SocialistPunk
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hi DJPI did not intend my mention of kettling to suggest Drury's research and police contributions were about kettling. I simply used kettling to illustrate the involvement of academics in directing police tactics of social control. I apologise for not being more precise.The following link takes us to a Prof Peter Waddington and his promotion of the use of kettling by British police.http://www.birminghampost.net/comment/birmingham-columnists/agenda/2009/04/21/professor-defends-kettling-technique-used-at-g20-protests-65233How about an answer to the question below?
SocialistPunk wrote:You ask what is the difference between a bricky doing repairs on a police building and an anti-state communist helping the state machinery control dissent among the masses, rightly pissed off with the one sided workings of capitalism?Would a real socialist (SPGB/WSM) help the police subjugate angry workers, pissed off with their treatment at the hands of capitalist state control?There is a difference between a bricky working on a police building and a so called anti-state communist Prof helping police formulate social control tactics. I would have expected a socialist to know the difference. I'll give you a clue, the answer has nothing to do with morality.
Hi MattUnfortunately we are social creatures that often can not help coming to the assistance of others, when we think an injustice is taking place.
While we seem to be on the subject of role playing. Here's one.You're walking down the street and you turn a corner, only to be confronted by a scene of two people involved in a physical altercation. One of them has the other on the floor and is raining down blows.Do you :a) Ignore the situation and walk away, telling yourself that a police officer will come along sooner or later?b) Take a deep breath and attempt to stop the situation, knowing full well you could get hurt?c) Call the police? Then…..a or b?Not everyone reacts to such situations the same. Some may walk away telling themselves it will be ok, some will attempt to break up the situation. In the absence of a police officer the outcome may depend on what course you take.What you don't expect, is to intervene and find yourself in a police cell. Your good will seeing you on the wrong side of the law. That is exactly what happened originally, and it has led to here. Some do not want to look at it, but sometimes in order to fix a problem you have to look at the cause.
DJPIf I am reading this right, we have a situation, where the hard done by Greek public, screwed by the capitalist state during this austerity ridden recession, take to the streets.Inevitably a number of radical political organisations get involved, much as the SPGB might attend rallies and demos' to convert people to the cause.A major "theoretician" among a communist group helps the police in their divide and rule tactics, kettling etc. Basically helping the state machinery control the demonstrators.You ask what is the difference between a bricky doing repairs on a police building and an anti-state communist helping the state machinery control dissent among the masses, rightly pissed off with the one sided workings of capitalism?Would a real socialist (SPGB/WSM) help the police subjugate angry workers, pissed off with their treatment at the hands of capitalist state control?I suppose the answer to that, boils down to where you stand on control and authority.
YMSThe answer to your role play question is simple.I wouldn't have them in a mod' queue for starters. But a week is probably more than enough to cool down most situations, if handled well.What is wrong with warnings and if needed a suspension. If it happens again, the same etc etc. If piss poor behaviour is not shown up for what it is, instead of censoring it then it will prob' continue indefinitely. At some time you gotta get to the cause of the problem.And by the way, I have seen a lot of what I see as sophisticated trolling and flaming going on recently, with tag team style little comments aimed at sparking reactions.
The following exert comes from the last paragraph of the Int Dept report into OGW's second suspension. "Note: On the internal Party forums hosted by Yahoo, there is a facility for moderators to place users' posts in a queue for moderator attention. This is used when someone has been deemed to be abusive. It means that for a short time, when the moderated user posts a new message, it goes first of all to the moderator, rather than the forum. This allows the forum to remain clear of escalating problems, like slanging matches, etc. It also allows the moderator to discuss off-line with the user the reasons for the moderator's action. Such a system is not yet in place on the website forum, but is being developed for use as soon as possible. While it may not prevent problems arising in the future, it will at least build in a safety valve." And this from from the first post on this thread.
Admin wrote:I also intend to add functionality which will make it possible for posts from certain users to go into a moderation queue before being published. This would provide an alternative option to suspension for moderators.Yet a member has recently been suspended. A relevant question to ask is, will the recently suspended member be placed in a mod' queue after he has served his suspension, as happened to OGW?
Hi AdminI was wondering about moderation warnings on this site. Would you be able to inform the forum as to how long a warning stays active?Thanks.
