Stoopid blog thread of the day

June 29, 2008 at 10:10 pm (blogging, blogosphere, voltairespriest, wankers)

Of course, it had to be at Nooman’s.Shame and all because (uniquely amongst Nooman’s chums) I quite like most of what that Derek Wall chappie from the Green party posts. Still, it’s not really his fault – a post that is basically a quote from Mumia Abu-Jamal turns into a thread that centres around whether David T et al from Harry’s Place are in favour of voting BNP. Which they’re clearly not. Once again the intellectual vanguard of “Respect Renewal” fail to grasp the difference between a commenter and an author.

But then maybe in the more batshit bowels of bloggery, persepctives differ (putting it kindly) from those which most of us would hold.


  1. modernityblog said,

    that is a problem when you’re dealing with some of these childish individuals, the deliberate mischaracterisation of arguments “so and so believes x and y therefore he’s almost a BNPer!” when clearly that wasn’t the case

    and when you think about it such mischaracterisations only discredit the people making them, but then again that is a common problem on the Left: credibility

    HP does get some rather nasty commenters, but thankfully most of them are taken to task, or completely ignored

    of course, if SU authors wanted to take up the essence of the major posts (as above, the need to combat the BNP), that would be a different issue, but they don’t. They seem largely intellectually challenged and incapable of rendering their interlocutors arguments coherently, let alone picking them apart (another common problem with much of the modern day British Left).

    Instead what you get is a host of strawmen (arguments which weren’t being made) and then a triumphalism after setting light to these bales of hay, sadly many of the authors at SU haven’t learnt that arguing against an argument which hasn’t been made is meaningless and not intellectually terribly difficult.

    but then again as SU implement some form of censorship, is often hard to wonder why they bother arguing in the first place, as they will often delete inconvenient replies or those that embarrass the SU admins, by demonstrating the fallacious nature of their arguments.

    what was that Trotskyist book? ahh, yes, Stalin School of Falsification?

    I suppose that has the SU authors been around in the 1930s then they would have been applying whatever the contemporary Tippex was, to inconvenient photos?

  2. Renegade Eye said,

    Come to Minneapolis and meet Freedom Road Socialist Organization. According to that Maoist group, the Iraqis before Saddam was in power, wanted their oil industry nationalized, but didn’t know how. Saddam knew ther secret. That is why the US killed him. See this. We fight them all the time in coalition work.

  3. andyinswindon said,

    VP: “Once again the intellectual vanguard of “Respect Renewal” fail to grasp the difference between a commenter and an author. ”

    Somewhat ironic then that you drag my name into it, when the only comment i made on that thread was to point out that David T’s views were fairly mainstream in the labour movement.

    Also note that SU blog has been promoting the Searchlight debate that David T promoted on HP.

  4. martin ohr said,


    All that you say is true, but is a one-sided simplification of the truth, since you apply ruthless censorship to the blog when you feel it is denerating into mere personal abuse against your stalinist chums but do not do the same when they wade in. Nor do you seek to distance yourself from their remarks.

    The same Ian Donovan who accuses David T of being a fascist, posts personal abuse anytime someone from the AWL comments on your blog, for example this from last week:

    “I am pretty certain that Lenin’s gut reaction to the likes of Ohr, were they contemporaries, would be to put class traitors like him in front of a firing squad. AWL scumbags go from pimping for imperialist troops in Iraq to pimping for the SWP leadership”

    I think if a trot was constantly posting this sort of thing on your side you would quickly take action.

  5. Sue R said,

    It’s amazing that a man is prepared to advertise his sexual inadequacy so publically. All of Ian Donovan’s insults are related to sex, did he have a traumatic potty-training or something?

  6. modernityblog said,

    but don’t forget that Ian Donovan is in a senior position in Respect Renewal!

    that’s the quality that you have to deal with Donovan, mindless wordy doss who manages to put people off of politics by his antics

  7. entdinglichung said,

    @Renegade Eye: which one of the two FRSOs produced that crap?

