Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 09:26:33 +0200 From: Hugh Rodwell <m-14970-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se> Subject: M-FEM: Re: Justifications for coercion Lynet Uttal writes: >Yes, it did seem authoritarian, but and this is the rationalization for all compulsion by anyone against anyone else isn't it?` It is obvious that Lynet and many others support coercive measures. Fine, this is normal in human society. Now perhaps we could look at what *issues* the coercion is related to. Lynet has a number that are typical for the negative responses to Bob M. "Lack of dialogue" -- this is not true in Bob's case. It may be non-academic dialogue, but it's response to points raised on the list. How anyone can read his reports on child-parent relationships and on fighting for better conditions for poor cleaning women and not see their place in a dialogue related to women's issues is just amazing. "overly long posts" -- nobody is forced to read 'em. Use the delete button if you've made up your mind you don't like someone's contributions. Use a kill file. "condescending lecturing style" -- here we are -- "style". This is what riles people most. Bob gets the same kind of flak as women who have something to say and insist on saying it. "Nag, nag, nag", and if they don't shut up they get the ducking-stool treatment. Style should not be grounds for censorship, or even temporary suspension. "filibustered" -- use the delete button. "dragged off topic" -- come off it! Maybe Bob raises questions some subscribers would rather not touch, and in ways they'd rather not be confronted with, but they'd be hard put to it to prove they were "off topic", as I mentioned above. It's remarkable how formalist all these pro-suspension contributions are! Drawing-room etiquette! Mind the carpet! Don't put that hot cup on the nicely polished table! Get yer muddy boots off! Ooh, doesn't he *smell*, Mummy! Why are his clothes so dirty and ragged? "positional agenda" vs "really discussing ideas" -- ie concerted programmatic action vs discussion circles? This sounds like a petty-bourgeois prejudice as it stands. No agenda arises spontaneously, there are all sorts of processes of discussion and collective interaction behind any kind of programme. If anyone has a set of positions with any sort of coherence, this not a disadvantage but a sign that the issues involved have reached a certain level of social relevance and urgency. Ideas are discussed to reach solutions to perceived problems. Very often these solutions are made difficult by entrenched and antagonistic interests. Removing the material social foundation of these antagonistic interests then becomes the most important problem. Obviously there are people who want to opt out of the work of getting rid of these social barriers, and nobody's forced to be an activist. But the trouble starts when the quietists start acting as if *everybody* should just talk instead of act. This becomes their *positional agenda* and haven't we seen it a thousand times! Why not acknowledge that everyone has an agenda, it's just that some are more explicit and developed than others. Then the problem becomes one of persuading others of the correctness of your particular agenda. There's a big difference between saying "I don't like your agenda" and "I don't like you having an agenda". The second position is just another way of saying "I don't like you having a different agenda from me". Lynet continues: >Maybe a better first response would have been to ask Mr. Malecki to limit his >responses? No more than 2 per day, 2 screen limit. Why not? But not just Bob M in that case, but everybody. M-international has a daily limit of not more than three posts. No length limits. M-general gets along with no fancy limits at all. So far there's been no need for this kind of limit on M-fem, and unless this discussion of the statutes gets out of hand, I don't see one arising. More to the point is the need for a routine such as M-international has of private warnings followed by a public warning before any disciplinary measures are carried out. This is for the sake of the moderator too, to avoid any suggest=EDon of arbitrary action driven by bias against any particular subscriber. >Free speech does not mean that you can say whatever you want, all the >time, and >the rest of us have to politely give you the space. Since "shut up" and "back >off" didn't work, maybe it was an appropriate action. There was little forewarning in this case. What Lynet says about "free speech" is again an argument that can be used by any coercive force at all against what it considers to be trouble-makers. It's not a question of the "rest of us", it's a question of the list owner. It's not a question of "politely", it's a question of by established rules. And it's not a question of taking anybody's space -- these lists are like Chinese wall newspapers with contributions stuck up round a square. People wander round and read the ones they want to, and the others they just ignore. If you really want to save space, set up a kill file. If you can't do that yet, just delete the posts from people whose views seem obnoxious. I'm not arguing for the presence of *anyone at all* on the list -- far from it, we have general rules against fascists and extreme reactionaries, and people who accuse others of being police agents without proof, etc. But Bob M is none of these. Since Lynet gave us such a fine list of transgressions, I took the opportunity of giving a detailed commentary. I won't have much more to say on this sort of topic. Cheers, Hugh
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005