AlanYou apologise for capitalisation, and explain on SPintcom and SPopen that it is one of two methods of emphasising words. Now I recall a certain member being moderated on SPintcom for using capitals for emphasis. He was told he was shouting. I followed the events of that case and it looked like bias was being used, as that member had previous history on another party forum. I have no doubt the moderator thought he was trying to calm a situ' before it escalated, but it ended up creating one as personal judgement looked evident. Likewise the problem on this forum was created when a member was warned, despite not actually causing any problem.This is the the "different strokes for different folks" in action approach you so support. Perhaps your previous moderator experience sees you lean to on side.Of course moderation will require a level of interpretation. The problem at present is that an ad hoc approach, with escalating methods of moderation being used one after the other, warnings, suspensions, post deletions and finally mod' queue, looks over the top and vindictive. Especially when other forum members who chose to intervene, inflamed the situation at every stage yet faced no warnings or even a call to quit their interference.A set warning system like the one that has been suggested, sees a call for calm and then clear warnings. It would still require moderator interpretation, but within a framework that allows everyone to know where they stand.I am sorry you see no problem with the present approach, as that implies you see it as a personality issue. But your redirecting my general words back at me with a little personal twist proves further you see it that way and feel the need to attempt to hurt or humiliate me, (Of course there is nothing wrong with education, but idolatry of Marx will not sway the soap fans). I have no problem with that, I am guilty of it myself at times, we all are, including moderators. It proves that a system of moderation needs to be consistent in approach, in other words pick a method and stick with it. The skill of a moderator is in finding a way to avoid the situation from escalating, but when it goes beyond that, it is when a moderator has to be consistent with the administering of "punishment".One last point, perhaps the most important.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Is this question of moderation practice more important than achieving socialism?This forum is the SPGB flagship site. It is the online home of the Socialist Standard. What sort of image is being presented to the public now? Messy moderation with inconsistent warnings, suspensions, deletion of posts and censoring members contributions! Those then become the standard socialist practice for the future online. Instead I advocate, no hiding away from awkward decisions, no censoring dissension among the ranks, debate the issue hear and now online. This is socialism in the spotlight, get it wrong now and you might as well turn the party into an online revolutionary reading group.
Jonathan Chambers wrote:Now, it seems to me that if we are going to be able to explain the enormous disparities between the behaviour of individuals within a given set of social circumstances then we must have recourse to something a little less nebulous than the notion of socially-conditioned learned behaviour.There is a multitude of evidence that backs up enviromental influence. But a simple explanation could be that no two people have the same social experiences throughout their lives.
Jonathan Chambers wrote:Incidentally, on the subject of human social behaviour that doesn't need to be learned, I'd argue that a sense of solidarity with our fellow men is pretty much an inbuilt thing that a) has enabled our species to survive several instances of near-extinction and b) isn't something that can easily be taught or learned if it isn't there in the first place. Most of us have that inbuilt sense of solidarity. Those who don't are a problem to society and become psychopaths irrespective of the material conditions of their existence.I once thought our social ability, if anything, could be seen as hard wired. Now however I doubt even that. I think it would be virtually impossible to prove any human behaviour is hard wired. What experiment could be designed to rule out all environmental influence? Humans experience environmental influence from the womb onwards.As for psychopaths. Not all people who show psychopathic traits go on to develop violent and problematic behaviour. There are levels of psychopathic, for want of a better word, purity. From low level right up to serial killer. The violent psychopath and serial killers do not have a sense of solidarity with others, which would suggest it needs developing. A nurturing environment perhaps? It is known that given the right environment, a person with psychopathic traits will not show problematic behaviour and can live a normal fulfilling life with relationships etc. I recall a documentary I saw on TV a couple of years back. A doctor researching psychopaths found he shared a lot of traits on the scale. He admitted he felt at times it fitted his experiences that seemed to help him in his research, but he still had a close family relationship with a wife and children. The simple answer may be, that we will be unable to explain the complexity of human behaviour because it is exactly that. Complex!So many variables affecting the most socially advanced species on the planet, Genetic, biological as well as environmental, all influencing one another, in a complex web of inseparable relationships.
