No “No Platform”

[SocialistPunk]

LBird wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

An easier way is to allow free access to info' and freedom of expression so long as it does not involve the abuse of others. I think we may be confusing the issue regarding abuse and freedom of expression.

I think the separation of 'abuse' from 'freedom of expression' is not as clear cut as you seem to be assuming.To me, it's a bit like someone arguing that "common sense tells us the diference between 'terrorists' and 'freedom fighters' ".We all know that one's starting point (political ideology) has different 'common sense' with that issue, and I'm inclined to think that 'one person's 'abuse' is another person's 'free expression'. Perhaps a starting point for a reconciliation, though, would be to agree that 'abuse' should be censored.From that, we could identify the body that 'censors abuse', and then I would probably claim that it would be the 'censor' that I think is inescapable for any society.At bottom, this is a question of 'political power'. And I think that all political questions should be answered by workers' democracy, not by individuals' opinions or by unelected experts.

I've already said that what constitutes human abuse differs from culture to culture. It would be up to a socialist society to decide what those parameters were. As I said, I hope some basics, such as exist in Britain, would be adopted globally as a starting point. It's why I think some sort of "human rights" charter would be a good idea for the WSM to consider.For abuse to be censored requires a definition of what constitutes abuse. The likes of "snuff films" and child abuse imagery should  most definately be removed from view, as they are the result of obvious serious abuse and have nothing to do with freedom of expression. Ultimately those who peddle in such misery must be brought to account and dealt with severely.   Does your idea of an elected censor only extend to areas of abuse, once abuse has been clearly defined?   

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Does your idea of an elected censor only extend to areas of abuse, once abuse has been clearly defined?

Yes.But that obviously includes 'political abuse' or 'abuse of power'. So that rather returns us to the question of 'who determines?'.Really, I think you've already answered my question.

SP wrote:

It would be up to a socialist society to decide what those parameters were.

This is my point. And since a socialist society woulde be synonymous with democracy or "workers' power" (as defined to Vin, above), then the issue of 'No Platform' versus 'No 'No Platform'' would be decided by workers' democracy, just like, in the final analysis, the issue of the truth of any particular item of 'scientific knowledge' would be, too.

SP wrote:

Ultimately those who peddle in such misery must be brought to account and dealt with severely.

I presume this includes those elitist scientists who bring us 'knowledge', that turns out to be nothing other than 'ruling class bias against workers', like the various 'eugenicist' strands.I think once we start to regard at least some scientists as 'peddlers in misery', we'd begin to overcome the political mystique of 'authoritative, objective science'. Science is a human, social and historical activity, and must be subject to workers' control.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

I think once we start to regard at least some scientists as 'peddlers in misery', we'd begin to overcome the political mystique of 'authoritative, objective science'. Science is a human, social and historical activity, and must be subject to workers' control.

Answer the questions in post 105, LBird, or stand accused of being a peddlar in delusions yourself

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

LBird wrote:

I think once we start to regard at least some scientists as 'peddlers in misery', we'd begin to overcome the political mystique of 'authoritative, objective science'. Science is a human, social and historical activity, and must be subject to workers' control.

Answer the questions in post 105, LBird, or stand accused of being a peddlar in delusions yourself

robbo, I've answered your questions time and time again, and not just yours, but others too, but none of you will engage in a discussion, and simply appear outraged that someone should argue that workers as a collective might know better than scientists as a collective.

robbo203, post #105, wrote:

That apart , you have never explained even once why the workers need to vote on these scientific theories .

Once more, from a physicist:

Rovelli, The First Scientist: Anaximander and his Legacy, wrote:

This reading of scientific thinking as subversive, visionary, and evolutionary is quite different from the way science was understood by the positivist philosophers… (p. xii)Facile nineteenth-century certainties about science— in particular the glorification of science understood as definitive knowledge of the world—have collapsed. One of the forces responsible for their dismissal has been the twentieth-century revolution in physics, which led to the discovery that Newtonian physics, despite its immense effectiveness, is actually wrong, in a precise sense. Much of the subsequent philosophy of science can be read as an attempt to come to grips with this disillusionment. What is scientific knowledge if it can be wrong even when it is extremely effective? (p. xv)But answers given by natural science are not credible because they are definitive; they are credible because they are the best we have now, at a given moment in the history of knowledge. (p. xvi)

http://www.amazon.com/The-First-Scientist-Anaximander-Legacy/dp/1594161313 If workers are not the ones to vote on these issues, who are?Who determines 'best'?Read the bloody quote, slowly and properly, and give us all an answer to Rovelli's conundrum. The physicists don't know. Matter doesn't tell them. So, who should detemine the 'best' for science? And stop pestering me with inane rants.

