Commie Club and Anarchism

[couch13]

I've been reading alot of anarchist members posts about how they're completely against leadership and authority, including members of the commie club. Yet according to the FAQ

"this group selects Moderators and debates bans and restrictions in a democratic fashion on a daily basis. The Admins and Mods, based on the debates and discussions, then carry out whatever action is called for and log it for all members to see in the mod and admin actions threads in the members forum."

So my question is, how is the commie club on this website compatable with the anti-leadership beliefs of most anarchists?

BTW, sorry if this is in the wrong section, I put it here because I feel as if I'm asking a basic question about anarchist ideology.

[Sam_b]

RevLeft is not supposed to be a functioning society or model of what anarchists (or any of us) want to see. Point is, the forum needs running: and not a lot of boards allow their members to select who runs the day-to-day activities of it.

You're looking too much into this. RevLeft is not a Soviet nor Commune.

[RedAnarchist]

Down with the oppressive mods!!!!

Keep the spam out of the serious subforums, please.

[F9]

Keep the spam out of the serious subforums, please.

Got me in time, Pirate Utopian you have been issued with a PM warning.
Learning isnt chit-chat!
With the question, basically what Sam_B said.

Fuserg9:star:

[Sasha]

revleft is like thge name implies an board for revolutionary leftists.
The owner (as in the person who have set this whole thing up, who pays for it and keeps it running) has decided too make descision making process as democraticly as possible.
He basicly gives as far as i know an unprecedented amount of power too the users.
But only tho those the board is meant for, dedicated users with revolutionary leftist beliefs.
so too keep the capitalists, trolls, fascists, cops etc etc out the CC was created where certain criteria has been laid down too make sure that (although acording too some only in theorie) only those dedicated users with revolutionary leftist beliefs run this board and not bastards who dont have the colectives intrest at hart.
(note the CC is open too everyone who wants (because offcourse not everybody wants too be involved in all this beurocratic and political shit) meet the criteria)

so its not at all in conflict with anarcho(-communist) ideas, see it as an commune, IMO a commune should provide food and shelter too everybody who needs it, even the ocasional parasite, but only those who also contribute and have the intrest of the comune at heart should be involved in the (offcourse as democratic as possible) decision making/running the daily affairs of the commune.
▼
▲

[couch13]

Point is, the forum needs running

Well so do revolutionary left organizations, but i guess this is more for the theory section then.

[Jack]

Well we can't exactly overthrow them on a website.

[bcbm]

Anarchists are against authority, not leaders.

[Dimentio]

anarchy.net had an entirely unmoderated forum. It resulted in 9 000 000 000 000 users and an endless stream of new threads, leading to the utter collapse of said forums.

[revolution inaction]

anarchy.net had an entirely unmoderated forum. It resulted in 9 000 000 000 000 users and an endless stream of new threads, leading to the utter collapse of said forums.

Anarchy . net was a fascist front, the forums were closed when many people went on there and exposed it.

maybe you mean http://anarchism.net/ ?

[The Feral Underclass]

Anarchists are against authority, not leaders.

That's a bit of a bizarre statement considering most leaders are so because of their authority.

[Sam_b]

Well so do revolutionary left organizations,

Yes, the majority of which have an Executive Committee etc to run the organisation on a day-to-day basis.

And RevLeft isn't a revolutionary organisation, and isn't meant to be. Again, it's simply a message board.

[Hit The North]

FYI: all the posts related to the flame-fest have been deleted.

Let's remember that this is the Learning Forum and behave accordingly.

Thank you.

[apathy maybe]

Funny thing. You'll find that a lot of anarchists aren't happy with the way the CC works. Personally I object to the high standards for entry, the fact that mod and admin positions are not term limited (at least consequently, maybe no more than a year a time or something) (first time I've really complained about this actually), the fact that often decisions are taken by the CC without reference to the rest of the board at all, the fact that many things can only happen in the CC (got a complaint about a warning? take it up in the CC, not in the CC? shit happens!), etc.

But, the CC is a much better way to run things than what other websites have offered. Mind, one way (the Rebel Alliance way) never really got tried. RevLeft has critical mass, it has a sustained membership that is not going to disappear. Want to try something new? You also need a big mass, good luck getting that (I rarely visited the RA forums).

