Not to mention bad-faithed. Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
But then, when some sources are accepted uncritically while others are peremptorily challenged without justification, this is where the bullying comes in. Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
Interestingly, for instance Colman asked Svetozar for references on "same sex unions" in Yugoslavia here, still didn't get any other than the diarist's own appeals to his own experience but that wasn't challenged further. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
And I bring this up not to rehash the argument, but to respend to the point made whereby it is intimated that this sort of thing doesn't happen here. I would simply say that it does.
We all have tendancies to this, I'm not saying it's unnatural.
Just not what I would think a somewhat iconoclastic journal should be doing, that's all. Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
Myself not knowing your source (nor the 'opposed' source offered up by the member you originally confronted), I sat in the audience and was curious what the two sides will bring up, something which I guess describes the situation of the majority reading that subthread. But not much came of it beyond hurts - and a debate over several other issues with several other members, in which you apparently saw all your detractors as one single group with homogenous opposing opinion. Even above, you don't talk about "some members", but use passive grammatics in a discussion about ET as a collective. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
And if by argument, you mean being called a blatant liar, a hardcore ideologue, a cheap polemicist, a lazy, pompous, self-indulgent bottom feeder and an ideological wanker and a hack, I guess then yes, there was an argument made, though in my book, ad hominem is not a legitimate argument. Though I do note, again, that you were right in there recommending some of the above "arguments".
Again, the exercise here is not to rehash that exercise in what I still think was some pretty serious bad faith in reaction to one of faresterner's meltdowns, which I myself received the brunt of one one occasion.
The exercise is to point out the sometimes not very even-handed treatment of certain iconoclastic though just as certainly progressive, socialist, or left, views on this site, even when those views are supported by scholarship (and yes, Parenti, the guy being attacked by francois and faresterner, while other posters' arguments and persons, myself including, were alloted the same treatment directly) above, is a scholar, one whose texts my own father taught from, as I learned in a later conversation offline).
And, on a site that bills itself at least to some extent as itelf somewhat iconoclastic, I would argue that it behooves us to be much more careful in treating such subjects as some of us are.
I also note that the defensiveness around this subject by some is highly instructive, and further note that I personally am still not fully comfortable posting anything substantive on the subject referenced above or any related subject because of the treatment I felt I received.
You can do with that as you like, but my read on what was being done by this diary was to put some of this laundry out there, though I would also understand why you would perhaps prefer it not be aired. Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
...where he refers to Parenti, not you--that is not ad hominem--except to Parenti.
The development of the argument at that point could, therefore (if Parenti isn't here to defend himself) be to post an example of Parenti's words and demonstrate--I mean, saying Parenti is a world-recognised figure doesn't do it for me; so is Jesus and so is the Dalai Lama--so get some of Parenti's words, maybe look at the key issues--see if Parenti is on the ball by analysing what he says--not by claiming that he is worth reading. He may well be, another person says not--it gets angry, okay--but --
at the end of that comment you link to, Francois wrote:
Your reply at the time picked up that Francois was angry about Parenti, and from your tone you were asking Francois why he felt that way. Francois writes:
Those lovely ad hominems! But launched at Parenti, not you.
And then Francois writes:
Francois in Paris:
It's not even that I necessarily disagree with some of the positions he embraces. It's more that I find him utterly banal when he's correct and completely loopy and discredited otherwise. Racism in the US is a decoy issue to control the white lower class? Well, yeah, duh. Rich people like power and use it to consolidate their positions at the expense of everybody else? Wow, now that's a profound truth that needed to revealed for all to know! Thanks you, Michael! How courageous! And for the rest, barf: barely disguised apologetics of communist totalitarians, open support for conspiracy cranks, knee-jerk victim-sucking for any "struggle" out there, etc. The last I paid attention to that idiot was "Against Empire". I found that book atrocious. He manages to be at the same time hectoring and whiny, zero useful information and an inordinate amount of BS and highly selective fact dropping. All in one Noam Chomsky without the brains and Ann Coulter without the legs.
It's not even that I necessarily disagree with some of the positions he embraces. It's more that I find him utterly banal when he's correct and completely loopy and discredited otherwise. Racism in the US is a decoy issue to control the white lower class? Well, yeah, duh. Rich people like power and use it to consolidate their positions at the expense of everybody else? Wow, now that's a profound truth that needed to revealed for all to know! Thanks you, Michael! How courageous! And for the rest, barf: barely disguised apologetics of communist totalitarians, open support for conspiracy cranks, knee-jerk victim-sucking for any "struggle" out there, etc.
The last I paid attention to that idiot was "Against Empire". I found that book atrocious. He manages to be at the same time hectoring and whiny, zero useful information and an inordinate amount of BS and highly selective fact dropping. All in one Noam Chomsky without the brains and Ann Coulter without the legs.
Now, I'm lost. I never read the guy! Maybe Francois is smearing Parenti--so let's have at it! What did Parenti write--let's get the original texts to the fore!
