Topic of the week - Comments

  • Posted on: 20 July 2015
  • By: worker

This is going to be the first in what I hope is a series of editorials that we host on relevant topics. We'll sticky the post for a 5 or 7 day period and see if we can have some civil and compelling conversations about topical (and site related) topics.

We'll start with a standard one.

What is the purpose of comments on and what is troubling about moderation of these comments.

The goal of, since it's founding, is not just to repost stories with the word anarchist in them (which I've had to defend on numerous occasions) but for the broad anarchist population to have a space to discuss what is being done, in our name. with each other. This, as it turns out, is an impossible tension because there are dozens (at least) of different kinds of anarchists, many of which have their own motivation to use the word that is nothing like the motivation of other stripes.

This unshared motivation should be an opportunity (and often is) for compelling discourse about the context of positions, personal back stories, and generally good faith discussion about where the divisions lay. Instead there seems to have become a kind of split between purists along a couple different lines. On the one hand there are the critics who seem to only be happy when they are poking holes in the logic of anarchist activity for not being anarchist... enough. On the other are revolutionaries who are doing things on the ground to "attack this society." This is an honest tension that I respect and honor and attempt to not take a side in (and shouldn't have to as both kinds of content gets posted here all the time).

I am sympathetic to the argumentation made by SamFantoSamotnaf along these lines. If I felt as though the issue were just about 2-3 bad posters who disrupted good faith (cough) conversations I would not have a problem being censorious of their postings. But the problem, if we are going to agree to that framing is that the nature of an anonymous site is that it is very difficult to moderate. It isn't just a matter of scanning for bad words and people's legal names (which is mostly what I do, other moderators have different eyes). It is a matter of reading every thread for their degrees of good faith which is damn near impossible. It is a matter of taking sides around critical vs revolutionary anarchism (along with any number of other divisions btw) which is really the opposite of what we want to do with the site.

A sidebar on American culture. In the past 11 years I have come around on the topic of free speech. In the past I would have said that it is part of American (even radical) culture and that it will be impossible to have something (like a movement) be successful in the US context without strong sympathy to free speech as a principle. I now see free speech as a Shibboleth used to confuse and waste time (but in this category I would put about 50% of stories). One of the moderation points we have made a long time ago is to remove anti-anarchist comments but with the layers of sarcasm and back talk it is some times quite difficult to keep the anti-anarchist clearly differentiated from the populist politicians that use the word anarchist, the anarchists who will not use the word for recruitment purposes, and the people who have no idea what the word means but are practitioners of the principles.

I'll wrap up this rant with a few conclusions. There are a few posters who I am close to banning, but I don't think it'll exactly solve the problems people think it will. I'd like comments to be less than 1000 (better 500) words. I'd like the use of personal insults to be stopped. I'd also like people to stop creating near infinite recursion by responding to these insults in kind (which makes it very difficult to moderate btw). I am more-than-sick of people using their perception of my political position to use this platform as a way to personally insult me (especially since these same people never do it to me personally or to my posted email address). I wish for more better quality posts (call them editorials) that spark shared conversations about topical, relevant issues for all of us.

And just so you hear it said, the strong reason that I continue to fight for comments, especially of the anonymous kinds is that most anarchists (who do the work and identify as such) do not live in towns, in collectives, or next door to others who are doing the same. Keeping discussions about these matters to Facebook or to the insider cliques who refuse to be criticized (on their platforms) is a sure way for the beautiful idea to become more constrained, surveiled, and dominated by big men than it already is. I consider to be the best introduction to the best and worst aspects of this cantankerous and wonderful way of seeing the world.



Banning Emile???

This is truly going to be a robespierrian reign of terror isn't it, Worker?

If you decided you didn't want someone in your house going on interminably for years in some truly mad maze of abstraction and impervious to anything other than his own philosophical plunge down the rabbit hole of word games and so decided finally to make him leave your house, would you then feel ok if this decision to kick him out was seen as the same as cutting off his head? In the world of "clever arguments" making equivalents between 2 utterly different things is an ideological form of commodified thought - where instead of of " x blacking, y silk, or z gold, etc., each represent the exchange value of one quarter of wheat, x blacking, y silk, z gold, etc, must as exchange values be replaceable by each other, or equal to each other. " (Marx, Capital) it's kicking someone out of your house is equal to guillotining him. Brilliant argument. Give me your phone number and I'll talk endlessly at you whilst ignoring anything essential you say and when you put the phone down I'll accuse you of instituting a reign of terror, Monsieur Robespierre.

I prefer to think of this place as our cell block in prison. Locked up with the psychos and political types together. We've been planning for weeks on shanking Sir Einzige, but the guards (mods) are protecting him because you know, white supremacy. We need to work together and get rid of this common enemy. I think if we trade them a "good time" with my ex-girlfriend and maybe you could provide a couple cartons of smokes, they'll look the other way so we can all work together and finally dispatch this Aryan Nations cracker motherfucker.

Gotta love it:)

Umm... Sir E isn't white first off, and "white supremacy" doesn't mean people who disagree with you or people you can't pressure or bully into agreement. Sir E is a pretty text book egoist if you ask me and I know your types love being coddled to a point where anyone who doesn't bend to your ideology is instantly some kind of racist or mysogynist but reality is, you're just a brat.

Text book egoists don't have a plan for supporting and maintaining patriarchy and white supremacy, neither of which does Sir Einzige believe exist while at the same time defending and enabling their values. He falls in full goosestep line with national anarchists on drawing lines, only differing national autonomous zones with bioregional autonomous zones. What egoist do you know that has any theory on making zones of anything with anyone other than other people they are directly related to? His theories definitely fall out of line with Stirner, Nietzsche and Novatore! So who is he supposed to be into "text book egoist" style?

The stupid is strong with you.

Patriarchy and white supremacy do have an existence of sorts, just not in the Marxist-Feminist structuralist intention(as opposed to function) based conception that you and other leftist dummies believe in as I keep saying. You clearly know nothing about bioregionalism and are probably one of those antifatards who see fascism and nationalism everywhere. Quite a number of the more radical bioregional practitioners have actually been influenced by the egoists among others. In case you missed it, bioregionalism emphasizes place and not reified identity.

I don't consider myself a bioregionalist btw(I avoid having elective positions or proposed solutions), I just think it has some potential. You and your leftist lobotomized politics on the other hand have no potential whatsoever. No one is drawing lines you stoopid idiot. Are you telling me PL Wilson draws lines with his TAZs?

Also there is no text book to being an egoist(a term I don't personally like). If you think my theories fall out of line with the 3 names you mentioned then you clearly haven't been paying attention to my posts with what little attention/comprehension span you have.

Gawd you're dumb. Dumb dumb fucking dumb

to make up for the sad insults.
at least bob black is sometimes funny or plays with words when he insults people. and he is a sad, tired, and lonely old man.

Hey my 'sad insults' go with the silly mischaracterizations that come before them. Perhaps I could be a more funny word playing insulter, but this is 21st century internet terrain and Bob had more respectable less retarded opponents and counter points then the idiocy that I have to respond to.

as our enemies. perhaps you need to pick better ones. or respond to the better parts of their arguments, at least.

and saying "they started it" is a kindergarten tactic.

You should try to have him actually explain bioregionalism...all he links to is a discussion by Scott Crow...and guess what, nobody is talking about bioregionalism in that Sir Einzige makes out. What anarchist has a theory on bioregions? If not theory, then practices? What? Really! Do you know what bioregionalism means to anarchists and how we supposedly practice it? I don't know of anything like that around here so...

You're assuming that there are better parts to their arguments. I don't really consider them worthy as enemies or opponents anyway.

Having fun with that dot clone:)

but the back and forth between you does effect how other readers perceive you and your arguments. to your detriment as well as theirs, but their anonymity gives them deniability that you're not allowing yourself.
and no one on the internet is ever just talking to the person they're responding to. this is a public forum. your target audience should be smart readers, not someone you have no respect for.

Some days I feel embarrassed to be an anarchist. Those are usually days that I ended up reading the comments on @news

You are an example of yourself. You, the comment, describe yourself. The comment you have written is an example of what your comment describes. There is a word for this, Greek in origin, which is just about impossible to pronounce and i can't remember it.

Compare anarchist comment sections from this site and /r/anarchism to mainstream media comment section, to facebook conversations. Comments allow for cynicism, sarcasm, and depression. They allow for sentiments too short, simple, or simplistic to be whole articles. Why say that it makes you embarrassed to be an anarchist, when all the humans are doing the same thing? Are you not embarrassed to be a human? This site is nice. We write notes to each other. Sometimes they are really interesting. Sometimes they aren't. Imagine it as a graffitti wall, and you will be as impressed as i am about the quality and full sentences of the a-news comment section.

I know there are many of us who don't post our work to anarchist news simply because there is no moderation and we don't just want to be attacked to feed the trolls

O'rly? I seriously doubt that. This is one of those things people say but actually doesn't happen. The only person that doesn't post their articles here is Bill Brown, who tends to favor Infoshop News more. I'm uncertain if Bill Brown still trolls this site, but I think he's like 70 and has to eat prunes to shit. Other than that, there is nothing you could be posting that isn't getting posted here. Probably some left anarchist drivel that Libcom dittoheads and reddit-dandys would eat up, but nothing seriously good at any level. Don't kind us or yourself. You must be a crappy author to feel so butthurt that you can't publish here.

"The only person that doesn't post their articles here is Bill Brown"

That's absurd to claim to know that.

Here's my deescalating response: I know people say "if you don't do X, then I won't use your site" and "@news is a troll haven, I'd never post an article there" but what really happens is they are anarchist communists or syndicalists that are upset about not being able to appropriate this site for their uses. I don't mind this. I'm glad they don't post here. We need to move on and they are stuck in the past. They don't even acknowledge our ideas or point of view other than to distort it and defame it as much as possible. Many of their authors are explicit about being enemies to what they consider "lifestylists". As for everyone else, get some thicker skin and stop being such a fucking pussy. The death of critical thought is niceness and while I don't need to be rude, I hate call out culture so fucking much. It is coercion and any anarchist that gives in to call out culture is my fucking enemy. Draw a line and fight! We aren't liberals giving handjobs to orangutans, we are anarchists and we aim to destroy.

"Here's my deescalating response: ... get some thicker skin and stop being such a fucking pussy. "

Lol. You don't seriously think that the only thing keeping the leftists at bay is autistic people calling everyone retards, do you?

I am a green anarchist, and I am one of those who don't post articles on this site either

I do a bunch of anti-prison stuff, am a green anarchist, and would never post my own stuff on here.

and i never post my writing on here either.

I post stuff here often and have never been trolled. It actually makes me wonder if I'm doing something wrong...

i keep meaning to write stuff but i can't get a good practice going so i can't post anything here :(

"The death of critical thought is niceness and while I don't need to be rude, I hate call out culture so fucking much. It is coercion and any anarchist that gives in to call out culture is my fucking enemy. Draw a line and fight! We aren't liberals giving handjobs to orangutans, we are anarchists and we aim to destroy."

This X a thousand! Thank you!

"he's like 70 and has to eat prunes to shit" "Libcom dittoheads" "reddit-dandys" "crappy author"

wow, four name-callings in one tiny comment. cool. wonder why people hate it here?

Lyke, oh em gee! Safe space! Amiright?

If dittohead and dandy is enough of a put down to keep you from heated discussion, maybe you should venture beyond your little "safe space" and get to know the real world.

The above is an honorable statement by a person who has worked really hard on this space in return for very little. It expresses great patience and care, especially considering the atmosphere of the space he is addressing.

As other commenters have stated before, most anarchist communities (or whatever you may call them) have some way to deal with individuals who are there with bad intentions, or whose behavior is bad for others (whatever their intentions). Here, seeing as the moderators understandably have no way to minimize trolling, the consequence has been that trolling the trolls has been the only recourse. This indeed contributes to a downward spiral, in which good-faith commenters become trolls themselves ("those who do battle with monsters...").

I appreciate the critics vs. revolutionaries framework as a way to think about what desirable qualities both "sides" have to contribute to a space of dialogue. I don't want everyone to agree with me, though I would appreciate it if this were not a place for people to demean whole categories of people ("retards," etc.).

But I'm not sure the critics vs. revolutionaries framework actually gets at the central issue for me here. If we agree that anti-anarchist material doesn't need to be here, that still begs the question about what the minimum qualifications for anarchism are. Let's take Sir Einzige, who is hands down the most prolific commenter right now. In addition to gratuitously and ceaselessly insulting others, he emphasizes that he is not an anarchist, speaks supportively about people cooperating with the police, and generally takes a right-wing position on most topics. You could say the same thing about Keating, another person who eschews anarchism, fair play, and mutual respect. It's not surprising people respond with hostility. That doesn't seem to me to be an issue of critics vs. revolutionaries, that seems to me to be an issue of anarchist critics vs. anti-anarchist critics.

But who counts as a real anarchist is indeed an unresolvable issue. Let's put it differently: if those folks came to an anarchist reading group and behaved that way, they would be driven out of it, or the reading group would fold.

Now, perhaps the only realistic solution is for those of us who are fed up with having to have the same conversation over and over about the least interesting subjects to simply go elsewhere. Let the Keatings and SIr Einziges of the world have their space in which to play. Let them be the ones to represent anarchism to anyone unfortunate enough to venture into the comments here, and the rest of us can go elsewhere. That would be unfortunate, but all things come to an end.

Unlike this commenter, I won't fluff you up with pretty words. Maybe a handjob/rimjob combo will get your rocks off? Anyways, I agree with them that Sir Einzige has to go, along with the fake cronies he made up to dittohead his bored life. Also Emile needs to go because shits annoying yo. Emile is actually worse than Sir Einzige because every one of their comments is a death knell to anything I write and Emile responds to, which is very typical of Emile. If they don't reply to me directly, they'll most likely comment on a topic which starts to generate a real conversation, only to kill that conversation with a mountain of text which only the most boring people keep up with.

