Political Threads

[Philidor]

There have been some great political threads recently, both music-politics, e.g. Tragedy of German Music, and non-music politics, e.g. the Philosophy Thread. There's been a tradition on Brightcecilia, from the very start, of:

• minimum moderation
• treating people as adults and with respect
• little banning, thread locking, censorship of posts, etc.; and
• liberal forum rules

To help retain and strengthen that tradition I propose the following addition to the forum rules:

5. Classical music may attract political comment. Wagner is a prime example. Lively discussion of music and politics takes place on Brightcecilia. Purely political debate also occurs in the general forums. All political comment must abide by rule 4 above.

Here's rule 4:

4. Within that framework - keep it legal and child-friendly - members may discuss any subject they wish. Brightcecilia Classical Music Forums members are already diverse in terms of age, race, first language, location, and there will be many varying opinions. When debates become heated please avoid attacking the person you are debating with but, rather, address his or her ideas. Words designed to hurt or insult will not be tolerated.

There have been a few things said recently which fall outside that framework. At one level that's okay. Brightcecilia members are clever, passionate, articulate and speak their minds. But personal abuse, threats of violence, or saying that you hope another member is physically hurt (wishing violence, perpetrated by a third party, upon another member) is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. It's cyber-abuse, pure and simple, and cyber-abusers have no place on Brightcecilia.

It's also unfair to expect voluntary moderators to run round the forums like harassed infant school teachers, looking for, and deleting, such material. It's a bore and a waste of their time.

Hopefully the proposed new rule, reiterating where the boundaries lie, will make life easier for everyone.

Comments welcome!

[Noseeum]

Works for me. Political threads do invite instances of ill humor.

I suppose that observations of dorkiness in non-political threads fall under the proposed ban, but that's OK with me too.

[Philidor]

Originally Posted by Noseeum

I suppose that observations of dorkiness in non-political threads fall under the proposed ban, but that's OK with me too.

Observations of dorkiness are fine. On condition they're not accompanied by an implied threat of violence, e.g. the wish that a third party use their "boots" against a Brighcecilia member.

I had to delete such crap in the last 24 hours. I've banned the person who wrote it.

[Tarantella]

It might be timely to provide this item on internet trolling:

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18404621

I look forward to BC being a continuing safe messageboard, free from the language of violence, personal insult or vitriol. We all want that, I'm sure, and to be able to continue our great discussions on the things we share in common, rather than those things which divide us!!

[Philidor]

Originally Posted by Tarantella

It might be timely to provide this item on internet trolling:

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18404621

I look forward to BC being a continuing safe messageboard, free from the language of violence, personal insult or vitriol. We all want that, I'm sure, and to be able to continue our great discussions on the things we share in common, rather than those things which divide us!!

Precisely. I've just posted the following here. It strikes to the heart of this thread.

No! The Brightcecilia server must not be used to express the hope that someone -- anyone -- dies early. It's a total no-no. It undermines the entire ethos of the forum. If forum management fail to act against such statements we risk every decent member abandoning the site. And they'd be quite right to go.

Okay, Reiner's now banned* and can't answer back, but the point stands.

* For hoping that a Brightcecilia member is kicked by a mob. When a person is kicked by a mob and they go down, they tend not to get up again. So Reiner used this forum to advocate murder or attempted murder. It's impossible to retain someone who expresses such wishes as a member. If we were to retain him as a member we'd run the risk, again, of every decent member leaving.

Sorry.... as you were... but the point must be made.

Amen.

[Tarantella]

I'm very shocked that Reiner had written like this, but I hadn't read this entry. This is the internet after all and we simply do not know who we 'talk' to on messageboards. And violence begets violence.

I was discussing this issue this afternoon with my husband and observed that some of the things which create problems in a text-based medium of communication are the absence of propinquity, body language and the emotional attachment, fondness and respect that exists between friends which can often 'allow' things to pass which wouldn't be acceptable in the absence of any or all of these. We always measure what is said and done in direct proportion to how we value that person already. And since we are still in the comparatively nascent phase of electronic technology it will take some time for these issues to mature.

