Eratosphere Forums - Metrical Poetry, Free Verse, Fiction, Art, Critique, Discussions Able Muse - a review of poetry, prose and art

Forum Left Top

Notices

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Unread 01-05-2019, 11:14 AM
Andrew Mandelbaum's Avatar
Andrew Mandelbaum Andrew Mandelbaum is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Portland Maine
Posts: 3,693
Default

I am sure it is tempting to try to win an argument about whether it is shows good form to take part in a magazine despite its support for what are ultimately murderous policies and mindsets and ignore the moment and the stakes. Just as it is tempting on my part to imagine just desserts when allowing pigs to extract the marrow from the amazon because one has better things to do might result in the distracted and oblivious of the West finally seeing the roof come down on their own heads. But there are some beautiful persons way closer to the chopping block than any of us that could use any sign of pushback that might be available. Some comments kinda suck in light of the moment. Try to think.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Unread 01-05-2019, 11:27 AM
Mark McDonnell Mark McDonnell is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Staffordshire, England
Posts: 4,420
Default

Thanks Quincy, I think. Though I don't really understand your answer.

(Edit: removed the rest, because after actually thinking for a while I did understand Quincy's answer, including his youtube analogy)
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Unread 01-05-2019, 11:41 AM
David Rosenthal David Rosenthal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA, USA
Posts: 3,140
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark McDonnell View Post
...wouldn't that constitute 'debating with fascists'? I thought that was bad.
First, I think it is more useless than bad. Though it can also be very bad -- more on that below.

More importantly, letters to TNC denouncing its embrace of Bolsinaro would not be "debating with fascists," it would be challenging writers, readers, editors, TNC staffers -- anyone in proximity to TNC -- to address the fact of that proximity, and explain, justify, defend, denounce, etc. TNC's support of Bolsonaro. It would also be alerting readers and potential readers to what they may not have noticed or taken seriously.

That is different from debating Bolsonaro, or some other fascist or authoritarian. The "badness" of doing so is that engaging such folks in legitimate debate legitimizes their position as debatable, and their engagement in such debates is always for that purpose only. Their positions explicitly reject the legitimacy of any opposition so there is no interest in or chance of actual debate.

But again, people associated with TNC speaking out against TNC's embrace of Bolsinaro is not "debating" Bolsinaro, it is holding TNC accountable for its actions, and encouraging others associated with TNC, including readers, to take a stand.

David R.

Last edited by David Rosenthal; 01-05-2019 at 01:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Unread 01-05-2019, 12:58 PM
Mark McDonnell Mark McDonnell is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Staffordshire, England
Posts: 4,420
Default

Thank you David, that's a good answer. I'm all in favour of the denunciation of reprehensible ideas. I was being faux-naive, probably annoyingly so, in my use of the simplistic word 'bad'. There was a conversation here a while back about this where it was suggested that attempting to reach Trump voters by reasoned debate was useless, an idea that I questioned.

There is surely some area of confusion, isn't there, about exactly what constitutes a genuine fascist (Bolsonaro eg) as opposed to someone who merely shows 'support' for a fascist (TNC eg), and where this 'do not debate them' line ought to be drawn. How can you tell when a person/institution has become fascistic and is therefore unreachable/undebatable? Is it like becoming a werewolf? At what point in Bolsanaro's political career should anyone have stopped arguing with him personally about his ideology or even acknowledging his existence?

I'm not quite convinced by the argument that debating fascists legitimises them. Bolsonaro seems fairly legitimate already in that he is the President of Brazil. Trump seems fairly legitimate. Steve Bannon seems to be doing OK for himself. Is there an argument that the opposite may be true? That following this shibboleth of 'refusal to engage' gives their supporters even more of a sense of grievance and martyrdom and imbues the idea of fascism with a kind of undeserved talismanic power? I'm not suggesting society goes out of its way to give them air-time and by debate I certainly don't mean a polite 'Well, I can see your point of view, but have you looked at things this way...?' But the 'never debate' principle, as appealing as it sounds, feels like an unworkable and confused moral luxury. I say debate and fucking win by showing these people up for the arseholes they are before they get in power.

I realise this isn't a popular view.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Unread 01-05-2019, 01:29 PM
Julie Steiner Julie Steiner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Posts: 8,307
Default

Kimball thinks he's emulating Eliot, but clearly he's emulating Pound.

