European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

Sven Triloqvist:

The greatest weakness of ET, IMO, is an inability to maintain a balance between politics/economics/science, and the arts/humanism/infotainment interests. I call it boxers v wrestlers.

Or Classic v Romantic

Classic (which focuses on the underlying function) and Romantic (which focuses on the outer-lying form)

so that

"Although motorcycle riding is romantic," Pirsig writes, "motorcycle maintenance is purely classic."

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Fri May 9th, 2008 at 08:58:12 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Yep. And the romantic heretics are largely the one's who have been on the inside of a process and found it didn't work ;-)

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri May 9th, 2008 at 09:45:34 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Conventional wisdom / cliquishness (4.00 / 3)

Would anyone feel the strength to try to summarize thse for a newcomer? Would we be able to? I think this could be an interesting exercise...

Helen - given that you are one of the most active regulars but not part of the FP crew, would you be willing to give it a try?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Fri May 9th, 2008 at 09:53:14 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Conventional wisdom / cliquishness (4.00 / 3)

I'll give it a go. I think perhaps that some threads should have a warning on them along the lines that our bark is worse than our bite.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Fri May 9th, 2008 at 10:07:25 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Conventional wisdom / cliquishness (4.00 / 4)

my feeling is that the site has taken a more revendicative tone lately, that may not be best adapted to the purpose of convincing complete outsiders of ET views on some subjects.

I feel, as a reader mainly, that I cannot advice other people to read some diairies because I would be afraid they may just discard the text after reading a few over revendicative paragraphs.

I feel that the site may need some delicately phrased articles to sum up the work on some subject, and let it available to outsiders in a simple, comprehensive and welcoming way.

Perhaps the wiki should be started again, to become the place where keeping such welcoming texts, with a stronger anti-spam protection?

by Xavier in Paris on Fri May 9th, 2008 at 06:31:55 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

What revendicative is? (none / 0)

Is that like retro-vindictive, vindictive like they used to be in the 80's, or 50's?

So, here I am in Ravenna. Where exactly was the Rubicon, again?

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Fri May 9th, 2008 at 10:32:54 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: What revendicative is? (4.00 / 2)

You could translate by militant, activist, protesting, er, strident?

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat May 10th, 2008 at 01:29:53 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: What revendicative is? (none / 0)

demanding?

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

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat May 10th, 2008 at 07:59:55 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Merci. (none / 0)

Both militant and strident, she is clear.

So, here I am in Ravenna. Where exactly was the Rubicon, again?

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat May 10th, 2008 at 08:16:33 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: What revendicative is? (none / 1)

Bruce, there's an agriculture debate in the Debates Box. Hope it might interest you.

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat May 10th, 2008 at 01:50:12 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: What revendicative is? (4.00 / 2)

oups sorry, I'm afraid revendicative is just another language invention

Well, I meant protesting, in a quite strident way.

What I just wanted to underline is that, given the tone of latest contributions to the website, it is quite difficult to just tell people "go to the website, they have quite a good analysis on that subject".

Because, doing so, when the guy actually comes to ET, what he feels is finding himself (or herself) in the middle of quite radical activism, and he(she) will then discard whatever is written on the site as "politically biaised".

I usually prefer, while debating, slowly demonstrate that the usual wisdom on a subject is false, giving facts and examples when I may, because I feels the result is more efficient.

and sorry again for the vocabulary mess

by Xavier in Paris on Sat May 10th, 2008 at 06:44:35 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: What revendicative is? (4.00 / 3)

I don't know whether you consider me to be one of the more strident contributors here, but I would find it helpful if you commented on and pointed out contributions which you considered to be unhelpfully strident. It's sometimes hard to anticipate how people will react to what you write, and part of the benefit of a site like this is the feedback we receive on our writing.

"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 Sat May 10th, 2008 at 07:15:02 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: What revendicative is? (4.00 / 3)

Nothing wrong with making up new words - perhaps we should develop a new pan-European language!

"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 Sat May 10th, 2008 at 07:34:28 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: What revendicative is? (4.00 / 3)

please note that I don't want to keep all stringent contribution at bay. I was just wondering if some headlines articles would not benefit from a smoother writing.

As an example, I would point to some of Jérôme "anglo disease" stories where facts are mixed with opinions, making it useful when answering to biaised contradictors, but also harder to use to convince some open minded correspondent. It often happens it the comments more. I hope I'm not sounding ungrateful really, because I'm not: I really read a lot of ET stories, and I'm usually wondering how to use the material in it elsewhere.

