Meta - ET | 255 comments (255 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

Well actually, Dodo, it wasn't my source, it (none / 1)

was Swedish Kind of Death's.

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.

I would be ashamed to admit that I had risen from the ranks. When I rise it will be with the ranks, and not from them Eugene Debs

by redstar on Mon May 12th, 2008 at 11:26:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well actually, Dodo, it wasn't my source, it (none / 0)

Just to be exact (thanks for the link!) the quote is:

He's a cheap polemicist, a lazy, pompous, self-indulgent bottom feeder and an ideological wanker of the first order.

...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:

Contrast with people like Altmeyer.

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:

He's highly praised in some academic circles but he's still a vacuous hack.

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.

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.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Mon May 12th, 2008 at 07:36:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well actually, Dodo, it wasn't my source, it (none / 1)

Well yes, those ad homs that francois and fareasterner were slinging (fareasterner calling him a liar) were in fact not pointed at me.

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.

I would be ashamed to admit that I had risen from the ranks. When I rise it will be with the ranks, and not from them Eugene Debs

by redstar on Mon May 12th, 2008 at 08:28:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well actually, Dodo, it wasn't my source, it (none / 0)

My honest reading of the thread was that you questioned Far Easterner's approach, or something about the Free Tibet movement, maybe acerbically (a la HST and Francois' styles), and for Far Easterner that was...basically it. I would suggest (from my very limited knowledge of him) that he was most offended that something very close to him was being casually (for him) slandered. So he left and that's that.

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.

by rg (leopold dot lepster at google mail dot com) on Tue May 13th, 2008 at 08:17:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

First rule of communications, actually (none / 0)

one of the cardinal rules - what is understood by a communication is not what the communicator thinks he or she meant. It is what is understood by the person who is being communicated to.

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.

I would be ashamed to admit that I had risen from the ranks. When I rise it will be with the ranks, and not from them Eugene Debs

by redstar on Tue May 13th, 2008 at 10:25:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: First rule of communications, actually (none / 1)

The problem with cyberspace is that we have none of the communication, mediation and reconciliation tools that we can have in the real world during and following an argument - the friendly look, the handshake, the smile, the warning look, the - I'm in no mood to piss about look - etc. and which people use, often unconsciously, to modulate their responses.

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..."

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Tue May 13th, 2008 at 12:00:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Meta - ET | 255 comments (255 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Top Diaries

Pentecost steam

A Nomad's Life (A Farewell)

Newspeak to English pocket dictionary

Standing on the Shoulders of Giants - Europe and the Mongol...

Quantifying Utopia: A UBI Calculator for the USA

Simple Solar Principles

Rail News Blogging #24

Ferguson hates on Keynes

Recent Diaries

Pentecost steam

Simple Solar Principles

Quantifying Utopia: A UBI Calculator for the USA

Newspeak to English pocket dictionary

Standing on the Shoulders of Giants - Europe and the Mongol...

Rail News Blogging #24

A Nomad's Life (A Farewell)

The Brussels Consensus: economic disaster in EU candidate...

Origins of German Neo-Austerianism

Ferguson hates on Keynes

Dionysian revels: Nice, May Day 2013:

Anglo Or Not, It's A Disease

The UK and the Euro

Free Energy: Solar and Dynamo LED Keychain Lights

Kruganomics 101

Gold

Corporate Profits and Aggregate Demand

VC Investment: Then and Now

An Ambush of Wishful thinking and Cargo Cult law.

The Intellectual Foundations of Austerity destroyed

Occasional Series