thought that was tried and failed already, Chris. On Sunday, March 29, 2015 at 3:08:07 PM UTC-4, Chris Jenkins wrote: > > *laughing* Yes, "Feminazi" is one of many disaparagements I could do > without. I was really only referring to those bastions of protection > against dissenting thought so prevalent in American academia now. > "Neofeminism" and "Neomarxism" can generally be used interchangeably there, > although they're ironically quite different from the "New Feminism" of the > turn of the century. But I digress. > > When I started reading the threads again, it was in hopes of some new > thought, being sorely lacking in such myself under the load of work > responsibilities. Alas, there seems to be little of that among the endless > tittering and tattering; without an influx of new blood, and with a slow > hemorrhaging of the remaining members, the threads get shorter and shorter. > > Maybe Gabby was right about platform. Moving the conversation to a > community on G+ would expose it to more outside members, and bring in some > new thought. > > On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 2:56 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > >> One could put up with the moderating thing if you were the beer butler >> Chris. It's a great old world in which you discover the FemiNazis are >> actually not as bad as the people using the term! I have often wondered >> how rational conversation is possible with someone who makes it plain, as >> one utters the word fuck, that one could only have learned be be that evil >> at the feet of Hitler and the Devil. They manage this with a look of >> disgust, yet if asked how many have died in wars since the war to end all >> wars and the one spawned by that, would think the answer a few dozen. I >> mean WTF does disgust these "people"? >> >> I'm trying to think of a good contributory in here (there have been many) >> without a sense of humour or that psycho-giveaway of only laughing at their >> own re-explained jokes. Gabby used to make some exceptional contributions >> on the humour front in her joint roles as the Wit Sisters (Half and Fuck). >> Interestingly, statements such as this rarely brought stinging reply, but >> more bother-boot tactics against some old guy living in the woods outside >> Amsterdam and his graffiti art. I have some kiss and make up emails, if >> anyone is interested, though 'RP' is coming on stronger than Gabby. A few >> drinks and I'll be inviting her back Moll! But then I'm not drinking ... >> >> >> On Sunday, March 29, 2015 at 6:25:26 PM UTC+1, Chris Jenkins wrote: >>> >>> "This Forum post tastes like mud!" >>> >>> "It should, it was ground this morning!" >>> >>> "HAHAHAHAHAH" >>> >>> Ah Fran, you took me back to my "Muppet Show" days. >>> >>> In facilitating conversation online, moderators always walk a fine line >>> between quashing free conversation, and preventing the conversation from >>> devolving into bitter personal attacks or meritless trolling. The role of >>> the moderator does indeed vary across a wide spectrum, from those to simply >>> remove spam, to those (like in the neo-Feminism) where any dissenting >>> thought is considered an "attack on the safe space" and "triggering". >>> >>> Here in Minds Eye, we always tried to keep the moderation hand light, >>> limited mostly to removing spam and calling out blatant ad hominem attacks. >>> Even with that light touch, some rebelled. Would that Germany had such a >>> staunch gadfly during the rise of the Brown shirts; the course of history >>> may have been altered. >>> >>> To a moderator, it's a job, and often a thankless one. To the moderated, >>> it's an authority figure, and a system to be railed against. There's no >>> winning for the good intentioned moderator. >>> >>> On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 12:24 PM, frantheman <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Firstly a disclaimer: I am not a Gabby-bot. >>>> >>>> As with so many issues, this one is much deeper and more complex than >>>> it seems at first sight. A few points. >>>> >>>> As frequently happens in the English-speaking web-world, many of the >>>> cultural parameters implicitly (and usually unquestioningly) accepted for >>>> discussion are dominated by the US-American experience and world-view. >>>> (This observation is - from my point of view - just that; an observation, >>>> with no intention to apply any kind of (moral or other) value). In the US, >>>> freedom of speech is one of those issues dealt with in the First Amendment >>>> to the Constitution, the so-called "Bill of Rights" (1791). As such, it is >>>> often automatically accorded a kind of mystical, quasi-religious status. >>>> There's nothing unusual about that: every culture and society needs a >>>> living unifying mythology, the foundations of a shared narrative, in order >>>> to function. (When such a unifying mythology isn't present, or breaks >>>> down, >>>> a society will tear itself apart. Northern Ireland in the last four >>>> decades >>>> of the past century is a good example: two irreconcilable tribal >>>> mythological narratives colliding.) But just because particular values >>>> have >>>> a constituting mythological significance for a particular group doesn't >>>> give them an automatically sacred or inviolable character - particularly >>>> for people who don't share that particular constitutive group narrative >>>> (i.e. non-Americans). >>>> >>>> The idea of universal "rights" has been around for a long time, but it >>>> achieved a central position in the Enlightenment. And the Enlightenment - >>>> while (in my view) it represented a major positive vector for human >>>> progress - had a number of weaknesses, the most fundamental, perhaps, >>>> being >>>> its emphasis on the primacy of reason in human affairs, underestimating >>>> the >>>> power of other aspects which go to build up human nature, and human >>>> societies (emotion, aggression, fear, greed, etc.). >>>> >>>> The Enlightenment idea of "universal rights" defined itself, at least >>>> partly, as a reaction to the older (traditionally Catholic) view of a >>>> (divinely ordained) natural order. The idea of natural order gives rise >>>> then to a philosophy of "natural law" which regulates that order. If there >>>> are natural laws, which can be discovered by humans, then these laws are >>>> true and every other view which contradicts them is false. The logical >>>> endpoint of such a position is that of pre-Vatican II Catholicism, often >>>> expressed in the aphorism: Error has no rights. Society should be >>>> organised >>>> according to natural law, any intellectual positions which advocate views >>>> which are in contradiction to natural law, if put into practice, will have >>>> negative consequences, since this is not the way things were "meant to >>>> be." >>>> Thus, erroneous positions are damaging - both for individuals and society >>>> - >>>> consequently, individuals and societies must be protected