Mad idea?

[wmansell]

Ok, I can’t help trying to use PCT to try to address our current issues with terrorism. And for anyone asking, yes I was in London last night, but luckily far away from the area of the attacks.

This morning I was reading the responses to our (Muslim) Mayor Of London’s commentary. They were shocking, on both sides. So offensive to each other. Conflict escalation big time. I am also struck by the need to want to moderate social media and both the impossibility of this and its apparent clash with liberal values. I was also struck by how much in common people those who express themselves in aggressive and offensive ways have with one another! If they weren’t aware they were of opposite cultures, and could jointly have a go at a third party, they would get on marvellously!

It strikes me that the problem is nothing to do
with religion and culture and everything to do with the kindness and respect one receives growing up. I suddenly thought of our Mayor’s use of the word ‘cowardly’ to describe them. This is not quite right but it points to the fact that there seems to be no safe forum for people to criticise our western/liberal values without it getting nasty. What if there was? Like good scientists, shouldn’t we all value receiving constructive criticism? Shouldn’t everyone have the chance to develop the skill of resolving conflict without it escalating to a degree that it makes it worse or causes other conflicts?

So, the idea is a website… see below … Note, this is not pie in the sky. I have a meeting with the holder of a massive international anti-radicalisation grant - Prof Hilary Pilkington on Thursday. I also want to talk to her about MOL as a method to train community leaders to help raise self-awareness in ‘angry’ people in their community as a prev
entative strategy.

THE IDEA. YES It is a bunch of paradoxes - a forum for criticism of liberal values moderated in a big brother way by a liberally minded expert - but that is the whole point. It’s like family therapy via social media… the biggest challenge is the 24hr expert moderation of content…

Free speech site that openly encourages the criticism of British/American/Western/liberal values but is tightly moderated to remove or edit ALL violent and offensive language.

Aims to have a safe, respectful forum t
o challenge and protest against our western society

Find that potentially aggressive people have more in common across cultural divides than they think. I am not sure whether the website would actually get evidence that, for example a white supremacist and an Islamic jihadi ended up agreeing with one another, and then expose this with their consent, but that would be a key way to push reorganisation of people’s values.

The website through its moderation would essentially provide training in how to express oneself and be assertive without being offensive, aggressive, or violent

The catch - this in itself is a Western value - but it will be used to moderate the site until that value changes!

The site should provide creative solutions to our society and advance our values for the 21st century - help them ‘go up a level’ that is truly global, not just the western liberal view of what global should mean.

It needs to engage people who would otherwise be radical, stubborn, and offensive, not intellectuals who already write in the New Yorker or The Guardian.

People could use the website to challenge:

• free speech itself

• human rights either generally or specific human rights

• tolerance of unusual or dangerous practices

• assumptions of how different genders or sexualities should be treated

• how children are treated

• how old people are treated

• portrayals of people in the media

• capitalism

• atheism

• multiculturalism

• acceptance of all religions

• ‘innocent until proven guilty’

• ‘turning the other cheek’

• much more…

Any thoughts?

<
div style=“color: rgb(69, 69, 69); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;”>PS I hope that the PCT influence is clear?

Warren

[rupert]

Sounds like a great idea!

  I think all so-called solutions I hear about in the media are

addressing only the symptoms of the problem and not the cause. We
see the end result of the problem as ideology, but to get to the
core of the problem we need to address the process by which that
ideology develops. This issue goes far wider than specifically
Islamic ideology including any ideology based upon unsubstantiated
belief. For want of a better term call it Faith Ideology, which
would also cover racism, nationalism etc, and Christianity,
moderate or otherwise.

  In this sense the process of faith (believing in stuff without

basis, and not questioning those beliefs) is seen as a virtue
across society. For example, Faith schools are seen as a good
thing by the current UK government. I think this cultivates and
perpetuates an environment where any beliefs, no matter how
extreme, can take hold. If we bring up our children to believe in
nonsense we should not be surprised that when anger, resentment
and dissatisfaction is thrown into the mix those beliefs turn
extreme.

  If, however, we bring up our children in an environment of

critical thinking and scepticism, where they naturally question
both what they are told and their own internal beliefs, and to be
content with a neutral perspective rather than requiring certainty
then they are more likely to be immune from extremism and
radicalisation.

  A solution that is put forward that takes that scepticism

approach could extinguish extremism within a generation. If not
then it will remain with us for many generations to come.

  Unfortunately I don't feel very optimistic that this will change

as the moderates (Christian and Muslim) and the general
“establishment” support this process themselves; they are
personally invested in it, for whatever reason.

  I would be very interested in what Prof Pilkington thinks about

this and if there is any recognition of it amongst those who are
in positions of appropriate influence.

···

Regards,
Rupert

  On 04/06/2017 12:51, Warren Mansell

wrote:

  Ok, I can't help trying to use PCT to try to address our current

issues with terrorism. And for anyone asking, yes I was in London
last night, but luckily far away from the area of the attacks.

    This morning I was reading the responses to our (Muslim)

Mayor Of London’s commentary. They were shocking, on both sides.
So offensive to each other. Conflict escalation big time. I am
also struck by the need to want to moderate social media and
both the impossibility of this and its apparent clash with
liberal values. I was also struck by how much in common people
those who express themselves in aggressive and offensive ways
have with one another! If they weren’t aware they were of
opposite cultures, and could jointly have a go at a third party,
they would get on marvellously!

    It strikes me that the problem is nothing to do with religion

and culture and everything to do with the kindness and respect
one receives growing up. I suddenly thought of our Mayor’s use
of the word ‘cowardly’ to describe them. This is not quite right
but it points to the fact that there seems to be no safe forum
for people to criticise our western/liberal values without it
getting nasty. What if there was? Like good scientists,
shouldn’t we all value receiving constructive criticism?
Shouldn’t everyone have the chance to develop the skill of
resolving conflict without it escalating to a degree that it
makes it worse or causes other conflicts?

    So, the idea is a website... see below ... Note, this is not

pie in the sky. I have a meeting with the holder of a massive
international anti-radicalisation grant - Prof Hilary Pilkington
on Thursday. I also want to talk to her about MOL as a method
to train community leaders to help raise self-awareness in
‘angry’ people in their community as a prev entative strategy.

      THE IDEA. YES It is a bunch of paradoxes

• a forum for criticism of liberal values moderated in a big
  brother way by a liberally minded expert - but that is the
  whole point. It’s like family therapy via social media… the
  biggest challenge is the 24hr expert moderation of content…

      Free speech site that openly encourages

the criticism of British/American/Western/liberal values but
is tightly moderated to remove or edit ALL violent and
offensive language.

      Aims to have a safe, respectful forum t

o challenge and protest against our western society

      Find that potentially aggressive people

have more in common across cultural divides than they think. I
am not sure whether the website would actually get evidence
that, for example a white supremacist and an Islamic jihadi
ended up agreeing with one another, and then expose this with
their consent, but that would be a key way to push
reorganisation of people’s values.

      The website through its moderation would

essentially provide training in how to express oneself and be
assertive without being offensive, aggressive, or violent

      The catch - this in itself is a Western

value - but it will be used to moderate the site until that
value changes!

      The site should provide creative

solutions to our society and advance our values for the 21st
century - help them ‘go up a level’ that is truly global, not
just the western liberal view of what global should mean.

      It needs to engage people who would

otherwise be radical, stubborn, and offensive, not
intellectuals who already write in the New Yorker or The
Guardian.

        People could use the website to

challenge:

• free speech itself

        - human rights either generally or

specific human rights

        - tolerance of unusual or dangerous

practices

        - assumptions of how different genders

or sexualities should be treated

• how children are treated

• how old people are treated

• portrayals of people in the media

• capitalism

• atheism

• multiculturalism

• acceptance of all religions

• ‘innocent until proven guilty’

• ‘turning the other cheek’

• much more…

Any thoughts?

    < div style="color: rgb(69, 69, 69); text-decoration:

-webkit-letterpress;">PS I hope that the PCT influence is
clear?

Warren

[wmansell]

Thank you Rupert! I realised that this initiative would actually be the opposite of what Charlie Hebdo do…

···

Regards,
Rupert

  On 04/06/2017 12:51, Warren Mansell

wrote:

  Ok, I can't help trying to use PCT to try to address our current

issues with terrorism. And for anyone asking, yes I was in London
last night, but luckily far away from the area of the attacks.

    This morning I was reading the responses to our (Muslim)

Mayor Of London’s commentary. They were shocking, on both sides.
So offensive to each other. Conflict escalation big time. I am
also struck by the need to want to moderate social media and
both the impossibility of this and its apparent clash with
liberal values. I was also struck by how much in common people
those who express themselves in aggressive and offensive ways
have with one another! If they weren’t aware they were of
opposite cultures, and could jointly have a go at a third party,
they would get on marvellously!

