Rhetoric and the art of Collaborative Discussion

[minime]

when you're running away, or you think you're running away, and find that you're running towards something, or that you've been running towards something all along...

Wherever you go, there you are.

[dada]

"Wherever you go there you are" is too mystically wise for my taste. But then, I've gone places where I'm not.

I think you may have misunderstood me. I wasn't talking about running away from or towards anything. I think the trick is to just stop making a fetish of time.

[minime]

"Wherever you go there you are" is too mystically wise for my taste. But then, I've gone places where I'm not.

I think you may have misunderstood me. I wasn't talking about running away from or towards anything. I think the trick is to just stop making a fetish of time.

Ha!

[dada]

I'm not familiar with Buckaroo Banzai, I'll have to watch it one day. So I'm not sure about this, but I've always had the impression that "wherever you go there you are" was poking fun at these kind of mystical pronouncements. Like the joke about the buddhist monk who goes to the baseball game and buys a hot dog. He says "make me one with everything."

Or if Groucho Marx said, "I asked a swami on a mountaintop, 'oh great swami, what's the secret of life?' and the swami replied 'wherever you go there you are.' That's when enlightenment struck me like a thunderbolt. I suddenly realized what a racket these swamis have going on"

Of course Groucho would do it much better.

[Cordelia]

Yeah, he was great and unfortunately, were he alive, Groucho probably wouldn't have joined RI since he's said to have said......

"I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member."


('Wherever you go, there you are' is a favorite of mine and always comes to mind when listening to people's escape fantasies--including my own.)

[stillrobertpaulsen]

I've let things percolate a bit more and given that there is no formal rule, I can say at least that I will take the recommendation seriously. It's really a balancing act in that Conspiracism can definitely become a negative "ism", and mitigating the excesses of that can be a matter of life or death. I am against Anarchism or Marxism when they become negative "isms", in that same sense too. In this case, while I can't guarantee that I will achieve 100% on a subjective standard regarding language, I can guarantee that I will take the underlying concern to heart.

We are smashing the idols every day at R.I. Retaining critical thinking is in a certain sort of tension with respecting each and every individual here. Keeping critical discourse alive while minimizing the ad hominem towards other members is a reasonable goal to me. I plan to do significantly better than the average bear.

Sure. But am I correct in my interpretation? Are you saying yes to my request?

I took what you said as a recommendation and not a request because that was literally what you said. It would help to be more clear on what the phrase "an article like this" does and does not mean. I hope you'll excuse my guardedness but I'm being real. I'm holding out space for good faith in all directions.

Thank you very much, American Dream, for transplanting that conversation into this thread, which I think was most appropriate on your part. To be clear, my request was most certainly a recommendation and not a demand. I think Elvis made some great points regarding how the specific article you cited was disparaging and helpful advice about where articles that do disparage CT belongs. I also think you made an excellent point that Conspiracism can become a negative ism and it is up to diligent critical thinkers at places like RI to make sure that it doesn't.

To that I can add that I believe part of our board culture has always been about using those critical thinking skills to call out those who use conspiracism in a negative way. Because of that, no one here links to Alex Jones or Sorcha Faal, to use two well known examples, unless it is to point out a particular absurdity and usually the context of non-support for the source is made clear. I think the same approach should be used toward sources that outwardly appear to be supportive of the rules in our board culture (anti-fascist, anti-sexist) but which upon closer examination, are disparaging of conspiracism.

Again, I really appreciate you making the effort to take the recommendation seriously. It's important for everyone to be aware that any changes we make will be incremental, in consideration of promoting board cohesion and in accordance with the rules. If you break the rules to try to speed that process up, you may incur a penalty. So please, everyone, be respectful!

[stillrobertpaulsen]

page 3

Seemed like a good idea when I said it

Is that a possibility ...a new forum LBN? I don't know but I would gladly support that and post in it extensively and stay out of GD for the most part

I say it's a great idea!

[stillrobertpaulsen]

The copy/paste argument has got to go.
If I were moderator I would insist we stop complaining about something that is a necessary and appreciated sharing of information. Its getting old, just scroll down and quit complaining, or maybe read the article and comment on it.

