I suppose a novel is just characters trying to create a point. I'd encourage people to have a go.
On Sunday, 29 March 2015 18:41:42 UTC+1, Molly wrote: > > The language and tone of Ash's last post was more Gabby than James so its > hard to say whether the email profiles have been hacked or these folks were > really Gabby all along. Gabby's posts are deleted because they are always > the same attack on the group and defense of herself. No intelligent > contribution to any conversation. All about Gabby and her anger which is > how every thread disintegrated into a flame war, making moderation > necessary. > > When the flurry of activity in the moderation queue and private email > ends, and the dust from the war's end, we can all take a deep breath and > see where it leaves us. > > On Sunday, March 29, 2015 at 1:30:19 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote: >> >> I actually quite like Gabby (Pol, Hope, RP ... even Andrew is on the list >> of suspects) - but then I liked the jokes in Kierkegaard. I was going to >> actually moderate Gabby's posts, but I'm a bit under-the-weather and by the >> time I look, Molly has vaporised the lot. >> >> It is hard to know why internet behaviour is so bad, but a lot of it does >> rather suggest vast pent-up hostility that emerges when there is no risk of >> a good slap. >> >> On Sunday, March 29, 2015 at 5:24:09 PM UTC+1, frantheman 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.
