Moderation of 'The Promise'

[admin]

Yesterday I locked 'The Promise' thread in Town Pub and suspended the originator. Here is my reasoning. Sorry its a bit long.

My starting point here is that there should be freedom of expression. Taking a pro or anti Israeli position is an important freedom in a democratic world. Even saying things that may not be true should be allowable. That's what I try to practice here as on any other subject. Even stuff as sensitive as the Middle East situation is still fair game here on STF.

False facts are correctable. That's the importance of free discussion, Somebody who establishes a case on a falsehood gets it undermined and destroyed as the falsehood is exposed by others. Of course this is an imperfect process and those that have closed minds will never be convinced but overall I believe the losses of this approach are outweighed by the successes.

I have no problem with the first part of the OP. I have no problem with it being used to denounce the Israeli state's current policies. I have no problem with someone coming back and denouncing the programme as anti-Semitic propaganda. Hopefully the quality of argument either way will help people take a better informed view of the topic. Or reinforce their own prejudices. I merely provide a forum, I leave it to you to decide what you take from it.

What is a no-no and what appeared at the end of the OP is racism. That is why I acted. This is a bit of Free Speech that is excluded on STF. Whenever I take action on this I can guarantee the response from the poster that the words were not racist. Hence I had better make absolutely clear how I use the word when used in moderation on STF.

Racism is used as a shorthand for the stereotyping of any ethnic group. This goes beyond a strict view of race as genetically related. It is about regarding a group as totally homogeneous and attributing to them pejorative negative attributes. That is damming people for some association when there is good reason that some may not share the attribute. In this case, and I take as an example 'thieving scumbags' it fails on two levels. First that while some of the group may well be so, indeed even if a majority are, there are others in the group who demonstrably think they are doing the right moral thing for the benefit of others. Call them mistaken, even deluded is permissible. Calling them thieves is not. Calling them scumbags is just a gratuitous insult. Personal abuse (except between consenting posters) is not allowed here.

Of course STF is not politically correct either. Banter is fun, its even encouraged. I often have to cast a Nelsonian eye over some stuff posted here - especially after our hostelries close. It is where banter turns into abuse that a line has to be drawn. That can, I know, sometimes look a bit arbitary. it is really up to the poster to judge where unacceptability begins and find a better way to make their point. When I think they have gone too far too often then a real or virtual 'tish' may emanate from STF Towers and that is usually the end of it. Here, however, I feel the poster has moved beyond this and why I am considering permanent exclusion.

It comes down to a judgement that the poster is not able to accept the definition of racism given above. Hence is likely to continue to post similar stuff in the future. Similarly the poster is unable to constrain his language to avoid gratuitous abuse. I base this on repetition to date together with warnings given.

I am aware this would be the second exclusion in a few weeks of posters expressing similar views. This can lead to the assumption, especially those who are coming from the same political direction that I am censoring that political viewpoint. I have to say – I am not – The bottom line is I have no wish to restrict the scope of discussion here. The more viewpoints the better. But I reserve the right to restrict the language expressed. If only that its use and offence actually distorts or kills the discussion topic.

Well that's it. I would appreciate comments on the principles I am using, are they about right or do I need to rethink? I would be grateful if you could avoid personal comments on the poster. I will not allow this thread to become a kangaroo court. Also please no attempts to continue 'The Promise' discussion here. You can say if you want the original thread re-opened.

Admin

[Rachael]

Thanks for that detailed explanation, admin.

I have to admit I was disappointed the thread was closed, because by-and-large this forum deals very well with contentious issues, and I think it sets a good example. It seems to me that such threads are posted with one of two aims: either to find like-minded people, or to inflame argument. By-and-large this forum does not provide the response the OPs of such threads are looking for and they move on.

I don't know what went on behind the scenes with this OP and whether or not warnings were given in private. I would have preferred it if there had been a warning from admin posted in the thread, referring to the specific comments (thieving scumbags), allowing the OP to either moderate his language or refuse to do so. I think it is helpful to see such warnings in the context of the thread. It helps us all to know what is permissible and what is not. If the OP continued to break the rules, then thread closure was probably the best course. It just seemed a little sudden.

For what it's worth, I agree that there were certain phrases in the OP's first post that were definitely racist. Do I recall admin in the past editing posts to remove verboten phrases rather than shutting down the whole thread? Again this approach is not without its problems as some would say it amounts to censorship.

[admin]

I'm not sure about closing the thread either Rachel. I think the post before mine (by JulietP) summed up the situation rather better than I have. I was away Saturday so the thread was established before I could take action.

I think I should make it clear the action was not just on the post alone but as the latest in a succession of posts of a similar nature by this and a previous poster. Something had to be done I thought. Hence the suspension and the lock to buy me time while I thought it through which is what I'm trying to do now.

Hence, and taking your point, I have mind to re-open it. Not now, but soon.

Admin

[chrisj1948]

I think your working definition of racism is suitable for judging forum posts. Some interpretation might be required; I had been thinking of making a posting under the tongue-in-cheek title 'A Racist Observation?' I will PM you with it as an illustration of what I mean.

There are some aspects of the thread about 'The Promise' which I would like to have seen discussed further. One would be about how effective it was as a piece of drama - an artistic evaluation. Another would be that it would provide an opportunity to consider the British Mandate for Palestine, from the original Balfour Declaration onwards.