Anyway, for those of you who are new to this, heh, shit happens hey, the CC has been a big source of contention on RevLeft since long before it stopped being the Che-Lives Community.

[Sean]

Making 200 posts, at least one of which vaguely explaining your politics is hardly a high entry level mate, set it any lower and the CC could get flooded with trolls.

[bcbm]

That's a bit of a bizarre statement considering most leaders are so because of their authority.

The key word here is "most." Sure, many leadership positions are enfused with a certain amount of authority, but we oppose them as such not just because its a "leader." Are anarchists against Durrutti? Makhno?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

What is commie club anyway?

[F9]

What is commie club anyway?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/faq.php?faq=thecc

[apathy maybe]

Making 200 posts, at least one of which vaguely explaining your politics is hardly a high entry level mate, set it any lower and the CC could get flooded with trolls.

No, you're just wrong. Absolutely wrong.

It used to be you only needed fifty posts and to PM an admin, those were the days... You didn't even need to support a real revolution, so long as you hated capitalism, fascism and wanted the workers in control of their own lives (i.e. socialism).

And you know what? The quality wasn't so bad as you might think... Especially considering that it is an administrative forum, not some super secret group that makes decisions for the vanguard party or anything...

The requirements gradually got bumped up, partly because of the lobbying of a certain ex-admin (I'm not sure if they have even visited here for a long time). I don't know if you have been around long enough to know who I'm talking about.

This certain member wanted a theoretically pure CC, forgetting (or not caring) that the purpose was for administration. Raising the bar was never about trolls, but always about making sure that the people in the CC meet some imaged high standard.

Other old-time members will support me on what I say regarding that lowering the bar won't open the way for trolls. If a troll can get 50 posts, and last a month (the original standard (I think)), without being banned or restricted, I doubt that people will let them in the CC anyway.

There have been plenty of cases of perceived trolls not being allowed into the CC, regardless of their post count.

[The Feral Underclass]

The key word here is "most." Sure, many leadership positions are enfused with a certain amount of authority

It's what usually constitutes them as a leader.


but we oppose them as such not just because its a "leader."It depends how you are using the term "leader".


Are anarchists against Durrutti? Makhno?No, but we should be against the fetishisation of them by certain anarchists. Let's be clear about the fact that Durruti and Makhno were individual soldiers among many and in fact were part of larger command structures. They didn't 'ourrank' other commanders as any more "leaderful", and in some cases they were no more exceptional than others.

But everyone needs a hero, I suppose.

[Bilan]

No, you're just wrong. Absolutely wrong.

It used to be you only needed fifty posts and to PM an admin, those were the days... You didn't even need to support a real revolution, so long as you hated capitalism, fascism and wanted the workers in control of their own lives (i.e. socialism).

And you know what? The quality wasn't so bad as you might think... Especially considering that it is an administrative forum, not some super secret group that makes decisions for the vanguard party or anything...

The requirements gradually got bumped up, partly because of the lobbying of a certain ex-admin (I'm not sure if they have even visited here for a long time). I don't know if you have been around long enough to know who I'm talking about.

This certain member wanted a theoretically pure CC, forgetting (or not caring) that the purpose was for administration. Raising the bar was never about trolls, but always about making sure that the people in the CC meet some imaged high standard.

Other old-time members will support me on what I say regarding that lowering the bar won't open the way for trolls. If a troll can get 50 posts, and last a month (the original standard (I think)), without being banned or restricted, I doubt that people will let them in the CC anyway.

There have been plenty of cases of perceived trolls not being allowed into the CC, regardless of their post count.

I don't see why you care so much about it. After all, it's just an administrative section of a website. Plus, 'troll', apparently, is a very subjective term. One persons troll is another's committed revolutionary.

I personally don't care that much, and people spend way to much time worrying about a relatively insignificant thing.

[Patchd]

That's a bit of a bizarre statement considering most leaders are so because of their authority.

Not necessarily, "leaders" exist naturally anyway, even if they do not have any recognised authority as such, there will be those who are more respected, or trusted because of different factors: physical strength, intelligence, humour, activity, how sociable they are etc...

It's when they have recognised authority, positions of authority etc. when a problem arises, because then they have the legalistic power to do anything.

[Communist Theory]

Anarchists are against authority, not leaders.
The Commie Club is authority.
They are like Parliament or Congress they make the rules that get enforced by authority.

[The Feral Underclass]

The Commie Club is authority.
They are like Parliament or Congress they make the rules that get enforced by authority.

Don't bring your anti-CC bullshit into serious threads.

This is a verbal warning.

[The Feral Underclass]

Not necessarily, "leaders" exist naturally anyway, even if they do not have any recognised authority as such, there will be those who are more respected, or trusted because of different factors: physical strength, intelligence, humour, activity, how sociable they are etc...

I'm aware of that.


It's when they have recognised authority, positions of authority etc. when a problem arises, because then they have the legalistic power to do anything.

Ya don't say :wub:

[Communist Theory]

Don't bring your anti-CC bullshit into serious threads.

This is a verbal warning.
It wasn't meant to be anti-CC I've explained already to Sean.

[bcbm]

It's what usually constitutes them as a leader.

It depends how you are using the term "leader".

A leader can simply be somebody who is influential on a group or perhaps more outspoken. It doesn't have to be a position of authority and, obviously, I don't support leadership positions invested with authority.


No, but we should be against the fetishisation of them by certain anarchists. Let's be clear about the fact that Durruti and Makhno were individual soldiers among many and in fact were part of larger command structures. They didn't 'ourrank' other commanders as any more "leaderful", and in some cases they were no more exceptional than others.

I'm not suggesting they should be fetishized, but they were certainly leaders in their time and it seems absurd to suggest otherwise.


But everyone needs a hero, I suppose.

http://slicklyrics.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/carlo-rossi-paisano1.jpg

[Bright Banana Beard]

http://slicklyrics.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/carlo-rossi-paisano1.jpg
That shit is nasty. I did not like it.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

So if he was saying something criticising the Commie Club then he wouldn't be allowed to?

[Invariance]

I am genuinely confused (and it appears they are) as to what anarchists mean when they say they 'oppose authority', what they define as 'authority' and how that is different to 'leadership.' I hope you can clear my confusion up.


A leader can simply be somebody who is influential on a group or perhaps more outspoken. But a leader necessarily has a position of authority - they are a leader because when they put forward their position, their authority, or position in the organisation, means that their voice has more worth than others. If it didn't, they would just be another voice in an organisation and any other member could necessarily over-rule them. And just as you have admitted - they can simply be someone whom is more influential on a group. Wouldn't you prefer an elected leader to a leader who has power which is not bounded?


It doesn't have to be a position of authority and, obviously, I don't support leadership positions invested with authority I wonder if leadership positions without authority are indeed leadership positions. Again, this depends on how you define the terms which you use.


It's when they have recognised authority, positions of authority etc. when a problem arises, because then they have the legalistic power to do anything. This is even more confusing - now the enemy becomes 'recognized authority' with 'legalistic power to do anything.'

But plainly that is false - recognized authority can have limits on its powers. They can be subject to a number of limitations and restrictions. So you are wrong to equate recognized power with unlimited power.

But to address your point, it would be far more beneficial to have a recognized authoirty than an unrecognized authority. An authority which is not regulated, which is not subject to fair rules and restrictions would, in my mind, be far more detrimental than one which is. Would you rather have an organization with de facto power which is sporadic and not limited, or would you rather have an organization whose powers, and their limits, are plainly set out, and which is subject to the rules which have been agreed upon by its members?

I know which organization I would prefer to live under, or be a part of.

[nuisance]

I guess we're just entryists at heart.
:sneaky:

[bcbm]

But a leader necessarily has a position of authority - they are a leader because when they put forward their position, their authority, or position in the organisation, means that their voice has more worth than others.

You seem to be imagining a leader as a formal role, but I'm imagining it as a group dynamic. If you're sitting around with friends and nobody can decide what to do and then one person suggests going to a park and motivates others to do that, they're acting as a leader but of course there is no authority there. This happens in all sorts of social groups, including political ones.


If it didn't, they would just be another voice in an organisation and any other member could necessarily over-rule them. And just as you have admitted - they can simply be someone whom is more influential on a group. Wouldn't you prefer an elected leader to a leader who has power which is not bounded?

Most anarchist groups I've been a part of have had some measure of "checks and balances" to keep any "power" in check.

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm not suggesting they should be fetishized, but they were certainly leaders in their time and it seems absurd to suggest otherwise.

But they are fetishised though.

