"Helping" babble and ergo babbler threads

Well, I've said my piece and I think I should go back to my real work for a while, since I'm losing my temper, never something you want to see.

I'm on babble for the politics, and for the camaraderie of people who feel the urgency of some of our politics as much as I do. Usually head-games just bore me because I am srsly too old for those, but if I think they're being used subversively, I will say so. And then lose my temper. For the time being, elsewhere.

Its pretty interesting to be accused of having hidden agendas, and repeatedly, across multiple issues... then to finally say you dont like it and think it should stop.

Which by rights requires an explanation.

And then when you give one, get accused of playing head games and being devious.

When you've been being as precise about what you mean as you possibly can. While your accusers run from very oblique to rather vague... but you are the one playing head games and being devious.

skdadl wrote:

Well, I've said my piece and I think I should go back to my real work for a while, since I'm losing my temper, never something you want to see.

I'm on babble for the politics, and for the camaraderie of people who feel the urgency of some of our politics as much as I do. Usually head-games just bore me because I am srsly too old for those, but if I think they're being used subversively, I will say so. And then lose my temper. For the time being, elsewhere.

You know, I am really tired of this.  You claimed that I'm avoiding a question about Israel.  I repeatedly address questions about Israel, even in threads that have NOTHING to do with Israel.  I do it, even though it forces me to be 'on the defensive' because I don't want to be seen as hiding something. Of course it doesn't work.  Short answers, long answers, nope.  Ignored.  'Avoiding'.  That red letter doesn't get erased.

I ask you straight out to provide me with a question to answer so I can fucking do so, as clearly as is humanly possible, so your accusations about me can be dealt with, up front.  For real.  It appears you aren't going to do that.  No doubt I will be blamed for this somehow.  No doubt my stated willingness to answer your question is ...I don't even know, whatever it is it supposedly is.

And you decide this is something to lose your temper over?

Try being harassed for weeks, and see how you feel then.  Try asking people direct questions, and have them pretend you don't exist (oh, but still they spend the time to make snide, sly comments and never ever come back to deal with them).  Try having people come right out and accuse you of shit, and absolutely refuse to let you clarify, or listen to those clarifications.  Talk about head-games.

Yeah.  You try that on.  See how you like it.

skdadl wrote:

This is not a problem of "behaviours." It is a problem about specific strategies of discussion of a specific topic (Israel) on a specific discussion forum (babble) with fairly well-defined politics. That is the problem, and whenever you have been confronted head-on on that topic, you have ducked and diverted into abstractions and psychological mystifications. RP made that point last night, and you ducked him so fast he probably didn't even notice because he's a nice guy.

I'm mostly a nice guy, except I don't like head-games being practised on people I admire, like Cue and Unionist. And I srsly do not think, Yiwah, that you've had any trouble at all getting your two cents in.

Um, no, not just the Israel thread(s).  Check out the alt-med threads going back several months.  I've been accused of being a "shill" for telecom industry, in the pay of Big Pharma and a "co-intel-pro troll" for suggesting that flu shots work and homeopathy is just water.  Others have had similar treatment.

In the past, I've been called anti-feminist and recently been accused of being virulently right wing because I questioned or disagree with something.  I've had meaning attributed to my posts that wasn't stated and then accused of all manner of nastiness because of said meaning.  And you know, sometimes the mods catch it, but they've got too much on their plates to be there to referree all of it all the time.

There's a common tactic in use where, if someone disagrees with you, you turn around and attempt to discredit them by reading something into a post that isn't there and accusing him or her of being anti-progressive in one form or another. 

I don't have a problem with someone disagreeing with me or challenging the substance of my posts.  But all this labelling and ascribing of ulterior motives is utter bullshit.

I've been lurking through these threads, and Yiwah has been posting clear, unambiguous statements while some other babblers are writing cryptic statements.  WTF??

It's so much more peaceful now that 9/11 discussions are censored. While the right maneuvers toward WW III and holding up 9/11 as their ersatz genesis fable for rallying war cries, we at least have babble to discuss what really matters, like sex tips for men, and whether sex is a basic human right or not. Fascism is dark, brooding and sexy. And so is babble.

Quote:

... yet I still do not carry on about it in thread after thread after thread, as if I am mortally wounded for life, and thus have to bring it up repeatedly every damn time I get a chance, as if it only ever happens to me and I can't post an opinion on anything else until it gets rectified.

Smears aren't acceptable. And when they happen to you, you rightly complain, sometimes loudly. Which I completely understand.

