No “No Platform”
- This topic has 179 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Vin wrote:Perhaps as internet communications develope we can deem fascist views 'off topic' and after three warnings ban their opinions altogether.
Or report them as abusive.
Vin wrote:It is dishonest to oppose this position while having moderators with clear intentions and mandates to prevent an opinionCan someone tell me what this opinion is that we have been mandated to prevent? Must have missed that memo..
DJP wrote:Vin wrote:It is dishonest to oppose this position while having moderators with clear intentions and mandates to prevent an opinionCan someone tell me what this opinion is that we have been mandated to prevent? Must have missed that memo..
15. Queries or appeals relating to particular moderation decisions should be sent directly to the moderators by private message. Do not post such messages to the forum. You must continue to abide by the moderators’ decisions pending the outcome of your appeal.
Reminder: Forum rules and guidelines SPGB Web forums registration agreement (adopted by the EC 1st June 2013, amended 7th Dec 2013 and 6th July 2013) This agreement spells out the rules that participants in these forums are expected to abide by. These rules may be revised occasionally. The forum administrators will post a conspicuous notice of any changes on the forum, but it is the responsibility of participants to ensure they are familiar with the latest version. Forum aims and scopeThe SPGB web forums are operated by the Socialist Party of Great Britain (SPGB) and are intended to promote discussion of matters related to the SPGB, the World Socialist Movement, and socialism in general. Everyone may read the forums, and posting access is available to all registered users who accept and abide by this agreement. Registration is free. Forum rulesYour use of the forums indicates your agreement to abide by these rules, to abide by the decisions of the moderators in interpreting and enforcing these rules.
I hope my posts have not been interpreted to mean that I compare my party with the SWP. I don't! But that doesn't mean that we have things perfect and that we should ignore undemocratic practices within our ranks. We need to be vigilant and never stoop to the SWP's level. I am in entire agreement with the OP.
Reminder:1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts.11. Do not abuse the report function. Only highlight posts that genuinely require moderator attention.
I think this proves my point that we have a problem. Unlike most contibuters to this thread my posts are not off-topic or offensive yet it is only me that receives the reminder of rule 1. Surely another rule should be used, if there is one? Rule 1 does certainly not apply to my post. Unless someone can explain to me otherwise?
Vin wrote:I think this proves my point that we have a problem. Unlike most contibuters to this thread my posts are not off-topic or offensive yet it is only me that receives the reminder of rule 1. Surely another rule should be used, if there is one? Rule 1 does certainly not apply to my post. Unless someone can explain to me otherwise?It proves nothing of the sort for you have not personally been issued a reminder. When I post a reminder its addressed to all users and not to any particular user. A Reminder draws attention to the issue that the rules are being breached and that a thread is under scrutiny and if the rules continue to be breached I will follow best practice and take action according to the moderators guidelines. If any user, including yourself, are in disagreement with the moderation of this forum you are advised to follow the democratic procedures of the party.
No one is in need of moderation on this thread because no one is breaking the rules. It doesn't have a problem apart from inappropriate flagging of non abusive postsIf it is your intention to suspend me during a calm, rational discussion on 'No No Platform' , that is up to you. There are no rules for you to da that, but why would you wish to embarrass the party like that? As the OP states:
ALB wrote:That "No Platform" is not the way to deal with people with obnoxious views such as Marine Le Pen. Rather than try to physically stop them from speaking, put them up on a platform and refute their views forcefully point by point. Trust people to be able to see through them. Censoring what you don't want people to hear is a patronising and elitist attitude towards people as if they are incapable of making up their own minds up or might be corrupted by what they hear (while you're not). And when “no platform” becomes the norm who's going to be next?As far as I am aware the internet has not changed our position. Stop making such a big issue of free speech and go do some electioneering.
LBird wrote:If fact, we haven't exhausted this, because neither you, nor any other poster, nor the SPGB officially, has told us 'who determines' what is 'scientifically true'……To me, as a Democratic Communist, that only acceptable answer is "workers' democracy" shall determine 'truth'.And you haven't told how this "workers democracy" – all 7 billion of us! – is going to be able to "determine" what is "scientifically true". How are each and every one of us going to acquire the necessary knowledge and understanding of, not just one scientific theory but every scientific theory doing the rounds, in order to determine the truth of these thousands upon thousands of theories when not even the most brilliant scientist in the world today would be able to speak authoritatively on anything more than a tiny fraction of those thousands of scientific theories. You are asking for the impossible. Why you need to "determine" the truth of a scientific theory by means of a democratic vote is completely baffling anyway. It seems pretty pointless – unless, that is, you want to forbid any rival theory being expressed that questions what has been democratically approved and sanctioned as the "Truth" by this workers democracy of yours. If that is the case well, then, you might as well admit that you have abandoned science as a self-critical open-minded activity and turned what you call scientific truth into a mere dogma. Oh and here's one more question – why do you constantly run away from answering these questions that have been put to you time and time again but to no avail? Its beginning to seem like a complete waste of time even engaging in discussion with you.