It's too damn long for a thread with discussion going. It's a lot of scrolling! I'm not always logged in, so "foe" doesn't work and scroll-scroll-scroll it goes just to reach someone's one-liner before the next scroll-scroll-scroll. It's impolite. A headline, a few paragraphs and the link suffice. I did it in the days of the Wall Street thread, but no one was complaining because that one moved a lot slower, and, humbly, I was finding a lot of different perspectives. If one fears the Memory Hole (that used to be the justification, for me too) and therefore wants to archive full articles, I'm for it but not in the middle of active discussions. Often it's done passive-aggressively, as an answer to someone's point.

Hey Jack, I wanted to transplant this quote here because I think it's pertinent to the topic at hand.

My personal opinion is that I've encountered problems with the Memory Hole far too many times that I have no problem with someone quoting an entire article in the middle of an active discussion unless "it's done passive-aggressively, as an answer to someone's point."

A somewhat recent example of this was on the Julian Assange thread. I was having an email conversation with a friend of mine outside of RI and the subject of WikiLeaks came up. I knew that slad had placed an article in the thread about how Angela Richter believed that Assange's support for Trump (by being so virulently anti-Clinton) was that he thought a Trump presidency might be better for WL because "it might be more interesting to have Trump." I tried emailing the link, but my friend told me that aside from the first paragraph, the link said, "This story is available to Subscribers only." If it wasn't for slad's copypasta, he wouldn't have been able to read the article.

So that's why I really don't want to put any restrictions on that. Let's not make RI DU again.

[American Dream]

I'm bringing the conversation here, as that seems like agood policy to follow in order to avoid derailing other threads:

Newsbud versus Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett

Recently I learned that a relatively new Assadist website called Newsbud.com had featured a blistering attack on Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett (henceforth identified as B&B), who are arguably the most well-known propagandists for the dictatorship. Why this indictment in peoples court comes at this stage of the game is real question—one that I really have no definitive answers for although some of my co-thinkers write it off as a battle over spoils. Since it is obvious that the Baathist dictatorship is more than willing to fund propagandists, maybe this is just nothing more than two jackal pups fighting over access to their mother’s teats.

The fallout from her attack on B&B has already begun. An Assadist named James Corbett released a video yesterday that offered a point-by-point refutation of Sibel Emonds’s video titled “Fact checking Newsbud’s ‘Syria Under Siege’ Video” (https://www.corbettreport.com/fact-chec ... ege-video/). Since Corbett is a 9/11 Truther, I just didn’t feel motivated to get his side of the story.

This really takes the cake, American Dream. Remember when you asked me what "an article like this" means? This is an excellent example! Here was an opportunity for you to edify us, the members of RI, with the fact that while you personally have nothing but contempt for anyone who would speak disparagingly of 9/11 Truth, you felt the research in this article was of value because .... why exactly?

Honestly, this is probably the fourth or fifth piece of work I've read from this Proyect character and I find his "journalistic" skills to be atrocious. He presents no evidence whatsoever to back up his claim that Edmonds is an "Assadist"; he simply asserts it and pretends that it is fact. Instead he resorts to baseless speculation and pimply hyperbole to get his inaccurate point across. His "research" into Edmonds background is ridiculously shoddy and his description of her associates little more than name-calling.

But then he dismisses Corbett over 9/11. Why was this not a red flag for you after our previous discussion? Without amending commentary on your part, I have to assume you have no problem with Proyect's sentiment. That it's no big deal to you at all.

So let me make my official warning crystal clear to you: do not post articles that disparage conspiracy theories regarding 9/11. That means you need to read everything in the article before you post it.

I never said that I agree absolutely with the writings of others which I may post here, nor do I think awe should assume that of anyone here. This always was a staple of the the FM radio work I did in rhe wake of the Fairness Act: "These words are the words of those that said 'em", or something to that general effect.

I am a fairly voracious reader and I consume a wide variety of opinions in that process, some of which I know from the git go I feel to be true, some which I feel to be false and many which I'm not sure about. I personally feel that being open to new material but trying to separate the wheat from the chaff is the way I want to go.