And he wrote some more, everyone can click on the link. That was not an ad hominem aimed at you, it was a virulent critique of Parenti a la Hunter S Thompson--"He's a vicious hack and should be dragged naked down Main Street by wolverines--!"
Thing is, you need balance, perspective, and all the other no-nos of the ignorant right, left, and all directions north and south--they don't do such things--and that is why their lives are always full of such frustrations! Just do the right thing! And what is the right thing? Hmmmm.....let us discuss that, using the texts of interesting writers if they have written something interesting on the subject--and let's get heated and throw around some words, yeah! And then it's all getting heated--
but ad hominem--okay, lana once slagged off Robert Anton Wilson, one of the writer's I've very much enjoyed reading. Ooooookay. End of that conversation.
But she slagged of RAW, not me. She did that elsewhere, I'm sure, but her ad hominem was against RAW, and I can take that as I like--for me, it meant she just liked jabbing things with pins--what's that? Jab jab. So....not my idea of fun. Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
But that's not my point. Check the top of my contribution to the thread. My point is one about sources, more specifically challenging people by demanding unimpeachable, "scientifically verifiable" sources, and then casually dismissing those sources once produced, and how this is in fact a form of bullying, not to mention arbitrary.
With the larger point that permitting such things on more than one occasion to happen is not productive for a site which bills itself as iconoclastic and without idees recues. In my formal opinion on the subject being discussed in the thread to which I linked, specifically Beijing, I suspect a bit of groupthink here.
Beyond all that, while the examples I link to here did not engage in ad hom towards me, if you read the whole thread, you will find that I too am called a liar and, when I request a retraction or an apology, this request is treated about as casually as Parenti's citation. Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
For me, the cultural issue is how to deal with situations where there is an issue of things being close to a person vs. things being correct--and also, I think there is the issue of things being close to a person vs. another person being scathing about those things.
The first is unequivocal--jut because it's close to your heart, doesn't make it correct--facts to the fore, primary sources etc. I don't think that was Far Easterner's issue, but I can't read his mind so that's just what I think. He had, in my experience, always been open to questions and counter-examples.
For the second--being scathing about things another person holds close, there is the "you must be thick skinned aspect"--and, yeah, the ad hominem is against "the thing" not the poster; so it's how closely a person associates with the object of loathing--surely Dick Cheney's boyfriend might find some of what we write about Cheney un-appealing--or maybe not. I think it was this second element that caused Far Easterner's self-removal from ET. He also asked to have his account deleted and all his diaries and comments.
The response of the FPers was to be upset about reason two, but for reasons of historical record (Migeru is, and I concur, strong on the historical record--no re-writing or air-brushing or deleting ET history please!)
(Though I think I should have the right to delete my own diary content as I wish--heh!)
Anyways, personally I liked Far Easterner as far as I knew him across ET; he had a specific focus and tone. Fair enough if you don't like the tone, prefer something scathing, and there's nothing stopping a person ad hominem-ing any public figures including the Dalai Lama.
I truly don't see the conspiracy you do--who had even thought much about the issue at ET before it came up there? Jerome had no position. Other FPers confirmed that, no, you are not allowed to stop people commenting on your sources--though you can ask them to be more polite and direct ad-hominems to other users no no no...
So okay--it happened, Far Easterner is gone and that's that, time to move on, but I don't get that you were personally targeted in any way, except (this is my very humble opinion) in that your tone put at variance with Far Easterner's had--for those few posts--an effect where Far Easterner was given the "you're the friendly guy" tag--but, ach, I don't want to read it all again--there's no conspiracy I don't think, that's all--
-- Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
Now, in this case, I felt I was being called a liar. And, giving the benefit of the doubt to the person so calling me, I asked him (politely, not ascerbically) to correct that. And in this case, the person not only refused, but continued on in the same vein. So, in this case, it is quite clear to me what happened.
The rest of the bullying came in subsequent threads, one in another fareasterner thread where he melted down against yet another poster here, and again, that some of you don't think there is bullying and are quite defensive about it is pretty telling to me, and in fact this sort of treatment of arguments does not really lend itself to the advertised goal of the site which I see all over this thread.
I would further note that I never used the word conspiracy, nor do I think my read on what happened is unreasonable or part of some persecution complex Actually, I question why you would employ that line of reasoning, which commonly is used to discredit the other as simply some unreasonable crank. I also note that others have complained on this thread about the same sort of treatment I am complaining about, so it's not like this is some crazy ravings of someone who got pissed off and still is pissed off.
I for one have greatly decreased my participation here because of all of that, and quite frankly, question a lot more the good faith of more than one regular here because of it. Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant
There is also the car driver effect - people who are mild and diffident in ordinary interaction become kamikazes at the wheel when their car gives them some degree of anonymity and they feel they can let their frustrations out.
