There's an interesting forum thread developing over at FDR titled 'A recent chat transcript and reaction' - not sure whether it has been brought up here yet.

This is Anne la Jordanie's original post - will quote it here for those who can no longer access FDR.

Quote:

Prelude: Stef, Greg, I, and a few others had been discussing (perfectly civilly, I might add) a membership contract for FDR (a set of rules, if you will). I was in favor of the idea, while the others were not. Very shortly before Stef had to leave, Nathan entered the chat room. I will not be including the section prior to Nathan's entrance in the full chat, because it isn’t the motivation behind this post. My conclusion is at the end. Scroll down if you don't want to read the chat. admin: seriously anne, come up with the rules, i'd be happy to look them over admin left this room. Anne la Jordanie: I don't really EXPECT abuse here, but I don't expect it to be absent either. Anne la Jordanie: So... I need to write rules for FDR... Anne la Jordanie: Or drop it. Anne la Jordanie: Or leave. Greg Gauthier: see a need, fill it. Anne la Jordanie: >< Greg Gauthier: that's the libertarian way Anne la Jordanie: Headache. Mr. C: Eww. Anne la Jordanie: I see a need for asprin. JC Hewitt: would you like to be abused? JC Hewitt: rates start at $100 an hour JC Hewitt: Anne la Jordanie: O.O Nathan: Anne, morality was used as a weapon against you I'm sure, this is just not the case and in fact that's the whole point of this whole entire thing. Greg Gauthier: Hoppipolla left this room. JC Hewitt: hey dudes lay out serious cash to be treated like crap Anne la Jordanie to Nathan: Pardon? JC Hewitt: I guess women don't have to because the market is pretty saturated JC Hewitt: that's actually really interesting Greg Gauthier left this room. Nathan to Anne la Jordanie: You know what I mean I think. Anne la Jordanie to Nathan: Obviously not, since I asked. Nathan to Anne la Jordanie: This isn't the past. Anne la Jordanie to Nathan: Uh, yes, I do know that... Anne la Jordanie to Nathan: Next step in following? Nathan to Anne la Jordanie: I'm not sure how to explain this, I've been trying to think of a way to do it but you have this false premise already set. Anne la Jordanie to Nathan: Alright, what's my false premise? Nathan to Anne la Jordanie: That this is that restrictive, disapproving, suffocating argument from morality used against you in the past. tylerdurden: i would say that i was not moral when I stumbled onto FDR Stray Karma has renamed to Stray Minty Freshness tylerdurden: if there was a rule saying moral people only, I wouldnt be here now JC Hewitt: yeah I am still a pretty rotten jerk actually Anne la Jordanie to Nathan: I don't THINK that's my premise... jorgeben: how so JC? JC Hewitt: short temper matt_J: id definitly be out JC Hewitt: but I'm working at getting better... I'm not quite so horrible now tylerdurden: sry to jump in late in the conversation jorgeben: that's kind of involuntary though I'm guessing JC Hewitt: it's not involuntary Stray Minty Freshness: i'd think just saying we follow all the rules makes us feel moral... JC Hewitt: I mean, I learned it from my dad JC Hewitt: but it's something that I have control over Stray Minty Freshness: then we learn that the rules are immoral at FDR Nathan to Anne la Jordanie: Well, when I heard you talking about how "Stef would disapprove" of what you wanted to say if you ever opened up, that is the only thing I could think of that could possibly be the premise behind that kind of fear. This is just a theory, it could be something else, but I suspect that's close maybe. Anne la Jordanie to Nathan: Oh, that was a totally different subject. Nathan to Anne la Jordanie: Really? Nathan to Anne la Jordanie: In content perhaps. tylerdurden: well, not to be rude or call associate you guys with this but flat rules like this are what segregation was all about Nathan to Anne la Jordanie: In principle, not so sure. JC Hewitt: i'm not sure what you want... a list of rules for the message board? bockman joined the room. JC Hewitt: Like 1. no child porn 2. no discussions about pork products etc. etc. bockman has renamed to dave.bockman Mr. C: Tyler: Genghis Khan would have agreed with you Anne la Jordanie to Nathan: Yes. What constitutes banable behavior. Anne la Jordanie to Nathan: Oops, all. tylerdurden: sure, but that doesnt mean he wasnt capable of being evil too Nathan to Anne la Jordanie: Being abusive. Anne la Jordanie to Nathan: Hey, WTF? Stray Minty Freshness: maybe freedom -- without rules -- is the scary thing. Anne la Jordanie to Nathan: It won't let me declick! Mr. C: Anne: Right click on the name selector thingy. Mr. C: The one at the bottom. Anne la Jordanie to Nathan: AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! Anne la Jordanie to Nathan: I have, not working. Anne la Jordanie: >< Anne la Jordanie: Oh. Anne la Jordanie: My mouse must have gone sticky or something. Mr. C: Anne: You think it's about explicitness, right ? dave.bockman left this room. Anne la Jordanie: Well, I think a contract is needed, and contracts are explicit. Mr. C: Right. Mr. C: The problem is change. Anne la Jordanie: Sorry, not needed, but desireable. Anne la Jordanie: Change? Mr. C: Yes. JC Hewitt: i dunno I think this is over thinking things Mr. C: If Stef decides he hates people with Rs in their names tomorrow, can he remove them ? JC Hewitt: there isn't enough traffic on this message board to really necessitate detailed rules JC Hewitt: once you start getting thousands of posts per day then it becomes more useful JC Hewitt: but at this small scale? feh Nathan: How to get banned (or kicked out of anywhere except a sado/masochist convention) 1. Repeated ad hominems, 2. Repeated personal attacks. 