Whether some like it or not, whether some wish to admit it or not, this issue has shown that moderation on this site at least is flawed, broken.Unfortunately OGW and Admin have been victims of a flawed moderation system. When a system, such as the present moderation approach, fails it often allows the finger of blame to be pointed at individuals, depending on the view point. It is no different from the idea of blaming the failing of capitalism on individuals. Party politics is based on that. One side blames the other etc. The issue is not about individuals, no one person is to blame. It is the failure of a system.So do we ignore that fact? Turn it into a person problem? Simply blame the moderators, or censor a members posts to the point individuals get fed up and walk away, then turn around and say, " I told you it was their fault, everything will be fine now they are gone." Or do we find a way to fix a broken system? Make it workable, make it reflect socialist values, so that it is fit for the future?If you wish to hide from the situation in the hope it will go away, then fair enough, ignore it. But if you want to make it better then the only way is democratic discussion. Seek to find workable solutions.It is all about "interests". As socialists we try to show workers that capitalism does not work in their interests. Most of the time they don't want to know, can't see the problems we point out. It's too complicated, too many issues to wrap a tired brain around, it's not worth the effort. Soap operas are more interesting than politics etc. Politicians get paid to think about these things, they look after us, try their best in difficult circumstances. Why mess with the system? It might not be perfect but the alternative is too complicated?Is it in the interests of the WSM to fix a flawed, broken moderation system? If it is, then get stuck in and get it sorted out, the sooner ideas are presented and debated the sooner workable solutions emerge. Being fed up and tired with the issue is a pathetic excuse. "I'd rather watch my favourite soap opera", becomes "I'd rather read a Marxist book and discuss it on a book club thread among like minded people".Where is the difference? Get involved and get it sorted!
I have notice on this thread, that only a few members are now bothering to post ideas and discuss the problems and potential solutionsWhen Brian presents his points at some point, I can imagine a clamour of negative voices claiming the suggestions have come from a tiny disruptive minority with an agenda and not all being party members. It may lead to a call to reject any suggestions put forward from this thread. I hope not, but there have been a lot of negative contributions from people over the last few months, trying to place the lions share of blame on personalities.The silence of the forum was a partial contributing factor to this situation escalating in the first place.Am I to take the silence and lack of involvement as a sign most do not think there is a problem regarding moderation on the party sites?The only way to change anything for the better is by open, democratic discussion. Socialists from the WSM should be aware of this more than most. After all on another thread the idea of scoring points over the recent SWP mess is being discussed.We criticise others for their lack of involvement, are we not now starting to look like hypocrites?
I have just watched the documentary provided by Brian on #16. I think that about does it for the human nature debate going on here. Shock horror! It is a two way street and that our genes are heavily influenced by our environment.It seems socialists were right all along, at least most socialists. As socialists we are trained and in turn train ourselves further, to observe and question how society functions, so that we can hopefully one day end up in a position to change it for the better.I recall reading about this subject as a fledgling socialist, how the socialist view went against the popular myth of human nature. But seeing as advocating a fully democratic socialist society goes against every popular political and economic idea that is forced down our throats( to support a minority controlled society) I am not surprised we have been accused of being wrong on just about everything we turn our attention to.We could see that human behaviour is very flexible, and that there were/are no universal behaviours applicable to every epoch and culture of our species. Many a article and pamphlet (available on this site) explains this. Does it come as any surprise that the popular academic supporters of the baser nature theory of our species, are the ones given mainstream media support. In comparison how often do the researchers and scientists in docu's such as this get mainstream attention? Is it accidental?Note the reporting of the intelligence gene theory in mice, from the mainstream press, as explained in the docu. What the press failed to report, was the mice genetically altered to be less intelligent, actually performed above expectation when placed in highly stimulating environments. In other words, a nurturing environment helped them overcome a genetic disadvantage.If you have not watched the documentary, I urge you to do so.
Hi BrianWith all due respect, your reference to #37 on "Moderation and Technical Issues" only came about as a result of an enquiry from myself as to the confusion of the Int Dept's first two reports regarding OGW's case. If I had not brought the question to public attention, I am quite sure it would not have seen the light of day on this forumWhat I refer to would be a specific policy of acknowledging any overturning or retrospective rescindment of warnings, suspensions etc on the forum that the event took place.It is simply a matter of full openness and fairness for all.This could be implemented as part of what is known as diplomatic protocol. As the issue of moderating any forum is very much about diplomacy, I think such an open two way system of diplomacy, could go a long way as part of a comprehensive set of community guidelines that help forum users as well as moderators to avoid situations such as this from escalating in the future.
I was wondering about whether or not it would be a good idea to have an open acknowledgement whenever a forum member has a moderation decision overturned?After all, it is very obvious to the whole forum whenever a member is warned, censored, suspended or put on probation in the form of a mod' queue. So if they are found "innocent" of any "wrongdoing" it would seem only fair that any retraction is done so openly.Doing so could avoid any ill feeling from developing, and help promote an atmosphere of open fairness, where mistakes are acknowledged and accepted by all.Who knows?
