Other than that, it's over my head.

Mais c'est un scandâââle!!

It is normal to experience conflicts once in a while. It is a price to pay for diversity. However, if we want to reach a wider (hence more diverse) audience, we will have to learn to handle them without getting too much carried away.

"Ce qui vient au monde pour ne rien troubler ne mérite ni égards ni patience." René Char

Re your call for activism, I've always had the sense or fear that the ultimate downside of blogging and the internet in general is that it gives you the illusion of greater closeness with people across the world, which really only highlights the true distance.  The cruelty of "watching" all kinds of things that are happening so far away, that even if one was viewing something in "real time," there would be no way to participate, if it was good, or help, if it was bad.  The seeming closeness highlights the distance.

I love that ET has room for photo diaries and train diaries, as well raw, bewildered and sometimes rather sophisticated explorations of economic problems, alternative energy, etc.

Actually thank you for having this blog. I think this type of community blog is unique in the European sphere and it would really be a pity, when such roots of perhaps a new kind of public would be given up.

Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den Menschen
Volker Pispers

What I found wasn't a spirituality versus rationality debate, or any kind of broader intellectual debate, but rather a few old wounds being reopened - where disagreements had become personalised - and where various nefarious motives where being imputed to others.

I appreciate that the disagreements had roots going back to earlier discussions - some before my time here - but that is the way of conflicts which remain unresolved - they remain troubling below the surface and occasionally flame to the surface again.

I think this is where we reach the boundaries of what is possible on a blog.  Flame wars are easy because of the virtual distance; closure almost impossible, because reconciliation processes are as much physical, emotional, sensuous, and personal - as they are logical, rational and amenable to keyboard communication.  

Once people get hurt in a personal sense there is almost no way back - other than at a meet-up with a trained facilitator perhaps.  The tragedy lies in thinking closure is possible in a virtual world  - we live in a kind of suspended animation on-line - reconciliation is mostly only possible in the real world.

Yes this can distract from cohesiveness, enthusiasm and energy channelled in constructive directions.  It is particularly damaging if a lot of editorial time and energy (and enthusiasm) is sapped in the process.

However the refusal to let these conflicts go is also saying something else:  people care, they want closure, and are upset they can't seem to find a way to create it.

Whilst you may see this site primarily in terms of your agenda, others see it in terms of theirs.
European Tribune - Comments - Beyond ET?

But it's also, somehat mysteriously, attracted other people, who enjoy the mostly respectful atmosphere here, and bring other perspectives - and take advantage of the relaxed, uncensored context to explore aother avenues and, sometimes, yank a few chains. We all need reality checks, so that's not a bad thing, except when people actually get hurt. And words do hurt.

I don't think it is helpful to paint others as the anomaly, as the ones who don't get what this site is about, as the ones who take advantage of the relaxed atmosphere here, as the ones who create the hurt.

The point is they feel they own part of this site too.  They have invested emotionally in it as well, and perhaps they feel they receive a lesser recognition for their contribution.

notes from no w here

The respectful tone is something I prize here, though I've thrown a flame or two myself (so let me apologize now to whomever that was).

I followed our diarist here from dkos, and have since pretty much stopped reading much there. I cross-post at dkos because that's where my real audience is, though I have no interest in indulging in the dance of groupthink that goes on there. Entirely too predictable. That's my opinion, and I ask no-one else to share it, though I recognize there are some great bloggers there, and at the new subsidiary, Congress Matters.

The trans-Atlantic aspect of ET is the major pull for me here, and the fact that it forces me out of that American-centric mindset, though I write specifically with US policy and issues in mind, and aim it at an American audience (because few on the left here in the US currently advocate in matters of US foreign policy with any credibility).

This trans-Atlanticism means that I'm forced here to examine my assumptions and I feel that, for me, it is needed. For the sake of my own clarity. If I don't post often, it is because, one, I lack the economic or technical expertise to conribute, and, two, is that I'm still studying, on my own, international relations. So I'm still in assmimilation-mode. I'll know when I begin to emerge from that when I read something about, say, Afghanistan, and make an immediate connection to something I knew about Colombia (they've both incredibly corrupt narco-states, btw, and therefore it's going to be enormously difficult to build the institutions of civil society in Afghanistan).