Vin wrote:No one is in need of moderation on this thread because no one is breaking the rules. It doesn't have a problem apart from inappropriate flagging of non abusive postsIf it is your intention to suspend me during a calm, rational discussion on 'No No Platform' , that is up to you. There are no rules for you to da that, but why would you wish to embarrass the party like that? As the OP states:ALB wrote:That "No Platform" is not the way to deal with people with obnoxious views such as Marine Le Pen. Rather than try to physically stop them from speaking, put them up on a platform and refute their views forcefully point by point. Trust people to be able to see through them. Censoring what you don't want people to hear is a patronising and elitist attitude towards people as if they are incapable of making up their own minds up or might be corrupted by what they hear (while you're not). And when “no platform” becomes the norm who's going to be next?As far as I am aware the internet has not changed our position. Stop making such a big issue of free speech and go do some electioneering.
I agree the introduction of the internet has not changed our position on democracy. The democratic method however, requires a structure where opinions can be freely expressed and transparent decisions made, albeit under 'moderation'. By default this means rules have to be made, standards of conduct set and Standing Orders agreed upon which all participants agree to abide by. And as a participant I have to agree to these and also the Moderation Guidelines. In short as the moderator I have a remit to follow and by posting "Reminders" from time to time that is exactly what I am doing, by drawing the attention of users that in order to discuss the democratic method we all have to agree on the rules for discussion. A reminder is not a sanction nor meant to be treated as such but rather a means of informing all users what we have all agreed upon by signing up to this forum.If you disagree with the rules or have a complaint to make on my moderation please be my guest and take it up with the Internet Committee, or if you are a member of the SPGB with your Branch. This is a very important discussion where the advantages and disadvantages of the democratic method and the decision making process will be placed under the microscope by all participants. Obviously, this discussion will prompt comments on the understanding of democracy and the undemocratic behaviour of some users. And in this respect the language used and the method of expression needs to be thought out before we even put pen to paper.
Yes I was at the Anti – Le Penn protest outside Oxford Union, I agree with not being no platform, even my sister thinks so and this goes very good with a peaceful road to Socialism and has less of a chance being on red watch and into some silly fights ! … !
moderator1 wrote:I agree the introduction of the internet has not changed our position on democracy. The democratic method however, requires a structure where opinions can be freely expressed and transparent decisions made, albeit under 'moderation'. By default this means rules have to be made, standards of conduct set and Standing Orders agreed upon which all participants agree to abide by. And as a participant I have to agree to these and also the Moderation Guidelines.This a strawman. I don't need patronising or lectured on the need for rules. I have no problem with rules, besides I have opened seperate threads to deal with this issue in more depth.where I suggest alternative rules more suitable for a socialist organisation So I will leave it there and anyone interested in discussing socialist forum rules can move to those threads to avoid this thread clogging up.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/website-technical/moderation-suggestions?page=1#comment-20561
To return to the thread: part of the problem of no platform (other than the implicit call it gives to state power, and legitimacy it gives to suppression of ideas) is the power it gives to the fascist bogey: if we don't support mainstream parties, the fash will get us. Whilst I in no way want to diminish the harm the fash would do if they got to power, the only real defence we have against them is support for political democracy, and, ultimately, pro-socialist activity, rather than anti-fascism.
LBird wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:But society cannot democratically do the censoring, since in order to vote on what information to suppress society would have to disseminate it, in which case, it's not suppressed. You'd need a technical elite to do the censoring.Couldn't put it any better.
Disagree with you here, SP!YMS's argument amounts to:If you haven't been to the moon, you can't know that it's not made out of green cheeseOf course we can censor 'information' which we can know about, and think is socially dangerous/unethical/undesirable, without every individual having to experience it personally.A democratically-elected sub-committee can do the 'dirty work', not YMS's political dream of a self-selecting 'technical elite'.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, LBird.If a sub-committee is democratically elected specifically to view and remove material that may be deemed unacceptable to the majority, and for clarification material of a criminally abusive nature does not come under the heading of "free speech", they then become a small group that get to decide what the majority can or can not view or hear.That could mean I wouldn't be allowed to set up a web site dedicated to the concept of a green cheese moon, because the sub-committee have decided on behalf of the majority that it is stupid, un-scientific, and therefore unnecessary.Such a body would in essence be an elite.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.