not much, I have logged in as admin for the first time.

This board is now publicly viewable by unregistered visitors, FYI.

Please make use of your newly visible comments to invite others in and talk about what you hope to take a hand in building here, where no one owns the boards.

Taking admin volunteers too.

PPLE/Rusty

That was way too easy Mike.
How the hell you gonna change the world when you can't even tough it out in this small kitchen?
Bah!
Quitter!

I did this because I do not see the point in a closed forum. I never did.

If you want to close it up, then state your case.

There is no ownership here.

We need to also discuss and, ahem, perfect sharing the place.

We should probably chat about moving some content back to registered private status or even removing it. I am not looking to throw another silly spat out there as fodder for folks to keep fussing over.

Comments and guidance and shared decision making about what our public viewability oughtta look like is fine with me.

Hell, we can even lock her down again and discuss what we want to go public, rearrange accordingly and then open it up again.

I only did this because I think the default publix posture is more in keeping with the spirit of this place than otherwise. I always did, but I let someone else make that decision. IIRC, it was made without any deliberation.

Let's deliberate about it.

Stay public?

Go back to registered private for a bit?

What do you think?

Go back to private. We are definitely not ready for prime time. Unless it's our goal simply to become another DU/PI/whatever, we need to do considerably more sorting than we've done.

The question Raph implicitly raises is a key one: why are we so fscking fragile?

We need to solve that and other similar ones before we go public. If you want to give me admin power, my first act will be to button us up again. I'm serious. We need to sort some really important stuff out rather than brush it aside.

Go back to private. We are definitely not ready for prime time. Unless it's our goal simply to become another DU/PI/whatever, we need to do considerably more sorting than we've done.

Well unless y'all tattle it'll still be sorta private for a bit. Let's give an hour or two for some other comments to appear.

That said, I am fine with going back to private. I just think we should make going public an immediate exigency, if only to direct discussion towards those ends.

I don't really want content like Anax has put up to be lost to us because it is wasted on a tiny crowd in a closed environment.

I don't think there's any need to worry about Anax's stuff...he didn't create it out of whole cloth. It exists elsewhere.

Whether we go public should be gated (I think) by what we want to have happen. If the goal is no more than the same kind of idle talk as goes on everywhere else, then fine--leave it open. Is that what you want? To attract another group of Ochsian "love-me-I'm-a-Liberal"s? I don't, I'll tell you that for free.

You might disagree, Rusty, but I find the interactions so far to have been very significant in an unhealthy way. This is a toy community right now, with a tiny number of handpicked participants. Yet there's been a lot of anger, mistrust, confusion, holding-back, and even abandonment. Things like that don't "just happen". They're not the product of random factors. Something's going on that produces those effects. It seems to me that it's absolutely vital for us to understand what's happening, how to make it stop, and how to produce the effects we want instead.

That's where I am right now.

I don't think there's any need to worry about Anax's stuff...he didn't create it out of whole cloth. It exists elsewhere.

BTW, I beg to differ on the point above. The dots may exist elsewhere but few connect them then paint within the lines quite like Anax.

I don't have a lot of thoughts on this other than if you stay locked for too long you risk shouting in a void, but maybe too soon after this recent weirdness has Mairead uneasy about flinging the door open? I don't imagine we are going to attract a lot of attention over in our corner of the sky. But maybe Iverson would like to stop over?

What is it again?

I don't have a lot of thoughts on this other than if you stay locked for too long you risk shouting in a void, but maybe too soon after this recent weirdness has Mairead uneasy about flinging the door open? I don't imagine we are going to attract a lot of attention over in our corner of the sky. But maybe Iverson would like to stop over?

I dunno but Mairead just made it possible for me to edit your post. LMAO.

What is it again? Let's ask Anax

This edit your cohorts' stuff thing is kinda fun, hehe...what to do? what to do?

:twisted:

I don't have a lot of thoughts on this other than if you stay locked for too long you risk shouting in a void, but maybe too soon after this recent weirdness has Mairead uneasy about flinging the door open? I don't imagine we are going to attract a lot of attention over in our corner of the sky. But maybe Iverson would like to stop over?
Exactly, Raph. The weirdness we've been seeing is totally out of character for a handpicked community the size of this one. If anything, we should be seeing 95% choir-preaching and be looking to bring in fresh blood to get a second viewpoint going. Instead we have nothing BUT controversy. Unhealthy controversy. This needs to be sorted.

I wouldn't mind pulling in Clark, RichM, and a number of other like-minded people at this point, but not fling open the doors. I feel fairly sure I'd run away rather than stick around for that. I'd bet $100 cash money it would be a disaster.

What is it again?

Yes. Rusty, you never did explain what "materialist" means (there was another word attached to it, but I can't remember). You and Anax and Loren know, and maybe Kid and Mike, but I for sure don't and apparently Raph isn't au fait with it either.

I dunno but Mairead just made it possible for me to edit your post. LMAO.
Would you rather I turned that off again?

Things like that don't "just happen". They're not the product of random factors. Something's going on that produces those effects. It seems to me that it's absolutely vital for us to understand what's happening, how to make it stop, and how to produce the effects we want instead.



Yes, they do just happen. That is what happens when you have strong, opinionated debates and discussion about sensitive or controversial subjects. You can control these things from happening by controlling the debate and putting all sorts of perimeters around issues and that is when you get DUs or PI with it's superficial civility sometimes hiding a hypocritical and often timid heart. I am sorry about Mike --I wish he wouldn't take it to heart and hang out some more. What did he expect of us though?

Anyway, Rusty took me at my word, gave me admin power, and i've now buttoned everything back up again until we can sort this stuff or decide to jump off the cliff.

I wouldn't mind pulling in Clark, RichM, and a number of other like-minded people at this point, but not fling open the doors. I feel fairly sure I'd run away rather than stick around for that. I'd bet $100 cash money it would be a disaster.

I'll take the bet.

The domains cost me 111 bux - thats a quick and likely fun way to recoup, heh

Things like that don't "just happen". They're not the product of random factors. Something's going on that produces those effects. It seems to me that it's absolutely vital for us to understand what's happening, how to make it stop, and how to produce the effects we want instead.



Yes, they do just happen. That is what happens when you have strong, opinionated debates and discussion about sensitive or controversial subjects. You can control these things from happening by controlling the debate and putting all sorts of perimeters around issues and that is when you get DUs or PI with it's superficial civility sometimes hiding a hypocritical and often timid heart. I am sorry about Mike --I wish he wouldn't take it to heart and hang out some more. What did he expect of us though?

If they "just happened", Raph, we'd be seeing blood in the streets. Most people who've been around awhile take things in their stride. They don't go off the deep end unless there's something more going on than a few harsh words.

I don't have a lot of thoughts on this other than if you stay locked for too long you risk shouting in a void, but maybe too soon after this recent weirdness has Mairead uneasy about flinging the door open? I don't imagine we are going to attract a lot of attention over in our corner of the sky. But maybe Iverson would like to stop over?

Agreed... and again agreed.

Open 'er up.

Or as the crowd said to the person on the ledge: "jump... Jump... JUMP!"

No point in airing dirty laundry. It's fuckin' embarassing.

I wouldn't mind pulling in Clark, RichM, and a number of other like-minded people at this point, but not fling open the doors. I feel fairly sure I'd run away rather than stick around for that. I'd bet $100 cash money it would be a disaster.

I'll take the bet.

The domains cost me 111 bux - thats a quick and likely fun way to recoup, heh

Jeez, do you really want to take the bet? I'm willing, if we can agree on what 'a disaster' means. But I'd rather not because I'd rather the place be successful. But it's your choice.

What is it again?

