[governance] Re: a formal appeal request to the appeal team to reverse the recent ban on a Member

[parminder]

I had hoped to stay out of this unfortunate morass. My response to 
personally nasty people normally is to avoid interacting with them, and 
this mostly works. But, it is apparent that there are considerable 
political overtones to this 'morass' and I normally do make the due 
political response to such political things.

On Saturday 12 January 2013 05:37 AM, McTim wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Riaz and Parminder and others throw around tags like "neo-liberal" and
> "neo-con" and "American Exceptionalism"
Although everything I say here applies to Riaz as well, I will speak for 
myself especially because I am going to make specific claims and 
challenge McTim to disprove them.

The terms you mention. McTim, are very regularly used in contemporary 
political literature. If we are to disallow these terms from political 
discussions and discourse then we will have to ban some of the best 
current political literature, especially coming from the South.

I use these terms only to refer to set of political views, and that is 
how these are supposed to be used. I dont use them to label a particular 
person. In addition, every time I use these terms I go into considerable 
detail explaining their use.

On a very very few occasions, I have indeed responded to the use of 
specific political labels, with a counter-label.... Without exception, 
and I repeat, /without exception/, every such usage responds to a 
specific, personalised reference/ label made by someone. (I understand 
that there could be considerable sanctimonious advice by some that one 
can just ignore such labels, but when in the middle of a political 
contestation there often is a clear requirement - to be effective at 
what one is doing - not to ignore such a labelling. I welcome a separate 
discussion on this issue.)

Having made these claims, McTim, since you have specifically used my 
name to make an accusation,/*I challenge you prove my above claims 
wrong. And if you cannot, then do the gentlemanly thing and withdraw 
your comments and apologize. */

> where they do not apply.

Now, we can hardly go by McTim's judgement as to where terms like neolib 
and American exceptionalism apply or dont apply.  But, well, you do seem 
to agree that there terms do apply to some kind of views. That is 
encouraging. Well, let me repeat the act for what you accuse me - I have 
not the least doubt that these terms - neolib, US exceptionalism -  
strongly apply to some of the views routinely presented on this list. 
And now that I have  done it again, why dont you seek that I be called 
for such an insolent behaviour.

It would be apparent to everyone that the IGC elist is a site of deep  
political contestations - which is not necessarily a bad thing . The 
terms you refer to are central to some of the key political 
contestations of current times. IF we ban them, then as Carlos says, 
maybe we can discuss football and pop music on this list.

>    They
> are insulting to those who they are aimed at, mostly becuase they are
> wildly inaccurate.
McTim, as above, you dont seem to be the best judge of the accuracy of 
these terms at all, but I will take a chance - tell me what is the 
accurate meaning / usage of these terms. It may help my political learning.

>
> They don't get called on it, but when SRS says "gleefully posting",
> those words get him banned?
Characterising political positions, in the middle of a political 
discussion, with due elaborations, is not to be compared with what has 
been routine, extra-ordinarily routine, spilling of personal and 
personalised contempt on this list. No, it was not just the one phrase 
'gleefully posting' - which did in fact have no purpose in the concerned 
email other than to express deep personal contempt//- that got your 
friend called for. And this was certainly not the most contemptuous 
expression he has made, far from it. In fact it falls quite below his 
normal standard. The concerned email just capped a series of events 
that  made the coordinator do what she did.

parminder

>
> That's the pattern.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130112/f81859f3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t