Current avatar; banned by the Guardian Comment is Free mafiosi
One of my Avatars - I have many - was FreshOrangeJuice. It has just been banned from the Guardian comment pages. Big deal. Or BFD at they say.
Now what is interesting is to understand exactly what gets you banned from the comment pages of the 'Voice of Liberalism'.
This should be understood in context. I am generally supportive of Polly Toynbee's writing, I have corresponded with her. However, I am not welcome on the Guardian comment pages and when they discover I am behind an Avatar they do ban me.
The points I was making on this thread were not really about Toynbee, they were about the lost soul of the Labour Party and the support of the Guardian for Ed Miliband. Polly was my foil. Moreover, it is only for arguments sake that I describe the party of Wilson and Callaghan as a 'socialist party'. Truth be told it was merely a social democratic party. It was Polly Toynbee's party, but it shouldn't have been.
If you are interested in understanding the limits to the online debate and how it is framed by a newspaper like the Guardian that is nominally progressive, then perhaps it is worthwhile reading these posts*. In the style of The Mouse's Tale from Alice in Wonderland.
Ten steps to a Comment is Free banning
Post 1
FreshOrangeJuice
Guardian 26 September 2011 9:21PM
Polly, let me get this straight.
On the last two threads you have stated clearly that you are not a socialist and that you left the Labour Party because it was too socialist. You are a centrist. You are not on the left.
So why do you insist on supporting Miliband?
The answer is simple.
Labour is not the party of Labour any more, it is the party of the right wing social Democrats, it is the party of Liberalism and the 'radical centre.'
Your support for Labour amounts to a co-option.
Just as at one point, the support of Rupert Murdoch also amounted to a form of co-option.
On the last two threads you have stated clearly that you are not a socialist and that you left the Labour Party because it was too socialist. You are a centrist. You are not on the left.
So why do you insist on supporting Miliband?
The answer is simple.
Labour is not the party of Labour any more, it is the party of the right wing social Democrats, it is the party of Liberalism and the 'radical centre.'
Your support for Labour amounts to a co-option.
Just as at one point, the support of Rupert Murdoch also amounted to a form of co-option.
Post 2
FreshOrangeJuice
Guardian 26 September 2011 9:24PM
You only supported Labour because it lurched to the right and lost clause 4.
Labour is NOT your party. You and other like you in the haute bourgoisie have made it your party.
But it is not your party.
You are a social democrat not a socialist.
Post 3
FreshOrangeJuice
Labour is NOT your party. You and other like you in the haute bourgoisie have made it your party.
But it is not your party.
You are a social democrat not a socialist.
Post 3
FreshOrangeJuice
26 September 2011 9:28PM
Your support for Labour, like the conditional support of many others on the Guardian, including Rushbridger amounts to an admission that Labour is not Labour in any shape or form any more, but a party of Social Democrats.
The upper middle class, the influential denizens of the private schools force fed for the top two universities, have taken over the Labour party because it was a party with possibilities of achieving power. Blair was one of you. He was an archetypical opportunist.
Blair was a man on the path to power who would flog any horse to get there. You and Blair and others like you, the elite, have helped take the Labour Party away from its roots in the people and you have flogged it like and old nag to get where you want to get and frankly it is very unseemly to hear you supporting Ed Miliband.
Post 4
FreshOrangeJuice
The upper middle class, the influential denizens of the private schools force fed for the top two universities, have taken over the Labour party because it was a party with possibilities of achieving power. Blair was one of you. He was an archetypical opportunist.
Blair was a man on the path to power who would flog any horse to get there. You and Blair and others like you, the elite, have helped take the Labour Party away from its roots in the people and you have flogged it like and old nag to get where you want to get and frankly it is very unseemly to hear you supporting Ed Miliband.
Post 4
FreshOrangeJuice
Guardian 26 September 2011 9:32PM
One of the great deracinations of modern political life has been the taking over of the Labour Party NOT by Militant, or left wing cabals, but by RIGHT wing cabals.
To such an extent that our former Labour Prime Minister is now a spokesperson for the US neo-cons advocating war on Iran.
This is the truth of the matter. Militant didn't take over the party, the right wing social democrats did. People willing to divorce labour from its natural base: ordinary working people joined together to protect their jobs and working conditions and social welfare.
Post 5
FreshOrangeJuice
To such an extent that our former Labour Prime Minister is now a spokesperson for the US neo-cons advocating war on Iran.
This is the truth of the matter. Militant didn't take over the party, the right wing social democrats did. People willing to divorce labour from its natural base: ordinary working people joined together to protect their jobs and working conditions and social welfare.
Post 5
FreshOrangeJuice
Guardian 26 September 2011 9:36PM
You, Polly, and people like you on the right have been more responsible than the Murdochs in destroying the Labour Party, of making the word Left into a completely meaningless term, where the left is no longer socialist, but you can say you are left merely by the fact that you are against prejudice of all kinds.
To be against racism and sexism and other forms of prejudice is not left, it can equally be right wing and 'radical' centrist.
In other words identity politics is the screen the right hide behind. Because underneath they do NOT have the same interests at heart as ordinary working people. They are privileged and they protect that privilege in many ways.
They merely call themselves left as a pose as a lifestyle choice.
Post 6
FreshOrangeJuice
To be against racism and sexism and other forms of prejudice is not left, it can equally be right wing and 'radical' centrist.
In other words identity politics is the screen the right hide behind. Because underneath they do NOT have the same interests at heart as ordinary working people. They are privileged and they protect that privilege in many ways.
They merely call themselves left as a pose as a lifestyle choice.
Post 6
FreshOrangeJuice
Guardian 26 September 2011 9:41PM
You found the Labour Party too left and so you left it. As it should be because you openly state that you are not left at all. You are more of a social democrat like Shirley Williams.
So why complain about the Labour Party? It was not your party in the first place. It was a party of the ordinary working people. A party with its base in organised Labour.
What you show in your support for Miliband is two important things:
1. That Labour has a weak connection with organised Labour. That it is wormy with political careerists. Miliband is one of them.
2. That you feel no compunction, as someone who is a Social Democrat, in supporting a Labour opposition that is not Labour at all.
It is right wing social democrat.
Post 7
FreshOrangeJuice
So why complain about the Labour Party? It was not your party in the first place. It was a party of the ordinary working people. A party with its base in organised Labour.
What you show in your support for Miliband is two important things:
1. That Labour has a weak connection with organised Labour. That it is wormy with political careerists. Miliband is one of them.
2. That you feel no compunction, as someone who is a Social Democrat, in supporting a Labour opposition that is not Labour at all.
It is right wing social democrat.
Post 7
FreshOrangeJuice
Guardian 26 September 2011 9:45PM
It is not a question of socialist ideas being old fashioned. If a Tory or a Liberal or a 'radical' centrist tells me that Socialism is old fashioned then I know they only do it to annoy because they know it teases.
What could be more old fashioned than David Cameron and George Osbourne's Restoration comedy government?
No. What we are really talking about here is a hollow party called the Labour party, with its soul scooped right out.
I would liken the current Labour Party to a spider crab. The former occupant has died and a spider crab has taken over the shell of what was the Labour Party.
And you, Polly, are asking us to give our support to your spider crab.
The right wing social democrat - free market party that uses the shell of what was Labour as a disguise.
Post 8
FreshOrangeJuice
What could be more old fashioned than David Cameron and George Osbourne's Restoration comedy government?
No. What we are really talking about here is a hollow party called the Labour party, with its soul scooped right out.
I would liken the current Labour Party to a spider crab. The former occupant has died and a spider crab has taken over the shell of what was the Labour Party.
And you, Polly, are asking us to give our support to your spider crab.
The right wing social democrat - free market party that uses the shell of what was Labour as a disguise.
Post 8
FreshOrangeJuice
26 September 2011 9:54PM
I'll agree that an alliance between a socialist Labour Party, which is what it always was and what is should be, the party of Shore and Benn and Bevan and Atlee, will form a natural alliance with a social democratic party because they share common ground. But your social democratic party has chosen to go into an alliance with the Tories, the children of Thatcher the milk snatcher.
Don't ask, now that your party has failed you, for Labour to become your party.
Ed Miliband says he is a 'radical centrist'
Indeed.
We all know what that means. It means he will sell his grandmother to get into power. That he is a power seeker, like Blair and that is all.
How else could you explain the fruity voiced Andrew Rawnsley giving Miliband his support.
The support of Rawnsley usually amounts to disguised flattery.
Post 9
FreshOrangeJuice
Don't ask, now that your party has failed you, for Labour to become your party.
Ed Miliband says he is a 'radical centrist'
Indeed.
We all know what that means. It means he will sell his grandmother to get into power. That he is a power seeker, like Blair and that is all.
How else could you explain the fruity voiced Andrew Rawnsley giving Miliband his support.
The support of Rawnsley usually amounts to disguised flattery.
Post 9
FreshOrangeJuice
Guardian 26 September 2011 10:05PM
One of the uses Rawnsley has, apart from exerting influence through disguised - perhaps even open - flattery is that he is a weather vane. Rawnsley unfailing supports the pillars of British society. The status quo. He perfectly represents the interests of the status quo. His criticism is merely confined to the relative efficacy of the different players in intelligently upholding the status quo.
You and Rawnsley don't seem all that far apart to me.
Post10
FreshOrangeJuice
You and Rawnsley don't seem all that far apart to me.
Post10
FreshOrangeJuice
Guardian 26 September 2011 10:08PM
Actually, that's very unfair. You are more intelligent than Rawnsley and more perceptive and have a far more acute sense of social justice.
The point is that the Labour Party should not be your party. Neither should it be Rawnsleys. Vote for it tactically if you like, but stop trying to keep it in the right of centre.
It is the Party of ordinary people not the fucking establishment. Or at least it should be the party of ordinary people.
. . . . . .
"...Such a
* I have left out a couple of posts where I correct my spelling.
** Nick Das
The point is that the Labour Party should not be your party. Neither should it be Rawnsleys. Vote for it tactically if you like, but stop trying to keep it in the right of centre.
It is the Party of ordinary people not the fucking establishment. Or at least it should be the party of ordinary people.
. . . . . .
"...Such a
trial,
dear sir,
With no
jury or
judge,
would be
wasting
our breath.'
'I'll be
judge,
I'll be
jury,'
Said
cunning
old Fury**;
'I'll try
the whole
cause,
and
condemn
you
to
death.' "
* I have left out a couple of posts where I correct my spelling.
** Nick Das
It would be interesting to note the number of "recommends" your postings received, You certainly had some from me!
ReplyDeleteThanks anonymous. I had lots of recommends, over a hundred for the first posts and then for the last ones about 50. A little of it was self stoked, but not much.
ReplyDeleteOn of their strategies, you see they keep the cartoon right wingers to look good, is to ban an avatar when that avatar gets a high profile or a following.
I've had lots of avatars. Whenever I make a salient point or seem to be getting support for an approach then Nick Das or one of the other moderators bans the avatar.
They don't want to see clusters forming around avatars that can critique the Guardian comment at a deeper level. I think they see it as 'brand protection'.
However, the fact that my comments, such as they are, and they aren't very nuanced, are censored, doesn't mean I have to accept censorship.
I am probably talking to a fellow traveller here. You probably know exactly what I am talking about.
The point being, that in a time when public demonstrations are being banned we have to use all the avenues we can to say what we think. To say what on reflection seems extremely obvious.
For example, to say that Polly Toynbee's support for the Guardian is just one more indication that the Labour Party is a Trojan Horse for the right of centre establishment pushing against the establishment that is even further to the right.
Thanks for your support.
(I do go on, don't I?)
It might be that the sheer amount you appear to have posted would undoubtedly be as annoying as fuck.
ReplyDeleteScatterfire. Polly Toynbee's smart petards hoisting.
ReplyDeleteIt was interesting to read the comments which got you banned from the CIF. More interesting is that they don't have the kind of content that would justify such an action. I rather enjoyed reading them.
ReplyDeleteI'd understand if moderation is to be employed to prevent abuse but your comments do not ammount to it. What they do is disabuse certain notions - which is what debate is all about. It's not a free debate, of course, - it can never be but still you have said nothing that justifies the ban.
Incidentally, I agree with you. Nice read, thanks
I think the way the rationalise is to say something along the lines of: 'Well I don't mind what he says but it is the constant sniping that gets me.'
ReplyDeleteAnd the response of their tech guy was to say: @Get over it, it's only a comment website.'
What can you say?
Its a badge of honour being banned from the Guardian .
ReplyDeleteI was banned ..my Posts used to get recomendations off the Richter scale ..then a ban !and Im a Socialist
ReplyDeleteAnd the response of their tech guy was to say: @Get over it, it's only a comment website.'
ReplyDeleteWhat can you say?
.................
If thats so ..then why the bans?
Regardless of the number of recommends you receive, and regardless even of the truth of your claims, the fact remains that your substantive points are ad hominems and off-topic. You're not providing a deeper critique of the issues at hand, you're homing in on the character of the author rather than addressing the points they're making. The moderators are far from perfect, but the comments you've posted here seem to me to be a quite clear breach of the community guidelines at the Guardian. No conspiracy here.
ReplyDeleteI imagine this post comes from a moderator or editor. Either that or the poster has Stockholm syndrome.
ReplyDeleteAgain, when I say Stockholm syndrome there I am referring not to the poster, but to the syndrome of Poacher turned hunter. The upoint I am making, and perhaps the other people on this thread can see it, is that I am using rhetoric not to make a point about Polly Toynbee or the poster, who I do not know - but about the fact that the carefully culled posting community at CIF, where it agrees with the simple minded moderation policy, is conditioned to do so. And when I say simple minded, I am referring to the outcome, the resut, the policy, not the moderators. Get it?
'"I said the hounds of spring are following in winters traces" but let it pass.'
James Thurber
Now there's a man with respect for punctuation.
ReplyDeleteJust been banned from the "free-speach" Guardian for the fourth time. I have never sworn, been abusive, or attacked other posters. It's just that my views are sometimes not the approved Guardian views.
ReplyDeleteDo they know what they have become?