re: David Brace and all the other children over at their Facebook 'box...

When is a 'Dissident' Movement Little More Than a Coffee Klatch Clique?

or

My Visit to a Dissident Sandbox

Last autumn –and I'll concede that the exactitude with which I'm able to corral my memories might be slightly flawed– when 'Peggygate' was at the height of its wondrous illumination of the city, when Mayor Bratina made his famous 'dissident' statement in response to the negative outcry (mostly online), about the same time that Graham Crawford of HIStory and HERitage had his fun poster-wise, a Facebook group was created. 'Dissidents (Hamilton Chapter)'. Common sense says that they wanted to have some fun, they wanted to blow off some steam...'birds of a feather' and all that. 

I visited the group. And just as I was a little sickened by the energies poured into 'Peggygate' by Ryan McGreal over at Raise the Hammer and Graham's (I refer to him in this way because I know Graham, he's anything but a mystery to me) inveighing against Mayor Bob on that blog in the form of comments, I remember shaking my head at the repetitive threads on Dissidents. In fact, when I got to know one of its more respected members and struck up a close friendship, she eventually stopped frequenting the group. 'Too much negative energy', or words to that effect.

(For the record, I am not a Mayor Bratina supporter. I don't think he does the office justice, I'm not impressed with the way he's handled most everything (I almost guffawed myself into oblivion at the Downtown Mosque in reaction to his 'off-the-cuff' speech about community cohesion in the face of a hate-crime)...and I was there, in-person at City Hall, when he made his famous dash from Council Chambers to his own, carrying the media on his back as he strained to escape them.)

And this is where it gets interesting. 

Heading towards winter, I commented quite plainly on RTH about how fed-up I was with the prolonged self-indulgent behaviour on display by Ryan, Graham, et al on the pillorying of Mayor Bratina. About how I felt it was beneath their abilities as active and engaged community leaders to carry on in such a way, and that they should, not to put too fine a point on it, be ashamed of themselves. 

In fact, so much so that Graham got in touch with me, took issue with me trying to dictate the parameters of discourse...and within less than a handful of back-and-forths, had a bitchy, snit-fit meltdown, hauling into the correspondence a topic entirely unrelated...but very much typically Graham-centric. 

Months passed. Out of the blue, Graham made efforts to try to 'make nice'. And as I'd noticed that 'Dissidents' was still featuring pretty much the same level of discourse as previously, I thought I'd apply for 'membership' to the group. 

Why?

Mostly to see just how strong the spirit of 'dissident' thinking was. By eventually attempting to get conversations going that went beyond either the usual a) sycophantic blatherings, or b) repetitive whingeing.

I figured that maybe I could jar commenters a little. Get them tapping into resources that for the most part, were being used to express the community activism equivalent of 'Whoop! Whoop!' 

I lasted just over a week; in the end, everything 'got blowed-up good!'.  

Recently on RTH, a friend of mine decided to take a particular critical tack regarding certain 'pet peeves' he has about embers of 'Dissidents', of another Facebook page, 'Ward 3 Residents' Association'. Former Mayoral candidate Mahesh Butani has his own way of seeing things, and his own needs to express those ways, and the intellectual means to make the most of those inclinations. I didn't partake in this imbroglio, which was featured on an article by Mr. Crawford; I made a comment early on, was attacked, responded once...and stayed away for the ensuing hundred-or-so comments. It became quite the notable interlude, especially on 'Dissidents'. I watched all their comments about it after-the-fact, after I was approved for membership, keeping my mouth shut all the while. 

Ironically, I'd been posting on 'Dissidents' this week, post-approval. Most of the occasions were announcements of newly-completed episodes of a series I was publishing on My Stoney Creek, but others were postings of news items, or raising topical points. Unfortunately, I didn't find it 'odd' that for the most part, whatever I posted was met with...silence. 

On the morning-of-the-end, I posted this:

A few musings about our HWDSB situ... a) How differently would the discussion be if the building at 100 Main West wasn't 'historically/culturally valuable'? b) Why has there been no focus on the aspect of 'consolidation' of services within the Board, which includes the physical requirements apart from offices? c) How important is it to have the Board downtown, in a changing world? (and the corollary, If the situation were different, and there was an amazing development available to move into that property, would there still be as much resistance to the Board moving 'out of the core'?), d) Can most of all this be attributed to a lousy 'dialogue mechanism' being in play? and finally, connected to Matt's presentation this week about 'the destruction of buildings in the downtown over the past half-century', e) Is anyone ready, willing or able to concede that we have a massive amount of conflation going on, the nature of which actually does more harm than good?

And...

Good Lord. Talk about having your intuition validated. 

What ensued was the Facebook thread equivalent of the cross-examination of a witness by a cadre of hostile lawyers, one after the other...essentially ignoring anything I'd suggested as being worthy discussion-points, and instead, going to town on me. On my character, on my motivations...the likes of which I'd have been more than happy to explain even before I'd been accepted into the group's folds.

And what struck me more than having to slog my way through such treatment was the fact that this was a group of dissidents who had taken offense to someone's dissident material.

Moreover, I had the depressing realization that this was purportedly a hotbed for critical thinking in Hamilton, some of those who would be at the leading edge of battle against the irksome habits of City Hall. 

Ugh. 

I'm no dumb-bunny, at my age I'm hardly green, I've been around more blocks (and different ones, to boot) than most commenters in Hamilton, but guess I wasn't expecting 'dissidents' to be so reactionary, so self-absorbed...so cliquish. 

I had dared to posit some notions that clearly rubbed some the wrong way, been an affront to their club credo, and to add to the conflagration, I was, in effect harrangued by one of the group's stalwarts, Matt Jelly...who decided at one point to bring into play a private email exchange between he and I from earlier this year...and was found lacking. (His 'punishment-of-choice' was thinly-veiled sarcasm, the likes of which surely stuck me as typical of someone mired in extended adolescence. Honestly, I deserve a Pixie stamp for the restraint I showed at every turn.) 

Making a long story short, when David Brace, the group moderator who had approved my membership finally happened upon the more than 55 comments in the thread...he went ballistic. 

And I offered...in a private message...to leave the group. (N.B. This wasn't an offer made out of any semblance of 'guilt' whatsoever. This was simply me recognizing the limitations of those involved in the interlude and offering up a gracious out for Mr. Brace. To infer anything else from the gesture isn't merely incorrect...it reveals yet another stratum of what-ails-them-over-there.)

My offer was accepted...the news was posted...reactive comments began anew...and the real depths of this group of people's wandering saliency was made clear to me: Mr. Brace (whom I had met just a few days earlier this week) apologized for having been wrong in inviting me into the group. When I questioned him in a private message, he took a page out of Mr. Crawford's Book of Behavioural Absurdities, threw a mini-snit-fit...and exited. 

So. 

What does it mean when a group founded as 'dissidents' cannot tolerate having their dogma questioned? (Or having to actually use their craniums for something more than hat-holding.)

What does it mean when a group that sees parody and satire of public officials is an inalienable right...but simply do not know how to process thoughts that run contrary to what makes them feel all warm and cuddly...and resort to the kind of behaviour that they've lambasted their Mayor for exhibiting?

What does it mean when you've got a narcissistic Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee pairing as the poster boys of the group, and edgy dissidence morphs into sickly sycophancy?

I think it means that if your sandbox has queer lumps in it...it's probably not a sandbox after all.

(I guess the soggy bits should have been the dead-giveaway.)

Oh, yeah:

Q: When is a 'dissident' movement little more than a coffee klatch clique?

A: When it's in Hamilton, apparently.

M Adrian Brassington