[SocialistPunk]

AdminI know this is essentially answering Steve's question, but the following places your reply firmly in the domain of this thread.

Admin wrote:

So, to the question of whether or not our lists and forums should be moderated… Unfortunately for me the answer is yes as it seems that users can't control themselves, these past weeks have confirmed it more.What bearing does this have on a socialist society? Absolutely none. There's no reason why common ownership precludes chaired meetings, refereed football matches or moderated forums.

I have been consistent in my call for moderation, rules etc on the WSM forums. I see little wrong in warnings and suspensions as a way of taming inflamed socialist passions.I have a problem with the use of censorship in trying to accomplish this. It has/is failing. All it generates is resentment. The case against censorship from a socialist point of view, is that it defeats the object. If someone wants to spout rubbish about a relevant subject, let them, they look foolish and get ignored. If someone is wrong, show them were they are wrong with facts. It is the socialist way. Censorship is not the socialist way. Simple.When I was a fledgling socialist, nearly ten years before I joined the SPGB, I was impressed with the ability of socialists to destroy the feeble arguments of the supporters of capitalism, to be able to show what was rarely considered etc.Now I find that a new technology has censorship in it's arsenal. That the socialist movement is embracing the use of digital censorship to silence internal criticism, with deleted posts and moderation queues.Socialists should feel ashamed that they now embrace the techniques of control invented and practiced by our enemies.To compare the deletion, editing and disallowance of genuine members posts is nothing like refereeing a football match or any other crap excuse that is being used as a shield in this debate.Censorship has everything to do with socialism. If we embrace it now for the control of a new technology, thinking it only a little for a good cause then where does it stop? People will get used to it because it seems to do the trick of controlling behaviour (deemed unacceptable by a figure of authority) on socialist forums. We become comfortable with it and find it useful for other little aspects of management and before we know it, the rot has well and truly set in.I SAY NO TO  CENSORSHIP on party forums. The party has always stood against it, has it not? Why change now?Some are advocating that it is time to accept a little to control the new technology of digital communication.As for your disrespectful and unnecessary reference of ego stroking and gutter wallowing from older socialists, OGW and Steve Colborn, it says more of your ego than it does of theirs. These two socialists have done a huge amount of work for the cause of socialism. They are not in the habit of disruption for no reason. It is often the case when an innocent person is found guilty they will kick and scream to prove their innocence and never give up.

Admin wrote:

Instead of bringing this up at every opportunity and boring everyone silly this is the first time I publicly mentioned it. Why? Because there are more important things we should be doing than wasting our time on useless ego stroking and wallowing in gutter crap.

So socialists who are wronged publicly should shut up and take it? Is this the blueprint for socialism, censoring members who ask difficult questions, belittling them in public when they try to prove their innocence, ultimately the acceptance of injustice?Nice one!

[SocialistPunk]

Hi AdminI do not wish to sound awkward, though no doubt I do, but I have heard that the Int Dept rescinded OGW's first suspension after he announced his apology on SPintcom.Obviously this did not come from OGW, so I would appreciate some clarification. 

[SocialistPunk]

YMSI hope you are not referring to a certain member when you talk of people making the topic about them?Not going off topic recently is not the same as never doing it. Are you so confident that you have never done so?May I remind you what this thread is about, as you seem unable to address the relevant questions put forward. It is about the use of censorship on this forum. Do you  you accept what it is, or do you deny it is censorship? It is not a difficult question.Moderation does not have to involve the deletion, editing or disallowance of genuine forum members contributions. If they are wrong they can be shown, if they persist they can be warned and if need be suspended. I have been consistent in this view throughout this debate.Do we need methods of censorship to manage the behaviour of party and non party members of WSM forums?Because if you are saying that it is necessary, it has a direct baring on how we are saying a socialist society should be organised and managed.

[SocialistPunk]

Well done HH.I think that just about puts the "race" issue to bed on this thread.Only an outright racist would try to put up some defence of "race" theory based solely on what our eyes show us.Or perhaps genuine scientists and us socialists are not living in the real world, lol.But as for Tom's insistence in ignoring the definition of instinct, I would welcome a bit of further entertainment.We shall see.

[SocialistPunk]

I am curious about OGW's first suspension from this forum and the Int Dept various reports.Have the Int Dept rescinded OGW's first suspension?

