Why I should be banned

32 posts / 0 new
Last post
Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Jan 16 2013 15:07
Why I should be banned

Although - apart from today - I've not posted here since November 2011, I should be definitively banned, drawn and quartered. And buried in an unmarked grave.

Why?
Well, certainly not for "Cop-out - the significance of Aufhebengate", with its elaboration of a critique of the history of policing, the current use of soft cop techniques, its analysis of some of the contradictions of academia, of pseudo-revolutionary politics, of friendship in this epoch and of other things that arose out of the Aufhebengate scandal.

No. I should be banned for having pressed the report button 15 times in November 2011. For some unknown reason, Libcom admin said it was "lines" that had done this. And gave that as a reason to ban him. Amazing that such brilliant technonerds could apparently get that wrong - seemingly, they didn't even find a way to check. I told "lines" shortly after it had happened, and he just found it funny, and hasn't been too bothered about being unbanned. But he said now that he'd like to put a few things he was involved in some time ago in the library. So I am forced to confess the excommunicateable sin of pressing the report button so many times, because I took literally admin's statement that if you don't like something, report it. Of course, on libcom this would have been an almost endless task, so I settled for just 15 posts.

So there it is - parting is such sweet sorrow...

lots of love and kisses -

Sam

Wiggleston's picture
Wiggleston
Offline
Joined: 8-10-12
Jan 16 2013 15:49

Ok, so I have been following the other thread and not posting, because to be honest...I have no idea what the hell is going on. I don't like the idea that the things about JD are true and I think it is pretty unforgivable. Yeah, some people have been arsey about it, from both sides. But this post? Really?
Get the fuck over yourself

the button's picture
the button
Offline
Joined: 7-07-04
Jan 16 2013 16:29

Samotnaf, earlier

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Jan 17 2013 06:52

Definitely last post on Libcon:

There seems to be a slight misunderstanding from Wiggleston and the button (in the case of the button, misunderstanding is all s/he ever does).

I really don't give a fuck about libcom - of the attitude of admin towards me. I merely put this up to show that lines, despite the fact that I disagree with many of the things he says, should not be "punished" for something I did.

Croy's picture
Croy
Offline
Joined: 26-05-11
Jan 17 2013 23:23

No one really cares. Rantings of a martyr.

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Jan 18 2013 02:06

While I still haven't made my mind up on #Aufhebengate this is clearly just self aggrandisement. If it wasn't, why has it taken you so long to 'reveal' why lines was banned (november 2011, that is over a year ago). I want to see something fruitful come out of this, but this OP does not help one iota (or maybe it does help? I dunno, you tell me eek ).

Harrison
Offline
Joined: 16-11-10
Jan 18 2013 16:55
Samotnaf wrote:
Libcon

$amotnaf

To be honest, i think you've done more damage to any serious consideration of the aufheben thing, through your strange 'exposure' tactics that basically involves posting massive polemics on the internet that waffle on about conspiracies and somehow include lots of theory and nebulous integration of your other personal bug-bears with the milieu.

Tim Finnegan's picture
Tim Finnegan
Offline
Joined: 16-05-12
Jan 19 2013 03:17

Well, you would say that, because you're secretly a Jesuit Freemason sent by the financial Jew-lizards to put fluoride in Kennedy's fillings on the moon. Bastard that ye are.

Harrison
Offline
Joined: 16-11-10
Jan 19 2013 03:30

fuck i've been totally exposed

better go beat up some dolphins to escape getting electrocuted by Tommy Ascaso again

Baderneiro Miseravel
Offline
Joined: 11-12-09
Jan 19 2013 10:37

Guys, there is no martyrdom or conspiracy theory or anything in the post, this isn't even (mostly) about the supposed "aufhebengate", only insofar as there were users banned in that time. It's just a request to unban a fellow since it was actually samotnaf who did the thing the fellow supposedly did, now that the fellow wants to add things to the library. And then he explains what is it exactly he did and why to make the affirmation sound credible.

There really was a pretty ridiclous banning streak at the time, all with the same excuse of "trolling".

