3rdColumn is a world renowned expert on comparative state welfare dependency studies. Maybe he too has reason to take certain things for granted and chooses to focus on other issues. It's always very dangerous to personalise any argument for that very reason. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
If he has reasons for taking things for granted he can tell us what they are - we'll generally provide references on demand.
Newcomers can check the list of most-commented-ever diaries for evidence of divides among the old-timers, most of which continue to exist. For example, the Danish cartoons issue revealed two incompatible views that fought themselves to a standstill. Then there is the nuclear evergreen. An issue with looong history is referendums on the European Constitution/Lisbon Treaty, where as Colman says there are (at least) three sides, that view the others as more or less giving support to the enemy (Eurosceptics), didn't move an iota in two years and repeat the same points on occasion of any new EU development. I myself feel a minority of one among old-timers with the position that neolibs aren't Eurosceptics (and that that matters). We give each other a hard time a lot, but it seems to go under the radar for some (can happen easily if the theme is not interesting to them). *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
I think ET lacks a transparent structure and process for defining/agreeing editorial policies, resolving disputes, and representing the public face of ET in the real world.
That's a fair point, I think, with which we have grappled unsuccessfully so far. It's a community blog, so we pride ourselves on not having one person taking all decisions; but within that context it's not arrogant to say, I think, that I have a strong influence on what goes on; and yet I am often in a minority view on a number of topics...
I'm hoping to revisit this in the near future.
hate the moral superiority of pre-defining ourselves as "progressive" when we should have the moral courage to allow the facts and logic takes us where they will - even if that means adopting a position others might type cast as conservative, Marxist, utopian, or whatever.
Fair enough.
I sometimes find it very cliquish and prone to setting a higher standard of evidence for dissident views than those which set the "dominant narrative" within ET.
Now this I find really unfair. We may not provide evidence every single time we say something here, but we do have it and, as I noted above, it's sometimes draining to have to re-explain in detail point that we've successfully explained in the past. (Maybe we need to build a quick reference library for some topics...) Evidence there is, and I'll be happy to provide it every single time.
I don't think we set higher standards for any position, quite the opposite. As Colman remarked as well, we're pretty tough on one another - we fight sloppy thinking and unsubstantiated assertions everywhere - and there is more of that amongst those that repeat the 'common wisdom' prevalent in the media than on our side, given how we've taken the pain to go into data in painstaking detail.
because we have a tendency to pay lip service to tolerance of diversity and yet give minority views a hard time. For a forum which prides itself on evidence based argument and high standards of behaviour, too often ad hominum and personalised attacks do creep in.
Now that seriously requires substantiation, because I'd say it's flat out false. ET is one of the websites least prone to ad hominem and insults. By far. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Big difference between something creeping in despite our efforts and being "prone" to something.
Overall, I think he's right on. Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
I sometimes find it very cliquish and prone to setting a higher standard of evidence for dissident views than those which set the "dominant narrative" within ET. Now this I find really unfair. We may not provide evidence every single time we say something here, but we do have it and, as I noted above, it's sometimes draining to have to re-explain in detail point that we've successfully explained in the past. (Maybe we need to build a quick reference library for some topics...) Evidence there is, and I'll be happy to provide it every single time.
I don't think that applies to you at all Jerome -in fact you are remarkable in your patience and in your ability to dig out the right graph or piece of evidence every time. Every group tends to have "dominant narrative" based on the accumulated evidence and contributions of its key thinkers - and insiders are not going to want to re-visit all that stuff every time it is referenced or assumed in an argument. So it just gets passed into the assumption base we work from.
However to a newcomer it appears that certain things are axiomatic and cannot be challenged, whereas other views evoke a sometimes vitriolic or certainly a very strong rejection. This creates an immediate perception of unfairness - why is my view being challenged - whereas another view is taken as read. For instance I am the only person who has recommended this diary. I actually didn't agree with much of it, but felt that having read and enjoyed it, that was the least I could do. Sometimes Diaries with very little content get a lot of recommendations - you can see why that might seem unfair to someone who has just put in a lot of effort into writing something they care about.
Jerome a Paris:
Now that seriously requires substantiation, because I'd say it's flat out false. ET is one of the websites least prone to ad hominem and insults. By far.
I thought I had covered that point by saying:Frank Schnittger:
Having said all that, I think you would be hard put to find a higher or more civil standard of debate anywhere else
You can hardly deny that some ad hominem attacks do creep in, and perhaps this thread verged on it. When peoples feeling are hurt, logic goes out the window. The determination to address the issue and not who makes the argument is a key factor which ought to distinguish a serious from a popular site - and generally I think ET does that very well.