Frankly, I learn alot here, just from hearing other voices and by thinking about it all. I'd never get this at dkos, where everything is viewed through the lens of the American viewpoint (there is only one - the argument is over means, not goals). So, unless the kossacks invade ET en masse, I don't see myself leaving ET anytime soon.

"It Can't Be Just About Us"
--Frank Schnittger, ETian Extraordinaire

I must say that the repeated courtesy to schedule your flame wars during the part of the week that I'm working ... despite that fact that the part of the week that I'm working shifts every ten weeks ... all I can say is bravo. That is a courtesy so pronounced, it is almost Canadian.


Utsukushikereba sore de ii

Sven has self described as a provocateur and a prankster or some-such, but I see some value to what he has done.  I have also seen an increase in tolerance in the reactions to controversial subjects in the brief time I have been involved in ET, and reading the Boxing Day diary and thread, which predated my involvement, I see the distance that has been covered.  Had we not have had these kerfuffules something worse would likely await later.

 

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

Many good points above- Frank's right about the lack of closure on-line, and that the festering of issues unresolved is a driver in the recurring acrimony.

Papicek, ARGeezer, I too value ET and have learned a lot here. I strongly hope we can continue to grow and enjoy the process.

Jerome, I too would see a more activist role for ET- we have the wits to do--do we have the drive? I think our battle to sink Tony Blair's perverse aspirations to bring his brand of hypocrisy to the heart of the EU was a good start,--but we had no second act. Also, your perceptions and ideas began the ball rolling, and we need them. It is, however, a good thing to broaden the base, if we can do so in a civil way.

In my opinion, social policy is based in the emotional, empathic elements that are at the core of defining "Quality of life". Economics needs to serve the creation of social policy. As a recovering technocrat, I have come to believe we need that empathic side badly, but it's irritating to the true technocrat, and all those who see the world in a mechanistic way, just as that machine-world seems hollow to me. We need a mix of both views.

Forgive my oversimplification- there are more dimensions than just these two, but I see these as central.

If I am able, I will continue to participate, come what may.

Grabbing what you can, as John Ruskin said, isn't any less wicked when you grab it with the power of your brains than with the power of your fists.

This environment is founded on two main pillars: the comment rating mechanism and the usual technical side of the posts. Folk interested on populist, subjective issues are automatically cast aside, they may have a dash or two in disturbing the waters but eventually will see themselves prevented from doing so and move on; the sane environment is preserved. I'm not aware of a similar blogging environment, among the many I frequent or frequented and is in strike contrast to that at TheOilDrum for instance.  

But this creates a problem: ET become an elitist space. Sad but true, most folk on the streets couldn't care less about the issues discussed here: the latest football results or the latest socialite gossip are much more attractive to them. We end up preaching the sermon to the converts (unless of course you write about Climate).

To move easily out of the box, ET would require something easily recognizable to promote, a product, an idea, that at this stage doesn't exist. ET is a forum, a friendly discussion space, that with its plurality and eclecticism isn't something you can promote by itself. But it is my belief that at least on the idea-space something could be brought about - it all depends on how ambitious it aims to be.

Bringing my architect side to it, I think it is perhaps best to first define what objective a future-ET should aim for, and then maybe the how could become more clear. I see at least four main targets for a future-ET:

• reach the common folk;



• reach the politicos;



• become a politic "party";



• perpetuate ET through time;

Some of these overlap, but simply distinguishing clearly between the first two objectives can already be an important step towards the future.

Vencit omnia veritas.

I don't hide that I'm an insider, and that I'm more on the incrementalist side - but it seems that my discourse is subversive enough to be attractive to the revolutionaries, given how far the debate has shifted to the right, and it has the bonus, for them, of coming from someone with impeccable credentials - a banker, capable of expressing himself properly, not burdened by any quirks (ie married, white and male) and obviously at ease in the system. So I can navigate between both worlds.

Firstly, thanks for such an eloquent and thoughtful Diary. It's interesting that you see two possible approaches: incrementalist and revolutionary.