Maybe you know something I don't know: Do you feel/know that Sibel Edmonds is not an Assadist? I found the article- which appears on a newsfeed I monitor- to be fascinating. It was the first I'd heard of a big conflict between Sibel Edmonds and Beeley/Bartlett. It seemed highly relevant to Rigorous Intuition to me.

Proyect did say:

The fallout from her attack on B&B has already begun. An Assadist named James Corbett released a video yesterday that offered a point-by-point refutation of Sibel Emonds’s video titled “Fact checking Newsbud’s ‘Syria Under Siege’ Video” (https://www.corbettreport.com/fact-chec ... ege-video/). Since Corbett is a 9/11 Truther, I just didn’t feel motivated to get his side of the story.

I didn't think much about this, as I know very little about Corbett. I do think that it is a weak dismissal and that it shows bias on the part of Proyect. That said, it has been a staple of R.I. all along to criticize "troofers", best as I recall. I've lalways maintained that I like the scholarship of Peter Dale Scott, Paul Thompson and Nafeez Ahmed on these matters.

All that said, we've created a small and clearly defined group of proscribed topics here. 9/11 critiques (i.e. cis Theory) are not per se among them, nor do I think they should be. Can you explain things to me more from your perspective?

[stillrobertpaulsen]

I'm bringing the conversation here, as that seems like agood policy to follow in order to avoid derailing other threads:

I agree. Good call.

I never said that I agree absolutely with the writings of others which I may post here, nor do I think awe should assume that of anyone here. This always was a staple of the the FM radio work I did in rhe wake of the Fairness Act: "These words are the words of those that said 'em", or something to that general effect.

It's not good to assume, it is good to ask. Two different posters, Elvis and Belligerent Savant, noted their disproval of the offending passage in the article, which they probably would not have if you had posted an amending comment as I previously advised. Since you didn't reply to them, they probably assumed, as I did, that you had no problem with it. Which is a reasonable assumption if you're not going to bother to discuss it.

I am a fairly voracious reader and I consume a wide variety of opinions in that process, some of which I know from the git go I feel to be true, some which I feel to be false and many which I'm not sure about. I personally feel that being open to new material but trying to separate the wheat from the chaff is the way I want to go.

I like to think I'm a fairly voracious reader, but you've probably got me beat there. I'd like to see you do more separating of the wheat from the chaff, that's a good perspective to have in my book.

Maybe you know something I don't know: Do you feel/know that Sibel Edmonds is not an Assadist? I found the article- which appears on a newsfeed I monitor- to be fascinating. It was the first I'd heard of a big conflict between Sibel Edmonds and Beeley/Bartlett. It seemed highly relevant to Rigorous Intuition to me.

Certainly that conflict is relevant to RI. But the context through which Proyect filters it is not. Most people here are familiar with Edmonds and find the charge of her being an Assadist to be laughable.

Proyect did say:

The fallout from her attack on B&B has already begun. An Assadist named James Corbett released a video yesterday that offered a point-by-point refutation of Sibel Emonds’s video titled “Fact checking Newsbud’s ‘Syria Under Siege’ Video” (https://www.corbettreport.com/fact-chec ... ege-video/). Since Corbett is a 9/11 Truther, I just didn’t feel motivated to get his side of the story.

I didn't think much about this, as I know very little about Corbett. I do think that it is a weak dismissal and that it shows bias on the part of Proyect.

Glad to hear you say that. I disagree with Corbett on AGW and some of his NWO views, particularly some of the UN Agenda 21 proponents he's had on his show, but his 9/11 research is spot-on, from what I've seen.

That said, it has been a staple of R.I. all along to criticize "troofers", best as I recall. I've lalways maintained that I like the scholarship of Peter Dale Scott, Paul Thompson and Nafeez Ahmed on these matters.