[SocialistPunk]

Hi YMSI only referred to party members facing this type of forum censorship as I stated it is used on other WSM sites. No special privileges were inferred.I agree that off topic posts can be problematic to a thread, but are you innocent of off topic posts? You totally ignore the fact that off topic goes on all the time.The unconscious troll you mention could apply to the few of us who post regularly. I believe this forum has 264 registered users, yet we get a tiny minority actually posting. Could we be drowning out others, putting potential posters off with our overbearing, overconfident personalities? I am sure some people may feel uncomfortable posting in case they face a barrage of criticism.By the rules of the nonsense descriptions of censorship I have come across used during this debate, we regulars could be seen as practicing a form of censorship.I made reference to the posts in question not being spam or deliberately disruptive and I am sure they were not legally problematic. Yet they were deleted/moderated etc.I have no problem with protecting the forum from genuine attack from spam or legally risky posts. But what I have seen happen in the examples I refer to does not fit those descriptions. It is why I suggested you avail yourself of the situation earlier on a thread in the Web/Tech section. You declined to inform yourself of the situ' instead relinquishing the job to others. So much for democratic control, if people can not be bothered to stay informed of a subject.Your last comment about democratic control of the forum, suggests censorship has a place on the forums, as I see no argument showing the methods used are not forms of censorship?I take it you have no problem with certain forms of censorship? An answer to that question takes us nicely into the second part of the topic about censorship having a part to play within a future socialist society.

[SocialistPunk]

Hi TomYou keep referring to human instinct, yet when I challenge it you fail to provide any answer.Instinct has a meaning, it describes fixed behaviour in animals, behavour that can not be controlled. If what you call instinct can be overridden then it is not instinct. It is not rocket science, just a bit of basic scientific description.As for "race" the early "racial scientists" thought they were recording actual biological "races" of humans. If you now say a biological definition of "race" is irrelevant, then what basis for "race" do you have?All you give is the fact we can see physical differences of skin colour.Again I ask you to define the number of "races" of humanity and perhaps show how we can explain the classification?If you fail to do so all you are left with is a vague idea that skin colour etc makes us a specific "race" and is therefore a social construct.

[SocialistPunk]

Hold up everyone.This thread is not about suspension of any member. It is about the use of methods of censorship on this forum and on at least another that I am aware of, SPintcom. WSM forum and SPopen may also use the same methods. I do not know for sure.I will lay my position out clearly.I do not for one minute think or suggest the SPGB or WSM advocate full censorship or restriction of free and open debate etc.Censorship is not just an all or nothing method of control. It can be and is used in varying degrees and in different ways by various organisations.Now with regard to the examples I have seen. What we have is the deletion of posts that are from members of party sites who also happen to be SPGB members. They were/are not spammers, nor were/are they engaging in irrelevant and deliberate disruption of any site for the sake of it.A member of this forum had two posts deleted, the reason given that they were off topic. If off topic was a reason for deletion, then many members of this forum would regularly have posts deleted for that reason, as would I.To delete a post that is considered off topic, (and we may be looking at a little non deliberate off topic, if any) in this way is a form of censorship. It is used to control. The ultimate aim of censorship is control.Next, being put on moderation. If a forum member is deemed to be problematic, for whatever reason, they are put on moderation and their posts are vetted. Another form of censorship in use, again for the purpose of control.If these forms of censorship are being employed as a way to control the forums, at least be honest about it, as well as consistent.But socialists don't like the C word, so it is easier to pretend it is not censorship. Instead it is hidden within what is known as moderation.Such denial easily fits the description of doublespeak.

[SocialistPunk]

Hi TomEarlier you asked me about instinct.I am of the opinion that humans are not instinctual creatures. The following quote is taken from an earlier thread "Human Nature? Whoopee!"Here is the link.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/human-nature-whoopee?page=3

SocialistPunk wrote:

Inborn complex patterns of behaviour that must exist in every member of the species and that cannot be overcome by will.Or simply put, non-learnt, unalterable behaviour. Examples being spiders web building and sea turtles heading for the sea after hatching.

I don't want to stray too far off topic, but the above quote sums up instinct pretty well. Please feel free to prove otherwise.Now back to "race". The following is a nice little comment found on a blog, answering a Professor with a similar position to yourself, (that it is obvious by looking around we have different "races" of humans.)"Obviously genes can vary with geography. I don't think any reasonable person would deny that. That isn't at all the same thing as saying that race is a biologically meaningful concept. The point Sternberg is making is that the races we've invented based on skin color are completely arbitrary classifications. Different human traits vary independently of each other, and they don't obey sharply differentiated boundaries, but vary along graduated clines. If we divided humans into groups based on some other characteristic, such as body proportions, skull shape, or blood type distribution, we would get a completely different set of "races." Sure, traits like cystic fibrosis and susceptibility to prostate cancer are more or less prevalent among certain populations. But "Africans" or "Europeans" are only rough approximations of those populations. Because different human populations aren't genetically isolated from each other, they haven't become clearly defined and biologically meaningful races." Now again we must look at the early taxonomists, privileged men obsessed with classifying "creation". Usually with a hierarchic slant.Let us take their favourite classification, skin colour. It seems obvious that "races" exist. If so, how many? And how do we work it out, what do we use to base our "races" on. Skin colour alone shows vast difference, likewise hair, nose, skull shape etc. What of height, stature. Size of hands and feet. The list of human characteristics are endless. Given enough time and a powerful enough computer it may be possible to break down human populations into countless "races".Instead humans still use just four "races" to generalise. A bit like those who insist you can tell all there is to know about people based on the twelve signs of the zodiac.I and many others on this forum are pointing out the flaws of "race". We say it makes the notion a bit ridiculous and completely useless.You say otherwise.So to clarify your position it may be helpful if you could please tell us how many "races" of humans there are?