So anyways, I don't want comments removed as much as I want to have a conversation without having to respond to social anarchists ***OR*** right wing appropriators. Yeah, I get it. We can get some insight from anyone's comments...a new way of looking at things...but when does this "new way" become the status quo of this site and how can we keep issues relevant to anarchists up front and not derailed by this site's most reactionary forces?

but at what point are you/we responsible for the conversations we want to have? how much are you/we going to point to "other people" as being the problem with us doing what we want to do?
online forums seem like the EASIEST places to ignore people who want to have a different conversation, and to have the one we want to have, but instead there are all these complaints about how so and so derails anything good from happening.
anarchistnews could be taken to be a zen exercise in anarchist conversation. it could be seen/used as practice for the material world, where there are WAY MORE distractions and complications in having the kind of interactions we want to have.

and if anews isn't the place for anarchists to learn those skills, where and how DO we learn them?

Eh, this has been your point for a long time, dot. This position is untenable. You can practice zen mastery all you want and you can show the world how disciplined you are. I'll also do what I want, only I won't pretend restraint is a solution. My comments get deleted, what, like everyday to every week to every month, depending on how the admins feel. I have been deleted so much I no longer understand moderation. The moderators attempts to moderate is dysfunctional and comes off as bad parenting. For a compass on behavior, I'm left to guess what is right and wrong according to which moderator might be paying attention at the time. I use some restraint, but I don't see it as a solution, but rather a problem in itself. How can I free myself from restraint and have a good time as well?

All this is fun and good. I have fuck loads of fun. However, when Sir Einzige and Emile ruin an awesome rant I had in the comments with their banal mediocre shut in nonsense, I want to become an atom bomb and blow up everywhere! 9 times out of 10 if I write something interesting, one of these two (or their twerpy minions) will comment first and turn the direction of what I said towards some right wing egoist shit, most of the time trying to agree with me as if I were going to accept these losers into my flock of greatness.

So yeah, enjoy your zen mastery and your love of restraint. I'm a free being and I want to be uncontrolled and uncontrollable. I desire good discussion and since I can't terrorize my enemies through this site without getting moderated, I must resort to other methods of force to destroy them, their confidence and their desire to continue against me.

Such humility … such perspective on the importance of your contributions! Carry on, noble anarchist warrior!

"I want to become an atom bomb and blow up everywhere!"

I love that shit! More of this, please, and less of that other shit. Dot may be annoyed, but this person represents what I once loved in a-news commenters.

of letting you know if i'm annoyed?

but by speaking of restraint, you really miss what i'm saying. the point of focus is to pay attention to what is important. it is not restraint to pay attention to what is worth paying attention to. it is not restraint to ignore petty bullshit (or even stuff that could be valid but is not what you're trying to get at in the moment).
in these conversations i overstate the case for focus because i so rarely (never?) hear anyone else making it--and of course we come here to be in some kind of conversation, which requires feedback and reciprocity, which is why i am asking questions in my post--but in no way am i arguing for restraint.
(or mastery, fwtw, but that's a different conversation...)

Okay, well if we are talking about this being something finally other than another dumb site, then why not look to making it part of an oppositional infrastructure strategy of growth for an international anarchist movement? The problem with how it is currently is that the basement dwellers control the conversation and make it about manipulating anarchists into some right wing populist agenda. They do not belong here and are enemies to anarchists. Right wing trots is what comes to mind when I think of Sir Einzige and his cohorts. If this is a site for the international anarchist movement and not his playpen to trick anarchists into being "anarchs", then I can reconsider my approach.

you're funny.

edit: "international anarchist movement"
"basement dwellers"
"another dumb site"
all laugh-worthy

Sensible post. It strikes me as odd that there is less agreement to disagree around. All thought is cursory sort of. Also, practically speaking, a one sided approach is rarely useful, so I am at loss as to why so many keep insisting on a puritanical view. For instance I might be sceptical of leftism, activism and the likes on a theoretical basis, but also admitting that a flat out dismissal would offer me little else than isolation. Not to say that we should reconcile the world or something rainbowy like that, but there are perhaps nuances to how my ideas are expressed, spite being quite useless other than as an (attempt) at silencing my opposition. If nothing else, the comments around goes a long way to expose how stuck we are in the logic so many of us seems to be opposing.

At the end of the day worker you have to realize that there is not 'us' or 'we' when it comes to anarchists. I hope your smart enough to realize that.

When it comes to some of my demeanor, I'll remind you that it does not come out of a vacuum. I've had people who post after my name sake such as dizige after all. The insulting is hardly in a vacuum.

Also, I would point out that there is a fairly heated split going on right now between certain expressions of post-leftism and leftist anarchism and these parts can sometimes display a raw unfiltered form of these disagreements.

As to the not being an anarchist laid at me, there is of course more to it then that. I come from the continuum overall, and the overall goal of anarchy is something I am very interested in. My rejection of the anarchist/anarchism discourse is rooted in a more consistent post leftist drift that can clash with traditional sensibilities on certain positions. Certain idiots will call this right wing when it clearly isn't.

I would hope that you keep anews unfiltered and simply let these things play their course. Cause if you give into these easily offended types, essentially someone will make an anarchic news/comment site that will be the new unfiltered area. Let the offended leave, they have most of the other anarchist sites to go to.

I have emailed you on these topics and more. Please respond.

The truth is nobody is going to make a new site else they already would've. This site took almost 4 solid years of regular posting before an audience caught on and even then the failures of Infoshop News to keep their site running regularly had more to do with a switch to using this site than anything special this site did beyond function as a site should.

People mock you because you are a fuck that thinks this site is your personal soapbox. It isn't. Thanks for scaring off all the left anarchists so it is possible to have a conversation, but you still have yet to leave so this can occur. Please fuck off.

We can't listen to Sir Einzige about who is a leftist and who's not--he's like Murray Bookchin where he's basically reinterpreted the category to include anyone he doesn't like, regardless of their feelings about the left.

And hell, actually, I like getting to have an argument with, say, the old ex-Trotskyist guy from Love & Rage in a venue that isn't dominated by his or any particular perspective. Those have been some of my favorite moments here. But that guy is not going to stick around to argue with me if Einzige keeps interrupting us to call him a faggot or whatever his preferred stand-in is. However much Dot councils a Bay Area zen mastery, we can't count on most folks to feel it's worthwhile to hang out on the anarchist equivalent of 4chan if it's that puerile, and I don't blame them.


also, intentional mis-read or just don't give a shit?

for the person below who's complaining about being told to be polite, i don't think anyone here is saying that. just be rude on point. be rude in a way that makes sense to the conversation/topic you're getting at.

and, you know, be funny. funny covers a multitude of problems. :)

Here is another reason people don't post, the converation stoppers who feel the need to correct spelling and grammer. This trolling is acceptable, however, as the rules enforcing language use are untouchabll...must be followed. Doesn't matter if the meaning and intent are clear, order must be maintained. I use the word troll too loosely perhaps, but it is not far from fitting.

The term "troll," which seems to have started out as a term to describe a person who posted bad faith comments meant to derail a conversation (whether as a mechanism to insist on their own agenda or just to rile people up, or both), has come to mean -- for sloppy thinkers -- "anyone who bugs me" or "anyone I disagree with." Like the other favorites, "fascist" or "lifestylist," "troll" has become a shortcut insult; these terms are so mis/overused that they have become nearly devoid of descriptive power.

Writing "converation" and "grammer" and "untouchabll" might not serve to derail much (especially since there's nothing much more than pouting in your post), but for those of us who are used to reading *conversation* and *grammar* and *untouchable* it is visually alarming. In those particular cases, yes, your meaning and intent is clear (most people's brains will simply fill in the missing and incorrect letters and keep reading), What would happen, though, if in addition to these simple mistakes, you'd written "affect" instead of "effect," or "eminent" instead of "immanent," or "cant" instead of "can't"? The possibilities for misunderstanding(s) are now multiplied. If you want to lessen the possibilities of people misunderstanding what you write, then you should probably take a little more care in how you write. Using commas correctly wouldn't hurt either.

Unlike you, I don't presume that readers want to be detectives, so I try to keep my writing clear and descriptive rather than ambiguous and proscriptive.

If you actually want to have a conversation about how to have a conversation, then you might want to make your objections without handing me a dozen opportunities for me to fulfill/exceed your expectations.

I'm actually quite alright with Grumpy's(and others) grammar nazism. Internet era writing has made for sloppier writing as a whole.

different commenter here:

there's a time and place for everything. a posted article ought to be written reasonably well. but we are talking about the fucking *comments* section! isn't that ostensibly a place for informal discussion?

when someone's writing is unclear due to misspellings or bad grammar or punctuation, i expect a thinking reader to ask for clarification. but let's be real here; posts like emile's are often quite unclear, and not at all (typically) due to writing skills or not using "correct" grammar or spelling. so i call bullshit on using "clarity" as your rationalization for trying to impose "correct" writing technique.

while some of the more (seemingly) educated folks here often have interesting things to say, the adherence to a dogmatic approach to writing reeks of intellectualism.

maybe all the talk around comments and a forum (from topic of the week) should include requirements for correctness of grammar, spelling and punctuation?

So my major thing about this website, which I love and have loved for years and defended at parties, is that it's hard to recommend it at this point. I guess on the "Post-Ferguson" article, Sir Einzige said something about Mike Brown being a thug. Or I think there was that ridiculous Impromptu Action in which Le Way defended as far as possible that Dylann Roof was not a white supremacist.

These things don't so much offend me as embarrass me. To be sure, though, comments of this sort would offend a lot of the people that I might want to recommend this site to, many of whom I suppose are "revolutionaries" more than "critics", in that they are often newer to anarchy and what appeals to them about anarchy is its more thoroughly revolutionary character.

So this is a thought with regards to leftists and scummy egoists. I am with Worker on having less personal attacks. Hate the leftism, not the leftist. (Obviously do what you want.) Lots of people come to anarchy through leftism. I wouldn't mind if there were a few more people on here who were regular, named commenters who displayed a leftist attitude. Not because I'd agree, but because then you can have a conversation, and also because I personally find leftism less distasteful than this kind of willful "I'm going to say some extreme shit" sort of thing that you get with a few of the site's egoists. It feels like there's an element of trying to be edgy or something, which is obnoxious.

I prefer egoists to leftists, straight up. But I'd rather have a sweetheart leftist than an asshole egoist. I'd rather nice people to cockstains. Especially cockstains who offer their unsolicited opinions about people killed by cops, seemingly for no other reason than to provoke a reaction, and then get mad that some people are "easily offended".

And let's also just talk about racism for a second. This word means a lot of things, and is often used to shut down conversation. I don't like that. I'm sure most people here would actually like to be able to have critical conversations about, say, Islam without having leftists going on about whatever leftists would go on about in that situation. But, even as much as I dread that conversation in some ways, I feel like that could be an interesting conversation, generated by some part of the commenter population's leftism. The conversations now, though, that are generated by the racism of some commenters' population, or other obnoxious charactics, have some people getting (understandably) mad, and the obnoxious people doubling down. Which is usually boring.

particularly the point about "saying something outrageous, then complaining people are easily offended" which is irritating when i probably agree with the offensive person more than i do the other commenters on a thread, but the hyperbole and name-calling make it impossible to find a good way to enter the conversation, or for the conversation to go well.

edit: since i was told this comment was impossible to understand....
i'm basically just saying i agree with shadowsmoke.

Plausibly embittered ex-@news trolls will start their own rival @news.

Or join RevLeft.

Dear god, please please please send Ziggy to revleft. That's the best way this could end. As long as he is clear, there, that he's not an anarchist, that he doesn't like anarchists, and that at least some anarchists do not like him.

Step one for this stuff is banning personal attacks, you are 100% right there. No matter what, this is one of those points that holds even greater importance in conversations attached to real or even mostly real identities. Down to the root of it, someone using a personal attack whether it be pointing out the things they do, where they live, or anything identifying in a negative light is meant to shut down conversation. It is all it does and it doesn't need to happen. We had to deal with this on another semi-anonymous forum in which self described anonymous oppressed identities consistently told people to kill themselves. Consistently discussed where people lived, the towns they were in etc. This sort of stuff again, is meant to do one thing. There should be no room for it anywhere unless you want people to leave.

Anarchist News should have forever ago taken a stand against pretty much all call out culture of a personal nature bullshit. Just refused openly to publish anything questionable. The publishing of the dude from NYC's callouts and then the subsequent police file release years later showing that it was all probably a frame up pretty much forever tarnishes my image of this place and the sort of decisions that went into publishing such garbage.

What do people here mean when they say personal attacks? Like, on public figures? Ostensibly anonymous commentors? Or just like, mean stuff that isn't about the actual subject matter?

Worker means that we should play more nice. You can't completely remove any "personal attacks" between commenters, but they can definitely try, so we should try to play nice so they don't have to delete posts or ban commenters. Their violence is more justified than others because they are in control. This is some mass society techno-industrial domination at work here friend.

Butt srsly tho, it is a weird position to have to tell people how to behave and at the same time encourage people to behave in much the same way they are being told not to. I wouldn't look to moderators for moral guidance and I definitely wouldn't stroke their egos too much, else they start thinking they are anything more than a necessary evil (i.e. their tiny authority is tolerated) in these mediated conversations we have with each other. However, they do a good job for the most part, except when they delete my posts or threads I like reading.

When it comes down to it there's conversation that can stop all conversation that isn't just spam. Like someone mentions upthread, Sir Enzgien or whatever adds nothing. Emile just shuts down conversations with half coherent walls of text. It's just like, here's a brick wall good luck engaging with anyone in this environment.

It would be great if we had trolls here that were actually amusing like fucking 8ball for example. There aren't even memes being created here these days cause its just a disaster. And the shit content brings the level down and we all end up engaging in bullshit. Cause it's like if they are going to fuck it up might as well sling the shit back.

Its going down or whatever isn't going anywhere. Mask mag is what, dead in the water? The atmosphere can change around here but it's gonna take moderators who get what it looks like when people are just trying to shut down conversation. Specially if the conversation is a positive one.

I also think there should be some hard thinking around people who are instantly dismissive of projects and actions. Like clearly there's times when a shitstorm is well deserved. Case in point, Red and Black cafe post.

Anyhow, good talk bros

And let me just say one more thing. That might push Worker and others more than anything else. I LOVE seeing the leftoids getting mad on here and elsewhere. It's amusing. Consider if this place really killed it again and attracted even more comments and arguing that they ended up having to deal with?

Then it's like the best of both worlds. We get to watch them stop drop and roll constantly while having a great time here.

Anarchistnews could be a place that leads the charge against the puritan gated community insanity.

I mean, why don't we have a joke post about anarchists voting for Bernie Sanders up here yet? Why?

Hey can you post a link to some some info on that NYC frame up thing? I didn't know about that, would love to know more...

I've been using this site since 2008 and sir einziges constant right-wing troll presence is, in my opinion probably the worst development.
I don't know what should be done about such people though.

The internet is a shit show so I guess just let it be that way, although, I think there should be some preventive measures from people becoming wrapped up in it and wasting space for otherwise lucrative discussion. As if deleting comments on a little website should raise questions of censorship and stalinism when it really doesnt matter, because you're never going to experience anarchy on the internet. there's a lot of shitty comments on this place and it's akin to shutting someone downn in person which I'm all for.

Echoing other folks here, I'm mostly a nihilist who still has enough "leftism" to want to see the anarchist tendency manifesting shit in the real world. The only thing more boring to me than egoism is the pompous little blowhard trolls who constantly spout off about it here.

Oh really?! You sit at home all day and have opinions and never DO anything? FASCINATING! Please, tell us all about it every single day because of all that free time you clearly have! *cough* or kill yourself *cough*

All that said worker, I certainly appreciate how much thankless work must be happening to maintain this place, even with its unfortunate cyber-STD. Can't help but notice you've tried to engage ziggy in private emails that they are presumably ignoring? Pretty strong indication of bad faith, no?

not smart, not witty, not funny, not interesting, not provocative, not engaging.

kind of like calling someone retard.

a pox on all this behavior.

Don't find you particularly interesting either dot … as if that was the point of my post at all?

This is a great idea for a site and it is essentially being done right. I have been coming here for several years and have commented on posts, posted articles and have had my work posted here by others. I have been an intelligent, thoughtful commenter and a defensive insulting one. Criticism isn't easy to give wisely or to take humbly. So part of the problem is that as a milieu we don't seem to value developing better conversational skills, i guess that's seen as feeding bourgeois politeness for some.

I don't agree that SE and Emile and Biceps etc., derail the conversations because a) this isn't a forum its a comments section. and b) if I can mostly ignore comments that offend me (even about my own essays) then I know that others can too.

I find the commenters who can't ignore emile and SE and Biceps to be just as annoying as those folks themselves. Just don't engage. That just creates a downward spiral as another person said.

The site seems to be populated mostly by young american white males, rather than a diverse more representative cross section of international anarchist currents and the people involved in them. The type of insults, the locker room (non)humor, the defensiveness, the bravado, the obvious college education, etc, all point to a fairly limited demographic. I know, this is going to trigger some folks, but a lot of the behavior gives me this opinion.

So practically speaking here are a few suggestions:

1. every now and then temporarily suspend a posters ability to publish comments. The choice doesn't have to be between accepting their raw unfiltered comments or banning them. Just "you are being disruptive so take a break and come back later". But use this extremely sparingly and at your discretion-someone who is endlessly and humorlessly disparaging people rather than critiquing their ideas might need/deserve this time off.

2. Promote the forum section a lot more, make a clearer distinction between the comments section and the forum. For a little while intervene and tell certain posters that they need to start a forum on a topic rather than continue to inundate the comments section. After a while it'll become self-directed.

3. have a set number of posts a poster can make in the comments section (say 4) before they can't post on the same thread for 24 hours. That will make people think just a little more before they post and perhaps bring the quality up. (Obviously this would have to be some sort of computer program and not require a moderators counting.)

4. In reference to the limited demographic, which I might be wrong about and which there might be a way to find out, I don't know. But regardless how about some outreach of some sort to attract people outside of this demographic?

5. This is just a personal plea: I am not American, so i am pretty turned off by the endless repetitive comments about American milieu personalities and associated dramas and opinions to do with Bob Black, Kevin Keating, Thaddeus,Bill Brown, etc. I don't know these people! I don't care about American soap operas! Please stop highlighting them every time their names come up!

What a delightful comment! You sir/ma'am/________(fill in the blank) have a wonderful understanding of anarchy and your suggestions of control are only a little bit authoritarian and coercive. Thank you for ideas that haven't been considered before and I'm certain worker will approve them immediately. You are a good citizen.

"a set number of posts a poster can make in the comments section (say 4) before they can't post on the same thread for 24 hours"
This sounds like an idea worth exploring.

I don't like the part about suspending posters though. I think I'm against anything that looks like policing our spaces (including on the internet) but for setting some basic guidelines to limit tendencies that counter what those spaces have been established to do. In this case, to spread information and foster communication amongst english-speaking anarchists (as I understand it).

Limits could only be enforced to accounts. No thank you.

"The site seems to be populated mostly by young american white males"

No; you think that with "non-americans" or non-whites or non-males, it would be different.

True, its the troll who impersonates me who hijacked my identity and inverted my true opinions. My comments are always the first one made, then I usually don't comment again for maybe 4-6 hrs. Only emile or SE are similarly impersonated. Sometimes we feed the troll, but any regular commenter should be able to discern the real by context and grammar style alone.
I consider their comments worthy and of a relevent post-left content.

I've been watching your interactions with your impersonator, and the honest truth is that your impersonator has better grammar and better politics than you, and receives more approval from other users of this site. Hate to break it to ya.

I think this is an important discussion; but, I also think there's something to be said about a 'zone' where we get to see the underlying wankery of each other's attitudes. I'm not especially fond of having my attempts at discussion derailed. What I'm a big fan of, though, is that the derailment and the dorky insults reveal the status of our lives together. Some anarchists are able to have a really good time with each other. But a lot of us really just don't get along and I think that this is something which should always be an admitted fact about life. There's some shit which is just absurd when it comes to the comments. I think it's quite a-okay to kick the pissants out of the party. Overall though, I like that the comments on this site do provide some kind of window into the annoying shit about being an anarchist. I'd hate to ever see that covered up, as if we're some kind of macho professionals.

I think it's safe to say that no one with a charmed life becomes an anarchist. It would be nice if we could just appreciate that fact and discuss ideas in good faith. Unfortunately, part of surviving this world as an anarchist is that it's going to fuck you up in ways that you're not aware of... or at least the value of the consequences will come out bazaar. So whatever. Maybe we can make our relationships better or maybe we're doomed. I think that the deeper questions are about our own ability to deal with the freedom of a comment section... and more broadly, our own relationships with each other as enemies of society. There's a lot of opportunity to pretend that none of this is serious. As someone who takes partying seriously, I hope that all of our baggage-claim problems can be sorted out in the meat space and then comments on here will be easier on the eyes.

You make an assumption that these people are actually anarchists. NOOB

Why cares? It's not like non-anarchists will contribute more than the schmucks that should already be booted. And if they do? No reason to shuck them.

What happened to the rollover?

I think it originally said something like "Oh, not this shitpost-bait topic again?"

I've said this before, but dibs on names. Let there be only one SE, emile, Biceps


You think registering will stop me? Muahahaha! Tell me more about your zen mastery and the art of motorcycle maintenance.

i look forward to being cleverly critiqued and satirized!

in other news, yes, my one word response was clearly misinformed.

emile (note the lowercase e) and einzige-chan are registered, I posted as them for a while exploiting a lame flaw. But I made it rather clear it wasnt them, I dunno why all the fuss..

Yeah they got around all that.

Well... you just brought an argument in that last paragraph that both proves you're for real and that there's still hope with this site. Most of the more serious anarchist websites and blogs simply won't allow (or bother answering to) comments to be posted, that can be quite a problem in regards to the free sharing of ideas of anarchistic perspective (that is not exactly that fucking liberal and reactionary-friendly "free speech").

hi @news,

i appreciate this conversation and hope it has some positive outcomes for the site. i've been a registered user here for almost 9 years now and visited the site frequently probably even before that. i barely ever comment, but i love the fact that this site allows anonymous comments, which are seemingly going the way of dinosaurs. plus, the privacy guidelines provided as much as can be via the Internet. from my conversations with the people who maintain the site; they are genuine and the kind of host that i wish more anarchist sites had on the Internet.

having said that, i also love the analogy of this being a party and kicking out those who are repeated jerks. although, i'm sure these people are smart enough to figure out that it's pretty hard to ban people from the Internet. i'm often baffled by the incompetence of many commentators to think critically and compose a meaningful argument or response and then assume the total victory of words over a comment section none-the-less. obviously, many things come to mind, but there are certainly those earning a salary out there in the world in fighting against beautiful anarchist ideas.

taking a look back, as was mentioned in a previous comment - @news became a lot more popular when Infoshop News banned all comments except for registered users and even then started modding out critical comments. Infoshop seemingly overnight went from a lively discussion on anarchist ideas, to comments being removed that didn't even spew the metaphorical vomit of many of the comments which seemingly have brought this weekly discussion up.

one thing i've noticed recently is that people seem to be impersonating registered users, or at least saying that is happening, or having similar names. there is no way to tell for the common reader. i'd like to see this change. before you could click on a registered users name and see how long they have been registered for (and maybe some other info they allowed), but you can't do this anymore and just rely on their often asinine comments.

last note for the moment... didn't emile win the @news award? if so, it seems emile, whoever that is has been promoted into this position of non-sense that no one can stand to read. often i wonder if they are real, or just idk... life is weird.

looking forward to some more meaningful conversation. cheers.

posting that link has the potential to "out" emile, who may not want their real/other identities known. i thought that was the one case where @news didn't mind censoring (er, intervening)?

Worked for the oil companies huh? That's fascinating and incredibly damning ...

I didn't realize it was a real connection. If emile wants it down I'd honor that.

It becomes annoying if you're forced to only reply politely. There's things for which there's no "thoughtful" reply. Like some judaist politicians. You could say, why not just ignore it, but then why not just ignoring offensive posts.

if this is a search for consensus on how to purify this 'anarchist' forum because it is too 'anarchistic', this would seem to put things on the path of self-contradiction.

people do not agree with one another's views on 'what is going on' and there are two very different 'communications theories' that give very different approaches for dealing with this. classical 'communications theory' sees this problem in terms of 'signal' versus 'noise' and so the course of action is to improve the ratio of signal to noise (S/N). the problem is that 'noise' is defined as 'unwanted signal' which implies that one must, in advance, be able to distinguish between 'what is signal' and 'what is noise'.

the quantum physics compliant "theory of communications" of dennis gabor [nobel prize for holography] does not entail the concept of noise since 'signal' is no longer seen in terms of 'content' (the truthful portion of the content) but in terms of relational coherence (contextual coherence), so that all manner of content is accepted and the meaning is gleaned from the coherence that arises from bringing multiple perspectives into interferential confluence. this approach to extracting meaning associates with relational space [NOT absolute space] and is described by Einstein in 'Geometry and Experience', as follows;

"“First of all, an observation of epistemological nature. A geometrical-physical theory as such is incapable of being directly pictured, being merely a system of concepts. But these concepts serve the purpose of bringing a multiplicity of real or imaginary sensory experiences into connection in the mind. To “visualize” a theory therefore means to bring to mind that abundance of sensible experiences for which the theory supplies the schematic arrangement.” – Albert Einstein, ‘Geometry and Experience’

transdisciplinary understanding is of this same type; i.e. one listens to many different and often conflicting views and extracts meaning, NOT by selectively picking out 'the truthful content bits' from each of them, but by bringing them into confluent connection and discovering coherence that brings forth contextual meaning. this is the same 'relational interpretation' approach used in Egyptian hieroglyphic clusters. in modern physics, it has been termed by Wheeler, 'the surprise version of the game of twenty questions'; i.e. an image 'resolves' as one brings together multiple views of the same thing. this is how indigenous anarchist 'talking circles' work, and it is also the basis of holography. the images are purely relational or 'purely contextual', rather than content-based.

Western society is predominantly 'literalist', however, so the path to understanding is based on S/N enhancement which requires the selective elimination of 'noise'. since everyone has a different opinion on what is signal and what is noise, the only way to resolve this is the 'principle of Lafontaine' "the judgement of what is signal and what is noise of the most powerful is always the best" ["La raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure"].

in all discourse, and the anarchistnews forums are no exception, there are a mix of 'literalists' and 'idealists', and the former are intolerant of the latter.

the literalists do not doubt the veracity of their own tools of inquiry that they are using to develop their investigative findings. since they do not include their tools of inquiry in their inquiry, they consider their comments to be true reflections of what is 'really' going on out there, as if there were a real objective world out there that is not warped by their own personal experience based subjective perception, and they deem what they see as being 'true' as a 'truth' that is freely accessible to all 'honest observers'.