The answer is nature and nurture. Chicken or the egg, anyone?One of a number of sites on the subject. Ihttp://livingamongpredators.over-blog.com/article-35527842.html………………..In a paper for the International Association of Forensic Sciences in 1984, FBI Special Agent Robert Ressler and some of his colleagues listed 10 characteristics of a serial killer. Over 90% of serial killers are white males who have IQ’s in the normal to bright range. Even with this intelligence, though, they do poorly in school and often have problems keeping a job. They tend to come from highly unstable or dysfunctional families, usually abandoned by their fathers and raised by controlling mothers. They usually hate their parents. Almost every serial killer is abused as a child, whether it is sexually, emotionally, physically, or psychologically. This abuse may come from a stranger or a family member, but many serial killers try to lie about this history of abuse. Most serial killers have records of early psychiatric problems and often spent time in institutions as children. They have an intense interest in voyeurism, fetishism, and sadomasochistic porn at a very early age, and they also have a very high rate of suicide attempts. Future serial killers share three other traits in their childhoods. More than 60% of serial killers wet their beds past the age of 12. They also have a fascination with fire, which may be an early manifestation of their fondness for mass destruction. In addition, almost every serial killer starts his abuse and sadistic torture on animal victims (Fisher and Fisher, 2003). Now that the profile of a serial killer is known, one has to examine the characteristics of a psychopath. After all, serial killers are extreme psychopaths, so they will also fit this profile. Charles Montaldo, who wrote the article “Characteristics of the Psychopathic Personality,” says that a psychopath is incapable of feeling guilt, remorse, or empathy for his actions. He is generally cunning and manipulative. He knows the difference between right and wrong, but dismisses it as not applying to him. A psychopath is also incapable of feeling normal emotions like love, and often shows extreme egocentric and narcissistic behavior. In addition to Montaldo’s characteristics, it has been shown that a psychopathic individual also has intelligence and charm. He has no delusional or irrational thinking. He is also untruthful, insincere, and unreliable. He displays anti-social behavior and poor judgment, and fails to learn from experience. He comes from general poverty, his sex life is impersonal and poorly integrated, and he fails to follow any real life plan. He is also unable to control outbursts of anger or hostility, which often causes his inability to hold down a job or keep associations with family and friends. The consequences of his actions, in his mind, give him justification for even more aggressive behavior. Of course, the main downfall of the psychopath is that he always thinks that he is smarter than everyone else is. He believes that he can outwit all other people, and that he can commit any crime without ever being charged or convicted. He believes that even if he is caught that he can “talk” himself out of trouble. Is it any wonder why psychopaths often become serial killers?……………………………………………………………………………. Some research shows that there may be a genetic factor that results in a behavioral predisposition to violence (White, 2001). However, no single gene that causes aggression or violence has been isolated. Several studies have associated psychological disorders associated with aggression back through ancestry. There are more various psychopathologies in the families of young patients with borderline personality disorders than in control group families. It was also observed that a group of children with criminal and/or socially maladapted parents had abnormally elevated levels of social delinquency and aggression. The researchers that conducted these studies conclude that both genetics and environment play a role in violent behavior, “bad seeds [i.e. products of violence-predetermining genetics] blossom in bad [i.e. negligent, abusive, or violence-glamorizing] environments” (as quoted by White, 2001). After reviewing all of the research at hand, one can determine that there are certain unavoidable factors that can cause a person to be a serial killer or psychopath. Brain damage, disorders, brain chemicals, hormones, and family history certainly seem to create problems in a person. However, any intelligent person has to question why the characteristics of serial killers and psychopaths always involve their childhood horrors of abuse and neglect. If a serial killer or psychopath is born, then why do they share these experiences? If a person is born this way, then why do they all come from similar backgrounds instead of crossing all social and economical boundaries? According to Dr. Dorothy Lewis, a professor of psychiatry at NYU Medical School writes about circumstances that promote extreme violence. “They are the combination of a history of extraordinary, early ongoing abuse, some kind of brain dysfunction and psychotic systems, particularly paranoia. The more serious the neurological and psychotic symptomology, if the individual has been abused, the more violent the individual seems to be. Also, the assumption that mental illness necessarily results in violent, antisocial behavior is a false one” (as quoted by White, 2001)……………………………………………….