Even if they are leaders by your definition what importance does that have? Why should I recognise them as "leaders"? And why is it absurd if I don't?

These kinds of attitudes are dangerous.

[Cumannach]

lol

She's a witch!


sorry

[bcbm]

But they are fetishised though.

Even if they are leaders by your definition what importance does that have? Why should I recognise them as "leaders"? And why is it absurd if I don't?

These kinds of attitudes are dangerous.

How is acknowledging that leaders exist dangerous? I think not acknowledging that is more dangerous because its ignoring the reality of how groups function.

[DesertShark]

So if he was saying something criticising the Commie Club then he wouldn't be allowed to?
I was wondering that myself.

[The Feral Underclass]

How is acknowledging that leaders exist dangerous? I think not acknowledging that is more dangerous because its ignoring the reality of how groups function.

I asked you why it's necessary for me to recognise Durruti and Makhno as leaders and why not doing so is absurd? What is it about them that requires any specific recognition?

[The Feral Underclass]

lol

She's a witch!


sorry

Don't spam discussion threads. This is a verbal warning.

[Kassad]

Leader is a very odd term. The term assumes that someone is ranked higher in a hierarchal sense, whether it be in a party, an organization or a community. That's why Lenin used the term 'vanguard.' It doesn't necessarily assume that I tell you what to do or that you labor for me. It infers that I am more capable of comprehending revolutionary theory and struggle than say, someone who has never attended a strike before or never been to a protest. The revolutionary vanguard doesn't assume that people are being ruled over, for that is not what we're aiming for. It is merely the recognition that some people are going to be more capable at performing certain actions during revolutionary struggle.

An industrial worker who has never studied Marxism or who has never obtained class consciousness does not have the proper ability to lead in struggle. He has the full ability to be a part of it and in the future, become conscious and adept at class struggle, but during the infant stages of class consciousness, that isn't always true. If we don't have some form of vanguard, the working class will always remain divided and disoriented, much like they are now. I'm not for the promotion of individual leaders like the Bob Avakian types, but there's nothing wrong with having skilled revolutionaries manage a party or organization, as opposed to someone who doesn't comprehend the efficiency and struggle needed to maintain revolutionary society.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I was wondering that myself.

Exactly, why shouldn't it be allowed to criticise the way it works, I don't understand why a little debate hurts.

[The Feral Underclass]

I just don't want to see this thread get derailed by anti-CC rants. There are enough threads around the forum you can get involved in for that.

[bcbm]

I asked you why it's necessary for me to recognise Durruti and Makhno as leaders and why not doing so is absurd? What is it about them that requires any specific recognition?

I guess it doesn't matter how you want to view them, but back in a bit more objective world the fact is that have been very influential figures for the anarchist movement and are widely recognized and studied, ie leaders.

[Cumannach]

Don't spam discussion threads. This is a verbal warning.

I don't consent to your authority to issue a verbal warning to me. Retract it please.

[The Feral Underclass]

I guess it doesn't matter how you want to view them, but back in a bit more objective world the fact is that have been very influential figures for the anarchist movement and are widely recognized and studied, ie leaders.

The objective world? Give me break.

Recognised as what? And studied for what? They were both exceptional soldiers, but so were many of the soldiers that fought and died fighting reaction...

You want to exalt these dead men as "leaders" and for what purpose? They weren't my "leaders", I never met them nor did I have a say in whether they were "leaders". For this reason I refuse to participate in this fetish of them as such.

They were men. They were anarchists. They contributed to the fight against capitalism, fascism and the state. That's it.

[bcbm]

Do you forget the earlier stages of the argument every time you post or something? Because you seem to not be processing any of what I've said.


Recognised as what? And studied for what? They were both exceptional soldiers, but so were many of the soldiers that fought and died fighting reaction...

So why do we remember them and X soldier who died? I mean, there was a "Durutti Column" and the "Makhnovista," but certainly these weren't any sort of leader (that is, an influential person within a group). I mean, what?



You want to exalt these dead men as "leaders" and for what purpose?

Where have you been? As I've already stated, it has nothing to do with "exalting." Calling someone a leader isn't worshiping them, its acknowledging a role they were filling in a group. Or at last that is how I consider the term.


They weren't my "leaders" and I refuse to participate in your festish of them. They were men. They were anarchists. They contributed to the fight against capitalism, fascism and the state. That's it.