Yes. Rusty, you never did explain what "materialist" means (there was another word attached to it, but I can't remember). You and Anax and Loren know, and maybe Kid and Mike, but I for sure don't and apparently Raph isn't au fait with it either.

hey don't accuse me of 'knowing' merely because I am tossing around big words :)

I think he is a sensitive guy, but he should be reasonable. What could we do--should we have just let all that crap pass? It was an exercize in defining who we are and what are positions are and our willingness to stand up. Should we have remained silent, Mairead, to keep the peace? I am not going to feel guilty about this, I feel bad for Mike--all the way back to the PI blowup, but he should know we are not going to stand for that game no matter how fond we are of him personally.

Button it up.
No point in airing dirty laundry. It's fuckin' embarassing.



is true, maybe there is a way to close off some stuff that may look like future skeletons in the closet? Or would that just leave us with a inane thread or two? lol

I wouldn't mind pulling in Clark, RichM, and a number of other like-minded people at this point, but not fling open the doors. I feel fairly sure I'd run away rather than stick around for that. I'd bet $100 cash money it would be a disaster.

I'll take the bet.

The domains cost me 111 bux - thats a quick and likely fun way to recoup, heh

Jeez, do you really want to take the bet? I'm willing, if we can agree on what 'a disaster' means. But I'd rather not because I'd rather the place be successful. But it's your choice.

We would hafta decide on what a disaster is, that's true. I bet you a hundred dollars we couldn't.

HAHAHA

This has been a hoot.

Are you intending to let everyone edit everyone else's posts for long? That could be a real move towards brevity, if not harmony.

:)

I think he is a sensitive guy, but he should be reasonable. What could we do--should we have just let all that crap pass? It was an exercize in defining who we are and what are positions are and our willingness to stand up. Should we have remained silent, Mairead, to keep the peace? I am not going to feel guilty about this, I feel bad for Mike--all the way back to the PI blowup, but he should know we are not going to stand for that game no matter how fond we are of him personally.

Seconded.

'ceptin' I don't much know or care how 'sensitive' he may or may not be...I'm here for thinking not feeling. Feeling is just another way of subverting the discourse.

"You hurt my feelings with your opinion."

Gimme a fuckin' break.

I think he is a sensitive guy, but he should be reasonable. What could we do--should we have just let all that crap pass? It was an exercize in defining who we are and what are positions are and our willingness to stand up. Should we have remained silent, Mairead, to keep the peace? I am not going to feel guilty about this, I feel bad for Mike--all the way back to the PI blowup, but he should know we are not going to stand for that game no matter how fond we are of him personally.
No, I don't think anyone should ever remain silent, Raph. Not if there's a hope. But was anything really gained by implying that "that crap" was the product of diseased ethics? That was the question I tried to ask in my thread about making mistakes. We make mistakes. Errare humanum est. It's the human condition. The only people who don't make mistakes are those who are so disabled that they never take any kind of risk at all. So what do we get out of beating on someone for their mistakes? What's the payoff for us that makes it such an attractive thing to do? What's the payoff? We're getting something out of it, or we wouldn't do it. So what's the payoff?

Are you intended to let everyone edit everyone else's posts for long? That could be a real move towards brevity, if not harmony/

Fixed. Ok? :wink:

What is it again?

Real crude cut:

Materialist - What we percieve is real. Our thoughts, our theories, our perceptions, are all, more or less accurate, reflections of the external world around us, of our social relations, and of our circumstances. We don't create the world through our thinking... our thinking is created by the world. Locke, Hume, Diderot, Rousseau, Descartes, Spinoza... many others... Marx.

Idealist - We can not know what is "real". Our objective perception is a subjective reflection. And if so, it is based on innate knowledge which ultimately comes from within... spirit, mind, geist, god. What is inside us makes the world. Hegel, Kant, Fichte, ...many others ...modern philistine thinking.

The whole think goes back to Aristotle and Plato (who was a jerk). In truth, the dichotomy is mostly illusion. Drop God or "Absolute Spirit", and the end of the idealists becomes mediated materialists... i.e. one uniform tradition... i.e. "dialectical materialism", among others. The politics of it remains unalterably split, though.

Example:

Idealist: "I think human society is shaped by ideas and I think we should agree on the norms and character of the social institutions we like best, so that we can make them real and avoid bad ones."

Materialist: "You only think that jive because you are a minor corporate Vice President of This and That from Shaker Heights. Think? You couldn't think your way out of a paper bag. Everything you believe is the product of impulses, interests, and relations that you do not and do not want to understand. And waddaya mean "We", whitey?"

.

-

I think he is a sensitive guy, but he should be reasonable. What could we do--should we have just let all that crap pass? It was an exercize in defining who we are and what are positions are and our willingness to stand up. Should we have remained silent, Mairead, to keep the peace? I am not going to feel guilty about this, I feel bad for Mike--all the way back to the PI blowup, but he should know we are not going to stand for that game no matter how fond we are of him personally.
No, I don't think anyone should ever remain silent, Raph. Not if there's a hope. But was anything really gained by implying that "that crap" was the product of diseased ethics? That was the question I tried to ask in my thread about making mistakes. We make mistakes. Errare humanum est. It's the human condition. The only people who don't make mistakes are those who are so disabled that they never take any kind of risk at all. So what do we get out of beating on someone for their mistakes? What's the payoff for us that makes it such an attractive thing to do? What's the payoff? We're getting something out of it, or we wouldn't do it. So what's the payoff?

I don't think he got 'beat' on. I could never know his ethics fully and accept that whatever I may think is variable and likely to be incorrect while always, always remaining incomplete.

The false claims, false premises, red herrings, reframing as though it was personal, and all that assorted, yes, Crap are however a different matter entirely.

We do a disservice to the dialogue not to controvert those sorts of things whenever they may occur and without regard to who posits them.

My response was what "mistakes"? It was just an exercize.


Let me ask you--is this about Mike saving face and our awareness that he had backed himself into a corner? I don't know, maybe we could've been more diplomatic or something, but why was he granted the privilige of coming out swinging while we should bow down? What would that make us? We are all still buds as far as I am concerned, but he has to help carry the weight with us.

'ceptin' I don't much know or care how 'sensitive' he may or may not be...I'm here for thinking not feeling. Feeling is just another way of subverting the discourse.

"You hurt my feelings with your opinion."

Gimme a fuckin' break.

How receptive would you be to the idea that feelings are the essence of socialism, and that the least successful change agents have been those who are "all cognition, all the time"? Would Hugo be so successful if the people thought he didn't care about them?

'ceptin' I don't much know or care how 'sensitive' he may or may not be...I'm here for thinking not feeling. Feeling is just another way of subverting the discourse.

"You hurt my feelings with your opinion."

Gimme a fuckin' break.

How receptive would you be to the idea that feelings are the essence of socialism, and that the least successful change agents have been those who are "all cognition, all the time"? Would Hugo be so successful if the people thought he didn't care about them?

Quite. My personal email has a Che quote:
"Let me say, at the risk of seeming ridiculous, that the true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love. - Che Guevara"

These are not the same things however.

What did Che think of the hurt feelings of those whose political/economic ideas differed from his?

If I say you are being reactionary and you say, "You hurt my feelings," then that is a too-fuckin'-bad moment unless you would like to pursue effectively controverting my assessment. At which point you succeed in making the alternate point, I will concede with grateful feelings.

Can you see what I see?

probably fluctuating between the two. Howz about a hybrid?

How come Plato is a jerk?

My response was what "mistakes"? It was just an exercize.