Jérôme, don't stop writing, I love your stories

by Xavier in Paris on Sat May 10th, 2008 at 08:08:47 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Again, a fair point (4.00 / 2)

but one I'm not too sure what to do about.

I do try to cover the basics in my stories, or at least to link to older diaries arguing more in detail a particular point, but there is also a need to cover new ground and not just repeat endlessly the same thing (as it were, I already feel I'm repeating myself too much) - and that's where the earlier references, already absorbed by§ regulars, may not be obvious to new readers.

But that's why I'd like to be able to have the thinktank, where we can produce these summary papers that take a new reader through the whole process in a step-by-step fashion, using the arguments we've honed previously. Having such papers as handy references to our assertions would be a priceless support to the site.

but we need t odraft them, circulate them, and store tham online. Which brings us back to that ET thinktank idea I wrote about elsewhere in this thread.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Sat May 10th, 2008 at 10:26:35 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Again, a fair point (none / 1)

The ET ThinkTank already exists. What we need to do is to formalize it WITHOUT destroying motivations, or by replacing with other motivations (such as, as you suggest, payment).

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sat May 10th, 2008 at 02:38:49 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

No it does NOT exist (none / 1)

Its potential is clearly there, but it's not been turned into reality yet. Saying otherwise is silly.

It will exist when it's quoted in old-style media.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Sat May 10th, 2008 at 04:48:02 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Silly (4.00 / 6)

Well, your experience of thinktanks is different from mine. Being quoted in the old style media is not what I regard as Mecca. I believe that bit is relatively easy if you understand how the media works. That's what I do for a living.

But bringing about change in the audience is a whole different kettle of whatever takes your fancy. Old style media are, unfortunately, old style. In the billions of words written every day, an LTE here or there is irrelevant. It may satisfy your own needs for communication and recognition, but that is a monologue, IMO, and the common failure of most of my clients in equating exposure with influence.

The true value of thinktanks is thinking. That is what we do and it is a reality. What is not yet a reality is how to translate this thinking into change that is perceptible to a large mass, such that it might have political impact. If we could apply more open thinking to this little conundrum, we might find more common ground. The solution is unlikely IMO to be old style media. Although, as I have written elsewhere, a literary agent could secure income for ET.

You have written elsewhere about your lack of knowledge about IT. This is a problem. The solution (though I don't know what it is, but have some ideas), lies in this very channel that we are using at this moment.

The thinktank exists as it accepts that it is primarily in new-media - not old.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sat May 10th, 2008 at 05:36:11 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Look Sven (none / 1)

You always talk about all the things you know about and all that we could do if we had your knowledge. We obviously don't, but you won't share it, and you won't do anything yourself to translate ET's potential into actual consequences, even those that you personally think are more relevant.

I thought you considered ET to be a collective entity - why do you seem to be expecting me, or any of the gnomes, to do the work? Why aren't you contacting that agent and bringing the options s/he will provide here on ET for these to be discussed? Why don't you put your ideas on the table? Why don't you make these things that you consider so valuable and important actually happen?

So forgive me if I ignore you or am skeptical - you asked for it with your inaction and/or superciliousness.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Sun May 11th, 2008 at 07:32:46 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Look Jerome - (none / 0)

Sven's comments that got you so riled up are rational observations that contribute to this particular discussion. Supercilious - you should reconsider the use of that word - not to mention the spirit in which you used it.

As to ET Thinktank - you may remember that I have supported this idea for months and have stated that I will put $100 per month into the project. I used to suggest Migeru as the first employee, but, since he has a job now, I recommend Helen as an archivist/coordinator.

Concerning form - the comments, as in past discussions of this issue, are diverse but contain alternatives that could be organized for further discussion and decision by you, or the FPs, or the membership-at-large. This could be Helen's first task.

paul spencer

by paul spencer (spencerinthegorge AT yahoo DOT com) on Tue May 13th, 2008 at 11:16:11 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

there's a certain rough and tumble of brusque challenge in our conversations that can be bruising, even to regulars (or is it just me ?)

I think that bruising rough and tumble came to a head over the Winter Solstice break and we are still reeling from it.

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

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri May 9th, 2008 at 09:59:58 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Maybe so, but more recently 3rdColumn was left feeling that we were more dismissive than merely challenging. There have been other exchanges that I felt could have been handled in a less abrupt tone.

