The real meta-meta-meta hate-sponge thread
What do you think is with all the Christian code words for evil people under the devil's thrall, like "snake-pit" and 'vipers'?
Something to do with the creation myth and the garden of Eden? Not much of a biblical scholar. Perhaps some one else is better able to enlighten you than me, or perhaps you have some of your own ideas?
Does this have anything to do with it: Amerika?
Not sure exactly, but find it odd, especially in conjunction with the holier than thou rhetoric being thrown around that when combined reminds me of my religious extended family and friends, when they want to control or mass shun people in their family sphere and congregation.
Could just be a coincidence though.
anyway the kids are back and I gtg, have a gr8 evening.
Finally, after three versions of the previous threads about "Hostile assumptions? Or just calling it like you see it?" it was finally revealed that the "meta-meta" discussion was actually about my behaviour. This was finally uncovered at post numer 91 of this thread, here, where Yiwah stated:
There, I hope that ensures that people are very clear on who I think are engaging in aggressive, attacking behaviour towards me. I mean, that was super important to know apparently, since they came along and jumped up and down to get your attention. I thought that would be pretty pointless, as all of the people I have just now addressed (except skdadl actually...I think), I have previously addressed directly about what I felt were unfounded and unacceptable attacks against me. Or others. It did absolutely no good, and did not change their behaviour. Perhaps they have forgotten that in the attempt to make me look like I skulk around pointing fingers at shadows.
The general accussation leveled against me by Yiwah, seems to be related to accussations I have made that impugn Yiwah for her motives, and having an hidden agenda, as per the opening post in the first "Hostile Assumptions" thread where she stated:
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'?
It would seem that Yiwah is suggesting that she openly confronted my "abusive behaviour" that entailed suggesting that she had "certain secret, underhanded motives". This apparently happened in a thread about Isreali immigration policy, and in a more general thread about migration, here.
I must admit I am a little confused here about this issue since I can not recall a single instance where I accused her of having any "certain secret, underhanded motives". Since, we now know 300 odd posts later that this is actually a direct accussation against me, this might be a good time for her to "actually deal with a problem head-on or take accountability for the insinuations made", as Yiwah puts it.
Yiwah had a right to question the babble old-guard's version of rules. I make no comment on the wisdom of doing so.
People who build grass houses on a zero ground, .... or something.
Okay. I guess I'll never go out on a Friday night again.
Here's the thing. There's a reason why there's a rule against complaining about the behaviour of specific babblers in threads. The reason is, this is a public space, there will always be disagreements, and calling people out by name has never gone well and never will.
I'm going to use the word "you" a lot, so that whoever reads this feels like it's about them.
My suggestion back in some thread or other stands. Why can't you just send the person a pm and talk about it there? Moderators are surely not here to moderate various personal and political differences aside from the obvious ones.
And the other thing is, nobody can control what someone else posts. So, let's say as an example, I've been fairly thoughtful about this post, and how I say it. I have absolutely no control over someone else reading it, posting a one-liner snark, or even someone posting a thorough critique of my poor and dreadful moderating skills.
That's kinda how it goes. It's a open, public discussion board.
I'm not saying that in the "get thicker skin" vein, since I disagree with that philosophy.
If something is (or is perceived as) a personal attack:
1. Flag it or email me and Catchfire. We may decide to take action, we may not.
2. PM the person.
3. Once those are tried, let it go. Ignore the person. Post your stuff and enjoy babble the way that you enjoy it. Whatever.
Neither of these actions may resolve it to your liking. Again, there's a limit to how far we (Catchfire and I) can go to establish any kind of harmony.
And now I'm going to be a spammer and I will post this to the other active reactions thread about meta issues.
Yiwah had a right to question the babble old-guard's version of rules. I make no comment on the wisdom of doing so.
People who build grass houses on a zero ground, .... or something.
What has happened, again, is the suppression - suffocation, really - of independent opinion. You are right, it is not wise to stand up and be counted if you don't want to be put down by the priesthood.
From my pov, the original problem wasn't personal attacks. The original problem was something akin to making the full humanity of women a debatable subject on babble.
If someone did that (and it has been done), I would not be inclined to send him a PM.
George, really, I strongly, but respectfully, disagree, I see it the exacrt opposite, that individual independant voices were trying to be supressed, marginalized and or shunned.
Skdadl pretty much sums up my perceptions and feelings actually.
I doubt anyone has done that (who wasn't a troll anyway).
Awe some.
Cue.
The original problem was something akin to making the full humanity of women a debatable subject on babble.
I guess this has gone back far enough that I don't remember this. Which of course is not debatable.
