Tom, of Blogmandu fame, has apparently decided that Zaadz is an effort by the satanic Brian Johnson to brainwash thousands of people into some kind "yuppie in denial" trance state (Is Zaadz a Den of Rattlesnakes!?).
His argument seems to follow this somewhat strange flow:
1. Having bloggers segregate into interest groups is bad for the web and for blogging in general. This seems to disregard the fact that Buddhist blogs have their own insular niche, as do integral blogs. Both have metablogs, like Blogmandu, that seek to keep like-minded people in community with each other. Zaadz actaully breaks down some of that insularity by bringing diverse people together in small spaces to share differing views.
2. Because EST, The Hunger Project, and The Forum were bad, Zaadz must be bad, too. This is like saying that because George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Rick Santorum are asses, all middle age white male are asses. One cannot legitimately condemn an entire class (groups that want to create change) because some members of that class have been bad. It's faulty logic -- guilt by association.
3. Brian Johnson, founder and CEO of Zaadz, is bad because in the early days of Zaadz they experienced an influx of new members as a result of something that happened at Tribe that required him to purge the new members pending a slightly more formal application process. Many of the new members did not share Johnson's view for what Zaadz should become. So he took Zaadz back to a Beta version that requires an invitation to join. Zaadz was never meant to be another social networking site like MySpace (owned by Rupert Murdock). I think he had the right to protect his investment and his vision.
4. Those who were removed from Zaadz pending re-approval don't like Zaadz, so it must be bad. Again, poor logic. Of course they have issues, but Tom did not present any poinst of view from Zaadz members or leaders about what really happened from their side. If Tom wants us to take this seriously, and it deserves some consideration (as I had not heard of the purge), then he needs to present a balanced report, not hearsay.
5. The answers to "How are we going to change the world?" don't meet Tom's approval, so Zaadz must be bad. He argues that Buddha has the Zaadz people beat and that Buddha wouldn't be a Zaadster. I should hope that the Buddha is more enlightened than a bunch a regular people who want to see a better world. If he's not, I've chosen the wrong path. Zaadz isn't a path to enlightenment, it's a place for people to share ideas and experiences on how to make the world a better place.
6. Brian Johnson's signature is a B that looks like a 13, which freaks Tom out ("That freaks me."). That is just silly. How can we take him seriously after he says that?
So that's why Tom thinks Zaadz sucks and why I think Tom's arguments are ill-conceived and unfounded.
What say you?
Technorati Tags: Zaadz, Tom Armstrong, Blogmandu, Social Networking, Tribe, Brian Johnson
14 comments:
It seems a human constant that your most vociferous opponents will be those most closely allied to you in sentiment, rather than your obvious enemies. What is up with that?
Kai in NYC
WH,
You are misrepresenting what I wrote, think, and what's factual. Here are my responses to you list.
1. I am not in favor of Buddhists being insular. Blogmandu is meant to widen discussion. I don't use the term "blagha" [much, anyway]since the idea of an insular 'blog
sangha,' I oppose. I use the word Buddhoblogophere, instead, because I DO have to recognize that there exists blogs that have a certain focus in common.
2. I directly say that est, THP and The Forum are unrelated to Zaadz, so far as I know. But the similarities are stark: aggressive positivism, authoritarian leadership, squishy Lefty philosophy and a totalitarian bent.
3. I write that 95% of what I find about Johnson is supportive of him. But -- and I didn't write THIS -- those upset with him are bright and interesting people. It is a curious thing to try to fix the world by excluding such an able segment of society. Fixing the world by mean of elitism is a curious methodology.
4. I was not meaning to mediate The Purge. And I don't think if you read my piece that I meant to suggest that the Tribe was not a little stinky and rambunctious. But, again, how do youo fix the world by parsing society to find an ever-cleaner, -spiffier, -wholesomer group of people? Ultimately, is all that's left a handful of supermodels that are good enough and perfect enough to be the master race?
5. Oh, come on! The answers at Zaadz to change the world are laughable! We are talking about CHANGING THE WORLD. I think that Buddha approached the issues seriously. I think it is starkly obvious that Johnson is using the idea as a rouse to market a social-networking concept. Johnson has a cynical approach to capitalism; this isn't really an approach to achieve something amazing.
6. Ah, yeah. You got me there. Sort of. The last two items in my piece were leftovers I decided to go with. BUT, I still find it interesting that Johnson knowingly signs his name "13." What is really going on in this guy's head? How a person signs his name is not without meaning, and Johnson's signature is bizarre and narcissistic. To sign just the first letter of your name, large and to make an obvious "13" out of it. Damn spooky, if you ask me. How you sign the small letters in your name says something about what you think of other people. To omit those letters is curious.
To dismiss what I wrote as "Tom [just] thinks Zaadz sucks" misses some real and important points that I make.
Kai,
So by your logic Jews are really Nazi-like? Those that most disagree with Bush are the ones most like him?
I don't know that the kind-scientists would buy into your 'human constant.' 'Grouping is the cause of friction' is the central insight of kind science. Thus, according to 'kind' experts, we create friction by separating ourselves from others. It is not a recognition of some sort ['finding in others what we dislike about ourself,' for example].
- Tom
Well I haven't studied Nazi history closely enough to say so with certainty, but I'd wager that those annihilated first and most swiftly where the folks closest to Hitler who dared dissent as he was coming to power. And we can see with Bush that the critics who wield the most power with him, and speak in the most venomous language, are his friends on the furthest radical right, who share most of his views yet jealously watch and correct any deviations.
But I wasn't making my comment in support of either side, since I know nothing about the conflict apart from these two reports. Just noting how the bitterest conflicts are often the internecine ones.
Kai in NYC
Tom,
I want to respond to your objections one by one because I don't believe I misrepresented what you wrote.
First, though, I want to say that I support healthy skepticism. It's important to question anything that seems too good to be true. When I first joined Zaadz, I didn't participate much. I was one of the 1,000 or so who was cut, though I figured it was cause I hadn't posted anything (which is why I was cut). But I wanted to lurk a bit and see what was going on. I liked what I saw.
So, on to your objections.
1. I am not in favor of Buddhists being insular.
I didn't mean to imply that you were. But you criticized Zaadz for creating an insular environment (which I don't think it does), and I just wanted to point out that the Buddhist and integral blogospheres are pretty insular already -- not that you support that. I think Blogmandu has been great in bringing together the Buddhist and integral people who have a lot in common. Zaadz brings together an enormously diverse group of people, many Buddhists, integralists, and some other ists I am barely familiar with.
2. I directly say that est, THP and The Forum are unrelated to Zaadz, so far as I know. But the similarities are stark: aggressive positivism, authoritarian leadership, squishy Lefty philosophy and a totalitarian bent.
Again, there is no support for the contention that Zaadz is authoritarian or totalitarian. Yes, there's some "squishy Lefty philosophy," but there is also some bare knuckles Orange pragmatism. No one invests in a model that doesn't have a plan for generating income.
You generalize the comments of a few digruntled ex-members to suggest that the entire venture is corrupt. Many of the Tribe people who were cut are current members -- I have heard them refer to their time in Tribe, but I didn't really know what Tribe was until your post. So clearly, if they wanted to play nice with the other kids, they were welcome.
3. I write that 95% of what I find about Johnson is supportive of him. But -- and I didn't write THIS -- those upset with him are bright and interesting people. It is a curious thing to try to fix the world by excluding such an able segment of society. Fixing the world by mean of elitism is a curious methodology.
Again, generalizing from a few disgruntled people. Bright though they may be, I'm guessing there was a good reason for them to have been removed. If they wanted to stay, they simply had to follow a few simple rules of conduct. How hard is that? And why is that unfair? Would it be elitism to exclude KKK members from an NAACP meeting?
4. I was not meaning to mediate The Purge. And I don't think if you read my piece that I meant to suggest that the Tribe was not a little stinky and rambunctious. But, again, how do youo fix the world by parsing society to find an ever-cleaner, -spiffier, -wholesomer group of people?
See previous response.
5. Oh, come on! The answers at Zaadz to change the world are laughable! We are talking about CHANGING THE WORLD. I think that Buddha approached the issues seriously. I think it is starkly obvious that Johnson is using the idea as a rouse to market a social-networking concept. Johnson has a cynical approach to capitalism; this isn't really an approach to achieve something amazing.
It's called marketing to the niche audience -- and it's working. Notice where they place ads: Utne Reader, Shambhala Sun, WIE?, Yoga Journal, and so on. Yes, some of the comments are laughable, but they aren't aimed at us, they're aimed at squishy Lefty idealists.
Johnson is a good businessman, and that means having a good business model. That's how he got wealthy enough to start Zaadz in the first place.
You can know how to work the business angle (Orange meme), want to bring together diverse people in a relativist mecca (Green meme), and still know that you are using whatever tools are necessary to generate some positive change (Yellow meme).
If you read all the blog post you linked to from Johnson, he has plans to take Zaadz from cyber space into local communities to create real action for change. Why is that a bad thing?
As far as number six, it's a B for crying out loud. What makes you think he sees it as anything other than a B? Since you cite science to show that boys go tribal given the chance, you should also know that our brains fill in the gaps in letters and words when parts are missing so that we don't waste time trying to figure out something that we see every day. To Brian, I'm sure it's just a B.
Peace,
Bill
13i11,
I will back away and see how Zaadz develops and evolves. I am generally negatory on these cyber walled communities with their guard stations. I don't see any need for them. As I see it they tend to operate in behalf of their real business model [as opposed to both their public business model and their expressed desires for their community -- it's as if they are juggling multiple sets of books.]