[Young Master Smeet]

SP,different channels of communication opperate under different principles.  We have a standing principle to publish all letters to the Standard, but they go through the editorial committee, who have to exercise a degree of judgement (the ones in green ink and going on about Satan tend not to make it through to print for some reason, hideous insidious censorship).At a physical meeting, someone who shouts "whoop-de-whooop-mcpoop" continuously would eventually be "censored" by being man handled outside, where you would no longer be able to judge if somewhere in the noise there was a meaningful message that deserved to be heard.There is no difference when this happens online, save that, because of the delayed nature of the communication, someone could look at it and see if there is something that could be forwarded to the meeting.  This is actually an advance.So, we have three clear distinctions to make:Content of communicationManner of communicationAction of communicationThe case being made here is that there should be no restriction on content, but manner and action are matters for consideration, since they are the point at which speech acts impinge on other people.The principle is that the least interference necessary to enable people to communicate their ideas to one another is ideal; and preferably in a democratic context.  Obviously, in the case of this forum, the democratic context is not the participants of the forum, but the members of the party through their demcoracy – non-party members have no say in how this forum is run. Fat fact..

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo, I've answered your questions time and time again, and not just yours, but others too, but none of you will engage in a discussion, and simply appear outraged that someone should argue that workers as a collective might know better than scientists as a collective.

 You are deluding yourself.  You haven't even begun to answer the questions posed.  How specifically are the workers expected to gain a working acquaintance with thousands upon the thousands of scientific theories in order to determine the "truth" of each of them by means  of a democratic vote when not even the most brilliant and accomplished scientist today would be familiar with more than a tiny fraction of the sum total of scientific knowledge?  Whats more.  you have flatly refused to explain the logistics behind this mind boggling proposal of yours.   Specifically, how are 7 billion people on our planet going to vote , not just on one or two, but the thousands upon thousands of scientific theories that are churned out each and every year? What are the mechanics of such a voting procedure? And if , as seems likely. no more than a tiny minority are likely to "vote" on any one theory anyway arent you going to end up with the  same "elitist" outcome that you accuse your critics of proposing? Don't run away from these probing questions as you usually do, LBird.  Answer them with a straight answer or risk being exposed as a disingenuous fraud.  

LBird wrote:

Once more, from a physicist: If workers are not the ones to vote on these issues, who are?Who determines 'best'?Read the bloody quote, slowly and properly, and give us all an answer to Rovelli's conundrum. The physicists don't know. Matter doesn't tell them. So, who should determine the 'best' for science? And stop pestering me with inane rants.

 Thats rich coming from you!  You are a past master in "inane rants".  In fact the Rovelli  quote which you evidently cling to in a desperate bid to sound remotely plausible,  does not even address my point at all which you too have, once again, deftly sidestepped.  That point is – why VOTE on  a scientific theory at all? What  is the point of it ? What are you trying to prove by voting on it?  That  the scientific theory in question is  "true"?  So what? Does that mean we must abandon criticising it? Isn't science supposed to be constantly self critical? And if a minority continue to think the theory is flawed you are not going to persuade them that they are wrong by just pointing out to them that they are in a minority, are you now? Your problem is you don't what democracy is about or what it is for.  Democracy is about practical issues that affect our lives . It is not about the merits of some or other scientific theory.  Of course the production of scientific knowledge is "social" in the broad sociological sense of the word and I for one would certainly be opposed to any restriction whatsoever on anyone contributing to the stock of scientific knowledge  and participating tin scientific debates of the day to whatever extent they can. However,  I am also saying that IN PRACTICE  no one – not you, not me , not even the most brilliant scientific mind in the universe  – can grasp more than a tiny sliver of the sum total of scientific knowledge.  You just airily brush this aside as if this it  is of no account, as if there is no such thing as scientific specialism,  as if the years and years of study and research that any scientist puts in to become competent in his or her field, counts for nothing , and that anyone whatsoever can just assimilate all this knowledge in just a trifle and vote on the matter knowing what its all about.Sorry L Bird but what you are saying is bonkers.  You are turning the the very concept of democracy into a laughing stock by misrepresenting what its supposed to be about.  And you have absolutely no clue about the practicalities of what it is you are proposing  but hide behind pious platitudes  – "I'm a democratic communist" – in order to avoid having to provide real answers to the real questions being asked of you