'pragmatist idealists' (myself included) acknowledge, instead, the physical reality of our uniquely situational personal experience; i.e. acknowledge that there is no 'real objective world out there' available, in unadulterated form, to our personal perspective. for example, nietzschean views (and similar views of Whorf, Mach, Schroedinger, Derrida, Wittgenstein) that reject putting 'scientific thinking' (reason) and moral judgement into an unnatural precedence over experience based intuition, infuriate 'literalists', who see such [relational/contextual views] as adding nothing but valueless interference.

my feeling is that allowing this conflict to continue within a forum, is contributory to deepening one's understanding, since different people with different ways of seeing things influence the unfolding relational social dynamic, so that if we wish to understand social dynamics, we would do well to come to understand how different people see the same things differently.

'cleaning up the forum' should therefore NOT be done using classical communications theory since it requires those making the cleanup on the basis of S/N enhancement to know-in-advance 'that which is signal and that which is noise'.

in the circle process of indigenous anarchists, only the person holding the 'talking piece' can speak in his turn, and no ad hominems or heckling are allowed. the next speaker can share his own experience which can contradict the prior speaker but is not formulated simply to contradict, but to share his own views/experiences which may be contradictory to those of others.

i've never been to this site before, but one thing that might help is to put the name of the poster at the top of the post. that way if you see someone you can't stand you can scroll on down past them immediately. emile's post is what made me think of it, i saw descriptions of his (?) style, when i got to the start of that long ass technopost i immediately thought 'jesus - is this emile?' i had to scroll way down to see i was right.
I also don't see any real problem with excluding/blocking repeat assholes, we do it all the time in real life - we just need to have a consensus meeting... oh wait, never mind.

To me this is the real issue here. Someone like me represents an outside challenge to long standing sensibilities(that will not last forever).

I don't see why anews should be rooted to their tastes. Especially considering the abject failure that comes from that direction. It is high time for new thought forms that challenge longstanding 1968 derivative values. That's the real problem these types have with me more then my salty demeanor which was simply in response to the left and right charges of 'fascism', 'rightwing', ect.

Mark my words, the stuff that you are reading from me now will be more common in 10-20 years.

To suggest that your trolling and relentless childish insults could somehow be advancing the struggle... That's maybe the stupidest thing you've posted to date. All your hours spent trolling amount to jack shit, and everyone else knows it.

To give credit where it's due, it may be that in 10-20 years people will be wasting even more time in throwaway online bickering than they do today. Not that that would be a good thing, nor that we should go quietly into that great night.

I'm not advancing any struggle you idiot. And neither are you:)

This expresses the totality of Sir E's self-satisfied perspective - a cynical contempt for those who at least try to advance a struggle against existing society.

... the mass philosophy of today[is] cynicism — a cynicism which mistrusts every individual promise but not the source of those promises.

Cynics know they are not alone. The whole society is, at least in part, cynical. Cynicism is the lowest common denominator of modern social relations. As such it tries to bring everything down to its level, especially explicit social critique..... the cynic is often someone stripped of everything except his sense of private prop­erty.

Cynicism as an extreme form of objectification, is often used for the purpose of defense. An ideology, person or event is ridiculed in order to be able to tolerate its inexplicable, embarrassing or confusing presence. The cynic takes the most obviously inconsistent element and exaggerates the contradiction contained in it without getting at its root, allowing the creation of a situation which can’t be taken seriously.... His existence depends on proving that history doesn’t exist. Nihilists now are just like they were fifty years ago, and they act as if the world has stayed there with them. They add nothing to themselves because they detourn nothing and reject everything.

Nihilists can’t, don’t and won’t conceive of the practical consequences of critical activity. They are negative without negating. Everything they do is defensive. They act in order to be able to stay in the same place.

A nihilist is someone who believes in nothing. Everything that is here is shit; but it’s all we’ve got. The nihilist gets used to that fact — it is his only comfort. There is nothing new under the sun. The nihilist prepares for the worst so that the banal will seem quite nice in comparison.

The nihilist says that things won’t change because they have always been that way. Here he conveniently forgets that he has changed — he doesn’t see any connection between individual transformation and society. ...The nihilist is apolitical to a fault, a fault which he often parades.... The social question is reduced to its most vulgar representation in order to suit the nihilist’s archaic world view.

The nihilist is a negative specialist, a quick reader and put-downer of superficial­ity, but someone who remains on the surface as if hypnotized by it....Yes, being negative simplifies things, but it sure makes a guy restless and dependent.

(Isaac Cronin, Implications, 1975). 40 years later, Sir E pretends he is the future - but it's a No Future future and his anti-historical pretension to being "post-ideoliogical" shows how deeply ideological this attitude is, because it's only be being anti-ideological (against the untested petrified ideas in oneself and in others), by making new mistakes and correcting old ones, that one can make progress. He will advance the same petrified "post ideology" in 10 years time without having changed one little bit except for accumulating cobwebs under his every-deepening wrinkles because he doesn't want to struggle to be free but merely wants to put-down those who do as self-deluded.

Like Bob Black you could characterize me as an anarcho-cynicalist Sam. I don't exactly take that as an insult:)

I can acknowledge a certain truth to that quoted passage. The fact is that change in it's truest sense is individual. Society is simply language and code that is confirmed and reconfirmed overtime. In terms of exaggerating contradictions, your confusing cynics for actual ideologues. Cynics got to the root of things a long time ago. To quote Oscar Wilde:

“I am not at all cynical, I have merely got experience, which, however, is very much the same thing. ”

"A nihilist is someone who believes in nothing. Everything that is here is shit; but it’s all we’ve got. The nihilist gets used to that fact — it is his only comfort. There is nothing new under the sun. The nihilist prepares for the worst so that the banal will seem quite nice in comparison." Cronin

Yes, but as Stirner makes clear, that is the true starting point of individuated affirmation. 'Things' don't change but I do and that is what is paramount at the end of the day. So called changes in the world are simply reconfigurations of language which are nothing to me in themselves. You're damn right I'm apolitical to a fault line. That should be the performatively consistent approach that any anarch takes on the political world.

An anti-position is still a position and the march of progress which you support will be riddled with even more mistakes. I postulate from problems I don't look for solutions. Yes what I entertain is nothing new under the sun, but has made for the best of bullshit detection which includes your revolting BS. Better to accumulate cobwebs then more history. I'm not against a personal conception of struggling, but that is for ownness and autonomy, not freedom and liberation.

"I'm not against a personal conception of struggling, but that is for ownness and autonomy, not freedom and liberation."

i like most of that post, ziggy, but explain to me how you see autonomy and freedom as contrary to each other? i realize you must be defining "freedom" in some way differently than i think of it; i just want to understand that difference.

That I like to contrast. For me it's similar to the contrast of insurrection and revolution. Revolution and freedom are not what should be given operative attention.
Freedom perse is actually quite hollow. Just another alien cause.

Likewise, I prefer the idea of autonomy to liberation which like freedom is tied to a largely slave based mind. It may be understandable in the deepest depths of slavery, but it should not be a point of anarchic theory and practice.

All freedom lies without not within.

The great ego can't even spell simple words in the title of his own comments, his only gift to posterity.

But it's for the best--I like that you crammed "owe" into own. That's a clever unveiling of all the power dynamics involved in every notion of property, including self-ownership. You don't deserve the credit for this, of course (and "per se" is two words, not one, child), but put enough monkeys at typewriters and eventually one of them is bound to accidentally type a double entendre.

Anyway, it should be clear enough what I think of "owenness." Your binary (!!!!!) between inside and outside is itself a false dichotomy--as if what is within each of us is not the product of what is without (and, to some extent, vice versa). Rather than a cosmology and value system based, fundamentally, on property rights, can we imagine an understanding of the world that begins from freedom, with chaos at every level of scale as the constituent part? That would be so much more interesting to me than moldy, centuries-dead egoism.

I don't conceive of ownness as a dichotomy. It's an emphasis, difference. I also don't separate inside from outside. Ownness is NOT rooted based fundamentally on property rights. Here have a read

Also, I have no issue with chaos as an emphasis whatsoever. I've also read Bey/Wilson after all. Also, I don't care if my spelling is not 100 percent. It's not an emphasis for me right now. What matters is being correct on the facts not the spelling. This ain't school.

zig, you didn't really give me the explanation i was looking for. let me ask differently:

how do YOU define freedom? (saying it is hollow and an alien cause doesn't help me understand)

and then, how do YOU define autonomy?

'Things' don't change but I do

This "change yourself" ideology is as banal as all the mystics and pop psychologists who make loads of money giving ideas on how to change your separate self, which remains separate. "Changing yourself" invariably means changing your ideology or role, but it's only by changing your social relations - your self in relation to others and other things - that you change yourself; self does not exist outside social relations unless you're mad. But it's exactly this you're afraid of doing because it involves making mistakes with consequences and striving to correct them.

But if all you want to do is change yourself why do you endlessly repeat the same thing?

And how do you change yourself (you're certainly not changing anyone else) by posting here? Change your heart, your mind, your eating habits, your pants, by all means - but the best change would be for you to shut up.

relations are a hack.

Is just a silly Marxist catch phrase. This changing of the world is something that none of these post 1848 anarchists/communists have never been able to do which should clue you into what you are performatively capable of.

Reality, by in large, is made of language. And when reality changes it is largely because the language has changed.

There is no separation of 'self' and 'social' relations. There is only relations that exist in small, medium and large continuums. Being non dichotomous about relations makes you put the emphasis of change on yourself.

You are not unliked merely because your ideas are unpalatable, but because no matter what a viable anarchist praxis actually is you are constantly assuming the role of a schoolteacher that has the ultimate textbook and puts down those who believe differently- when really anarchism is not any sort of creed that can be encapsulated, as you seem to be doing. what matters, obviously, is life, rather than how one conceives this reality. you seem to be much more concerned with constructing conceptions.

I've mentioned things that anarchists can do but hardly as a text book prescription. I put down practice that has performative contradictions and years of failure.

Of course perhaps every anarchic affecting endeavor will fail, however the point is to at least make it interesting and leave a respectable practice behind. Think of the Situationists.

Of course life matters.

Mark my words, the stuff that you are reading from me now will be more common in 10-20 years he says as if he's a pioneer of ...what? The even worse counter-revolution to come? Mark my words, the stuff that you are reading from him is all too common NOW.

On the recent "It's going down" thread on Mike Brown and Ferguson, Sir E. wrote about Mike Brown: An all around thug life piece of shit who met an end worthy of his own habits of attraction. At least martyr someone else, not some 6'4 fat fuck who beats up store clerks and raps about killing his own kind. Now here on this thread he tries to sound all reasonable, like a politician caught making some racist comment on tape whilst drunk and then next day trying to shrug it off with some image of conventional acceptable respectability." end worthy of his own habits..." How can this be read in any other way than a support for summary execution without trial by the state? And a dismissal of the best movement that the USA has seen for a very long time - August 2014, November-December 2014 and end of April- May 2015 (Baltimore). If the guy had critiqued aspects of these riots, one might have thought his comments stupid but they could be ignored. But this is unfettered right-wing cop ideology - and anyone coming here and spouting this kind of utterly conservative shit should be banned at the very least temporarily with a warning that they will be permanently banned if they repeat the kind of vomit that's spewed out of the mouths of those who are so utterly entrenched in acceptance of all the brutality of this society that it would take global revolution to maybe traumatise them as to their previous obnoxiousness. And of course, like fascist cops, he loves being obnoxious.

I am not an anarchist (I find labels generally useless and create more problems than they solve). Particularly when a totally disconnected meandering philosopher like Emile can create a thread which makes out that Nelson Mandela, a Stalinist-turened-neoloiberal, is an anarchist - see my and SK's critique of him here: . The link to the original article - "Mandela: A Leader in the Indigenous Anarchist Tradition" - by emile doesn't work, as a lot of stuff was lost a bit of time ago when there was a problem with A-news. But the term a"anarchist" hould mean opposition to hierarchical social relations, even if in practice there are loads of self-styled anarchists who persistently maintain relations of submission and domination, complicity and rivalry, manipulative deceitfulness, stupid sexist, racist, middle classist, etc. etc. attitudes. So, regardless of labels, a site like this should contribute to a movement against hierarchy wherever it exists (in the bedroom, as in the streets, at work and in society as a whole). Sir E is most definitely on the side of hierarchy (particularly his own superior intellect).

The question is not whether people are nice or nasty to each other - but of the form and content of these ways of trying to communicate. Calling some a retard or whatever, and not getting to grips with what bullshit that person is defending, is not being nasty in any useful way. Attacking their blindspots, their complicty in precise ways is far more subversive and gets under their skin far better than a reflexive "fuck you - scumbag", even though one might feel like responding like that; channel that anger into an angry analysis and you not only hit where it hurts but force yourself to understand the bullshit better. Otherwise it's all just a self-defeating battle of egos - typical attitudes encouraged by this society. A culture of self-consciousness also needs to develop here where admitting you might have been wrong about some things is not regarded as a sign of weakness.

I would also suggest a re-organisation of the site so that people can comment on old texts/threads and it appears at the top of recent posts - like on Libcom. Otherwise, only the most recent 10 threads appear on the homepage and anything else disappears onto page 2 or 3 and even if someone replied to a comment on page 3 you really wouldn't know unless you clicked on each of the recent comments on the right side just to know which thread they refer to. I realise that this requires a lot of effort and time and hassle on the part of worker and the others administering this site, but it seems like something worth setting your minds to.

That is what little Samwise would like anews to become. The perfect addendum to his preferred lib(tard)com.

You're charge of racism is of course idiotic. Some people(of any color) call a spade a spade when it comes to someone like Mike Brown. That does not mean condoning what happened to him or saying he deserved it. There is no cop ideology coming from my fingers and your use of the term right wing is ridiculous and retarded.