from them. >>>> Of course, this position is based on the conviction that the >>>> fundamental grounds of existence are ontologically certain, and that >>>> humans, either through reason, or revelation, or a combination of both, >>>> can >>>> recognise the laws implied in "being", and their concrete unfolding >>>> consequences in reality. It's not a question of finding the *best* way >>>> to do things, rather finding the (only) *right* way to do things. >>>> >>>> The idea of inalienable fundamental "rights" is one of the basic >>>> building blocks of the (western) modern view of human nature and society, >>>> reaching its apogee perhaps in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights >>>> (1949). Among these basic rights is the right to freedom/liberty and its >>>> consequence, the right to freedom of speech/expression. But the idea of >>>> "rights" is complex and contains many problems. Are rights absolute? If >>>> so, >>>> how do you deal with conflicts of rights? If not, how can you establish >>>> hierarchies of rights? You're faced with a plethora of individual >>>> decisions, which can only be decided within their own specific contexts. >>>> And then, who decides? >>>> >>>> Coming down to the particular situation here, one point should be >>>> completely clear. Minds Eye, as a subset of Google Groups, as a subset of >>>> all the shit available on the web, is *not *a constituent part of the >>>> USA (hard though it may be for some US Americans to conceive of such a >>>> notion). As a result, the rules governing this group are not subject to >>>> the >>>> US Constitution. Therefore, there is no automatic right to freedom of >>>> speech here. The "rules" which govern the group are laid down in the >>>> guidelines and these include the idea of moderation and the specific >>>> powers >>>> which moderators have. You may not like the rules, but you're not forced >>>> in >>>> any way to be part of the group. This is the basic difference between the >>>> kind of pocket universe an on-line discussion group forms and the physical >>>> societies in which we all live. In the "real" world, my right to freedom >>>> of >>>> expression is important to me, because I can't stop the planet and get off >>>> to join some alternative earth which I like better. Here - despite howls >>>> of >>>> protest by people like Gabby about the blue in the Eye, or being placed on >>>> moderation, or others being banned - if you don't like the way things are >>>> organised, you can just piss off somewhere else. An awful lot of what goes >>>> on at this level reminds me frankly of nothing so much as the antics of >>>> Statler and Waldorf in their balcony at the Muppet Show. >>>> >>>> And, of course, even within the web context, there is a conflict of >>>> rights between the right to freedom of speech and the right not to be >>>> gratuitously insulted or flamed. If people were to behave rationally (in >>>> an >>>> Enlightenment sense) then this would not be a problem. But the web - even >>>> Minds Eye - is a microcosm of human society in general. Unfortunately, >>>> people will continue to troll, flame, insult and injure. And as long as >>>> that is the case, moderators are necessary - necessary evils like cops, >>>> dentists, speed-limits and revenue collectors. I've nothing but admiration >>>> for Neil and Molly for taking the nasty task on, particularly as I regard >>>> neither of them as being remotely megalomaniac. >>>> >>>> In his parting post Andrew stated, "Freedom, in order for it to have >>>> meaning has to be unconditional." I find this view hard to understand. >>>> Freedom is not an on-off switch. Absolute freedom (does it even exist?) >>>> and >>>> total servitude are two ends of a sliding scale, and we nearly always find >>>> ourselves somewhere between the two. >>>> >>>> Am Samstag, 28. März 2015 14:57:02 UTC+1 schrieb Molly: >>>>> >>>>> Here is part of what Wikipedia (usually my last choice for citation) >>>>> has to say about the protection of free speech under the US constitution: >>>>> >>>>> Criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that >>>>> people may find distasteful or against public policy are almost always >>>>> permitted. There are exceptions to these general protections >>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions>, >>>>> including the Miller test <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test> >>>>> for obscenity >>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_obscenity_law>, child >>>>> pornography laws, speech that incites imminent lawless action >>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action>, and >>>>> regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Within these limited >>>>> areas, other limitations on free speech >>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech> balance rights to >>>>> free speech and other rights, such as rights for authors over their works >>>>> ( >>>>> copyright <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright>), protection from >>>>> imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions >>>>> on fighting >>>>> words <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words>), or the use of >>>>> untruths to harm others (slander >>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander>). Distinctions are often made >>>>> between speech and other acts which may have symbolic significance. >>>>> >>>>> Now, debate on where things said fall into the loose structure is >>>>> certainly an option. Can someone tell me I should be ashamed of myself. I >>>>> guess so, although it is certainly uncomfortable for me to see that in >>>>> writing, all caps, and know it is repeated in RSS blogs across the >>>>> internet. Is it slanderous? Calling someone a paranoid schizophrenic in >>>>> public may be slanderous but worse is done every day all across the >>>>> globe, >>>>> unfortunately. Law is in place to be argued in court, and who wants to do >>>>> that except lawyers and those that have lost much because their rights >>>>> were >>>>> violated. >>>>> >>>>> But I think in groups there is a social contract that shapes the >>>>> perimeters of civility, one that all members contribute and define by the >>>>> coming and going of the group. Internet groups are complicated because of >>>>> the anonymity of identity and lack of accountability possible. What >>>>> members >>>>> are left with is the choice to leave the group, as demonstrated here with >>>>> our dwindling numbers. >>>>> >>>>> I don't have an answer but believe in free speech and the group. And I >>>>> must say I am enjoying the fact that every thread does not disintegrate >>>>> into the same old flame war. >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> --- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>> >>> -- >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> ""Minds Eye"" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > >
-- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
