The Religion word
- This topic has 527 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
DJP wrote:I'm speaking here without my moderator hat on. Would Ed, Steve Colborn, Socialist Punk, Old Grey Whistle, when he returns, and all other users please desist in posting comments on the supposed intentions of other forum users. It is not 'the done thing now' and any further comments in this direction may force me to take action as moderator, which is always the last resort.I've volunteered many hours of my own time setting up this forum only to see it overtaken by what seems to me to be the result of comrades blowing their misconceived notions about each other out of all proportions. I'm beginning to wish I hadn't bothered. If anyone wants to make a complaint about anyone it should be done either through the moderator, the internet department or the executive committee.
I agree 100% with what you say and can sympathise with your frustration. As Comrades Moss and Beveridge have said on SPINTCOM: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. STOP IT. The Party doesn't want this and it's doing us damage.If you decide to suspend till 18 October the next person, whoever they might be, who continues this I for one will not complain.
This is a strange forum! What are your own members allowed to say? I have been reading articles over the last 3 months on your site and came across thishttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2012/no-1297-september-2012/50-years-ago-fascism-and-ignorancebut I am disappointed to find that your own members are 'shouted down' and shut up via bans!
aden wrote:This is a strange forum! What are your own members allowed to say? I have been reading articles over the last 3 months on your site and came across thishttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2012/no-1297-september-2012/50-years-ago-fascism-and-ignorancebut I am disappointed to find that your own members are 'shouted down' and shut up via bans!Do you think it's ok to accuse members of being police infiltrators? In other words don't believe the hype
Editorial – the Case Against Censorship The fuss over the Danish cartoons of Mohammed has not been the only recent event that has raised the issue of free speech. There was also the government’s failed attempt to make it more difficult to criticise religion. There were the trials of the BNP leaders and of the Muslim cleric Abu Hamza. The elected mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, was required to appear before an unelected body with the power to eject him from office for a remark made to a journalist from the gutter press. David Irving was arrested in Austria for holocaust-denial. All these were attempts – either by law or by direct action – to punish people for expressing an opinion.We in the Socialist Party have always insisted on the advantages, for the advancement of the cause of socialism, of the fullest possible freedom of expression of political and social ideas, including when these take the form of religion (since all religions hold views on how society should be organised and are in this sense political). No view should be prevented from being expressed. And no view (not even religion) should be exempt from being criticised.We have always practised what we preach. We opposed the banning of the Daily Worker in 1941. We have criticised the policy of “no platform for fascists” as censorship by direct action. We have debated against fascists and Islamists, exposing their views before their followers to the withering criticism of the socialist case.The main case against censorship is that it considers that people are too ignorant to decide for themselves and so must be protected from hearing certain views. All censors, actual or would-be, consider themselves a cut above the rest. They are not corrupted by reading Lady Chatterly’s Lover but their servants would be. They are not affected by reading anti-Christian or anti-Muslim writings (as the case may be) but their followers would be. They are not affected by a BNP rant but other, less enlightened people would be.Since ideas are thrown up by social conditions censorship never works to suppress them anyway. The Catholic Church was not able to prevent the rise in Europe of the secular, practical materialism generated by capitalism and has been forced to accommodate itself to this. The same fate awaits Islam, which seems to want to rival Catholicism for the title of the world’s most intolerant religion. At the moment its clerics are desperately trying to hold back the spread of capitalist secularism – and still have the power to mobilise fanatical mobs to rage against a few harmless cartoons – but, as capitalism progresses more and more in the areas where they now dominate they too will lose influence, painfully slow as this is turning out to be.In any event, Socialists are opposed to the attempts made by Muslim clerics to prevent and punish criticism of their religion. We are under no obligation to respect the religious dogma of these obscurantists that places the so-called prophet Mohammed beyond criticism, not that he has anything relevant or sensible to say for 21st century conditions.The last refuge of those who favour censorship is the proposition that people should be legally banned from insulting each other. It is true that if you want to persuade someone to change their views insulting them is not the best way to begin. But you can’t legislate for good manners or good persuasive techniques. To allow one side in an argument to cry “you’ve offended me” and appeal to the law to silence the other side would mean an end to free speech.Our answer to all censors is to reaffirm that workers are quite capable of judging for themselves, quite capable of sorting out the wheat from the chaff and working out which ideas accord with their interests – and which do not. The best condition for the emergence of socialist understanding remains free and frank discussion. May I suggest the forum members are allowed to discuss what they wish, so long as they refrain from personal abuse or insinuation.
SocialistPunk wrote:Editorial – the Case Against CensorshipOur answer to all censors is to reaffirm that workers are quite capable of judging for themselves, quite capable of sorting out the wheat from the chaff and working out which ideas accord with their interests – and which do not. The best condition for the emergence of socialist understanding remains free and frank discussion. May I suggest the forum members are allowed to discuss what they wish, so long as they refrain from personal abuse or insinuation.I absolutely agree. Yet on this forum what do we find but the thread of one individual – Bob Howes – summarily dispatched to the bin. Why? Because it was deemed by someone that such ideas are not appropriate for discussion on a socialist forum. Now I have had many arguments with Bob on his pet theory that workers setting up capitalist businesses on their own is the way to go and that this will give them the sense of empowerment that will enable them to make a revolution and also provide the necessary funds for socialist propaganda. Mistaken though this argument may be in broad outline, I defy anyone to show how it is not appropriate for discussion in a socialist forum Over on the WSM forum, this same individual – Bob Howes- and another – the anarcho-capitalist atheist, David McDonagh (see where atheistic ideas can lead to) – were actually booted off the forum altogether. I think that was an absolutely outrageous thing to do. I agree that particularly in McDonagh's case he has the irritating habit of uttering the same old insufferably repetitive mantras which add nothing of substance to the debate but more effective moderation could easily have dealt with this. However, stylistic considerations aside, the ideas that McDonough was advancing were absolutely relevant to a socialist forum. He wasn't talking about knitting patterns for a sewing circle. He was putting forward an argument – the so called economic calculation argument – which purports to show that socialism would be impossible. How anyone can say that is not relevant beats me. Instead of tackling these arguments head on what did we have but a shrill chorus of complaints from certain members about the antics of McDonough and one or two others – like his sidekick , Tet – calling for their expulsion . Apart from anything else this is so so shortsighted. Some members don't seem to understand that McDonagh was doing us a favour. The ECA is an excellent heuristic tool for developing our ideas about a socialist society. So rather than deal with this argument head on these same members simply ran away from it , reinforcing the impression that they simply had no answer to it , some leaving the forum altogther, and so allowing it to appear to have been "taken over" by a triumphal McDonough and his cronies. It was a classic example of a self fulfilling prophecy, For me personally the annoying thing is that just at the point where I had forced McDonough to look for empirical proof to back up his outlandish claims about the distribution of wealth and he had agreed to do some research and come back with the evidence – thus breaking the habit of a lifetime – he and Bob Howes were summarily banned! For me this was the nadir of Party democracy. This is the kind of stuff your would expect to see in some outfit like REVLEFT which some time ago initiated a mass clear-out of many active users on that forum to whom Admin had taken a dislike for one reason or another. This is not the kind of thing you would expect to see in a socialist forum and particularly not one run by a socialist party which claims to be the most democratic and open organisation of all Now we see talk on this forum the idea being raised of the possibility of "permanently" excluding certain users and of the need for "responsibility". Responsibility towards whom or what for chrissakes? What sort of language is this? It is the language of the thought police, of a kow towing rank-and-file membership overseen by its handpicked minders , and of Orwellian double speak. – even if it is hedged about with qualifying "ifs" and "maybes" No – if this is supposed to be a public forum open to all and sundry then the ideas of all and sundry should be allowed an airing – however uncomfortable they might be to socialists – providing they are not about knitting patterns or taking a personal swipe at some other forum user. The editorial from the Socialist Standard which Socialist Punk has pasted declares "We have always practised what we preach" Really? Always?
SocialistPunk wrote:May I suggest the forum members are allowed to discuss what they wish, so long as they refrain from personal abuse or insinuation.You may indeed as that is precisely the position on all our forums. It neatly sums up what the rules governing them say. It also implies that, if someone does use personal abuse and insinuation, there are sanctions to be applied. This is the common practice of all forums, whoever runs them.Incidentally, I drafted that editorial, so naturally I agree with it. After all, it's the Party case, which we apply to ourselves. And why we don't support "no platform for fascists"There are similar rules governing abusive behaviour and language at our meetings. As do other organisations. The chair can decide to ask someone they consider breaking this rule to leave the meeting room. If the meeting disagrees they can vote "that the chairman leave the chair". Again, standard practice and an essential condition for free debate.I don't want to go into the ins and outs of this particular case (passions are still running too high and the idea is to dampen things down nor add fuel to the flames) but the suspension or whatever against a forum member for infringing the rules is not at all the same as "censorship".As you say, forum members are free to discuss whatever they wish, so long as they refrain from personal abuse or insinuation.
