I'm posting this in here because we've already taken the Obama Asshole thread on a dozen tangents as it is.

There is at least one person here who thinks that PPLE's post needs to be deleted immediately because it is a 'threat' and we are all at risk if we let it stand.

http://www.populistindependent.org/phpb ... &start=255 (http://www.populistindependent.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=773&start=255)

I'm hardly impartial here so I won't pretend to be. I don't want to delete the post but if it is decided that it is in the best interest of the board to do so then I suppose it should be removed.

Do others here think that we are in potential legal trouble by letting this post stand?

And should we take this conversation a step beyond this specific post and discuss this in a more general sense, eg how do we handle implicit or explicit advocacy of potentially violent revolution or political action?

I'm posting this in here because we've already taken the Obama Asshole thread on a dozen tangents as it is.

There is at least one person here who thinks that PPLE's post needs to be deleted immediately because it is a 'threat' and we are all at risk if we let it stand.

http://www.populistindependent.org/phpb ... &start=255 (http://www.populistindependent.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=773&start=255)

I'm hardly impartial here so I won't pretend to be. I don't want to delete the post but if it is decided that it is in the best interest of the board to do so then I suppose it should be removed.

Do others here think that we are in potential legal trouble by letting this post stand?

And should we take this conversation a step beyond this specific post and discuss this in a more general sense, eg how do we handle implicit or explicit advocacy of potentially violent revolution or political action?

You may want to make some other distinctions. As I stated in a subsequent post, individual acts (or rather, non-mass acts) are useless.

Anyway, I'll edit the post right now to settle down others' concerns despite the fact that

- there was no threat made

and

- it is a stretch to call Wolfowitz a "public official" given that he was at the World Bank, a non-governmental entity, at the time of my chance encounter with the man.

I find it hard to believe that there would be any controversy about this.

Rusty, I know its cool to be above the fray but maybe we should slow down on the whole trip where we act like we've intellectually "solved" the problems of social revolution?

As an example, how is individual action useless? Wasn't everybody here crying a river over Benazir fucking Bhutto not that long ago?

Anyway, I'll edit the post right now to settle down others' concerns despite the fact that

- there was no threat made

and

- it is a stretch to call Wolfowitz a "public official" given that he was at the World Bank, a non-governmental entity, at the time of my chance encounter with the man.


Wuss. :roll:

(I kid, I kid)


You may want to make some other distinctions. As I stated in a subsequent post, individual acts (or rather, non-mass acts) are useless.

Yeah, this is good. This is something to discuss. But in doing so, how hard do we have to try to be hypothetical? Because let's say we agree that individual acts aren't very effective, does that mean we are advocating mass action? And is the nature of mass action such that it would inevitably become violent? And if so, are we then advocating mass violent revolution?

My feeling is that if a group or an individual becomes a target for the authorities, almost anything s/he has ever said online could be used against them, however vague. Kafka style. It doesn't matter how carefully things are said or how innocent the thoughts are.

Of course there is really no benefit in pushing the envelope and potentially drawing attention to our little board here either.

I dunno.

That's it? No other comments?

Had to run earlier.

I don't know the deal, how potentially liable the offending statements were. Assuming they do fly under the radar it still might be wise to amend or strike them, no point in needless provocation. I know Rusty has further explained himself in subsequent posts, yet the posts might stand by themselves.

Maybe this could be called being our own gatekeepers or maybe we might take what we talk about trying to do seriously. Most everything else we talk of is more subversive, but there might be a chance the this is the kind of stuff ya get nailed with.

While "being subversive" might exclude one from polite company in certain circles, it has nothing to do with this issue and it is fantasy land to think that it matters. Threats of physical violence to public officials, however are often an excuse for some very unpleasant attention from law enforcement. This is not "legal problems" - those are what well heeled businessmen experience, the very concept belongs to a world that should be completely irrelevant to any serious political observer.

More disturbing to me than the remarks themselves is the reaction from the members here to this issue.

It either is serious business or it is not. If it is not serious business, than the recent events here are subject to criticism as boring, predictable and unpleasant, and we should all look for another hobby. If it is serious business, it is time people sober up and start being serious about what we do here. I don't care which people choose, and I am not going to bang my head against the wall any longer and make a fool of myself. Justifying the most thuggish behavior and personal attacks here in the name of being radical, while at the same time being so clueless about political and social reality indicates that we are indulging ourselves in self-centered radical chic posturing and have lost any claim to credibility.

While "being subversive" might exclude one from polite company in certain circles, it has nothing to do with this issue and it is fantasy land to think that it matters. Threats of physical violence to public officials, however are often an excuse for some very unpleasant attention from law enforcement. This is not "legal problems" - those are what well heeled businessmen experience, the very concept belongs to a world that should be completely irrelevant to any serious political observer.

More disturbing to me than the remarks themselves is the reaction from the members here to this issue.

It either is serious business or it is not. If it is not serious business, than the recent events here are subject to criticism as boring, predictable and unpleasant, and we should all look for another hobby. If it is serious business, it is time people sober up and start being serious about what we do here. I don't care which people choose, and I am not going to bang my head against the wall any longer and make a fool of myself. Justifying the most thuggish behavior and personal attacks here in the name of being radical, while at the same time being so clueless about political and social reality indicates that we are indulging ourselves in self-centered radical chic posturing and have lost any claim to credibility.

i can't speak for anyone else but there are 2 reasons my reaction was so..uh..low-key.

First, I don't want to be in the role of a moderator, not in this crowd. I don't know if people expect me to do things like delete other people's posts - it seems that way based on a PM I got from another member but that is not why I was granted admin privileges here AFAIK.

Second, I knew PPLE would edit his post. Well, I didn't know he would, but I had a strong feeling. And he did, with little fuss.

...maybe we might take what we talk about trying to do seriously. Most everything else we talk of is more subversive, but there might be a chance the this is the kind of stuff ya get nailed with.

Is Raul Reyes a terrorist or a communist? I lean to the former despite the history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Marta_Massacre) that informs the positions of men like him.

If I say George W. Bush should be killed, am I making a threat or merely stating an opinion?

What if I say he should be tried, convicted, and killed?

Complicated indeed...

Those who killed Reyes not only said it, they did it. Such is the way of our adversaries. Such has been the way for a long, long time. All in service to the OILigarchy and nationalism that some here would, if not apologize for, still advocate nonetheless. FuCk ThAt.

Stepping back from this particular, what am I (or we) to say about "globalization?" Is it a bad thing?

After all, it is by this historical mechanism that the infrastructure for a commie future is and must be built by. Should I be against it then?

Complicated indeed...at least absent the drama queen-ness an in the light of cool thoughtFULLness.

And, despite it all, should Wolfowitz the architect of a million or more murders, die? I say yes, with the caveat that it shall be by the masses ideally or by the fortuitous crazy otherwise.

But is that a mere artifact of "globalization?"

Gee, maybe my "yes" ought be a tad less strident.

Naw, Fuck Him.

We are who we are when we are. It is our obligation, and one above the law, to stand for what is right. And what is right
is to stridently oppose those who are the murderous oppressors. As for the actually killing of these sorts though, theory tells us what must be done. And theory says, mass action is the -only- context for personal violent action. Until then, I have other important and transformative shit to do, and I -am- doing it.

Meanwhile, I know what soldier to revere. It is the one on the right (e.g. LEFT) side. I had a mass breakfast today with activists in my area, a good many of the far, far (i.e. REAL) left. One of them, nearly murdered and left for dead 35 years ago in Guatemala who was and is a TRUE Revolutionary - the sort of person, plain and driven, I thought I might never meet in real life. When I look in those eyes, when I hug those hugs, when I feel the selfless love of this mother of eight, I *KNOW* what the inevitable future is, whatever the messy present portends. And ain't no made up shit or dramatic internet overtures gon take that away.

Complicated indeed...

Much love to you all.

Signed,

(Kiss my proud) ass,

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/10/03/Mule_061003102658077_wideweb__300x400.jpg

Justifying the most thuggish behavior and personal attacks here in the name of being radical, while at the same time being so clueless about political and social reality indicates that we are indulging ourselves in self-centered radical chic posturing and have lost any claim to credibility.

Salient stuff, Mr. Mike.

Even so, it might do you well to separate these distinct issues. For my part, I think my comments, or rather the reaction to them, is tantamount to picking fly shit out of pepper even as you make a good point about the personal attacks.