    It strikes me that the problem is nothing to do with religion

and culture and everything to do with the kindness and respect
one receives growing up. I suddenly thought of our Mayor’s use
of the word ‘cowardly’ to describe them. This is not quite right
but it points to the fact that there seems to be no safe forum
for people to criticise our western/liberal values without it
getting nasty. What if there was? Like good scientists,
shouldn’t we all value receiving constructive criticism?
Shouldn’t everyone have the chance to develop the skill of
resolving conflict without it escalating to a degree that it
makes it worse or causes other conflicts?

    So, the idea is a website... see below ... Note, this is not

pie in the sky. I have a meeting with the holder of a massive
international anti-radicalisation grant - Prof Hilary Pilkington
on Thursday. I also want to talk to her about MOL as a method
to train community leaders to help raise self-awareness in
‘angry’ people in their community as a prev entative strategy.

      THE IDEA. YES It is a bunch of paradoxes

• a forum for criticism of liberal values moderated in a big
  brother way by a liberally minded expert - but that is the
  whole point. It’s like family therapy via social media… the
  biggest challenge is the 24hr expert moderation of content…

      Free speech site that openly encourages

the criticism of British/American/Western/liberal values but
is tightly moderated to remove or edit ALL violent and
offensive language.

      Aims to have a safe, respectful forum t

o challenge and protest against our western society

      Find that potentially aggressive people

have more in common across cultural divides than they think. I
am not sure whether the website would actually get evidence
that, for example a white supremacist and an Islamic jihadi
ended up agreeing with one another, and then expose this with
their consent, but that would be a key way to push
reorganisation of people’s values.

      The website through its moderation would

essentially provide training in how to express oneself and be
assertive without being offensive, aggressive, or violent

      The catch - this in itself is a Western

value - but it will be used to moderate the site until that
value changes!

      The site should provide creative

solutions to our society and advance our values for the 21st
century - help them ‘go up a level’ that is truly global, not
just the western liberal view of what global should mean.

      It needs to engage people who would

otherwise be radical, stubborn, and offensive, not
intellectuals who already write in the New Yorker or The
Guardian.

        People could use the website to

challenge:

• free speech itself

        - human rights either generally or

specific human rights

        - tolerance of unusual or dangerous

practices

        - assumptions of how different genders

or sexualities should be treated

• how children are treated

• how old people are treated

• portrayals of people in the media

• capitalism

• atheism

• multiculturalism

• acceptance of all religions

• ‘innocent until proven guilty’

• ‘turning the other cheek’

• much more…

Any thoughts?

    < div style="color: rgb(69, 69, 69); text-decoration:

-webkit-letterpress;">PS I hope that the PCT influence is
clear?

Warren

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2017.06.04.0945)]

···

On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 4:51 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

WM: It strikes me that the problem is nothing to do
with religion and culture and everything to do with the kindness and respect one receives growing up. I suddenly thought of our Mayor’s use of the word ‘cowardly’ to describe them. This is not quite right but it points to the fact that there seems to be no safe forum for people to criticise our western/liberal values without it getting nasty. What if there was? Like good scientists, shouldn’t we all value receiving constructive criticism? Shouldn’t everyone have the chance to develop the skill of resolving conflict without it escalating to a degree that it makes it worse or causes other conflicts?

RM: This is an excellent idea, Warren. It might not end terrorism but it would sure be interesting to find out what each side wants and whether there is any way to resolve the conflict. And even if there is no way to resolve the conflict (which I suspect there is not) perhaps this discussion group could help people on each side of the conflict lower the gain on.Â

WM: THE IDEA. YES It is a bunch of paradoxes  - a forum for criticism of liberal values moderated in a big brother way by a liberally minded expert - but that is the whole point. It’s like family therapy via social media… the biggest challenge is the 24hr expert moderation of content…

WM: Free speech site that openly encourages the criticism of British/American/Western/liberal values but is tightly moderated to remove or edit ALL violent and offensive language.Â

Aims to have a safe, respectful forum t
o challenge and protest against our western society

RM: Again, super idea! Â

 BestÂ

Rick

Find that potentially aggressive people have more in common across cultural divides than they think. I am not sure whether the website would actually get evidence that, for example a white supremacist and an Islamic jihadi ended up agreeing with one another, and then expose this with their consent, but that would be a key way to push reorganisation of people’s values.

The website through its moderation would essentially provide training in how to express oneself and be assertive without being offensive, aggressive, or violent

The catch - this in itself is a Western value - but it will be used to moderate the site until that value changes!

The site should provide creative solutions to our society and advance our values for the 21st century - help them ‘go up a level’ that is truly global, not just the western liberal view of what global should mean.

It needs to engage people who would otherwise be radical, stubborn, and offensive, not intellectuals who already write in the New Yorker or The Guardian.