You raise an interesting point, Robbo, about what to do with about people like Bob Howes (who favours small-scale co-operatives and circular cities) and Dave McDonagh (who is an anarcho-capitalist) who use a forum set up by somebody else to propagate their own views so frequently and over so long a period of time (years) as to virtually take it over and turn it into a forum discussing their ideas not those of those who set up (run and pay for) the forum.Party opinion was divided on this and still is, but in the end the decision was taken by the moderator to ban them. Previously, a decision had been made to set up this forum here, as one with separate threads, which would mean that those who wanted to discuss with the likes of them could do so on a separate thread of its own. As far as I know, Bob Howes is a registered member of this forum but has not contributed much since nobody replied to him.This of course is only a problem for open forums (ie forums open to anybody) like this one and the still extant WSM Forum. It's not a problem that we have on our own member-only forums. Nor is it a problem for your own forum which (I maybe wrong on this) is not open to everyone but only to people who broadly agree with a non-market anti-state position. In other words, McDonagh would not be admitted in the first place. I'm not quite sure why Bob Howes isn't (or perhaps he is, if not why not?). I believe also that, at one time, you did run an open forum like this one but changed its nature to a semi-closed one precisely to avoid problems like those posed by Howes and McDonagh. Incidentally, have you ever had to ask someone to leave your forum because it became evident after they joined that they were not part of the broad non-market, anti-state sector? Or is there perhaps a test to join?The point I'm making (and it's not intended as a polemical debating point) is this: is there any difference in principle between not allowing McDonagh to join in the first place and allowing him to join and then excluding him for trying to take it over and turn it into a forum discussing anarcho-capitalism, not socialism? Either way, McDonagh does not get to express his views on the forum (though on our forum someone else can and I think still does, but can't on yours). Can in fairness those who have chosen the first option accuse those who have chosen the second of "censorship"?Let's see if we can have an intelligent, reasonable and polite discussion on this question/problem.
SocialistPunk wrote:May I suggest the forum members are allowed to discuss what they wish, so long as they refrain from personal abuse or insinuation.Indeed you may suggest that. Since that has been the rule all along.
Ed wrote:aden wrote:This is a strange forum! What are your own members allowed to say? I have been reading articles over the last 3 months on your site and came across thishttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2012/no-1297-september-2012/50-years-ago-fascism-and-ignorancebut I am disappointed to find that your own members are 'shouted down' and shut up via bans!Do you think it's ok to accuse members of being police infiltrators? In other words don't believe the hype
I can't find anything like that said by the banned member, besides I thought you were against censorship and what 'hype' do you refer to? It seems unfair that you can attack him/her and he/she has been prevented from speaking. Are you a special member? Why are you allowed to continue your attack?
aden wrote:I can't find anything like that said by the banned member, besides I thought you were against censorship and what 'hype' do you refer to? It seems unfair that you can attack him/her and he/she has been prevented from speaking. Are you a special member? Why are you allowed to continue your attack?There are no special members and no members are allowed to attack any others. If you have any complaints about moderation you are free to make them.
ALB wrote:You raise an interesting point, Robbo, about what to do with about people like Bob Howes (who favours small-scale co-operatives and circular cities) and Dave McDonagh (who is an anarcho-capitalist) who use a forum set up by somebody else to propagate their own views so frequently and over so long a period of time (years) as to virtually take it over and turn it into a forum discussing their ideas not those of those who set up (run and pay for) the forum.Party opinion was divided on this and still is, but in the end the decision was taken by the moderator to ban them. Previously, a decision had been made to set up this forum here, as one with separate threads, which would mean that those who wanted to discuss with the likes of them could do so on a separate thread of its own. As far as I know, Bob Howes is a registered member of this forum but has not contributed much since nobody replied to him.This of course is only a problem for open forums (ie forums open to anybody) like this one and the still extant WSM Forum. It's not a problem that we have on our own member-only forums. Nor is it a problem for your own forum which (I maybe wrong on this) is not open to everyone but only to people who broadly agree with a non-market anti-state position. In other words, McDonagh would not be admitted in the first place. I'm not quite sure why Bob Howes isn't (or perhaps he is, if not why not?). I believe also that, at one time, you did run an open forum like this one but changed its nature to a semi-closed one precisely to avoid problems like those posed by Howes and McDonagh. Incidentally, have you ever had to ask someone to leave your forum because it became evident after they joined that they were not part of the broad non-market, anti-state sector? Or is there perhaps a test to join?The point I'm making (and it's not intended as a polemical debating point) is this: is there any difference in principle between not allowing McDonagh to join in the first place and allowing him to join and then excluding him for trying to take it over and turn it into a forum discussing anarcho-capitalism, not socialism? Either way, McDonagh does not get to