On the sideline, I don't see "conspiracy theories" on Sam's texts of 'exposure'. He draws theoretical conclusions from the facts he perceives, aka. cop collaboration (even if 'soft') from academic texts, or pseudo revolutionarism due to tolerance of leftists like Paul Mason in the bookfair. There is no "conspiracy to tolerate leftists" or "to be pseudo-revolutionary", it's simply an interpretation of things that he saw you can either agree or disagree with and draw practical conclusions or not. Or you can say there are no facts at all and that it's all delusional, but that is not a good way to have discussions, since all ideological elements arise out of somewhere, not just out of someone's heads but out of their practical lives and their connections with the rest of the world.

Also, this up and down thing is really shit for a discussion forum. If you don't like something or like it (and what does that even mean? "hah, that was funny?" "I agree?"), why won't you just fucking say what it is instead of clicking a buttom on the left side and start a popularity contest?

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Jan 19 2013 10:56

Okay fine. to elaborate, I disagree but can't be arsed to spend however many minutes it would take to explain, for you to reply, for me to elaborate, for you to elaborate, for it to degenerate into circular arguments, for a realisation to dawn that actually we've both already made our minds up (because this debate has already been had several times and there's little to no new information involved) and for the thread to tail off in an unsatisfactory manner.

Or I can click "down" and we can avoid that whole shebang while still allowing you to be aware that your view isn't convincing some people.

Baderneiro Miseravel
Offline
Joined: 11-12-09
Jan 19 2013 11:54

About the JD case it may well be that we've made our minds up, but it is not what I was talking about, it was rather more generic than that. It was a point about "conspiracy theories".

There is a very interesting book written by João Bernardo, called "Marx Crítico de Marx", in which he says something a bit obvious and clever at same time. That on the terrain of ideology, antagonistic positions can't really change each other, they can only affirm themselves in face of the rival ideology. That is because there is a terrain practical antagonism beneath the structure of ideas and it is in that terrain only that this 'ideological conflict' can be solved. Of couse, he is talking about the fundamental antagonism of proletarians and the capitalists (technocrats and bourgeouis). The only influence one pole can have over the other is an intensification of their own affirmation. That, in my opinion, is the basis for the 'circular arguments' you talk about. That is because ideological "camps", so to speak, carry their own truth, they are self-referential.

On the other hand, on a proletarian terrain, there is the possibility of other types of altering influences, of genuine dialogue that changes and strenghtens both parties. That is because practically there is a shared basis of perspectives, common experiences and the necessity for this mutual influence and solidarity to be for revolution to ever be possible. That is partly why I bothered to write why I thought some posters were wrong to call Samotnaf what they were calling. I thought it was better than just clicking "down" on their posts, because it'd actually open possibilities instead of closing them down.

If you think it's a closed possibility, might as well be, I could be wrong and this might mean there is actually a fundamental antagonism at work here. I am not sure yet though, so I'll keep participating.

And it really is useless for me. I do not write, at least not here, to convince people or win a contest of popularity. I write to try to be part of a dialogue and develop my thoughts as I do so. Might as well try in other threads, I guess.

Clifford Stott
Offline
Joined: 19-01-13
Jan 19 2013 12:04

The libcon cabal's refusal to ban Samotnaf is just further proof of how influential my 'soft cop' methods have been.

bootsy
Offline
Joined: 30-11-09
Jan 20 2013 16:26

Surprisingly no one has picked up on the obvious point that this demonstrates how arbitrary that spate of bannings was. Admins banned lines because he apparently hit the report button too many times, in fact it wasn't even lines who did this. So why was he banned? Probably because he annoyed the hell out of some of the admins.

I don't agree with lines' political views in their entirety but he always challenges me to think and reflect critically on what it means to be a communist and I appreciate him for that.

Rob Ray, how does 'downing' a post clarify anything at all?

This place is becoming more and more like a school play yard every day. Just look at the tracking of 'up' and 'down' votes in this thread and others. Individuals who make extremely similar political points get a totally different number of votes, why is that?