[Mambo]

I'll agree that politics can provoke heated discussions, and often
the ones discussing it can resort to more personal attacks, maybe more on forums like these;
which to me shows they are trying to increase their
impressiveness - they become like the Tiger in the forest/or forum.
The amount of 'malice aforethought' i cant say,
so it is the moderator(s) discretion.

I have been watching more political shows lately on TV with the importance of the U.S. elections in November, and the debaters
never wish their opponent ill harm; but they do try to get in some
slick insults - ranging from veiled to more overtly hostile.
The one receiving the insults usually keeps a good smile going,
but we can't do that on here. And there is a drawback of non-timely
rebuttal, due to our computer use, as Miss T noted .

The shows' moderators usually keep them in check; and i feel
most participants are aware of rules of good conduct, as have been
listed above.

Yesterday at the grocery store parking lot was a pickup with all sorts
of anti-Obama stickers, spelling his initials out
like One Bad Ass Mistake for America;
the error will be gone in (Nov.) 2012; pray for Obama, etc.

In dictatorships this guy would probably have truck sans stickers.

[Scott Good]

Originally Posted by Tarantella

I was discussing this issue this afternoon with my husband and observed that some of the things which create problems in a text-based medium of communication are the absence of propinquity, body language and the emotional attachment, fondness and respect that exists between friends which can often 'allow' things to pass which wouldn't be acceptable in the absence of any or all of these. We always measure what is said and done in direct proportion to how we value that person already. And since we are still in the comparatively nascent phase of electronic technology it will take some time for these issues to mature.

Incredibly salient points. Wise. I'd also like to add that the layer of anonymity is also a factor...I don't hold it against someone, and can quite understand why we need rocks to hide behind when the arrows are flying round, or perhaps to unveil a dangerous idea - this is survival, and a great gift of this technology! But I think it can transform a person more into the "virtual self", abandoning further the sense of real identity that must be civil to survive. The virtual identity is freed from any base needs, and serves to enhance the ego self (conceived identity), abandoning the id (biological identity).

[Tarantella]

"The Social Network", an excellent film with an outstanding script (somewhat 'hagiographic', but this is not really the point) sets up some of these issues thematically through the 'character' of Mark Zuckerberg. The film sets out to explore ruthlessness and, tangentially, the whole concept of 'celebrity ordinariness' (my words) which is deified through the establishment of "Facebook" - IMO, a (very ironically) hideous form of social disengagement which has become 'franchised'. But the irony is that 'anonymity' is the inevitable consequence of the creation of a "False Self". Participants can "hide" behind an identity and role-playing (like Robin Williams does).

I think it's possible to 'hide in plain sight" - to 'represent' a self rather than BE a self, which is what you've already suggested. This begs the question of the long-term consequences of role playing, especially when young people are in the critical development phase. I expect there will be studies conducted in the future along such lines. In life we all play roles - father, mother, brother, sister, daughter, friend, spouse etc.- but when that role playing becomes the predominant 'currency' of relationships I think we're all in trouble!!

[D. Bucklige]

For those who feel comfortable discussing politics I leave you to it. But tell me this. Has anyone EVER changed anyone's mind about something in which they passionately believed?

When I was younger and had more energy, I used to revel in opportunities to debate JWs*....of the door-to-door kind. Imagine, they would come TO me and I didn't even have to leave my house!

Then there was a summer spent in Galveston, Texas alongside a contingent of wide-eyed, mellowed-out Moonies.

It's all just tilting at windmills without any hope of changing the windmills' minds.

For those with the energy, time and desire, I say go for it.

Politics and Religion are, to my mind, out of bounds. The problem is that, for others, it can be like a cat and mouse game.

I am no longer in the competition.

* - Jehovah's Witnesses