Let me ask you--is this about Mike saving face and our awareness that he had backed himself into a corner? I don't know, maybe we could've been more diplomatic or something, but why was he granted the privilige of coming out swinging while we should bow down? What would that make us? We are all still buds as far as I am concerned, but he has to help carry the weight with us.

If he had swung more for his point of view that there was a larger issue, I mighta had a better opportunity to understand it. Still, the line between advocating for our patient acceptance of blatant reactionary comments and subsequently being convinced our non acceptance was the also reactionary construct of 'political correctness' and then moving on to claim that a mandatory foundation of our discussion should be to tear down the ideas of liberalism in order to bring forth socialism is a line that, when these three dots connect, seems fairly obviously Not to point to the left to me.

Just sayin'

"jump... Jump... JUMP!!!"

"jump... Jump... JUMP!!!"

Stop making me laugh out loud at work dammit. It's already been a bitch of a morning like that.



Don't make me edit your post!!!

NM, loox like my window of opportunity has crushed my feelings, err, fingers.

My response was what "mistakes"? It was just an exercize.
Y'know, Raph, I *still* don't know what you meant by that. I was going to ask, but got distracted. *What* was just an exercise?



Let me ask you--is this about Mike saving face and our awareness that he had backed himself into a corner? I don't know, maybe we could've been more diplomatic or something, but why was he granted the privilige of coming out swinging while we should bow down? What would that make us? We are all still buds as far as I am concerned, but he has to help carry the weight with us.

Did someone "grant him the privilege"? I didn't know that. Who was it, and where'd they get it from? Up til now, I didn't realise there was any privilege involved--it sure didn't help him much!! Why did he take such a hard line? Damned if I know! Maybe he was still hurting from Tin's treatment? Or maybe he felt shaky about his premises and, like a cat facing a dog, was fluffing himself up to look more impressive? Or maybe it was something else entirely mixing in? Something at work or home stressing him, possibly? Or maybe he just went a little nuts. Getting fixated and not being able to let go is a very common problem as I'm sure you've seen in other people.

As far as our bowing down, I'm not sure what I'd get out of characterising it that way. If I see an injured cat, I'm going to be cautious around it even as I try to help. I'm not bowing down, it's just that I know the cat is not itself and is likely to rip a strip off me even if it's normally the friendliest moggie in the city. Would you hit out at the cat instead?

My response was what "mistakes"? It was just an exercize.
Y'know, Raph, I *still* don't know what you meant by that. I was going to ask, but got distracted. *What* was just an exercise?



Let me ask you--is this about Mike saving face and our awareness that he had backed himself into a corner? I don't know, maybe we could've been more diplomatic or something, but why was he granted the privilige of coming out swinging while we should bow down? What would that make us? We are all still buds as far as I am concerned, but he has to help carry the weight with us.

Did someone "grant him the privilege"? I didn't know that. Who was it, and where'd they get it from? Up til now, I didn't realise there was any privilege involved--it sure didn't help him much!! Why did he take such a hard line? Damned if I know! Maybe he was still hurting from Tin's treatment? Or maybe he felt shaky about his premises and, like a cat facing a dog, was fluffing himself up to look more impressive? Or maybe it was something else entirely mixing in? Something at work or home stressing him, possibly? Or maybe he just went a little nuts. Getting fixated and not being able to let go is a very common problem as I'm sure you've seen in other people.

As far as our bowing down, I'm not sure what I'd get out of characterising it that way. If I see an injured cat, I'm going to be cautious around it even as I try to help. I'm not bowing down, it's just that I know the cat is not itself and is likely to rip a strip off me even if it's normally the friendliest moggie in the city. Would you hit out at the cat instead?

I don't see it at like either one of you. I took a cold clinical approach to what I considered faulty claims and positions. Nothing more.

If I say you are being reactionary

Did you know that Mike's a traditional musician? He plays that strange Appalachian instrument called a dulcimer or dulcimour, and possibly other instruments too. I can't think of a single city-bred trad musician who's not a leftist. And I don't mean liberal, I mean leftist. It probably has something to do with the trad repertoire being filled with songs about the wealthy plundering the poor.

Jesus Christ was a man that traveled through this land;
A carpenter, true and brave;
Said to the rich, "Give your goods to the poor",
So they laid Jesus Christ in His grave.

Jesus was a man, a carpenter by hand;
A good man, true and brave;
But a dirty little coward called Judas Iscariot
He sent Jesus Christ to His grave.

The people of the land took Jesus by the hand,
They followed Him far and wide;
"I come not to bring you peace, but a sword" he said,
So they killed Jesus Christ on the sly.

He went to the sick, he went to the poor;
And he went to the hungry and the lame;
Said that the poor would one day win this world,
And so they laid Jesus Christ in His grave.

One day Jesus stopped at a rich man's door.
Who said "What must I do to be saved?"
"You must take all your goods and give it to the poor",
And so they laid Jesus Christ in His grave.

"When the love of the poor shall one day turn to hate,
When the patience of the workers gives away;
It would be better for you rich if you never had been born",
So they laid Jesus Christ in His grave.

They nailed Him there to die on a cross in the sky,
In the lightning, the thunder and the rain.
Judas Iscariot, he committed suicide
When they laid poor Jesus Christ in his grave.

This song was written in New York City,
Of rich man, preachers, and slaves;
Yes, if Jesus came today and preached what he did say,
They would lay Jesus Christ in His grave.

Raphaelle wrote:
My response was what "mistakes"? It was just an exercize.

Y'know, Raph, I *still* don't know what you meant by that. I was going to ask, but got distracted. *What* was just an exercise?



Quote:
Let me ask you--is this about Mike saving face and our awareness that he had backed himself into a corner? I don't know, maybe we could've been more diplomatic or something, but why was he granted the privilige of coming out swinging while we should bow down? What would that make us? We are all still buds as far as I am concerned, but he has to help carry the weight with us.


Did someone "grant him the privilege"? I didn't know that. Who was it, and where'd they get it from? Up til now, I didn't realise there was any privilege involved--it sure didn't help him much!! Why did he take such a hard line? Damned if I know! Maybe he was still hurting from Tin's treatment? Or maybe he felt shaky about his premises and, like a cat facing a dog, was fluffing himself up to look more impressive? Or maybe it was something else entirely mixing in? Something at work or home stressing him, possibly? Or maybe he just went a little nuts. Getting fixated and not being able to let go is a very common problem as I'm sure you've seen in other people.

As far as our bowing down, I'm not sure what I'd get out of characterising it that way. If I see an injured cat, I'm going to be cautious around it even as I try to help. I'm not bowing down, it's just that I know the cat is not itself and is likely to rip a strip off me even if it's normally the friendliest moggie in the city. Would you hit out at the cat instead?


Think about it, Mairead, debate exercise, like for the sport of it creating an argument just for the sake of argument--it actually provided better cover than framing it as a "mistake". Well, actually you are granting him the privilige by suggesting that it was us who didn't handle the situation as a mistake. I don't know the entire psychology behind it but it is obvious enough to me when someone is attempting to manipulate the situation. So, how much damn mileage is he going to get off of Tin's gross mishandling, speaking of mistakes, and mistakes not acknowleged. If you recall, I got my ass thrown out of there by refusing to let go in defense of MBerst. He better damn wll carry the weight with us and stop with the scaredy cat act. He better grow a tougher skin than that if he wants to push that past us. Maybe it doesn't matter to you, Mairead, but maybe next time it will be a subject you are passionate about. Are you going to let him do his doo-doos(attempt to lighten the mood there Mairead, in case you didn't notice, it wasn't just you attempting to diffuse the situation so maybe you had better stop lecturing us about our callousness) everywhere?