express his views on the forum (though on our forum someone else can and I think still does, but can't on yours). Can in fairness those who have chosen the first option accuse those who have chosen the second of "censorship"?Let's see if we can have an intelligent, reasonable and polite discussion on this question/problem.My response to this is simple and straightfoirward. I accept fully the case for having restricted forums where this is warranted. So for example there is nothing wrong with having SPINTCOM restricted to members of the SPGB only. Afterall it is about the internal business of the SPGB and, quite rightly, it is for the SPGB membership to have a say in this, not outsiders In World in Common there have been 3 forums – the COMMONER forum for members of WIC only (equivalent to SPINTCOM), WORLDINCOMMON forum restricted to people in the non market anti-statist sector and WICOPENDEBATE a public forum. This last forum was NOT changed to a semi closed forum but was simply closed down because it had been more or less dead as a forum for quite a while and was also becoming vulnernable to SPAM (sex sites) which is a sure sign of terminal decline if Im not mistaken. It was agreed by the group to close down the forum as it served no real purpose anymore which is a pity in some ways since in the early days it was quite a lively place with all sorts of ideas being tossed around. As far the WORLDINCOMMON forum is concerned there was one individual who was expelled from the forum for expressing views contrary to the nonmarket anti-statist sector – I think it was for supporting the American regime in the Iraq war. The explusion was carried out democratically and by poll of WIC members if I recall correctly So I have no objection in principle to restricting the membership of a forum, according to certain criteria – PROVIDING these are made explicit and justified at the outset and constitute as it were the basis of kind of contractural understanding involved in joining a forum in the first place. I dont even mind the idea of altering the criteria later on so as change a forum into a semi closed one PROVIDING this is done democratically in advance and made clear to the members of the forum in advance What I strongly object to is the arbitrary use of power to expel 2 individuals from a supposedly completely open public forum in the case of the WSM forum and the binning of posts by a member of this forum . In the former case , the justification advanced by the new moderator (unilaterally it would seem) for expelling the two individuals concerned was that the forum was not the place to discuss the ideas these two individuals advanced since they were not relevant to the case for socialism. That is bullshit. They were completely relevant to the "case for socialism" even if in the case of McDonagh this meant trying to demonstrate that socialism was an impossiblity . How on earth could this NOT be relevant? (I believe a similar argument was advanced for binning Bob Howe's post on this forum) The logical implication of this thinking is that only pro-socialists would be allowed an airing on the WSM forum , That is fine if you want to set up a forum for socialists only . But it is definitely not fine if you pretend to be a public open forum and then arbitrarily change the rules midstream without any apparent consultation with anyone.
ALB wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:May I suggest the forum members are allowed to discuss what they wish, so long as they refrain from personal abuse or insinuation.You may indeed as that is precisely the position on all our forums. It neatly sums up what the rules governing them say. It also implies that, if someone does use personal abuse and insinuation, there are sanctions to be applied. This is the common practice of all forums, whoever runs them.Incidentally, I drafted that editorial, so naturally I agree with it. After all, it's the Party case, which we apply to ourselves. And why we don't support "no platform for fascists"There are similar rules governing abusive behaviour and language at our meetings. As do other organisations. The chair can decide to ask someone they consider breaking this rule to leave the meeting room. If the meeting disagrees they can vote "that the chairman leave the chair". Again, standard practice and an essential condition for free debate.I don't want to go into the ins and outs of this particular case (passions are still running too high and the idea is to dampen things down nor add fuel to the flames) but the suspension or whatever against a forum member for infringing the rules is not at all the same as "censorship".As you say, forum members are free to discuss whatever they wish, so long as they refrain from personal abuse or insinuation.
So where did the banned member use abuse?
robbo203 wrote:The editorial from the Socialist Standard which Socialist Punk has pasted declares "We have always practised what we preach" Really? Always?This stands out like a sore thumb and makes the party look ridiculous. Spouting off about free speech and banning its own members.
Ed wrote:aden wrote:This is a strange forum! What are your own members allowed to say? I have been reading articles over the last 3 months on your site and came across thishttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2010s/2012/no-1297-september-2012/50-years-ago-fascism-and-ignorance but I am disappointed to find that your own members are 'shouted down' and shut up via bans!Do you think it's ok to accuse members of being police infiltrators? In other words don't believe the hype
I have done some research on the site and your banned member definitely did not accuse anyone of being a police infiltrator, So your comment is untrue and inflammatory.In fact you have also referred to your comrades as the 'north east mafia'. Why have you not received a warning for these unless you are somehow favoured?My research indicates that your banned member used a lot less abuse and insinuation than most others on this forum including yourself
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.