Alex Callinicos/SWP vs Laurie Penny/New Statesman Facebook handbags

[J Ed]

conversely the level of unacceptable shit she does get from the right allows her to mentally sideline all criticism as online bullies. The closest concession our crit has ever been given to legitimacy is 'soi-disant radical trolls'. Another sub-division of a hate crowd.

Sure, but to what extent do you think she is purposely doing that? I genuinely don't know but if I was getting that sort of abuse on a regular basis I might have some difficulty differentiating the legitimate criticism from the abuse, especially if I thought (with some justification) that the volume of abuse I was getting was because of my gender.

 

[ymu]

You know my opinion on obviously sexist or misogynistic posts and trolling.

Because you pay more than lip service, yes.

 

[Firky]

She has already been in it according to the below article.

Actually, article about Penny-bashing salient to the thread. Maybe it's already in here but forgive me for not wading though it all.

http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/blog_comments/penny_bashing

I wonder if that is *the* Ellie in the comments.

 

[Firky]

My original point was that this discussion seems to contain quite a bit of ressentiment, or bad faith if you will. What seems to happen when bad faith takes place is that one projects the responsibility for ones own agency on some other person or group, in this case Laurie Penny in particular and the middle class commentariat in general. As if these persons are in some way hindering the true agency for "the left". Then I was trying to point out that the working class is quite capable of voicing its own concerns on its own premises, not being a five year old charity case but the supposed vanguard of politics, and if that is the case Laurie Penny cannot possibly be victimizing such a powerful faction of society. The middle class commentariat might be annoying and deluded, but they do not - in any relevant way - stand in the way for the agency of the working class or "the left". The way you seem to be discussing this stuff appears to me to contain a story of victimization of the working class by some irrelevant journalists, such a story hinders a precise understanding of the working class as a political agent with full responsibility for its own actions and politics, and it contains a shirking of responsibility for ones own agency.

Said with the condescending manner of the annoying and deluded middle class commentariat. Patronising snob.

Out of interest, what would you suggest is the best way to criticise Laurie et al?

 

[butchersapron]

My original point was that this discussion seems to contain quite a bit of ressentiment, or bad faith if you will. What seems to happen when bad faith takes place is that one projects the responsibility for ones own agency on some other person or group, in this case Laurie Penny in particular and the middle class commentariat in general. As if these persons are in some way hindering the true agency for "the left". Then I was trying to point out that the working class is quite capable of voicing its own concerns on its own premises, not being a five year old charity case but the supposed vanguard of politics, and if that is the case Laurie Penny cannot possibly be victimizing such a powerful faction of society. The middle class commentariat might be annoying and deluded, but they do not - in any relevant way - stand in the way for the agency of the working class or "the left". The way you seem to be discussing this stuff appears to me to contain a story of victimization of the working class by some irrelevant journalists, such a story hinders a precise understanding of the working class as a political agent with full responsibility for its own actions and politics, and it contains a shirking of responsibility for ones own agency.

This is rather different from your hilarious post here in which you argued

There seems to be an inherent contradiction between wanting the working class to rule society or at least rebel against the current order, and understanding the working class as this weak intellectually challenged group lacking "social capital" (which is such a rubbish term, btw), and therefore needing to be represented by the educated middle classes. And I do understand that I probably should "check my Scandinavia privilege", but the contradiction between understanding the working class as a "client base" that needs representation and lacks "social capital" or whatnot, and seeing the working class as the political vanguard of society, stands regardless.

What both posts demonstrate is a lack of understanding of how the role of one of the levels that you recognise is formed, operates and transmits itself on the exact basis of speaking for the other. It has a material effect, and one based around the continued existence of privilege. It's not hard to see - it's not hard to see who owns and works for the papers, it's not hard to demonstrate that this closely aligns with certain interests and classes and that tends to self-select who gets to further these interests. And it's not hard to see who these inter-meshing ownership and selection issues exclude the working class. Unless of course, you are some, it's all a level playing field, pull your socks up type. In this model of the media the working class are necessarily present only as victims or folk-devils. You are miles off.

 

[DotCommunist]

Sure, but to what extent do you think she is purposely doing that? I genuinely don't know but if I was getting that sort of abuse on a regular basis I might have some difficulty differentiating the legitimate criticism from the abuse, especially if I thought (with some justification) that the volume of abuse I was getting was because of my gender.

because its convenient? I'd say a lot. Refusal to engage even the politest of discussions when here as a poster.

 

[Bakunin]

The abuse Laurie receives is certainly disgusting but I wish she would engage with genuine criticism more.

Agreed. The problem is that ALL criticism is written off as abuse, responded to with accusations of racism, misogyny, stalking and general bigotry, she seldom deigns to even acknowledge critics even exist except to throw smears about like confetti and still adopts an air of being persecuted regardless of what criticism has actually been levelled. By all means, let's deal firmly and quickly with the obviously hateful and deliberately foul stuff, no problem with that at all. But let's not see fair (if sometimes harshly-delivered) comment and criticism being shut down under a barrage of false accusations directed at anybody saying anything that isn't to Her Majesty's liking.

If comment and criticism are harsh but fair then that's fine. When anything vile rears its head then we can stamp on it hard and fast. But let's not conflate the former with the latter as they're clearly not the same.

 

[SpineyNorman]

I can't believe he's still sending out messages like that when he knows that it's putting his wife and children in danger.

His ego is more important

 

[SpineyNorman]

My original point was that this discussion seems to contain quite a bit of ressentiment, or bad faith if you will. What seems to happen when bad faith takes place is that one projects the responsibility for ones own agency on some other person or group, in this case Laurie Penny in particular and the middle class commentariat in general. As if these persons are in some way hindering the true agency for "the left". Then I was trying to point out that the working class is quite capable of voicing its own concerns on its own premises, not being a five year old charity case but the supposed vanguard of politics, and if that is the case Laurie Penny cannot possibly be victimizing such a powerful faction of society. The middle class commentariat might be annoying and deluded, but they do not - in any relevant way - stand in the way for the agency of the working class or "the left". The way you seem to be discussing this stuff appears to me to contain a story of victimization of the working class by some irrelevant journalists, such a story hinders a precise understanding of the working class as a political agent with full responsibility for its own actions and politics, and it contains a shirking of responsibility for ones own agency.

Fuck off you patronising twat.

 

[Favelado]

Agreed. The problem is that ALL criticism is written off as abuse, responded to with accusations of racism, misogyny, stalking and general bigotry, she seldom deigns to even acknowledge critics even exist except to throw smears about like confetti and still adopts an air of being persecuted regardless of what criticism has actually been levelled. By all means, let's deal firmly and quickly with the obviously hateful and deliberately foul stuff, no problem with that at all. But let's not see fair (if sometimes harshly-delivered) comment and criticism being shut down under a barrage of false accusations directed at anybody saying anything that isn't to Her Majesty's liking.

If comment and criticism are harsh but fair then that's fine. When anything vile rears its head then we can stamp on it hard and fast. But let's not conflate the former with the latter as they're clearly not the same.

Perfect.

 

[Firky]

Agreed. The problem is that ALL criticism is written off as abuse, responded to with accusations of racism, misogyny, stalking and general bigotry, she seldom deigns to even acknowledge critics even exist except to throw smears about like confetti and still adopts an air of being persecuted regardless of what criticism has actually been levelled. By all means, let's deal firmly and quickly with the obviously hateful and deliberately foul stuff, no problem with that at all. But let's not see fair (if sometimes harshly-delivered) comment and criticism being shut down under a barrage of false accusations directed at anybody saying anything that isn't to Her Majesty's liking.

If comment and criticism are harsh but fair then that's fine. When anything vile rears its head then we can stamp on it hard and fast. But let's not conflate the former with the latter as they're clearly not the same.

She does get some harsh stuff said about her, to such an extent she says she fears for her safety in public IIRC. Refusing to engage with criticism is probably part of her defence against the arseholes that wish physical harm on her.

But we can only speculate as she won't address any of us and when she does turn up here, loads of people jump on her with a thousand questions.

 

[butchersapron]

My original point was that this discussion seems to contain quite a bit of ressentiment, or bad faith if you will. What seems to happen when bad faith takes place is that one projects the responsibility for ones own agency on some other person or group, in this case Laurie Penny in particular and the middle class commentariat in general. As if these persons are in some way hindering the true agency for "the left". Then I was trying to point out that the working class is quite capable of voicing its own concerns on its own premises, not being a five year old charity case but the supposed vanguard of politics, and if that is the case Laurie Penny cannot possibly be victimizing such a powerful faction of society. The middle class commentariat might be annoying and deluded, but they do not - in any relevant way - stand in the way for the agency of the working class or "the left". The way you seem to be discussing this stuff appears to me to contain a story of victimization of the working class by some irrelevant journalists, such a story hinders a precise understanding of the working class as a political agent with full responsibility for its own actions and politics, and it contains a shirking of responsibility for ones own agency.

