Are all internet discussion doomed?
- This topic has 74 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Surely DJP, if a person posts something on a thread that others find annoying or "disruptive", the others don't have to engage. That's why I said it takes two to tango.Many moons ago I argued that the likes of "off topic" was a minor irritation, because multiple conversations can be going on at once on the same thread as people engage with and ignore whomever they so choose.You and others are drawn like moths to a flame when it comes to LBird, but unlike the proverbial moth, you do have a choice.Calling for a ban on people because you find them annoying is a slippery slope. It'll probably be my head next.As for Libcom, what are you saying about it in comparison to this forum?
SocialistPunk wrote:…drawn like moths to a flame when it comes to LBird…Are you suggesting, SP, that I'm the irresistable Light of the Universe?Or just simply recording the natural behaviour that ignorant insects self-immolate?
I'm in a comradely mood today LBird, so I'll go with Light of the Universe.Seriously though, I just don't get it when people engage with you on a thread and then blame you for ruining it. It's like they see their own part in the unfolding situation as being totally blameless.
LBird wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:…drawn like moths to a flame when it comes to LBird…Are you suggesting, SP, that I'm the irresistable Light of the Universe?Or just simply recording the natural behaviour that ignorant insects self-immolate?
More like shit and flies but the flies should know better. We are suckers for people who talk shit and other rubbish.
SocialistPunk wrote:It's like they see their own part in the unfolding situation as being totally blameless.Well of course I'm totally blameless and that's because I'm always right. See the article at the start of the thread
SocialistPunk wrote:Seriously though, I just don't get it when people engage with you on a thread and then blame you for ruining it. It's like they see their own part in the unfolding situation as being totally blameless.That's fair enough if abuse, personal attacks and lies were not involved.LBird is contantly abusive and attributes unsavoury beliefs to other forum members. Would you suggest we simply ignore him and allow him to attack and abuse forum members? According to LBird some of us support the mass murder of our fellow workers. Is it OK to accuse me of that?
SocialistPunk wrote:I'm in a comradely mood today LBird, so I'll go with Light of the Universe.Thank for the accolade, SP, and so I'm compelled to return the comradelyness of your mood, and salute you as 'Ra, the Sun God'!
SocialistPunk wrote:Seriously though, I just don't get it when people engage with you on a thread and then blame you for ruining it. It's like they see their own part in the unfolding situation as being totally blameless.Yeah, you can always follow the same thrust, of me asking reasonable questions (like, 'what's your ideology, comrade?'; or, 'wherever did you get that idea from, comrade?'), then I get called some pedestrian name or other ('troll'; inventive, eh?), and so I return the goods. And then they complain!As for them being 'totally blameless', you have to admit that they have the perfect excuse: the 'material conditions' made them do it, apparently. They'll have no truck with 'creative ideas' (as, indeed, their inability to return decent insults shows), and regard any worker who uses their own critical thinking as an 'Idealist'. Fred told them this, as I recall, and who are they to argue with what the wisdom of the 19th century proclaimed.Anyway, ta-ra, Ra.
Vin wrote:LBird is contantly abusive and attributes unsavoury beliefs to other forum members. Would you suggest we simply ignore him and allow him to attack and abuse forum members?This is true and I still think something should be done about it. If LBird was a member of the party, or was at a physical meeting, he would not be allowed to continue behaving in this manner. For starters there's a conference resolution about not attacking the socialist credentials of fellow members, though I can't find it online…
Vin wrote:LBird wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:…drawn like moths to a flame when it comes to LBird…Are you suggesting, SP, that I'm the irresistable Light of the Universe?Or just simply recording the natural behaviour that ignorant insects self-immolate?
More like shit and flies but the flies should know better. We are suckers for people who talk shit and other rubbish.
The ironic thing, Vin, is I'm always trying to have a civilised discussion.If you are a 'sucker for people who talk shit', I think that I'm trying to point out just who those people are, why they talk shit, and how can we ditch the shit and replace it with something that we can all grasp much more easily.You and DJP really need to re-assess your responses to my questions. If you don't like my line of questioning, why not, as SP suggests, simply ignore me? Why do you feel compelled to insult me, and then be unhappy that I insult you back?The bottom line, Vin, is that if you're going to promote a viewpoint, like 'materialism', you have to expect it to be criticised, by those who can see the political dangers of it, because they've read further into it. Sticking your head in the sand, and simply repeating 'materialism, materialism, materialism', like an incantation to ward off the devil, won't succeed.Not least, because I've got 666 arguments to defeat 'materialism'.
DJP wrote:Vin wrote:LBird is contantly abusive and attributes unsavoury beliefs to other forum members. Would you suggest we simply ignore him and allow him to attack and abuse forum members?This is true and I still think something should be done about it. If LBird was a member of the party, or was at a physical meeting, he would not be allowed to continue behaving in this manner.
What, in response to verbal criticism of your muddled ideas, you'd hit me with your handbag?
LBird wrote:What, in response to verbal criticism of your muddled ideas, you'd hit me with your handbag?You don't have any verbal criticism just confused arguments and abuse.
LBird wrote:Not least, because I've got 666 arguments to defeat 'materialism'.You live in your own fantasy world don't you?
LBird wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:I'm in a comradely mood today LBird, so I'll go with Light of the Universe.Thank for the accolade, SP, and so I'm compelled to return the comradelyness of your mood, and salute you as 'Ra, the Sun God'!
SocialistPunk wrote:Seriously though, I just don't get it when people engage with you on a thread and then blame you for ruining it. It's like they see their own part in the unfolding situation as being totally blameless.Yeah, you can always follow the same thrust, of me asking reasonable questions (like, 'what's your ideology, comrade?'; or, 'wherever did you get that idea from, comrade?'), then I get called some pedestrian name or other ('troll'; inventive, eh?), and so I return the goods. And then they complain!As for them being 'totally blameless', you have to admit that they have the perfect excuse: the 'material conditions' made them do it, apparently. They'll have no truck with 'creative ideas' (as, indeed, their inability to return decent insults shows), and regard any worker who uses their own critical thinking as an 'Idealist'. Fred told them this, as I recall, and who are they to argue with what the wisdom of the 19th century proclaimed.Anyway, ta-ra, Ra.
You continue to lie about my opinions. You obviously can't help yourself.
Vin wrote:LBird wrote:Not least, because I've got 666 arguments to defeat 'materialism'.You live in your own fantasy world don't you?
At least it's not a 'material world', Maddy.
LBird wrote:The bottom line, Vin, is that if you're going to promote a viewpoint, like 'materialism', you have to expect it to be criticised, by those who can see the political dangers of it, because they've read further into it. Sticking your head in the sand, and simply repeating 'materialism, materialism, materialism', like an incantation to ward off the devil, won't succeed.You really are twisted
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.