"I am not an anarchist" No, just a commie dumbass who doesn't get the greater points that emile was making regarding Mandela. Your view that I am on the side of hierarchy deserves no comment.

"like on Libcom" Which is where you belong.

1.Libcon is NOT my "preferred", and there's nothing in my post to suggest it is.

2. I haven't charged you with racism specifically - but your comment on Mike Brown being "An all around thug life piece of shit who met an end worthy of his own habits of attraction. reads like the kind of things a right-wing pig would say (or Fox News). You want to continue talking vile dominant crap like this, then you will meet an end worthy of your own habits of distraction. If this isn't saying he deserved it then at least have the humility to admit you phrased what you wanted to say in such a bad way that you implied it.

3. "retarded" is a word you use ad nauseam to show you're presumably "advanced" and intellectually sophisticated. But you're only advanced in the descent into the acceptance of an increasingly barbaric world and the sophisticated ideologies used to justify it. I trust I am "retarded" in the journey towards this descent into hell.

4."commie dumbass" - brilliant analysis - when someone doesn't fit your categories somehow squeeze them into them and call them a "dumbass" at the same time (in fact, my ass is far from dumb - it constantly sings the most wonderful tunes).

5. What "greater points" was Emile making about that overtly capitalist piece of shit Mandela? Let's see you answer that question.

6. I didn't specifically say that you were "on the side of hierarchy", but that your comportment itself is hierarchical (and repeatedly so).Your whole smug petrified dismissal of anything that breathes the fresh air of revolt is indicative of a thoroughly entrenched desire for a coldly separate hierarchical pseudo-individuality exuding a sneering superiority towards everything and everyone that make life worth living and fighting for.

7. "like on libcom" is used in a typical political manipulative manner, to score a point - when it was obvious I was talking about the form of this site - the fact that anything older than 10 threads ago is effectively forgotten.

It's a total a waste of time to continue responding to someone who is only capable of twisting what I say out of all recognition: I shan't reply to any further distortions coming from this anti-life self-styled "genius", a typical product of the self-delusions encouraged and produced en masse by the anti-dialectical delerium arising out of the forced passivity of this epoch. But I would like some reflections from other people.

Not trolling... I actually kind of liked that emile article. The distinction around leadership that is imposed/imposes itself on people vs leadership that arises from people stuck with me. You could find examples of this that are way better than Mandela (Abdul Basset Saroot in Homs being an example of thinking about today), but the occasion of his death wasn't the worst time to talk about what it means when, at certain times, people find a person who embodies their desires.

You clearly know nothing about Mandela or the history of the ANC. If Mandela embodied your desires, then your desires have been reduced to what this society wants you to desire, in particular - submissive adoration of someone promoted by the international spectacle as its human face in order to hide its brutally murderous activity. Lenin too embodied such "desires".

I'll acknowledge that you aren't a glibcom shill.

In terms of my disparaging words on Mike Brown, so what if there are some similar things said by right wing ideologues. I'm a post ideologue, I don't pay lip service to either wing but when I call a spade a spade I might say things that correspond with either rhetoric. Debasing someone's character does not entail that you think someone deserved to die as well. As I said, "deserves got nothin' to do with it"

3.Retarded is a pejorative insult. People who use that term don't necessarily want to project superiority least of all me.

4.It's not meant as an analysis, you just kinda seem like the type

5. Emile was hardly endorsing Mandela, he was making a point about indigenous examples of leadership and how it comes about. Also, you're wasting your time hating Mandela, he's is but a symbol and representation of language and state based belief. That is the real problem. You should have just as much a problem with the people who believe in him, though, then you'd be hating a lot of people.

6.I'm not against revolt when it is actually fresh air and not spectacular media narrative recuperation which is what all that noise has been in the past year.

7. Fair enough Sam, I take the glibcom charge back.

Regarding your #6, when Sam said

"Your whole smug petrified dismissal of anything that breathes the fresh air of revolt is indicative of a thoroughly entrenched desire for a coldly separate hierarchical pseudo-individuality exuding a sneering superiority towards everything and everyone that make life worth living and fighting for."

...he pretty much nailed it. The anon who has repeatedly forced you to demonstrate that you are constitutionally incapable of endorsing any actually occurring revolt has made it clear enough where you stand. And the way your sentence here is phrased (all the revolts of the past year have been nothing but spectacular media narrative recuperation) underscores that you only ever encounter revolt through media narration, on account of never going outdoors. There is a big difference between somebody acting against...

oh, actually, never mind. It's embarrassing that I keep trying to engage in dialogue with you, however saltily, since that is clearly not what you're here for. You only want to hear the sound of your own voice, saying you're right.

not to defend se, but you are talking some binary shit there.

the fact that someone has a critique of the kinds of "revolt" that are labeled as such here (and elsewhere) does NOT in any way imply a disdain for the very concept of revolt. what you refer to as "actually occurring revolt" may not be seen as such by others. i personally think almost everything done by u.s. anarchists in recent years (that some would call "revolt") is pathetic and useless. to imply that that means i reject (or disapprove of) anything that could be considered "revolt" is just binary thinking. and intellectually lazy.

Dawg, if anything is "intellectually lazy" it's using "binary thinking" as a catchphrase for "bad" alongside "leftard." The previous commenter's point is not that everything anarchists have done lately in the US is cool; it is that SE is incapable of endorsing anything except as an empty abstraction. Which, if true, is important because it undercuts any special criticism he might advance.

"Dawg, if anything is "intellectually lazy" it's using "binary thinking" as a catchphrase for "bad" alongside "leftard." "

huh? can anyone translate that for me?

>>is just binary thinking. and intellectually lazy.
>Nigga, if anything is 「intellectually lazy」 it is using the term 「binary thinking」 as a catchphrase for 「bad」 alongside 「leftard」

sam: "Sir E is most definitely on the side of hierarchy (particularly his own superior intellect)."

sam (couple posts later): "I didn't specifically say that you were "on the side of hierarchy" "

sorry, you get a big fat FAIL on that one. (not to stick up for se, but still...)

In a sense, you're right - but I was emphasising his own notion of himself as having a superior intellect, and didn't mean to say he was "on the side of hierarchy" as an objective force (though his crap about Mike Brown certainly implies support for it).

Unfortunately worker seems to have decided not to make any significant decision about Sir Vile, so it seems this site is stuck with him (and others who spout nonsense) . Personally, I won't ever reply to anything this self-satisfied nonentity ever says again unless it's a directly personal attack (and even then, quite possibly not); it feeds an ego which would remain starved without the feeling that it's pissed off at least 10 people that day.

I think it was Ursula Leguin who said that to "oppose something is to maintain it" as to your definition of what Anarchism is. Also your other opposition, that against "self-styled Anarchists " is perhaps a little party-esque for my liking, seeing that I find it troublesome if you are any other than self-styled in that regard. Not to split hairs, but yours seem like a slippery slope to me - as others has pointed out in regards to censorship.

That widget was used before, but it makes the look too clustered. I liked the external links as well, especially to anarchy101 and anokchan, it helped give other lesser outlets to helping beginners or playing with trolls respectively.

You sir, are a Libcom infiltrator with recognizable arrogant platformist tendencies!!

A few notes:

- If you invite people onto an open public site and solicit comments on news articles, then it's going to be a free for all, and you should expect both the best and the worst. There is no point trying to 'moderate' anything at this point besides pure commercial spam, since by design and intent, the horse has already left the barn.

- No one is being hurt by childish or troll comments. No one is forcing your eyeballs to read anything. Words are pixels on a screen and only contain the meaning you infer from them. People need to grow up and stop being so sensitive and so easily offended, and stop calling for the babysitter to "do something about so-and-so".

- There are only two positions you can take on free speech. Free speech for views and opinions that are polite and that you like and agree with. Or free speech for everything, including opinions that are childish, impolite, and trollish. You can't have it both ways.

- If you want a website where things are discussed more seriously and carefully, then by all means create an actual formal discussion forum, complete with moderators and registration requirements. Set up the category threads, and have at it. You could still discuss news articles by linking the articles to the appropriate thread categories.

- If you want to continue to have this kind of open news article comment format, then stop crying, whining and wringing your hands over "what to do" about certain comments or posters. That is the nature of the format you created. Either have complete freedom of speech, or don't. If you don't, then don't call it anarchy. Anarchists don't need moderators or any form of authority (except for commercial spam) hovering over us. And personally I'm getting tired of trying to figure out why a comment I posted got nuked. (It doesn't happen that often, but it's puzzling and frustrating when it does). If we wanted censorship and banning, we can get that practically everywhere else on the internet.

- But maybe the problem is you don't even know what kind of website your trying to have. Maybe take a step back, go back to the drawing board and think about what kind of site @news should be.

I concur

doesn't speak well of your not-leftism.
the post you respond to talks free speech and censorship uncritically, which is exactly the kind of liberal hand-jobbing of an orangutan that i would expect you, SE, to be be smarter about.
just to start, speech is not, in fact, free and i'd think that anarchists (and other critical thinkers) wouldn't find it interesting to adopt the purported mores of the u.s., which are a cover up -- showing expansiveness and choices while hiding coercion and manipulation.

(for the free sexuality of orangutans, who may get hand jobs from liberals if they want them.)

Well I wouldn't have used the word free speech and perhaps he meant it in a different way. However, the overall point is that sites like this should be more on the side of letting things run as far as comments go.


and assume positive intent when some unknown person seems to be supporting your "side".
and yet you are quite petty when you're attacking (for example: impugning samfanto for considering something about the libcom site as positive).

we're all tempted to be easier on the people who are sympathetic to us, but... you're not arguing well for your points.
i probably disagree with some of samfanto's points, but all your reply said basically is "nuh unh" to specific things about you and emile. if sam's main point is that your arguments are empty, you're not proving them wrong. perhaps this thread isn't the place to get into those arguments more deeply, in which case you being proactive about how that argument COULD be had better/be better placed, would be a more interesting direction to go in...
for me,

the only one who matters.


I don't think this guy is necessarily supporting my "side". In terms of Sam, as a whole he is probably on the side of making this site more controlled in a libcom sort of way. I don't think it's just one detail.

is not sound, and is the same jumping-to-conclusions that other people do to you, and that you react badly to.

which is fine in the abstract, but makes for boring and uninformative reading.

"the post you respond to talks free speech and censorship uncritically, which is exactly the kind of liberal hand-jobbing"

How are freedom of speech and censorship "liberal hand-jobbing"? And how is speech 'not, in fact, free'? Unless you're talking about a different level of analysis.

freedom = complicated.

Pretty much all anarchists agree that freedom includes voluntary association and that no one is entitled to participate in anyone else's project. That's why free speech is a liberal idea, because it presupposes some sort of society that anyone who takes action (such as creating a website) needs to include/be accountable to. I would argue that the ability to exclude people from our spaces is necessary for freedom and autonomy.

"Excluding" people from "our" spaces is necessary for freedom and autonomy".

Fascinating. If openness is liberal, then I guess I'm a liberal. But if anything is the opposite of anarchy, it's exactly the kind of carving up of the world into separate groups and property rights that the liberal enlightenment gave birth to. The commons were enclosed, and the corporations took over, excluding everyone outside their own "projects". Nation states, private clubs, resorts, businesses and economic zones are all built on the same model of protecting their internal "freedom and autonomy" from the outside public.

Whose "spaces"? Whose freedom and autonomy? And more importantly, whose idea of freedom and autonomy are we talking about? Who does the internet belong to? This is a website with an open comments forum. Anyone and everyone is invited to comment. The theme of the website is anarchism. Thus, one would expect a modicum of some form of anarchist approach to the comments policy. Should anarchists not aspire to be the very change they want to see in the world? Or should they live within their own silos, buffered by exclusive access and private memberships. I understand the need for security culture, but I don't think that's what at stake in the context of the quality of comments and posters.

do you get the concept of "voluntary association"? that means, if i don't want to be around you, or to listen to you, i don't have to. if that conflicts with your idea of "openness", then i choose the freedom to associate with whom i want, when i want. nobody is forced to use the @news comments.

Nobody is forcing you to read anyone's comments. @news is voluntarily asking people to associate with them by openly inviting comments on news articles. Not sure what your problem is.

Right, so changing the kinds of comments they want by setting and enforcing clear guidelines is a continuation of this principle. If what you say is true, more moderation wouldn't be a change in the substance of the A-news project.

Also, the enclosure of the commons was about forcing people INTO society, not carving it up into blocks. Enclosure removed common pasture, swiddening and hunting lands, and forests from the people, and therefore options for non-civilized living. The creation of society through enclosure is the classic example of non-voluntary association.

Right, so setting and enforcing clear guidelines and creating more authority through more moderation would make @news more anarchic?

You need to read up about the enclosure of the commons. It was precisely about carving up public space by privatizing blocks of land and excluding trespassers (i.e. the public). People weren't being forced into society, they were already in society. It's just that the rules of society changed. Sort of like "changing the kinds of comments they want" so as to exclude whom they regard as trespassers.

Wait, what do you have against commercial spam? Why doesn't it get to be part of your free speech anarchy? And what about non-commercial spam, don't the volunteer spammers have any rights? It's a slippery slope, I tell ya... first you ban ads for fake rolex watches, next thing you know you're banning comments from perfectly charming federal agents and members of the American Nazi Party! Free speech goes out the window!

So like you say, make up your mind--do you want real anarchy (which is to say, a flood of commercial spam, snitchjacketing, and perfectly charming entrapment schemes from agents provocateurs, with the occasional intelligently thought out comment peaking out from under the debris) or some kind of leftist bullshit, in which we just comment on the articles here? Let me give you a hint--leftism is baaaaad!