I recommend this article on Eliot's 1928 critique of five books about Italian Fascism in his own Criterion.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Unread 01-05-2019, 02:05 PM
Erik Olson Erik Olson is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,150
Default

Mark, you raise many questions or issues at once, and, while I have not the time to give all my reactions, I could not forbear to register some few at least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark McDonnell View Post
There was a conversation here a while back about this where it was suggested that attempting to reach Trump voters by reasoned debate was useless, an idea that I questioned.
I would concur for all intents and purposes. [Edited-in: I should clarify that a form of engagement with Trump supporters may be useful, however, the contest of debate would not be it. So it is that every newscast we find them who, like cult members, defy the most empirical facts, contradict the most cogent truths, and persist in parroting today what they parroted yesterday, in defiance of evidence, and contempt of confutation. Yet studies have shown that members of personality cults, which Trumpists should be considered, do respond to a certain kind of sustained engagement aimed at deprogramming. Though it requires great patience and restraint, there is evidence to support the potential usefulness of this tactic which takes the long view. See article: Escaping the Trump Cult.] Only I do not see the relevance with respect to the proposition to send letters to the The New Criterion. The proposition to send letters, as I understand it, would not be to debate with anybody, Fascist or Trump voter. It would appeal to would-be submitters to boycott the journal, thus pressure for a change, if not also to allow those previously published by the journal to have their discontent aired and name disaffiliated for all to see. That is insofar as I understood. It were to be wished that they who have been published by the journal could register their own response to its political endorsements, such as that of Bolsonaro; but, alas, I doubt the editor would be so liberalminded and faire as to print such letters and allow former contributors a renunciation of the political messages featured within its pages.
You say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark McDonnell View Post
There is surely some area of confusion, isn't there, about exactly what constitutes a genuine fascist (Bolsonaro eg) as opposed to someone who merely shows 'support' for a fascist (TNC eg), and where this 'do not debate them' line ought to be drawn. How can you tell when a person/institution has become fascistic and is therefore unreachable/undebatable? Is it like becoming a werewolf? At what point in Bolsanaro's political career should anyone have stopped acknowledging his existence?
Yes, but this is another issue. It is not necessary to use the term fascist. But as an aside, Fascism is notoriously difficult to pinpoint; to gratify curiosity, here is the perspective of a philosopher, How Fascism Works: A Yale philosopher on fascism, truth, and Donald Trump.. That be as it may, I do not see the use of this term, or of any other for that matter, as binding to the proposition discussed or to the general appeal to renounce this journal. For, in either action, writing letters or renouncing, all that is required is that one objects to the political affiliations and messages featured enough to thusly respond. The delineation of fascism, in other words, is not necessary to either.
You say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark McDonnell View Post
I'm not quite convinced by the argument that debating fascists legitimises them. Bolsonaro seems fairly legitimate already in that he is the President of Brazil. Trump seems fairly legitimate. Steve Bannon seems to be doing OK for himself. Is there an argument that the opposite may be true? That following this shibboleth of 'refusal to engage' gives their supporters even more of a sense of grievance and martyrdom and imbues the idea of fascism with a kind of undeserved talismanic power? I'm not suggesting society goes out of its way to give them air-time. And by debate I don't mean a polite 'Well, I can see your point of view but have you looked at things this way...?' But the 'never debate' principle, as appealing as it sounds, feels like an unworkable and confused moral luxury. I say debate and fucking win by showing these people up for the arseholes they are before they get in power.
I agree, in the main. Mind you, it is one thing to address the fascist leader himself or herself and another to address the followers thereof. Further, it is another thing still to address not the extremist but the milder supporters of the fascist leader in the unspeakably difficult process of deprogramming. It is a long drawn-out process, indeed; but researches into the cognitive dissonance of cult members blindly allegiant to a personality-cult-leader, suggest that it is in the realm of the possible. To consider Trumpists akin to members of a personality cult is not inaccurate and for more reasons than I have time to furnish here; in any event, here is a compendious article which covers the gist of them better than anything that I could rattle off extempore. Link: Escape From the Trump Cult. I found the ‘conflict transformation’ topic, however unintuitive, offered some useful food for thought, indeed.

All the best,

Erik

Last edited by Erik Olson; 01-06-2019 at 03:02 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Unread 01-05-2019, 02:05 PM
David Rosenthal David Rosenthal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA, USA
Posts: 3,140
Default

Mark,

I have neither the time nor the stomach for a lengthy reply right now, though more can be said then I will say here. But here are a few quick points:

I am aware of the previous discussions here to which you refer. I took part in some of them.

I don't think I said debate legitimizes fascists like Bolsonaro, I think I said it legitimizes their positions and ideas. At least that is what I meant to say. This is a significant distinction, and one that I think is the key to your puzzle about who to debate or not. It is probably more a matter of what to debate or not, though that is likely an oversimplification.

