Mike Harman wrote:
72 hours have past (usual time for a temp ban) since, so I'm not sure if I'm permanently banned. But in any case it can be the groundwork for a permanent ban.Noa if you continue to derail threads it's going to be time for a temp ban, I've wasted too much time the past week or so cleaning up after you.
admin - Noa was warned about derailing and ignored it, three contentless posts in a row is enough, banned
I certainly wouldn't have taken the risk to be permanently banned, since I've made many contributions to the library which I think warrants me to stay present on the site (even if I discontinue my participation in the forums). A ban from merely the forum section would be less of a problem for me, but still, I'm a long time member, so even that would be unfortunate.
The reason I bring up the matter here, is because my ban wasn't officially publicized to the libcom users, so that even a moderator wasn't aware of it:
https://libcom.org/forums/general/any-s ... ent-606711
jef costello (a moderator) wrote:
Mike Harman (admin) could have informed jef and the others about my ban at this moment, but Mike chose not to do so. His decision was only announced on the thread itself (and another one on which I was active at the time), but which most people would probably miss.I have been tempted to ban Noa, but that is up to the admins.
Instead Mike complained about the time-consuming role of being an admin, though his own forum posts are often very long and contain many specifically google-searched info.
The stated reason for my ban is "derailing", which must imply "deliberate" derailing on my part. https://libcom.org/forums/feedback-cont ... g-29052018
Leaving aside the subjective (/weak) ground of this charge, the creator of the Identity Politics thread himself (i.e. Link) did not complain about my posts as derailing (and btw, neither did Lucky Black Cat on the incel thread, which she created). The position of Link (and LBC) is closer to my views, than it is to Mike's et al. I definitely took that in consideration when I started posting on the thread. I probably wouldn't have bothered to begin with otherwise.
There was no justification given by Mike why he considers my posts as "derailing", and he didn't warn me (or better ""us", because many people participated in these "derails") beforehand. But even if I would concede that certain of the comments should be split-off to a new thread, this happened in a unilateral manner by Mike (creating his own titles for them).
As to my last posts for which I was banned, I can accept that they can be considered "three contentless posts in a row" – but only because I held up a mirror to Mike's et al. own argument. They (following Fleur) were repeatedly asking me for a definition of Identity Politics (perhaps up to 10 times), which I thought was an insincere question, so I asked one of them to define the "non-anarchist/bad/liberal" kind of Identity Politics, which they espouse to reject. If they sincerely cared about precise definitions, they would have taken the effort to clarify their own use of "identity politics". So I was just giving them a taste of their own medicine. Perhaps that's a childish debate tactic, but the basic point I had already raised way earlier on the thread (and they refused to answer it).
Their alleged concern is that the rightwing too uses the term "Identity Politics", so as a communist one cannot simply use that term in a blanket way.
If the use by rightwingers of certain terms should limit us in our choice of language, then what about the use by the rightwing of Mike Harman's own blog post against Nagle? ReturnsofKings (a "red pill" blog) relied on Mike's post to attack Nagle:
But all this was just about unjustified reasons for my ban. Now to the heart of the matter, what do they find disagreeable about my opinion on Identity Politics? I didn't give any elaborate formulation or claim anything controversial. I just start by looking at the origins of the modern concepts/terms "identity" and "gender". One can find the origin for "gender" (namely in psychoanalysis, and John Money who specialized in transgenders) even on wikipedia.The initial complaints over the copy-and-paste effort of Angela Nagle came from Libcom, a sort of communist blog run by Mike Harman. In one example about Russian political theorist Aleksandr Dugin, Harman notes how she stole information from Wikipedia and presented it as her own.
This origin of the term "gender" is widely accepted in the literature (cf. Donald Opitz 2015, p. 386 in A Companion to the History of American Science).
And I think the term "identity" also derives from American psychoanalytic, or in general, university circles.
Barbara Smith, her sister and Demita Frazier, the authors of the Combahee River Collective Statement, which is credited as the founding document of "identity politics" as well as "intersectionality" (cf. Ain't Gonna Let Nobody Turn Me Around Forty Years of Movement Building with Barbara Smith), attended university and were well-read women in the leftist literature of the time. Zillah R. Eisenstein asked them to write their Statement for the 1978 anthology Capitalist patriarchy and the case for socialist feminism. This book contained contributions from people like Nancy Chodorow, who was a psychoanalyst. The specific term "gender identity" is used a couple of times in the book.
As further evidence that the modern use of the term "identity" mainly comes from psychoanalytic/university circles, I searched for earliest use of the term "black identity". I found it in Stuart Hauser's 1971 Black and white identity formation: studies in the psychosocial development of lower socioeconomic class adolescent boys.
In 1970 there is Black identity;: A thematic reader, by Francis Edward Kearns (university-educated, probably professor in literature, and here I can be wrong, but his name sounds Irish).
(In 1972 there is African Identity and Black Liberation, by Chukwudum Barnabas Okolo, who seems to be into Liberation Theology, from Nigeria).
All in all, we can conclude that the terms "gender" and "identity" come from the psychoanalytic field.
They have a ring/aura of scientific legitimacy to them, and the only seemingly "controversial" thing I (following Robert Stoller) point out is, that they lack any scientific worth. For Stoller's admission, see my quotes here:
https://libcom.org/forums/theory/john-m ... ent-606641