Information request on Party Policy
- This topic has 53 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I see the discussion that already existed on another, now locked thread, is taking place here. Free speech so often wins out over censorship and control and in the process showing it up for the farce it is.Given this fact, I would like to ask whoever has control, what was the point in locking us out of a whole thread, without following the usual moderation protocol?Before I am hit with the magic, off topic eraser, may I remind the controller, that we could be discussing this on the locked thread. There is a bit in the posting guide that asks if the subject exists on another thread, locking a thread only to discuss the same topic elsewhere is defeating the point of any guidelines and rules. But I suppose locking this thread as well would be a little obvious.
Apparently if/when we leave the forum we then become eligible for personal attacks:-(
DJP wrote:But then if the "class traitor" in question was a capitalist and also a socialist this could be taken as a compliment!True!But are we – woops I mean the socialist party – a little inconsistent allowing capitalists in the party and not workers who join the police or the army? It is true that the role of the army is to kill workers but the role of the capitalists is not much better (if not worse)
The short answer to the question at the beginning of this thread is that "the Party" does not have a policy on how to regard or what to call ex-members.Why should we? We don't need one. Individual members have their views and practices but these are just that: their views and practices. So it is not legitimate to take any of these views and built them up into a strawman which is then attacked as if it was the "Party Policy". So if we are going to discuss this those interested in the question they ought to treat it for what it is: a discussion between individuals expressing their individual views.
Actually Adam, I most vehemently disagree that it is individuals expressing individual views! Some of the comments I have seen on this forum and on spopen, are totally unconscionable, obnoxious, insulting and so beneath what one would expect of "intelligent" people, as to be almost beyond belief. Awful, truly awful. Steve.
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:Apparently if/when we leave the forum we then become eligible for personal attacks:-(Seeing as posts on this forum are probably subject to libel laws it is probably wise for forum users to not write posts that are personal attacks on anyone.
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:But are we – woops I mean the socialist party – a little inconsistent allowing capitalists in the party and not workers who join the police or the army? It is true that the role of the army is to kill workers but the role of the capitalists is not much better (if not worse)Actually even if a member of the police force wanted to join I'm not sure if they could, legally anyhow. I know members of special branch are not allowed to be members of any organisation which wants to change the status quo. If this applies to bobbies on the beat I don't know.I might see if I can dig up the original resolutions where these where decided, could be interesting.
ALB wrote:The short answer to the question at the beginning of this thread is that "the Party" does not have a policy on how to regard or what to call ex-members.Why should we? We don't need one. Individual members have their views and practices but these are just that: their views and practices. So it is not legitimate to take any of these views and built them up into a strawman which is then attacked as if it was the "Party Policy". So if we are going to discuss this those interested in the question they ought to treat it for what it is: a discussion between individuals expressing their individual views.StrawmanA straw man or straw person, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[3] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[3][4] This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues.A bit harsh Adam? Who are you taking about?
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:A bit harsh Adam? Who are you taking about?It's not that harsh, merely a standard criticism in the to and fro of discussions. I thought you were more thick-skinned than that! Anyway, this would be an example of what I was thinking of:
TheOldGreyWhistle wrote:As I was an Executive Officer for the Government I am a little worried now. Perhaps the Party could issue a list of occupations that constitute class treachery. I could have become a matyr and stayed on the dole and struggle to buy trainers for my kids. Who comes first Family or a pat on the back from a'fellow socialist'? No brainer as the Americans say.Why would you need to be worried if it is just the opinion of one member that working for parliament, etc is highly criticable. Why would you think that this was the "Party position" and/or that "the Party" had such a list? The fact is that it hasn't and nobody has suggested that it should have. That's the strawman in this case.I'm just trying to ensure that the discussion of what jobs might or might be acceptable to a socialist takes place on a fair basis. In fact, in my experience the Party is quite liberal and tolerant about what sort of job socialists do. I think the only formal bar is on people who join the armed forces voluntarily and even then we make an exception for those who enlist through economic necessity (eg as an alternative to staying on the dole).
Point taken, Alb but should the party allow ex members to be attacked in such away? Should it not state clearly that this not the opinion of the party. Surely you want ex members to come back! This was my motivation for the thread.
What with all the attacks on ex members recently, I think the old saying "action speaks louder than words" is very appropriate..
I can't really see how a view expressed on a discussion forum that states that it is for:
Quote:General discussion of matters of interest to members of the Socialist Party of Great Britain and of Companion Parties worldwide.can be interpreted as expressing the official view of the whole party. In fact, it's precisely for members to express and discuss their individual views. The most that could be said about a view expressed on it would be that it represented the view of one/some members. All sorts of views are expressed on this particular form, including anecdotes and gossip about ex-members (after all the members of that forum are an internet "community"). In fact I've indulged in it myself.I'm not sure how we could prevent members expressing views on ex-members, especially one who has risen to some public prominence. My view of some of the things said in the discussion of the particular ex-member in question are a bit distateful and probably counter-productive (as you say, he might rejoin when he retires), but if a member has a strongly-held view about an ex-member I can't see how we can or should try to stop him/her expressing it. Wouldn't that be censorship?
Actually I thought that things had began to settle down here and that this forum had reverted to its purpose of exchanging information and views amongst socialists (whether current or former Socialist Party members) and discussions with non-members of varying views.
AdamI too had thought things were settling down. There are a number of good threads going on right now, with a lot of good contributions from quite a few forum members, exchanging ideas and information, working together as socialists should.I am sad to say Admin is out of order big time on this one. There was no need to shut down a whole discussion, (all the off topic in the world can't derail a thread as well as lockdown) especially as it has simply relocated to here, on the forum. How futile it now appears. In fact it comes across as an act of vindictiveness, given the participants have a history of disagreement with Admin.Also, if we take the fact the moderators on SPopen have allowed vigorous discussion of the subject to take place, Admin's reaction is at odds with his moderator colleagues.May I ask if there has been any further movement regarding the EC looking into moderation?It is now glaringly obvious that something needs to be done to make moderation consistent, fair and accountable, and it needs to be done fast.
- The topic ‘Information request on Party Policy’ is closed to new replies.