That said, and my observation (not opinionating but rather objective observation) about our resident, yes, Drama Fucking Queen notwithstanding, I don't think we need be bashing one another personally although I retain the right to do so with Chlams and Megan because I have MET THEM IRL (I just ain't got no bitches, alas). Fact is, and it is a now rather long historical fact, we have in wolf - much as I adore him - a pattern of disruptive bitch-ass whining now frosted with a paranoia that is debatably relevant at best. What do I fucking care if the FBI drops in? Worst I have to face is a petty gun charge and some tax shit.

Should the drama queen feel the need to go elsewhere, I cannot see why I or anyone else should be unduly bothered. Much the same as I cannot see why it is verboten to say tha the ruling class generally, or any specific egregious criminal leader, ought relieve the planet of their presence and influence. Fuck 'em. Kill 'em all.

If not now and if not with me, then sometime in the future and none to fucking soon. And preferably with the dissolution of the vicious empire some here continue to apologize for even as they claim to be leftists.

While "being subversive" might exclude one from polite company in certain circles, it has nothing to do with this issue and it is fantasy land to think that it matters. Threats of physical violence to public officials, however are often an excuse for some very unpleasant attention from law enforcement. This is not "legal problems" - those are what well heeled businessmen experience, the very concept belongs to a world that should be completely irrelevant to any serious political observer.

More disturbing to me than the remarks themselves is the reaction from the members here to this issue.

It either is serious business or it is not. If it is not serious business, than the recent events here are subject to criticism as boring, predictable and unpleasant, and we should all look for another hobby. If it is serious business, it is time people sober up and start being serious about what we do here. I don't care which people choose, and I am not going to bang my head against the wall any longer and make a fool of myself. Justifying the most thuggish behavior and personal attacks here in the name of being radical, while at the same time being so clueless about political and social reality indicates that we are indulging ourselves in self-centered radical chic posturing and have lost any claim to credibility.

i can't speak for anyone else but there are 2 reasons my reaction was so..uh..low-key.

First, I don't want to be in the role of a moderator, not in this crowd. I don't know if people expect me to do things like delete other people's posts - it seems that way based on a PM I got from another member but that is not why I was granted admin privileges here AFAIK.

Second, I knew PPLE would edit his post. Well, I didn't know he would, but I had a strong feeling. And he did, with little fuss.

Megan,

The hysterics on this site need to stop and this thread perfectly epitomizes the fact that, if anything, we've DEvolved.

There needs to be a serious housecleaning -- not necessarily a member purge, but a recognition of the stupid bullshit going on here and a commitment to do better. Or not.

This may not be pretty..

1. Mike's gotta tone it down. Every single thing is not a community shattering event, every single thing is not a personal slight against him, everyone does not harbor a deeply rooted grudge against him, everyone is not actively trying to thwart his efforts to convert the masses (or stone liberals either/or) and everyone doesn't NOT have to like each other.

Mike says he defers some conversations for the good of the community. Maybe he is right that the conversation cannot be had in a productive manner because the underlying views of the participants are incompatible. Why this comes as a surprise, I don't know, since we can't (collectively) agree on anything at all. But we either need to find some common ground or realize that we are only playing out a time loop where the same threshold will be hit again and the same fundamental differences will flare up again. And again. ..

2. This talk about the military is only the turret of a very formidable castle of crazy shit. How much are we supposed to accomodate? Are we supposed to be full-time contortionists? Wolf needs to say something vaguely left-wing soon if we are supposed to put up with the same tale of woe over and over, punctuated by how much he supports the military and despises feminists, protesters, most/all government programs and hippies and people living in the US in general (Moron Nation), plus Islam and Judaism and Christianity thrown in for good measure. This is all backdropped by his firm conviction that the world is going to end soon anyway and his uncanny ability to turn anything and everything into a mortal insult.

We all have baggage but at some point its necessary to contribute something that doesn't make people shake their heads quizzically. I'm somewhat sympathetic towards Wolf and everyone agrees that he can write. I think there is a tipping point however, a point we're well past. Speaking broadly, what has happened here is that Chlamor and Anax got tired of decorum and I can't completely fault them for that.

According to Mike, Wolf is a valued member because he tells his personal story, which no one else has the "courage" to do. As Wolf has been particularly ravaged by capitalism :rolleyes: and is quite angry and despondent about this he is a great choice for the "job" -- except at the end we need an interpreter to explain to us exactly in which ways Wolf is sympathetic to the left at all.

Either way the antics have to stop. Mike's gotta be more selective about when he pitches a fit -- once and a while it can light a fire under everybody's ass. Do it too often (or don't let up on it) and it starts to make your head look fat.

Everyone has their foibles and quirks, that much is true, and it is not fair to single out only Mike and Wolf. I don't "get" everything about Chlamor and Anaxarchos, but as far as I can tell they are not playing head games or acting out their own soap operas at anyone else's expense. Any criticism of them would come from disagreeing with the positions they advance or the brusque manner they advance them with. The rest of us are sort of on the fringe but we've not really risen to the occasion in policing ourselves and all the static we generate around here, have we (and I put myself at the top of that list)?

If we aren't willing to do some real probing to determine whether our aims and understandings can coexist, then this is a glorified chat board and provides about the same "penetrating" political depth and analysis as DU. We are certainly not in a position to add any members -- why would they voluntarily enter this asylum??

The above is an ugly glimpse into the dynamics of this place, and I'm open to all the abuse and personal blame anyone wants to heap on me for calling it as I see it, but it is time to get fucking real. I can't and won't speak for Chlamor or Anax but I STRONGLY suspect they feel similarly.

Wolf doesn't like the word 'retarded' but this Wolfowitz thing is retarded. Rusty's comment strikes me as alot of hot air and hyperbole that is really about recriminations that you guys didn't tell him to fuck off. If the cops or the feds have nothing better to do than grab us, its safe to say they aren't going their fucking jobs..because JAYWALKING is a bigger threat than this stupid shit. No, I personally don't think Rusty's faux anti-authoritarian bravado helps us any, but I ain't quaking in fear of Uncle Leo because of it either.

Perhaps I'm not good at being diplomatic, but we need to think about what type of "project" we are envisioning here. So far, just discussing and esposing socialism in a sane and civilized manner has proven beyond us.

As a final note, I was all for maintaining decorum if that's what Anax and Chlamor elected to do, but lets not kid ourselves as to the efficacy of the site if thats the path we follow. Maybe this site will largely fade away as everyone gets more occupied with other concerns.

While "being subversive" might exclude one from polite company in certain circles, it has nothing to do with this issue and it is fantasy land to think that it matters. Threats of physical violence to public officials, however are often an excuse for some very unpleasant attention from law enforcement. This is not "legal problems" - those are what well heeled businessmen experience, the very concept belongs to a world that should be completely irrelevant to any serious political observer.

More disturbing to me than the remarks themselves is the reaction from the members here to this issue.

It either is serious business or it is not. If it is not serious business, than the recent events here are subject to criticism as boring, predictable and unpleasant, and we should all look for another hobby. If it is serious business, it is time people sober up and start being serious about what we do here. I don't care which people choose, and I am not going to bang my head against the wall any longer and make a fool of myself. Justifying the most thuggish behavior and personal attacks here in the name of being radical, while at the same time being so clueless about political and social reality indicates that we are indulging ourselves in self-centered radical chic posturing and have lost any claim to credibility.

Some more thoughts - I think you need to be specific and say exactly what you mean, and you need to say these things to the particular people you are referring to. Maybe I'm not very perceptive but sometimes I don't know who/what you are really talking about.

I think this exchange between you and Anaxarchos in the Obama thread is very telling:


anaxarchos wrote:
Well, Mike, you turn turtle on me at this point every time.
.




Mike wrote:
I back down intentionally for the sake of keeping the group together.

If the result of this is that the rift between Wolf and others here keeps cropping up but never gets reconciled, what good does that do? What good does it do to defend the indefensible? We expect more from everyone else here, why not from Wolf? He can't get away with saying things like McCain is a war hero, for example. It's not okay. He is gonna get criticized and maybe in a 'thuggish' way but it seems like the standards are different for Wolf. Anyone should get criticized for saying something like that. Are you really worried about civility?

Mmmh I have a lot of other thoughts here but I'm not really sure how to say it all. Basically I think the more straightforward we can all be the better. I learned that from all of you guys btw.

I'd really like to see this comment from Anaxarchos get addressed:


Wolf ought to consider if the real reason that he hates the left is because he hates the left. You ought to wonder if the real reason that you agree with him is that you agree with him.