[LBird]

YMS, a reply to SP that doesn't mention "workers".

YMS wrote:

…preferably in a democratic context.

A bit grudging to 'democracy', too. Only 'preferable', rather than 'essential', as a socialist would maintain.And we're still a million miles from putting the two together, in revolutionary change, of "workers' democracy"!

[ALB]

Maybe because there will be no "workers" in socialism as all classes, including the working class, will have been abolished.

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird,the immediate need, within capitalism, is for us to have freedom of expression so that we may put the socialist case (and, obviously, that means freedom of expression in non-democratic contexts).  Once we have abolished the working class, we can have thorough going democracy among humans.

[LBird]

robbo, I'm not going to reply to your last post, because I don't think that you're reading what I write, about the problematic context of these issues.I'm going to say something that I regret, and I don't want to be banned again (how ironic would that be, given the context of this thread), so you're going to have to address your questions to other posters, or just deem me to be a fool and not worth engaging with.

robbo203 wrote:

…having to provide real answers to the real questions…

'Real', eh? Now, there's an ideological discussion to be had!

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Maybe because there will be no "workers" in socialism as all classes, including the working class, will have been abolished.

That old diversion, taken by those who can't follow, never mind engage in, a discussion.You stick with that 'comfort dummy', ALB, to avoid thinking about these issues, and perhaps Vin or robbo will do the comradely thing, and explain to you.I wouldn't mind, but the answer's on this very thread! In great detail, which I apologised to Vin for!

[Young Master Smeet]

ALB wrote:

Maybe because there will be no "workers" in socialism as all classes, including the working class, will have been abolished.

Better yet: work might be abolished, and we can leave it all to the robots.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

This is my point. And since a socialist society woulde be synonymous with democracy or "workers' power"I presume this includes those elitist scientists who bring us 'knowledge', that turns out to be nothing other than 'ruling class bias against workers', like the various 'eugenicist' strands.

Don't you mean 'elitist workers who bring us knowledge' as there will only be workers in socialism. See your definition above.Also, how can a worker who specialises in science pedal 'ruling class bias' when there wont be a ruling class in socialism? 

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

robbo, I'm not going to reply to your last post, because I don't think that you're reading what I write, about the problematic context of these issues.I'm going to say something that I regret, and I don't want to be banned again (how ironic would that be, given the context of this thread), so you're going to have to address your questions to other posters, or just deem me to be a fool and not worth engaging with.

 I understand very well the "problematic context  of these issues" you speak of and I am not disputing that the production of scientific knowledge is a "social "process which is the basic point you are making.  What I wanted to know from you is your answer to the practical questions I raised.  Don't just patronsingly  brush these aside  with the suggestion that because you imagine that I haven't read what you have written that this entitles you to say that you are not going to reply to my last post. But, of course, at the end of the day you can't get blood out of a stone. I can't force you to answer those questions I raised. But don't be surprised, then,  if some of us draw the conclusion that you are little more than an internet  troll with no serious intention of engaging in genuine discussion

[ALB]

Here's a good speech on the subject which makes all the good points against "No Platform" which apparently is quite widespread in universities these days:http://www.spiked-online.com/freespeechnow/fsn_article/no-to-no-platform-in-defence-of-unpopular-ideas#.VNyAJCwoFqA

[Author]

Posts