For fuck's sake, it has nothing to do with a fetish. Pay attention. They were only brought up as an example of "anarchist leaders," not dead heroes to be prayed to. And yet we're talking about them 70 years later or whatever, but not about whoever random Ukranian that died in the Civil War. Why?

[The Feral Underclass]

Do you forget the earlier stages of the argument every time you post or something? Because you seem to not be processing any of what I've said.

No. Believe it or not I get what you're saying.


So why do we remember them and X soldier who died?Because people fetishes people. I was born 25 years ago. I've spent the last 5 years being an anarchist. There are countless books about both men, indeed I've read a few. We remember them because people worship them, write about them and exalt them as heroes.


I mean, there was a "Durutti Column" and the "Makhnovista," but certainly these weren't any sort of leader (that is, an influential person within a group). I mean, what?So you want me to recognise them because they were influential? I mean, I grasp your definition of leader and I grasp that you can apply that definition to the two men you've mentioned, but I've not yet grasped why it is you feel it necessary or important for me to do so?


Where have you been? As I've already stated, it has nothing to do with "exalting."Clearly I don't agree. The issue I have is that it has a lot to do with exalting them.


Pay attention.If you want to act like a **** that's ok, but if you want to talk to me you're going to have to stop the bullshit. I'm not interested.


They were only brought up as an example of "anarchist leaders," not dead heroes to be prayed to. And yet we're talking about them 70 years later or whatever, but not about whoever random Ukranian that died in the Civil War. Why?Why? Because we fetishise leaders.

[bcbm]

So you want me to recognise them because they were influential? I mean, I grasp your definition of leader and I grasp that you can apply that definition to the two men you've mentioned, but I've not yet grasped why it is you feel it necessary or important for me to do so?Because I don't think just saying "Oh, they weren't leaders." magically makes it so? Again, it isn't exalting them or acknowledging them as really even that special, just noting that they filled a specific role in a group. I don't see what is so controversial here?

Also, you admit in the last line that they are leaders, more or less. What?

[Knight of Cydonia]

*in before TAT and bcbm flooding this thread with more debate arguments:D*


"this group selects Moderators and debates bans and restrictions in a democratic fashion on a daily basis.

So my question is, how is the commie club on this website compatable with the anti-leadership beliefs of most anarchists?

(sorry for my bad english language)
the CC not only debating bans and restrictions of some members, and not just talking about that either. the CC also debating and discussing about how should we make this forum site look more better and how will this forum site advance in the future.

if you think that the Admins and Mods were leader, oh you're so wrong mate, they're not leaders, they were also a regular member like us. the different is they were chosen by the people (members) to look after the forum/subforum because they have the skill to do it and because the members who elect them to be Admin/Mod think that they were capable to do that.

[The Feral Underclass]

Because I don't think just saying "Oh, they weren't leaders." magically makes it so? Again, it isn't exalting them or acknowledging them as really even that special, just noting that they filled a specific role in a group. I don't see what is so controversial here?

Also, you admit in the last line that they are leaders, more or less. What?

I don't really think what I'm saying is that complicated to be honest. I think you've assumed from my argument that I saying that we "shouldn't call them leaders", but clearly people do and your definition of a leader probably fits quite well. But that's not really what I'm trying to address. I'm trying to address why we feel the need or consider it important to recognise leadership in whatever form it takes. Why is it important for me to recognise people as leaders? Because they simply are? I'm sorry but that's not good enough. Do you think that excellence should be considered more important than non-excellence (whatever that means)?

[Black Dagger]

So my question is, how is the commie club on this website compatable with the anti-leadership beliefs of most anarchists? I guess then my question would be, how is the organisation of this site incompatible with the 'beliefs' of most anarchists? I mean you're suggesting that RL or the CC specifically is not the model of anarchist organisation and therefore anarchists should not post there or participate? I'm sorry but that is pretty silly, obviously the website could do more to be like an anarchist organisation but it is not designed to be one in the first place - so??????? We should all fuck off to some 'anarchist forum'? I guess the point is anarchists are not hopeless idealists, i'm more than happy given the conditions in which this forum exists to participate here for the advancement of my ideas. Besides the internet is a vast and anonymous place and this is not even an anarchist forum - giving the entire membership of the forum equivalent decision-making power to an anarchist collective would probably lead to the destruction of the site in a day or so (see: Serpents remarks about another forum which was killed by spammers). Anarchist organising is premised on localised decision-making power by people who share a workplace for example - there is a level of trust and accountability that exists there which is not attainable in the context of this forum. It's just a really absurd analogy/criticism to make.

