I would urge those people on the left currently tearing each other apart over Labour's problems to reflect on the fact that reasonable people can sometimes disagree on stuff.
We should not be afraid to engage in debate over policy or strategy, but personal attacks are almost always unwarranted. People don't become the enemy just because they have a different view on how to achieve the desired goal. They may be foolish or misguided, but they probably aren't actually evil.
I'm not going to single anyone out, because the vitriol is coming from a number of people, most of whom should know better.
So I hope you'll agree that we all need to turn down the nastiness.
And if you don't agree, it's probably because you're a fat ugly bastard who keeps a copy of Mein Kampf by their bedside.
Friday, August 17, 2012
28 comments:
I welcome comments, but I ask commenters to follow a few simple rules:
1. I delete anonymous comments. Please use either a name or moniker. I am not asking anyone to reveal their secret identity. Just don't call yourself "Anonymous".
2. Please don't abuse or defame others.
3. Moronic or nonsensical comments may be deleted.
4. I don't often exercise the heavy hand of censorship, but I do reserve the right to delete any comment I don't like, for any reason.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Good on you for trying, but I don't like your chances. When I suggested at The Standard that better behaviour would be better for their cause.
ReplyDeleteI said "You’ll attract better if you act better. If that’s what you want."
What they wanted was to ban me permanently. And it's gone downhill from there. Must be what they want.
Would you mind expanding on how the beneficiary bashers and the beneficiary advocates could possibly be working for the same goals? Ta.
ReplyDeleteThe trouble, I think, is that the people doing it honestly believe they're being clever, and that their cleverness will help to deliver a centre-left government.
DeleteThey're all on the same team and they all want a win. It's just unfortunate that some of the players keep kicking the ball into the wrong net.
Well uh.... You have to draw a line somewhere. What if John Key was somehow drawing a sickness benefit, would it be beneficiary bashing to point out that he shouldn't be?
DeleteI'm not saying Mr. Rufus Paynter necessarily crosses that line (I've known people on invalids and sickness with mental disorders, and actually getting out and doing things is a step toward recovery and getting on with your life), but unless you disagree with the above, you actually have to draw that line somewhere, and if so, what is wrong with discussion and debate about it?
Should we "discuss and debate" whether all sickness beneficiaries should be on the benefit? Really? What kind of debate would that be? What would it look like? How would it in fact not devolve into an attack on the institution of the sickness benefit, therefore by extension of the welfare state?
DeleteBut of course it had nothing to do with debate and discussion. And the proof is that as soon as the criticism of that speech started coming from the Labour base and the rest of the Left, Shearer et al. pretended nobody was talking. And since we're faced with this wall of silence, I think it is perfectly appropriate to call the leadership out. By name. Aggressively.
Anger, aggression and passion are fine. I am not for a moment suggesting the debate should be a quiet one. I just can't see what personal abuse will achieve
DeleteYes, but then it's all pretty aleatory until Scott actually tells us what he is specifically referring to, isn't it? The category of "personal abuse" can be frustratingly vague.
DeleteIt's not hard to find examples. The suggestion that because Josie Pagani likes horses she must be unsound. Her claim that the Standard folk are like the KKK. I'm not sure how any of this helps anyone. But if you disagree then fire away. I'm not anyone's mother.
DeleteI don't disagree, but until just now I had nothing to agree or disagree with. that said, in a robust discussion and when the tempers are frayed you're always going to get some stuff like that. I personally find it less toxic than the more common NZ alternative, which is polite yet spiteful silence.
DeleteSometimes I thank God I spent the thick end of my twenties living in the U.K.
DeleteBecause New Zealanders have a strong cultural bias to collective groupthink and anti-intellectualism we are not used to ideological arguments and New Zealanders take people attacking their beliefs personally. As Mr. Tiso notes, we prefer spiteful silence and back stabbing to arguing in public.
In any other country, mocking someone for having a pony or calling them a not very bright post-modernist (with is what I think Josie Pagani is, her husband is a not very good politicial courtier) would be regarded as pretty small beer and the whole debate would be followed with relish.
I'm not concerned by attacks on the belief systems held by people. But from there it is all too easy to degenerate into ad hominem attacks that don't advance the debate ("what debate?" asks Gio) at all.
DeleteBut then I would say that. According to a certain Mr Bradbury, my blog represents "wannabe baby boomer mediocrity in beige" (actually I might trade mark that)
Well, I was talking about where we draw the line within the institution, and Gio started talking about the institution as a whole.
DeleteThis is exactly the problem.
But you are suggesting, are you not, that this drawing of lines within the institution is a legitimate form of debate, and not a way of saying to middle New Zealand - hey, we're with you, we hate the bludgers too - which some of us think is incredibly damaging to the progressive cause.
DeleteShearer said these things not in the context of (much less to spark) a genuine debate about the sickness benefit: he opened a political speech to a conservative organization with it. We're not in the realm of innocent speculation.
Just in the interest of full disclosure, I voted for Libertarianz last election and am against state welfare altogether. But for the sake of argument I'm taking the position that state welfare is acceptable as long is it is restricted (to the best extent possible) only to those truly in need of it.
DeleteYes, I am suggesting exactly that. Unless you want to take the position of "Anybody should have access to welfare if they prefer not to work", then these questions must be routinely asked in order to keep the role of state welfare legitimate.
Aww, spoilsport.
ReplyDeleteYes, Scott. When we eventually have a debate, let's make it respectful and reasonable.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, there isn't a debate. There has been nothing - not a word, nada - from the Labour leadership clique who are getting things so terribly, stupidly wrong. There has not been the slightest acknowledgement of their many, many critics (who, BTW, are just about everybody on the broad left. Is anyone happy? Except the Nats?). There has been a wall of absolute silence.
It doesn't make the slightest difference if the criticism is measured and mild, or foul and frothing. There is NO RESPONSE. No attempt to defend and justify - because they can't.
What's really happening, of course, is that behind closed doors the "leaders" are saying "We stuffed up. Let's not say so publicly, let's just talk about something else instead, and hope the anger goes away."
Politicians don't often admit mistakes. They just "move on". With diminished respect.
I'm not here to defend the Labour leadership, nor am I saying people shouldn't be angry. Far from it. But people should be able to express their anger without getting personal.
DeleteI don't often disgree with you Scott, but I wonder what you thought an ideological knife fight might look like?
ReplyDeleteThis isn't a vicars tea party you know,and the threats by the likes of Fran O'Sullivan to "out" people she doesn't like and her promises to try and shut down Bryce Edward's analysis show how quickly and how ugly the neo-liberal establishment gets when it senses a real challenge to hegemony forming. This may have started as a spat, but it looks like it is rapidly growing into a civil war for the heart of the Labour party. And in civil wars, there is no such thing as "neutral".
I haven't seen Scott say anything about "neutral". I think he's saying there's a difference between robust debate and personal attacks, and that the latter detracts from debate.
DeleteThe Standard has been at the epicentre of this week's eruption - it has an established culture of one sided personal attacks, so it's no surprise that decent debate is overshadowed by nastiness directed at people rather than strong support or rejection of arguments.
There's nastiness on the other side too, I've seen plenty at Whale and Kiwiblog - I've been at the receiving end there too, as are others.
But I see a difference. On KB the abuse is more fleeting, often a blast on a specific topic, but then left behind, people move on. In the past I've had ding-dongs with people on KB who have later turned around and supported me strongly. It's more of an issue by issue thing.
On TS it seems to be that once you are labeled an enemy you are a permanent enemy and treated as such, day after day, week after week, year after year. Most of it constitutes personal attacks and persistent harassment. And that culture is encouraged by their 'moderation', which is often very one-sided. I've been banned more than once for 'disrupting threads' by being the target of sustained attacks. The same thing happened at Dim-Post.
And if you point it out you get labeled, like this from yesterday: Jackal: "Foaming at the mouth? Do I detect a sewer troll in our midst?"
And total denial: "Despite what the rightwing might thunk, the leftwing is made up by very reasonable people. Do the right thing and cop less flack… Ipso facto."
They only want to tear each other's eyes out: "Despite the criticism the Standard has recently received, I wouldn’t like to see any changes to the moderation policy. Especially if that means similar rightwing sentiments and possible shill’s have free license to spout any old rubbish!"
The problem is, as the last week has shown, when they start fighting amongst themselves their culture of personal abuse can't suddenly be switched off.
So you get an "an ideological knife fight" where ideas are peripheral as people get slashed. And Labour ends up bearing the scars, still with no idea how to debate then work together.
I've been banned more than once for 'disrupting threads' by being the target of sustained attacks. The same thing happened at Dim-Post.
DeleteNo one is banned @ Dim Post, PG.
While your POVs were most certainly the object of sustained attacks and ridicule, you picked up your toys and left of your own free will.
"No one is banned @ Dim Post, PG. "
DeleteHow do you know that Gregor? Are you an official spokesperson for Dim-Post?
I didn't 'pick up my toys and leave of my own free will", what I know is that suddenly all my comments kept disappearing.
You may be right about not being banned, but I don't actually know because I haven't been told anything by Dim-Post.
So maybe I was just on continuous censorship. But it's hard to know when there is no communication.
It's not just you Pete.
DeleteComments disappear because Wordpress is shit.
This happens at one time or another to all who post comments.
And the reason I know that Dim-Post doesn't censor is that, while your positions may have been the object of ridicule, you certainly weren't a neolithic frother like Redbaiter whos fascistic rantings Dim-Post is happy to publish verbatim.
Dim-Post doesn't have an editorial board or moderation: only Danyl. He has made that clear in a couple of posts (assuming as I do that we can take his statement at face value).
Lastly, don't hold your breath for an explanation from Danyl. Knowing him from a former life as I do, he will be quietly chuckling at the fact that you feel persecuted.
Ok Gregor, so you don't know, you're guessing and assuming.
DeleteAnd I doubt your Wordpress explanation. I've post quite a lot on Wordpress blogs, for example Kiwiblog where I don't recall having comments just disappear, especially not suddenly just start to disappear after a sustained attack where commenters call for me to be banned.
Everyone leaves Redbaiter comments up for amusement.
I wouldn't be surprised if Danyl chuckles about it, whether it's silent censorship or not. I chuckle too, probably for different reasons.
But absent an explanation, alongside the obvious attempt by some at Dim-Post to deliberately shut me up, I don't trust the openness or balance of Dim-Post.
Let me put it to you Pete, that I am no more guessing or assuming than you are in the absence of any explicit statement from the Dim-Post. It is an arguement from ignorance; asserting that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false.
ReplyDeleteI can only base my opinion from Danyl's explicit statement that he does not moderate and my own experience.
Plenty of my posts have failed to submit first time. Resubmission is often followed by a window stating that my comments are identical to the previous submission. Sometimes they never crop up or mysteriously appear hours later. Annoying but not a conspiracy.
However, if this fits your explanation of persecution / censorship then who am I to judge.
However, I would challenge you to cite where any commenter sought your ban that wasn't absolutely tongue in cheek. Having followed and contributed to most of the exchanges, I can't recall anything of that nature.
The simple test of course would be for you to comment and post on another site as a matter of record.
If people hurt your feelings by not taking your opinions seriously then fair enough; you don't have to put up with ridicule.
But vigorously disagreeing with you is neither "a sustained attack where commenters call for me to be banned" nor "he obvious attempt by some at Dim-Post to deliberately shut me up".
Conflating disagreement with a conspiracy of censorship (particularly given that your positions expressed weren't particularly novel or controversial, merely broadly antithetical to DPost readership) is pretty much an own goal.
Sorry Scott, I hope you don't mind this on an old thread.
ReplyDeleteGregor, there was a deliberate campaign to get me off the blog. You were a part of the exchanges, I don't know if that was your intent as well.
The day it happened (Feb):
Sanctuary: Pete George is a troll who is quite beyond reasoned or even unreasoned cajoling. He is a slightly simple old man who has suddenly discovered that a blog site gives him a captive audience for his ridiculous views. Danyl should ban him before he completely trashes his comments section forever.
it does seem to crowd out the topic under discussion
Rhino: Indeed, but I’m (perhaps vainly) hoping that the sacrifice of this or a few threads will finally drive the egomaniacal fool away for good.
A discussion in May:
Clunking Fist: I’m not the moderator, but I believe Pete George was not banned from this site. Rather, he was hounded from it.
Rhinocrates: Sorry everyone if I was such a nuisance in my role, but I thought that it was worthwhile to “go nuclear” as it were and destroy a couple of threads to drive him out (though I shouldn’t take sole credit).
Hugh" If he was hounded out my only regret is I didn’t have a hand in it.
I wasn't hounded off, I kept speaking against abuse and responding to criticism until suddenly my posts (several over several hours) stopped working. Whatever the reason, it seemed like I was being silently blocked.
I have no idea what went down on the Dim Post, but if you want to go on about it, then be my guest. With your help we might be able to break some kind of record for the most comments on one blogpost.
DeleteIf it's really bothering you you could always just send Danyl an email and ask him if you've been banned.
BTW I use a different blog platform and have no ability to block people. All I can do is delete comments. I can't even edit them.
Pete -
DeleteI think your sources demonstrate the point I was trying to make.
Sanctuary and Rhinocrates are both verbose, opinionated - exceptional soap-boxers in fact - who strenuously disagreed with your opinions and logical / rhetorical technique.
While they (and others) got into you, Sanctuary calling for a ban is hardly proof. Trying to send you packing? Sure. Mission accomplished. Eliciting an active ban? Unlikely.
The Dim-Post neither has sanctimonious onanists (The Standard), ham-fisted buffoons (Red Alert) or wide-eyed lunatics (Whaleoil) moderating.
Anyone can tell by reading the comments that it's pretty much a free for all which is why it's such a joy.
Last thoughts on the matter: As Scott points out, why don't you just email Danyl? It's obviously a sore point and you have brought it up on several other blogs. Failing that, attempt to repost @ Dim-Post and chuck it up on here, KB or somewhere you are better received.
PS Scott - is the record broken now or has this thread become more of a broken record?
We're not there yet. Keep going!
Delete