We do have a cw that is liberal and progresive, but whilst I'm not sure I'd agree with 3rdcolumn's point that we demand a higher degree of proof from right wingers, we do display an impatience with them that amounts to the same thing. Our attitude is certainly not conducive to a polite and reasoned exchange of views with those who question that cw.

collectively we can be impolite.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Fri May 9th, 2008 at 10:15:39 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

With affection and respect, Helen, I challenge that interpretation re 3rdColumn. She was not asked to provide more backing for her posts than anyone else here -- she just didn't see why she had to produce any. I'm willing to go into the detail of this. Must we do that?

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri May 9th, 2008 at 10:26:07 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Meta - ET (4.00 / 4)

I think you missed my point when you state, "She was not asked to provide more backing for her posts than anyone else here "

I actually wrote " I'm not sure I'd agree with 3rdcolumn's point that we demand a higher degree of proof from right wingers, we do display an impatience with them that amounts to the same thing."

My bold, you may have missed the negative. I was making a point that our impatience with right wing views makes reasoned discourse difficult as we are seen as too combative. Maybe that's splitting hairs, but ...

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Fri May 9th, 2008 at 10:32:00 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

My impatience -- since it's my impatience that was specifically pointed to by 3rdColumn -- arose from trying, in a reasonable way, to get her to discuss the background of her diaries, and having her shuffle it off (not always with the greatest politeness).

Though I see the point as ceebs puts it below: when we are already familiar with arguments and evidence, we may challenge them less, and this may appear to newcomers as a form of bias.

Honest question: how to avoid this?

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri May 9th, 2008 at 11:00:25 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

The knowledge base (ETpedia) wiki would be a tool that would make it easy to see what has already been discussed and to what extent, even enabling a focused challenge to our conventional wisdom. As it is, it's mostly an institutional memory carried by long-time members, and it can look like enforcement of orthodoxy.

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

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri May 9th, 2008 at 11:03:11 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Exactly

"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 Fri May 9th, 2008 at 11:25:19 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Meta - ET (4.00 / 8)

whilst not wanting to go into it in great detail I agree with Helen, I can see that to someone who comes either from a different direction to the centre of views inside the community, it might seem to them that they are being asked for more proof than the rest of the community. either because the core membership has had the background discussions over several years and has a community memory of those discussions, or because the community has become secure in the amount of detail usually supplied by the individual poster, so are more willing to let regulars slide slightly more on providing links. This can be seen as an institutional bias by new users.

As we journey through life, we should keep an iron grip, to the very end, on the capacity for silliness. It preserves the soul from dessication.

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Fri May 9th, 2008 at 10:37:06 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

See as a regular commenter I appealed to the community to not supply links and you all allowed it. ;-)

As we journey through life, we should keep an iron grip, to the very end, on the capacity for silliness. It preserves the soul from dessication.

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Fri May 9th, 2008 at 10:59:07 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

You know, it's getting to the point where asking for a source is opening oneself to accusations of bullying.

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

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri May 9th, 2008 at 11:01:05 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Meta - ET (4.00 / 4)

like any online community this place will go through phases of that. personally If I'm not willing to put in the effort to track down my half remembered sources, I'll note that in the comment and note my vagueness. If anyone wants to look it up from that point I leave it as an exercise to the reader. In all other cases if I don't provide a link, I expect to be asked to back my arguments up. If people think they're being singled out, its easy enough to check back through the comments and should seem obvious that someone is being picked on.

As we journey through life, we should keep an iron grip, to the very end, on the capacity for silliness. It preserves the soul from dessication.

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Fri May 9th, 2008 at 11:09:50 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

When some claims require, vociferously, sourcing which is then casually and without explanation dismissed as not credible, while counterclaims representing the collective wisdom of many (if not most) regulars on the site are accepted, again collectively, without any equivalent source or document requirement, then yes, that can be bullying.

Not to mention bad-faithed.

Freiheit ist immer Freiheit der Andersdenkenden

by redstar on Sat May 10th, 2008 at 04:25:10 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

you're right, it can be bullying, but it can also be done because people at least believe you and want to take your argument outside the community, and want to be able to back that argument up when they are in other places. If i'm dismissive i'm far less likely to ask for your sources on most days.

As we journey through life, we should keep an iron grip, to the very end, on the capacity for silliness. It preserves the soul from dessication.

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Sun May 11th, 2008 at 07:15:01 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Meta - ET (4.00 / 4)

There is definitely dismissal and bullying on ET, I have lived it and not reacted well to it. If ET can acknowledge no fault, intellectual rigidity will set in. The regulars' opinion tends to carry more weight than it is expressed and if they deny it repeatedly, it affects participation.