My puny suggestions were for the more contentious arguments, and a way to remove them from the stream of debate, and to avoid the personal attacks that go back and forth and then generate further animosity. I tried.
Well, I said "akin to," Maysie. It wasn't about women.
I know I should shut up on this topic now, and so I shall. I'm tracking Julian Assange and Omar Khadr at the moment, and that is quite enough for one weekend.
I doubt anyone has done that (who wasn't a troll anyway).
I don't
Well, I said "akin to," Maysie. It wasn't about women.
How many degrees of separation?
I have a huge problem with the "smacks of", "akin to", "in the vein", "a la" school of association. Everything is more or less like everything else. My question is, how more like does something have to be, to be guilty; how less like, to be innocent? How much is Obama like Stalin and/or Hitler?
I realize that the hominid who perceived a threat when there wasn't one left more descendents than the hominid who perceived no threat when there was one, but i wonder which had more friends.
Friends?
Is this a social club?
Do "friends" not have issues sometimes?
Is it any of our business what others think of us?
I suppose a radical environmentalist would think the Amish were hyprocrits for decking out the insides of deluxe RV's, and making a buck off of doing so, too.
We all hold expectations of perfection that are only the ideal, not the possible reality given the diversity of humanity, and what they all believe the perfect ideal is.
personally, I think everyone should have a Rhoades Car purchased for us by the government, but that does not mean I am going to go meta and judgemental if others do not want one, nor if they think everyone having one is a stupid ideal and say so.
Friends?
Is this a social club?
Some passerby who didn't know any better might think so.
Do "friends" not have issues sometimes?
I'm not sure what kind of issues they can have and still remain friends, and which kind would break the relationship. That probably depends on how close they were to begin with, and on what commonalities formed the basis of their friendship. Sometimes mere allies call one another 'friend', sometimes not.
Is it any of our business what others think of us?
It seems to be of great importance to many people. The opinion of some others is more important than that some other others, but yes, most people seem to make a considerable effort to discern and influence what others think of us. IMLE
I suppose a radical environmentalist would think the Amish were hyprocrits for decking out the insides of deluxe RV's, and making a buck off of doing so, too.
I would imagine so. Do they really? The Amish, i mean, do that? All of them?
We all hold expectations of perfection that are only the ideal, not the possible reality given the diversity of humanity, and what they all believe the perfect ideal is.
If i understood the applicability of that, i would probably agree with it.
personally, I think everyone should have a Rhoades Car purchased for us by the government, but that does not mean I am going to go meta and judgemental if others do not want one, nor if they think everyone having one is a stupid ideal and say so.
I want one. Where do we sign up?
Well, I think you can be allies without being "friends", as well as being friends.
What one's idea of perfection is not what anothers is, so an ideal really can never be met to a 100% degree, in this reality anyway.
No, not all Amish do so, just 1 particular community or maybe 2. And most likely there is disagreement in their community about their brethern doing so. Not that I know for sure or anything but I think the probability is high.
The movement has not gained enough momentum for there to be a place to sign up, yet.
However, I think the NDP should have it as part of their platform. :D
Could you imagine how pollution free our cities would be?
How many less killing and maiming car accidents there would be?
of course the oil industry would be the largest lobbiest against it.
What has happened, again, is the suppression - suffocation, really - of independent opinion. You are right, it is not wise to stand up and be counted if you don't want to be put down by the priesthood.
Your unrelenting complaining about the rest of us has been bugging me so I went back to when you arrived here a couple of years ago. Here is a post in the SECOND thread you posted in.
I am not trying to be rude but did it ever occur to you we understand your complaint we just don't care. You have been whining since you got here. I would like to hold you too the words of that post unless you were self delusional when you claimed two years ago that you had a thick skin and to bring it on. George it is really, really tiresome to hear you complain for two years that the regulars here do not accept all your beliefs as the best way. Get over it.
Posted by George Victor March 28 2008
#4
Yep, bless ya.
But there are still no resounding responses to that entry. A common occurrence.
Am I being too existential, interjecting perhaps impolite bits into the dinner-table conversation?
Too new to old-guard line of reasoning?Too too?
Go ahead, I have very thick skin. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Well, I think you can be allies without being "friends", as well as being friends.
Yes, unless your enemy-radar is so ultra-sensitive that you drive them away before either can happen.
The movement has not gained enough momentum for there to be a place to sign up, yet.
That's okay. With my luck, by the time i got one, OHIP will have gone bust and i won't get the new knees to use it.
[/quote]
They have electric motor capabilities, plus 36 gears.
if people's commitment to social justice is so shallow that their ego over comes their desire to discuss, and perhaps take action, then that is their issue, not mine.
The world is a harsh place and no matter how much we pretend it isn't, does not make it true, it just means, IMV, we want to delude ourselves that it isn't in order to keep a perfectly false world around us, as if we are blessed but others are not.
Sure enough there can be more respect fostered, one does not always like being called a snake and a viper, but diverging interests and perceptions along with being human, means total accord will never happen here.
They have electric motor capabilities, plus 36 gears.
Cool. Well, except for the problematic production of electricity and batteries. Now all i need is a city. Not Toronto, obviously: they're recruiting an army of speed devils - in tight, bright, shiny stretch-fabric pants, on sleek smooth young muscled thighs and buttocks... shudder! - on borrowed bicycles.
if people's commitment to social justice is so shallow that their ego over comes their desire to discuss, and perhaps take action, then that is their issue, not mine.
Quite so. Each must choose our issues.
..... one does not always like being called a snake and a viper....
It's redundant, for one thing. Black mambo be too ambitious?
Redundant heh?
Another glass house just shattered I see.
I'm developing a hard and fast loathing for meta-threads. I'm ignoring them fairly regularly - though on occasion I'm curious to see what people are still on about....
I've also come to immediately disrespect those who refer to an 'old guard' here. It is the result of coming to understand that these people do not recognise or understand the importance of community, here or elsewhere.
kropotkin:
George Victor wrote:
What has happened, again, is the suppression - suffocation, really - of independent opinion. You are right, it is not wise to stand up and be counted if you don't want to be put down by the priesthood.
"Your unrelenting complaining about the rest of us has been bugging me so I went back to when you arrived here a couple of years ago. Here is a post in the SECOND thread you posted in.
I am not trying to be rude but did it ever occur to you we understand your complaint we just don't care. You have been whining since you got here. I would like to hold you too the words of that post unless you were self delusional when you claimed two years ago that you had a thick skin and to bring it on. George it is really, really tiresome to hear you complain for two years that the regulars here do not accept all your beliefs as the best way. Get over it."
I'm "self delusional". That's the only kind, Kropy. "Other delusional" would be hard to come by. You're "not trying to be rude'...? Of course you are...trying to be.
The last couple of days, kropy, I've found several people not of the priesthood, which you represent, who fee just as I do. Mighty refreshing. You say I'm complaining about "the rest of us." (That old playing to the bleachers populist touch again) NOT SO, kropy, just those in the pack that smell blood and descend on the one silly enough to stand up. Like your persistent self. I'm going to continue to post pieces that show what Obama's up to. And the next thread will read: "What Obama is up against: the right, the "left" and the fatuous." May it always be possible to present an independent voice hereabouts.
I've also come to immediately disrespect those who refer to an 'old guard' here. It is the result of coming to understand that these people do not recognise or understand the importance of community, here or elsewhere.
I concur. The same holds true in the workplace, neighbourhood, society. It's just another way of sowing division among allies and creating distrust of the "Other".
I'm "self delusional". That's the only kind, Kropy. "Other delusional" would be hard to come by. You're "not trying to be rude'...? Of course you are...trying to be.
The last couple of days, kropy, I've found several people not of the priesthood, which you represent, who fee just as I do. Mighty refreshing. You say I'm complaining about "the rest of us." (That old playing to the bleachers populist touch again) NOT SO, kropy, just those in the pack that smell blood and descend on the one silly enough to stand up. Like your persistent self. I'm going to continue to post pieces that show what Obama's up to. And the next thread will read: "What Obama is up against: the right, the "left" and the fatuous." May it always be possible to present an independent voice hereabouts.
Priesthood? Look you asshole I was raped by a priest when I was a an adolescent and your insistence on calling me an oppressor is unfounded and nasty.
I don't expect all or even most people on this forum to agree with my views. Thank you for giving me the heads up that your next thread will include a personal attack specifically directed at me in that obtuse manner you love so much in your own posts and hate in others even more.
But thats all it ever was about anyway: sowing division.
And to LTJ's point: people recognise the importance of community, and have different ideas about what is required to foster it.
Yiwah had a right to question the babble old-guard's version of rules. I make no comment on the wisdom of doing so.
People who build grass houses on a zero ground, .... or something.
Question anything you like, but don't smear me with unsubstantiated, unreferenced, and unsupported allegations, without quotes. Perhaps you can help here and find precisely where I ascribed "certain secret, underhanded motives" to Yiwah? Because my view is that at no time did I make any ad hominem allegations against this person.
Thanks!
Personal attacks at babble are strange. There is a no personal attack rule but it seems very lightly enforced. Someone makes a personal attack, the "attackee" loudly protests the personal attack. If the attackee is loud enough then a moderator steps in and warns the attacker that personal attacks are not allowed. But a few threads later guess what. More personal attacks.
The rule strikes me more as a suggestion which "may" be used as a cause for discipline depending on the seniority of the poster making the personal attack.
Of course this is just from an outsiders perspective and I respect that I have not been a member here very long and still trying to understand the dynamic of this place but I don't think some people realize how ever childish they can come across in their arguing with each other. It's like you're friends [allies] one minute and respecting each other then whamo someone disagrees with you and the claws come out. It's really surprising to see such educated and intelligent people pecking at each other like I see sometimes.
I haven't asked any moderators to intercede. I asked for a clarification of what the precise nature of the personal attack that I am alleged to have made, and where it is, and a quote from it. Why not, since this has become an issue of some public concern?
I never saw Cue or unionist make personal attacks. I saw them confront Yiwah on a particular rhetorical strategy to do with discussions about Israel. In response, using the same rhetorical strategy (diversion), Yiwah started meta threads that pretended to be about personal attacks in the abstract but were really about Cue and unionist (and probably some others) who had confronted Yiwah on solid political grounds.
Cueball my post above isn't in regardes to [u]your[/u] posts persay but something I've noticed across the board here. I should have pointed that out in my thread, sorry! I meant to imply that I've seen it from a lot of posters.
Cueball my post above isn't in regardes to [u]your[/u] posts persay but something I've noticed across the board here. I should have pointed that out in my thread, sorry! I meant to imply that I've seen it from a lot of posters.
Sure. I was just being clear on it.
I never saw Cue or unionist make personal attacks. I saw them confront Yiwah on a particular rhetorical strategy to do with discussions about Israel. In response, using the same rhetorical strategy (diversion), Yiwah started meta threads that pretended to be about personal attacks in the abstract but were really about Cue and unionist (and probably some others) who had confronted Yiwah on solid political grounds.
I don't know if she was intentionally trying to divert attention or not. But it was diversionary, even if unitentionally.That is neither here nor there.
For my part I am not going to let the idea that descriminatory imigration policies are somehow comparable to exclusionary immigration policies stand. As far as I could tell Yiwah was raising that discussion point in good faith, but at the very least she seems to be unaware how dangerous it is to "normalize" Israeli Apartheid policies as being simillar to the policies of most "liberal democracies".
Nor does she seem to be aware that this argument is a very old one, often raised by Zionists to defend Israel, as "just like everyone else", and allege that persons who suggest that it is not "just like everyone else" are somehow being anti-semitic because they are unfairly biased against "the Jewish State", and therefore Jews, or so the argument goes. That said, she did not allege any of that.
In that context, she should understand how some people might be confused about the direction of certain kinds of "innocent" questions, and be overly cautious of them.
I am not going to pretend I was particularly nice on that thread, because I was not. But she should understand that in the face of such points and counter-points sometimes it is most important to be totally clear and not muddy the waters, for fear of adding to the confusion of what is already a situation that many people are pretty confused about.
However, I did not personally attack her, ad hominem.
Yiwah had a right to question the babble old-guard's version of rules. I make no comment on the wisdom of doing so.
People who build grass houses on a zero ground, .... or something.
Question anything you like, but don't smear me with unsubstantiated, unreferenced, and unsupported allegations, without quotes. Perhaps you can help here and find precisely where I ascribed "certain secret, underhanded motives" to Yiwah?<strong> </strong>Because my view is that at no time did I make any ad hominem allegations against this person.
Thanks!
I questioned nothing at all. I have no idea who ascribed what to whom. I have smeared nobody. At the time of my participation in the notorious thread, no names had been named by Yiwah; the question was merely a general one of tactics. Since i have nothing to go on but your assertion, which i have no reason do disbelieve, i have no cause, have never had any cause, and hope never to have any cause in future, to accuse you.
I made glancing references to Obama's comment on the building of a cultural center and to remind's post about glass houses. Apparently, I have lost my wit along with my bearings.
And i'm deeply contrite about having used the objectionable phrase "old guard." Would gladly change it to community, had it not already been immortalized in quotes.
I am really not up for long and arduous, amorphous discussions about abstract concepts
That's too bad because without understanding abstract concepts, we will never understand the specifics. 
Right. Well this thread isn't about the general subject of your feelings about the web site. This thread, if you look at the OP, is about specific allegations made against me. Your post seemed to indicate that you thought these particular accusations had merit, when you said; "Yiwah had a right to question the babble old-guard's version of rules."
In that light, I asked you to support your apparent claim that Yiwah's claim had merit, in the specific.
