Macquarie’s definition is totally insufficient.
stoush …, Colloq. -n. 1. a fight. 2. an artillery bombardment. 3. the big stoush, World War I. -v.t. 4. to fight (someone or something). [var. Scot. stash, stashie uproar]
Stoushing is more than this. Stoushing is more than just an uproar, an artillery bombardment or a quaint term for the First World War. To stoush is a very social way of doing battle. Perhaps it’s simply an Australianism and a New Zealandism; it would be interesting to know for certain. What is beyond dispute is that the verb ‘to stoush’ has certain meanings which set apart a ‘stoush’ from any other kind of fighting.
Stoushing is egalitarian. To properly stoush one must, I think, be more or less socially equal with the person or group with whom you are stoushing. Football teams stoush. Political parties stoush. Siblings stoush between themselves, though children can only ever argue with their parents. Workmates can stoush if they want to, but when the boss gets involved the stoushing stops, and the struggle starts. Boxers stoush, while drunks usually just brawl.
Stoushing need not be harmful. In fact, a good stoush does all of its participants benefit. Where power is exercised equally by stoushers, as they contest meaning and have discursive battles, everyone wins, learns, and comes away more experienced. Stoushing implicitly requires equality of opportunity, and rewards merit. Stoushing does not happen, needless to say, in the marketplace.
The dialectic, the concept so beloved of those masochists who read Hegel, is the ultimate stoush. It’s a grand, collective stoush in which every human is involved. Were Karl Marx to have emigrated to Sydney or Wellington the Communist Manifesto would have read:
All heretofore existing history is the history of class stoushing.
Because it is egalitarian, stoushing is a mutual expression of respect between the stoushers. Conflict can happen in lots of ways, egalitarian and non-egalitarian. Respect and dignity cannot exist within an unequal struggle. When one becomes involved in a stoush, there is an implicit agreement to stoush on mutually agreed terms, for instance: “ninety minutes, round ball, eleven players, no touching the ball with your hands” or “first candidate to reach 50% of the vote +1 after all preferences have been distributed gets elected”. Breaking the rules of a stoush in order to win is the surest way to lose it. Stoushers do not cheat.
The internet tends to promote stoushing. No IP address is inherently more powerful than any other, or any louder, or any clearer. It’s significant that the worst faux pas a weblog adminstrator can make is banning dissenting opinions. Andrea Harris does not stoush.
I’d like to take this opportunity to pay my respects to the resident stoushers of Larvatus Prodeo. It is the quality of the stoushing which makes this place interesting. If only all of life’s stoushes could be as thought-provoking, and if not always friendly, at least fair.
Australians all let us stoush, for we are young and free.
But – will there be a stoush over stoushing? A meta-stoush?
And what is the inductive limit of the meta-stoushes? An aleph(0)-stoush?
Stoushes come from the darndest places, Mark.
Agree with your comments, and add another: while the quality of Larva Rodeo’s stoushing owes much to its participants, the party’s not possible without a venue and host, and we are most fortunate in both.
Thanks, Fyodor.
I disagree with Liam’s interpretation of the dialectic, of course. It seems to me that he’s being something of an Engelsian. The Hegelian dialectic is the only true dialectic!
I actually think, Liam, that you’re upholding the patriarchal structures of society by placing such an emphasis on conflict. The stoush, I would argue, is yet another tool of oppression, as it privileges the stereotypically masculine mode of communication, vis a vis the ‘argument’ or ‘debate’.
I reject your stoushing in favour of ecriture, of feminist openess and co-operation, a non-combative manner of dicussion which will privilege the voices of women and minorities.
(This stoushing is hard without EP to stoke the fires of my righteous indignation. And I second Fyodor’s call. Thanks again Mark.)
Perhaps, instead of thinking of stoushing as conflict, we could reconceptualise it as merely a way of democratically obtaining a better outcome – and so at a stroke of a mental pen we resign conflict to the dustbin of history!
Now what do people think of that? (and where is EP?)
Liam begins well, by pointing out that “when the boss gets involved the stoushing stops, and the struggle starts”, because stoushes can only occur between equals — but then he says the Marxian dialectic involves class stoushing. I don’t think so.
Sachmo is blowing his own trumpet!
I liked to play the clarinet, but I didn’t get very far on the trumpet – maybe 3 notes?
What was the problem? Arms not strong enough?
Kate, you’ve made a very good point.
I suppose this is true. It’s undoubtedly true that inegalitarian conflict is a masculine dynamic. The kinds of ‘arguments’ and ‘debates’ such as the ones that go on on the floors of Parliaments aren’t productive at all, and certainly constitute exercises of power, and oppression.
I’m sorry, but I find this an immensely depressing view of politics and of life generally. When somebody else is wrong, either incidentally, occasionally wrong, or systematically wrong, it’s not un-feminist to tell them so, if needs be, in strong terms.
The women and men I most admire are the ones who confidently, passionately articulate a viewpoint in the face of opposition to it. Perhaps co-operation is more productive. As I understand it, though, feminism like any progressive stoush, is at its heart about equality, dignity and respect: you can’t win those things without opposing the status quo.
You’ve told me you don’t agree with me. I’ve responded. We’re stoushing. I don’t know about you, but this kind of discussion and stoush is why I keep coming back here.
No, I wasn’t interested in playing it – plus the way you blow into it is quite different to the clarinet – I couldn’t get the hang of it.
I love a good stoush on LP – hail fellow stoushers!
I tend to agree with you Liam. Stoushing implies parity of participation. Whereas a ‘blue’, I would argue, can be vertical, but has a hint of something not terribly serious. Comapred to a “row”, say. Not sure about a ‘barney’.
Strine is remarkably subtle, IMHO.
Robert, the Marxian dialectic is of two opposed classes, which create and reinforce each others’ existence, whose implicit and explicit conflict creates meaning, culture, and history.
Modern capital and labour, though inherently opposed, are intimately dependent on each other. How is that not a stoush?
He he. I got a stoush outta ya, Liam.
Naomi, on the dialectic, where would an intellectual stoush be without a telling quote from a German intellectual?
Ha!
Now honestly, I love a good stoush as much as the next person, so long as things don’t get nasty. I like the fact that at LP there are stoushes but a minimum of viciousness.
…And I admit that Mark caught me out. I’ve only ever read Engels on Hegel. [tsk, tsk, tsk]
Why is it not “feminist” to forcefully disagree with someone and say so? Hell, why must we always be “feminist” anyway?
In that case, Liam, aren’t a boss and a worker inherently dependent on each other? Why did you explicitly rule out that as a stoush, and say it was a struggle?
Kate – good point, but I would argue that so much of gendered modes of argument is about physical presence, modulation and tone of voice, propensity to speak over the top (masculine), gendered habits of retreat and advance… i.e embodied
Thus, I would put the case for discussion: Is the blog, or indeed, chat room, the world’s first relatively gender-neutral forum?
(I immediately concede that blokes are probably more likely to stop over the ad hominem line – but aside from that)
…step over… that is…
Yes, perhaps with stoushes there are some agreed upon rules that provide a common understanding/environment for the stoush – and so in a stoush, there is some relationship between the parties. Maybe that’s why we love a good stoush more than a no holds barred fight.
I’m off to Japan now for a holiday, so I won’t be stoushing for nearly a fortnight! Enjoy your stoushing, everyone.
Hmm, comment held in moderation for no apparent reason. What are the buzz words, Mark?
You need to read some of the good intros to Hegel around, Liam. Engels had a very mechanistic view of the dialectic. It’s widely accepted now that Marx didn’t “invert” the dialectic in the way that Engels popularised him as doing. The Hegelian Marx has been rediscovered of late!
If you think physical presence, modulation and tone of voice, propensity to speak over the top, etc, don’t exist in blogs and other online forums, then you’ve never visited Little Green Footballs.
Nic, a lot these days because there’s a lot of spam about.
Lefty E, I don’t think so. You can observe in blog threads that men are less likely to back down when challenged, and women more likely to be conciliatory. Note that I’m not saying all the time – but I think the probabilities hold along similar lines to gendered patterns of discussion in “real life”. But it’s also mediated by the participants and the forum.
Liam – I found Charles Taylor’s book on Hegel an excellent primer.
Robert: individual bosses and individual workers are certainly in a position of great power inequality. Which is why I support collective bargaining. As a collective, things even up.
…
Lefty Elitist: blogs are not even relatively gender-neutral. Especially not this one. For instance: where is the commenter, quite apart from those of us who use our own names, who is able to post under a gender-neutral handle, and use language in a non-gendered way?
Is the word “spam” itself a buzz word for the mail to be thought of as spam?
Agree with Mark. And especially with this bit:
Have fun, Sach!
Liam, Taylor’s himself pretty heavy going. I was thinking more of The Routledge guide books to Hegel for some initial demystification.
Good points Liam and Mark – but dont you find the very act of conversing via reading means you’re ‘listening’ more; ‘speaking’ more carefully (while sober anyway) ie: interacting conceptually, rather than the primal dance that invariably colours male-female communication?
At least, more so?
Yes, I do, Lefty E, but on a nice blog like LP more so than at some other places.
Thanks Mark, I will!
That’s interesting, Lefty, I find that you have more time to compose your conversation, so it’s potentially more thoughtful, and there’s this funny time lapse happening, in that you’re responding to what people have written 5 or so minutes ago. I wonder if that’s what it’s like for astronauts on the moon – I think there’s a 1.5 second delay for radio – so you have at least 3 seconds between saying something and getting a reaction. Must be odd at first!
Yes, I spose the ethical frame of the communicative interaction supercedes the medium. And for that we congrat you Mark.
Still: for sheer equality of air time, this isn’t like 10 blokes and 10 women interacting in person at a dinner party, is it? Even with a gracious host.
Dunno, Lefty E, I always thought I’d get invited to dinner parties when I grew up but the only ones I’ve been to were when I was at uni! Are they that common these days?
Yes, Im having one now with a one year old and a bottle of chicken & veges. Bears a lot in common with a food fight!
I love the way that a mention of the word ‘feminist’ causes some people to leave their sense of humour at home… Gawd. Joking, Nic, yes?
…
As an aside, I do think that there’s a certain machismo arguing style that goes in in certain blogs. The act of blogging or commenting isn’t gender neutral, of course, in either creation or reception.
Women are generally ‘taught’ that to speak up, to express loud opinions of a political nature, is unfeminine. I’m generalising, of course, but I know that I struggle to disagree with people, because I don’t want to cause offense or seem to be a bitch.
I also note that men will tend to argue on for a long time, whereas women tend not too. Why is that?
There’s of course the famous nude dinner party at Jo’s place on Carmody Road, but that’s perhaps a topic for another thread.
Kate, I hope you don’t think I was responding to you without humour or respect.
The best, and funniest, stoushers I know are feminists.
Kate, I don’t know if you remember the education wars at Troppo, but I recall Kim getting very frustrated at being painted into a corner as a strident and uppity woman (with some overtones of homophobia too) – by female commenters as well as male. And Sophie Masson’s maneouvring of herself into a sort of passive agressive feminine posture (I’m intutitive and creative, stop these nasty boys beating up on me!). Those threads were pretty much textbook examples of how not to do a stoush. In fact, since those debates, vigorous and lengthy debate has just about disappeared from Troppo.