Thanks for typing this so I didn't have 2. Leftism is this foggy haze that prevents the obvious from seeping in.

What about spam and nazi party commericials, isn't this a form of censorship? "I am going to stop arguing with you fucboi racist cis het male oppressor! Block!"

2/10 for sarcasm.

How about an informal discussion forum? Without the registration requirements.

WITH registration requirements? still anonymous, but at least everyone knows what name to associate with what posts. and anyone who posts has to at least have signed up. and no impersonating.

How about no.

When niggas don't care about identities, there's no impersonating.

But identity is important for continuity and bona-fide ID check to get laid by fans, and copyright shit, if you are an artist!

open gatherings and/or open forums are prone to the 'tyranny of the majority'. that is, majorities can form which are intolerant of minorities and/or minority views. your argument for a laissez-faire forum assumes 'rational participants';

- No one is being hurt by childish or troll comments. No one is forcing your eyeballs to read anything. Words are pixels on a screen and only contain the meaning you infer from them. People need to grow up and stop being so sensitive and so easily offended, and stop calling for the babysitter to "do something about so-and-so".

the 'rational man' assumption implied here, the same assumption as built into Western mainstream thinking on government and commerce is unrealistic [indigenous anarchists assume non-rational participants, each differently shaped by their different life experiences].

in open forums, there are no inherent protections against the self-organizing of bully/crony groups that hijack a 'free and open forum' to launch hate attacks against others who are unlike them, ... in physical appearance, everyday habitual practices and/or or worldviews which shape such practices. in the case of colonization, the colonizers hijack open forums and preach hate against the indigenous peoples and other resistors who fall into the category "if they are not with us, they are against us".

the emergence of consensus is, at the same time, the developing of an atmosphere of repression of 'free thinking'.

the fact that corporate money and influence is NOT biasing the sort of consensus that develops within an 'ostensibly open' forum does not guarantee that a self-organizing concensus, based on some or other form of idiocy may not emerge and render the forum oppressive to all but the dominant crony/bully ways of thinking.

additionally, while you say that; - No one is being hurt by childish or troll comments, ... in general, ... we are experientially conditioned so that provocative utterances such as 'let's butt-fuck those bitches' or 'let's lynch those niggers' or 'let's fry those kikes' can elicit involuntary anger/distress in the manner that a child popping a party balloon can invoke emotional distress in a war veteran with PTSD, or hate-fuck threats can invoke emotional distress in a female who has experienced sexual abuse when growing up.

in other words, the notion that words do not 'in-themselves' do any harm is a philosophical premise based on the simple concept of humans as 'independent rational beings'. this is intellectual idealization that is not supported by the physical reality of our natural experience. our experience informs us that we all develop experiential conditioning [spring tensions] in diverse and various forms that can trigger 'spring actions'. in nonlinear physics this is called 'self-organized criticality'. such 'experiential conditioning' can be, and often is, exploited in forum discussions.

ideally, the participants in an 'open forum' will 'self-moderate' and this will be done with an ethic of protecting the various spring-loadings from experiential conditioning [one does not throw matches in a tinder-dry forest experientially conditioned by a long hot summer]. in an indigenous anarchist circle process, respectful listening is the ethic of this tradition. the group generally self-moderates but the circle-keeper is there to back this up in the event of failures and to throw it back onto the group to bring forth the needed self-moderating.

the circle-keeper's [moderator's] role in this case is not based on content but on discouraging hijacking, so that open expression/sharing can prevail.

people are not 'rational'. this is an intellectual idealization that flies in the face of the physical reality of our natural experience. forums designed for 'rational people' are not designed for 'the real world', but are instead the spawning ground for the construction of 'operative realities' based on intellectual idealization.

My position does not assume rational participants nor independence. People are both rational and irrational. My point was to appeal to the rational aspect of participants and remind them that in an anonymous forum, they don't need to identify with their own online personas to the point where they feel offended, since the very nature of anonymity often makes people express themselves more crudely and rudely.

Don't take the rhetoric too personally in an impersonal forum. Think of it more as like an exchange of graffiti rather than a genuine face to face conversation. We don't know each other at all, we are strangers to each other, and the internet can only facilitate estranged, virtual and impersonal conversations, not authentic personal ones. The people who don't realize this are the ones who end up getting their feelings hurt.

I'm saying its possible, and likely desirable, as a coping mechanism, to distance oneself from the emotional tones of another's rhetoric online. Certainly much easier to distance oneself than in face to face discussions. And with less potential for physical violence.

some people participate in forums anonymously or under pseudonyms because it gives them more freedom to express themselves in a manner more true to their natural personas and life experiences. anonymous participation is one way to 'become bulletproof', like employees working for large corporations who only start saying 'what they really think' when they become fully vested in their retirement and savings plans. prior to that point, they feel too vulnerable to openly say what they really think since identifying themselves as the author of such views is liable to prejudice the forward financial security of themselves and their dependents if not put them in jail.

what kind of understanding would come from dropping personal passion out of a discussion forum, if it could be done? ... 'rational' understanding?

in nature generally, conflict is the fuel of relational transformation (relational evolution). the problem in Western society is that the assumptions that have been 'built-in' are that individuals are 'independent' [inhabitants are independent of habitat] and that 'rationality' should prevail over intuition [intuitive savages are seen as lesser 'beings' than the walking-talking knowledge repositories constituted by Western civilized (rational and moral) people].

a different approach to forum sharing which respects individual experiences and the passion and emotions that arise from them is the 'circle process' which acknowledges real [misshapen-by-life etc.] people rather than asking the participants to divorce themselves from their real-life personas and play a game of generic intellectual idealization.

"Anonymous forums are not impersonal forums"

Um..yes they are.

"what kind of understanding would come from dropping personal passion out of a discussion forum"

I never suggested personal passion should be dropped. I said one should not take each other's rhetoric too personally and identify with one's own persona to the point where one is easily offended.

anonymity gives one the opportunity to say what one would like to say without repercussions from orthodox society. in our everyday not-anonymous lives, living in a society we don't believe in, to say what we really think can generate painful repercussions. anonymity shields us against such repercussions and thus allows us to liberate our pent-up desires in speaking out against the system.

so why not 'come from one's forcibly shut-in, but now-liberated persona [liberated by the mask of anonymity] and let pent-up emotions flow'?

you suggest, instead, 'emotional distancing';

"My point was to appeal to the rational aspect of participants and remind them that in an anonymous forum, they don't need to identify with their own online personas to the point where they feel offended, since the very nature of anonymity often makes people express themselves more crudely and rudely. ... I'm saying its possible, and likely desirable, as a coping mechanism, to distance oneself from the emotional tones of another's rhetoric online."

the only thing worse than not being able to openly share one's views because of having to pay the price of repercussions, is finding a repercussion-free way to share them [e.g. by joining a forum as an anonymous member] only to find out that everyone in the forum has gone comatose.

the circle process of indigenous anarchism, and its associated assumption of mutual, web-of-life interdependence [mitakuye oyasin, 'we are all related'] gives everyone the chance to share with one another their personal experiences and thereby release pent-up feelings rather than emotionally distancing themselves from one another. in order to do this one switches from one's 'head-voice' to one's 'heart-voice'.

the need is not 'emotional distancing' but 'emotional connecting'.

[the anonymity is not to hide 'who one really is' from one's brothers, it is to hide 'who one really is' [one's heretical and treasonous real-self] from regulatory authorities and from those intolerant of anarchist views.]

conclusion: in an open, NOT-anonymous forum anarchists cannot say what they think because of repercussions from employers, non-anarchist friends and family, regulatory authorities etc. in an open anonymous forum anarchists are free to say what they think and to discover who else has anarchist views and to get close and personal with one another [NOT to emotionally distance from one another].

holding on to one's eigene persona is not a problem if one acknowledges that we are all bound together in a common relational web-of-life [union in opposition]. it is the notion that we are 'independent beings' that leads to division and fracture.

nigga you gotta drop the habit of making essays. (「conclusion:」?!)

btw this reminds me of

while the inquiry into what goes wrong with anonymous forums at make sense, they do not tell 'the whole story'. as people of a poetic bent have observed, 'language' is inherently inadequate for conveying the physical reality of our natural experience, but language is a tool we can employ to gesture and prod so as to elicit in the listener their recollection of similar experience.

as Wittgenstein says in this regard, the listener can discard issues of linguistic and logical form and content as soon as [or 'if'] it teases out of them, 'understanding' that is coming from their own 'beyond-capture-in-language' natural experience.

communications of this type are beyond the form and content of gestures, signs, signifiers, logic of the excluded third, logic of the included third, various types of assumptions about the nature of space, matter, force, energy, life etc.

this anarchistnews forum is struggling with linguistic form and content issues, some being more concerned about 'form' and others being more concerned about 'content', while the issue of understanding one another is left flapping around like a loose mainsail sheet in a gale.

how about starting from 'authentic sharing of our experience' rather than pet intellectual theories and intellectual opinions? sure, i know from experience that the circle process where one shifts from head-voice to heart-voice and gets chance to share experience in an environment that respects others experience even when they do not agree with how those same people intellectually interpret what is going on, ... but circle processes and the beyond-good-and-evil restorative justice that associates with them are rare. internet forums are poor substitutes but internet forums allow one to discuss 'communications' and optional ways to develop shared understanding and they offer an instant global village forum.

there is a lot of good insight (though this is not the complete story) in Hiroyuki's observations;

As Hiroyuki, the administrator of 2ch, writes: ... If there is a user ID attached to a user, a discussion tends to become a criticizing game. On the other hand, under the anonymous system, even though your opinion/information is criticized, you don't know with whom to be upset. Also with a user ID, those who participate in the site for a long time tend to have authority, and it becomes difficult for a user to disagree with them. Under a perfectly anonymous system, you can say, "it's boring," if it is actually boring. All information is treated equally; only an accurate argument will work."

"accurate arguments" are intellectually idealized generalizations. there is no convergence between an 'accurate argument' and what people are actually experiencing. 'accurate arguments' are the currency of Western civilization which puts science, rationality and moral judgement of isolated actions into an unnatural precedence over the physical reality of our actual experience.

as a participant in this forum, i don't give a shit about form and comment of the commentary or the registered author, per se. however, having pseudonyms does allow the listener to tune into a 'leitmotif' of continuing relational context, and relational context can say a lot more than a single comment, whether it is from a 'Sir Einzige' or an 'Azano'. a Beethoven symphony can take you through many ups and downs and sideways dimensions in delivering a coherent unum. after being provoked and reassured many times, one can start to put the relational context or 'leitmotif' back into each single comment to give it the greater depth of meaning that one knows the person behind the pseudonym intends. in the case of the purely anonymous commenters, this is not possible, thus as Hiroyuki points out, the value of the comment is narrowed down to the logical integrity of the individual comment as a stand-alone unit in itself. if this is all there is, the entire communications process is reduced to a dependency on atoms of logic or isolated 'facts' that cannot possibly capture the physical reality of our natural experience.

“How false is the supposition that an action must depend upon what has preceded it in consciousness ! And morality has been measured in the light of this supposition, as also criminality. . . . The value of an action must be judged by its results, say the utilitarians: to measure it according to its origin involves the impossibility of knowing that origin. But do we know its results ? Five stages ahead, perhaps. Who can tell what an action provokes and sets in motion ? As a stimulus ? As the spark which fires a powder-magazine ? Utilitarians are simpletons —“
“The re-establishment of “Nature”: an action in itself is quite devoid of value ; the whole question is this: who performed it? One and the same ” crime ” may, in one case, be the greatest privilege, in the other infamy. As a matter of fact, it is the selfishness of the judges which interprets an action (in regard to its author) according as to whether it was useful or harmful to themselves (or in relation to its degree of likeness or unlikeness to them).”— Nietzsche on ‘Morality’ and ‘Herd Behaviour’ in ‘The Will to Power’

ok, this here comment is another 'essay' which you are objecting to. it is long because i am not only commenting on the explicit material you presented, which is on a web-page that others may never read (and therefore miss your point), but i am also commenting on the whys and wherefore's of the incompleteness of the 2ch forum analysis.

would you prefer that i did not read and comment on the website you cited, and simply argue against, or ignore your critique about 'the form' of my comments? or were you just 'trolling me', knowing that to properly listen to and address the points made in your very brief comment (made more compact by referring to a website rather than actually including citations from the website).

to respectfully listen and respond to YOUR comment requires many more words than you put out, and this is typical. 'what is the meaning of life?' is a short question, ... 'when did you stop beating your wife' is a short question. a shorter answer to your question would have been 'fuck you, shit-for-brains'. that is not my ethic. there are those who will 'talk to the devil' (like mandela) and there are others who absolutely refuse to talk to the Viet Cong, the Taliban or Al Qaida etc. until that policy delivers more young men's corpses than parents can tolerate.

the question is whether we want to manage on the basis of hearing out and responding to actual experience or letting our views and behaviours be shaped on the basis of intellectual idealizations.

I'm commenting on behalf of my friend Post-Biceps because his comments on this thread are being deleted. He's not the nasty troll person he is made out to be, he's actually a genuine anarch, with a droll sense of humor, that's all, really!