3. No apologies about 1 & 2 4. Directly and openly advocating violence - that guy who advocated beating children for instance. Nathan: O Nathan: I'm not sure what's wrong with those rules. Nathan: But you asked and that's the only rules I've seen here. Mr. C: What happens if Stef wants to allow someone like that ? Mr. C: But not others ? JC Hewitt: yeah like what if ron paul wants to make a guest post tylerdurden to JC Hewitt: its interesting you guys are having this conversation, I just took a look at LiMi the other day because I didnt know what the stink was about Mr. C: The explicitness is what you focus on. Mr. C: The solidification is what you miss. JC Hewitt: oh is someone whining about getting banned on LvMI or something Anne la Jordanie: But those rules aren't always enforced. Mr. C: Right. Mr. C: That's part of the point. Mr. C: You figure it out subconsciously. Mr. C: Not consciously. Nathan: It's as though assertiveness is being condemned but aggression is not. It's like blaming the victim. Colleen: Its really like laying down rules at a dinner party. He can do whatever he wants and if we find him intolerable, we should leave. tylerdurden to JC Hewitt: well, that seems to be the only thing going on there, and after some cross-checking I was able to determine what I thought about it all JC Hewitt: ah Mr. C to Anne la Jordanie: You figure out whether to trust people not based on a list of rules you can process subconsciously. Anne la Jordanie: Exactly, Colleen. JC Hewitt: well until FDR gets to institution level size if it ever does Mr. C to Anne la Jordanie: Bah. General Motors: yeah – and i get the sense it'd be easy to fall into the same trap that some people fall into in real life. JC Hewitt: then mods can just handle whatever comes up General Motors: "don't break the rules, and you're moral" Mr. C to Anne la Jordanie: A list you can process consciously. General Motors: thus stifling real progress Colleen: Well, why exactly? Im of the position that laying down rules is ridiculous JC Hewitt: even if it grows the ultimate way it's policed is through mods Nathan: that's the statist approach, obedience is moral General Motors: exactly, nate Mr. C to Anne la Jordanie: If you want real success in getting rid of bad people, you do it subconsciously. Nathan: that's not FDR Nathan: that's the opposite Colleen: I mean who throws a dinner party and says, "Alright here are the rules!" Mr. C to Anne la Jordanie: By how you feel. Mr. C to Anne la Jordanie: Not how many rules they broke. General Motors: colleen: that'd be totally offensive General Motors: a total lack of trust Mr. C to Anne la Jordanie: Your subconscious is very powerful at processing that. JC Hewitt: that's how I start all my dinner parties. Mr. C to Anne la Jordanie: Your conscious isn't, regardless of the list of rules. JC Hewitt: i'm like Here Are the Rules and then I take out my pocket constitution Anne la Jordanie: Never mind guys, I can't follow you all at once. JC Hewitt: and then I force everyone to swear an undying blood oath to ron paul General Motors: I'm just getting over following rules I make up for MYSELF. let alone following others' rules Anne la Jordanie: It's like trying to debate a panel. Nathan: I mean, you aren't even curious about this and if you were you'd have heard all of this and understood it in over 970 podcasts +premiums... but you are deliberately evading that for a reason. It's like how fundamentalists like to hear part of an evolution argument then mischaracterize it and attack the straw man. Never curious about evolution at all. JC Hewitt: aw... that's not a fair characterization Nathan: that's completely fair Anne la Jordanie: Colleen: I agree Anne la Jordanie: Nathan, was that directed at me? Nathan: what's unfair about it? It's the best metaphor I could think of Nathan: yes Anne la Jordanie: *blink* Anne la Jordanie: Um... I'm leaving. JC Hewitt: that's why it's not effective Anne la Jordanie: I'm not sure I'm coming back. Anne la Jordanie: Goodbye. Conclusion: I was psychoanalyzed in a haphazard, aggressive, unexplained, and uninformed manner. On top of that, I was insulted and compared to a fundamentalist. Not only was absolutely no evidence given, information relating to me had clearly been disregarded. My own thoughts regarding the issue were ignored. I have previously told Nathan and many others that I do not regularly listen to Stef’s podcasts and obviously not the premiums. This incident has made something very clear to me. I will not remain a regular member of FDR. I might respond to Directly addressed things, but otherwise I do not plan to engage further. I have made friends here and I can’t say I regret being a part of FDR in the past. I'd even like to keep those friends, but it will have to be outside of FDR.

Another FDR'er departs... Thoughts?

this is one of the worst things Stef has done: giving people like Nathan, Mr. C., Greg, etc. the technique of psychologization as a weapon in discussions, and they use it liberally albeit selectively. Stef has created little monsters that way. though i am not sure whether, besides themselves, there are any permanent victims since people tend to bow out quite quickly in the face of these kinds of attacks.

Anne has had earlier bad experiences with Stef and other FDR'ers, see here

this bit that I wrote in a different thread may be somewhat relevant:

Quote:

In the November 4th Call-in-Show Stef talks about what you should do when you have unpleasant conversations with people. He means for example the 'trolls' at FDR who dare to question the unquestionables (both logical and empirical questions but also psychological questions such as to the nature and psychology of FDR). Anyway, Stef's strong advice to people who have such unpleasant conversations is to get the people out of their lives/to not engage/to walk away/and so on. But elsewhere (in his book 'On Truth', on countless board threads and podcasts) he repeatedly says that a lot of people don't stay in the FDR 'conversation' because they get asked difficult questions: logical and empirical questions about their arguments, but also psychological questions. Such questions make the conversation very unpleasant for them and they get defensive, hostile or stop responding. Their refusal to truly consider the uncomfortable questions they are asked leads them to miss out on a great opportunity of growth, learning and enlightment. Because the fact that these questions are uncomfortable for them, that they get defenmsive or don't want to respond anymore means that these questions get at deep and fundamental inner conflicts that they are unwilling to face consciously. If they were to face them, and if they were to take that difficult and often uncomfortable and painful road, they could really learn a lot about themselves. But nowehere does Stef give any objective guidelines how to distinguish between unpleasant conversations that are unpleasant because the others are hostile and conversations that are unpleasant because questions that point to deep and fundamental inner conflicts are asked in them. Because he fails to provide such a methodology he can use the easy double standard and just say that in the case of unpleasant conversations about FDR and unpleasant questions for FDR'ers, the FDR'ers should just not respond anymore, get the askers of the questions out of their lives and not engage them and not stay in the conversation, while at the same time say that in the case of unpleasant conversations for people who are questioned by FDR'ers they should stay in the conversation if they want to learn something about themselves.

I just scanned this, but what I think is a major cause of problems is communication and attitude. When I was still on fdr it was almost impossible to contact Stef. And when you're dealing with extremely sensitive issues like psycho-analysis, you need to have a trusting basis for that. What happens on fdr however, he goes very far in his analysis, pubicices it, and then is quite unavailable for any elaboration.

