Does the use of censorship have a place among the struggle towards socialism and/or within a future socialist society?
- This topic has 116 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
steve colborn wrote:DJP, in both posts 12 and 16 above, you used capitalisation, obviously to "stress" a point! As you are no doubt aware, when I used capitals I was accused of "shouting". Are you not guilty of the same thing? if not, why not.
Steve,I am not the moderator of Spintcom nor Spopen so I am not in control of what goes on there. However if I recall correctly, without spending ages going through my emails, you appealed against being placed on moderation because of this and the Internet Department, of which I am a part, decided to uphold your appeal.It is my opinion that putting individual words or a few words in CAPS or bold isn't the same thing as shouting and therefore is not against any of the rules. A whole post or most of a post in capitals may count as shouting but it would depend on the content and context.There are no rules banning the use of swear words either.That aside, this constant petty harassment has got to stop!When I set up this website and forum it was democratically decided that it would be moderated, as there where no volunteers forthcoming (funny that) I took up the role by defacto due to the fact that I am in charge of the inner workings of the website.Now in the last couple of months or so, from a couple of comrades probably old enough to be my father, I've been called a "prick", been told to resign or be expelled from the party. Why? For trying to prevent other comrades from having a slanging match with each other!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, 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. Or conversely, no reason why chaired meetings, refereed football matches or moderated forums would preclude common ownership.If members don't like the fact that the forum and lists are moderated they are free to change it using branch resolutions sent to conference.This topic reads like one that might have been interesting 15 years or more ago…
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!
Let us see socialist DJP at work with his one sided cencorship the fucking arsole
Well DJP, I didn't know obscenities were allowed or I would have called you a fucking prick long ago. I have never come across such an arsole in my entire life. Oh wait I have – Dave Chesham
Nothing to add. It has all been said. Using capitalisation in the way it was and for the reason, is, and was shouting, shouting down a reasoned argument. Is not the use of capitalisation in saying, "END OF STORY" not provocative and or threatening? Come on comrade, surely it is!If not, none of the aforementioned sanctions were correct, or mean a damn.I rest my case.Steve.
admin wrote:steve colborn wrote:DJP, in both posts 12 and 16 above, you used capitalisation, obviously to "stress" a point! As you are no doubt aware, when I used capitals I was accused of "shouting". Are you not guilty of the same thing? if not, why not.Steve,I am not the moderator of Spintcom nor Spopen so I am not in control of what goes on there. However if I recall correctly, without spending ages going through my emails, you appealed against being placed on moderation because of this and the Internet Department, of which I am a part, decided to uphold your appeal.It is my opinion that putting individual words or a few words in CAPS or bold isn't the same thing as shouting and therefore is not against any of the rules. A whole post or most of a post in capitals may count as shouting but it would depend on the content and context.There are no rules banning the use of swear words either.That aside, this constant petty harassment has got to stop!When I set up this website and forum it was democratically decided that it would be moderated, as there where no volunteers forthcoming (funny that) I took up the role by defacto due to the fact that I am in charge of the inner workings of the website.Now in the last couple of months or so, from a couple of comrades probably old enough to be my father, I've been called a "prick", been told to resign or be expelled from the party. Why? For trying to prevent other comrades from having a slanging match with each other!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, 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. Or conversely, no reason why chaired meetings, refereed football matches or moderated forums would preclude common ownership.If members don't like the fact that the forum and lists are moderated they are free to change it using branch resolutions sent to conference.This topic reads like one that might have been interesting 15 years or more ago…
WHAT AN ABSOLUTE LOAD OF CRAP!! YOU ARE BIAS!! Comrade Colborne was not shouting BUT I FUCKING AM!
In the context that DJP used the sentence, capitalised of course, "END OF STORY" added to the fact that he is a moderator, this is indeed a case of an implied threat. If one knows anything of the English language, the conclusion is inescapable. But allowances must be made for some I suppose, feeble irony there but not for others, how droll.These jokers should write a new sitcom, "how to derail and shite on your fellow Socialists, using spurious and insupportable argument and hyperbole".If nothing else, you would have the longest sitcom title. How ironic would that be! Democracy? had more from the Tories. Steve.
ADMIN NOTE: The Old Grey Whistle has had posting rights suspended. See posts 33 and 34 above. (Now removed)
Blimey! Censorship, eh? Can't be all bad, then. There's nothing wrong with telling people to shut up every now and then. Just like the loudmouth down the pub. Might be amusing for a while, but before too long it all gets a bit too much and you just have to silence them for a time.
Only problem is JC, the loud-mouthed gobshites on here are 2 of the landlords. And never in my life have I seen a landlord refuse to serve himself. What do you do with a loudmouthed gobshite landlord JC? answers on the back of a beer mat.
Is not the use of capitalisation in saying, "END OF STORY" not provocative and or threatening? Come on comrade, surely it is!I will try one last time to get an answer from DJP to the above. In the context this was used in post 12, do you DJP, not now feel that the capitalisation was both provocative and an implied threat, especially coming from a moderator. And please no equivocation by saying you are not a moderator of any other party site. For as I was left in no doubt, by various people, capitalisation goes against internet etiquette and as you are clearly more internet savvy than I, you should be more aware of this than I.An unequivocal answer would be appreciated. Steve.
With all due respect "end of story" means something like "that is the end of the story, I will say no more". I don't see how that is a threat. However if anyone took it to be so I apologise.Now this thread is actually about censorship in a socialist society and a socialist organisation. Please can all comments return back to the subject.
Funnily enough, the only two people I've seen behaving in such a way that might be described as being a loudmouthed gobshite aren't moderators. Come on, folks. Not being able to engage in reasoned debate is one thing, but the kind of abuse being spouted here is not the kind of thing we want non-members to witness as the way that socialists behave, is it?
It would be good if everyone could calm down and discuss this important issue in a sensible manner.I may never get an answer to my earlier post as it was drowned out by problematic posts. I understand why OGW did what he did, a frustrated socialist who faced a wall of silence from fellow socialists regarding an issue that is extremely important to all socialists using such a new technology. He then found himself on the end of a personal swipe from a forum member while wearing the badge of a moderator. How can an ordinary member defend themselves from that?This demonstrates perfectly my points all along.1) That censoring members posts is a poor method of control2) Moderators need some sort of code of conduct, guidelines etcI understand that moderating is not an easy task. A code of conduct, or guide for moderators would go some way to protecting them from the accusation of bias. It would not be perfect, but it would be better than what we have now.I will say it again for the benefit of those who seem to deliberately ignore my words. Moderating socialist forums can be done without the use of methods of censoring genuine members. Warnings and suspensions are fine.If we mix the two up, then logic should have dictated that some of OGW's posts were deleted, as he had several weeks ago. Where is the consistency?If the moderation of this site were consistent, then we would not be in this mess in the first place. It really is that simple.It still seems that some members think that censoring is ok. That suspensions are just the same. If I have my words censored, deleted, disallowed etc then they can never be shown. Deleted censored words on these sites can not be overturned by the Int Dept, they are lost forever. If I am out of order then warnings may calm me down, if needed a suspension. If I think the warnings and/or suspension is wrong I can appeal to the Int Dept. Censorship can not be taken back, it can not be rescinded, once done it is done and can be damaging.
Quote:"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
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.