Re: List Moderation

[Jamie Owen Daniel <jdaniel@xxxxxxx>]

Folks,

Moderating a list is not at all the same thing as censoring it.

Ken (below) seems to think that the only possible reading of a response to
someone on a list deciding to use it as a site for safe aggression
(assuming that most of the misogynist name-calling and anti-intellectual
belittling that goes on here would NOT go on were we all face to face) is
as the expression of "fear."  But that's wrong--I don't in the least
"fear" that something of value is being "stolen"; rather, I regret that
something that COULD be of immense value--i.e., an international
conversation on the FFm School--is being squandered by a person or persons
who want to use it instead as a site for self-serving bullying.

I can say through past experience with another listserv on which someone
decided to use it as his personal punching bag that the majority of people
who feel that their time and energy are being wasted by having to decide
whether every post from a list is a serious engagement with the matters at
hand or simply another opportunity for some resentful person to act out in
virtual public space DON'T simply use the delete key--we retire from the
list and take our interest in the Ffm School elsewhere. The effect of
this, then, is to shut down the conversation the list was suppose to
facilitate. There have been a number of issues I and my students would
have liked to engage with on this list, but none of us (especially the
students with limited access to university-library computers) has the time
to download, and then skim, and then delete the mass of self-indulgent
nonsense that seems to attach itself parasitically to every attempt anyone
makes to discuss anything seriously here.

So, if the list can't be moderated, by which I mean the subscribers agree
to respect each others' persons even if they think each others readings of
Adorno, Marcuse etc. are "die reine Scheisse," then you can count me and
lot of other folks out, and continue merely chatting amongst yourselves
without an audience.


Jamie Owen Daniel
The University of Illinois at Chicago
President, MLG



On Sun, 23 May 1999, ken wrote:

>
> This comes up time and time again.  Censorship is not an
> answer to contradiction.  The fact that the issue is coming up
> now indicates to me that Ralph is probably right about
> something which threatens the integrity of the offended
> parties (at least he has hit a nerve).  Censorship is usually a
> paranoid reaction that comes out of fear (usually the fear that
> a 'foreign' element is stealing something of value - usually
> some sort of enjoyment) (in this case, Ralph is perceived of
> as stealing the jouissance of hen pecked 'analytic' critical
> theory).
>
> Is it that difficult to reach for the delete key?  Are the words
> here that offensive that some sort of hate speech laws need
> be passed?  Perhaps someone should contact the police
> instead of calling for a moderator.  Should freedom of
> expression be limited to something 'over there' - where I am
> not?  Perhaps freedom is best left as an abstraction, since its
> actuality might have a hint of antagonism...
>
> The best arguments I've heard for censorship revolve around
> Marcuse's notion of repressive tolerance.  So something is
> tolerated despite is repressive and silencing characteristics.
> And yes, this might in fact be the case.  Outbursts of anger
> and frustration may in fact be repressive for those who find
> solace in delicate conversation or speculative engagement.
> But this is a (postmodern) discourse of victimization (lurker as
> victim) - wherein which the Other is understood a priori as
> weak and timid, so debate should be limited, beforehand,
> because the participants might be left or rendered helpless.
> Of course, this also encourages participants to enjoy the
> benefits of no longer being responsible for their actions / lack
> of actions which reinforces sado-masochistic structures.
> Censorship here is a 'big brother' that lends a helping hand to
> the weak (of course 'the weak' don't exactly get to identify
> themselves, it is a designation imposed) (and it is never a
> discourse that goes on in the name of oneself - it is always in
> the name of the Other).  So, for those who think that
> censorship might be a good alternative - please - who are you
> speaking for?  Yourself or an (IMAGINED!) Other.
>
> ken
>
>