In any case, without the legitimization of their discourse, fascists and authoritarians have nothing with which to assert their legitimacy besides whatever positional and institutional authority the legitimization of their discourse has made possible, and of course sheer violence.

They should be opposed, exposed, attacked, resisted, humiliated, etc. But not debated. At least as far as I understand the word "debated."

And before you reply, "how do you expose them, etc. without debating them?" The answer again is to attack and dismantle their ideas and rhetoric, though not in debate with them but in demonstration before those who may not recognize the illegitimacy of their discourse. Hence, the potential utilityTNC contributors speaking out.

David R.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Unread 01-05-2019, 03:58 PM
Mark McDonnell Mark McDonnell is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Staffordshire, England
Posts: 4,420
Default

Thank you for responding Erik and David,

I began my contribution to this thread with the admission to Quincy that I probably talk too much. I end it with the same thought. I apologise for asking questions and raising issues which you feel you don't have the stomach to reply to, David, though thanks for replying anyway. I promise I don't do it to be annoying, but from a genuine interest in people's ideas about the usefulness and limits of conversation and debate etc. But I begin to suspect this is exasperating to many. I'll stick to poetry, I think. I led the discussion in an unnecessary and unhelpful direction. We agree that fascists are reprehensible, and I certainly wouldn't want to encourage anything that would further legitimise their ideas. I understand, of course, the distinctions you make and they are persuasive. There's definite symbolic power in lack of acknowlegement. I do think a volley of emails from past contributors expressing disgust at the position taken by TNC would be a good thing.

Hi Andrew,

Quote:
I am sure it is tempting to try to win an argument about whether it is shows good form to take part in a magazine despite its support for what are ultimately murderous policies and mindsets and ignore the moment and the stakes. Just as it is tempting on my part to imagine just desserts when allowing pigs to extract the marrow from the amazon because one has better things to do might result in the distracted and oblivious of the West finally seeing the roof come down on their own heads. But there are some beautiful persons way closer to the chopping block than any of us that could use any sign of pushback that might be available. Some comments kinda suck in light of the moment. Try to think.
I'm not sure if this refers to my comments in post #7 or not. If it does, really I wasn't trying to 'win an argument' and I assure you I do try to think. I sometimes think aloud and in public, which isn't always the best idea. The distracted and oblivious stalk the globe, I think, as do the committed and aware, they aren't unique to any portion of it.

Cheers.

Best to all.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Unread 01-05-2019, 05:35 PM
David Rosenthal David Rosenthal is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA, USA
Posts: 3,140
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark McDonnell View Post
I apologise for asking questions and raising issues which you feel you don't have the stomach to reply to, David, though thanks for replying anyway. I promise I don't do it to be annoying, but from a genuine interest in people's ideas about the usefulness and limits of conversation and debate etc. But I begin to suspect this is exasperating to many.
Mark,

For the record, I didn't mean to imply that you were annoying or exasperating, or that my lack of stomach was due to you. I meant it as a confession of my shortcomings. I apologize for giving the wrong impression.

David R.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Unread 01-07-2019, 01:32 PM
Mark McDonnell Mark McDonnell is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Staffordshire, England
Posts: 4,420
Default

Thanks David,

I wouldn't blame you for finding me exasperating and annoying tbh. Or blame Andrew for his comment. He was probably right to detect some reaching back to a previous conversation in my comment at post #7, but it wasn't meant as a dig at Quincy's stance on submitting to TNC. I agree with him on that fwiw, especially now I'm more informed about the place. It was more a callback to a conversation here a while back about the whole 'debating with fascists' thing. I kind of got a bee in my bonnet, probably unjustified, that for some people this seems so ingrained a mantra that they see talking politely but honestly to the old lady next door with the MAGA poster in her window as equivalent to inviting Richard Spencer onto daytime TV for a friendly chat. I tried to expand on this later in the thread.

I'm under no illusions about how messed up the world is, but I don't think debate and conversation at a lower level should ever become a political taboo. It can exist along with all other forms of resistance and pushback.

But I also know that I live in a sleepy small town in England. Next to a moor. And I'm probably hopelessly naive about the whole thing.

Peace to all. Thanks again for the link Quincy (I should have left it at that)

Mark
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Forum Right Top
Forum Left Bottom Forum Right Bottom
 
Right Left
Member Login
Forgot password?
Forum LeftForum Right


Forum Statistics:
Forum Members: 8,399
Total Threads: 21,841
Total Posts: 270,806
There are 1326 users
currently browsing forums.
Forum LeftForum Right


Forum Sponsor:
Donate & Support Able Muse / Eratosphere
Forum LeftForum Right
Right Right
Right Bottom Left Right Bottom Right

Hosted by ApplauZ Online