From my perspective - the second sentence may not ring as true as the first sentence does to me. I get the sense that you want to protect Wolf - not to defend his ideas/beliefs necessarily, but protect him personally out of empathy. And I think that's why you keep hitting this impasse. And that's as straightforward as I can be about it.

it took me 20 minutes to compose my last post and meanwhile PPLE and Kid have posted more good comments.

It looks like we all agree on a couple things though. Hm.

What the kid says above represents my views exactly (and continues to confuse me about the Kid). It is a lucky thing too, because I am traveling for a week or two and can't keep up with this interesting "conversation". Personally, KOBH can have my "vote", if I have one, and I will use the opportunity to post on "proletarian morality" and be on my way. The only caveat I have is that I tend towards even less "drama" than the Kid reports above. I'm here because PPLE needed some questions answered and later it was a few others, and I need a place to talk to chlamor because while we disagree on some fundamental things we agree on many more, and also the place has been useful to marshal research and launch a coupla literary attacks at the public sites. All of that is useful. The site can get its shit together or not. It will still remain useful and it is still a sore sight better for many than the alternatives. At the moment, it has immediate value because the combination of economic recession plus electoral disillusionment will create many cyber-refugees. If "socialism" is not the criteria, which it doesn't have to be, then some kind of framework for radical disagreement is required. That's it. What will not work is acting as if politically opposite opinions can coexist. There is no harm, though, in debating them through. If you take offense, buy the CD instead.
.

So wtf, do we need a mission statement? Mebbe. Seeing as we can't agree on the meaning of a word sometimes, that could be tough. Might be a way to work shit out though. But even that ain't gonna work unless personality issues are addressed.

There is a pattern here: 1)volatile statement 2)sharp reply 3) histrionics 4) sharper retort 5)more histrionics 5) choose up sides 6) general consternation. How many times now?

Don't know how else to say it but, "Buck up, Wolf." Shit man, you got a lot of respect around here but you're burning it up fast. Sure the criticism was harsh, but it was a dumbass statement, take your lumps and make a better argument if you can. I've been spanked by about everybody round here and I hold no grudges, I've learned a few things, often about myself. Just sayin'

Mebbe I got caught up in the paranoia for a bit there but even paranoids have enemies.. I've made some bloody minded statements here and there that were as Kid said, false bravado, accomplishing nothing and probably signifying nothing. It's fun to talk shit, as long as the wrong asshole ain't listening......bah, I'm at war with myself on this cause though a little caution seems sensible caving like that even for "tactical considerations" goes against the grain.

If the result of this is that the rift between Wolf and others here keeps cropping up but never gets reconciled, what good does that do? What good does it do to defend the indefensible?

I didn't know that the rift was as deep and profound as it is. The comments over the last couple days have shown that it is much more significant than I thought.


We expect more from everyone else here, why not from Wolf?

I agree that different members are held to different standards. If there are these expectations, what are they? Apparently I too am now not meeting expectations. Maybe this is ignorance of the expectations? I don't know what they are, and when I try to apply my expectations to others, they are rejected, so my notion of our expectations is not in agreement with others, and when these expectations are applied to Wolf I don't even see them coming.


He can't get away with saying things like McCain is a war hero, for example. It's not okay. He is gonna get criticized and maybe in a 'thuggish' way but it seems like the standards are different for Wolf. Anyone should get criticized for saying something like that.

So it is a crime of speaking things that are not to be spoken? And we are to "know" these things - they are to be considered self-evident and cannot be spelled out or debated? And the penalty is to be the target of thuggish behavior, and that is then justified?

I don't know what "something like that" is. I would never object to another member disagreeing with someone who said "something like that." But this is quite clearly something else completely, since discussion of it will not be tolerated.


Are you really worried about civility?

No. I am interested in the people. It is not merely a matter of civility. Incivility equally applied would at least be just.


Wolf ought to consider if the real reason that he hates the left is because he hates the left. You ought to wonder if the real reason that you agree with him is that you agree with him.

I will address it. If we are going to apply standards for treason and heresy, and then use that to justify different standards of behavior toward a member, they should be spelled out. Speculation, suspicion and insinuation are the inevitable result of the failure to do that. It is the speculation, suspicion and insinuation, and the subsequent character assassination and ad hominem attacks that I object to, and were the situation reversed and were it anax being attacked by Wolf in the same way for his opinions, or something he said, I would respond the same way. It has nothing to so with agreeing or disagreeing with the opinions being expressed by either party.


From my perspective - the second sentence may not ring as true as the first sentence does to me. I get the sense that you want to protect Wolf - not to defend his ideas/beliefs necessarily, but protect him personally out of empathy. And I think that's why you keep hitting this impasse. And that's as straightforward as I can be about it.

I would and in some cases have protected every other member here with the same vigor and upon the same principles. Yes, if one were willing to bend with the wind and run with the herd, there would be no impasse. The difference is that my defense of other members is taken for granted, and defense of Wolf is seen as not justified based solely on the content of his remarks.

http://www.progressiveindependent.com/shalom/DC_3_18_07/images/Paul01_is_that_you_gif.jpg

LAUNCELOT: I'm Sir Launcelot, sir.
HERBERT: He's come to rescue me, father.
LAUNCELOT: Well, let's not jump to conclusions.
FATHER: Did you kill all the guard?
LAUNCELOT: Uh..., oh, yes. Sorry.
FATHER: They cost fifty pounds each.
LAUNCELOT: Well, I'm awfully sorry, I'm -- I really can explain everything.
HERBERT: Don't be afraid of him, Sir Launcelot, I've got a rope all ready!
FATHER: You killed eight wedding guests in all!
LAUNCELOT: Well, you see, the thing is, I thought your son was a lady.
FATHER: I can understand that.
HERBERT: Hurry, Sir Launcelot! Hurry!
FATHER: Shut up! You only killed the bride's father, that's all!
LAUNCELOT: Well, I really didn't mean to...
FATHER: Didn't mean to?! You put your sword right through his head!
LAUNCELOT: Oh, dear. Is he all right?
FATHER: You even kicked the bride in the chest! This is going to cost
me a fortune!
LAUNCELOT: Well, I can explain. I was in the forest, um, riding north
from Camelot, when I got this note, you see--
FATHER: Camelot? Are you from, uh, Camelot?
HERBERT: Hurry, Sir Launcelot!
LAUNCELOT: Uh, I am a Knight of King Arthur, sir.
FATHER: Pretty nice castle, Camelot. Uh, pretty good pig country....
LAUNCELOT: Yes.
HERBERT: Hurry, I'm ready!
FATHER: Would you, uh, like to come and have a drink?
LAUNCELOT: Well, that's, uh, awfully nice of you.
HERBERT: I am ready!
[starts to leave]
LAUNCELOT: --I mean to be, so understanding.
[thonk]
HERBERT: Oooh!
LAUNCELOT: Um, I think when I'm in this idiom, I sometimes get a bit,
uh, sort of carried away.
FATHER: Oh, don't worry about that.
HERBERT: Oooh!
[splat]

...........

Later in the scene:

knocked through, and made into one big, uh, living room.
RANDOM: There he is!
FATHER: Oh, bloody hell.
LAUNCELOT: Ha-ha! etc.
FATHER: Hold it, hold it! Please!
LAUNCELOT: Sorry, sorry. See what I mean, I just get carried away.
I really must -- sorry, sorry! Sorry, everyone.
RANDOM: He's killed the best man!
[yelling]
FATHER: Hold it, please! Hold it! This is Sir Launcelot from the
court of Camelot -- a very brave and influential knight, and my special
guest here today.
LAUNCELOT: Hello.
RANDOM: He killed my auntie!
[yelling]
FATHER: Please, please! This is supposed to be a happy occasion!
Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who.

"Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime is death."

He smiles and I release his hand. He goes to get his food.

It's a small world you don't have to pay attention
It's the reservation
The news don't give it a mention

I had another discussion with he and a few others at their table but for now that is all.

http://s31.photobucket.com/albums/c395/chlamor/c1spain.jpg

For a little perspective:

...

As ambassador to Indonesia, Wolfowitz personified Washington’s unwavering diplomatic, military and political support for the Suharto regime. Though he served as a key U.S. apologist for Indonesian military repression, Wolfowitz did at least take a hard line on one foreign policy issue: intellectual property rights. Not coincidentally, this was clearly of greater concern to U.S. corporate interests than the rights of Indonesians and East Timorese to live free from terror.

