roachboy

ok so first off i dont see politics as being particularly war-like---it's certainly more civil than it was before the 11/06 midterms. i took a little while off from here earlier in the month after an exchange with jorgelito via pm and just read what was being posted---i dont see it.

but i do see contextual changes that could make what seems to me to be a pretty stable overall tenor seem different/more antagonistic....

so i wonder if there is a situational driver behind some of the responses from the more conservative comrades to this thread, in the sense that the ideology has definitely take a pounding in the world, even if the congressional numbers do not reflect that (go figure)...the administration is to my mind dead in the water, the sense of momentum that conservatives may have been able to derive before 11/06 is shot to hell---but it's not that different from how folk on "the left" reacted to the shock of a second bushterm--except that this time the shoe's on the other foot, and i dont remember seeing threads like this from anyone on "the left" complaining about how it is that the conservatives were acting. i mean, i used to get thrown out of the united states by various rightwingers here on a regular basis--it usually just made me laugh, but it is also a mirror image of the sort of thing that some of the more conservative comrades are now complaining about. this is why i wonder about situational drivers, frankly.

something to consider.

another change is the number of people who post here regularly--there are definitely fewer than were active before the november elections of last year--though it has bounced back a bit from its lowest point.

i have taken periods away from here, and sometimes think it might be good to do that more often....what has in the past prompted me to stop was (a) changes in my schedule and (b) boredom.

there is a certain stasis in general viewpoints--and with fewer people posting than posted say a year and a half ago, less in the way of new circulation of ideas in general (simply because there's less churn in the discussions). so the forum as a whole seems to have more stagnant phases than it once did. so there's less churn happening and few change their views really---with the exception of pan, who has been vocal about this political drift and whose transformation is interesting.

the situational factors seem beyond the control of any of us, really, since we are still in that torpor that sets in between the single days in the course of which americans are actually politically free. paralysis at the congressional level seems to piss everyone off to one extent or another, right and "left" (for symmetrical reasons)...the war in iraq continues with very little popular support, which creates yet another grind that i think affects everyone, one way or another.

the shrinking of the number of fish in the pond exposes the simple nature of the messageboard beast--people generally do not approach this game with the idea that their views are actually at stake--rather, they tend to seek confirmation of their views. debates are not cumulative and happen without any particular shape or end. patterns of usage play into this as well--when you post, where you are, how much time you have, whether you're at work or at home (or both...)...


so beyond what's been suggested so far here and in will's parallel thread, i dont know what there is to be done.

maybe it's time to end the metagame and just enact what we are thinking could happen that'd make this a more interesting space--re-open the discussions periodically as a way of talking about what has or has not been put into motion.

this because there's no way that disagreements are avoidable, nor is it desirable that they be avoided. it's all in how we play them.

==================
but there is one other issue....it's been touched on repeatedly and doesnt seem to be going away, so we might as well address it directly--writing or posting style. from the beginning of this thread, the varying styles of writing that different folk deploy here has been an obvious issue, but because it is difficult to discuss writing style without naming names and from there tipping into personal attack, it has been a recurrent subtext.
i am not sure what to do about this.
part of me thinks it might be a good idea to just have at it--say what bugs you. part of me thinks this is a bad idea. so i dont know--if it didnt keep coming up here i wouldnt bother to mention it--but it has over and over and over, most recently in pan's post, which just reappeared in jorgelito's.

thing is that i dont see anyone changing how they write because how they write doesnt appeal to everyone-----it's possible to change your writing style, but it takes work, persistence and time--i've undertaken this as a project and so speak from my own experience.

the problem is motivation.

maybe ask a question then: since so much has been referenced concerning antagonisms that operate because the way x expresses him or herself irritates a b or c (and vice versa) any ideas about what to do?

there are comrades whose writing irritates the shit out of me, and i have no doubt that my writing irritates the shit out of people as well. it seems like something that grownups learn to put up with, but maybe the fact that this is a written form of communication which people tend to treat as though it was oral (or an extension of email, which is a hybrid writing space for many) is itself part of the explanation for the style issue.

keep in mind that there is a thin line between asking someone to modify their way of expressing themselves and disabling their ability to state their views. this is not an easy problem to manage. if we aren't careful in what follows, we'll end up arriving at this realization collectively after going through a pointless, avoidable donnybrook.

so what do you propose?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite