Re: List Moderation

[ken <kenneth.mackendrick@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Just to cap a few words on the subject before handing it over
to the pragmatic realists - I suspect that most people on this
list have read parts of or most of the list moderation
conversation... and virtually everyone knows that it has arisen
because of the 'insulting' comments made by Ralph.

The bottom line - Ralph has been virtually castrated.  I just
don't think, after all of this, that anyone can take Ralph's
insults seriously.  His stinger has been cut off.  So a few folks
will get called wankers, a few more morons, and a couple of
twits... so what.  There is no face to be lost here.  And many
will have to admit, that if Ralph hurls an insult now, after all
this, that you'd have to be pretty pathetic to take it to heart.  So
there would be no point in moderating the list now.  Doug
Henwood put it most perfectly - this is an operating procedure.
 Kicking Ralph off the list is just a way of avoiding the
substantial contributions he's made to the list.  And if you only
remember the insults - go into the archives - in the last couple
of weeks Ralph has reviewed several articles, posted a
bibliography, discussed Eurocentrism and the Frankfurt
School.... and on and on.

And I'll mention this too, simply because it is droll - most
Leftists acknowledge that people have the right to be pissed
off about unjust social systems.  Of course if one expresses
this anger they're kicked out...

And what if it is that Ralph's 'anger' and 'hostility' can be
justified, explained, or understood? (I'm putting these in this
pieces of identity thinking in quotes because I serious
question their appropriateness).  I think Ralph is a earnest
jester.

Anyway - there are at least three constructive ways of dealing
with all of this - ignore it, play with it, go head to head.
Playing with it is the most fun.

Does anyone really think Ralph was serious when he wrote
this?

"I suppose a foreigner I could forgive, but it is absolutely
unforgivable for an American left intellectual of today not to
understand what I'm talking about."

He's *JOKING* - and then this fairly provocative statement will
likely go unnoticed...

"I am also stunned at the incredible conservatism displayed
on this list.  I thought maybe a younger, seemingly more
cosmopolitan, differently enculturated generation would know
better.  After all, white music is completely dead.  In some
sense, African music has taken over the world."

But what about this note from Frederik van Gelder -

"It's this animosity, this unbridled destructiveness, this lust to
maim and destroy what he does not understand that shines
through in Dumain's posts."

The same tone isn't present here.  This seems to me to be a
far more reactionary outburst.  Unbridled destructiveness?
Lust to maim and destroy what he does not understand.  This
is an email list!  These images conjure up genocide!  And
clearly Frederik van Gelder is joking too - because
epistemological limitation *prevents* him from understanding
what is going on with Ralph.  So his comment *necessarily*
relates equally to his position.  The irony shouldn't be lost
here.  It is just too rich.

Exaggeration is a nice toy isn't it?  Where's my salt shaker.  I
need a couple...  grains.

And, oddly enough, Jamie wrote this:

"dear simon,

you can perhaps take some comfort in knowing that there are
a great many of us on the list who delete dumain's posts
unread....

jamie"

But has then continued to contribute to the list moderation
discussion.  Either Jamie is secretly reading Ralph's posts
(enjoyment in private, scorn in public) (who said Zizek isn't
applicable!) or he is participating completely uninformed.

Unless he was joking, words of consolation for Simon (who no
one [seriously] took to be "simple" at all! [it is difficult to be
supportive of a cliche]).

This is the same debate that took place Jan and Feb of '97.  A
question was asked about the prophetic role of Marcuse's 1D
Man and Ralph went nuts, and everyone else went even more
nuts - and then Ralph openly proclaimed his hatred of the
French.  Imagine that.  Ralph hates a constitutional state and
all of its citizens.  Anyway, the list survived.

And I'm pretty sure we can count Ralph out of this
conversation.  If the last flambe was any indication of
anything, Ralph has no use for debates about freedom of
speech which, I assume, he just takes for granted (why
shouldn't he?!?).

Freedom of expression includes ideology.  Only Stalin
and a few others didn't think so.

Before anyone gets kicked out, just put yourself in their
shoes.  It's cliche, and Kant was wrong, but do it anyway.
Maybe then you'll know what its like to feel the blues.

the revolution includes dissent,
and shitheads,
myself included,
ken