I am really not up for long and arduous, amorphous discussions about abstract concepts that are not founded in actual examples of alleged abuse, since as we have seen so far, these end up being discussion that seem to be about the underlying angst that some Babblers have about other Babblers, or groups of Babblers, or imagined cabals of Babblers, without much focus at all.
In this case there has been a specific accusation made against me, and I am asking that this be clarified. Otherwise, I just consider it a smear.
i have no cause, have never had any cause, and hope never to have any cause in future, to accuse you.
If not clear enough, suggest a more appropriate text.
If it would improve the thread, the world, your mood, or babble, i would be happy to delete the previous posts.
I disagree.
In my view these meta-meta threads are so generalized and amorphous they end up creating more bad feeling than they do solve problems, because they end up being venues where people express general grieviances in an undirected and unclear way, and more or less everybody ends up feeling more agrieved and more insulted to no clear purpose.
Rather, I say persons should point to specific cases, and example how they are problematic, as opposed to imagining the problems in the abstract, and then applying those imaginings generally. To me that sounds like a way of creating a hurtful merry-go-round of angst, not problem solving.
In support of this, I point to 300 odd posts on the previous meta-mta threads, where nothing at all was accomplished, other than having numerous other people being drawn into a dispute, which actually seems to be about my behaviour and Unionist's behaviour on one or two specific threads.
It was only at the end of that embroglio that the fact that we are talking about myself and Unionist, even came to light. What the fuck is that?
Thanks, I saw that. I did not ask you to re-address the issue, you will note.
My mood is fine, actually. Let me be clear, I don't think being "nice" is a requirement of posting on this forum. How would moderators judge "nice" anyway? Also, many of the things I read on this web site that I object to, don't make me feel like being "nice". Quite the opposite.
I agree with Cue. The reason that I finally piped up, after letting an entire day and an entire thread started by Yiwah go by, was that I could see really nice people who I like very much joining in a discussion whose subtext they didn't know, hadn't observed, and who were generalizing from the abstractions to completely different kinds of problems. At that point, I felt someone should just spell out the subtext, so I did.
A lot of things could possibly go wrong in a group this big and this combative, but they are not all the same thing. People will end up on different sides of different differences often -- unionist and I, eg, spend half our time at each other's throats, don't we, dear chum. But at least I always know what he's talking about.
Who needs "nice.??Just being able to post a different point of view without being personally vilified would be a breakthrough.
Who needs "nice.??Just being able to post a different point of view without being personally vilified would be a breakthrough.
x2
Who needs "nice.??Just being able to post a different point of view without being personally vilified would be a breakthrough.
x2
X 3
People will end up on different sides of different differences often -- unionist and I, eg, spend half our time at each other's throats, don't we, dear chum. But at least I always know what he's talking about.
Right! and there's nothing oblique, nothing elitist, nothing hyper-intellectualized about it - and no attempt to turn a disagreement into a meta-profound-babble-dynamic discussion, where everything and everyone must stop because someone is allegedly being "bullied" and "harassed" and... worst of all conceivable freakin' sins - [b]"misunderstood"[/b].
I like straight, direct, forthright comments and statements of opinion. And I found this opening salvo to be very very straight and forthright:
"Is the Israel/Palestine issues one of those (thankfully rare) topics that is simply not one that can be discussed from a moderate (re: not either/or) stance?
I ask this here, because [b]the 'anti-Zionism' of leftists is relentless. Hysterical, almost.[/b]"
When I read that - long ago, it seems - I tried to imagine someone making such a claim on the question of racism, or same sex marriage, or workers' rights, or abortion... and it occurred to me that we were not dealing with a legitimate difference of points of view within the left. I saw [b]no hidden motives, no secret agenda[/b] - just a plain straight assertion that anyone who takes an uncompromising firm stand against the murderous crimes of apartheid Israel is to be marginalized, dehumanized, scorned - called "hysterical". At that point, I understood what I was dealing with.
Hard to turn back once you've had a good look.
I've also come to immediately disrespect those who refer to an 'old guard' here. It is the result of coming to understand that these people do not recognise or understand the importance of community, here or elsewhere.
I think I have pretty good sense of the importance of community, but I think some of us who haven't been around since 2001 can be forgiven for sometimes feeling as though babble is not so much a community, but rather a clique. I suppose I'll just have to live with your disrespect.
Respect should be a mutual thing - show some, you'll get some.
After your less than auspicious start around here, if you want respect you'll have to earn it.
I'd be careful not to get caught up in these babble inquisition-disputation type threads. You'll notice there are no clearly marked exits only a trap door in the middle of the cobblestone floor.