According to his official biography, from 1989 to 1993 Wolfowitz was the "principal civilian responsible for strategy, plans, and policy under Defense Secretary Dick Cheney." Cheney was Bush Senior’s Secretary of Defense at the time of the November 1991 Dili massacre and traveled to Indonesia just a few months later, meeting with Suharto and top military officials. Rather than airing concerns over the slaughter of more than 270 unarmed East Timorese, Cheney reinforced the value of strong relations with the military, saying "we have in the past worked with the Indonesian armed forces and are eager to continue to do that in the future."

Wolfowitz later addressed queries about General Wiranto’s role in supervising 1999 death squad activity in East Timor by arguing that while Wiranto "may have done bad things in East Timor…[he] was the general who commanded the army during the first elections in Indonesian history... where the army genuinely played a neutral role." Hence Wiranto should be commended for allowing elections to proceed without opening fire on dissidents.

In 1992, Wolfowitz supervised preparation of an internal Pentagon policy statement that outlined how the U.S. could maintain global dominance through unilateral action and military superiority. The classified document prioritized defending "access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil." It also stressed the need for "preemptive strikes."

...

http://www.indonesiaalert.org/article.php?id=9

To those who learn of the occurrence of a great uprising and, out of doubt, do not come running, or come late and the riches of the wealthy have all been burned to ashes... do not in any way bear a grudge against us afterwards and whisper that we are bandits who destroy such stores; for we have given notice to all in order to prevent this... This can only be thought of as an act of deep consideration which has the intent of saving the people from great suffering.

-Oshio Heihachiro, "A Call to Arms."

John McCain is no war hero, he is a war criminal that is plain and simple and in addition to being a war criminal he is also by definition a terrorist for committing terrorist acts against unarmed civilians and no amount of hand wringing fake moralizing is ever going to overturn that ugly and rancid little fact.

[quote=meganmonkey]If the result of this is that the rift between Wolf and others here keeps cropping up but never gets reconciled, what good does that do? What good does it do to defend the indefensible?

I didn't know that the rift was as deep and profound as it is. The comments over the last couple days have shown that it is much more significant than I thought.


We expect more from everyone else here, why not from Wolf?

I agree that different members are held to different standards. If there are these expectations, what are they? Apparently I too am now not meeting expectations. Maybe this is ignorance of the expectations? I don't know what they are, and when I try to apply my expectations to others, they are rejected, so my notion of our expectations is not in agreement with others, and when these expectations are applied to Wolf I don't even see them coming.


He can't get away with saying things like McCain is a war hero, for example. It's not okay. He is gonna get criticized and maybe in a 'thuggish' way but it seems like the standards are different for Wolf. Anyone should get criticized for saying something like that.

So it is a crime of speaking things that are not to be spoken? And we are to "know" these things - they are to be considered self-evident and cannot be spelled out or debated? And the penalty is to be the target of thuggish behavior, and that is then justified?

I don't know what "something like that" is. I would never object to another member disagreeing with someone who said "something like that." But this is quite clearly something else completely, since discussion of it will not be tolerated.


Are you really worried about civility?

No. I am interested in the people. It is not merely a matter of civility. Incivility equally applied would at least be just.


Wolf ought to consider if the real reason that he hates the left is because he hates the left. You ought to wonder if the real reason that you agree with him is that you agree with him.

I will address it. If we are going to apply standards for treason and heresy, and then use that to justify different standards of behavior toward a member, they should be spelled out. Speculation, suspicion and insinuation are the inevitable result of the failure to do that. It is the speculation, suspicion and insinuation, and the subsequent character assassination and ad hominem attacks that I object to, and were the situation reversed and were it anax being attacked by Wolf in the same way for his opinions, or something he said, I would respond the same way. It has nothing to so with agreeing or disagreeing with the opinions being expressed by either party.


From my perspective - the second sentence may not ring as true as the first sentence does to me. I get the sense that you want to protect Wolf - not to defend his ideas/beliefs necessarily, but protect him personally out of empathy. And I think that's why you keep hitting this impasse. And that's as straightforward as I can be about it.

I would and in some cases have protected every other member here with the same vigor and upon the same principles. Yes, if one were willing to bend with the wind and run with the herd, there would be no impasse. The difference is that my defense of other members is taken for granted, and defense of Wolf is seen as not justified based solely on the content of his remarks.[/quote:129fbsku]

1) What rift? There ain't no "rift". There are two diametrically opposed political viewpoints.

2) Thuggish behavior... moi? Please do quote exactly what behavior of mine in these threads is "thuggish". No, really... I insist. Let me quote Harry Truman for the only time in my life: "I don't give em hell. I tell the truth and they think it's hell."

3) Since you are asking for criticism, the next act from you is usually to tirelessly try to revise the history until it is to your liking. I don't mind the "tirelessly" part. I'm not crazy about the twist. You are not defending Wolf... you are now defending your own views, by your assertion.

4) I am not gone yet.
.

[quote=meganmonkey]If the result of this is that the rift between Wolf and others here keeps cropping up but never gets reconciled, what good does that do? What good does it do to defend the indefensible?

I didn't know that the rift was as deep and profound as it is. The comments over the last couple days have shown that it is much more significant than I thought.


We expect more from everyone else here, why not from Wolf?

I agree that different members are held to different standards. If there are these expectations, what are they? Apparently I too am now not meeting expectations. Maybe this is ignorance of the expectations? I don't know what they are, and when I try to apply my expectations to others, they are rejected, so my notion of our expectations is not in agreement with others, and when these expectations are applied to Wolf I don't even see them coming.


He can't get away with saying things like McCain is a war hero, for example. It's not okay. He is gonna get criticized and maybe in a 'thuggish' way but it seems like the standards are different for Wolf. Anyone should get criticized for saying something like that.

So it is a crime of speaking things that are not to be spoken? And we are to "know" these things - they are to be considered self-evident and cannot be spelled out or debated? And the penalty is to be the target of thuggish behavior, and that is then justified?

I don't know what "something like that" is. I would never object to another member disagreeing with someone who said "something like that." But this is quite clearly something else completely, since discussion of it will not be tolerated.


Are you really worried about civility?

No. I am interested in the people. It is not merely a matter of civility. Incivility equally applied would at least be just.


Wolf ought to consider if the real reason that he hates the left is because he hates the left. You ought to wonder if the real reason that you agree with him is that you agree with him.

I will address it. If we are going to apply standards for treason and heresy, and then use that to justify different standards of behavior toward a member, they should be spelled out. Speculation, suspicion and insinuation are the inevitable result of the failure to do that. It is the speculation, suspicion and insinuation, and the subsequent character assassination and ad hominem attacks that I object to, and were the situation reversed and were it anax being attacked by Wolf in the same way for his opinions, or something he said, I would respond the same way. It has nothing to so with agreeing or disagreeing with the opinions being expressed by either party.


From my perspective - the second sentence may not ring as true as the first sentence does to me. I get the sense that you want to protect Wolf - not to defend his ideas/beliefs necessarily, but protect him personally out of empathy. And I think that's why you keep hitting this impasse. And that's as straightforward as I can be about it.

I would and in some cases have protected every other member here with the same vigor and upon the same principles. Yes, if one were willing to bend with the wind and run with the herd, there would be no impasse. The difference is that my defense of other members is taken for granted, and defense of Wolf is seen as not justified based solely on the content of his remarks.[/quote:ojt340zp]

---The rift is awfully deep and profound. The posts in the Obama thread speak for themselves.

---Expectations. Mike, all I mean is that if someone makes a claim or advances a theory they are gonna get challenged on it and they are expected to be able to back it up. As others have pointed out, some of the things that Wolf said don't exactly mesh with a standard leftist/socialist analysis (several posters have alluded to this). Wolf made some reactionary posts and everyone here gets called out when they're reactionary. PPLE got called out for his Wolfie rant and he handled it. With a dose of snark of course, but he handled it.

---Oh come on. If you want to defend "McCain is a war hero" go for it. Tolerated? Wolf said it, no one deleted it, no one kicked him off the site, no one is being censored. How is it not being 'tolerated'? Should it not be criticized? As for "something like that", I'm not the best writer in the world. Poor choice of words. In this case I thought it would be obvious that the McCain comment was just plain not right (or not left, I guess).

--As for thuggishness and incivility and so on...I'm just too tired to even address it thoroughly. I'll try. You say: "Incivility equally applied would at least be just"...that sounds so passive - that makes it sound like the incivility is officially sanctioned and being applied by an institution. We aren't an institution, we are a collection of people. And some of the people are a little more thuggish than others, a little less civil. If it's about the 'people', not civility, then which people get the upper hand? The most uncivil or the most sensitive?