If I say you are being reactionary

Did you know that Mike's a traditional musician? He plays that strange Appalachian instrument called a dulcimer

I am aware. I have asked him for music clips before and we've chatted about music before. I am not depersonalizing him.

I did not intend to run him off, ask him to leave or anything like that.

I also did not intend to accept his misdirecting points or his red herrings or his false premises.

That's all.

I don't see it at like either one of you. I took a cold clinical approach to what I considered faulty claims and positions. Nothing more.
Did it get you what you wanted?

I don't see it at like either one of you. I took a cold clinical approach to what I considered faulty claims and positions. Nothing more.
Did it get you what you wanted?

I didn't want anything but the absence of those disruptions. That's what I still want. There is not an end to those kinds of wants.

If he left because of my diligent pursuit of those (reasonable, I think) wants, that is not in my control.

probably fluctuating between the two. Howz about a hybrid?

How come Plato is a jerk?

In fact, philosophy ended up as a "hybrid" (before it got weird) - objective reality mediated by mind (Kant)... and anyway, it don't matter because absolute being (god) and absolute nothing (no god) are exactly the same (static and equivilant). What matters is becoming, the intertwining of things with each other which ceates dynamic motion... which gets us back to objective reality (Hegel - indirectly).

Politics didn't go through the same synthesis, though. Which is why all current politics (left, right, and center), still draws its inspiration from the mid-19th century (something about "class").

I wrote up a little deal on Plato on PI which I will dig up tonight.

http://www.wellesley.edu/Philosophy/Images/kant.jpg
Kant

http://www.raffiniert.ch/images/hegel.jpg
Hegel

.

probably fluctuating between the two. Howz about a hybrid?

How come Plato is a jerk?

In fact, philosophy ended up as a "hybrid" (before it got weird) - objective reality mediated by mind (Kant)... and anyway, it don't matter because absolute being (god) and absolute nothing (no god) are exactly the same (static and equivilant). What matters is becoming, the intertwining of things with each other which ceates dynamic motion... which gets us back to objective reality (Hegel - indirectly).

Politics didn't go through the same synthesis, though. Which is why all current politics (left, right, and center), still draws its inspiration from the mid-19th century (something about "class").

I wrote up a little deal on Plato on PI which I will dig up tonight.

http://www.wellesley.edu/Philosophy/Images/kant.jpg
Kant

http://www.raffiniert.ch/images/hegel.jpg
Hegel

.

Root up your excellent post that winds up describing itself as the Hegelian conjecture too.

Things like that don't "just happen". They're not the product of random factors. Something's going on that produces those effects. It seems to me that it's absolutely vital for us to understand what's happening, how to make it stop, and how to produce the effects we want instead.

I say they happen for want of precision not soley in language but in its higher expressions like premises.

A deliberative *method* precludes this sort of a dust up among participants. But then I seem to never get that dead horse to get up and run no matter how I pound on it.

Think about it, Mairead, debate exercise, like for the sport of it creating an argument just for the sake of argument--it actually provided better cover than framing it as a "mistake".

Could you explain that a little more? I'm not sure whether you're saying it was an exercise, or it should have been, or what. And I don't know what you mean about it providing cover. Who's getting covered, and by what?



Well, actually you are granting him the privilige by suggesting that it was us who didn't handle the situation as a mistake.
Oh. Sorry, I didn't realise. It doesn't feel that way to me. I can see where it would make sense, though, if you're unsure about someone's motives and good will in the first place. Then if they do something that feels obnoxious, it's not a big jump to believe that they're doing it with malice aforethought rather than just stepping on their own tongue.



I don't know the entire psychology behind it but it is obvious enough to me when someone is attempting to manipulate the situation. So, how much damn mileage is he going to get off of Tin's gross mishandling, speaking of mistakes, and mistakes not acknowleged.
I don't know. How long does it take for a wound to heal? What if it takes longer?



If you recall, I got my ass thrown out of there by refusing to let go in defense of MBerst.
Is that what happened? I didn't know--all I knew was that suddenly you weren't there anymore, and since I didn't have your address I couldn't write and ask you. I was gone by then, you'll recall.


He better damn wll carry the weight with us and stop with the scaredy cat act. He better grow a tougher skin than that if he wants to push that past us.
How much help are you willing to give him with that? Any? Does your willingness have limits that you should get out into the open?


Maybe it doesn't matter to you, Mairead, but maybe next time it will be a subject you are passionate about. Are you going to let him do his doo-doos(attempt to lighten the mood there Mairead, in case you didn't notice, it wasn't just you attempting to diffuse the situation so maybe you had better stop lecturing us about our callousness) everywhere?
Jeez, Raph! What makes you think it's not a subject I'm passionate about--because I'm not bouncing off the walls yelling "Kill! Kill!"? :twisted:

Is there any way for me to say how I feel about what's going on that doesn't come across as lecturing? If not, do please say, and I'll shut up with no hard feelings.

I was gone by then {from PI} , you'll recall.

So what was your PI handle? I never bothered even wondering if you'd been there.

A deliberative *method* precludes this sort of a dust up among participants. But then I seem to never get that dead horse to get up and run no matter how I pound on it.

How would it preclude it? What's the mechanism? Are you talking about a strict formalism like HS debate?

I was gone by then {from PI} , you'll recall.

So what was your PI handle? I never bothered even wondering if you'd been there.

Mairead (it's my given name)

Maybe he could speak for himself.

You are saying you feel compassion and sympathy. It is only one facet of the scenario, but you shouldn't brandish it to pound on others how were doing their best to stand against a really ugly position Mike was taking up and then trying to extract himself from. Don't assume that we also did not recognize the dynamics--common cause with Wolf, breaking down barriers, butting up against political correctness, testing, trust, wounded pride, disappointment, hurt, vulnerability.

Maybe he could speak for himself.

You are saying you feel compassion and sympathy. It is only one facet of the scenario, but you shouldn't brandish it to pound on others how were doing their best to stand against a really ugly position Mike was taking up and then trying to extract himself from. Don't assume that we also did not recognize the dynamics--common cause with Wolf, breaking down barriers, butting up against political correctness, testing, trust, wounded pride, disappointment, hurt, vulnerability.

What I'm trying to say is that I don't think what we're doing is getting us what we want. That feels a little different than just feeling sympathy and compassion.

So are you suggesting that I shut up, or do you want to beat on me a little, or what would you like from me?

before PPL opened the door. What more do you want?

Can we invite Iverson? And I like the Chickenman guy too. Can we invite him?

A deliberative *method* precludes this sort of a dust up among participants. But then I seem to never get that dead horse to get up and run no matter how I pound on it.

How would it preclude it? What's the mechanism? Are you talking about a strict formalism like HS debate?

More like the current field of deliberative democracy describes, and not for all discussion but yes indeed, for the most contentious discussion.

Again, this forum should replicate the model in the real world, and by that I mean the socialist model.

Local ownership.

Local control.

Shared labor.

Shared production.

Shared consumption.

A deliberative search for consensus in a methodical way that is at once educational and, in its outcome, then also respect inducing. Consensus of course virtually never being reached...

before PPL opened the door. What more do you want?

Can we invite Iverson? And I like the Chickenman guy too. Can we invite him?

I'm sorry I gave the impression that all I wanted was air-clearing. What I really want is for us to recognise and solve what looks to me like a serious-to-fatal problem. Or else for everyone else to be like Rusty and tell me that there is no problem, that they've been getting what they want.

I'd be good with inviting Clark and Chickenman/DBCooper. RichM, too, as far as I'm concerned. There are a number of people who could maybe help with clearing the water or at least we could be pretty sure they wouldn't make it worse. Or not much worse.