So the people because 'used' essentially for a certain purpose, instead of Stefan really caring about people and wanting to make sure the matter is treated delicately. I've spoken to a number of people actually who have been through a same type of thing as Anne and it's a setup for disaster and disappointment because when the basis of the relationship isn't trustworthy or equal, then things are going to be misunderstood, people will have emotions, etc, etc.

You don't quite grasp the horror of this until you've been through it.

Stefan has told vicious lies about me and others and when something like that is done publicly, it is not pretty, and ofcourse completely explodes the relationship with him, which thus means there was never any relationship with him, and we find he fundamentally does not treat anyone as an equal.


edit: sorry for being a bit ranty, but I hope my point came accross.

good points.

raureka wrote on LM this great post about his experience of Stef's podcast about him:

Quote:

Conrad wrote: dude, how did you experience Stef's podcasts about you? Interesting, infuriating, laughable, humiliating, sickening... I wrote a few paragraphs benignly probing Stefan's ideas, only to find myself being dragged through the mud with my hands tied behind my back. Watching as someone knowingly, unrestrainedly and maliciously misrepresents you is utterly exasperating to say the least - but I'm sure you know that already. Stefan loves to talk of the power disparity in relationships. Well, how about the disparity between the host of the show, and an anonymous board member. The former broadcasts his side of the story to an audience of thousands; the latter, if lucky, can count his audience on two hands. It's like trying to bring down Fox News by standing on a street corner with a picket sign.

i think they took this thread to the Premium Board. I can't access it anymore

see here

Whoops. I was tempted to post in Mixy's / Stef's thread, since I'm still a member at FDR. One beer more and I would have.

Thanks for posting the thread and links. I remember when Anne joined FDR. Ah, the intro thread days...

Quote:

this is one of the worst things Stef has done: giving people like Nathan, Mr. C., Greg, etc. the technique of psychologization as a weapon in discussions, and they use it liberally albeit selectively. Stef has created little monsters that way. though i am not sure whether, besides themselves, there are any permanent victims since people tend to bow out quite quickly in the face of these kinds of attacks.

This is something I think we could talk more about. Personally, I don't give Stef that much credit. He may empower the monster in people by modeling it, allowing it, creating an environment that encourages it, but he certainly doesn't create it. And I think the difference is really important.

Is it really a technique, or is it just a leveraging of asshole-niss in general? It seems more basic than psychologization. More like "If I can make a metaphor, my rationalization is really cool. I'll feel good about my cleverness in lieu of awareness and feeling.

Granted, it was hard to follow that chat transcript and get a feel for what people were really doing. But the general quixotic problem that (apparently) Anne raised is still paramount: When rules are invoked inconsistently, remain mutable and undefined, and are invoked only in cases of power imbalance, we create the family, and we create a toxic environment.

On the other hand, much of life is like that, subtle social rules enforced with ostracization and/or conformity pressures of other sorts, played out beneath the waves, and giving sycophants like Nathan (in that particular thread, no character assassinations from me) all the fuel they need to thrive in a hierarchy of fear. If 'thrive' is the right word.

The irony of so-called anarchists having these base drives actuated isn't lost on me at least. We will never be free until we come to fully understand just how deeply rooted power and coercion are within ourselves. There is no ridding ourselves of our animal nature, but there is the nurturing of compassion such that base knee-jerk power grabs and manipulations are not so easily invoked or accepted, even in a group. I've seen days like those, and I want more.

The Mixy thread with Stef is particularly sour. *shrug* Anne reminds me of another ex-FDR'er who is quite sensitive to attitudes and insinuations in threads. I don't think she's wrong to complain. I do think her expectations, 6 months after joining FDR, are a little high. Just because people are talking about great ideas doesn't mean their inner asshole is going to take a vacation.

_________________
If you lend someone $20 and never see that person again, it was probably worth it.

"why do you say the difference is really important? can you say more about that?"

The difference I'm getting at is: What is Stef accountable for here, and what are those in that thread accountable for? And I think it is important because all though I would never deny that Stef is influential in some way, I personally feel that people hasten to chasten him 'too early' for what are always more complex processes in their own experience. At least, that's how it seems to me.