Baderneiro Miseravel's post gets 8 downvotes, despite the fact that he was simply trying to explain his interpretation of the thread and push the responses in a more productive direction (i.e. as responding to a perspective which can be agreed with or disagreed with, rather than a conspiracy theory which can be mocked and dismissed). On the other hand Rob Ray's lame attempt at justifying 'downing' a post rather than replying has received 8 upvotes. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that there are at least 8 idiots who read libcom.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Jan 20 2013 17:42

I have to say, despite the fact I've downed like a motherfucker during some of the recent flame-y threads (I'm one of those "idiots' apparently...), I've said from day one that I don't think the up/down feature (and especially the down feature) adds anything to the discussion on libcom.

Tian's picture
Tian
Offline
Joined: 3-08-12
Jan 20 2013 17:50

Aufheben, now the voting system. Didn't we have these conversations/ debates months and months ago?

Cue link to that Telegraph piece thread in 3...

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Jan 20 2013 21:18

Oh I don't know, if I get enough down votes It'll usually persuade me to have a think over why, most often it'll be because I've gone a bit far in some way. A wee while back I ended up asking about it as I wasn't sure and I think it was no1 gave me a pretty reasonable explanation.

Bootsy, I never said it lent clarity and I wasn't trying to "justify" anything, I was giving my reason for voting, albeit in a slightly vexed way because I'm keeping to a decision not to reply on the other thread despite feeling fairly provoked by various posters on there continuing to try and drag me back in. Thanks for your confidence in the people who voted me up, calling them all idiots is tremendously adult of you.

Fwiw, I actually do think the voting system has helped streamline the posting a bit - there's less repetition than there used to be imo and I've seen a couple of people go very quiet on the whole "I'm not being misogynist" bit after a couple dozen downvotes (which I believe was the original intention).

Croy's picture
Croy
Offline
Joined: 26-05-11
Jan 20 2013 21:50

There's downsides to the voting system but I would echo the above. Its gotten rid of a lot of repetitive posts which just say, yeah I agree with the above without any added input of their own.

Tarwater's picture
Tarwater
Offline
Joined: 29-12-08
Jan 20 2013 22:50

Rob Ray wrote:

Quote:

Or I can click "down" and we can avoid that whole shebang while still allowing you to be aware that your view isn't convincing some people.

Bootsy wrote:

Quote:
On the other hand Rob Ray's lame attempt at justifying 'downing' a post rather than replying has received 8 upvotes. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that there are at least 8 idiots who read libcom.

Bootsy, I have voted down your posts in the past because you are very nearly always rude and I have never seen you change your mind about anything. It's the insults, hyperbole and misrepresentation that I am downing, which should be clear to anyone with the ability to be vaguely self-critical. I like the rating system because I will never feel the need to interject every time someone is being an asshole with a paragraph on why they should play nice. People can mindlessly argue on here till the cows come home if thats what they think that the forums are for. Be aware though that some people come here to learn from debate, not to "win", and seeing both sides refuse to back down or at least be polite really ruins the utility of this site for some.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Jan 20 2013 23:41

Lol I think three people are trying to make a point groucho

Buridan
Offline
Joined: 16-01-13
Jan 21 2013 08:10

Croydonian writes of Samotnaf, “No one really cares. Rantings of a martyr.”

Arbeiten writes: “While I still haven't made my mind up on Aufhebengate…”

Harrison writes: “To be honest, i think you've [Samotnaf] done more damage to any serious consideration of the aufheben thing, through strange…”

I think Croydonian shows a great deal of maturity and wisdom in his deliciously languorous comment. Yes, Samotnaf is a rambling martyr, we should say this outright and stick the boot in. Why you guys still let him parade his ideas here is now beyond me.

Harrison makes the observation that while Libcom have been struggling to position the work of JD in the libertarian communist context, Samotnaf et al have merely confused everything by going to extremes.

And Tarwater makes the excellent observation that the objectionable Bootsy is nothing but ‘rude’ and unreasonable. It is this kind of hysterical behaviour from these characters which has closed down any possibility of the forums at Libcom discussing the issue of JD sensibly.

While it does seem true that only the anti-JD crowd have brought up this issue (is this true, Harrison?), it is certainly true that they have derailed any useful development of ideas by their refusal to change their minds (as Rob Ray and Tarwater point out).

This non-bringing-up of the issue by regular Libcom users just shows that there is not considered to be a real issue here – it is this line that we need to elaborate and make explicit. We have no issue with our comrades working for social change or revolution through organisations such as the bourgeois press and the Police. BUT, the fact that this has not been made explicit has encouraged the moaners to keep bringing up this stuff.