The only person offering ressentiment or bad faith in your unusual/crude reading of it (or more accurately, them as they are not the same thing philosphically), is LP herself her. Who else has argued that the only reason we can't have nice things like revolution is people criticising her? Who else is insulating herself from criticisms by doing so?

 

[Nice one]

So, you're not at all bitter as per the events of last year, then?

 

[Odrade]

The only person offering ressentiment or bad faith in your unusual/crude reading of it (or more accurately, them as they are not the same thing philosphically), is LP herself her. Who else has argued that the only reason we can't have nice things like revolution is people criticising her? Who else is insulating herself from criticisms by doing so?

This. What has she got to do with this? How is there any connection between the two? If she in someway can be said to be offering bad faith, how is this relevant? Is she some spring-rite-offering that lets everyone else of the hook?

 

[frogwoman]

She does get some harsh stuff said about her, to such an extent she says she fears for her safety in public IIRC. Refusing to engage with criticism is probably part of her defence against the arseholes that wish physical harm on her.

But we can only speculate as she won't address any of us and when she does turn up here, loads of people jump on her with a thousand questions.

not saying its justified or owt but having physical harm wished on you sort of comes with the territory of being a journalist and with being in the public eye. you're going to (indeed you should) piss off people and some of them are going to be pretty powerful.

 

[butchersapron]

This. What has she got to do with this? How is there any connection between the two? If she in someway can be said to be offering bad faith, how is this relevant? Is she some spring-rite-offering that lets everyone else of the hook?

What?

 

[cesare]

This. What has she got to do with this? How is there any connection between the two? If she in someway can be said to be offering bad faith, how is this relevant? Is she some spring-rite-offering that lets everyone else of the hook?

Eh?

 

[cesare]

 

[J Ed]

This. What has she got to do with this? How is there any connection between the two? If she in someway can be said to be offering bad faith, how is this relevant? Is she some spring-rite-offering that lets everyone else of the hook?

Instead of being verbose and boring, why don't you just get to whatever point you're trying to make?

 

[butchersapron]

The gap between what s/he thinks is being argued and what is actually being argued is huge - but possibly understandable. The gap between the reality of and the image s/he has of how media and politics works in this country is astronomical - and most def not understandable.

 

[Odrade]

Instead of being verbose and boring, why don't you just get to whatever point you're trying to make?

That was the point. The one about the offering and the of the hook. So I wont be belaboring it any more.

 

[SpineyNorman]

That was the point. The one about the offering and the of the hook. So I wont be belaboring it any more.

That wasn't a point at all. It was just you missing the point again and saying something weird and irrelevant while using the language of a tedious pseud.

 

[TruXta]

It's OK Geir, just take it down a notch.

 

[Brixton Hatter]

It's like she was actually anywhere she writes about

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/04/what-we-talk-about-when-we-talk-about-margaret-thatcher

LOL my soundsystem gets a mention in Laurie's article. I've finally arrived

i think it was mentioned on this thread earlier. she was there for about 20 minutes. according to her tweets she retreated to KFC to drink tea.

i didn't see here, but i didn't see truxta either.

She was standing almost next to us! I really had to resist the urge to wind her up...

 

[equationgirl]

I thought she made a couple of good points in her latest article, before she got a bit verbose. Plus her latest tweet rightly points out that the DM is trolling women with Samantha Brick stories. Shame that this valid point was followed with some misogynstic shit about her being 'irrelevant because of her vagina' from some wanker

I'm intrigued by her next piece...

 

[muscovyduck]

We really need to create a Tumblr or Wordpress which collects all the criticism of her into one place so it's easier for people to read through than a 500+ page thread. Especially if she's still lurking.

 

[Nylock]

Jesus, i've been just about keeping up with this thread for so long i stopped looking at the page count.. 542 pages!

 

[Belushi]

I'm going to invite her to the next North London drinks, Owen was a smash hit at the last one

 

[DotCommunist]

she wouldn't be frequenting your old man boozers

 

[J Ed]

What a truly horrendous person http://bastardoldholborn.blogspot.co.uk/2008/01/coons-and-muslims.html

The number 2 libertarian blogger in the UK too, apparently.