[lbo-talk] the autumn of the communes?

[// ravi]

On Oct 31, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Andy wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 10:08 AM, // ravi <ravi at platosbeard.org> wrote:
> 
>> You may say that the lack of actual email filters somehow unites us, but I suspect that’s not the case. Consider the practise of talking past the person but about the person: there is a dispute about some issue. X takes one position and Y takes the opposing view. Others join in. Soon you will notice this behaviour: X finds a Z who agrees with him, and they embark on a discussion of Y, why he or she is deluded or wrong, what his or her mental states are, etc. In the more ballsy instances this approach is used directly in response to X. By constructing a psycho-strawman of X, s/he - and importantly, his/her substantive points - are effectively eliminated i.e., filtered out from view. Little groups can then bicker about their neighbour(s) in broad unfiltered daylight.
> 
> Leaving aside wondering who did what on Earth to earn the toxic boss
> treatment, I am not saying "shag is wrong because she is insane".  I
> can and have tried to deal with the merits of her arguments.  <…>
> 

Hello Andy,

I didn’t mean to single out you or shag in my comment. Though the examination of style has been triggered by the recent thread, the style I describe above has been in use for the many years I have been on this list. What I am trying to ask is: why start and stop the analysis at the “asshole” or “fuck you” posts? What triggered these outburst? Are these really the only forms of incivility? (again speaking generally).

There are a few bits of writing that I greatly admire, and high among them are the critiques of the critiques of pomo by the mathematician Gabriel Stolzenberg. In tearing down (in my opinion of course, YMMV) the arguments offered by pomo-hunters, he makes two points:

(1) what the pomo-hunters used was not well-laid out argument; but it wasn't offensive language that one could easily flag and hold up as an implicit surrender. Rather they used a form of ganging up and ridicule.

(2) the unwillingness to try to find the value in a counter-argument (he had a quote about lovers reading each others letters; I think it was from Shakespeare, but perhaps not).

The first points to the kinds of uncivility that are arguably more harmful to a group than an outright “fuck you”. The example I gave of “psycho-strawman” argument is one such. Questioning the intention of a poster, his or her credentials, or I would say even their history, in lieu of the content of their post.

The second raises the issue of solidarity and camaraderie (as well as dogmatism and purism on the negative end of the scale). SA asks in response to Carrol whether it is being asked of someone who has been told to fuck himself that he read the post with greater care and address the issues? I can understand SA’s incredulousness. My point is that the chain of offence, of arguing in bad faith, has an origin that lies before the “fuck you” post.

But WTF do I know? Only thing, to reiterate, my post above wasn’t about you or shag in particular. I’ll try to STFU now.

	—ravi