Right now the value I see in Zaadz is their iPods. But I don't know that this is better in the environment Zaadz hopes to create than it would be in a Yahoo group, say.
I think that in-group blogs are strange, with just a few excepts -- such as MySpace and others for young people. Usually they have features that limit functionality as group management tries to keep its audience/prisoners under control and insular. I would bet that non-members can't post comments to Zaadz blogs, for example. This is a good think if you are trying to keep child molesters away from middle-school students, but not so good, in my opinion, if you are trying to keep criticism [including some things that are true] away from adults.
I think it is neat that today I got a comment to my Rattlesnake essay from Brian Johnson. But if he wrote an essay in his Zaadz blog significantly about me ["Is Tom a P16 Wallowing in the Mud?"], I bet I couldn't comment.
I pretty much stand by the arguments I have already made. The Tribe does not seem like the KKK; indeed they seem like interesting, worthwhile folks -- if you don't mind that some are feral. And what I have seen of Tribe, theirs is not a Jerry Springer show, as BJ wrote. [I worked at the Hilton on Fisherman's Wharf for about a year, and free lunch for the staff was in a room that played the Springer show, loud, on TV during the noon hour. So I know of what I speak.]
From your most recent comment, you seem to agree [aka, 'have the insight'] to know that CHANGE THE WORLD is a rouse, an empty come-on, playing to the ridiculous notions of the Green Meme. Running you company with a false promise, even if Brian expects everyone to see into its meaninglessness, is stinky -- beneath Green and Orange and CERTAINLY not Yellow.
There is nothing about Zaadz that is yellow. From his business model, BJ intends to provide vacations to Zaadz Resorts in Fiji. I would expect, if that day ever comes, that some online Zaadzsters might wonder how many babies died in the Congo for each vacationer.
Except for Starbucks, with plans they haven't yet implemented, I know of no company that would envision growing such a diverse and far-flung model as BJ has provided in his December blog entry. The direction most companies are moving in is in divesting themselves of divisions that aren't part of the core business. Companies have learned in recent years that Octopus Corporations are inefficient and that consumers' glow of approval of a brand doesn't mean they expect a wonderful pest-control brand is likely to make an equally swell soft drink. It doesn't work that way. So Zaadz social-networking website is unlikely, IMHO, to successfully spawn Zaadz Resorts, Zaadz Oasis, Zaadz Publishing, Zaadz Eatable Underwear, and Zaadz Chocolate-Flavored Liquer.
Call me Skeptical.
you are funny as hell. but you mispelled Zaadzsters ;)
seriously, i don't usually engage myself with stuff like these, but if you want a debate on this i'll be more than willing to do a Tibetan style debate with you and all your readers, not as a Zaadz Wizard, but as a long-time denizen of the blogosphere.
~C (C'mon, let's be serious and let the real Tom please stand up. bring it on like a blogisattva and draw first blog.)
P.S. i was actualy addressing Tom in my last comment ;) i think Tom is way out of his bodhi on this one. if he wants a debate on this. i will give him one! until i get bored ;)
C4,
Okie-dokie. I'll debate. You will have to explain the rules. I am open on location.
...but, for the record, I don't think debating me would be in your best interests [that is, best interests from what I suppose is YOUR poin of view. from MY point of view it would be healthy for you], this being because you are an employee of Zaadz Enterprises [or whatever its name is] and politically and capitalistically it is deemed unwise to do anything that might facilitate detractors to give voice to their views. [not that I would call myself a detractor, exactly] As a matter of corporate politics, then, your role is to stonewall. That's what Tricycle does.
i beg to disagree Tom. because unlike you, i can disassociate aspects of my personality and professional life while forming opinions on things.
hence this reply.
be well.
~C
P.S. it's Zaadz, Inc. get your facts straight fer Chrissakes! ;)
C4, you write, "unlike you, i can disassociate aspects of my personality and professional life while forming opinions on things."
I have no idea what I am failing to disassociate, exactly.
But it would be refreshing to suppose that you are capable of removing your rose-coloring glasses re zaadz, which feed you. There is not a whit of evidence of that so far.
Tom,
for a practicing Buddhist. your projections and sarcasm continues to floor me.
Zaadz feed me because i chose to. Buddhist 101: right livelihood.
but i will not go on a spiraling downward debate with you on this, Tom.
feel free to keep projecting stuff at me. i'll leave it to the free-range consciousness floating around the blogospehere to decide which beer-goggles is bigger and has more compassion, yours or mine.
~C
WH,
to answer your original question. i think your arguments have more validity and compassion. i'm saying this as a fellow denizen of Zaadz, a fellow blogger, and as a logical human being.
~C
Post a Comment