We are looking for alternatives. I know there was a google+ minds eye group for awhile and a few regulars were part of it. It may work better now. Is there anyway to moderate or are the groups open to all?
On Sunday, March 29, 2015 at 3:34:22 PM UTC-4, Chris Jenkins wrote: > > 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.