Misrepresenting anothers' posts is also unacceptable. I believe you have done so with the above comment.

I love it Remind when people lump us into a mob.  I guess they have never read the threads were we disagree.  I know when I first started posting here many years ago I had an ongoing testy relationship with BCG. Strangely after we stopped fighting and calmed down I think it is save to say we have come to realize we have far more in common in world view than not.  Yiwah I think you and I might yet get to the same place.

skdadl wrote:

Timebandit wrote:

Um, no, not just the Israel thread(s).  Check out the alt-med threads going back several months.  I've been accused of being a "shill" for telecom industry, in the pay of Big Pharma and a "co-intel-pro troll" for suggesting that flu shots work and homeopathy is just water.  Others have had similar treatment.

Timebandit, I know about the alt-med threads because I work with pogge, who has run into the same problems. I think of that problem as something like the 9/11 conspiracy threads, and neither of those is like what is being discussed here.

Has Cue or Unionist ever accused you of being a shill for Big Pharma? I thought not. The guys who do only turn up on certain threads.

Nope. But anyone who doesn't pony up for every pandemic panic gets called a ludite without fail.

skdadl wrote:

Israel isn't alt-med or 9/11 conspiracies.

I think there are similarities and commonalities. Posters in Israel threads tend to want us to believe that Israel is a standalone fascist state oppressing Palestinians without any help from vicious empire central.  It's more deflection and obfuscation of the truth. 9/11 is the modern equivalent of the "surprise attack" on Pearl Harbor, which was another false flag intelligence operation used to rally Americans to war. We don't have to be sucked in by the same recycled lies, because we are Canadians.

School yard:

Teacher: "Who started this fight?"

Bully: "Sir, the fight started when he hit me back!"

Food for thought...

When I was younger, so much younger than today,
I never needed anybody's help in any way.
But now these days are gone, I'm not so self assured,
Now I find I've changed my mind and opened up the doors.

Help me if you can, I'm feeling down
And I do appreciate you being round.
Help me, get my feet back on the ground,
Won't you please, please help me.

And now my life has changed in oh so many ways,
My independence seems to vanish in the haze.
But every now and then I feel so insecure,
I know that I just need you like I've never done before.

In the meantime:

"BC and Russia burning, Europe suffocating, Pakistan and China drowning, ice-caps breaking up, polar bears drowning, oceans turning into sewers, etc., etc., etc"...

skdadl wrote:

It's very hard to talk about process when the process thread is actually the result of a specific confrontation between/among specific individuals and yet that specific confrontation is never named, nor are the individuals, which is what I believe those other two threads were, or started out to be. I always thought that Israel was the elephant in the room, and RP finally had the guts to say so, very late in the first thread. Cue had the guts to identify himself as one of the targets of the OP, which I knew he was, and then he said no more. Other targets can take care of themselves. But in sublimating a specific and serious disagreement with specific individuals by arguing in the abstract that some babblers are passive-aggressive (rather than that they've identified a problem with your arguments), the OP in that first thread seemed to me essence of passive-aggression, and a most troubling way of trying to discredit opponents.

No way. The question in the first thread was not directed at me at all, I know that because the "question" was delivered in a completely unbiased way, and with out intent, or agenda. It was just a point of interest question, and had nothing to do with anything else happening on the board. I know this because it was stated in the OP of the thread.

So. How could it possibly have anything to do with me... even though there were some references to some things said on other, unamed threads by unamed posters that vaguely appeared to be similar to things, or related to things, that I had said in other threads, such as the phrase "meta meta", which I used to describe the recent plethora of discussions about "form" and the "manner in which discourse should take place" and the "social ecology" of the web site, which seem to pop up anytime a serious discussion of the distinguishing freatures of Israeli Apartheid is brought up.

These threads appear like amorphous hate-sponges absorbing a lot of energy and sucking in hate and bile, without any kind of focus, because they are directed at no one, and at everyone at the same time, and so the result seems to be that everyone is offended, or insulted, even though their was no intent to do that, since the questions are raised from a completely objective standpoint as abstractions discussing nothing that is clearly wrong, and nothing that is clearly good, just the "theory" of how it is that people should interact with each other.