[SocialistPunk]

Tom Rogers wrote:

I think any fair and sensible observation betrays that race does exist

I think that just about sorts the issue out. What do modern scientists know? We just have to look at the obvious, skin colour, language, what clothes people wear, the food people eat and we can tell what "race" they belong to. Easy. Just like the pioneers of human "racial" classification.If you are interested in the truth about "race", I urge you to look into the history of human "racial" classification. Very often history has a habit of exposing the truth. 

Tom Rogers wrote:

We feel closer to those who generally look like us, and who share close linguistic and blood ties with us, and we want to have our children with females who 'look like us' (in the racial sense) because we want our children to resemble us.  Of course, it may be that some people do not feel these instincts so keenly, or choose to deny them, but should those who see kin as a basic aspect of humanness be denied their instincts?

You talk of a need to breed with the same "racial" type as ourselves as if it were some human instinct. So can you explain why it is that humans have been so able to overide our instincts for thousands of years and continue that trend quite willingly today, by taking partners from other so called "races". My partners best friend married a black dude she met while at Uni' in Birmingham and they now have a young son of so called "mixed race". I do not think his parents have any issue regarding his not looking like them.It is a well known fact that the more diverse genetic mix humans have the better it is for our offspring and so our species.So much for instinct!?

[SocialistPunk]

I hope I am understanding the previous post correctly.SPGB party members (democratically I presume) have decided to self impose a ban on openly discussing the issue of the use of censorship on party forums?A self imposed ban on discussing the issue of censorship!?

[SocialistPunk]

Hi BrianThank you for acknowledging this topic, much appreciated.However I do have some questions.1) I was under the impression the SPGB advocated open debate. It is the only way to get to the bottom of a subject, so to speak. Minds can be enlightened and changed with debate, can they not? It is the basis of democracy and thus socialism.2) I am not a SPGB party member and so have no way of taking part in such a discussion other than on this open forum. I was also under the impression that most people on this forum, the silent majority are not party members. Some may be thinking of joining and censorship may be an important issue for them. It is for me. How else are they to get a taste for socialism and what it stands for? 3) Without going into detail, I have outlined examples of censorship on the party forums. All I ask now is a simple question, whether or not it is acceptable to engage in cencorship in a socialist environment? That could be answered easily. If I am wrong, show me. If I am right then the party needs to address the problem, that is where conference would be needed.Simple.

[SocialistPunk]

What has happened to the SPGB today?Is no one going to stand up and show me where I am wrong?I joined this forum to find out the health of the party in the second decade of the 21st century. What do I find, party forums where members relevant posts can be deleted, edited and even disallowed. Wriggle and squirm all you want, pretend not to see, turn your backs, palm the difficult decision off to someone else if you feel that way inclined.But like it or not, censorship is being practiced within the SPGB forums!At least be honest!?"Full free speech means exactly what it says: any and every view should be allowed expression so that it can be examined and shown to be wrong."Or do these words, from The Socialist Standard of all places, mean nothing?

[SocialistPunk]

Hi TomI think DJP has summed it up nicely. Time and time again I am reading on the net that "race" is now considered to have no biological basis.If we look at the taxonomists of the 17th and 18th centuries they used very simple methods to classify humans, skin colour being the most common. From them we are left with a legacy of four "races". They were very often prejudiced in their thinking, classifying the "races" with behavioural traits the most favoured belonging to, shock horror, white Europeans.Is it any wonder "race science" really took off during the colonial years. Looking down upon whole groups of people as inferior no doubt made it easier to justify the subjugation of native people and the plundering of their homelands.Think about it this way. If "race" had not been invented before now and scientists wished to classify humans, do you think they would be so obsessed with skin colour or hair type?Do you not think that our science would be better equipped to handle the complex job with more accurate scientific objectivity?Yet in the 21st century some people still feel the need to cling to such an outdated, limited vision of humanity.Why?What use is "race" anyway?

[SocialistPunk]

It is a sad day indeed when a socialist feels the need to leave the party.But your case my friend is the most worrying of all I have come across, as it has highlighted a very dangerous route the SPGB of today is treading."Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever." Noam Chomsky

[Author]

Posts