For instance, when Stef mistreats someone and they then say, reflexively, "Stef is an asshole, he's horrible in every way", I get the message that they are hurt and feeling reactionary, but I don't hear their statement as a claim to fact. I hear it as a plea to justified anger. Yet some harbor these strong feelings for a long time, and I wonder how much judgment is impaired by these things.

When I read that "Stef is creating monsters", I hear the echo of unfinished business. What I think may be obscured is that the people in that thread, or others like it, have more responsibility for their behavior than Stef does, even if he later comes along to help the frat boyz get out of a jam by pushing things under the carpet.

When we place the blame at Stef's feet, I think we lose a large part of the psychosocial mechanics going on. Not that he shouldn't be complained about. I'll be the first. But that there is some richer understanding of why we (I, you, they?) go to a place like FDR and participate in some way in a dance that we later realize is unhealthy. And then how we deal with our humiliation, our compassion for those who cannot see what motivates them still, our recalibration, and etc..

I find the same campfire cheer in roasting the evil bastards of our world that anyone else does, but I find, on the 100th such campfire, that I'm a little roasted myself.

Lets say that one of those guys, say Nathan, was a total asshole in that thread, no real ambiguity about it. And lets say that he employed psychologization, or some other mocked up counterfeit Stefanite tool to attempt to browbeat Anne. Lets say.

Wouldn't such a man have done the same damage, but with cruder tools, had he not the 'education' of FDR? Isn't the kind of motivation that brings people to act aggressively / defensively going to be there no matter what kind of tools they use? Until such a person comes to some sort of healing, the mechanics are all but irrelevant in the broad sense: The abuse will ooze from psychic wounds onto those around them, one way, or another.

That someone, say Stefan, may use these tendencies to their own advantage, or be oblivious to them in those that speak for them, or create an internet environment that does not strictly prevent them, is also somewhat irrelevant to whether or not these toxic tendencies will continue, somewhere, somehow.

And damn Niels, I'm gonna take a screen of your long post. What's gotten into you

I just read the chat, went to fdr and to no surprise it is deleted. Mixy inquired as to why and it was moved to the gold forum and was told it was unsupportable behavior. Anna is dismissed permanently.
I think she has balls and wasn't sufficiently f'd up enough to begin with and was smart enough to know when to get off the bus. Good for her! God d nag it.
I suspect this wasn't the first chat or first time she was bitten.

Hmm. I just stumbled in here. Lots of good thoughts being bandied about. The one which just popped into my head is that so much of what is going on here (the topic of this discussion) is like what happens in high school. The cliques, the jockeying for position, the rejections and so on. It must be hell to be a high school teacher and watch what the kids are doing to each other.

That's my much-less-than-profound thought for the moment.

But this particularly resonated with me:

Quote:

On the other hand, much of life is like that, subtle social rules enforced with ostracization and/or conformity pressures of other sorts, played out beneath the waves, and giving sycophants like Nathan (in that particular thread, no character assassinations from me) all the fuel they need to thrive in a hierarchy of fear. If 'thrive' is the right word.

- NonE

The stupid "dinner party" is the most tortured metaphor EVAR. I personally would find that kind of stifling environment so oppressive as to never want to go in the first place (and FDR was not like it is now back when I firt started listening). Stef is a fine example of the common criticism of AnCaps made by AnSocs - that we wish only to supplant the authority of the state with our own, to become little Hitlers on our piece of property, freely meeting out force on the grounds of our ownership and right to defense. It is hard to see why our contempt for national boundaries and arbitrary laws should be suspended when the boundary shrinks to our homestead and the arbitrary laws are recast as "rules for our dinner party." What is different about being asked to leave the party and the old statist canard, "my country right or wrong... love it or leave it?" Stef certainly seems to resort to the propertarian justification for his behavior on the FDR boards often, asserting his "right" (derived from ownership) to ban people will-nilly, and he to make rules and police behavior just like a petty dictator, does anyone think he would be any different if he ran a commune or owned an estate where other physically resided? It seems that he chafes under the yoke of state authority not because of it's heavy burden (in fact, he goes on about how easy it is to bear), but because he yearns to carry the whip.