It seemed like it might have had something to do with me calling Sven on his debating tactics, and quite precisely predicting the course that his talking points about immigration would take, but it this wasn't mentioned, so that definitely could not have been it, even though this quote from the OP of the "Hostile Assumptions Thread" looks a lot like a critique of what I was saying on the immigration thread:

Quote:

It can come across as extremely hostile, being told that you have certain secret, underhanded motives in saying something. Is this a defensive mechanism, developed after repeated experiences with certain debate tactics? Or is it viewed as 'true' and 'calling it like it is'?

If did have something to do with that it would have been openly pointed out in the OP, with the specific quotes and a direct complaint about what it was that I was doing wrong. Anything less would have been extremely passive aggressive.

Fortunately, I know, that nothing in the first hate-sponge thread that began this latest series of hate-sponge threads was directed at me, because there was no mention of me, or anything I said, in the OP. I could safely ignore it, since it had absolutely nothing to do with anything I said.

The fact that Yiwah is opposed to any kind of "oblique" comments is later reinforced in the same thread at post 6, where she says:

Yiwah wrote:

Again, not to single someone out, but 'oblique' comments are part of it too, I think. And this is something I think is definitely 'borderline', in that it's a very common thing to do...I'm certain I've done it myself...where you 'comment' on something or someone without actually quoting them, or specifically referencing what you're referring to.

This further reinforces my belief that nothing in that thread had anything to do with anything I said, or any interactions with Yiwah, seeing as she is opposed on principle to indirect communication and oblique comments, or commenting indirectly without quoting that person.

Notice, none of her comments anywhere on these hate-sponge threads references anything that I said.

To challenge the idea that Yiwah was actually talking about one of our interactions and me specifically, in an oblique fashion, without quoting me or directly identifying me, would be not just to suggest that Yiwah is being passive aggressive but also of being hypocritical. I certainly would not want to suggest that Yiwah is being hypocritical, so, in that light, it is good enough for me to assume that she is not at referring to anything that I said indirectly, in an oblique fashion and without quotes.

This one's been sifted through the mesh.

Johnny complains to his Mom: "The teacher is picking on me!"

Mom confronts the teacher: "Why are you picking on my son?

Teacher: "Johnny, how much is seven times eight?

Johnny: "You see Mom, she is doing it again!"

Unionist wrote:

Thanks, Cue. I chose silence. You chose satire. It's difficult to know how to deal with such tactics.

Yiwah wrote:

I have absolutely no doubt, however, that if I had pulled up examples of exactly the kind of behaviours I referred to in that thread, that not only would that have been (rightfully) seen as a full-on attack, it would have been deemed as inappropriate and shut down.

 

So what do you want?  I explained already why I felt that naming names was inappropriate and unhelpful. 

 

And as was amply demonstrated in that thread, I am far from the only person who sees these behaviours as problematic.  So making the entire discussion about MY specific interactions would also be pointless.

 

But now I am being accused of being passive-agressive...someone called that in the other thread, I'm impressed.

 

By the way, the position is that people are being aggressive, not passive-aggressive, by accusing others of having hidden bad motives.

 

Passive-aggressiveness is refusing to answer direct requests for clarification, posting oblique never-explained-comments (the performance contradiction post is an excellent example of this) and other 'fly-by' comments.  It's a great way to get someone's two-cents in, without ever having to actually deal with a problem head-on or take accountability for the insinuations made.

 

I'll note that I am not the one refusing to answer questions asked of me, by the way.

 

 

I have addressed you directly for your abusive behaviour before.  Approaching you directly has done no good.  I do not believe you will stop your behaviour towards me, even though you have been told to by a mod. 

That being said, I'm hardly the only one you do it to, and you're hardly the only one who does it at all.  As other posters besides myself have amply explained.

remind wrote:

Oh, in actual fact, I may or may not complain at the time actually writer, oftentimes I let it go, as just another smear, or a short sighted opinion from someone who actually knows nothing about me.

I do not believe I have misrepresented anyone's post, as I was not speaking to any 1 particular post as a matter of fact, there were just final straws that broke this camel's back, as the wind from the glass houses breaking threw them my way.

In fact, in the interest of clarity, perhaps you should cite just whose post it is you think I am misrepresenting, and why you think so, as opposed to just using a broad empty brush. That would be great thanks.

And I am saying that respectfully to you, in a non-hostile, faintly amused, yet calm tone, as I respect you greatly.

and I agree kropotkin, with your observations.

You have avoided my questions and refuse to engage me directly, choosing instead to talk to others about me, and tell them what I am doing.  Oh but of course, you're not talking about me.  No.  You aren't actively refusing to answer a single one of my posts or ever quote me directly.  That sort of thing would be too obvious.

