division

[Nathan Newman]

As someone who has played "civility cop" on occasion, I have to say that I
have found the arguments over Kosovo very civil - considering the stakes
involved.  As many people have noted, the issue of state use of military
means and working class response to it has been THE issue that has led to
full scale splits and internal left warfare throughout the 20th century.
Within that context, a few uses of "social fascism" and "social imperialism"
are relatively tame.

Name-calling attached to defined political positions is a relatively kosher
part of ideological combat.  It is usually intellectually sloppy and
obscures clear thinking on complexities and internal contradictions of a
specific situation, but it is a very different kind of name-calling from the
personal invective we have seen at times directed at individuals AS
INDIVIDUALS.

How's this for a civility rule.  Tying an insult to a political position is
all clean ideological fun, but tying that same insult to a perceived
character deformation in the person insulted - such as saying that political
position is based on cowardice, poor mothering as a child, attempts to
improve their career etc. - are considered uncivil and prohibited?

--Nathan Newman