Remember, in a previous incarnation I was in a position in which I privately addressed almost everyone on this board about their tone and thuggish behavior and how they treated other people - regardless of how strong your arguments were or how much I agreed with you. For one thing, almost every single one of you told me to bugger off (some more nicely than others), and most of you guys pointed out that if other posters were too sensitive to handle the snark it was their problem, not yours. I'm sure if I dug up those old PMs I'd have some choice quotes, LOL.

I never want to be in that role again. If someone else wants to make sure that incivility is equally applied here, I wish them good fucking luck.

---Wolf isn't the only one being attacked around here. What about Wolf's accusations about Chlamor? Wolf's suspicion and paranoia? Do you not see that?

---I know you defend people. And more than most people I know, you handle people differently when you get to know them ,how they communicate, how to break through to them. I saw that from the first exchange you and I had at PI. You have a gift. The problem here is that there seems to be a bunch of folks who think the content of Wolf's remarks is indefensible. And as per usual, the attacks and criticisms seem to blend the content of the remarks and the personal. Your instinct to come to the defense of Wolf as a person can only take it so far, if the remarks are indefensible. I'm not the expert around here but there are some things he says that seem to get a nearly consensus reaction of "hell, no". What does that mean? I am hoping you will address that Anax comment further because I think it really gets to the heart of it.

I gotta go to bed. And I've got a busy day tomorrow so I may not be online. Sorry this post is formatted so badly but I tried to comment on each section of your post so I hope it makes sense. I just wanted to get it written since I may not have a chance tomorrow.

I want to second what Kid said a few posts back about how not everything is a make-or-break crisis. In fact I think his post sums everything up pretty well, better than I could.

G'night, friends.

...The hysterics on this site need to stop and this thread perfectly epitomizes the fact that, if anything, we've DEvolved.

There needs to be a serious housecleaning -- not necessarily a member purge, but a recognition of the stupid bullshit going on here and a commitment to do better. Or not.

This may not be pretty..

1. Mike's gotta tone it down. Every single thing is not a community shattering event, every single thing is not a personal slight against him, everyone does not harbor a deeply rooted grudge against him, everyone is not actively trying to thwart his efforts to convert the masses (or stone liberals either/or) and everyone doesn't NOT have to like each other.

Mike says he defers some conversations for the good of the community. Maybe he is right that the conversation cannot be had in a productive manner because the underlying views of the participants are incompatible. Why this comes as a surprise, I don't know, since we can't (collectively) agree on anything at all. But we either need to find some common ground or realize that we are only playing out a time loop where the same threshold will be hit again and the same fundamental differences will flare up again. And again. ..

2. This talk about the military is only the turret of a very formidable castle of crazy shit. How much are we supposed to accomodate? Are we supposed to be full-time contortionists? Wolf needs to say something vaguely left-wing soon if we are supposed to put up with the same tale of woe over and over, punctuated by how much he supports the military and despises feminists, protesters, most/all government programs and hippies and people living in the US in general (Moron Nation), plus Islam and Judaism and Christianity thrown in for good measure. This is all backdropped by his firm conviction that the world is going to end soon anyway and his uncanny ability to turn anything and everything into a mortal insult.

We all have baggage but at some point its necessary to contribute something that doesn't make people shake their heads quizzically. I'm somewhat sympathetic towards Wolf and everyone agrees that he can write. I think there is a tipping point however, a point we're well past. Speaking broadly, what has happened here is that Chlamor and Anax got tired of decorum and I can't completely fault them for that.

According to Mike, Wolf is a valued member because he tells his personal story, which no one else has the "courage" to do. As Wolf has been particularly ravaged by capitalism :rolleyes: and is quite angry and despondent about this he is a great choice for the "job" -- except at the end we need an interpreter to explain to us exactly in which ways Wolf is sympathetic to the left at all.

Either way the antics have to stop. Mike's gotta be more selective about when he pitches a fit -- once and a while it can light a fire under everybody's ass. Do it too often (or don't let up on it) and it starts to make your head look fat.

Everyone has their foibles and quirks, that much is true, and it is not fair to single out only Mike and Wolf. I don't "get" everything about Chlamor and Anaxarchos, but as far as I can tell they are not playing head games or acting out their own soap operas at anyone else's expense. Any criticism of them would come from disagreeing with the positions they advance or the brusque manner they advance them with. The rest of us are sort of on the fringe but we've not really risen to the occasion in policing ourselves and all the static we generate around here, have we (and I put myself at the top of that list)?

If we aren't willing to do some real probing to determine whether our aims and understandings can coexist, then this is a glorified chat board and provides about the same "penetrating" political depth and analysis as DU. We are certainly not in a position to add any members -- why would they voluntarily enter this asylum??

The above is an ugly glimpse into the dynamics of this place, and I'm open to all the abuse and personal blame anyone wants to heap on me for calling it as I see it, but it is time to get fucking real. I can't and won't speak for Chlamor or Anax but I STRONGLY suspect they feel similarly.

Wolf doesn't like the word 'retarded' but this Wolfowitz thing is retarded. Rusty's comment strikes me as alot of hot air and hyperbole that is really about recriminations that you guys didn't tell him to fuck off. If the cops or the feds have nothing better to do than grab us, its safe to say they aren't going their fucking jobs..because JAYWALKING is a bigger threat than this stupid shit. No, I personally don't think Rusty's faux anti-authoritarian bravado helps us any, but I ain't quaking in fear of Uncle Leo because of it either.

Perhaps I'm not good at being diplomatic, but we need to think about what type of "project" we are envisioning here. So far, just discussing and esposing socialism in a sane and civilized manner has proven beyond us.

As a final note, I was all for maintaining decorum if that's what Anax and Chlamor elected to do, but lets not kid ourselves as to the efficacy of the site if thats the path we follow. Maybe this site will largely fade away as everyone gets more occupied with other concerns.

Bravo, playa. You are a weird motherfucker, but that is more than matched by the fact you're a smart one too.

It has nothing to so with agreeing or disagreeing with the opinions being expressed by either party.

BULLFUCKINGSHIT

Just sayin'

While "being subversive" might exclude one from polite company in certain circles, it has nothing to do with this issue and it is fantasy land to think that it matters. Threats of physical violence to public officials, however are often an excuse for some very unpleasant attention from law enforcement. This is not "legal problems" - those are what well heeled businessmen experience, the very concept belongs to a world that should be completely irrelevant to any serious political observer.

More disturbing to me than the remarks themselves is the reaction from the members here to this issue.

It either is serious business or it is not. If it is not serious business, than the recent events here are subject to criticism as boring, predictable and unpleasant, and we should all look for another hobby. If it is serious business, it is time people sober up and start being serious about what we do here. I don't care which people choose, and I am not going to bang my head against the wall any longer and make a fool of myself. Justifying the most thuggish behavior and personal attacks here in the name of being radical, while at the same time being so clueless about political and social reality indicates that we are indulging ourselves in self-centered radical chic posturing and have lost any claim to credibility.

Some more thoughts - I think you need to be specific and say exactly what you mean, and you need to say these things to the particular people you are referring to. Maybe I'm not very perceptive but sometimes I don't know who/what you are really talking about.

I think this exchange between you and Anaxarchos in the Obama thread is very telling:

[quote]anaxarchos wrote:
Well, Mike, you turn turtle on me at this point every time.
.




Mike wrote:
I back down intentionally for the sake of keeping the group together.

If the result of this is that the rift between Wolf and others here keeps cropping up but never gets reconciled, what good does that do? What good does it do to defend the indefensible? We expect more from everyone else here, why not from Wolf? He can't get away with saying things like McCain is a war hero, for example. It's not okay. He is gonna get criticized and maybe in a 'thuggish' way but it seems like the standards are different for Wolf. Anyone should get criticized for saying something like that. Are you really worried about civility?

Mmmh I have a lot of other thoughts here but I'm not really sure how to say it all. Basically I think the more straightforward we can all be the better. I learned that from all of you guys btw.

I'd really like to see this comment from Anaxarchos get addressed:


Wolf ought to consider if the real reason that he hates the left is because he hates the left. You ought to wonder if the real reason that you agree with him is that you agree with him.