People could use the website to challenge:

• free speech itself

• human rights either generally or specific human rightsÂ

• tolerance of unusual or dangerous practicesÂ

• assumptions of how different genders or sexualities should be treated

• how children are treated

• how old people are treated

• portrayals of people in the media

• capitalismÂ

• atheism

• multiculturalismÂ

• acceptance of all religionsÂ

• ‘innocent until proven guilty’

• ‘turning the other cheek’

• much more…

Any thoughts?

<
div style=“color: rgb(69, 69, 69); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;”>PS I hope that the PCT influence is clear?

Warren

–
Richard S. MarkenÂ

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
                --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[rupert]

Would you elucidate, I’m not familiar with Charlie Hebdo?

···

Regards,
Rupert

  On 04/06/2017 12:51, Warren Mansell

wrote:

  Ok, I can't help trying to use PCT to try to address our current

issues with terrorism. And for anyone asking, yes I was in London
last night, but luckily far away from the area of the attacks.

    This morning I was reading the responses to our (Muslim)

Mayor Of London’s commentary. They were shocking, on both sides.
So offensive to each other. Conflict escalation big time. I am
also struck by the need to want to moderate social media and
both the impossibility of this and its apparent clash with
liberal values. I was also struck by how much in common people
those who express themselves in aggressive and offensive ways
have with one another! If they weren’t aware they were of
opposite cultures, and could jointly have a go at a third party,
they would get on marvellously!

    It strikes me that the problem is nothing to do with religion

and culture and everything to do with the kindness and respect
one receives growing up. I suddenly thought of our Mayor’s use
of the word ‘cowardly’ to describe them. This is not quite right
but it points to the fact that there seems to be no safe forum
for people to criticise our western/liberal values without it
getting nasty. What if there was? Like good scientists,
shouldn’t we all value receiving constructive criticism?
Shouldn’t everyone have the chance to develop the skill of
resolving conflict without it escalating to a degree that it
makes it worse or causes other conflicts?

    So, the idea is a website... see below ... Note, this is not

pie in the sky. I have a meeting with the holder of a massive
international anti-radicalisation grant - Prof Hilary Pilkington
on Thursday. I also want to talk to her about MOL as a method
to train community leaders to help raise self-awareness in
‘angry’ people in their community as a prev entative strategy.

      THE IDEA. YES It is a bunch of paradoxes

• a forum for criticism of liberal values moderated in a big
  brother way by a liberally minded expert - but that is the
  whole point. It’s like family therapy via social media… the
  biggest challenge is the 24hr expert moderation of content…

      Free speech site that openly encourages

the criticism of British/American/Western/liberal values but
is tightly moderated to remove or edit ALL violent and
offensive language.

      Aims to have a safe, respectful forum t

o challenge and protest against our western society

      Find that potentially aggressive people

have more in common across cultural divides than they think. I
am not sure whether the website would actually get evidence
that, for example a white supremacist and an Islamic jihadi
ended up agreeing with one another, and then expose this with
their consent, but that would be a key way to push
reorganisation of people’s values.

      The website through its moderation would

essentially provide training in how to express oneself and be
assertive without being offensive, aggressive, or violent

      The catch - this in itself is a Western

value - but it will be used to moderate the site until that
value changes!

      The site should provide creative

solutions to our society and advance our values for the 21st
century - help them ‘go up a level’ that is truly global, not
just the western liberal view of what global should mean.

      It needs to engage people who would

otherwise be radical, stubborn, and offensive, not
intellectuals who already write in the New Yorker or The
Guardian.

        People could use the website to

challenge:

• free speech itself

        - human rights either generally or

specific human rights

        - tolerance of unusual or dangerous

practices

        - assumptions of how different genders

or sexualities should be treated

• how children are treated

• how old people are treated

• portrayals of people in the media

• capitalism

• atheism

• multiculturalism

• acceptance of all religions

• ‘innocent until proven guilty’

• ‘turning the other cheek’

• much more…

Any thoughts?

    < div style="color: rgb(69, 69, 69); text-decoration:

-webkit-letterpress;">PS I hope that the PCT influence is
clear?

Warren

[wmansell]

Cheers Rick!

···

On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 4:51 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

WM: It strikes me that the problem is nothing to do
with religion and culture and everything to do with the kindness and respect one receives growing up. I suddenly thought of our Mayor’s use of the word ‘cowardly’ to describe them. This is not quite right but it points to the fact that there seems to be no safe forum for people to criticise our western/liberal values without it getting nasty. What if there was? Like good scientists, shouldn’t we all value receiving constructive criticism? Shouldn’t everyone have the chance to develop the skill of resolving conflict without it escalating to a degree that it makes it worse or causes other conflicts?