Your behaviour is extremely telling.

Okay I draw the line at any pile up on unionist or Cueball.

I say we end the silliness and distractions of these "meta" discussions and stop the proliferation of the threads about discussing threads and get back to babbling again about politics. Just like skdadl says.

I found this old Babble post by Sisyphus, way back in 2002:

It is quite relevant today...

            Topic: Irritable Babblers
                  Sisyphus
                  rabble-rouser
                  Babbler # 1425  posted November 10, 2002 03:42 PM              

                  Seems as though we've been getting a little touchy lately.
                  I said unapologetically in a previous thread, "Infinite
                  sensitivity on your part does not require infinite
                  capitulation on my part", and I stand by that sentiment.
                  I think anybody's ideology, religion, causes, vocations,
                  avocations, sports teams, opinions, authorities, philosophies
                  or tastes in food, music, sexual practices, films, books,
                  gurus or politicians are, and should be, fair game when one
                  posts on Babble.

                  I ALSO agree with 'lance who said:
                    quote:

                     I really think you're overstating the case. Of course
                    there's nastiness here from time to time -- we're all of us
                    human (or felinoid, of course). And of course people leave
                    sometimes. But by no means do the 'nasties,' dominate, I
                    believe. With rare exceptions, this is the most civil
                    on-line discussion board I know of.
                    Edited to add:
                    Re: that last sentence: I grant you, the general standards
                    out there (on line) are not high. If you want true
                    nastiness, check out just about any of the usenet politics
                    discussion forums -- can.politics, say. I gave up on all of
                    those years ago.

                   I was going to make a list of terms of personal attack that
                  have been lobbed around of late, but I already feel that
                  people involved in the thread whence the above quote came
                  might feel singled out or persecuted.

                  So I won't. In fact, the post that prompted this one, is
                  different, and I'm not telling what it is.

                  My big bitch is not that "We should all be nicer to one
                  another", 'cause I'm "narrow, mean-spirited, and..." Damn, I
                  forget the rest, but "insensitive" or "rude" might complete
                  the character sketch adequately, in the context in which it
                  arose  .

                  Bottom line (I know these are someone's " Words that if I hear
                  them...  ):

                  I'm not interested in anybody's personal insults, THEY'RE
                  FUCKIN' BORING AND A WASTE OF TIME TO READ!!!!
                  So if you can't stand the heat or if all you're going make is
                  heat, get out of the communal kitchen, have a sense of humour
                  installed or start a thread called " I don't like Babbler #
                  1425, (for example)" 'cause he said my favourite philospher
                  was a poo-poo head, and I think he's one too", so the rest of
                  us can avoid it.

                  Whadaya say?

We need a single lynch mob forum to organize the numerous personal attack threads and counter-gladio threads. I think it should be mentioned that jas and I felt somewhat safe in the 9/11 discussions as few provocateurs were interested in discussing any truth surrounding the subject, and so they had to resort to minor drive-by comments. I feel so vulnerable in these wide open attack threads without proper subject titles. Where can we even wade in? Okay who wants some? Come get me? "ducks and covers" or is it drop and roll?

You know what?

This isn't going to change anything.  Every time I feel like this place is a good forum to be, and it gets interesting... it turns into...what was the term again?  Oh yes.  A snake pit.  My god, some of the threads here...are so awful, so truly hostile and bad to read, that I feel like I'm walking out of them backwards so as to not attract the vipers.  The Obama thread...wow.  What a pile up.  Absolutely disgusting.  A total free for all.  Or the Whitton thread.  Wow. Wasn't going to touch that with someone else's hand.

And reading older threads again on the topic of the poisoned atmosphere...sort of reinforces for me that there are some really awesome, strong, thoughtful people here who stick it out somehow, and keep this place going in spite of the bad behaviours.  But I don't want to be around people who think that it's okay to be malicious when they are 'right'.  And there are a pretty solid group of otherwise awesome people here who do that.  I don't want to be a part of that culture.  (Fidel, I fully admit the drive-bying in your threads, and I've been far from perfect on other instances too...but then again I never pretended I was perfect, that little gem was simply another assumption made by the glass house gang)

So, let me be the latest poster to say, I don't need this shit.  I don't find your bullying to be progressive.  I could stick it out and keep banging my head against the wall on this, but once again...I don't need this shit.

It was really nice meeting some of you.  Sorry writer, but critical mass is going to have to happen without me.  This place is starting to interfere with my enjoyment of the important things in life.