SocialistPunk
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hi again DJPI too don't have much time to discuss in detail, but I do recognise the need for some sort of moderation. I saw nothing wrong with the moderation when I first joined. You kept a low profile as Admin. There was no problem with your occasional words of caution. On the whole, up until recent events things were fine, the forum was vibrant, lively and interesting.I think the issue with OGW was handled badly and it led to a bigger issue than there should be regarding moderation. No personal criticism intended, just a little honesty.I agree that moderation and censorship are not necessarily the same thing, it just depends on which moderation approach is used. Deleting, not allowing posts is censorship,or as I have heard "positive censorship". Quite simple.I would be happy to discuss this further, if you would like to, later on?
Hi DJPPlease do not take my post as a personal criticism, I have the utmost respect for you and what you do for the party and ultimately towards socialism.My issue is with the principle of deciding what others can or can not say, can or can not read. Am I not allowed to make up my own mind?I am sure you believe you have made the correct decision in deleting OGW's post, perhaps you have? But I have not seen it so have to take the word of another. This is the problem of censorship. Other people making decisions for us, about what is to be said, heard, discussed, painted, sculpted, sung etc.Is trust enough?Most people who advocate the censorship of this or that, do so because they think it is the correct thing to do, they trust their own decision to be able to judge correctly. But the whole basis of censorship is that the censors do not trust others to be able to decide.Censorship has no place in socialism.
Having never seen OGW's post, I have no choice but to accept that the moderator has made the correct decision to delete his post.Censorship anyone!?
Just need to clarify a point here. At the moment my Cystic Fibrosis does not prevent me from putting on some headphones and talking on the net. It may when I am ill.There is an issue that could interfere for a short while, the introductory course of a new hobby I have started runs for a few more weeks on Monday evenings. But seeing as the timings are different I should be ok, once I have sorted out the download issue.Not so much a case of contemplating a new medium of communication, more a case of trying to get timings in sync.
Unfortunately I had a problem with the TZM TeamSpeak 3 download. Not sure what happened but I ended up with the German version or something like that. I emailed Brian and he agreed something must have gone wrong and I didn't have an opportunity to put it right before the meeting.I believe this Monday is the next one, gonna try again.
I posted this to generate a bit off discussion about a few issues surrounding this documentary.For starters, the docu' pulls no punches in it's description of some of America's richest men and their successful attempts to control US politics, for the sole aim of becoming even richer.It demonstrates quite well the myth of the American dream.The suggestion is that being rich magnifies the negative properties found in people. However given that the mega rich in the docu' seem to already have been utter bastards, I am not too sure how relevant the idea is?The reemergence of Ayn Rand, (what a horrible image, her undead corpse once more amongst us) with particular reference to the film of her book Atlas Shrugged. I have never read her work, but I am aware of her pro capitalist nausea of a so called philosophy supporting laissez -faire capitalism.The docu' points out the facts concerning the dramatic increase in profits acquired by the 1% in America (not just bankers) since the mid 1980's onwards. It is a trend that has been mirrored in this country.The tactics of the elite of pitting the so called "middle" class against, by their definition, the "lower" class. The same is happening in this country (UK). Divide and conquer.The tactic of pitting public sector workers against private sector workers, again the same is also taking place here.I suggest we start on Ayn Rand. An analysis of her ideas could be informative. Has anyone read any of her stuff? Know anything about her? Maybe where her ideas came from etc?How about it, anyone?
Young Master Smeet wrote:I've no idea if you were 'rightly' suspended. I'm not the moderator, and I haven't been following your case.I am not being confrontational or antagonistic, but I suggest YMS check out the case in question.Perhaps doing so may shed some light on the question OGW is asking and so enable YMS to answer OGW's last post.I seek fairness for all parties. This can only be achieved when we are fully informed.
ALB wrote:At the risk of re-igniting this boring subject that's been flogged to death, I can't help recording the views expressed in a speech on Wednesday by the new Archbishop of Canterbury (as reported in the Times yesterday);I wonder if 6,800 hits on a subject can justify the use of the term "boring". I believe this topic often got several hundred hits in single days, on a number of occasions.If a subject that has and still does generate so much interest, is considered "boring" then I would suggest that mode of logic can be used to consider most of the other topics on this forum as, relegated to somewhere in the dead zone.Dismissal is unfortunately not quite the same as "Dealing with It!".
Hi Admin,I notice there is now a, moderator 1, posting forum rules etc.This may sound daft, but I assume you (Admin) and moderator1 are separate entities? Meaning there are two individuals monitoring the conduct of this site?
Hi moderator1,There is no escaping evolution. It gets everywhere. No wonder biblical creationists hate the idea.But seriously, I agree we should get this thread back on topic.So, I would like to ask, what is the hoped for outcome of joining TZM on their Team Speak forum? It is not meant as an antagonistic question. Merely a question to get this topic going again and to analyse our relationship with TZM.Do we hope to convert them or are we looking to build constructive bridges?I know I will be looking to build links with TZM, if possible, but I am not a party member.
Hi OGW,I just couldn't resist that one.I have no idea if ALB was joking, but you know as well as I do that a north, south divide does exist and that we Northeners are often stereotypically believed to be thick and basic.But lets get back on to what this forum is meant to be about.
I tar man, i'll tak yer advice on bored like.Cos' i nar us north folk are a bit on th stuupid side like, man. Ya naar wot i mean,like?if them daft sutherners divent naar wot i is on aboot i'll just gan doon an chin em. Tak me narth eest mafia doon an kick there heeds in man.Thanks Adam, but I did actaualy read Brian's post correctly.
Brian wrote:Seeing we'll be attending the UK Chapter meeting I'm sure there wont be any problems with accents.Seeing as this thread is here, we may as well discuss a much loved topic and probably a very much misunderstood aspect of the party and its approach to the right wing.Yes, I am talking about the left wing idea that racists and extreme right wing groups are not allowed a platform for open debate.I was talking to a friend the other day about this. They said that in principle they agreed with the idea of debating with such groups. However they pointed out that these groups, as history shows us, are very likely to turn particularly vicious given half a chance (even less). And that their politics tends to resonate with the less politically aware workers in society, so allowing them to talk rubbish without being challenged, offering easy quick fixes to the problems of capitalism.My view is, that if these people despite their unpleasant attitudes, are allowed to debate with others who can expose their ideas for the utter misguided bigotry it is, then it is less likely they will win large scale support. Not exposing their misguided views allows a certain aura of mystique to surround them, as if somehow they are telling the truth but are being silenced.The left wing refuse to debate with them because essentially they support the very economic system that the right wing support, and can offer no alternative to capitalism other than vague reforms and a fascination with state capitalism. This offers no solutions to the social ills that lead to misinformed prejudiced thought and deed in the first place.Is this view too simple?I believe it is the view of many on the left that we are being naive to think that reasoned debate is enough to counter such vicious political ideology found on the right of capitalist politics?Anyone?
Hi Brian,I think I'll give the TZM Team Speak 3 a go on the 22nd.Could you give us a brief of what to expect when on there? I notice it says Chapter meetings, does this mean we end up on a regional chat room or one big chat room? And is it a case of listening to verbal minutes etc with a brief chance to chat?Any info' would be welcome.Cheers.