Unlike you, I believe that the existing "deficit-based" system is irretrievably broken. Not even Governments can fix it - only the people can.

But I am (now!) Realist enough to know that Revolutionary doesn't work either - we have to get there from here.

You say you can navigate both worlds - and I think you can, too - but I believe you need a new map, Jerome! This means a change of assumptions - a realisation that maybe the Sun does not go around the Earth. Such a shift in perception, or Epiphany, cannot be forced.

We can only get where we need to go by stepping outside our current reality, while keeping one foot thoroughly grounded in the existing one. ie it's not aquestion of either/or but rather both/and.

I observe new legal and financial structures emerging in what I can only describe as an evolutionary way. These work - optimally, if I am correct in my thinking - as a complement to existing - failed - structures, and will gradually (or maybe virally) make them redundant.

Again, unlike you - I think - I see existing institutions - whether global (World Bank, IMF etc) or European (EU Parliament, Commission, ECB) as part of the problem, not part of the solution. The networked, collaborative Europe I see does not include such institutions.

But to even begin to question the EU on this site is to invite the world to fall around one's ears, as both solveig and I have found. Nevertheless, I believe that the way out of our current mire must necessarily be through an evolution to something completely different - no incrementalist approach can work against entrenched interests, and revolution is futile.

The vehemence with which the EU is defended here puts me in mind of Pirsig's quote

Robert M. Pirsig - Wikiquote

You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.

Some good responses on this thread already. IMHO if everyone agreed all the time, this site would be dead, and I think that we manage our disagreements better than any other forum I have seen: indeed this forum is better than any other forum I have ever seen, and long may it be so.

Modern conservatives engage in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.Galbraith

1.  view this instructional video:

2. if you see someone blow up or get all scary, realize you've probably made them feel vulnerable, small, or powerless.

3.  Picture the 'evil owl' before commenting, you'll be much cheerier.

Compared to the average flamefestival on DK (or anywhere else for that matter) in any I/P thread, this place is a monastery, even at its worst.

I will just say this: on every discussion site/group, there will be bloodflames at some point. Usually it's no big deal. Cost of doing business.

A 'centrist' is someone who's neither on the left, nor on the left.

One area seems to be under-reported, basic human civility.  In many of the dust-ups, one can see (well, i see) some posters literally screeching, "I'm right!  My way or the highway!."  You can almost taste the acrid smoke of overheated ego.

I have little respect for people whose self-image depends on being recognized for their intellectual prowess.  While they may indeed have certain brilliance in their field, such prowess is often accompanied by lurking holes in personal development, which then get played out as sandbox behavior.

nobody here, especially in these very dark times, should act or think as if they possess some intellectual key which allows them to pass judgement on motive.  After unbridled ego and hubris have driven an already corrupt financial system into the ground, with nothing to replace it on the horizon,  our entire civilization, not merely ET, should be looking in the mirror at who we really are.

only the truly strong can respect an opinion they absolutely believe to be false when another wears it, and act with the inner strength of an evolved persona.

in the end it doesn't matter the structure of a system, or a blog.  What matters is the level of humanity brought to the interactive table.

    if the guide lacks trust in the people, then the trust of the people will be lacking
     the wise guide guards his words
     the wise guide sits serenely
     When the greatest session is over
     The people will say -

     "It all happened naturally"
        or
     "It was so simple, we did it all ourselves"

                      --- from Tim Leary's translation of Lao Tzu, speaking about how to guide a psychedelic session,
which may be at least as hard as moderating a successful, high level blog.

Verdammt Scheisse, just look at the collective talent residing here!

Skennah Kowa

There are also matters where we fundamentally disagree and no amount of persuasion, no matter how factually supported and well argued will possibly convince the other person. But if we want debate and diversity of opinion then we want that, and we also are implicitly accepting that we'll occasionally get upset. That's especially true since there's a good deal of shared values here, and having someone who seems to have a similar outlook and who's opinions you respect have a sharply different view on something important is jarring; it almost feels like a betrayal. But there's nothing to be done about it, and I don't think anybody here wants to eliminate debate.

So again, let's stop this, calm down, and forget about it.