Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Just on a similar point, and to perhaps give a little credit to our political opponents. Although it does sound a bit twee. When Lyndsey German was standing for Left List Mayor of London, part of her manifesto was more bus conductors and park keepers, as a part of a public order measure and, also, employment). Now, i'll admit to being a little impressed by that, a small reform suggestion but one that bounced the law 'n' order debate into a new territory of supporting civil society as a bulwark against deliquent behaviour.Is the swimming pool attendant a cop?Incidentally, the political right have a virtuous circle on law enforcement. Cut the cost of the state, which drives up crime, then demand stiffer penalties for the criminals, whilst slashing the costs of prison and the police (whilst making them yet more draconian), thus driving up crime, etc.
My opinion is there are two minimums:1) There should/would be no organisation with special powers of arrest/violence. That is, the power of 'common law' arrest/violence, if you will, will have to be a universal power available to all citizens. Now, that doesn't mean, as per above, there may not be a body dedicated to public order, but in much the same way, I'd suggest, as a baker stands to the unviersal right to make bread, as a specialist.2) Whatever such body existed could only work by consent, and would have to be internally democratic and subject to the general democracy of the community. So, no ranks, military styles or, even (maybe) uniforms.Let's not forget that police in the modern form have only existed for the last two hundred ish years, but the capacity of communities to protect themselves from deliquent behaviour (and to protect the deliquents themselves) is a unviersal feature of community.
Abstract wrote:Most hypotheses proposed to explain human food sharing address motives, yetmost tests of these hypotheses have measured only the patterns of food transfer. To choose between these hypotheses we need to measure people’s propensity to share. To do that, I played two games (the Ultimatum and Dictator Games) with Hadza hunter-gatherers. Despite their ubiquitous food sharing, theHadza are less willing to share in these games than people in complex societies are. They were also less willing to share in smaller camps than larger camps. I evaluate the various food-sharing hypotheses in light of these results.Skip to end:
Quote:The Hadza expect a fair share of what others have. In real life, unlike the Ultimatum Game,this expectation is rational since the Hadza rarely face a one-shot decision but can instead keep pressure on until someone hands over a fair share. Among the Hadza, no begging or threatening is required to get food from others. The mere sight of someone’s food seems to suffice, though this applies to some foods more than others. No one would think a man stingy if he shared a small bird only with his children, but large game could never be kept within the household. Although there are no precise and formal rules about division (except for certain pieces called epeme meat, that can only be eaten by men), large game is pretty equally distributed to everyone in camp, with only slightly more going to the hunter in the case of the largest game animals (Hawkes et al., 2001b).Obviously, such observable behaviour has implications for socialist society, and no-one is suggesting that anything remotelyu similar could happe in our vast and complex society (indeed, as the article notes, larger more fractious communities seem to promote a greater sense of fairness, the Hadza approach, it seems from the albeit very small survey, is to pitch for as much as you can get, in the expectation that everyone else will try to stop you, a bit like Ken Macleod's space Nietzschean Juchists.
Quote:For example, if I see a banana growing on a tree, I can't claim to "own" it just like that. But if I climb the tree and pick up the banana, everyone intuitively understands that it wouldn't be appropriate for you to just take away the banana from me like I did from the tree.Actually, ISTR when we had a talk addressed by an anthropologist, Camilla Power, she told us of the Tanzanian tribes people who had exactly the opposite view. If one of their number has a honeycomb, someone would just wander up to them, and demand it be handed over, and they just would. The expectation is that food is shared out. [Edited wrong country]
Like I said, we disagree on the interpretation of events we both saw. There's no wriggling, just honest disagreement. But I think we've hit the end of dicussion here, and anything further is for third parties to judge.I realise that responding to you does drag this on, but I felt, once again, it would be helpful to you to get an explanation of what happened from a neutral party. I'll just, finally, point out, the forum rules forbid calmly responding to provocation, too.Closing a thread, IMNSHO, is anything but aggressive moderation. People participating in the forum should just abide by the chair's ruling.
Yes, the logic is easy:1: The Moderator is not on the forum 24 hours a day, and only deals with problems when they are present.2: Posters may send messages while the moderator is not present.3: Postsers may reply to undealt with posts in the meanwhile.4: Therefore problem messages may have to wait for the moderator to turn up.Not rocket science, never mind meteorology.
I also said it wasn't the sole reason for the thread to be locked down, but it was clearly a part of it (logically, since it was a part of the thread). That the offending post has been deleted means it has been dealt with, and recognised as an infraction.We disagree on the connotations of utterances, something that can happen between honest debaters, without any reflection on the motives or capacities of the disputants. If you can't see rain for what it is, that is, ultimately, up to you.
ISTM that a flare up of tempers occured, during which OGW was apparently called a liar, and after which the thread was closed. the accusation was not the sole reason, AFAICS, for closing the thread, but it was certainly part of it. The offending post has been removed. That is my perception of the events, my own honest opinion of what transpired as I recall them now. I am not a moderator, member of the internet dept nor on the EC, my opinion is my own for you to accept or reject as anyone wants.
AFAICS the recent post complained of has been removed. I can't see anything further to be done. Your complaints have been heard, and acted on. A bit of patience wouldn't go amiss, the admin isn't there 24hrs a day.
I answered the question. If you had followed the set out procedure, and clicked on the report button, and then continued the substantive discussion, nothing would have happened to you. You could also have PM'ed the moderator, if you wanted to flesh out your grievance.
1) The originator of a thread does not own the thread, it belongs to the board. Thuswise, it is not for the originator of the thread to declare what is on or off topic, but for the moderator.2) Closing threads does not reflect on the originator of the thread, but on the state of discussion, and the threat to good order on the forum.3) I too was given a final warning, when the moderator issued a general one, and I didn't even take part in the thread. You don't see me complaining.4) People who jump up and down everytime the moderator makes an intervention are more likely to attract their attention than those who duck and cover.2) All Yorkshiremen are liars, you must know that.
Locking threads was another option that was mooted for a 'no attribution' moderation approach. No one is blamed, but the discussion is stopped to prevent tempers flaring. Let's get on with discussing socialism. the authority is the democratic authority of the EC asking the moderators to keep the forum rules.This is an informal list, where the admin is here to join in the discussion under their own name (and to be clear when they are speaking as admin and when not).Finally, that thread had been derailed before Admin's 'C'est n'est pa une pipe' joke, which was a comment on the one preceding it (and to be quite frank, was perfectly on topic IMNSHO, even if some people did not get it).
OGW wrote:If I am included in all posters then I am warned am I not? This final warning is aimed at me as well as 'Ed' telling me that if I respond once to being attacked by one of your members I will be suspended. If this was normal and fair moderation then the warning would have been directed at the person launching the attack and not to all members who are completely innocent of such an offence on the relevent thread.A lot of people have called for soft touch moderation. The first step of which must, Shirley, be general calls to knock it off, without naming names. If infractions continue, named informal warnings, followed by named final warnings, and then banning/moderations follow.The job of the moderator isn't judicial, it's not about who started it, but keeping the forums clear of noise (and the causes of noise).If individuals feel particularly aggrieved, they can report infractions to the moderator, and ask for specific restitution, but we have all been asked not to do this on list. Just as we have been asked to not make pointless posts of the 'I agree' type. All individuals have to do is keep to a few simple rules. Don't flame, don't respond to flames. f you are aggrieved, report via the button.
I'm glad that appears to work; though we should have some reason for caution in such activities:1) Everyone else is doing the same, and there are diminishing returns in the attention economy.2) Relatedly, a few years ago, we had a member who was an enthusiast for Spamming, which we had to curtail. I realise on social media people on your feed want to receive your messages, but, again, too many can lead to a drown out effect, where people may not link through.3) The chief task is to make the debate engaging and informative and to the topic of socialism. That way people will stay and discuss, rather than be driven away.
What they want us to do is get into heated debates about the redistribution of poverty, rather than questioning whether "The poor will be always with us", the bottom line for the Government is that the Tories don't want to give benefits to the undeserving poor, while the Liberals want to give benefits to the deserving poor. Labour has just given up openly espousing giving according to need. What this whole argument opens up, though, is the incompatability of the wages system providing for our needs, when they compare benefits according to need as being unfair compared to the fruits of wages, they are saying, in effect, that the wages system can't provide those things. Perhaps this is where we can point our propaganda.Also, no-one asks the question, what would have happened to this guy's seventeen children if the welfare state hadn't been there to look after them: not in a happy condition, I'd imagine. Let's not forget, that what he did was intimidate and brutalise women to have them serve him, so he pocketed their benefits. If they'd had to work, he'd have still managed to live off them.
