Skip Navigation
Comradeship // Freechat @lemmygrad.ml urshanabi [he/they] @lemmygrad.ml

Online Party Discipline?

Hello comrades, I read a comment on a post either on lemmygrad or hexbear talking about how most discourse happening was of poor quality and indicative of a lack of genuine leftist groups in the imperial core. Basically if there were patty's with some teeth they would enforce party discipline and education and that would lead to higher quality discourse online.

I also read some of Lenins2ndcat's comments which were very patient when they were interacting with users from other communities.

Is there anyway to work on like, an online party discipline? Or like having users who are very good at discussing with libs have a more concerted approach to their interactions? It really seems that much of us are often too aggressive and meme-y and as fun as that is it really isn't productive.

I get that this isn't how praxis or anything happens, it seems more like the way we engage could be more productive and fruitful in the long term and considerations like this might go a long way.

TL;DR Planned economy but for memeposting

12

You're viewing a single thread.

12 comments

  • In a comment below you wrote:

    Maybe a lemmygrad strike force?

    Can't say I like the sound of this. It's the kind of thing that will get us defederated from other instances for brigading. It's asking us to do the exact thing that Hexbear is accused of potentially doing, which has led for it to be pre-emptively defederated from dotworld.

    If liberals want to learn and are open about it, they will do so; but most libs don't want to and they often see us as arseholes when we go to other instances and talk about reality. If this happens organically, fine. But to try to organise it… I'm not so sure it will be successful.

    Part of the problem is that if libs don't want to think critically, they absolutely will cry and whine about every logical fallacy under the sun without thinking. Part of the problem is the material conditions of the global north audience, most of whom are labour aristocrats (we’ve had some good discussions about that if you search for them). Those who are open to new ideas are going to listen anyway.

    As for dunking on libs, Marxists dunk on each other all the time for liberal tendencies. And rightly so. It's a constant struggle. The difficulty with libs is that they have internalised liberalism, so criticising liberalism can feel like a personal attack. MLs tend to take it with thanks for being shown the error of their ways.

    For those liberals who are looking for a way to understand the contradictions in liberalism and their material reality, dunking and ribbing won't put them off because they are already looking for a mental way out. The dunking and ribbing makes it something to laugh about; it's much easier to take than e.g. a detailed review, an outline and critique of every premise in an argument, and a grammar correction; the (good) literature on pedagogy suggests the latter will never work.

    I can see how it would be useful for us to talk about how to engage with others, to spot wreckers, trolls, etc, and distinguish them from the good faith users. We've been doing that for some time already. And just by engaging with the increasing influx of liberals to the lemmyverse, I think those of us who do engage on and outside Lemmygrad have got better at it. But this is often more about knowing the audience than changing how we say things.

    I think if we try to force any kind of rules or discipline beyond those that already exist we risk, among other things:

    • tone policing (which is in direct opposition to the type of expression that we should cultivate in ML spaces)
    • accepting some truth to the argument that we're rude or unconcerned with intellectual, rigorous discussion (which is false)
    • ostracising users who prefer to shitpost and dunk on libs (which let's face it is fun and a worthy cause)
    • ostracising those who are earlier in their Marxist journey (by creating a intimidating threshold for participation)
    • turning this into work, as in labour (I like it here because there's a mix of theory and people just making me laugh or having pleasant conversations without the need to self-censor. For me, it's enough that LG is a space where I can enjoy the company of other MLs)

    As others have said, there’s a good community here, which took time to build. I would caution against implementing any kind of policy about how we should engage or what we should engage about. Especially at the moment, where federation is bringing some wider changes. I noticed that many Hexbear users were concerned about federation changing their culture, too. So it’s a broader concern.

    While I hope it doesn’t change the atmosphere here, too much (there will surely be some change), one of the things I’m looking forward to about federating with Hexbear is seeing more shitposting on their communities. Comic praxis is still praxis.

    Further, while you may have heard someone “talking about how most discourse happening was of poor quality and indicative of a lack of genuine leftist groups in the imperial core[,]” that does not make it true. The quality of discourse on LG is high. What might be true is that not everything is about theory, etc; but that's because we're all already talking on the same page.