And now that we have waverers such as Arbeiten - someone who can usually be relied on for decisive and lucid thinking - we must perhaps think again about explaining our self-evident, but perhaps vague, support.

Arbeiten, as I just mentioned, expresses this lack of clarity most acutely. He hasn’t even been able to make up his mind! And this from one of Libcom’s best posters.

I reiterate that we need to come to some sort of official position on the JD affair – one which recognises the important place his social and anthropological research plays, both theoretically and practically, within the libertarian communist milieu.

Remember, we are the heart and the brain of libertarian communism – it is up to us to get all this right – the class needs us to be unwavering in our choice of ideology and strategy.

The working class (proletarians) need to find the strength to challenge the totality of the existing order, its hegemonic dominance.

This strength will only be found through the work of class conscious revolutionaries who are able to make alliances and compromises within this society (like Aufheben and people on this site) and who are able to formulate an alternative hegemony, an alternative ideological structure which will eventually be able to remove the present conditions. This is what JD and Aufheben (and Libcom, SolFed and the AF) are bravely and tirelessly working to achieve. Read JD’s blogs, and the contents of Aufheben. And why do we write propaganda if this is not our aim?

This is the essence of the formulation behind the real movement, and it has its origins in Marx, of course.

But the concept of the real movement has had to undergo some tweakings along the way. The idea that the working class need to assert their own hegemony was first properly articulated by Lenin and it was then developed significantly by Gramsci.

Gramsci spawned a whole academic movement, one of its finest defenders being the supreme historian, EP Thompson. But others such as Adorno and Marcuse were also critical in turning Gramsci and Lenin’s ideas into the bedrock of modern social science.

The modern inheritance of this tradition is Barrot’s conception of the real movement followed by its evolution into the ideas behind communisation. This is where we at Libcom, Aufheben, and SolFed come from and it is where we are now. This is also evident in the praxis of the Anarchist Federation, which is always less Malatesta and more Georges Sorel and Gramsci than they ever seem to realise. But this is not a criticism – this is an accolade. Malatesta, the negative doubter, never had the guts to take power when he needed to, and such reticence is, pleasingly, not evident here.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Jan 21 2013 08:48

Nope, still not funny.

yo sup
Offline
Joined: 12-08-12
Jan 21 2013 08:49
Buridan wrote:
Remember, we are the heart and the brain of libertarian communism – it is up to us to get all this right – the class needs us to be unwavering in our choice of ideology and strategy.

Yo, guy named Chili sauce, how can you say that this guy isn't funny?

Tarwater's picture
Tarwater
Offline
Joined: 29-12-08
Jan 21 2013 08:53

I'm not entirely sure what the last poster is trying to say, but they seem to be misrepresenting my opinions. If not, i have to wonder what the point of sarcasm is if it obscures ones point rather than makes it clearer. Could he or she clarify, or just fuck off?

I really just want everyone to discuss the issue at hand without being a Dick or trying to score points

madlib's picture
madlib
Offline
Joined: 31-08-08
Jan 21 2013 08:54

It's been a week; the administrators have neither chosen to respond to the issue or move it to the relevant Feedback forum in that time, never mind resolving it, so evidently they don't care.

Is this going to be resolved, Y/N?

Buridan
Offline
Joined: 16-01-13
Jan 21 2013 09:18

Hi Tarwater, If you mean me, then I think all I said you said was what was in your post (19) about the silly Bootsy being rude and not changing his mind - absolutely correct assertions from you in my opinion. So I don't get the upset? I support your positons.

To yo sup (and Chilli Sauce?):
Can we actually take this seriously?

Croy's picture
Croy
Offline
Joined: 26-05-11
Jan 21 2013 13:01
Buridan wrote:
Croydonian writes of Samotnaf, “No one really cares. Rantings of a martyr.”....
I think Croydonian shows a great deal of maturity and wisdom in his deliciously languorous comment. Yes, Samotnaf is a rambling martyr, we should say this outright and stick the boot in. Why you guys still let him parade his ideas here is now beyond me ... While it does seem true that only the anti-JD crowd have brought up this issue (is this true, Harrison?), ... I reiterate that we need to come to some sort of official position on the JD affair – one which recognises the important place his social and anthropological research plays, both theoretically and practically, within the libertarian communist milieu.