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._

by metavision on Sun May 11th, 2008 at 09:15:44 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Our own thoughts are not substitutes for facts, and facts must be verifiable.

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

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun May 11th, 2008 at 10:16:23 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

But Migeru, what ET produces is not hard science, but developed thought, through study, analysis, comparison, contrast, compilation.... ET is not a scientific lab and I think the difference is mostly field semantics that should be combined into a common direction.

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._

by metavision on Sun May 11th, 2008 at 11:04:53 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Facts vs opinion (4.00 / 3)

but the problem happens when people start talking about France's or Europe's "obvious economic underperformance" or America's "brilliant" economy, or France's massive unemployment, etc...

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

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Sun May 11th, 2008 at 11:10:18 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Facts vs opinion (4.00 / 2)

Exactly. Unfortunately, the opposite side also uses that language to dare and divide, so we cannot let terminology, field, or format divide us.

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._

by metavision on Sun May 11th, 2008 at 12:33:36 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

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.

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

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun May 11th, 2008 at 12:45:30 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

Anybody can ask for sources, even the minority.

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

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun May 11th, 2008 at 07:06:27 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Well yes, of course.

But then, when some sources are accepted uncritically while others are peremptorily challenged without justification, this is where the bullying comes in.

Freiheit ist immer Freiheit der Andersdenkenden

by redstar on Sun May 11th, 2008 at 07:30:40 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Meta - ET (none / 0)

Well, you can always be the one to ask for sources on things that you think the rest are accepting uncritically.

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

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun May 11th, 2008 at 07:40:17 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Meta - ET (none / 0)

And also, you can distinguish between members and between rows over different specific issues. The source you brought up that was instantly attacked was attacked by two or three users, none of them even top commenter regulars (not to mention FPs), hardly an example of ET groupthink.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Sun May 11th, 2008 at 07:47:39 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Moreover, one will only be inclined to ask for sources on claims that in some way contradict one's expectations. I freely admit my ignorance of China is encyclopedic and so in many cases I won't have a reason to ask for a statement to be substantiated further if it seems internally consistent.

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

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun May 11th, 2008 at 08:05:47 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Actually, the source I bring up here, not to belabor the point, was dismissed as hackish and obviously biased even though the source was a well respected and published, by reputable publishing houses (to the point of being commonly taught from by political science departments), while the counterpoint source, referenced gushingly by the diarist, was accepted uncritically pretty much by all.

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.

Freiheit ist immer Freiheit der Andersdenkenden

by redstar on Sun May 11th, 2008 at 08:22:17 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

We all have dismissed well respected and published sources as hackish and obviously biased on ET, albeit not without argument. As I remember your case, your detractors had arguments, albeit rather lacking in specifics, after you called them out on their initial knee-jerk reactions.

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.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Sun May 11th, 2008 at 11:13:04 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

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

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.

Freiheit ist immer Freiheit der Andersdenkenden

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

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

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.

Freiheit ist immer Freiheit der Andersdenkenden

by redstar on Mon May 12th, 2008 at 08:28:13 PM EDT
[ 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 EDT
[ 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.

Freiheit ist immer Freiheit der Andersdenkenden

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

Re: Meta - ET (4.00 / 10)

I can see that to someone who comes either from a different direction to the centre of views inside the community, it might seem to them that they are being asked for more proof than the rest of the community. either because the core membership has had the background discussions over several years and has a community memory of those discussions, or because the community has become secure in the amount of detail usually supplied by the individual poster, so are more willing to let regulars slide slightly more on providing links. This can be seen as an institutional bias by new users.

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

"It is time for a new Humanism, or we perish" -Albert Hoffman

by melo on Fri May 9th, 2008 at 03:29:27 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

melo:

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?

As we journey through life, we should keep an iron grip, to the very end, on the capacity for silliness. It preserves the soul from dessication.

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Sun May 11th, 2008 at 07:20:25 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

by humouring them, i meant cutting them extra slack just because they have a different worldview.

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!

"It is time for a new Humanism, or we perish" -Albert Hoffman

by melo on Sun May 11th, 2008 at 11:54:45 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Meta - ET (4.00 / 5)

Since you bring it up, and in case others don't know what that was about, here is The3rdColumn's exit (the top of a subthread containing 45 comments where, incidentally, Sven's "boxing and wrestling" concept elsewhere in this discussion seems to have originated).