Other people in this thread have made agreeable assertions. For instance, begging moderators to delete comments you find offensive. It's one thing to add to your response that you find their use of an offensive word childish or disagreeable, and another to desire or demand the eradication of any touch of what any given person considers to be offensive. I'm just as likely to read a comment that I would potentially remove regardless of someone pulling at my shirt like a kindergartener letting me know someone is calling them names. Your posts are just as and often more derailing than having to bite the bullet through the occasional "retard". I'm sure your team already agrees that the language is offensive and can judge for themselves that the offensive person is an asshole without you pointing it out. Pointing fingers online is not equivalent to standing up for someone being bullied in meatspace…

Personal attacks are increasingly annoying. This extends to attacking the person incessantly for their supposed belief profile. If someone is saying something you think is contrary to anarchist ideas or thought, then fire at their actual position rather than shooting over their head and arguments. Hopefully you are arguing with the good faith that the opposition may actually be sympathetic to or even agree with your views or argument, as opposed to forcefully disagreeing in such a way that the other person is pushed into an inescapable hole and deemed excommunicated from anarchist discourse. As Dot pointed out, this doesn't mean you have to be polite.. The comments that hit the hardest IMO are ones that are tactfully honest in their critique--such that they can be easily sympathized with by the audience, who can potentially become quicker to acknowledge their supposed errs or whatever. Telling them you think they are scum and that anything they say is bullshit by association makes it difficult to imagine what you expect their reaction to be other than total rejection of your position and business-as-usual.

If you're throwing in social elements like trying to belittle someone by telling them you think they're a fucking idiot or what-have-you, it seems revealing of the nature of your intent, which at that point appears social rather than political. It's unfortunate that some folks seem intent on engaging with these comment sections as a form of social media in that sense, plenty of trolling to be had on facebook and the like.. This also makes moderating difficult because I have to comb through posts that often more blatantly displays shit-talking than the argument or statement buried deeper or cryptically within the post. Sarcasm is not appreciated for this reason, so don't be surprised if an overly or ambiguously-sarcastic attack was removed because your critical message didn't shine through the insulting nature of the post.

I like seeing oppositional arguments because I like to know where the differences lie, and appreciate @news as a venue to confront or engage with these differences. I much prefer to grow, change and develop my engagement with these concepts, and an alternative position can be adopted or rejected, thus reasserting your position. To those who are too concerned about being trolled to post their essay, why the lack of confidence in asserting yourself? Are you worried that other readers aren't astute enough to agree with you over other arguments? I would tend to think that the issue is the weakness of your argument or the presentation thereof, and not the weakness inherent in a system that allows open discourse. Sir Einzige’s opinions don’t taint all the comments around them, which is the beauty of being able to easily assert your counter-opinion.

More feelings and thoughts, but these are a few to start…

a great job! I need no further restrictions
as to length of a Post, the nature of content,
or issues of civility.
"If it ain't broke don't fix it".
This site is not broke and certainly does not need any "fix-in".
I love this site!

I want to officially throw my hat in the ring for a that there simply should be no comments. Not better moderation, or banning; just no comments. It's not that this form of counter-revolutionary, snitchy, and straight up racist "communication" should be restricted; it should've never existed in the first place.

Healthy communication cannot exist without some sort of buy-in, stakes, and accountability on the part of people communicating. Where none of those exist, we find shit like ANews. I refuse to post things here because of the responses I know it will garner. This is not uncommon. Who knows how many potential comrades have stumbled across the site only to conclude that anarchists are the worst fucking people on the internet.

If people really, really need to get their rocks off, take it to Reddit, where all the other sad alienated anarchists spew their garbage.

To be honest, actually meeting anarchists did much more to quash my fervor than anything I'd ever seen online.

Hey, I just joined the group after reading the site for awhile. Some of the articles are good, some I disagree with. Most of the comments seem to involve trashing the person who had the gonads to write the article and to actually sign his name. Having just read the above, apparently the preference is for anonymous posters. Since I'm not one, and since I'm not a member of the anonymous organization, maybe it would be best just to delete my account and move on. I'm cleaning house on social media sites anyway, and can't find the "delete my account" button on the site. It looks to me, and I'm an old cantankerous guy myself, is that the problem the anonymous format causes, is that it lets people spew all sorts of garbage that they wouldn't ordinarily say if the comment can be traced back to them. Since anonymity is preferred, let me know how to close my account (or do it on your end) and I'll just scan the articles the same way I've been doing. Thanks.

I just read Squee's comment above, which I appreciated. Especially the part about this site being something of a reflection of the annoying shit of being an anarchist.

So, talking about Sir Einzige specifically - and I think it's fairly obvious that I'm of the anti-SE camp, which is an at least SIZEABLE camp - I guess I don't see this particular person and related commentary as indicative of what is usually annoying about being an anarchist. Like, when I am in an anarchist space (and, of course, a website is not actually a space, but let's analogize it as such anyways), there are all sorts of annoying things that may happen, conversation topics that may come up, etc., but I probably won't have to deal with, say, anyone calling Mike Brown a thug.

In terms of anarchist meatspace, there are lots of weird ideas I encounter. I run in a number of circles. I feel like I have to deal with all the tendencies. But I never have to deal with, say, the absurdities of anarchocapitalists or National-Anarchists. Because those people don't exist in (my) anarchist meatspace.

This is perhaps just what I'm used to. I once went to Amsterdam and ended up socializing with people at some anarchist squat bar, and I encountered no less than three explicit pacifists. We don't have pacifists in anarchist spaces in Montréal! Pacifists hang out elsewhere, and wouldn't be welcome if they tried to hang out with us. But they were apparently welcome enough in anarchist spaces in Amsterdam.

Maybe in the Bay Area, you have, well, Einzige and others like him?

But I doubt that, actually. Like, I think Einzige is fairly unique in his position. And fairly uninvolved in anarchy as a result. There's a lot of assumptions there, obviously, but they are based off his internet persona. Add to the fact that, like, he is exceptionally obnoxious, and sometimes repulsive, in how he expresses himself.

And this makes me think that, as a place that new-to-anarchy people might stumble upon, it's not ideal to have this person around. Because he's qualitatively worse than a lot of the more amusing post-left types that used to post shit here.

But it really depends on what this website is supposed to be.

You'd be wrong-ish. While Sir Einzige is unique, as such, there are plenty of things we might call their kin in the Bay.

"I once went to Amsterdam and ended up socializing with people at some anarchist squat bar, and I encountered no less than three explicit pacifists. We don't have pacifists in anarchist spaces in Montréal!"

No pacifist in Montréal anarchist meat spaces? Hums... well that depends on your definition of pacifists. I've known a great many so-called anarchists in Montreal who just stay enclosed in their private apartments and only get out for street demos or graffiti and stuff. But don't tell me about all the superawesome guerilla warfare led by the unstoppable, all-encompassing Wobblies and their hordes of chicks with guns, anarcho-terrorists and Queer Rambos, blasting them pigs and bankers! They're always so busy wi workplace organizing, makin' their troops work always more, and making it all so much more an object of pride and enjoyment... within a social factory of totalitarianism.

Also, LOLs about Amsterdam. Indeed a huge meat space... but for rather privileged Left liberals and the usual Dutch hippies hanging out in the remaining LEGAL squats. Also mafias and stuff but they're another story.

the lengthiness of my (emile’s) comments derives largely from having to re-establish, each time i make a comment, a non-dualist platform for my comments, since the standard foundations of noun-and-verb language-and-grammar are dualist.

since the standard platform for comments is ‘dualism’, non-dualist comments tend to be [in most mainstream media forums] summarily dismissed or filtered out by ‘standard filtering procedures’.

there is no requirement that an ‘open forum’ should be ‘open to non-dualist comments’, so there is no requirement that forum facilities should be provided for the ‘foundational switch’ that is needed for sharing non-dualist comments (just like there is no requirement for ramps for wheel-based movement in venues where the vast majority of movement is by pedestrian motility.

meanwhile, if an open forum were to consciously accommodate non-dualist commentary, ... the forum could provide a non-dualist translation table accessible by putting asterisks or flags on words or phrases that needed to be replaced with non-dualist interpretations. this would allow non-dualist commentators to avoid having to repeatedly ‘deconstruct’ and ‘re-contextualize’ on a case-by-case basis.

non-dualism is not something that emile invented, it is well-known, but not part of mainstream cultural discourse. it is described in the mathematics of physics in terms of viewing the same physical phenomena via ‘non-euclidian’ space (relational space).

non-euclidian space is where relations are in precedence over things so that it is not meaningful to speak in terms of ‘the movements of things’ or ‘the actions of things’. if something moves, the relational matrix it is included in, transforms, and the notion of ‘some thing moving’ has no meaning; e.g. ‘the earth rotates’ has no meaning [Poincaré], since the only possible physical phenomenon is relational transforming [one cannot step twice into the same river because it is not the same river and the person stepping into it is not the same person].

the intellectual idealizations that we develop from subject-verb-predicate constructs, taken in themselves, have no meaning. as Derrida notes, ‘there is nothing outside of [relational] context’. Nietzsche makes the same point; i.e. ‘an action in itself has no meaning’ yet our standard practice of employing noun-and-verb language-and-grammar constructs RE-PRESENTS physical phenomena in terms of ‘actions’; i.e. in terms of ‘independent things’ and ‘what these independent things do’. this gives a reduced, one-sided all-hitting, no-fielding view of relational dynamics that are inherently unitary/circular as in ‘hitting-fielding’ [unity-in-opposition]. The relational form in the relational field is a ‘pull-apart’ feature wherein outside-inward orchestrating spring-tension influence and inside-outward asserting spring-action are in sustained conjugate resonance, the persistence of which earns it the noun-subject status ‘matter’.

in the non-dualist paradigm, words and phrases delivered in the standard, one-sided, predicative logical form can no longer be taken literally. this rules out all one-sided use of binary concepts including ‘truth’ and ‘falsehood’ [also not allowed are ‘good’ and ‘evil’, ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, ‘offender’ and ‘victim’, ‘guilty’ and ‘innocent’ etc.

ok, this is enough to make the point. if the forum wants to be open enough to include non-dualist commentary, such commentary could be ‘streamlined’ by having an online accessible lookup table for flagged words and phrases warning the reader NOT to apply the standard dualist interpretations to them, but to instead look up, and apply the non-dualist interpretations. this is akin to Bohm’s architecting of a flow-based language to capture non-dualist understanding wherein, for example, nouns such as ‘man’ are expressed as verbs [‘mannings’] to remind the reader that a ‘local system’ is a ‘local activity’ within a nonlocal relational activity continuum (relational suprasystem).

if it helps, and so long as anarchistnews allows non-dualist commentaries, i can put at the beginning of every comment i make; *Non-Dualist-Commentary*, to warn the reader that there may be a good bit of deconstruction and re-contextualizing, as is essential in sharing non-dualist understanding.

Add your *Non-Dualist-Commentary* flag here and make it permanent, then hyperlink to it every time you post.

sorry, emile, but i have to disagree. your posts are ultra-verbose and academic in tone, but the main points could usually be made in a couple brief paragraphs. you insist on not only recreating your "context" every time, but also on frequently quoting waaaay too many references to the thoughts/writings of others - along with your own comments on what they have said/written. you appear to be, simply put, one of those people that loves to hear themselves talk. if you want folks to actually read what you write (with any interest), perhaps you should consider limiting your comments to 500-1000 words or so. even if that limit is not enforced, you would be well served by spending the time to condense your thoughts to an easily digestible size. save your book length pontifications for a more appropriate medium. comments are meant to be quick and to the point. yours are typically neither.

the critiques of the commentaries of sir einzige, myself and others that have been singled out, imply that the authors of the critiques 'know what commentary is of worth or non-worth' when they see it.

some of us see ourselves on a learning journey that does not lead towards a condition of complete and final understanding. in fact, as we all learn we all transform the relational social dynamics we are included in, changing the relational-social situation that we must navigate within and thus giving rise to a need for continuing learning [new understanding requirements].

this problem has been recognized in modern [uncertainty-principle addressing] communications theory. in classical communications theory, the meaning was assumed to reside in the signal content and thus to be shared by transmission of content which could be intercepted by a receiver who could use it to update his content archive [knowledge archive]. in order to get to finer and finer detail on the way towards complete knowledge, one had to develop ever more discriminating procedures to remove 'noise' from the 'signal content'. the problem with this classical communications theory was that the receiver of the signal has to know-in-advance what is signal and what is noise in order to institute procedures to differentiate and filter out 'noise' [unwanted signal that does not contribute to growth of meaningful knowledge] so as to allow a continual refining of 'content' ['desired signal'] with the aim of improving our knowledge.

the stewards in charge of noise discrimination and removal, meanwhile, cannot possible know everything that is meaningful 'in advance', therefore the learning system is prone to having its growth stunted by the limited understanding of the noise-filtering stewards. these stewards generally 'run for election' by rallying a supporting cabal to help them hone and sustain their stewardship powers and in this process gathering about them a like-minded group so that discriminating between what is and is not meaningful comes about by socio-political concensus.

the compulsory, backed-by-legal regulation filtering of signal that the stewards judge to be without merit/value [e.g. 'heresies'], because of the need to 'know-in-advance', can only be done by the principle of Lafontaine "La raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure" (the reasoning of the most powerful is always the best).

modern communications theory does not require an explicit judgement as to what is meritorious signal and what is not; i.e. the modern theory of communications of dennis gabor (nobel prize for holography) does not depend on explicit content and signal/noise discrimination but extracts meaning from coherence in the relational interference (relational confluence) of multiple signals (multiple views/perspectives).

the problem with classical communications and using socio-political collaborator-based stewardship cabals to discriminate between worthwhile signal content and worthless noise, otherwise known as representative democracy, leads to the chronic and pervasive problem that the stewarding cabal becomes the sole-source of candidates for the top signal/noise discriminating judges, which leads to a noise-discriminating communications media that incestuously stunts the development of understanding.

this has already happened in mainstream Western society so it should come as no surprise that it is, ironically, a knee-jerk echo within alternative communications forums that are seeking to break out of the understanding-stunting constraints of mainstream media, which are likewise based on classical communications theory [signal and noise discrimination and noise removal techniques].