From my perspective - the second sentence may not ring as true as the first sentence does to me. I get the sense that you want to protect Wolf - not to defend his ideas/beliefs necessarily, but protect him personally out of empathy. And I think that's why you keep hitting this impasse. And that's as straightforward as I can be about it.[/quote:13okbzyq]

As even more of a neophyte, and possibly marginalized person at this site, I haven't interjected at this thread or the other (and on a personal side, must say I was slightly offended, to see "Mary" used as an insult somewhere in these threads :wink:) Several quick thoughts here as one from the outside looking in (and kid, I will really try to not post a "wall of text"),

1. Regarding all the hoopla about Wolf calling McCain a hero his point was not about the hero aspect (and while I think that is not a worthy title for McCain, anyone who spent time in prison camp and survived may be called heroic in some way, at least in retrospect) his point was about ageism, read again to get his point ( I am totally surprised that Blindpig was the only one who even briefly mentions ageism regarding this):

"Forget that McCain is a war hero and on that basis alone deserves respect no matter how much we disagree with his proposals; forget that ideological difference is never resolved by namecalling. The most damning fact -- and also the most disturbing -- is that someone here is actually condemning a man for being 72 years old.

ANY elderly male deserves better than the "hurry-up-and-die" message implicit in the "McCorpse" characterization -- the same message that resonates in this nation's denial of adequate health care to seniors ("hurry up and die"); the same message that resonates in the euthanasia-by-neglect imposed by the DemoPublican Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Lord Benefit ("hurry up and die faster"); the same message obvious in the political indifference to the resultant crisis (not just "hurry up and die" but "hurry up and die in some 'retirement home' which however poshly appointed is nevertheless a concentration camp where you're imprisoned out of sight and we don't have to think about you.""

As this is a digression from this discussion on the discussion regarding violent statements, forgive me, it seemed the best place to post that.

2. The next point is more in line with the discussion and Mike's quote below acts as a spring board for a short point:


. Threats of physical violence to public officials, however are often an excuse for some very unpleasant attention from law enforcement..

Have you people read the homegrown terrorism bill? Even discussing any of this stuff is or will be considered subversive, I come here realizing that just coming to a site like this may be considered a terrorist act, I say that without hyperbole considering that both Clinton and Obama support the S. 1959: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007; as soon as that or something similar passes the Senate, as you know it passed the house, all kinds of writings will be considered acts of terrorism. There are close to 1,000,000 people on the domestic terrorist watch list, and I daresay everyone here is on it. Although the bill has not passed as yet (??), I will not trust ex post facto to be taken into consideration. I come to be serious and not glamorous or bombastic, and if I’m blowing wind or being redundant I do profusely apologize.

3. Regarding the military, I may be the only one here who witnesses the 17 year olds being recruited in the schools; I've mentioned before the pushup contests et al that some here may have read. I can literally stand and listen to the spiel and am precluded from saying anything. I have pulled aside kids later, but to little avail as they'd committed and their parents approved. To place one of these kids to blame, as a tanker driver perhaps?, or separate them from the populous is not only a disservice to them but to the populist movement. If there is an action to be taken here it is the movement to allow another voice to counter the recruitment; I'm not sufficient. One of my former students was gut shot recently in Iraq; theres about 5 others I know there. I see them as tools and victims and part of the parcel to be released.
Mary

Mary, just for the record, I think everyone is over-psychologizing on this thread including me. How someone responds to Wolfowitz individually is largely a personal matter, akin to how you react to the buddy that just fucked your girlfriend behind your back.

My point was that we need to STOP the drama, not ratchet it up -- especially not in the service of dumb ass "revolutionary chic" proclamations such as "Die Wolfowitz Die" (which is merely German for Be, Wolfowitz, Be! incidentally ;) )

It is always the head games that elicit the most long-winded posts from us, all of which displayed the same tortured psuedo-psycho-analysis and over-psychologization. We're "issues oriented" in about the same way the Dr Phil Show is.

To me it is the sorry last resort of people who disagree on a fundamental political level and would rather transmogrify that tension and friction into claims of "cliquishness" and petty group-wide conspiring than admit that no reconciliation of viewpoints as such is possible. The latter need not be nuclear scenario IMO. For instance, we are all against the war, against US foreign policy, against the gaping and widening gyre of poverty, against the servileness of the "intellectual elite", etc.

But if even those foundational assumptions are not true (ie John McCain, war hero) then there really is nowhere to go.

I think we all need an instructional manual titled Zen And The Art Of Shutting The Hell Up. I'd still be a weird motherfucker, but less obnoxious.

Mary, just for the record, I think everyone is over-psychologizing on this thread including me. How someone responds to Wolfowitz individually is largely a personal matter, akin to how you react to the buddy that just fucked your girlfriend behind your back.

My point was that we need to STOP the drama, not ratchet it up -- especially not in the service of dumb ass "revolutionary chic" proclamations such as "Die Wolfowitz Die" (which is merely German for Be, Wolfowitz, Be! incidentally ;) )

It is always the head games that elicit the most long-winded posts from us, all of which displayed the same tortured psuedo-psycho-analysis and over-psychologization. We're "issues oriented" in about the same way the Dr Phil Show is.

To me it is the sorry last resort of people who disagree on a fundamental political level and would rather transmogrify that tension and friction into claims of "cliquishness" and petty group-wide conspiring than admit that no reconciliation of viewpoints as such is possible. The latter need not be nuclear scenario IMO. For instance, we are all against the war, against US foreign policy, against the gaping and widening gyre of poverty, against the servileness of the "intellectual elite", etc.


But if even those foundational assumptions are not true (ie John McCain, war hero) then there really is nowhere to go.

I think we all need an instructional manual titled Zen And The Art Of Shutting The Hell Up. I'd still be a weird motherfucker, but less obnoxious.

Hey Kid, I honestly wasn't trying to rachet things up, just wanted to clarify some things, but it thats how it appears, I am sorry. I actually was not saying anything a lot while reading the threads and was using some major self control! The McCain hero thing irritated me because it was a post about ageism and Wolf unfortunately called McCain a hero at the get go, which everyone focussed on. I felt his true point on the elderly was never addressed, and I thought the reaction was over the top.

The homegrown terrorist stuff was just to say that we have to be aware of what we write, and realize we may draw attention and possibly more, there is no true free speech anymore; I write anyway but one does have to take under consideration who else might be affected, including all the posters at this site.

The soldier thing is a personal thing with me as I watch students get recruited under my nose and try to tell them what idiots they are, but its a poor rural conservative district, and its more appealing than the trailer parks they think.

Anyway, nuff said, thanks for your words, Mary

ps. and I loved when Sideshow Bob said "die, Bart, die" ... pop culture has its place.

I think that the discussion has long since descended into being a witch hunt, and that bridges have not just been burned but blown to hell at this point. The core 3 or 4 people seem to have reached consensus, so why not just move on? Wolf is gone, and I am leaving, so now more problems. Unfortunately, these simple statements of the reality of the situation - as I see it - may be read for "tone" or "attitude" and initiate yet another round of jeering and ridicule. So be it. I would say just move on and do what you want to do.

This is way out of hand - "McCain war hero" versus "McCorpse" represents "diametrically opposing political views?"

Wolf, the one person here who has been enthusiastic and supportive of a overtly socialist site and ideas for expanding the membership is now to be seen as a secret reactionary mole contaminating our precious radical purity?

We are supposed to believe that Wolf and I are being given the truth and just think it is Hell? More like we are being given Hell and then people are trying to justify that by calling it the truth. Actually, my guess is that once an enemy has been identified and targeted - as determined on the flimsiest pretext - the more you bully them the more truth you are supposedly speaking. That belongs on the middle school playground, and attempts to dignify it by calling it political analysis are laughable.

Here is an irony - while some here are claiming the right to bully at will for the cause, it seems to be a big problem when anyone fights back and the people defending themselves are seen as the cause of the problem, and subjected to all sorts of analysis, ridicule and dismissal. Suck it up when you are the recipient, but when it comes the other way it is reactionary, or else we are analyzed for what might be wrong with us. That ain't about politics, people. Don't kid yourselves.

I am not upset, although I was a little disappointed with what has happened and at the same time relieved. I don't have a problem, and I am not looking for anything. I am absolutely rock solid about what I see happening here, completely comfortable with the view I have of this and with whatever the consequences may be, so anything else you might imagine happening - "he is upset" or "he is an asshole" or "he is a closet reactionary" is all in your imagination. That is another irony - people want me to name names and be specific. That is a hoot. Look at the charges leveled against Wolf and I and the absurdly speculative and imaginary evidence that is being used against us.

I think that the discussion has long since descended into being a witch hunt, and that bridges have not just been burned but blown to hell at this point. The core 3 or 4 people seem to have reached consensus, so why not just move on? Wolf is gone, and I am leaving, so now more problems. Unfortunately, these simple statements of the reality of the situation - as I see it - may be read for "tone" or "attitude" and initiate yet another round of jeering and ridicule. So be it. I would say just move on and do what you want to do.