I hate arguments which start "I am a <insert here adjective of choice - conservative, progressive, realist, liberal, environmentalist, radical socialist> and therefore obviously....." . Whether 3rdColumn is a conservative or whether ET is progressive is neither here nor there. It is how we conduct the debate that matters. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
Whilst I am full of admiration for Jerome personally, I think ET lacks a transparent structure and process for defining/agreeing editorial policies, resolving disputes, and representing the public face of ET in the real world.
So to clarify: this is, basically, Jérôme's gig. He has appointed a set of front-pagers to help set an editorial direction - very roughly - and carry out the admin functions needed to keep this place going, which sometimes includes police duties. Things get formalised when they need to be. Most things are handled in full sight on the blog. Some aren't, as you know full well.
And for more substantive answer, we're making this shit up as we go along precisely because formalising rules too early would be fatally stupid and a waste of already precious energy.
Maybe this works for you, but in my experience it doesn't work very well for most organisations and is not, in any case, in accordance with some fairly elementary principles of due process and natural justice. I trust you don't work in the law, in management, in HR or in trade union movement, because that approach could very quickly get you into a lot of trouble. If ET is ever to become more than a small collective, or alternatively becomes a target for unsympathetic activists it could also get ET into some bother. The fact that ET is a voluntary body is not particularly relevant as far as the law is concerned. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
No, this is ET's gig and Jerome is financing it--at present.
If he decided to pull the plug right now, no more ET.
Or would ET reincarnate somehow?
Those are legal-type issues that meet many of the nuts and bolts and lathes and parser conversations here.
I mean, "How to build a better future--and what's wrong with the present version" is ET grist-for-the-mill. But when it comes to the future....of ET!
As I wrote a while back, for ET to be a community with power, as contrasted with a community that vests power in a leader...
As you have written a few times, fluid hierarchies....the best wolf for the job takes the lead.
But if the whole hunting trip is Mr. Wolf's, then when Mr. Wolf say "That's enough", we all stop hunting...whatever Mr. Wolf wanted to hunt.
I mean, I just sent some euros to Berhnard's site (moonofalabama) because...he works hard and is clearly sole owner. With very few exceptions the article(s) for the day I by Bernhard.
At ET there are as many voices as people who can
--register --work out how to post a diary --write a diary --post the diary
How does the photo blog fit in to any proposed structures?
What if a person from...I dunno....Kajikistan...ripped the pics and sold some books?
Does anyone care? The pleasure is in the moment! And in the other moments!
What about if the person doing the ripping worked at Madam Murdoch's Times--and crowed about having ripped them off and how much money she was making....
I mean, who cares?
I 100% agree with Frank re: arbitration processes--that might be necessary if and when ET pulls enough eyes to pay some bills--
I think it's actually very simple:
ET is a community website It is currently financed by Jerome a Paris
....
But if this is Jerome's gig, then we're all the support acts, right? Or the accompanying musicians?
Heh...it hit me, like the master of Go saying, "Yes, there are masters of Go. You don't believe me? Let's play Go!"
The power is the power of ideas, to get beyond the power of muscle, whether bicep, brain, or finger--or money of course--
Who pay? He the boss! Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
The only reaon DoDo's masterpiece about the Hungarian Revolution isn't there is that I felt it deserved a book of its own, but....I couldn't get the pictures to work! Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
What do you mean? Do they not appear, have my links deceased, or the copyright issue? If the second, I shall check, find all the pictures again and upload copies on my own Photobucket account. (I intend to do that slowly to all of my past diaries, but haven't finished even with the train diaries yet.) *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
Having said all that, I think you would be hard put to find a higher or more civil standard of debate anywhere else.
Almost every week we have a spat where someone threatens to leave because they are unhappy with how they have been treated, and I have been there myself.
Apart from being called intolerant, I don't think I mind much of what's written on ET. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
It doesn't seem a very mature or useful attitude.
The cusp between control and chaos is where innovation occurs. You can't be me, I'm taken
Anyone who thinks he or she can control a thread is doomed to frustration, though. Threads will always go off topic.
ET is an organizational microcosm that IMO models the future, not the past. This is what democracy is going to be like - we have to find ways to make it work.
For those of us with adult offspring - letting go is very very difficult. But it has to be done. Pushing out of the nest seems to me such a very basic, but painful responsibility. You can't be me, I'm taken