I can't tell if the first bit is sarcasm or not and I don't really care. I have no idea what Aufhebengate was/is, and I don't know what the JD affair is and any anti JD crowd, and this thread has only dissuaded me from finding out. You talk of formulating an official position. Quite simply lol. It sounds like we're in a local union branch meeting of the SWP discussing where we stand on Palestine (yeah I got this one from Fighting For Ourselves, say something tongue). As for everything you said after this, I have no idea what your talking about and how its relevant, but Im not too fussed about you explaining.

Buridan
Offline
Joined: 16-01-13
Jan 21 2013 23:50

To the croydonian,

I am surprised and alarmed at your sudden disinterest in this. Quite simply: wow!

How can you comment on the OP (rantings of a martyr) when you now say you don’t even know what the issue is about?

Is this how you treat anyone who talks to you about something you don’t yet understand?

Yours is the kind of authoritarian reaction of the father who hits the child rather than listening to them. You should be ashamed of yourself. You can do better than this, croydonian.

Discussing where we stand on issues – which you say you object to (‘discussing where we stand on Palestine’) – is the whole point of these forums, ffs. Why would you say something so crazy?

Are you trying to please other people on this site? If so then perhaps you need to be more thoughtful in your analyses, as you will only end up alienating those who you want to like you. You can do better than this. Think for yourself.

What I am trying to point out is the root of where we take our praxis from – my short history of where we come from and who we are as libertarian communists and anarchists is very relevant for understanding who we are, what we think and where we are going. It would be a very useful beginning of a discussion here it seems.

Arbeiten's picture
Arbeiten
Offline
Joined: 28-01-11
Jan 22 2013 00:46

eek

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Jan 22 2013 08:26

Yeah, can we ban this sockpuppet idiot?

Croy's picture
Croy
Offline
Joined: 26-05-11
Jan 22 2013 13:30
Buridan wrote:
To the croydonian,

I am surprised and alarmed at your sudden disinterest in this. Quite simply: wow!

How can you comment on the OP (rantings of a martyr) when you now say you don’t even know what the issue is about?

Is this how you treat anyone who talks to you about something you don’t yet understand?

Yours is the kind of authoritarian reaction of the father who hits the child rather than listening to them. You should be ashamed of yourself. You can do better than this, croydonian.

Discussing where we stand on issues – which you say you object to (‘discussing where we stand on Palestine’) – is the whole point of these forums, ffs. Why would you say something so crazy?

Are you trying to please other people on this site? If so then perhaps you need to be more thoughtful in your analyses, as you will only end up alienating those who you want to like you. You can do better than this. Think for yourself.

What I am trying to point out is the root of where we take our praxis from – my short history of where we come from and who we are as libertarian communists and anarchists is very relevant for understanding who we are, what we think and where we are going. It would be a very useful beginning of a discussion here it seems.

This made me laugh out loud, congratulations smile

My disinterest is not sudden because I didn't know about the issue before as I said and have made no other contributions to thread apart from my post saying it was rantings of a martyr. About that, isn't it a sign you and a few others are so wrapped up in this issue that you can't see how ridiculous that OP is. Just take a step back. Even though I didn't state that I knew nothing about what we were talking about in the post, I still think that outside perspective is a needed one. On sites like these, discussing the things we do, we absolutely need people to tell us we are being silly.

The authoritarian dad comment. Quite aside from the fact it is baseless and ridiculous, what made me laugh more was how anarchist/political that insult was. Only a politico would give that sort of insult. Its hilarious. Can you imagine a normal non politico person in a really heated argument and saying that and storming out of the room ? It quite amuses me. I hope everyone else is getting this sense of humor tongue

As for where I stand on Palestine, its one of indifference due to my anti nationalism, a position I would think is a standard anarchist one. If you want more info, I would give this a read

http://libcom.org/library/against-nationalism

But it has been critiqued, so inb4

http://libcom.org/library/earth-not-flat-review-against-nationalism

Topic locked