Time to let go Gabby. On Monday, March 30, 2015 at 5:50:02 PM UTC+1, Richard wrote: > > ''I guess Molly and I don't want to exclude any views in principle, but > this is impossible in practice. .....We don't talk about the Jihadis, > though I have occasionally let one in. ................. I assume the only > real people left in here are me, Molly, Allan and Tony - apologies to Ash > and Andrew if they have actual pulses. .........." > Archytas, those are your words. > Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I'm humbled to be corrected, thank you. > On Mar 30, 2015 12:03 AM, "archytas" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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. >> >
-- --- 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.