This is way out of hand - "McCain war hero" versus "McCorpse" represents "diametrically opposing political views?"

Wolf, the one person here who has been enthusiastic and supportive of a overtly socialist site and ideas for expanding the membership is now to be seen as a secret reactionary mole contaminating our precious radical purity?

We are supposed to believe that Wolf and I are being given the truth and just think it is Hell? More like we are being given Hell and then people are trying to justify that by calling it the truth. Actually, my guess is that once an enemy has been identified and targeted - as determined on the flimsiest pretext - the more you bully them the more truth you are supposedly speaking. That belongs on the middle school playground, and attempts to dignify it by calling it political analysis are laughable.

Here is an irony - while some here are claiming the right to bully at will for the cause, it seems to be a big problem when anyone fights back and the people defending themselves are seen as the cause of the problem, and subjected to all sorts of analysis, ridicule and dismissal. Suck it up when you are the recipient, but when it comes the other way it is reactionary, or else we are analyzed for what might be wrong with us. That ain't about politics, people. Don't kid yourselves.

I am not upset, although I was a little disappointed with what has happened and at the same time relieved. I don't have a problem, and I am not looking for anything. I am absolutely rock solid about what I see happening here, completely comfortable with the view I have of this and with whatever the consequences may be, so anything else you might imagine happening - "he is upset" or "he is an asshole" or "he is a closet reactionary" is all in your imagination. That is another irony - people want me to name names and be specific. That is a hoot. Look at the charges leveled against Wolf and I and the absurdly speculative and imaginary evidence that is being used against us.

Mike your entire post completely misrepresents the situation.

There is no witch hunt, that is something you have imagined.

The McCain versus McCorpse thingie as the example of differing political views is manufactured and is in fact so far from the point of discussion as to appear desperate.

Well no need or desire to go into your post in detail after all there is no refuting what you are imagining but I have to say your vague mentions in no way accurately portray the situation.

And by the way there was no enemy identified or targeted that too is imagined and I have to say I find that comment a little disconcerting and pretty bizarre. Perhaps it's serving you in some way but it is rubbish.

Sigh...

Sigh...

http://www.chrisdolan.net/yapcna2006/images/soap_opera.jpg

I think that the discussion has long since descended into being a witch hunt, and that bridges have not just been burned but blown to hell at this point. The core 3 or 4 people seem to have reached consensus, so why not just move on? Wolf is gone, and I am leaving, so now more problems. Unfortunately, these simple statements of the reality of the situation - as I see it - may be read for "tone" or "attitude" and initiate yet another round of jeering and ridicule. So be it. I would say just move on and do what you want to do.

This is way out of hand - "McCain war hero" versus "McCorpse" represents "diametrically opposing political views?"

Wolf, the one person here who has been enthusiastic and supportive of a overtly socialist site and ideas for expanding the membership is now to be seen as a secret reactionary mole contaminating our precious radical purity?

We are supposed to believe that Wolf and I are being given the truth and just think it is Hell? More like we are being given Hell and then people are trying to justify that by calling it the truth. Actually, my guess is that once an enemy has been identified and targeted - as determined on the flimsiest pretext - the more you bully them the more truth you are supposedly speaking. That belongs on the middle school playground, and attempts to dignify it by calling it political analysis are laughable.

Here is an irony - while some here are claiming the right to bully at will for the cause, it seems to be a big problem when anyone fights back and the people defending themselves are seen as the cause of the problem, and subjected to all sorts of analysis, ridicule and dismissal. Suck it up when you are the recipient, but when it comes the other way it is reactionary, or else we are analyzed for what might be wrong with us. That ain't about politics, people. Don't kid yourselves.

I am not upset, although I was a little disappointed with what has happened and at the same time relieved. I don't have a problem, and I am not looking for anything. I am absolutely rock solid about what I see happening here, completely comfortable with the view I have of this and with whatever the consequences may be, so anything else you might imagine happening - "he is upset" or "he is an asshole" or "he is a closet reactionary" is all in your imagination. That is another irony - people want me to name names and be specific. That is a hoot. Look at the charges leveled against Wolf and I and the absurdly speculative and imaginary evidence that is being used against us.

Mike, have you never had a friend who did shit that drove you nuts? Have you not tolerated this behavior time and again and one day, perhaps due to circumstance, gone off and called them on it? That is most of what's gone on here.

I don't know that anybody wants anyone to leave this site, if they I think they're fucking wrong.

As far as I can tell whatever ideological differences we have are being rendered obscure and unresolvable by baseless supposition and a preference for reflexively seeing the worst in people. That goes for some of what's been said of Wolf and for some of what you've written above..

What a fucking mess.

As far as I can tell whatever ideological differences we have are being rendered obscure and unresolvable by baseless supposition and a preference for reflexively seeing the worst in people. That goes for some of what's been said of Wolf and for some of what you've written above..

What a fucking mess.

Thanks bp. The problem is that I am not angry or upset. Otherwise, I would agree that we need to chill.

As far as I am concerned, responding to this:

"It has nothing to so with agreeing or disagreeing with the opinions being expressed by either party."

With this:

"BULLFUCKINGSHIT"

...has nothing to do with a political disagreement. Objecting to that - not from "hurt feelings" nor in advocacy of "table manners" - is met with more of the same. In other words, the supposed refutation of my statement is actually a perfect example that supports my statement, and it will be endlessly escalated until the critic is bludgeoned into silence, or until they are driven away. That is not unusual, and it is always hanging over the discussions here.

That is fine if that is what people want to do. I think it should also be fine that I respond to it as I have. That needn't be "a mess" and I am not going to back down anymore - just because other members will make personal attacks and go off the deep end if I don't - to prevent things from being "a mess." Funny, all of my suggestions for civility are ridiculed and jeered, but "a mess" is something that people lament. Now we are to believe that it is those advocating civility, or objecting to personal attacks, who are the ones who are responsible for the mess?

In other words, no one really cares about the group. They just don't like being contradicted or being wrong about anything. That is coercion and bullying. Some feel free to make all of the trouble they want to make, and jeer anyone who objects to that as "Miss Manners," but if people object to their behavior they are then the ones who are told they should worry about the place being "a mess."

As far as I can tell whatever ideological differences we have are being rendered obscure and unresolvable by baseless supposition and a preference for reflexively seeing the worst in people. That goes for some of what's been said of Wolf and for some of what you've written above..

What a fucking mess.

Thanks bp. The problem is that I am not angry or upset. Otherwise, I would agree that we need to chill.

As far as I am concerned, responding to this:

"It has nothing to so with agreeing or disagreeing with the opinions being expressed by either party."

With this:

"BULLFUCKINGSHIT"

...has nothing to do with a political disagreement. Objecting to that - not from "hurt feelings" nor in advocacy of "table manners" - is met with more of the same. In other words, the supposed refutation of my statement is actually a perfect example that supports my statement, and it will be endlessly escalated until the critic is bludgeoned into silence, or until they are driven away. That is not unusual, and it is always hanging over the discussions here.

That is fine if that is what people want to do. I think it should also be fine that I respond to it as I have. That needn't be "a mess" and I am not going to back down anymore - just because other members will make personal attacks and go off the deep end if I don't - to prevent things from being "a mess." Funny, all of my suggestions for civility are ridiculed and jeered, but "a mess" is something that people lament. Now we are to believe that it is those advocating civility, or objecting to personal attacks, who are the ones who are responsible for the mess?

In other words, no one really cares about the group. They just don't like being contradicted or being wrong about anything. That is coercion and bullying. Some feel free to make all of the trouble they want to make, and jeer anyone who objects to that as "Miss Manners," but if people object to their behavior they are then the ones who are told they should worry about the place being "a mess."

Mike could you post the link to the discussion board where all of this took place so the rest of us can follow along?

Mike could you post the link to the discussion board where all of this took place so the rest of us can follow along?

When I think of how mercilessly - and frequently - Anax has slapped you around Kid, I cannot help but think all this ~DrAmA~ from Wolf and misguided defense of it from Mike are indeed nothing more than bullfuckingshit. Anax has been much harder on you than any of the rest of us, yet you seem to suck it up and carry on just fine. Just an observation.

Good Luck to you, Mike.

Well, here we are again.

Why is it that standing on principle is like stepping on your meat?

Ya put your foot down and ya can't get nowhere.

( lame, huh?)

WWID

What would the Iroquois do?)

Well, here we are again.

Why is it that standing on principle is like stepping on your meat?

Ya put your foot down and ya can't get nowhere.

