May be. But I found threads not followable. Evolving into not much more than garbage..
تجنب. القتل والاغتصاب واستعباد الآخرين Avoid; murder, rape and enslavement of others -----Original Message----- From: Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> To: Minds-Eye <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 9:34 PM Subject: Re: Mind's Eye Re: Is free speech free? I know we talked about it, but I can't find that any community was created, and it's much larger than when we last talked. Hard to say. I know that my threads there spawn robust conversations with many different voices. On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > -- --- 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.