    There's no need to keep going through the basics in every community unless libs turn up. Elsewhere on the internet, ML forums degenerate into either 101 or dunking spaces. That's not necessary here (although it does happen as well) because every community builds on the same common understanding, which is taken as granted; the discussion can start at a more mature Marxist place. This may give the impression that e.g. there’s no discussion of theory (due to a lack of imperial core organising or otherwise) but it’s a false impression, I think.

    It’s also important to know that while westerners are probably still the majority, here, the ratio is far better and there are a significant number of users from the global south. Further, the westerners here tend to be MLs, not ’western’ Marxists. Which means conversations are built on different assumptions than is common to see in the west. Many people here aren’t interested in e.g. US politics, which means there is less analysis of US party politics than a typical western radical might expect to find in a political forum. It doesn’t meant the political theory isn’t happening.

    To be clear, I am all for education and educating. I just don't think it needs to be explicitly organised on here unless it's through a voluntary thing, perhaps on a dedicated community. Personally, I'd probably rather just do my own thing in that regard. I quite like the balance that we already have.

    • Thanks for the response. I don't agree with your point in tone policing. There are some of us here, myself included, who are much easier to harm with crude language and pejorative words. You can see examples of it to the responses I have made in this thread and the good faith responses I have made and the vote counts on those comments. I have already been quite hurt. There is already policy and ways which the community operates and how individuals conduct themselves if not explicitly than implicitly. If we've set a lower bound for this generally and in specific cases (as in interacting with other communities) I would argue subsequent changes are inevitable and necessary to protect the more vulnerable and sensitive members of this community and any community. If it really is inevitable, it makes sense to plan it out in some capacity.

      I believe what you said about what pedagogy says, though this is a big claim to make and such claims require proportional evidence. Could you please provide me with some resources if possible?

      • Tone policing is a logical fallacy. From Wikipedia (footnotes and links removed):

        A tone argument (also called tone policing) is a type of ad hominem aimed at the tone of an argument instead of its factual or logical content in order to dismiss a person's argument. Ignoring the truth or falsity of a statement, a tone argument instead focuses on the emotion with which it is expressed. This is a logical fallacy because a person can be angry while still being rational. Nonetheless, a tone argument may be useful when responding to a statement that itself does not have rational content, such as an appeal to emotion.

        The notion of tone policing became widespread in U.S. social activist circles by the mid-2010s. It was widely disseminated in a 2015 comic issued by the Everyday Feminism website. Activists have argued that tone policing has been regularly employed against feminist and anti-racism advocates, criticizing the way that they presented their arguments rather than engaging with the arguments themselves.

        Literature-wise for grammar correction, see e.g.:

        Also look up:

        • self-determination theory
        • constructivism (and Vygotsky)
        • constructive feedback

        It's also worth noting that most pedagogy is written for people teaching students who (theoretically) want to learn. That doesn't apply neatly online, which means the pedagogy scholarship may have to be adapted and conclusions must be drawn with this assumption stripped out.

        • Yeah I think what you mentioned makes sense. I would argue your characterization falls into the often encountered issue with any cartesian, syllogistic, or otherwise self-described 'rational' logic & reasoning [1]. Essentially anything with only 2 truth states, while not intrinsic, appears to be tended towards.

          I hadn't actually encountered those parts of vygotsky's work, thanks for the suggestion!

          [1] Emotions are completely rational, see Randolph M. Nesse's seminal paper (though he is an evolutionary psychologist/psychiatrist so take what he says with a whop of salt) and perhaps watch a lecture by him, there are several recorded seminars on ytube. I'd have to find the one I like, if you want a suggestion I can def find it for ya.

          --

          The more fundamental liberal point of view espoused as far as I understand (please feel free to correct me, I don't claim to have a genuine understanding of your argument) is the lack of engagement with the material reality of emotions, their function, and adequate descriptions of their specific role without dismissing them out of hand. This leads from the 'Age of Reason'/'Age of Enlightenment' thinking, and deviates towards the kind of fantastical liberty argues by Stuart Mill, Madison, etc.

          Nesse's explanation of emotions–which appear 'irrational' or 'inappropriate' insofar as they do not appear to give the best outcomes for the emotional individual–as 'smoke detectors' works quite well. It ascribes function and meaning and makes the debate not one on qualifications of emotions as something to dismiss readily. To clarify what I mean, let me quote you, emphasis and footnotes are mine:

          [...] ...aimed at the tone of an argument instead of its factual or logical content [2] in order to dismiss a person's argument. Ignoring the truth or falsity of a statement [3], a tone argument instead focuses on the emotion [4] with which it is expressed. [...]

