Re: [Marxism] a few thoughts on flaming and so forth

["bob" <bobo926@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well said.

bob

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Gabosch" <sgabosch@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition"
<marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2004 4:22 AM
Subject: [Marxism] a few thoughts on flaming and so forth


> Fred complained last week that I don't reveal my own thoughts here on
> Marxmail due to my "self-imposed moral discipline" to only repeat SWP
> positions.  But I really do have many thoughts of my own (despite what
Louis
> believes about people in the SWP orbit not thinking for themselves) and I
> would like to share some of them, if I may, especially after reading some
of
> the flaming toward Rachel earlier today, which gave me plenty to think
about.
>
> On flaming:    A favorite phrase associated with Lenin: "patiently
explain."
>   But what does one do when Marxmail colleagues - (by participating
together
> on this discussion list, "colleagues" of a sort we are, for better or for
> worse) - lose their cool and begin to flame?  What do we do when others
lose
> sight of the heart of civil discussion - mutual tolerance - and succumb to
> the seductions of that accomplice of intolerance, personal attack?  Rachel
> showed us how earlier today - ignore the nonsense, stick to the issues,
and
> once again, patiently explain.  (And may I add an addendum to Lenin's
> advice: "patiently query.") This is no guarantee of being "right" of
course.
>   But it can help one get there.  Besides keeping the discussion focused,
> following this advice also allows oneself to listen and learn and develop
> much more acutely than otherwise.  In my case, Walter has been giving me
> some practice in doing this, and Lenin's advice works.  I have learned and
> will continue to learn from Walter, but doing so would be more difficult
if
> I focused on the more personal side of his polemics, especially when he
> leans on the capslock key.  I don't see Walter as characterizing *me* when
> he attacks ("scolds" as Louis puts it) - I see him as making statements
> about *himself* and how he *feels*.  The scolding isn't about me, it's
about
> him.  In other words, what Walter says about me is not my problem.  I am
> interested in Walter's ideas, including what makes him upset, so I focus
on
> listening to him and learning what I can - and eventually, when I feel it
is
> my turn to speak, patiently explaining what I think.  As I said, Rachel
> offered a perfect example of doing just that in her earlier response.
> Whatever her positions are on Iraq or anything else - I actually don't
know
> her positions, she has said (or I have noticed) too little for me to
> understand them enough - her ability to patiently explain and query is
> something we can all learn from.  We can't stop colleagues or anyone from
> flaming or otherwise lapsing into intolerance - but we can find ways to be
> tolerant of it.  "Patient explanation" is one strategy to consider.  I am
> with Lenin in recommending it.
>
> On internet discussions:    Louis has pointed out some of the odd features
of
> internet discussions with the joke "no one knows you're a dog on the
> internet."  Apparently, Louis got his dogs mixed up (despite his attempt
at
> internet sleuthing) and barked about Rachel maybe being someone else, a
> little incident that Rachel also handled brilliantly.  But worse than not
> being able to be perfectly certain about which dog this or that writer
> really is, the mode of the internet discussion list presents another
> frequent problem - we can mistake a bark for a growl, a growl for a yelp,
a
> yelp for a whine, and so forth and so on.  In other words, we can easily
> misinterpret the meanings of messages, and not even be aware we have
gotten
> them wrong.  Flame wars not infrequently have such an origin.  We don't
just
> not know for sure what dogs we are dealing with, we aren't necessarily
> getting what they are barking and fussing about.  So we can add still
> another addendum to Lenin's advice: patiently listen; patiently read.
>
> On tense Marxmail discussions:    Louis has the difficult but necessary
job
> of moderating a discussion list that includes numerous Marxist and other
> radical thinkers that are influenced by historically opposed political
> tendencies and conflicting social class pressures.  In tense discussion
> areas, when discussion begin to generate difficult negative emotions,
> whatever his stated reasoning to curtail such discussions might be, I
think
> Louis's intuitions are generally good about maintaining Marxmail as a
viable
> discussion list.  In agreeing with Walter last weekend that there has been
> "no progress," I think Louis is suggesting the tension mounting around
> discussions regarding the SWP needs relief.  I respect this.  Fred pointed
> out today that I am an "outsider," given my sympathies toward contemporary
> SWP positions.  Clearly, few that post on Marxmail agree with me (so far)
on
> the big questions like Iraq, or even sympathizing with contemporary SWP
> positions on any topic, so in that sense I am indeed an outsider.  As I
see
> it, this controversial minority-view status I hold gives me a special
> responsibility to follow Louis's guidelines about helping to keep
> discussions within acceptable stress limits.  It is not at all my
intention
> or desire to find a way to break up this discussion list, which such
> tensions and stresses can contribute to.  If it was a choice between
> creating such stresses and my not posting, I would not post.  I consider
> participating on this list a privilege, not a right, and I thank Louis and
> Les, Hans and others that make this list possible for allowing me to be a
> guest.  It is not my intention to abuse this privilege or undermine the
hard
> work they do to keep this list going.
>
> On misportraying positions of others on Marxmail:    I prefer that people
> not do this.  I am perfectly fine with sharp criticisms of actual
positions
> of the SWP or anyone else - I learn much from such criticisms.
> Misportrayals, on the other hand, create a different kind of trouble that
I
> do have a problem with.  However, there is no way to avoid or prevent
> misportrayals.  They come with free speech.  All I can ask is for people
to
> tolerate "misportrayals" being answered with (intended) clarifications -
> just another exercise of free speech.  This principle I hold of opposing
> misportrayals applies to all groups and any individual.  For example, if I
> understood Rachel's positions on Iraq, and saw that someone was
> misrepresenting her positions, I would speak up, even if I disagreed with
> Rachel's views.  She deserves to have her actual, not imagined,
> positions examined.  I am totally OK with a sharp criticism of any actual
> position, whether I agree with the criticism or not.  It is the
misportrayal
> of a position as a way to argue with it that I object to on principle.
>
>
> Thanking all again for the privilege of posting to Marxmail,
> ~ Steve Gabosch
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Marxism mailing list
> Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism