Y'know, if there's one perfect way to persuade people to do a thing you want I reckon it's telling them they're lazy idiots who don't read.
Edit: No, wait, I tell a lie, publishing a 5,600-word blog denouncing the admins. That's even better.
Aug 15 2019 12:50
Aug 15 2019 13:34
Quote:
[Black Badger] hasn't read the text either, as this is precisely one of the central arguments of the Great Alibi - another example of the users here adopting a priori stances in the manner that we have mentioned previously.
You're right; I haven't read the text in question. I was responding directly to what YOU wrote. The fact that you can't see a difference between the two levels of response is something that really does approach an a priori position, that being that the Alibi text is the best thing since sliced bread, and the rest of us poor stupid lazy anarchists who refuse to use your trademarked brand of logic -- by starting with conclusions and working backward -- are therefore useless as interlocutors. Yet here you remain, persisting in foisting the Good Word on us poor benighted souls...
Aug 16 2019 06:04
LeninistGirl wrote:
It wasn't me who started calling people "fucking cretins".
The phrase used was:
Quote:
you Leninist cretin!
Sep 19 2019 13:25
Rob Ray wrote:
Y'know, if there's one perfect way to persuade people to do a thing you want I reckon it's telling them they're lazy idiots who don't read.Edit: No, wait, I tell a lie, publishing a 5,600-word blog denouncing the admins. That's even better.
We generally assume to be talking to adults who are mature enough to look beyond personal vanity in their judgements, and who do not need to be buttered up. Though it is of course possible that we are mistaken on this matter in this particular case. Thank you for recommending us your negotiation strategies anyway.
Black Badger wrote:
You're right; I haven't read the text in question.
Yet you evidently feel to be in a position to take a side in arguments about its content. Why is that?
Black Badger wrote:
I was responding directly to what YOU wrote.
No, you were not. You read something into our words that was just not there.
Black Badger wrote:
The fact that you can't see a difference between the two levels of response is something that really does approach an a priori position, that being that the Alibi text is the best thing since sliced bread, and the rest of us poor stupid lazy anarchists who refuse to use your trademarked brand of logic -- by starting with conclusions and working backward -- are therefore useless as interlocutors. Yet here you remain, persisting in foisting the Good Word on us poor benighted souls...
You know, a simple "no you!" is not that impressive after openly admitting that you do not even have a clue about the subject in question two sentences before. Our judgement comes from research – god forbid that we do not think people are entitled to not having their unfounded opinions challenged. "Makes it sound like", "does approach" – seeing as Harman already used this wording to construct strawmen, is this "trademarked anarchist logic" then?
We are not selling a text, we are merely arguing against its defamation. How about we get back to that topic, instead of weaseling around it by means of complaints about our conduct?
We tried to refrain from quoting the texts we translated, since it seemed clear to us that this would just prompt another series of posts not reading the articles themselves, but replying to these isolated excerpts then. However, witnessing the insistence on not getting acquainted with the material, we cannot help ourselves. This is the ICP commenting on Ras l'Front, an organisation that tried to spin the Great Alibi as being revisionist:
ICP wrote:
Ras l'Front wrote:
Even if we discuss about revisionists, analysing their lies, dismantling their reasoning, we refuse to discuss with them, whether they are from the far right or, as here, ultra-left. We have nothing to tell them and we will not answer their delusions.This curious clarification is not made by chance: its purpose is not to deny us a democratic discussion that we have never considered proposing to them, but to discourage the militants and supporters of “Ras l’Front” from becoming aware of our positions and discussing them, in the same way that the Stalinists called the revolutionaries “Hitlerians”, “fascist provocateurs”, etc., in order to prevent any contact with them and justify an expedient disregard for them. One could quote the proud reply of an activist from Ras l’Front in a Parisian meeting to the question of whether he had read the brochure he had just denounced in his speech: “I don’t read shitty literature!”
The reason as to why we decided to uploaded these texts should be obvious. Libcom refused to remove the demonstrably wrong introduction to the Great Alibi, seemingly happy that a distorted understanding of the text and its ideas (as witnessed in this thread) are free to fester. If the hosting of "Bordigist" texts is such a controversial issue among the administrators of this site, and if you are weary of talking to us, why don't you then simply take the Great Alibi offline? If you continue to host it and leave the "introduction" attached to it, we don't see why our few texts should now suddenly prove to require precisely that bit of server storage too much, considering all the nonsensical texts that Libcom hosts without wasting a comment on them.
This person hasn't read the text either, as this is precisely one of the central arguments of the Great Alibi - another example of the users here adopting a priori stances in the manner that we have mentioned previously.
We were aware that the excerpt in question was added by Craftwork. We cited you, because you apparently made it your personal duty to distort texts you reference in order to distort the Great Alibi, whereas you obviously do not care to correct actual misinformation – a point we also brought up in our text.
We didn't consider it necessary to answer to your reply, as it seems obvious to us that you either intentionally misunderstand the points brought forward, or are too daft to get them. You conflate categories all over the place, from identifying ethnic cleansing immediately with murders, up to your attempt to disprove the Great Alibi through making recourse to Eastern Jews – a matter we have discussed in detail in our text by making reference to the precise text you invoked to refute Axelrad. And then you go on to list historical facts, apparently thinking that they would somehow would run contrary to the thesis of the ICP, when in fact they support it.
You half-assed that answer just as much as you half-assed your introduction, and we do not see the point of engaging with someone obviously acting in bad faith.
Throughout the thread there are the same knee-jerk reactions, the adopting of a priori stances, arguing about everything and anything besides the texts and the hypocritical attitudes regarding tone. Everything including this attitude of refusal to read is included within the texts that were uploaded. And one of the people here wonders why half a dozen were written: They just need some self-reflection.