(same poster as above)

emile, you have just proven my point beyond any doubt. that response (comment) was long-winded and strayed all over the place. modern communications theory, signal-to-noise crap, lafontaine, democracy, ... come on. are you really that incapable of a simple, concise, on-point response?

but for the record, i agree with the contingent that argues for no censorship. as has been said, an open forum - with no requirements for registration or anything else - will always have a shitload of "noise", including some that will be offensive to someone or other. so the fuck what? like worker said, nobody is forcing anyone to read (or respond to) anything. that is why i almost always skip emile's posts.

and i just saw this, one of the best critiques i have seen on emile's writing (from

Emile lives in a labyrinthine ivory tower built out of word and concept bricks. His eyes are covered in construct-cobwebs through which he peers at life. His endless tortuous yin-yang-taoist terminology merely shows he has no ideas – ideas have him. The kind of person who, no matter what the conversation, will turn it all into his own particular frozen fixed focus: “The problem with the Ukraine is that they have asserted the yang and forgotten the yin”, “I love the way you’ve re-arranged the furniture in your living room to accentuate the yin”, “There’s really far too much yang in Harry Potter/ this chicken curry / my underpants”, etc Language for him is not a way to communicate a radical critique and subvert some aspect of reality but a wall of pretentious “ideas” to hide himself from this reality and give him a notion of superior “radical” intellect unlike those who couldn’t make head or tail of his scribble. In the narcissistic form of the spectacle of “intelligence”, writing is a flattering magic mirror that makes you think you look good, even if no-one else thinks you do.

i think that critique fucking ROCKS!

This thing attarcts 117 comments -- and probably five more before I finish typing this -- and the most recent non-riot-porn thing has about Greece attracts a whopping four comments.

A-political subculture duds of the world, unite!

Here are some observances made during that past 48 hours and some ideas being bandied about by the ICTOA (informal committee to operate

1) The idea of a "topic of the week" is a good one and will continue.
2) The distinction made between a forum and a article thread is a good one that we will try to flesh out. First pass: A forum will be lightly moderated (only safety and prisoner moderation) while the articles will be more-so.
3) The URL for the forums is here Obviously there is little setup here. Before we properly launch we'd like some thoughts from you all. What top level categories should be here? We don't want to organize this along classic "action vs ideas" lines but what other top level categories make sense to appeal to the different audiences there are for certain topics?
4) I use almost exclusively to interact with the site.
5) I agree with the argumentation that the most difficult comments to moderate don't come from the hostile jerks but those who hijack through their constant, good faith, efforts to impact the larger anarchist conversation.
6) I am going to unsticky this post as I think the main useful points have been made (and were made in the first 24 hours tbh) but please post about your thoughts about forum organization.

Not sure why you don't want to organize along classic 'action vs ideas' categories. That seems like a natural delineation area to start. Also not sure why you'd want to moderate the formal discussion forum LESS than the article comments?. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Anyway, I think you should consolidate the article section into the discussion forum (since comments are a type of discussion) and make it one coherent site.

Category suggestions:

(discuss / comment on articles posted on @news).

Anarchist General Discussion / Theory
(discuss anarchist philosophy and tendencies).

Possibly sub-divide into various schools of thought i.e. insurrectionism, anarcho-syndicalism, egoism, green anarchy, left/post-left, etc. OR subdivide by subject matter i.e. Workplace, science & technology, ecology, social relations, prisons, gender and sexuality, morality, geo-political issues, etc.

Possibly have sections for North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, etc.?

Anarchist History
(discuss historical anarchist movements, people, events and ideas)

Local Community Anarchy
(discuss squatting; setting up and running infoshops, gatherings, bookstores, workshops, events; workplace struggles; communal living projects; consensus decision-making problems, etc)

Events and Announcements
(post your protest, event, etc)

Anarchist Security
(discuss best practices for maintaining security culture, how to spot and deal with snitches, securing your computer, surveillance avoidance, etc.)

Books and Reviews
(discuss anarchist and non-anarchist books, post reviews)

Cinema and Media
(discuss anarchist and non-anarchist cinema movies, documentaries, videos, etc)

(discuss anarchist and non-anarchist bands, punk, your own music projects, etc)

Off Topic General Discussion
(anything non-anarchist related)

Don't add a bunch of topic containers! That is a horrible idea and it always kills discussion. What really happens is one forum is used while the others are bullshit that gets one post every few months that nobody reads.


- General Discussion
- Local Things
- Multi-media
- Feedback

and I know drupal forums suck bad, but if the page could be dominated by just three containers instead of looking all empty. There just isn't enough commenting here to justify more than a few topics.

There are lots of comments here, and there would be even more if there was an actual formal discussion forum instead of simple HTML comments underneath articles.

Having several "topic containers' (is that web design jargon?) ensures more focused discussion and avoids 103 page long threads that have nothing to do with the thread topic. The last thing we want is emile posting 60,000 word essays on spatial plenums on a thread someone started about Greek debt.

And as more people join the forums, those "empty" topic containers will fill up fast.

Forums have been done many times. You don't know what you are talking about. Why haven't they been used now? They've been active for quite a while, just have to be a registered user to post a topic, but anyone can comment.

Anyways, all I see is failed topic containers on most sites with one or two with real conversations. Revleft and Libcom are exceptions to this rule and good for them, but I hate the fuck out of their politics. They just have interest and participation. We don't have tons of history nerds, theory nerds, academic nerds, assholes that write books, assholes in political organizations, dickheads that think their ideology is the one true way, people that just left some dumb position to find another dumb position and want to learn more, etc.

If we are talking about a very serious forum, one that appeal to all of us, it would have to be separate from this site, though associated. It would have to include a compromise between Crimethinc, AJODA, Free Radical Radio, Anarchy Radio, the Final Straw, Little Black Cart, Black and Green Review and AnokChan. If we want something that appeals to a broad audience that is specific at the same time, maybe we can start here? If our media supports a forum that communicates around their ideas and themes surrounding their ideas, as well as make space for groups to talk about local stuff and so on. There really could be something here, but it shouldn't be "Anarchist News" it should be a larger collaboration, one that the authors feel comfortable in as well as those active that participate around their ideas. Maybe that should be what is going on?

Consider using an amezou-style software like kareha, weabot or tinyib (which has been sucessfully used in textboards).

I don't know if the ICTOA sees any advantages in using tree-structured drupal (or whatever), but you can only reply to one post at a time, you might have to re-scan a thread to find new replies, and even though it internally keeps post numbers it doesn't makes them available. Also, it looks like shit.

I get that Emile's style of communicating and subject matter is entirely unappealing to a lot of people(including me), but his posts are immediately apparent within the first couple sentences or by sheer length alone - therefore easy to avoid. And fuck, if you're ever feeling inspired enough and up the challenge he actually has some pretty informative and thought provoking points to offer.

And I seriously don't understand the amount of hate and non sequiturs SE gets. To me he just comes off as a primarily egoist, jaded anarcho homie. Hardly shocking when it comes to this community. I'm an unrepentant Kropotkin loving anarcho-commie, but even I've internalized a ton of Stirner, Nietzsche, Novatore, etc. which I've always assumed was standard fare for the would be anarchist of 2015. Perhaps I've just been in a bubble?

I agree with you, some interesting stuff from both these writers, and some homestun humor also, you should internalize some Woolf or Poincare, they make good observations relevent to the anarch discourse.

The problem with emile is communicating with them and you probably don't have a problem with them replying, which usually kills the topic unless emile is your interested partner in discussion. I've long time ago gave up discussing anything with emile and they know it. They are obnoxious and put way too much power into language, like most leftists.

Sir Einzige's problem is he needs to shut the fuck up because he's not an anarchist and derails anarchist threads for his soapbox attempt at conversion praxis. He's a fuck scumbag molester of anarchist minds and definitely not helpful to have around. He's the lowest of the low, like how ancaps like to hang out and write their narrative of every story, except instead of going for money, he's going for fascist enclaves organized based off of bioregion. Because he's not critical of populist cultural norms, social castes, based loosely on race, ethnicity or conquered/refugee status will become more prevalent. Think about ISIS. To Sir Einzige, ISIS might be a problem, but if the tribes that support ISIS decided to go with bioregional zones, they'd be able to still impose their values on the people, including the persecution of minorities, which would include an obvious discrimination on already historically persecuted peoples: Jews, Kurds, Rom, Christians, homosexuals, women, children and so on. Sir Einzige is perfectly fine with this scenario as long as it rejects the vision of progress and commodity production. He is part of the last line of patriarchy, attempting to create a vision of a society for abusive authoritarian fathers to run their families as "king of the house". He is for raw patriarchy. Fuck him.

agree with your assessment of emile.

but your assessment of se doesn't make any sense at all if you have read what they write (and place each comment in context). for sure sometimes they come off as an ass, usually when being sarcastic. and i surely don't agree with their entire perspective. but (in the post above) you just come off as an ideological anti-individualist, attacking a perspective you disagree with, with baseless bullshit. your critique (as expressed above) is shallow and useless.

"They ... put way too much power into language, like most leftists."

excellent point. i wonder what the grammar nazis have to say about that...? lingering marxist intellectualism/elitism?

i readily accept that 'non-dualist discourse' appears to those accustomed to Western civilization 'dualist discourse' standards, like a shit burrito on a lunch menu. 'appears' is the key word

why is this?

it is because the Western civilization standard discourse is one-sided all-hitting [genetic intention-driven], no fielding [no situational need induced] intellectual construction.

the natural sourcing influence of situational need is replaced by the utterer's own need; i.e. genetic design takes over as the driving force, from situational need (relational contextual need). this is like imposing one's theory to fill the 'hole' or 'question' that is being discussed in a forum.

this is 'dualism' in action; i.e. the intellect break inquiry into two separate pieces; 'question' and 'answer' and the language game then becomes one of 'filling the hole' aka 'question' with an 'answer' that satisfies the 'question'.

in 'non-dualism', it is impossible to split inquiry into these two separate parts. this is Vygotsky's point about concept formation being one dynamic incorporting conjugate aspects; situational need which he terms spontaneous concept formation and structured or scientific concept formation. the former is primary, the latter secondary, and both are conjugate aspects of a continuing relational dynamic. that is, the concept formation is an ongoing relational dynamic punctuated by words.

this inherent relational looseness, to people who put primary value on precise logical constructions is 'the shit burrito'.

additional views into this difference of non-dualism as compared with dualism can be found in the following aphorisms;

1. situational need is the mother of genetic intention [necessity is the mother of invention].

2. "For the crystalline purity of logic was, of course, not a result of investigation: it was a requirement. … The preconceived idea of crystalline purity can only be removed by turning our whole examination around. (One might say: the axis of reference of our examination must be rotated, but about the fixed point of our real need.)” – Wittgenstein, ‘Philosophical Investigations’, 107-108

3. "[In nature]… “the individual parts reciprocally determine one another.” … “The properties of one mass always include relations to other masses,” … “Every single body of the Universe stands in some definite relations with every other body in the Universe.” Therefore, no object can “be regarded as wholly isolated.” And even in the simplest case, “the neglecting of the rest of the world is impossible.” – Ernst Mach

* * *

ok, non-dualism versus dualism shows up not only in physical dynamics but also in the dynamics of linguistic discourse. as Wittgenstein points out, the primary authoring source in non-dualism is 'epigenetic influence' or 'situational need' which is the mother of genetic invention.

Western civilization has popularized a shift away from the inductive pull of situational need, and re-oriented to intentional genesis driven by an Intender or 'Intelligent Designer' like a God that resides in the human 'being' or is his personal advisor. These plans keep getting trumped by the 'changing situational need'.

4. "Life is what happens to us while we are busy making other plans" -- John Lennon

5. "I don’t give a damn about what anything was DESIGNED for, all I care about is what it is CAPABLE of." -- Apollo 13 mission leader to Grumman rocket engineer who was whining about having to fire the lunar module's rockets in open space when the system was designed for operation in the moon's gravity field

* * *

i.e. non-dualism acknowledges that situational need is the NATURAL mother of intention-driven genesis. Or, as Mach puts it;

"the dynamics of the inhabitants [intention-driven genesis] are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat [modifying situational need] at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants" -- Mach's principle

Mach's principle is non-dualist as were Vygotsky's and Wittgenstein's; i.e. 'question' and 'answer' are not two separate things but one continually transforming relational unum. Therefore the crystalline purity of our intellectual propositions is 'not it'. it is like 'hitting' out of the context of 'fielding' as Stephen Jay Gould pointed out in his argument against Darwinism's one-sided view of evolution in all-hitting, no-fielding terms [reproduction with random chance variation which ignores the natural primacy of situational (relational) need (inductive influence).

people who let themselves and/or their discourse be shaped by situational need FIRST and their own local intentions only secondarily, become leaders defined by the relational social dynamics they are included in (e.g. Nelson Mandela in his early phase). such leaders are very different than those who feel they are ordained by God or some divine powers they feel reside within them [aka 'ego'] to engineer an intentional genetic development according to some divine intelligent design or crystal-pure logical theory, ... and screw the inductive pull of situational need.

these same dualist and non-dualist views appear in the evolution of discourse within a forum discussion.

Looks like John Zerzan is against anonymity and wants everyone on @news to use their real names and expose themselves to authority, doxing, loss of jobs, apartments, etc.

Discussion about @news at 10:30

On the forum thing

-comments on articles inspire more vitriol because there is some sort of urgency to 'win' them because it influences how people engage with the article above. Since posts on here often involve people who comment personally, there are usually people who are personally hurt when someone like sir ziggy comes and dumps a bunch of scorn on it. I don't think a lot of the more heated conversations that happen in the comments would happen in the forums

-Which is probably a good thing, especially if there is some ability to move threads from the comments to the forums, instead of just deleting them. It could leave a little "moved to forums" message behind, and people who want to argue can redirect there.