While I share your admiration for Scott, Thompson and Ahmed, I have to draw a distinction between criticizing an aspect of 9/11 Truth, such as, for example, whether thermite was used to blow up the Twin Towers, and dismissing the inquiry into 9/11 conspiracy outright with the label "troofers." While I personally find that name-calling reprehensible, I'm going to defer to Jeff Wells as far as what can be dismissed where 9/11 Truth is concerned on RI:

Advocating or advancing theories contending that no planes whatsoever struck the WTC is not permitted, and such threads will be subject to locking, moving to the Fire Pit, or deletion.

All that said, we've created a small and clearly defined group of proscribed topics here. 9/11 critiques (i.e. cis Theory) are not per se among them, nor do I think they should be. Can you explain things to me more from your perspective?

To be clear, I have no problem with people debating or disputing certain aspects of 9/11 Truth. What I have a problem with is people who make a blanket disparagement of it. You have frequently posted articles in the past that do just that. Please don't do it anymore.

[Cordelia]

It's a lot of scrolling!

I usually feel like



trying to pass



from the slow lane.

[stillrobertpaulsen]

@srp

Are you saying there is a destructive dynamic between you and Elvis???

Mostly just that we strongly disagree in ways that I find deeply upsetting. Given the chances of success from any possible dialogue, it doesn't seem worth it.

When has Elvis ever bullied or abused you? You certainly never hit the alert button.

I'm not saying he did.

What do you really think about the article you posted, aside from it not being warmongering?

I think he makes some important points. His tone etc. are not always what I would use but escalating censorship here is not the solution.


That said, You still haven't been very responsive as to your new interpretation of the old rule, which as I read it proscribes racism, sexism, homophobia. religious bigotry and the like. How did that become a rationale for banning certain opinions regarding the Syrian War, assuming this is the case? In other words, what specifically is prohibited according to you, and why?

As I promised you earlier, I'm cross-posting this here to address your inquiries, and reiterate some of my own.

@srp

Are you saying there is a destructive dynamic between you and Elvis???

Mostly just that we strongly disagree in ways that I find deeply upsetting. Given the chances of success from any possible dialogue, it doesn't seem worth it.

When has Elvis ever bullied or abused you? You certainly never hit the alert button.

I'm not saying he did.

Where collaborative discussion is concerned, I do not want you to be bullied or abused. I think it would be helpful to me if you could PM me a list of RI members who have done this to you in the past that you no longer interact with on the board. I don't wish to have their names muddied again in public, but I don't want to repeat bringing up a post from a member I think needs addressing if this is from someone you have a negative history with. I'm not sure why it would be "deeply upsetting" if you are interacting with someone that you strongly disagree with if it is arguments that are issue-based. But if it is, I don't want to put myself in a situation where I am unknowingly coercing you to do so, so I would appreciate a PM of your list of those members who are "deeply upsetting" to you as well.

What do you really think about the article you posted, aside from it not being warmongering?

I think he makes some important points. His tone etc. are not always what I would use but escalating censorship here is not the solution.

Important points. Yet not important enough for you to specify? This is an example where you are guilty of the very charge you accuse other board members of, obeying the letter, but not the spirit of the request both moderators have made.

BTW, you removed the link from my original reply, I just put it back. You might want to read it again, or not if you really don't give a shit about the spirit of our request. I never censored that link, nor the link for which I suspended you. If suspensions are what you're referring to as censorship, that's our call with Jeff's blessing (yes, that's right, it was Mr. Wells himself who appointed us moderators) if we feel someone is violating the rules.

That said, You still haven't been very responsive as to your new interpretation of the old rule, which as I read it proscribes racism, sexism, homophobia. religious bigotry and the like. How did that become a rationale for banning certain opinions regarding the Syrian War, assuming this is the case? In other words, what specifically is prohibited according to you, and why?

Wrong, I have given multiple responses on the subject in an attempt to clarify every time you asked. Here they are:

Didn't you yourself develop a highly idiosyncratic interpretation for a rule that was against what would more commonly be called "Hate Speech" and then proceed to apply it only to me?

Wrong. It doesn't just apply to you. It applies to everyone.

But this is an effort on our parts to maintain consistency here - we are not asking American Dream to do anything that we would not ask any other member to do - it's just that we don't have to ask most other members. They just do it on their own accord, either out of a desire to clarify or maybe just simple courtesy. It shouldn't have to be an exercise in pulling teeth. Hopefully as a result of my action it won't be in the future.