          Instead the claim levied is erroneous on the parts I footnoted. The first [2] is the argument is the qualification of ad hominem which I disagree with. To keep it short, if the tone is relevant to the conditions in which the argument is made, then it is prima facie possible to affect the content of the argument. Arguments regarding it must be investigated, to use a phrase by Mao.

          Then the one highlighting the tone themselves may be pointing out a subtle and apparently non-rational aspect. The difficulty in understanding the claim by the recipient or other parties is then for the sake of convenience considered ad hominem as it is not considered central to the argument. You can see here and you must know that fallaciousness is circumscribed and used as a useful heuristic, they are interpreted and not as clear as for example you have used it. The claim of fallaciousness obviously needs to be argued (which you certainly did, I am not claiming you did not) and a simple claim towards it is not sufficient in the least unless we will say it is agreed upon by the parties engaged in argument. Dismissal by arguing it is ad hominem does not disqualify all arguments with emotions as a focal point, and neither does dismissal of the 'null hypothesis' or particular case necessarily lend positive enforcement to other theses espoused.

          Then I vehemently disagree with the categorization of 'factual' or 'logical' made, with a few qualifications. I understand factual as meaning an evidential claim with empirical evidence, or a claim which can be argued naïvely, and readily agreed upon. The common refrain is:

          1. Socrates is a man
          2. Socrates is a philosopher
          3. Therefore all men are philosophers

          I consider this for the purposes of an argument, to be considered true only for the purposes of the argument, i.e. to further elucidate some point. Another example with an emphasis on on the empirical aspect:

          1. There is a cat
          2. There is a mat below the cat
          3. The cat is sitting
          4. Therefore the cat is sitting on a mat

          Then if the fallaciousness is circumscribed as follows (again please correct me, I assume I am incorrect and wrong, I just want to show where my thinking is to make it easier for you to share with me & to correct and brainworms):

          1. Person A is making an argument
          2. Person B comments on the perceived qualitative expression of Person A, i.e. on their alleged emotional state, i.e. on a physiological process which intrinsically has communicative affects towards others
          3. Person B states or attempts to argue the emotional state has some importance in the context of the argument made by Person A
          4. Person A states that this is not true, that their emotional state is unrelated, and that Person B is committing the fallacy of ad hominem

          Here is where I have a problem. Stating that it is unrelated or untrue is the beginning of an argument or the thesis and it does not stand on itself, truthfully here I consider the statement [3] to be relevant. Truth or falsity may not be correctly argued by Person B, and it is not as though there cannot be an argument which is readily arguable by means of the emotive state of an involved party. For example:

          1. Person C states that they hate migrants entering into the country which they have citizenship of and which they reside
          2. Person C appears to Person D that they are afraid and angry
          3. Person D asks why Person C is afraid or angry
          4. Person C says it is not relevant in any meaningful way to their prior statements
          5. Person D asks why they hate migrants entering into their country of residence
          6. Person C states they take jobs away from the citizenry of the country

          Here we can say hopefully without too much disagreement that the argument Person C makes is rational and logical apropos. The oft quoted saying, "You cannot reason a person out of something they did not reason themselves into" is necessary to keep in the back of one's head and with kept with due consideration. Why? The premises that Person C has are faulty. A consequence of that is 1. the logically sound argument (at least as it appears) and 2. the emotive states which Person C appears to have.

          Then how does one know if emotions are involved or not? As far as I am considered, they always are, whether it is to a meaningful extent needs to be determined in the course of argument. Any immediate dismissal is for convenience's sake and likely due to faulty or erroneous premises the dismisser has. That is they do not really know much about emotions, and they employ a naïve rationalist framework in their thinking and argumentation. As materialists, the material conditions of even an individual must be taken into account, that includes qualitative states which may very well have a meaningful influence. Then [4] is rather unhelpful, as it precludes any discussion of an empirical affect, or, the material reality which can be observed and reasoned on itself.

          Sorry for the wall of text, and for the late reply, I just thought of this a bit recently and wanted to share.

You've viewed 12 comments.