Re: List Moderation

["Daniel F. Vukovich" <vukovich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Group,

Just for the record, I agree wholeheartedly with Jamie on this.  I do not
see how anyone cannot see the anti-intellectualism, plain aggression and
yes misogyny of Dumain's posts, all of which have no place on a FFS list.
I appreciate Ken's concern with the issue of censorship, but I think the
Grand Zizekian/Psychoanalytic perspective is misplaced here, even if I am
tempted to root out a certain fetishization of "free" speech.  Rants about
Adorno, etc. are not the issue, but ad hominen, personalist attacks, and
their effective and potential effects on the list -- regardless of how
active they are at a given moment -- are.  So, I say, ban that kind of
"discourse," or count me out too.

--Dan





At 11:53 AM 23-05-99 -0500, you wrote:
>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
>>
>>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Vukovich
Dept. of English; Unit for Criticism and Interpretive Theory
University of Illinois
Urbana, IL 61801
vukovich@xxxxxxxx
ph. 217-344-7843
------------------------------------------------------------