Unfortunately it covers an area in which there are violently polarised views, and the chances of maintaining some semblance of a civilised discussion would be poor. On balance, unfortunately, it is probably better that it remain closed.

Regards
Chris

[Voyageur]

I think that you were right to take action, overt racism needs to be challenged and the latter part of the OP's post made me flinch

[admin]

I think you have hit the point rather well there Chris.

When discussing sensitive subjects (and what can be more sensitive than this?) the language used should be more sensitive too. Whereas 'Thieving Scum' when applied to, say, traffic wardens might hit '3' on my groan-o-meter - the same phrase when applied to Jews on the West Bank or Arabs in the Gaza strip does go past '11'. And I hope that doesn't sound too flippant. It is deadly serious.

Its this control of language which can allow us to explore these areas and get away from knee jerk hatred that has poisoned the lives of people in the Middle East with repercussions around the world.

Admin

[Eagle]

Whilst I agree with free speech and agree the Arab / Israeli conflict is not black and white , I do agree that the OP went over the top in the language and his opinions on the matter.

I did see the offending TV programmes when they were shown. Whilst they were at times entertaining seem to recall giving up on the last one as thought they were a bit one sided. This was surprising as Channel 4 does not normally suffer from the anti Israel stance of the BBC.

[michael]

Why is it that some people try to push racism as far as they possibly can, until they get thrown off repeated forums?
I have to say I found the comment by Rick about two Black people (and one White) automatically leading to criminal behaviour more offensive than the post on The Promise. But in both cases the motivation is not to help understand difficult situations but simply to express ill conceived views of entire nations or races.

[Rachael]

That's a very interesting question, Michael.

I have a theory. If the OP genuinely believes his/her views, which most see as racist, are in fact correct, and they are repeatedly prevented from expressing them, could they begin to feel somewhat persecuted, and seek somewhere, anywhere, where they can say what they truly believe? I know there are site where they would find like minded people, but maybe some people really just want to be heard by a wider audience.

It can't all be trolling.

[Lisa]

[Eagle]

Lisa
Does your picture really add to the discussion ?

[Tim Lund]

That's a very interesting question, Michael.

I have a theory. If the OP genuinely believes his/her views, which most see as racist, are in fact correct, and they are repeatedly prevented from expressing them, could they begin to feel somewhat persecuted, and seek somewhere, anywhere, where they can say what they truly believe? I know there are site where they would find like minded people, but maybe some people really just want to be heard by a wider audience.

It can't all be trolling.

I think there are various possible psychologies, as well as rational behaviour. If I was a rational racist - if for the sake of argument we'll allow this to be possible - and I wanted to bring people round to my point of view, I'd not want to get thrown off this Forum, because it is one where various not-exactly PC viewpoints are expressed - as well as plenty of PC viewpoints too. As such, this Forum would be a place to be seen as basically decent & reasonable, and make converts.

Then there's the troll - someone who gets a kick out of winding people up - who should behave in a similar way, but there has also to be a psychological push to the dangerous edge of things - after all, that's what trolls do - they're out to tease and annoy. Flirting with racism is one way of doing this. I think BBW was much more a troll than a racist, but not just a troll either, because he could also entertain. There was a lot of variety in what he wrote - I think he was using this Forum mainly as somewhere to experiment with styles.

There's another psychology where someone actually wants to get thrown out - it allows them to go onto some other Forum of more consistently like minded souls and tell them about how outrageously they have been treated - a sort of victim mentality. A sort of narcissism - 'Épater la bourgeoisie' But it's not a rational way of winning converts.

Finally, there's just being out of control - having that poor an idea of how people will respond to what you write that you get thrown off without really wanting to be. I think RC is mainly a mix of the last two.

[Robin Orton]

I agree with Tim's assessment of 'Rick Channing' 's likely motivation. I do not know whether he is a serious racist. The fact that he seems unwilling to defend, or incapable of defending, his views in any rational way suggests to me that he may well not be. It is in my view more likely that he is basically a mere troll.

I must say I've never quite seen the point of closing threads but leaving the offensive or hurtful material on the forum for all to see. In any case, it punishes the innocent (those of us who would like vigorously to challenge the views expressed) as well as the guilty. I wonder whether in cases where a poster has said something unacceptable, it would not be better for Admin to remove the posting (or, better still, just the offending part of it) and to let us know that he has done so and why?

By 'unacceptable' I mean something which clearly goes beyond the generally accepted limits of civilised discussion and is merely abusive and clearly designed to cause hurt or offence. Racial stereotyping would often fall into that category, but, in theory anyway, not always, e.g. if someone (Tim's 'rational racist')? expressed racialist views in a measured and non-abusive way . (There's a challenge for somebody!)

Obviously if someone consistently, after repeated warnings, persists in posting offensive material, and is clearly trying to sabotage the forum as a place for serious discussion and harmless fun, Admin should clearly exercise his discretion to exclude him or her. But in my view that should be very much a last resort - as I'm sure it already is.

.

[admin]

Due to poular demand ie Robin & Rachel I have unlocked the thread here: http://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=6689

I have not edited the OP. This is because the majority of the thread is about the bits I would have removed which would rather make the discussion unintelligible. It also paradoxically illustrates what is not acceptable. I trust this is OK.

Admin