  8. Andrew Coates said,

    Don’t forget Donovan’s tirades against me as well – I wouldn’t want to left out of the roll of honour. Personally I find his reactions rather charming, and it’s like having your own pet ogre. Say something (anything), hey presto, it froths and froths, bites the rug, and roars ferocious threats. Diamond geezer, from whom ‘Red Maria’ is rapidly learning a lot. Though having to clear up the mess on the rug afterwards must be a hard job.

  9. modernityblog said,


    you got a special mention:

    “I partly concur with ‘Randy Newman’ above. We should ban the HP trolls, because they are enemies of the left. But the AWL are part of the left, albeit a terrible part, and should merely be scandalised for their pro-imperialist politics. Ditto for individual ‘left’ Islamophobes like Andrew Coates. To ban them would be to solve a political problem within the left with bureaucratic methods. Of course, Andy won’t ban the HP types because he wants them to join a popular front against the BNP, which is a mistaken strategy both in theory and practice.”

    Donovan’s tactic of accusing anyone that disagrees with him of being a “racist” or “Islamophobe” begins to wear a bit thin, after about two minutes, it’s a shame that he and others cannot engage with the various arguments which are being put forward

    but then that is unlikely because Donovan and friends would have to render their interlocutor’s views with a degree of honesty, and that’s not going to happen

    concerning the “Fuck Off, Shami Chakrabarti” thread, it was obvious to anyone, capable of thinking, that there was an incongruity between a champion (Shami) of civil liberties using the threat of libel action to shutdown political debate or satire, not that anyone on SU blog trouble to read the article or comments

    again, this type of lazy and moronic comment is part of the reason why the Left is so small:

    “4. You really don’t like that brown woman do you, David T? Good for her.

    Comment by Nas — 30 June, 2008 @ 1:21 pm”

    the supposition being the critical article was only written because Shami Chakrabarti was “brown”, not because of her actions, as detailed in the article, which is rather silly, so say the least.

  10. tim said,

    Don’t leave me out.
    All I did was show up Galloways corruption.
    A few times.


  11. Voltaire's Priest said,

    one-sided simplification of the truth, since you apply ruthless censorship to the blog when you feel it is denerating into mere personal abuse against your stalinist chums but do not do the same when they wade in

    Quite, Martin.

    Andy would do well to say why Martin, I, John G and Jim D were banned (indeed as far as he and I are aware, Jim still is) from his blog, whilst Ian Donovan is not.

  12. Derek Wall said,

    keep focussed on Mumia! He is a star, in my humble.

  13. modernityblog said,

    clearly, Donovan isn’t banned because he’s some form of honcho in Respect Renewal and people at SU blog want to keep in with them

    to me that’s says something about their politics and character, and despite the best efforts of some sincere activists Respect and its bastard off-spring, Renewal are on their way to the knacker’s yard, its just a matter of time.

    then I would expect people to jump onto the next bandwagon as it passes (the Greens might even pick up a few strays)

  14. Andrew Coates said,

    The saddest thing about Respect Renewal is that some of them are very sincere excellent activists. At the May69andallthat I met Fred, from the ISG, who has kept going from the days when he was in the same Central London IMG Cell as me in the mid-1970s. I really don’t know how they stand Galloway Thornett, for example, received the full wrath of the Pittites for opposing the censorship of the Religious Hatred Bill (”The Trot who’s Lost the Plot’ in What’s Next?), which chimed right in with many of RR. With this stand, and other tensions, it’s not surprising that there seems to be some kind of turn going: there’s a new unity initiative of revolutionary Marxists, and the ISG also appears to be leaning towards the Green Left. With the Weekly Worker reporting that Socialist Action have now moved in on RR (a wonderful case of brazen cheek, after all those years churning out the unreadable Socialist Campaign Group news, and operating in the Labour Party), one wonders if some kind of exit-strategy is being prepared by the ISG.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: