I just dropped by to get articles and news items from PI, but I saw a few posts about clarifying the purpose of PI and I like it.

I meant what I said previously, which is that believe it or not I'm not interested in causing trouble. Which is why I won't post here much and disrupt the mission.

I find that I agree wholeheartedly in the identification of the problems of our society. But where I got into trouble was wanting to talk abstractly or "philosophically" about the future, with the premise that I'm skeptical about the possibility of a socialist revolution that completely transforms the western world.

I don't hold out much hope for revolution short of a cataclysmic economic and political collapse in America - and at 32, I'm still looking forward with life thinking about what morally responsible ways I can use any gifts or skills I have to make a tangible different in real peoples lives right now, while I am forced to wait for the kind of climate in which revolutionary transformation is possible.

My mistake was that I treated this place like it didn't have a mission beyond discussion. That was incorrect, and that fact was pointed out to me by others, but I was not listening.

Debating and speculating about the future and the "hows" of what a better world would look like I think feel to others like a distraction from the mission - which is to bring people in and help them awaken to the utter failure of our system and become motivated for revolutionary change. The details of who that would happen or what it would look like are, I think, secondary to that purpose.

I now understand PI more as a mobilization hub rather than place for abstract discussion - which again, I think are seen as distractions from the mission. I can respect that.

I hope that you view the kinds of posting work I try to carry on in DU and see it as complimentary to your interests, but I promise that I won't be posting here trying to stir up discussion about the future, or nuance of particulars, or anything like that which would be a distraction from the purposes you've laid out for the board.

I don't think that leaves a lot of reason for me to have a large posting presence here, but I do wish you well in your endeavors, and I'll continue to get good articles and analysis from the boards here for my own uses.

Best of luck,
PH

Thanks and good luck...

It made me laugh. We need more of that.


http://www3.bell.net/louis_matte/fdl/Bourgeois.jpg

"Did anyone hear me?! "Thank God! Shut up Margarette! Take the children upstairs!"

..

I really don't. Why is anyone this motivated to keep doing this?

There is a very familiar pattern here. I watched Alex at PFC and Username at OET follow the same pattern the last couple of days. It is very effective at silencing left wingers.

First "I am on your side."

Supposedly, the person is in complete agreement and solidarity with the people they are continually hassling. This allows them to covertly and surreptitiously attack and also to sway the mob, since they can pose as the "reasonable" one and portray the leftists as unreasonable.

So if they are in such agreement, why all of the disagreement on everything? That leads to the second move in this strategy.

Second, "I am realistic, and no grand Socialist revolution is going to happen."

This is clever. The person claims to be all in favor of the grand revolution, but is merely observing that it is not "realistic." This is a way to covertly smear their opponents as "unrealistic," and also as having some agenda - fomenting revolution. That plays on people's fears, and helps win over the mob and to isolate and marginalize the leftists.

Next, "meanwhile, I am being a good guy and helping people and doing good things."

Again, this plays to the mob and is very clever. The implication is that the speaker is doing things to help others "unlike you people." Another covert and cowardly smear.

Unable to debate honestly and straightforwardly, these people try to deceptively establish a priori a context for the debate that cripples their opponent and gives them the advantage.

This is very manipulative and deceptive and is an aggressive attempt to control others, define them, paint them into the corner. In this way a very small handful of people are able to control any and all discussion.

Damn, some people are good at this - they must really work at it. That amazes me, as does the vulnerability of the mob to being swayed by these appeals and then to let themselves be used to isolate the leftists and also to be let themselves be controlled by those who wish to keep the discussions within very tightly controlled parameters.

"All left wing ideas can be considered, so long as we don't actually consider them."

"I am a leftist, so therefore I am free to attack the Left without being called on that."

"I am on the same side as those pesky leftists, so if they disagree with me or take exception to anything I say, there must be something wrong with them (dangerous, crazy, unrealistic, advancing a secret agenda, Stalinists.)"

There is another level of deception here. Advocacy is disguised as mere observation. "I support Socialism, don't get me wrong, but I don't think it is realistic - and advocating it is actually counter-productive because it comes at the expense of doing real things that really help real people." They want us to believe that they are merely observing that Socialism is impractical, they are not advocating that it should not be considered. But of course they are. They are advocating against it because it is supposedly unrealistic and impractical. This allows them to oppose it while protraying themselves as an ally.

I am truly disgusted by this.

instead of disagreeing on socialism (which he certainly does), now he is recasting it as a disagreement on the desire for "abstract discussion".

None of this is abstract and the last thing we're lacking is nuance (to a fault, really)

The worst boss I've ever had used to preface statements with "I'm on your side, but...". It was usually in sentences that ended with "...but we can't really fund your raise, so it's more of a virtual raise." Or "...I think it would just make sense if we combined your position with janitorial duties. You wear jeans for your job anyway!" Or my favorite: "...since we've cut your hours to 2/3ds time you should only get 2/3rds of the federal holidays off. Pick which ones you will come to work on."


In the meantime they were spending tons of money on glossy printed mailers every three months. When we complained about the money being spent on those that could go to infrastructure you would have thought we had farted. (This was an arts organization that was abrim with liberals. The boss I mention actually voted for Kucinich in the 2004 primaries. Cognitive dissonance at its finest.)


I'd like to know how "moderate" became "realistic" too. This is a real leap of logic that several take on faith.

Great observation.

Ya got me to thinking...

A few years ago I was working for two farmers, one very liberal the other very conservative.

The conservative boss followed Biblical principles - it is a sin to not pay fair wages, we are merely stewards, it all comes from God and is not for our own personal glory, "store not treasures on the earth," the camel and the eye of the needle etc. He was suspicious of the "winners" in society.

The liberal boss was "practical" and "realistic," and arrogantly proud of all of his achievements. He felt that the talented and motivated people prospered and rose up, and that was the way it should be. Ownership had prerogatives, and of course the rational man uses his advantages - why not? Doesn't everyone want to get ahead? He was worshipful and full of admiration for the "winners" in society.

The conservative boss was generous and sane, and very easy to work for. The liberal one was a stingy, domineering lunatic, and very difficult to work for.

It is rife with that kind of "positive thinking" will lead to achievement bullshit. Hell, my dad is a republican and he is in an est-like cult that teaches the same crap. He's always amazed by how much he has in common with the liberals out here. lol

Why not post the things here that you are saying to me in private and we can discuss them?

I am having difficulty reconciling the supposed olive branch you are offering here - professions of friendship and alliance - with the scathing attacks you are making on the group to me in private.

He seems so naive, it is almost pitiful, but skinning him alive is an educational opinion - no?