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

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri May 9th, 2008 at 10:26:18 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Do you have a post as official ET Librarian? you always seem to know where everything is.

As we journey through life, we should keep an iron grip, to the very end, on the capacity for silliness. It preserves the soul from dessication.

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Fri May 9th, 2008 at 11:01:31 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

I'm just good with Google, and even with the site search facilities. And I have a good memory.

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

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri May 9th, 2008 at 11:05:29 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Third Column never did come back or reply to our entreaties to reconsider. Does anyone know her ultimate reason for leaving other than a sense that her contributions weren't appreciated here?

"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 Fri May 9th, 2008 at 11:30:03 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Meta - ET (4.00 / 11)

i always go bonkers around the winter solstice, (the rest of the year i'm merely insane...)

the big difference from other winter solstices, and this last one, is i went bonkers online...

so my belated apologies to those whom i may have thoughtlessly (or thoughtfully) offended.

you're a great bunch for putting up with me at all, and i thankyou, especially mig, who does so much to keep this blog the honey-filled mind-hive it is.

far from 'scrambling lieutenants' mired in 'groupthink', you all are an amazing set of individuals, whose whole is much more even than the sum of its parts.

i iearned my lesson, i think, time will tell. i certainly feel a lot more thick-skinned than then. and a lot less prickly...

i think back to how out of it i was, and it's mystifying and mortifying...what an asshole...

ET is fine as it is, a welcome port in this concatenation of global storms we are facing.

simply the funniest and most concerned blog i've found on the toobs.

long may she run...

"It is time for a new Humanism, or we perish" -Albert Hoffman

by melo on Fri May 9th, 2008 at 10:50:43 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Meta - ET (4.00 / 10)

melo-dyman: my belated apologies too for my excessive remarks to you. I was offended, I felt those of us who are not believers in a spiritual plane were getting a bum rap in your own comments, and in fact I felt personally hurt by your reference to your father's death because it reminded me of my own father's death. I should have tried to talk about that, but an Internet forum during a big battle is not an ideal setting for complex personal feelings. Perhaps I should just have shut up.

Just to say that my remarks were personal, from one member to another, not "editorial", and there was no notion even at the back of my mind of wanting to push you out of ET. Long may you post here, melo.

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri May 9th, 2008 at 11:46:27 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

group hug?

i couldn't agree more about the internet being an inappropriate medium for 'elaborating' (in the italian sense) some of life's trickier conundrums....

shutting up is the finest of remedies!

so is letting a provocative poke-y comment drop into nothingness, rather than taking the bait and washing out one's own personal neurosis in public.

boundaries are important, even in cyberspace.

i think i have a better measure of detachment these days...so do others here...it's much nicer to come here without conflict, there's too damn much of that in the world already.

"It is time for a new Humanism, or we perish" -Albert Hoffman

by melo on Fri May 9th, 2008 at 03:40:36 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

I'm sorry we pushed each other's buttons the way we did.

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

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri May 9th, 2008 at 01:48:49 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

yeah, me too.

aqua passata

all the best

"It is time for a new Humanism, or we perish" -Albert Hoffman

by melo on Fri May 9th, 2008 at 03:41:55 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

The internet is always a place where things like that happen. you have to remember that you lose the majority of communication cues in typed messages, it's easy to perceive emotional content in another persons posts that doesn't exist and react to the tone of voice or facial expression you imagine the poster to have rather than the actual content of their words. if you're ever reading a posting and its winding you up, reread it with a broad grin and see its content change.

As we journey through life, we should keep an iron grip, to the very end, on the capacity for silliness. It preserves the soul from dessication.

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Sun May 11th, 2008 at 07:25:17 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

Re: Meta - ET (4.00 / 7)

I think part of that has to do with the constant conversations leading to some convergence in ETers' views, which is natural. Because we're all talking to each other every day, we don't have that separation necessary to sustain big political fights. Points are conceded here and there once in a while, grey areas are recognized, etc.

So given that, and the fact that ET tends to be a place of very unconventional wisdom, it's not terribly surprising that the place could feel a bit intimidating to newcomers. It's not that I don't think we're a welcoming group. It's that with a lot of very conventional, nearly set-in-stone thinking -- "How can they not believe (x)?!" -- not being at all the consensus, I suspect some simply don't know how to engage.

Where's your motherf*%&ing flag pin?

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Fri May 9th, 2008 at 11:08:54 AM EDT
[ Parent ]