Not you, Liam, of course, I was referring to Nic’s post.
I do recall the infamous Troppo education wars, yes, and the way debate there occurred. Nasty stuff.
In fact, I used to read Troppo but never comment precisely because of that.
Which is a real shame, I think. There were some really good ones.
“I also note that men will tend to argue on for a long time, whereas women tend not too. Why is that?”
I think we are often less tactful and more geared towards having to be right, therefore dont give up very easily at all, and hance go on and on. This is of course not universally true, just some observations mine. This probably makes the woman smarter.
No, IMO the debates, and most of the regular commenters, followed you to Larva Rodeo. That (i.e. your departure) was the key change.
What Fyodor said…
Mark, I think it was me that defended Sophie on the grounds that she used intuition and poetics rather than dry sociological theory and was entitled to to put an impressionistic view of things. I don’t think she ever used that argument and for all I know didn’t agree with it anyway.
I thought the Troppo stoushes were great – passionate about things that really mattered, rather than abusive (with some exceptions, among whom I have to count myself).
Rob, yes, I think it was you who started that theme – but on Sophie’s ruminations on anarchism. It was then picked up by Ken and sundry others in the education wars. I think that a lot of what went on in those debates actually left scars – as it came very close to people’s personal identities in some cases.
I’m almost inclined to propose a hypothesis that the fact that some stoushes don’t recur is due to the lack of engagement and give and take. For instance, the failure to rerun the Soon-Bahnisch stoush on biological determinism, despite the issue having raised its head on several subsequent threads.
Others perhaps never take off because they tend to play out on predictable lines. For instance, I obviously disagree with Jason’s post on market economies not producing Islamic alienation but I’m not inclined to participate because I think there would be few surprises were I to enter the debate.
I’m also a bit tired of stoushing with C.L. because I think he argues disingenously and I find myself having to post a comment only because of various rhetorical tricks designed to assert that I hold positions I don’t wish to be identified with. And the predictability factor enters into it as well.
However, I will never tire of stoushing over Popper.
I think the main scars were suffered by Sophie, and are probably the reason she doesn’t blog much any more, if at all. Which is a great shame. Don got it right with his memorable photoshopped Goya image of her being put up against a wall and shot (by an army of Mark Barnischs, I think I remarked at the time). However, I guess you’re right – there’s no point reopening old wounds, whosever they might have been.
No time for more stoushing – work beckons, dammit.
Yes, well, I thought that it was unfair to position me as her principal antagonist, Rob, but as you say. Rafe seems to be the most prolific Troppo blogger now!
I find EP a baffling stousher. He’s got a peculiar talent for taking a perfectly sensible position and inverting it. It’s annoying, but mostly because it takes so long for the brain to shuffle down through the gears, stop, turn around and come back.
I suspect that Evil Pundit might just be Liam Hogan through the looking glass.
That’s what I always thought about Miranda Devine. ‘Cept in my version she’s got a special machine linked to my brain and she can see my thoughts, and then writes the opposite, and gets paid lots to do it.
Well, I caved in.
Liam and Kate, I suspect most people have come across their Bizarro Doppelg√§nger at some time or another. Can’t think who my Bizarro Blogger would be, however.
Yes, Mark, and speaking of stoushes…
Rob, I’m guessing Sophie doesn’t blog much anymore because (a) she’s writing those 8 books she told us she was working on and (b) she worked out she wasn’t much good at it, in particular the part where people may immediately question what you write.
I would be delighted to stoush on the topic at any time or place.
“Stoushing is more than just an uproar, an artillery bombardment or a quaint term for the First World War. ”
My old Grandfather was a WWI artilleryman (7th Field Artillery Brigade, 107th Battery, 1st AIF).
He used to say artillery was a great leveller – it sure levelled Ypres – and there was nothing like 2,000,000 shells in a week of bombardment to ‘bury the lizard’ in even the Imperial German Army. (Anyone recognise the meaning of the century-old slang term?)
If your stoushing is MORE than this, what the hell do you have planned?!
MarkL
Canberra
Well, I liked Sophie’s posts. She could be a bit impetuous but there’s nothing wrong with that. She’s got no instinct for ideology either, which I’d also mark down as a plus. We’re a pretty sad lot, us who see and understand the world in purely political terms, e.g. ‘the personal is the political’ (no offence). Like hell it is (no offence).
I would be delighted to stoush on the topic at any time or place.
Careful Zoe, you are clearly inviting evil into your life with that attitude. Don’t come crying to me when it ends in bloodshed.
Noted, Rob, but you were in the minority on that score. La Masson couldn’t argue her way out of a paper bag.
Amanda, you forgot Zoe’s hotword: “Bevis”.
As you were.
“SheÄôs got no instinct for ideology either, which IÄôd also mark down as a plus. WeÄôre a pretty sad lot, us who see and understand the world in purely political terms”
uh, yeah right Rob. Her stuff was the most ideological of the lot.
Speaking of Sophie and stoushes, there’s a quote from Helen Garner’s essay ‘The Fate of the First Stone’ that I think is pretty apposite:
Most of the people at LP are politicals, including me. They can’t conceive that there is a different world out there that isn’t political and doesn’t want to be. That for some people, art, literature, music, poetry and the business of understanding and articulating elemental human emotions are far more important than bashing John Howard. That, for them, most contemporary intellectualisms (certain honourable exceptions apart) are ideological rationalisations that understand and explain nothing except themselves, and are in consequence virtually useless as tool for understanding the nature of being human. That an real artist can teach in an afternoon more about language than Derrida and his cohorts will ever learn in a long decade of blue moon Sundays.
Sophie, like Helen, is one of those fortunates. Their enemies are on the other side. I know which side I’d rather be on.
* spews *
Absolute romantic tripe, Rob. What Jason said. The difference was not that Sophie was a “real artist”. The difference was that Sophie WAS political, could not/would not acknowledge that fact, and had a habit of starting stoushes she wasn’t prepared to fight. I learned a tremendous amount from Sophie in how NOT to argue.
‘Romantic tripe’? Perhaps so. It’s true, as Garner says – we look at each other with our mouths hanging open, at perpetual cross-purposes. Feel free to spew over that as well.
Good luck with your not arguing like Sophie.
Good luck with joining her.
Ah, Fyodor, you have already tripped Rob up – or he has tripped himself. His argument by reference to Garner has to fail because that is called “playing the game of quotes” in Sophie’s world. Assertion only, please, and when you are challenged you may sook that you didn’t post to be questioned.
And while you may live in a politics-only world Rob, but there’s no need to tar the rest of us with your brush. You could always try reading a novel (the last lingering days of Big Brother sadly offer little appeal).
Indeed. I’d rather be there than there, it’s true.
Zoe, I didn’t understand your comment at all.
Naomi, I’m not saying that women can’t stoush with the best of them. You are an excellent stousher and I consider myself also to be quite capable of stoushing on and on and on.
In this regard, I think LP is excellent.
I have noticed on other sites, however, a tendency for women’s voices to be drowned out when blokes start shouting at each other.
And as for Sophie Masson not being political… well, what about this: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/06/1081222468922.html?from=storyrhs
Gosh no, she’s not political, is she? (BTW, I don’t want to open up the so-called abortion debate, I merely wanted to point out that she is as political as the rest of us. She just couches her politics in flowery language.)
But Rob, you’re not there, are you, but here. And I’d rather you than her, old bean.
Zoe, I watched evictions and uncut last night, and I have to agree that the thrill is gone. What is it about the voting population (teenage girls, I gather) that makes the final contenders so insufferably boring?
It’s a weird thing, Kate, that I read the article you posted and think that Sophie’s proving my point, and you think it’s proving yours.
Rob, my point was that Sophie made assertions and could not accept them being challenged – she was not up for a stoush, or even a query. When commenters did start to discuss a point she had raised, she criticised them for “attacking” her. Once Kim provided evidence to support a view contrary to Sophie’s assertion. Sophie’s response was to say she would not “play the game of quotes”. The phrase has stuck with me because of its idiocy – if you can only argue by assertion on a blog, it’s a pointless pastime.
My second point was that your characterisation of “most of the people” at LP, including yourself, as living a life devoid of an interest of anything beyond politics is a crass means to try set up an arid intellectual other that you can contrast with Sophie’s florid world of emotional artistry. Not buying it. Check the number of posts here about live and recorded music, and the “culture” category in general.
It’s not weird at all, Rob. Your argument (that SM is not political, but an artiste deeply attuned to human existence) is incorrect. You happen to like the way Sophie expresses herself, and refuse to acknowledge the message she is communicating is political in content and motivation. Instead you see her commentary as the manifestation of artistic sensibility, immune to critique, which is tosh.
Please explain, Rob.
How is anyone not political when they’re weighing in so politically to the political issue that stomps on all other political issues. Did I mention that taking a stance on abortion is political?
Seems to me the self-asserted bit about being an ‘artist’ is just a cop-out to get away from the normal rules of evidence and logical argument to which the rest of us are subject.
You know, she should have just claimed to be a journalist.
What Liam and Zoe and Fyodor said. I also find your dichotomy between ‘art’ and ‘politics’ to be odd, Rob. Much great art has been highly political.
Not that I think Masson is a great artist, BTW, and yes, I’ve read some of her books.
My vote is for ‘a florid world of emotional artistry’, any day. You can keep sterile, ineffectual politics, for whatever joy they give you.
Bye bye then, Rob, nice chatting with you.
Rob, my point was that I didn’t buy the distinction between the florid emotional artistes and the sterile political hacks. All of the above for me, ta.
And a pony.
Rob, I wonder what florid, emotional, talented artists like William Morris would have to say about your vision of politics.
Good luck with the ‘joy’. You politicals have created a universe that you’re welcome to – it’s a good thing you’re the only ones that live there. Out in the wild world, life has a different heart, a different beat, a different art. Some tap it, some don’t. Not many, at EP. We did better at Troppo, in the real days of stoushes.
Blimey, you really are a conservative: “That’s not a stoush. When I were a lad, we used to get up dawn an’ lick coal for breakfast ‘fore starting a proper workin’ man’s day of stooshing.”
Keep working on the “us” and “them”, Rob. I notice you’re still here and Sophie isn’t. Come over to the Dark Side, give in to your true nature!
Who’s Soph…? …hang on, just realised I dont care.
Waiter, bill please.
Incidentally, is that interminable Bogan Zoo done yet? And when’s the next Test start?
Here’s a funny one: I caught the very start of “24″ last night. Kiefer Sutherland came out and made a special annoucement to the effect that “This show sterotypes Muslims for dramatic purposes. Please note that these gross misrepresentations are strictly for ratings purposes. Now, enjoy the show!”
Someone’s grumpy today! (or are you merely baiting us, Rob?)
Anyway, I might go off and read some Yeats and enjoy his dry, arid, soulless politicised world.
(EDITED BY KATE TO GET RID OF POEM, WHICH NO-ONE WANTS TO READ ANYWAY.)
Rob, you argue as well as Sophie does:
9:29 am: Most of the people at LP are politicals, including me. They canÄôt conceive that there is a different world out there that isnÄôt political and doesnÄôt want to be.
11:44 am: You politicals have created a universe that youÄôre welcome to – itÄôs a good thing youÄôre the only ones that live there. Out in the wild world, life has a different heart, a different beat, a different art.
Perhaps we can resolve this with some interpretive dance?
Fyodor, I’m very, very tired, and that may account for the fact that I see no actual connection between my comment and yours.
And I shouldn’t be ‘still here’. I’m ashamed of it.
You’ll be back, Rob. Stoush is more addictive than cigarettes, and there’s no patch you can put under your arm.
“Out in the wild world, life has a different heart, a different beat, a different art.”
Sounds like a taxpayer-funded Australia Council elitist rort to me. Why dont they get a real job?
Well, LE, we got the meta-stoush you wanted, after all.
True, Zoe. I strive not to be political, but usually fail. But in my heart of hearts I think politics, especially party politics, is supremely unimportant. The world roars on regardless (Iknows I’ve said that before).
Real world stoush – the Young Liberals Ball turns ugly:
Cardigans and Zimmer frames, more likely. Or berets. Tsk, I wish my branch meetings were so interesting.
Yes – apprently an ugly factional dispute betweent the allegedly “moderate” young libs, and the neo-conehead liberal students. The latter attacked the former with such epithets as “left-wing wankers”.
Jeez, I get that all the time, and you dont see me trashing Toorak nightspots in retaliation.
“Perhaps we can resolve this with some interpretive dance?”
* Rolls on the floor laughing hysterically *
If only all confliction could be resolved thusly.
An effortless rhetorical diversion there from Mark, advancing when he saw the dearly-held cause was otherwise lost……..
Only because it’s difficult to represent interpretive dance on a blog comment, Rob.
Off to read some poetry now.
Oke. (Dry.)
Interpretive dance alone
cannot decide a blog stoush
anyone for haiku?
Where is Evil P?
This kind of stoush requires
More than just Hayek.
I prefer Limericks
There was a young liberal from Toorak,
embroiled in peculiar branch-stacks,
…
*gotta go, but best completed entry wins Victorian liberal leadership*
Wasted hours many!
Stoushing with Rob
I must work, instead
(Damned if I can remeber the rules of haiku, Zoe.)
Blank verse would be more Rob’s style!
I got yer interpretive dance right here:
Naomi – so close to winning Doyle’s poison chalice…
Robert – wo dude! How’s did you embed that? Thats great.
For Office fans – can I also recommend two hilarious earlier UK shows, never on TV here I believe, but available on DVD: Brass Eye, and The Day Today.
The art of stoushing is somewhat bittersweet IMO. You get great satisfaction from being in the middle of it, yet often you find yourself on the outside going ‘ooh ooh ooh’ desperately trying to forumlate your argument before the stoush moves on and you haven’t got to have your say yet.
However, it is very entertaining.
Rob’s haiku:
You politicals
created a universe —
you’re welcome to it.
My response:
All’s political,
even if buried beneath
Soph’s florid verbiage.
Her artist’s facade
shields her bold postulation
from criticism.
(As to how I embedded the animation… trade secret!)
Rob – I’ve emailed you. Comments on Kate’s post don’t work. I get this error message from Firefox:
In IE it just times out.
Full points Naomi – you win the right to lose your pants in the next state election.
And I know what you mean – its literati and cognicenti in and out of my door, normally with my books, all day long. As you know, we cultural elite meet is smoky rooms together, comparing frequent flyer points and plotting the overthrow of mainstream values. Our chief weapons are mutilculturalism, relativism and surprise. We strike tonight, at a cafe near you…
I’ll have a look at it, Mark, and see if I can find the problem.
“Toorak” and “stacks” doesn’t rhyme. So…
There was a young liberal from Toorak
embroiled in a peculiar branch-stack
When it came to a vote
He could only muster a goat
Two blondes and a factional hack.
I’ll confess, Liam, that I first read this post I thought it would get very few comments, mostly if the ‘here here!’ variety, but, well done!, you have stirred such memories!
Mark was not the worst offender re: Sophie masson.
That was me.
When I’d seen the limit of dry politicising or whatever Rob called it that had been reached by other commentators, I went for 100% theatre. And it worked a treat. But Masson seemed completely oblivious to how I’d crafted my response, or what I’d very deliberately done.
Nobody appreciates art these days!
[Ironically enough, I would have jumped into this thread earlier but, you see, I'm not as active on the blogs as I used to be when I was employed full time. The thing is, I have given up full time work to write all those books I've been working on the past years.]
I’ll let you know when I stop feeling so god-damned smug.
Nabs – outstanding.
Its a tie! Full marks to Nabs for humour and rhyme; and to Naomi for sticking more rigorously to the trad. meter, and cleverly working in federal issues.
I was surprised contestants didnt draw on ‘Bracks’ or ‘Tax’; but that could be as Nabs pointed out, cos I stuffed up the second line.
Now, I look forward to the two of you really taking a bath in 07.
Kate,
In general to your comments, I’d venture to say that guys tend to argue to win, whereas as women tend to do it to understand. This is a very general rule, of course but it does explain why women tend to pull out of threads in frustration: it’s because they aren’t learning anything any more.
The best men and women argue both to win and to understand. To do so they fully separate their ideas from their person. And willingly acknowledge that ‘being right’ is defined as being factually correct/the truth.
A prime example of a woman argueing passionately to win, to find the truth and to understand would be your long exchanges with EP (and another who’s handle escapes me) over what feminism actually was.
Simply put, that was an impressive display.
Kate – bring back Yeats!
There was once a Liberal from Toorak
Embroiled in a peculiar branch stack
But he was so tense that he flipped,
And calling for the Chief Whip,
Said ‘Baby, come on, just gimme a crack’
Orright then. It’s a poem, but it’s about politics! It’s beautiful, but it’s about people dying for their beliefs! It’s about the Irish, even.
I also think it puts paid quite succintly to Rob’s art/politics dichotomy, as does Picasso’s ‘Guernica’, Eric Maria Remarque’s ‘All Quiet On The Western Front’ and the music of Nick Cave.
Easter, 1916
I have met them at close of day
Coming with vivid faces
From counter or desk among grey
Eighteenth-century houses.
I have passed with a nod of the head
Or polite meaningless words,
Or have lingered awhile and said
Polite meaningless words,
And thought before I had done
Of a mocking tale or a gibe
To please a companion
Around the fire at the club,
Being certain that they and I
But lived where motley is worn:
All changed, changed utterly:
A terrible beauty is born.
That woman’s days were spent
In ignorant good-will,
Her nights in argument
Until her voice grew shrill.
What voice more sweet than hers
When, young and beautiful,
She rode to harriers?
This man had kept a school
And rode our winged horse;
This other his helper and friend
Was coming into his force;
He might have won fame in the end,
So sensitive his nature seemed,
So daring and sweet his thought.
This other man I had dreamed
A drunken, vainglorious lout.
He had done most bitter wrong
To some who are near my heart,
Yet I number him in the song;
He, too, has resigned his part
In the casual comedy;
He, too, has been changed in his turn,
Transformed utterly:
A terrible beauty is born.
Hearts with one purpose alone
Through summer and winter seem
Enchanted to a stone
To trouble the living stream.
The horse that comes from the road.
The rider, the birds that range
From cloud to tumbling cloud,
Minute by minute they change;
A shadow of cloud on the stream
Changes minute by minute;
A horse-hoof slides on the brim,
And a horse plashes within it;
The long-legged moor-hens dive,
And hens to moor-cocks call;
Minute by minute they live:
The stone’s in the midst of all.
Too long a sacrifice
Can make a stone of the heart.
O when may it suffice?
That is Heaven’s part, our part
To murmur name upon name,
As a mother names her child
When sleep at last has come
On limbs that had run wild.
What is it but nightfall?
No, no, not night but death;
Was it needless death after all?
For England may keep faith
For all that is done and said.
We know their dream; enough
To know they dreamed and are dead;
And what if excess of love
Bewildered them till they died?
I write it out in a verse -
MacDonagh and MacBride
And Connolly and pearse
Now and in time to be,
Wherever green is worn,
Are changed, changed utterly:
A terrible beauty is born.
Thanks, Kate!
Nice effort Jason – & extra ‘authenticity’ marks for issuing a leadership challenge within 20 minutes of the new team being installed.
I was so tired this morning I can’t even remember what I commented.
‘She hates Sophie Masson too,’ quoth Kate.
Is this the LP badge of distinction?
Not me, Rob, I don’t hate Sophie Masson at all.
I don’t hate her — but apart from her Tintin and Asterix posts, which were genuinely interesting, I found most of her posts arrogant and many offensive. And I thought her “woe is me, I’m a delicate artist” routine was quite pathetic.
I don’t hate her either. Just thought her blogging was crap, and her stoushing worse.
Hate is a strong word but bugger it I’ll stick my hand up. Definitely the dill in armadillo.
to use the words of Wolfgang Pauli, she isn’t even wrong -
Rob, evidently you’ve internalised the “don’t argue with quotes” message – you’re meaning to cite Naomi.
Thanks, flute, for coming right out with it. You should wear it on your lapel as well.
I imagine that flutey is renting advertising space on his lapel now that he’s a star as “TV’s Mr Flute”!
Ooops, Mark, you’re right. And to think I got stuck into Peter K. for just that very same thing.
Quoth Naomi, then. Appy polly loggies to Kate.
The lapels are booked out, the only clothing space left is the gusset. Five bob for an LP ad on my skiddies Mark.
Perhaps you could run a “as hated by Piers Akerman” over the little brown bit…
nah, Brian Toohey.
Flutey, how about the trouser cuffs? Or the neon cufflinks?
[Incidentally, patting myself on the back for keeping entirely out of the S/M stoush]…
“Incidentally, patting myself on the back for keeping entirely out of the S/M stoush”
Sado-masochism stoush? Where?
Reading Mademoiselle Masson was an exercise in Sado-masochism.
Oh dear, take hand off back!
I never had the pleasure.
….of Sophie Masson, that is.
say no more or you’ll get a lashing from Rob
To fill you in on the context of Jason’s comment, Lefty E, Rob penned some enconiums to Sophie’s beauty on several of those Troppo threads.
This is Ms Masson. Personally, I’d rather Sophie Marceau. Just saying…
Kim, I must confess to a recent involuntary endorsement of your taste in Sophies; of an bodily and possibly sinful nature.
On Mlle. Marceau, I recommend Dartagnan’s Daughter.
not very nice of you, Kim!
Just posting a link, Jason, interpretation is in the eye of the beholder…
You have a point. As Popper would say, all observation-statements are theory-laden
Indeed! And I’m sure Hayek would have been quite bedazzled by Mlle. Marceau!
Did not, Kim. Incidentally, I’ve just woken from a snooze and am delighted to find I’m feeling slightly more human, apart of course from the scales which typify your average RWDB.
Did so, Rob, I’ll scour the Troppo archives in due course, but not tonight as I’m about to descale (read – exfoliate in the bath!)…
It’s possible that I might be wrong though – but I think it was on the thread that Don posted you talked about before.
I said she was hot, for which I immediately apologised. Although….
Burma!
Glorious Floe*
Between your thighs my parting
Is such sweet sorrow
*name has been changed
The vitriol that has been directed at Sophie Masson in this thread (and on earlier threads & on wsacaucasus earlier in the year) is really rather sick-making.
I’d imagine that the thought of encountering this sort of (undeserved, gratuitous, never reciprocated) nastiness is why Sophie doesn’t blog anymore — it’s certainly one of the reasons I don’t.
(And such brave souls, too, with your pseudonyms…)
What wendy said, double underlined in red ink. And around here people seem to think it’s a cause for celebration.
What Zoe said.
I’ve just read this all the way through and I thought people were just being very honest.
I must say, though, I can still remember the first time someone commented that what I was saying was just plain wrong. It was January last year, I’d just come back from a funeral, it was 40 degrees in the shade and I froze. Because I respected the commenter, I thought my credibility was shot forever. (Subsequent reading on the topic confirmed I was right, of course!)
Now it wouldn’t bother me at all.
So I appreciate how Wendy feels, but that’s how the ‘sphere is, I’m afraid, and it’s probably not ever going to suit some people.
Rob, FWIW I reckon you do understand art, but I can’t agree with you on this one.
What Brian said. I mentioned Sophie in a recent post because of a parallel between her comparison between anarchists and postmodern terrorists, which I thought relevant. I did not intend to cast any stones at her, just to signal my polite disagreement with her. I had no intention of rerunning old Troppo debates, which I emphasise, Wendy, left scars on both sides – particularly for those of us who are same sex attracted folks. I have no idea why she gave up blogging. And I’m sure she’s capable of speaking for herself without the need for every third post here in the last day to be impassioned defences of her by others.
Ps – I’m not using a pseudonym, Wendy. My name is Kim.
For most of the relevant time, it was yellowvinyl. As for scars, no-one got stuck into you with hob-nailed boots. The only participant I can recall whose comments could be construed as homophobic was Kevin Donnelly.
You just won’t let go, will you, Rob?
You’re Rob, I’m Kim.
Sophie Masson made some extremely offensive and extremely homophobic comments. As did Ken and jen. I’ve dealt.
And I didn’t appreciate the personal abuse I copped from jen. She may as well have just written “strident uppity lesbian”. Never got an apology. Sophie got heaps of them. Whatever.
Why are we talking about this again? We’re accused of raking over the coals, but an undead post is brought back and you can’t help yourself, Rob.
Undead is right, Kim. I think this unquiet ghost is going to haunt the blogosphere for a while yet. However, you do have a point and I should put my past animus and myself to bed sometime reasonably soon.
Brian
I’m sorry that you feel that ‘honesty’ requires public statements of ‘hatred’; snide comments about people’s appearence, and so on. I find these (sometimes puerile, frequently vicious) displays of ‘honesty’ pretty repellent, myself.
I think ‘reciprocity’ is probably an essential element of civil discourse — and a decent stoush (just as a pistol doesn’t belong in a boxing ring, personal insults might be an inappropriate weapon to use against those who don’t engage in like manner.)
Anyway – my apologies for bringing this ‘dead’ thread back to life.
Kim,
Perhaps I should have said semi-anonymous, rather than pseudonym. (Tho’ perhaps you’ve disclosed your full name, etc, somewhere, and I’ve just missed it). I’ve no gripe against pseudonymous/anonymous blogging — & started out playing with different identities, too. I rather envy the freedom to be … well, whoever — & not necessarily myself. But I do think that that freedom should be used a little circumspectly.
And Brian — I’m sorry for my sarcasm. I’m quite certain — as evidenced by your always polite comments — that you DON’T think that honesty encourages nastiness. I should have said “I’m sure you don’t feel…”
Enough — I’m beginning to bore myself now.
No, I haven’t published my full name on the internet, Wendy, but if anyone wants to take issue with what I write they can always email me at yellowvinyl at gmail dot com.
Wendy I’m not sure why you take issue with people, myself included, who only sign on using their first names. Using your full name doesn’t identify you much more than just a first name. You could be any one of thousands of Wendy James’ from around Australia, or even the world. Why does it matter?
I don’t get it either, Mindy.
I agree with Wendy. There’s something bit suspicious, if not downright unAustralian, about using pseudonyms online.
While I didn’t directly take part in the TA “wars” referred to above, I watched with amusement and can make a few observations.
Firstly, by internet standards they were no “wars” at all and barely rose to the level of raised voices and fingers jabbed into chests at the pub.
Secondly, it seemed that Sophie and Kevin perhaps hadn’t done their research before setting up debates on what they should have realised would be controversial topics for that forum. A bit of time lurking first would have made them aware that blog debates are usually much more robust, fast moving, and opinionated than a leisurely exchange of letters in the papers or academic journals. And that the shibboleths that receive polite nods at dinner parties are ruthlessly fact-checked and questioned online. And boy did they trot some out for a well deserved roasting.
I don’t have any gripes with anons or pseudonyms.(UnAustralian! – what are you going on about Nabakov?) What I do have a gripe with is gratuitous personal insults (NOT heated, or even virtually ‘violent’ arguments) being levelled at real people, who are willing to use their real names, by those who are wearing masks. If it’s not the sort of insult you’d be willing to make publically, w
Oh damn, hit submit when I wanted to delete & start again….Oh, well — you get my drift.
I must admit, my pseudonym is specifically engineered & custom-fitted to irritate RWDBs.
Other than that, Im a reasonably polite blogger, mindful of house rules.
I think anon is cool, but agree with Wendy that it shoudnt become an excuse to dodge responsibility for your behaviour.
I think that’s fair enough, and as I’ve always said, there are limits here. If anyone wishes to draw a particular comment to my attention which they think is dodgy, I’m happy to evaluate it and take appropriate action.
It fails, Lefty E.
Well Rob, it tickles me up the right way, and I guess thats what counts….
Maybe I should be ‘Righty Prole’.
Better not, Rob, that would be a pseudonym.
Ratty’s Battler?
I still like my earlier suggestion of small w Windschuttle.
Yes, not bad, that, Mark. windschuttle. If someone could come up with an anagram….? Is there an anagram machine online? There must be….
How about a palindrome, Rob?
Thanks to The Anagram Engine my choices include:
* Wild Chestnut
* Ditch New Slut
* Witch Lust Den.
Wild Chestnut sounds about right.
I’m liking Witch Lust Den.
Hey, Mark, you come out as ‘Brisk Arch Man’.
Not too bad either, Rob!
What are suggested alternatives for yellowvinyl or Yellowvinyl Kim?
How about ‘Br Rash Maniac’, to pick up the ecclesiastical thread?
Kim is ‘Milky Woven Lily’.
I came out as Lifestyle Tit, which is just magnificent.
And guess who “Idle VIP nut” is?
Good one, LT. C.L. is a Lechery Card Nut.
Same as ‘Devil Input’, Kava?
Trent Bridge: 5 minutes and counting.
I can see this thread is gonna degenerate into “what’s your porno name?” soon.
The best I can get is Teak.
If I use my real first name I get Bad Hero.
If I use that as well as kate I get Thee Bad Okra!
So Kate, yer real name is Rob Head?
Kate, try e-Kat, expand it to electronic kat and see how that anagrammatises. You can take liberties with anagrams (e.g. Voltaire is not a true anagram of Arouet – how did that work again?).
Indeed it is, clever Spunky MacGregor. We already have a Rob Foot commenting on this blog so I didn’t want to create confusion. Plus I’ve always wanted to masquerade as a 20-something blonde feminist woman called ‘Kate’. Secret fantasy of mine, ya know?
Be grateful you’re not Richard Head. Actually a 17th century writer, little known, and less read.
Or the former NSW gaming minister Richard Face. I’d imagine the shit he got at school drove him directly into the arms of the NSW ALP Right, fizzing with “fuck youse all” thoughts.
Electronic kat gets you ‘Cocktail? Enter!’
Pretty good.
I probably shouldn’t comment further with this thread in the state it is, but I didn’t want to seem unresponsive to Wendy.
Nabakov said:
That’s right, I think, but some comments here were probably a bit frank and possibly a bit robust. There was obviously a need to turn the whole thing over again to try to understand and come to terms with an experience that didn’t settle easily. The major problem, though, was was back on the Troppo posts and how things were handled there, about which I don’t want to say anything at all at this stage.
There was an American fella who wrote a book about honesty and how we lie about our thoughts all the time. If we didn’t no-one would stay married for more than a week and we’d all be involved in serious violence or murder every day. We filter what we say drastically but less so on blogs. Unfortunately it can still hurt, especially when we are not completely battle-hardened.
On this thread I thought people were trying to work through stuff that they obviously needed to, but it did occur to me that doing it in a fish bowl has it’s hazards.
So the whole exercise has undoubtedly caused some further pain, but ’tis done and can’t be undone. Mark tries to run a civil show and by and large succeeds. As moderator it would have been difficult to know where he could have, or should have intervened, especially with cable connection problems.
It’s not a perfect world.
Oh my goodness…
“Thorny Horny Ant Jam”
May I suggest you don’t use your full name (including middle name) – way too scary.
I’ve been away for a bit (“well, go away again” I hear you groan), so I’ll give you a semi-detached view of this stoush, Brian. It’s no big deal.
One of the things I’ve always liked about LP is people can go off, apologise and come back into it. That’s the way good big families function (and I’ve always been lucky enough to be part of one).
Tony, what happened on this thread was no big deal, as you say, to those who normally inhabit the LP zone. I did wince at a few of the comments, but as you say, no permanent damage done. Not here, because the comments that were possibly problematic were not directed at people here.
While I don’t think the comments here amounted to “vitriol” I think we’ve got to respect, though, that Wendy felt they had crossed the line.
The original problem was back in the Troppo stoush where there was no middle ground, or even the possibility of agreement on what the terms of discourse were to be.
A game without rules where the passions are roused can’t be brought to any proper conclusion. To be frank, Ken tried and didn’t come close on that occasion.
I think what’s happened on this thread just demonstrates the joy of communally regulated stoushing, where, as Brian says, everyone knows the rules.
It’s not about not hating. Hate and revulsion is acceptable and indeed(!) honourable in the right regulated setting, say, Collingwood vs. Essendon, Lleyton Hewitt vs. Guillermo Coria, or Labor Party vs. Labor Party. It’s only when rules break down that people actually get hurt.
…
My own name gives no anagrammatic joy, but ‘Commentariat’ comes out as ‘Romantic Meat’ or ‘Erotic Man Mat’. I’ll just leave that on the table for everyone to ponder.
Mmmm.
Ok – do anagrams automatically generate sexy/double entendre type words or is it that short words are sexier than long words?
Btw – nice to have you back, Tony. Just at the time when the cricket gets really interesting!
Kim, for instance is sexier than Kimberly. Just saying…
Not for Different Strokes fans, Kimberly. Just saying…