[revolution inaction]

if you think that the Admins and Mods were leader, oh you're so wrong mate, they're not leaders, they were also a regular member like us. the different is they were chosen by the people (members) to look after the forum/subforum because they have the skill to do it and because the members who elect them to be Admin/Mod think that they were capable to do that.

I thought they where chosen by the other member of the CC I don't remember there being a vote

[Bilan]

I hate to be mean, but this is so ridiculous.
Really, it's an administrive section of a forum. It is not a society, nor a mode of production - which is the central aspect of (most of our members) politics.
That's it.
Seriously. Bigger fish to fry.

[Knight of Cydonia]

I thought they where chosen by the other member of the CC I don't remember there being a vote
yes that's what i mean with the "members" it's CC member (which each of them were admitted to be in the CC by the vote of other CC members).

[bcbm]

I don't really think what I'm saying is that complicated to be honest. I think you've assumed from my argument that I saying that we "shouldn't call them leaders", but clearly people do and your definition of a leader probably fits quite well.

Okay.


But that's not really what I'm trying to address. I'm trying to address why we feel the need or consider it important to recognise leadership in whatever form it takes. Why is it important for me to recognise people as leaders? Because they simply are?

Because "leadership" exists as a group dynamic whether we like it or not and when left unchecked or acknowledged can lead to problems. Lots of anarchist groups have leaders they don't acknowledge and these people often dominate groups heavily and ultimately alienate other people. I feel its important to acknowledge the dynamic so we can make sure it doesn't end in more authoritarian consequences. I don't think there is anything wrong with leadership, per se, as it can be useful in many situations. But we also can't just let it go.


Do you think that excellence should be considered more important than non-excellence (whatever that means)?

It has nothing to do with excellence.

[The Feral Underclass]

Because "leadership" exists as a group dynamic whether we like it or not

Then I will challenge it. And so should every worker.


when left unchecked or acknowledged can lead to problems.It's a self-fulfilling prophecy really and I don't see why we should follow it. Ok, so people take leadership roles, perhaps it comes naturally to people, but to recognise it as a fact is to legitimise its existence. Ok, so we need to recognise that people often naturally fall into those roles, but we shouldn't accept it as a fact because it happens.


Lots of anarchist groups have leaders they don't acknowledge and these people often dominate groups heavily and ultimately alienate other people.I'm often, unfortunately, one of those people. I'm usually that guy who speaks too much (when I have something to say obviously) and I really have to fight myself to remember that this is a consensual process. I have to be aware of myself and this is what we have to aim for.


I feel its important to acknowledge the dynamic so we can make sure it doesn't end in more authoritarian consequences.Ok, let’s recognise the dynamic, but I see no reason to recognise the fact of leadership.


I don't think there is anything wrong with leadership, per se, as it can be useful in many situations.Again, it depends on how you define leadership. I have no problem with the idea of an individual or group of individuals taking a more pro-active role in the organisation of something providing they're accountable and recallable.

I have a problem with the assumption that because people take on roles they are therefore trustworthy, competent and desirable as 'organisers'. It may be that they are all of those things, but anarchy is not just about individuals taking roles but about individuals recognising when they're role is becoming inappropriate. Proactive individuals have to learn to teach/share that ability with others. We want to totally democratise and make equal these human dynamics, not embrace the negative ones as 'reality'.


It has nothing to do with excellence.Then why should an individual be considered a leader above another?

Edit: Ironically, my custom user title was Batko's ***** up until today :p

[bcbm]

I have a problem with the assumption that because people take on roles they are therefore trustworthy, competent and desirable as 'organisers'.

Where did that assumption come from? It seems like we're not really arguing a difference in idea, just a difference in wording at this point.

[The Feral Underclass]

Where did that assumption come from? It seems like we're not really arguing a difference in idea, just a difference in wording at this point.

That sentence you quoted is a bit misleading if done so in isolation from the rest of the paragraph.

[bcbm]

But it seems like you were suggesting I was saying that, which isn't what I was suggesting at all?