The long, drawn out, and unlamented death of Indymedia

[toblerone3]

The problem does go a bit deeper than that. As I said in my little footnote above, once you include politics as part of your 'evidence', everything becomes complicated and you inevitably lose the quantitative rigour that evidenced-based policy is often aiming for. Politics is often about interpretation, so once you allow it into your calculations, the 'right' and 'wrong' answers often become a matter of interpretation - however good some of your evidence might be.

Aren't complex issues like this around the bias of perception explored by Critical Theory, but it all becomes a bit of a confusing hall of mirrors. Alt right people have no patience with it and try and short circuit the framework of arguments back to dominant cultural narratives and "common sense". They just don't want to engage in this type of evidence and use Cultural Marxism as a term of abuse.

 

[toblerone3]

Thread killer ///

 

[Brainaddict]

Aren't complex issues like this around the bias of perception explored by Critical Theory, but it all becomes a bit of a confusing hall of mirrors. Alt right people have no patience with it and try and short circuit the framework of arguments back to dominant cultural narratives and "common sense". They just don't want to engage in this type of evidence and use Cultural Marxism as a term of abuse.

I don't know enough about critical theory to answer, but what I was saying is a bit more than just the 'bias of perception'. There isn't a definitively right or wrong answer to whether, say, jobs should be lost in (unionised) coalmines in order to move towards (non-unionised) wind power jobs hundreds of miles away. 'Bias' implies that elimination of some measurable bias could reach an answer that is objectively right. But 'politics' means among other things the moral/ethical frameworks through which people see the world, their relationships with people, what they 'know' from their past experience and so on. No-one is free of this, and there is no position to view the problem from that would clear away the muddiness of the waters.

What you end up with is recognising that politics is always about conflicts between competing views of the world. You can't just factor it into the 'evidence' you want to use to cut through the problem.

 

[likesfish]

I've known people who could have been shoe in for state inflitrator they were probably just people who wanted their own way regardless of the costs

 

[Tom A]

There isn't a definitively right or wrong answer to whether, say, jobs should be lost in (unionised) coalmines in order to move towards (non-unionised) wind power jobs hundreds of miles away.

Well the 'right' answer regarding safeguarding of livelihoods to me would have been to gradually communities of unionised coal miners into communities of unionised wind turbine and solar panel manufacturers.

But 'politics' means among other things the moral/ethical frameworks through which people see the world, their relationships with people, what they 'know' from their past experience and so on. No-one is free of this, and there is no position to view the problem from that would clear away the muddiness of the waters.

What you end up with is recognising that politics is always about conflicts between competing views of the world. You can't just factor it into the 'evidence' you want to use to cut through the problem.

Evidence is still required in order to construct a viable approach towards furthering a goal, including emancipation of the working classes. You need to factor in the realities of the situation, learn how people will actually react to proposals, before going in all gung-ho. It can be said that the evidence points to bottom-up approaches to improving working class communities as opposed to a top-down proposal handed down from on high.

I've known people who could have been shoe in for state inflitrator they were probably just people who wanted their own way regardless of the costs

I sadly have met several such people recently. I have seriously considered they these people are 'spooks' for some agenda (and not necessarily state agenda), and frightened myself by the fact I was discussing this in all seriousness, but I am quite happy to go with them just wanting their own way and happy to wreck the whole organisation in the process of trying to get their way. The razors of Occam and Hanlon prove to be very useful in such situations.

 

[likesfish]

some people can't or won't play well with others so end up in small or new organisations sometimes they turn out to be brilliant mavericks who change everything. Other times they just end up as wrecking assholes by their fruits you will know them.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

This might interest people.

One reason for burnout etc. is that voluntary efforts can be unsustainable.

The Media Fund aims to raise money and advocate for independent media in the UK.

The Media Fund offers ‘democratic’ alternative to billionaire press owners and BBC – Press Gazette

The Media Partners - The Media Fund

 

[Tom A]

I've heard of Tom Barlow. I'll let my friend at the Manchester Meteor (a new independent media publication, a bit like the Salford Star) know, though I doubt if he hasn't already been made aware of it, may be even playing a role himself.