A deliberative *method* precludes this sort of a dust up among participants. But then I seem to never get that dead horse to get up and run no matter how I pound on it.

How would it preclude it? What's the mechanism? Are you talking about a strict formalism like HS debate?

More like the current field of deliberative democracy describes, and not for all discussion but yes indeed, for the most contentious discussion.

Again, this forum should replicate the model in the real world, and by that I mean the socialist model.

Local ownership.

Local control.

Shared labor.

Shared production.

Shared consumption.

A deliberative search for consensus in a methodical way that is at once educational and, in its outcome, then also respect inducing. Consensus of course virtually never being reached...

Okay, but operationally how would it work? I haven't seen anything reduced to operational terms, you know, reduced to a rules level.

A deliberative *method* precludes this sort of a dust up among participants. But then I seem to never get that dead horse to get up and run no matter how I pound on it.

How would it preclude it? What's the mechanism? Are you talking about a strict formalism like HS debate?

More like the current field of deliberative democracy describes, and not for all discussion but yes indeed, for the most contentious discussion.

Again, this forum should replicate the model in the real world, and by that I mean the socialist model.

Local ownership.

Local control.

Shared labor.

Shared production.

Shared consumption.

A deliberative search for consensus in a methodical way that is at once educational and, in its outcome, then also respect inducing. Consensus of course virtually never being reached...

Okay, but operationally how would it work? I haven't seen anything reduced to operational terms, you know, reduced to a rules level.

It's not been discussed to that level. But much as some places have 'flame' rooms, we could have a deliberative discourse area for purposes of handling difficult issues and decisions, message making for the gen pop, and for settling disputes over premises and red herrings and questionable claims and all those things that derail discourse by reframing it badly/differently.

___________

Deliberative democracy, also sometimes called discursive democracy, is a term used by some political theorists, to refer to any system of political decisions based on some tradeoff of consensus decision making and representative democracy. In contrast to the traditional economics-based theory of democracy, which emphasizes voting as the central institution in democracy, deliberative democracy theorists argue that legitimate lawmaking can only arise from the public deliberation of the citizenry.

The term "deliberative democracy" was originally coined by Joseph M. Bessette, in "Deliberative Democracy: The Majority Principle in Republican Government," in 1980, and he subsequently elaborated and defended the notion in "The Mild Voice of Reason" (1994). Others contributing to the notion of deliberative democracy include Jon Elster, Jürgen Habermas, Joshua Cohen, John Rawls, Amy Gutmann, Dennis Thompson, and Seyla Benhabib.

Deliberative democracy is usually associated with left-wing politics and often recognizes a conflict of interest between the citizen participating, those affected or victimized by the process being undertaken, and the group-entity that organizes the decision. Thus it usually involves an extensive outreach effort to include marginalized, isolated, ignored groups in decisions, and to extensively document dissent, grounds for dissent, and future predictions of consequences of actions. It focuses as much on the process as the results. In this form it is a complete theory of civics.

The Green Party of the United States refers to its particular proposals for grassroots democracy and electoral reform by this name.

On the other hand, many practitioners of deliberative democracy attempt to be as neutral and open-ended as possible, inviting (or even randomly selecting) people who represent a wide range of views and providing them with balanced materials to guide their discussions. Examples include National Issues Forums, Choices for the 21st Century, Study Circles, Deliberative Polls, and the 21st-Century Town meetings convened by AmericaSpeaks, among others. In these cases, deliberative democracy is not connected to left-wing politics but is intended to create a conversation among people of different philosophies and beliefs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_democracy

I was wrongly fantasizing that the public input for federal rules making was built like this. Instead, ones online comments just go down the black hole of the institution to which they are sent.

That ain't democracy.

Consider this, with thanks to Newswolfgang von Skeptic for pointing it out, against the background of that LeMonde article I put up earlier. Go read the whole thing, then come back and consider this as a similar establishment. Perhaps that will help you grasp my perceptions.

that LeMonde article I put up earlier.
Where is it? I did a search on LeMonde and you but found nothing.

that LeMonde article I put up earlier.
Where is it? I did a search on LeMonde and you but found nothing.

http://www.populistindependent.org/phpb ... =1343#1343 (http://www.populistindependent.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=1343#1343)

I was gone by then {from PI} , you'll recall.

So what was your PI handle? I never bothered even wondering if you'd been there.

Mairead (it's my given name)

My, that's an unusual one. I guess I never really noticed you around there. Is there a backstory, e.g. nationality or anything to it? Is it perchance a sirname. I have never heard it before at all.


I was and am illiteratepresident on PI in case you are unaware.

You can control these things from happening by controlling the debate and putting all sorts of perimeters around issues and that is when you get DUs or PI with it's superficial civility sometimes hiding a hypocritical and often timid heart.

Just for clairification -

Controlling the debate through a deliberative process is quite distinct from putting perimeters around the issues being debated.

What I'm trying to say is that I don't think what we're doing is getting us what we want.

What is it you want, to countenace reaction in service to nicety and good 'feelings?'

I say I will get what I want - an effective education and an effective aid and outlet for activism - if we stick to our cognitive and linguisitic guns. I am really not concerned about who is doing the teaching or who drops out because of personal problems (if indeed anyone is or was 'unwrapped'). I want to build the school instead.

No point in airing dirty laundry. It's fuckin' embarassing.

I don't think to many folks' shorts are on the line BP, but I take your point. Got anything to say about what to do to get us open-able?

My, that's an unusual one. I guess I never really noticed you around there. Is there a backstory, e.g. nationality or anything to it? Is it perchance a sirname. I have never heard it before at all.
It's very common in Scotland, especially in the Gaelic-speaking areas in the north and out in the Western Isles. The English equivalent is Margaret and the usual nickname is Mai or Maigi. I'm fairly sure I was gone from TOPI before you joined, so it's not madly surprising that you didn't notice me.

My, that's an unusual one. I guess I never really noticed you around there. Is there a backstory, e.g. nationality or anything to it? Is it perchance a sirname. I have never heard it before at all.
It's very common in Scotland, especially in the Gaelic-speaking areas in the north and out in the Western Isles. The English equivalent is Margaret and the usual nickname is Mai or Maigi. I'm fairly sure I was gone from TOPI before you joined, so it's not madly surprising that you didn't notice me.

So are you on the other side of the pond then?

What I'm trying to say is that I don't think what we're doing is getting us what we want.

What is it you want, to countenace reaction in service to nicety and good 'feelings?'
How would you have phrased that question if you'd been looking for confrontation instead of information?


I say I will get what I want - an effective education and an effective aid and outlet for activism - if we stick to our cognitive and linguisitic guns. I am really not concerned about who is doing the teaching or who drops out because of personal problems (if indeed anyone is or was 'unwrapped'). I want to build the school instead.
Okay.

What I'm trying to say is that I don't think what we're doing is getting us what we want.


What is it you want, to countenance reaction in service to nicety and good 'feelings?'
How would you have phrased that question if you'd been looking for confrontation instead of information?

My kneejerk response was to wonder whether you meant to ask


How would you have phrased that question if you'd been looking for information instead of confrontation?

So I am not sure whether I would have asked it differently.

If you think or thought I was harsh when dealing Wolf or Mike, I would like you to point that out.

Seems to me what is harsh is being as unrelenting as they are in controverting their points.

Again, I say the solution for all of this psychology and consideration contemplation is DELIBERATION in a codified way.

Your comment earlier about stuff not just happening in response to Raphaelle was interesting in that I was provoked to consider social restrictions on our behavior - like cutting in line - that occur in real life but much less so here online, absent the heavy hand of a 'mod' anyway.

Well, I think it would be cooler to have a facilitator and a framework than it would be to have a cabal of mods who decide privately what to do about any given dust up.

And such a structure, rather like in a classroom or work setting, instills productivity while tamping down personality stuff.

If people want consideration personally or therapy or some shit, this is the wrong place. That's not the topic. Not at all. Not as I see it.

My kneejerk response was to wonder whether you meant to ask


How would you have phrased that question if you'd been looking for information instead of confrontation?
No. Why would I want to assume you intended confrontation? What would it get me?


So I am not sure whether I would have asked it differently.
Why not? Aren't the goals different?



If you think or thought I was harsh when dealing Wolf or Mike, I would like you to point that out.
Why would it matter what I think?


Seems to me what is harsh is being as unrelenting as they are in controverting their points.
Okay.


Again, I say the solution for all of this psychology and consideration contemplation is DELIBERATION in a codified way.
Okay. I think you need to reduce it to operational terms, though. The article you pointed me to doesn't do that. Just for the record, I'm not having any difficulty understanding your goal at that level of abstraction, and I agree that it's a good one. But it needs to be made practicable even by people like those at, say, DU. Unless we want to cherry-pick and get a nice, cosy, non-representative group.


Your comment earlier about stuff not just happening in response to Raphaelle was interesting in that I was provoked to consider social restrictions on our behavior - like cutting in line - that occur in real life but much less so here online, absent the heavy hand of a 'mod' anyway.

Well, I think it would be cooler to have a facilitator and a framework than it would be to have a cabal of mods who decide privately what to do about any given dust up.

And such a structure, rather like in a classroom or work setting, instills productivity while tamping down personality stuff.

If people want consideration personally or therapy or some shit, this is the wrong place. That's not the topic. Not at all. Not as I see it.
Okay.

My kneejerk response was to wonder whether you meant to ask


How would you have phrased that question if you'd been looking for information instead of confrontation?
No. Why would I want to assume you intended confrontation? What would it get me?


So I am not sure whether I would have asked it differently.
Why not? Aren't the goals different?

Not in deliberative discourse. Perhaps you need to cut me with the sharp edge of the meaning of confront you are pursuing.



If you think or thought I was harsh when dealing Wolf or Mike, I would like you to point that out.
Why would it matter what I think?

It seemed, vis a vis the question above and my response to it, that you were considering me to have been harsh. And that's fine. I think I said what I think about that Just below.



Seems to me what is harsh is being as unrelenting as they are in controverting their points.
Okay.


[quote]Again, I say the solution for all of this psychology and consideration contemplation is DELIBERATION in a codified way.
Okay. I think you need to reduce it to operational terms, though. The article you pointed me to doesn't do that. Just for the record, I'm not having any difficulty understanding your goal at that level of abstraction, and I agree that it's a good one. But it needs to be made practicable even by people like those at, say, DU. Unless we want to cherry-pick and get a nice, cosy, non-representative group.


Your comment earlier about stuff not just happening in response to Raphaelle was interesting in that I was provoked to consider social restrictions on our behavior - like cutting in line - that occur in real life but much less so here online, absent the heavy hand of a 'mod' anyway.

Well, I think it would be cooler to have a facilitator and a framework than it would be to have a cabal of mods who decide privately what to do about any given dust up.

And such a structure, rather like in a classroom or work setting, instills productivity while tamping down personality stuff.

If people want consideration personally or therapy or some shit, this is the wrong place. That's not the topic. Not at all. Not as I see it.
Okay.[/quote:suqkoch7]

My kneejerk response was to wonder whether you meant to ask


How would you have phrased that question if you'd been looking for information instead of confrontation?
No. Why would I want to assume you intended confrontation? What would it get me?


So I am not sure whether I would have asked it differently.
Why not? Aren't the goals different?

Not in deliberative discourse. Perhaps you need to cut me with the sharp edge of the meaning of confront you are pursuing.
I imagine it's about the same as yours...otherwise you wouldn't have suspected me of suspecting you of seeking confrontation. :)



[quote:3qx7450d]If you think or thought I was harsh when dealing Wolf or Mike, I would like you to point that out.
Why would it matter what I think?

It seemed, vis a vis the question above and my response to it, that you were considering me to have been harsh. And that's fine. I think I said what I think about that Just below.[/quote:3qx7450d]
If you think that was an answer to my "why would it matter" question, and you want me to understand what you meant, then you might have to rephrase it.

No point in airing dirty laundry. It's fuckin' embarassing.

I don't think to many folks' shorts are on the line BP, but I take your point. Got anything to say about what to do to get us open-able?

Working on it, been busier than a one legged man in an ass kicking contest. Don't cha know I'm a bit out of my depth? All of this communications theory and philosphy, I'm struggling to keep up. Not to worry,I've got something to say, I'm just slow.

My kneejerk response was to wonder whether you meant to ask


How would you have phrased that question if you'd been looking for information instead of confrontation?
No. Why would I want to assume you intended confrontation? What would it get me?


So I am not sure whether I would have asked it differently.
Why not? Aren't the goals different?

Not in deliberative discourse. Perhaps you need to cut me with the sharp edge of the meaning of confront you are pursuing.
I imagine it's about the same as yours...otherwise you wouldn't have suspected me of suspecting you of seeking confrontation. :)

Actually, it was not so much that as a raw language thing. I could see you asking the question spun the other way more naturally than I could receive the original one. Uh, for some reason. Maybe it is because I thought I was being rather confrontational in the way I asked the original question.



If you think or thought I was harsh when dealing Wolf or Mike, I would like you to point that out.
Why would it matter what I think?

It seemed, vis a vis the question above and my response to it, that you were considering me to have been harsh. And that's fine. I think I said what I think about that Just below.[/quote]
If you think that was an answer to my "why would it matter" question, and you want me to understand what you meant, then you might have to rephrase it.[/quote][/quote]

I think it matters what we all think. And I also think there is little reason to be unecessarily harsh, my potty mouth excepted. People who live at different levels of life are different about the potty mouth thing. Generally though, if I call bullshit it is not 'harsh' in my opinion. That's because of my milieu. I really, really tried not to be harsh like that while facing a litany of false premises, etc. etc. ad nauseum. I am nowhere near as accomplished at that as Mike is. Perhaps a wee bit more accomplished at it than Loren, if only for want of his astonishing expressive capabilities.

Rather than speculate, and toss around innuendo and insinuation, it would be a simple matter for any of you to contact me directly if you were unclear as to my motives or intentions. Up until a few days ago I heard from some of you daily in private, but that suddenly ceased. If you are not sincerely interested in what I am thinking, than organizing a mob to go on a witch hunt seems to me to be a singularly bad idea.

I say “witch hunt” because of the damned if I do, and damned if I don't nature of the relentless, if weasel worded and cowardly, attacks on my character. If I respond to the malicious gossip, I am “spinning” or “trying to get out of it.” If I don't respond, then I need to “toughen up” or not be “scared.” The charge of being “reactionary” and of my words being “red herrings” and based on “false premises” are not true merely because they are repeated and attempts are made to get others to agree with that. I was told that if I posted “sand would be thrown in my face” because it had been decided that my opinions were “unacceptable.” Then I see this thread with suppositions as to why I am not posting, with taunts and jeering. Gee, I wonder why someone would not be posting in that climate? Did it occur to anyone that when you send the message that a person is not welcome, that they might get that message? Did it occur to anyone that once a person has been determined to be guilty until proven innocent that there is nothing they could say to exonerate themselves, and that even trying to is demeaning?

You tell a person that there contributions are of no value (reactionary, unacceptable, false premises. red herrings) and that you are going to continue to confront them at every turn (throw sand in their face) and then blame them for not posting?