( lame, huh?)

Geez BP remind me to avoid you in the locker room..

I have to tell you guys though, when I initially read Wolf's post "Damn you, PPLE!" I had no idea what he was talking about and thought it was some kind of over-the-top joke. I re-read Rustys offending post about 7 or 8 times before I got it.

The point is, I'm pretty sure this particular conversation got jumpstarted and then steered in the most regressive direction possible for a reason not just by the vagaries of happenstance. Lets say Uncle Leo is actually reading any of this: he'd be laughing his ass off at what pussies we are.

So if we accept that accounting of events, then the picture looks like this:

1. Wolf had independently decided it was time to go and "ageism" and loose talk were only pretense.

2. The underlying issue was whether Wolf got to foist his views on the site without rebuke or protest other than the gentlest equivocation. The bigger issue is whether we simply stand down to ANY crap someone comes along peddling.

3. What Mike is doing now is only the latest chapter in an ongoing saga. Whether it is a dud like the time he went on strike, ambiguous like the last (nearly faded from memory) Wolf exodus, or whether is it a complete break as when he wept for his community at PI is an open question. It is also not without recent precendent, as anyone reading Mike's post lately would quickly surmise.

4. The reason this sounds so one-sided against those two is that the antagonisms between Mike, Anax, and Chlamor are not so transparent to the rest of us. What I personally see is that Anax from time to time "tweaks" Mike while allowing some more underlying issues to simmer. Which is no big deal -- between 'em one of Chlamor and Anax IS Malatesta -- and he'd work with anybody as long as they shared a common goal. He wasn't so caught up in the "belonging" part though. So there really doesn't ever need to be a "cathartic" moment.

5. It might help if Rusty stopped taking potshots at Mike. I know the dispute between you two has cooled off, but its probably time to just forget it entirely.

6. With that, I'll tell myself what I'm sure you all have been aching to tell me: SHUT THE HELL UP!

It just does not seem all that complicated to me, kid.

We need to be able to distinguish between personal attacks and attacks on the person's arguments. We have people on both sides of these feuds who challenge us on that. Wolf says very provocative things, yet you look back at them and see that while what he said may have been inflammatory, there were no personal attacks. Rusty and chlamor write things that seem to be political statements, but are actually highly personal.

Don't take my word on the need to differentiate between the two - just look at the results of failing to do that.

I don't think there are any political disagreements involved, nor do I think it is rocket science to resolve and prevent this stuff.

It has been an interesting two weeks. There are similar feuds going on in other places revolving around two other posters, Bobbolink and undergroundpanther, both of whom I have also been the only person defending. They too are being attacked on grounds of political correctness - and that is all it is, whether it is here or DU or elsewhere. Having highly refined and sophisticated grounds for determining political correctness, that are "better" than the ones that others are using, doesn't change that. It is no accident that we have splinter groups of splinter groups, each with a smaller and smaller membership and tighter and tighter requirements for membership.

One interesting thing about these feuds - and really they are gang attacks by the outraged mob - is that in all three cases, and this is probably true of me as well, the other people on the boards have no idea to whom they are talking. They think they know everything they need to know based on their judgments from the things that are being posted. The judgments are so off the mark. I am not saying that because these people are extremely accomplished that therefore they should be treated better, I am saying that if people knew how accomplished they are they would be treated better —knew that they were “somebodies” - and if those posters were interested in impressing people or winning arguments or covering their asses—if they were one dimensional superficial and shallow presences as 90% of online posters are—they would be seen radically differently then they are and none of this uproar would ever happen.

Bobbolink, undergroundpanther and Wolf are to be seen as all wrong, not to be tolerated, and to be bashed around at will. They are to be seen as having nothing to offer, as being deranged, as being the enemy. All three came under an avalanche of assault—they hit a nerve and get more opposition than we ever see on the Internet - more life, more uproar. Ha. Enormous uproars. There was such a rush to judgment in all three cases, but the judgments did not quite ring true to me, so I started defending them. It took me a while to appreciate that what all three were doing was highly intelligent and that this was going way over people’s heads. They were intentionally posting personal stuff, intentionally shooting from the hip—making themselves targets—because they could see what the rest of us could not. They saw that there was some resistance, some disconnection from reality, some way in which pecking orders and status permeated the discussions, and that this was what was suppressing the discussion. If any of those three posters wanted to be accepted members of the community—we pretend that there is no such thing as membership in these communities, pretend that the “guest list” is not every bit as absurd and strict as that in upscale snobby social circles, pretend that there is not intense peer pressure and insiders and outsiders, pretend that we don't put a tremendous amount of thought and energy into maintaining our membership and position and status in the club - they could run circles around all of us.

Bobbolink, undergroundpanther and Wolf are bashed because they are variously poor, homeless, mentally ill, elderly, too emotional, too personal, and on and on - that is the truth about it. It never occurs to anyone that those things would not be known by anyone had they not been revealed to them, and that those things are being revealed for a reason, and that you are only seeing as very small part of them—personal stories being intentionally posted as the last resort, and only way to break people out of their sleepwalk. What people are not seeing—and it shouldn’t be relevant, it shouldn’t matter—is that they are bashing the most accomplished, powerful, intelligent, literate, and strongly socialist posters anywhere on the Internet

Pretty amazing. A wealth of experience, knowledge and intelligence is tossed away when those posters are tossed away - and that I think is the point, people are resisting being jarred out of their complacency. Most importantly, they have identified and have a hold of the levers that will move the political logjam. It is great to watch the unfolding drama as people's hypocrisy and fuzzy thinking are again and again revealed clearly.

I think that what the posters I mentioned are doing - and I am merely following their lead - is to strike first at the cruelty of modern society, then secondly at libertarian indivualism in all of its pernicious and pervasive forms, and then thirdly at privatization. They are striking these at their roots - where they exist in our daily thinking and actions.

Long before we talk socialism to people, these must be tackled because they are what are now in the way. We are divorced from our humanity, and that makes all of our efforts hollow and meaningless. We are divorced from each other, and have lost any sense as to how to work together cooperatively or organize anything. We are divorced from economic reality, and so we reach for the only thing we can see or imagine - individualism and privatization in all things. Oh we can say we are against those things, but we live them, and our lives contradict what we say. We have placed personal expression, personal views, and personal lifestyle above community. Only after recognizing these barriers is there any possibility for serious political action. They don't exist in "Wolfowitz," they exist in us, or there would be no "Wolfowitz."

This bitter feud has its origins in the arguments about agriculture back at PI, and it took me a long time to understand what was happening there. My objections to organic, CSA and the other modern notions about farming is that they are privatized solutions to social problems. That can never be part of a political program that is leftist. There is an inherent contradiction. That contradiction is also seen in every area on the left, and I think goes a long way toward explaining the dismal failure of the left. In the same way, I know farmers as human beings, I know the cooperative agricultural communities and how they work, and I know the public infrastructure inside out. Defending those is not reactionary. I can't say fuck the farmers, I can't say toss the communities, and I can't say tear down the public infrastructure and replace it with privatized alternative agriculture.

I am probably not explaining this well and so am leaving myself open to all sorts of criticism, but that is OK. This is just the first few steps toward a new understanding of how politics works - not in theory, not in light of an ideology, but in this unique time and place for those of us who are actually living it. Besides, I am not interested in persuading or selling anyone on anything.

Long before we talk socialism to people, these must be tackled because they are what are now in the way. We are divorced from our humanity, and that makes all of our efforts hollow and meaningless. We are divorced from each other, and have lost any sense as to how to work together cooperatively or organize anything. We are divorced from economic reality, and so we reach for the only thing we can see or imagine - individualism and privatization in all things. Oh we can say we are against those things, but we live them, and our lives contradict what we say. We have placed personal expression, personal views, and personal lifestyle above community. Only after recognizing these barriers is there any possibility for serious political action. They don't exist in "Wolfowitz," they exist in us, or there would be no "Wolfowitz."


This is just the first few steps toward a new understanding of how politics works - not in theory, not in light of an ideology, but in this unique time and place for those of us who are actually living it.

Hey Mike,

I know I promised to shut up, but in a sense you're reinventing the wheel here. Chapter 1 of Capital more or less covers the same ground in a systematic and rigorous way. Something to think about.

You're wrong about the "contradictions" being hypocrisy though -- they're really existing contradictions. Your last sentence is backwards -- its not our personal failings manifested on a societal level (Wolfowitz), its the state of societal relationships reflected in us.

Those aren't nitpicks -- it has something to do with why Anax sees your political viewpoint as a the polar opposite of his.