Call it an idiosyncratic interpretation if you want, but in my book, there is no greater form of violence on this planet than warmongering. And I don't think it's idiosyncratic to say it has no place on this board coming from anyone.

@srp

We haven't really gotten very far with the "warmongering" policy. If I'm not mistaken, it seems to hinge on some particular interpretation of this:

Posts advocating violence, or espousing hatred of a people based upon race, religion, gender or sexuality, are not permitted.

We should all be clear what your policy regarding "warmongering" says is proscribed speech, right?

Right! I'm not sure why this is unclear, but if you just read the part I bold, and not the part I diminish, my policy should be crystal clear as how this rule applies to warmongering:

Posts advocating violence, or espousing hatred of a people based upon race, religion, gender or sexuality, are not permitted.

Now to your latest query:

Regarding the rule cited: it still stands for "hatred of a people based upon race, religion, gender or sexuality." Nothing has changed there. I am using the bolded part as my rationale to prohibit warmongering because it just seems like common sense to me not to allow warmongering. Do you really think Jeff would prohibit posts advocating violence against the groups he mentioned but allow posts advocating violence against entire nations?! I don't; that's the reason why. That goes for any war, Syria or otherwise.

Just to clarify for everyone else, here is my original ruling and rationale to AD:

These are particularly precarious times where Syria is concerned. The civil war/proxy war has been especially heinous. The last thing this board needs is the promotion of a warmongering voice that uses strawmen and ad hominems to shout down anti-war rhetoric. Bill Weinberg seems to be that voice.

But you posted both of his articles without any amending commentary. I warned you before to stop doing that. I realize the circumstances were slightly different; then you were posting 9/11 disparagement, this time warmongering. So I'm giving you a few days off. Please read these words from Jeff:

Posts advocating violence, or espousing hatred of a people based upon race, religion, gender or sexuality, are not permitted.

Then re-read those Weinberg pieces and consider: if 'anti-war' is the wrong approach to take toward Syria, what then is Weinberg implicitly advocating? And if you post such a piece without specifying any objections you have, what are you advocating?

So, AD, how do you answer those two questions?

[American Dream]

@srp

The totality of what you posted there reads a bit confusing to me. I will endeavor to make some kind of coherent reply but it's somewhat challenging.

I will send you a pm about my experiences of bullying here but you misunderstand my position. It's not that I complain of being a special victim of egregious abuse here. I have though witnessed over the years behaviors that condone and compound abuse of other board members- a significant number of them women and/or people suffering from histories of trauma and abuse.

My concern there is that breaking the fight club culture should I feel be a priority of moderators generally, as looking the other way just helps keep things more stagnant and unhealthy than they need to be.

The "deeply upsetting" part of some of the Syria discourse is first and foremost to my moral sensibilities, second to my social/political sensibilities and thirdly to my intellectual sensibilities. Sorry if that's upsetting to anyone, but it's the truth.

You did clarify that posts advocating violence are verboten (which I think we all knew) but you have never to this day explained clearly why you think I violated that rule and somehow advocated violence. I prefer that you clarify this point much more before I make any further comments about Bill Weinberg's piece. We all need to know very clearly how you intend to define warmongering on this board.

Also, I have gotten the impression that you believe that you have created special rules just for me on this board. I will tell you from the git go that I intend to follow all the general rules which should be clearly understood and applied to all. If you want to create a new rule I know you acknowledge that you should follow the accepted procedure and create an official new rule, which is clear stated and applies equally to all. It seems that you have not done that yet.

Also, I don't know what you're referring to about the link which I have removed. If it's about the word "think", I'm just seeing an underline. Please clarify.

[Elvis]

"Before I don't answer your question for the umpteenth time, can we get a consensus on a couple of things?"

[American Dream]

It's a trust thing- after my still not adequately explained suspension and now that of Burnt Hill, too.

"Before I don't answer your question for the umpteenth time, can we get a consensus on a couple of things?"