No matter how noble the cause, a witch hunt is a witch hunt.

I was not taking sides on newswolf's opinion, despite the rush to characterize my position that way. I was objecting to the way that he was responded to – not what people had to say, but the way that they said it. In the mad rush to place me on the “evil side” and ferret out the heretics, no one could hear that.

The smear of myself and newswolf is supposedly ion the cause of bravely calling out reactionary politics, even if it means turning on friends and allies.

If anyone would like to see true reactionaries, and someone battling with them - honestly, without trying to gather a mob for support, and with integrity and decency - please go to this thread:

http://kucinich.us/node/1923#comment-3362

When a poster says "the US is worse than China," in essence:


Hi Mike
I agree with the idea that China is our greatest competition. But to me the real question that needs to be answered is how many countries has the U.S. attacked in the past 60 years compared with how many countries China has attacked. Who is the greatest threat to world peace? I do not think it is China.

Most Peace
GrandpaJohn

I responded with this:


I don't think that comparison is useful.

Labor organized here and workers were able to protect themselves, and even had some voice in the government for a while. Capital could no longer exploit Labor here, looked overseas more and more, bought influence over the government, and the US military has often been used to protect the corporate interests of Capital rather than true national interests.

"Look how bad America is compared to..." is divisive and simplistic. First of all, "America" is the people, and the people have less and less influence over the government. Secondly, that sort of criticism of America is taken by many people, with good reason, as disloyalty to friends, neighbors and community, since that is what "America" means to most of us. Leftist intellectuals make the error of confusing the people with the government, and the average working person is then blamed for the aggressive and destructive actions of the ruling class using the government as their agent. That has led to an entire "what is wrong with the American people" political philosophy, and we often see the most hateful (in the name of love) and violent (in the name of peace) attacks on blue collar people, Southern people, and rural people (in the name of tolerance.)

If only they wouldn't shop at WalMart. If only they didn't watch Fox news. If only they would go organic. If only they didn't vote Republican. If only they would recycle and make green choices. If only they were more like us - the beautiful and enlightened ones.

Converting people to new belief systems is the realm of religion, not of politics. If the Democratic part was committed to the working people, rather than captured by an aristocrat elite of people with a cultural and spiritual agenda, it would never lose another election. Not only that, but a New Deal working class movement would enable us to resolve all of the social issues that modern liberals claim to be committed to solving.

The first step in building this coalition - which I believe to be the only hope for us - is to stop making simplistic statements that are mirror images of right wing propaganda and that sound to the average person as anti-American - in other words, as oppositional to the working people in the country. "America" to the average person means the ideals first, and secondly family, friends, and neighbors, not the government nor the ruling class. When leftists criticize “America” by citing behavior of the ruling class and the government, they betray their aristocratic elitism, because they are calling the ruling class and the government "America."

Those are the conversations I want to have - will have, do have, whether or not they are welcome here.

That's what I am to see your participation.

Since this has been private but for a few of us who all are involved, I have thought the discourse could be done here in the open. Thus my decision not to privately message or chat with you in the event it may preclude sharing the chat with those who are on the board.

I'll respond more tomorrow. I share the pc with roomies and have an early meeting tomorrow so I cannot now.

That said, it's good to see you posting.

Well hell, there's me making a(nother) mistake. Clearly I should have checked with you directly about your intentions, Mike. Please accept my apologies. I don't know where Rusty got the idea that you'd bailed, but I'm very gratified to learn that that's not the case.

Well hell, there's me making a(nother) mistake. Clearly I should have checked with you directly about your intentions, Mike. Please accept my apologies. I don't know where Rusty got the idea that you'd bailed, but I'm very gratified to learn that that's not the case.

Yeah, crazy me - he disappears for three days, an unheard of experience in over a year at PI and here, and I should not have wondered at all.

:roll:

When leftists criticize “America” by citing behavior of the ruling class and the government, they betray their aristocratic elitism, because they are calling the ruling class and the government "America."

Or they are taking a materialist view of the state of things....



Materialist - What we percieve is real. Our thoughts, our theories, our perceptions, are all, more or less accurate, reflections of the external world around us, of our social relations, and of our circumstances. We don't create the world through our thinking... our thinking is created by the world. Locke, Hume, Diderot, Rousseau, Descartes, Spinoza... many others... Marx.

Idealist - We can not know what is "real". Our objective perception is a subjective reflection. And if so, it is based on innate knowledge which ultimately comes from within... spirit, mind, geist, god. What is inside us makes the world. Hegel, Kant, Fichte, ...many others ...modern philistine thinking.

The whole think goes back to Aristotle and Plato (who was a jerk). In truth, the dichotomy is mostly illusion. Drop God or "Absolute Spirit", and the end of the idealists becomes mediated materialists... i.e. one uniform tradition... i.e. "dialectical materialism", among others. The politics of it remains unalterably split, though.

Example:

Idealist: "I think human society is shaped by ideas and I think we should agree on the norms and character of the social institutions we like best, so that we can make them real and avoid bad ones."

Materialist: "You only think that jive because you are a minor corporate Vice President of This and That from Shaker Heights. Think? You couldn't think your way out of a paper bag. Everything you believe is the product of impulses, interests, and relations that you do not and do not want to understand. And waddaya mean "We", whitey?"
http://populistindependent.org/phpbb/vi ... hitey#1383 (http://populistindependent.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=1383&highlight=whitey#1383)


Just to be clear

The conversations we will have, whether or not you welcome it, will be put to the materialist test. Rigorously so.

Inevitably, some applie pies will be spilt.

If you are not talking from a materialist point of view, you are not talking anarcho socialism or anything akin to it. Even if you say you are.

The new deal was not socialism.

Well hell, there's me making a(nother) mistake. Clearly I should have checked with you directly about your intentions, Mike. Please accept my apologies. I don't know where Rusty got the idea that you'd bailed, but I'm very gratified to learn that that's not the case.

Yeah, crazy me - he disappears for three days, an unheard of experience in over a year at PI and here, and I should not have wondered at all.

I see a difference between wondering what's going on and deciding that you know. 8)

Well hell, there's me making a(nother) mistake. Clearly I should have checked with you directly about your intentions, Mike. Please accept my apologies. I don't know where Rusty got the idea that you'd bailed, but I'm very gratified to learn that that's not the case.

Yeah, crazy me - he disappears for three days, an unheard of experience in over a year at PI and here, and I should not have wondered at all.

I see a difference between wondering what's going on and deciding that you know. 8)

Not if no one's hand is on the wheel.

Besides, I think the board should be opened and opened NOW.

I suggested, contrary to Mike's impression that any of us were talking about this in an all/none fashion, that we being to file away some content in a private locale while leaving most of the board open. And that dialogue is one that needs to be had regardless of the side issue of Mike's brief absence.

Actually, it was not so much that as a raw language thing. I could see you asking the question spun the other way more naturally than I could receive the original one. Uh, for some reason. Maybe it is because I thought I was being rather confrontational in the way I asked the original question.
So what were you hoping to get out of being confrontational that you couldn't get by asking for information?


I think it matters what we all think.
Matters how? On what level?

I used to work for a guy who was very careful, in meetings, to make sure all of us at the table got to speak about each subject. He never listened, but he'd have been very upset if any of us had been silly enough to suggest that we shorten the meetings by dispensing with the charade. It clearly mattered to him, though not in any way that was useful to us.

Actually, it was not so much that as a raw language thing. I could see you asking the question spun the other way more naturally than I could receive the original one. Uh, for some reason. Maybe it is because I thought I was being rather confrontational in the way I asked the original question.

So what were you hoping to get out of being confrontational that you couldn't get by asking for information?

You are underemphasizing my use of the word maybe in apprehending that comment. It was speculation.



I think it matters what we all think.

Matters how? On what level?

I used to work for a guy who was very careful, in meetings, to make sure all of us at the table got to speak about each subject. He never listened, but he'd have been very upset if any of us had been silly enough to suggest that we shorten the meetings by dispensing with the charade. It clearly mattered to him, though not in any way that was useful to us.

In this context, here on a website devoted to practical revolutionary politics, what people *think* matters in the course of discussion and deliberation. What *feel* about being controverted does not matter.

If I say defend the premise that I think is false, then defend it. I will defend mine.

Again, I think that folks here's 'feelings' matter NOT A WHIT. I'm not here to hurt feelings or to create warm fuzzy ones. I am here to create useful socialist messages for use in Real World Activism and for for learning more about socialism and for sharing Real World actionable information that I can use here in Dallas, TX and others can use where they are.

All of this 'on other boards it happens all the time' and 'it's a liberal witchhunt' stuff detracts and deters and is, most of all, IRRELEVANT. In making the case for its relevance, reaction has been used as justification. I reject that. And will continuously and with all of my ability.
There is nothing remotely practical about all of the concern about witchhunts and liberal boogeymen.

There is MUCH practical about rejecting reaction in trying to foment discussion that will end with practical outcomes - messages useful in the real world to drive socialist thinking and discussion among those who hear them, and ACTUAL activism. The need and desire for practical outcomes as well as the reality of the discussion forums' constant upheavals both give further credence to my belief that the Architecture of the dialogue needs addressed. Otherwise, this is just another board full of fruitless arguing and attempts to inject personality disputes.

I do not want another discussion board. There are tons of them now. I want a resource and a discussion building that resource while also backing it up, a discussion that stays on point. The point is propagation of the socialist mindset. The socialist mindset is based in history and a certain method of analyzing it. From that mindset comes an economic understanding. In order to get out messages that build that mindset and provoke those economic changes, the discussion must be free of reaction. And being free of reaction means rejecting it out of hand. If people come here who are unwilling to deal with that, then they can leave.

Demolishing reactionary politics and framing is far more important than sparing people's feelings.

You are underemphasizing my use of the word maybe in apprehending that comment. It was speculation.
Fine. Speculate, then. If you were, or had been, being confrontational, why? What would you have hoped to get that way that you couldn't get, or didn't think you could get, or might not have been able to get, by asking for information?


In this context, here on a website devoted to practical revolutionary politics, what people *think* matters in the course of discussion and deliberation.
But "matters" how? How can we discover whether or not it "matters"? Do you expect us to accept your word, as that boss of mine expected us to accept his?

You are underemphasizing my use of the word maybe in apprehending that comment. It was speculation.
Fine. Speculate, then. If you were, or had been, being confrontational, why? What would you have hoped to get that way that you couldn't get, or didn't think you could get, or might not have been able to get, by asking for information?

reaction = confrontation

its really that simple.



In this context, here on a website devoted to practical revolutionary politics, what people *think* matters in the course of discussion and deliberation.
But "matters" how? How can we discover whether or not it "matters"? Do you expect us to accept your word, as that boss of mine expected us to accept his?

Testing for reaction is a good method. Indeed, it may even be The method.

Reaction is objective.

My word has nothing to do with it.

"Islam is a threat" is at the very worst a right wing talking point. Knee jerk reaction to talking points - reacting against reaction I guess that would be - is weak and counterproductive.

I thought that anaxarchos was starting a good discussion with newswolf about the subject, and I am certain that this would have led to a resolution and understanding that met with everyone's satisfaction, had it been given a chance. We have all seen that before. Newswolf throws something out that is out of the realm of the usual language and phrases that we are used to, people worry that OMG it might be right wing!! Gasp!!, but discussion ensues, clarifications are made and an understanding is reached and we all benefit from having an opportunity to look at things from a fresh perspective.

To take a talking point and make some sort of frantic "take no prisoners" assault on the person - having decided that aha here is the enemy and a representative of all things evil, so the gloves are off and no holds barred - serves no constructive purpose.

That approach is so superficial, so pathetically weak, that were newswolf a right winger he would have stayed and eaten our lunch. Not only is it weak and ineffective, look at the damage that it does to the group effort. No one dare question the approach, or they are seen as also on the evil side and attacked. No matter what the outcome, no sane person from the general public would ever be enlightened or educated by this process, and in fact probably wouldn't even be able to tolerate being around it.

That is the larger issue that I was unable to get a hearing for. How can we possibly have any positive impact on politics when we use tactics and rhetoric that so severely alienate people? Where do we expect to find people free from ever uttering a right wing talking point? Do we fancy ourselves to be pure and uncontaminated? What good is it having heard a talking point to then use it solely for the purpose of self-justification and ostracization of the offender? "See!! They said such and such, I can prove that it is a right wing talking point, so therefore they are wrong and I am right and I will argue that to the death! I don't put up with people who say a right wing talking point!! I confront them!! I am battling those talking points!"

Do you guys have any idea how few people in the country could even make sense out of that, let alone be influenced by it in a positive way?

Testing for reaction is a good method. Indeed, it may even be The method.

Method for doing what exactly?

"Islam is a threat" is at the very worst a right wing talking point. Knee jerk reaction to talking points - reacting against reaction I guess that would be - is weak and counterproductive.

I thought that anaxarchos was starting a good discussion with newswolf about the subject, and I am certain that this would have led to a resolution and understanding that met with everyone's satisfaction, had it been given a chance. We have all seen that before. Newswolf throws something out that is out of the realm of the usual language and phrases that we are used to, people worry that OMG it might be right wing!! Gasp!!, but discussion ensues, clarifications are made and an understanding is reached and we all benefit from having an opportunity to look at things from a fresh perspective.

To take a talking point and make some sort of frantic "take no prisoners" assault on the person - having decided that aha here is the enemy and a representative of all things evil, so the gloves are off and no holds barred - serves no constructive purpose.

That approach is so superficial, so pathetically weak, that were newswolf a right winger he would have stayed and eaten our lunch. Not only is it weak and ineffective, look at the damage that it does to the group effort. No one dare question the approach, or they are seen as also on the evil side and attacked. No matter what the outcome, no sane person from the general public would ever be enlightened or educated by this process, and in fact probably wouldn't even be able to tolerate being around it.

That is the larger issue that I was unable to get a hearing for. How can we possibly have any positive impact on politics when we use tactics and rhetoric that so severely alienate people? Where do we expect to find people free from ever uttering a right wing talking point? Do we fancy ourselves to be pure and uncontaminated? What good is it having heard a talking point to then use it solely for the purpose of self-justification and ostracization of the offender? "See!! They said such and such, I can prove that it is a right wing talking point, so therefore they are wrong and I am right and I will argue that to the death! I don't put up with people who say a right wing talking point!! I confront them!! I am battling those talking points!"

Do you guys have any idea how few people in the country could even make sense out of that, let alone be influenced by it in a positive way?

Will you link back to Anax's comments you mention? Was this the Islam thread?

Wolf shoulda just stayed and talked it out. It would not have been a big deal if he had stayed.

Wolf shoulda just stayed and talked it out. It would not have been a big deal if he had stayed.

Newswolf felt, and I agreed with him, that the nature of the responses precluded any further constructive discussion. That is the issue - the only issue that I have with the whole thing.

Wolf shoulda just stayed and talked it out. It would not have been a big deal if he had stayed.

Newswolf felt, and I agreed with him, that the nature of the responses precluded any further constructive discussion. That is the issue - the only issue that I have with the whole thing.

There goes that damn feeling thing again...

on second thought....