Thus when things get personal on-line my instinctive response is to withdraw -you can't win when feelings are hurt online - not in a way where everyone feels their honour is preserved - it is so much more difficult to create a win-win rather than a win-lose scenario. Everything you say starts to be misconstrued in ways you can't control.
Much as I would prefer it to be otherwise - it's best not to let things get too personal - for one thing - the world could be watching, and there is no way a face saving compromise can be engineered as in real world interaction. The trick is not to have too high hopes of what can be achieved on line in the first place. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
Daring a challenge, knowing that certain people will back you up online, contributes to hurt feelings, not to being right.
Second, demanding sources constantly is overrated, IMO, because it devalues our own thoughts, opinions and what develops from them. There are always sources for oppossing views and they are considered 'serious' regardless, so it becomes a battle of who can find more, or who gives up sooner. Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.
It's not about being right, it's about not accepting "because I say so" as an argument. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
I take the anglo disease, or that bubblespan knew the disaster he was causing, as a 'fact' and it can hardly be put into a formula. We also know that the ´hard fact´ numbers like GDP, employment, etc. are pretty much some government's formula-of-the-month and we take them apart into effects-on-people.
It takes all fields and I don't disregard science, yet science is not all there is and, while our thoughts and opinions may be faulty, we have ET as the backdrop to adjust, adapt and improve them, not to find what brain chemical got us on the correct path.
Now, if you ask me about the 3 B´s, et al, I´ll tell you they should be under the microscope, in a lab to find the ´evil gene´ and destroy it. Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.
These are "facts" part of the prevailing narrative, and the kind that we have deconstructed and (i) ask others to justify when they brign them up and (ii) tend to dismiss when brought up by others because we've deconstructed them many times here and do not care to do it yet again.
Thus my hope to have access to a better library of links to our arguments, that could be brought up each time these issues pop up.
It is a problem, because the number of issues on which the conventional wisdom is deeply flawed is huge. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
We know we cannot swallow the press as fact and we try to find the reality and spread it, summarized and humanized, to reach more people. The in-house source to link to is great to shorten answers because it does feel eternal, out here. Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.
To ask you what evidence you have of that "fact" is not asking you for a "formula". When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
it's a tricky issue, ceebs.
i think part of it is cause by the fact that the opinions shared by the majority of ET'ers are painfully under-represented in the tradmed, and we come here already galled by this.
so when someone new doesn't immediately signal comity, indeed appears to be equivocal, ambiguous or even hostile to the values we seem to agree on mostly here, then there's a reaction of....shit, we come here to get away from all this crap, here it is right in our own cyber-front room, aaaargh...
having said that, there have been some more um, traditional thinkers, like winstonchurchill, fr'instance, who brought a serious and thought-through set of opinions to the table and was treated very well, i thought.
obviously humouring someone who 'thinks different' than most of us, just to keep them around so we have a more 'balanced' blog would be absurd, but there is a tiny bit of how shall i say....'we're a little club who've earned the right to our in-jokes, and you get to wait and work (link) hard like good little newbies, flow with us and you can fold into the group too'. i can't point to any comments in particular, but there was a slightly self-satisfied vibe sometimes, i feel.
could be completely out to lunch on this, i dunno, if it's there it's tiny and barely worth worrying about.
nothing that weird, considering the daily insanity we're daily exposed to in that 'other' world, you know, the one when one isn't refreshing recent comments like the mouse had a mind of its own.
here we pore over politics and parse the straight press, but we're always going to be a microcosm of that other world, we're umbilically connected to it, so we'll get all the seven deadlies and more dropping in.
ET has changed, become a little less personal and yet has more intelligent voices than before, making it more universal, a Good Thing, i reckon, worth the loss of the cozier feeling when there were fewer of us.
there are scads of great lefty blogs, we all 'formally occurred' here and chose to make it home(page), all for different, but probably similar reasons, a jam of spontaneous expression, that blends seriousness with hilarity in unexpected ways.
like a big soup we all throw ingredients into, and then chow down happily.
oy! who are you? what's that you just tossed in our bowl? lol ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
obviously humouring someone who 'thinks different' than most of us, just to keep them around so we have a more 'balanced' blog would be absurd,
depends what you mean by humouring them. If they're prepared to keep coming back and put up with our biases, I think it can actually only be good for us. Arguing against the tradmed is much like beating your head against a brick wall, we're just going to end up outraged that its still there tomorrow. if its absurd that we'd be more balanced, fair enough, do we all want it to be that much more balanced? Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
as for your comment about a balanced blog, i agree. we don't want to just preach to the choir.
or preach at all, lol.
balance is so relative, perhaps the banter and light-heartedness that balances out the wonk factor for the likes o' me, could contribute to the problem of 'bottling' essence de ET for 'serious' players. (like the ones xavier alludes to).
i don't buy in (!) to a conflict between boxers and wrestlers here, i experience it more as sweet'n'sour, soft + hard, yin/yang...
a balsamic vinegar of blogs! ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