RM: This is an excellent idea, Warren. It might not end terrorism but it would sure be interesting to find out what each side wants and whether there is any way to resolve the conflict. And even if there is no way to resolve the conflict (which I suspect there is not) perhaps this discussion group could help people on each side of the conflict lower the gain on.

WM: THE IDEA. YES It is a bunch of paradoxes - a forum for criticism of liberal values moderated in a big brother way by a liberally minded expert - but that is the whole point. It’s like family therapy via social media… the biggest challenge is the 24hr expert moderation of content…

WM: Free speech site that openly encourages the criticism of British/American/Western/liberal values but is tightly moderated to remove or edit ALL violent and offensive language.

Aims to have a safe, respectful forum t
o challenge and protest against our western society

RM: Again, super idea!

Best

Rick

Find that potentially aggressive people have more in common across cultural divides than they think. I am not sure whether the website would actually get evidence that, for example a white supremacist and an Islamic jihadi ended up agreeing with one another, and then expose this with their consent, but that would be a key way to push reorganisation of people’s values.

The website through its moderation would essentially provide training in how to express oneself and be assertive without being offensive, aggressive, or violent

The catch - this in itself is a Western value - but it will be used to moderate the site until that value changes!

The site should provide creative solutions to our society and advance our values for the 21st century - help them ‘go up a level’ that is truly global, not just the western liberal view of what global should mean.

It needs to engage people who would otherwise be radical, stubborn, and offensive, not intellectuals who already write in the New Yorker or The Guardian.

People could use the website to challenge:

• free speech itself

• human rights either generally or specific human rights

• tolerance of unusual or dangerous practices

• assumptions of how different genders or sexualities should be treated

• how children are treated

• how old people are treated

• portrayals of people in the media

• capitalism

• atheism

• multiculturalism

• acceptance of all religions

• ‘innocent until proven guilty’

• ‘turning the other cheek’

• much more…

Any thoughts?

<
div style=“color: rgb(69, 69, 69); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;”>PS I hope that the PCT influence is clear?

Warren

–
Richard S. Marken

"Perfection is achieved not when you have nothing more to add, but when you
have nothing left to take away.�
–Antoine de Saint-Exupery

[wmansell]

Charlie Ebdo is a satirical secular magazine that is written by liberals and takes liberal values as a given and often provokes extremists with potentially offensive material, whereas this would be a forum for potential extremists to constructively criticise liberal values with arguments that due to screening and editing are not offensive but respectful. I am not sure how much they would stick with it as so much of their material wouldn’t get through the screening process, and I haven’t pre-empted what valid non-offensive criticisms would arise, but it seems like something very different from the current systems is needed. Maybe it could be piloted in adolescents first…

Warren

···

Regards,
Rupert

  On 04/06/2017 12:51, Warren Mansell

wrote:

  Ok, I can't help trying to use PCT to try to address our current

issues with terrorism. And for anyone asking, yes I was in London
last night, but luckily far away from the area of the attacks.

    This morning I was reading the responses to our (Muslim)

Mayor Of London’s commentary. They were shocking, on both sides.
So offensive to each other. Conflict escalation big time. I am
also struck by the need to want to moderate social media and
both the impossibility of this and its apparent clash with
liberal values. I was also struck by how much in common people
those who express themselves in aggressive and offensive ways
have with one another! If they weren’t aware they were of
opposite cultures, and could jointly have a go at a third party,
they would get on marvellously!

    It strikes me that the problem is nothing to do with religion

and culture and everything to do with the kindness and respect
one receives growing up. I suddenly thought of our Mayor’s use
of the word ‘cowardly’ to describe them. This is not quite right
but it points to the fact that there seems to be no safe forum
for people to criticise our western/liberal values without it
getting nasty. What if there was? Like good scientists,
shouldn’t we all value receiving constructive criticism?
Shouldn’t everyone have the chance to develop the skill of
resolving conflict without it escalating to a degree that it
makes it worse or causes other conflicts?

    So, the idea is a website... see below ... Note, this is not

pie in the sky. I have a meeting with the holder of a massive
international anti-radicalisation grant - Prof Hilary Pilkington
on Thursday. I also want to talk to her about MOL as a method
to train community leaders to help raise self-awareness in
‘angry’ people in their community as a prev entative strategy.

      THE IDEA. YES It is a bunch of paradoxes

• a forum for criticism of liberal values moderated in a big
  brother way by a liberally minded expert - but that is the
  whole point. It’s like family therapy via social media… the
  biggest challenge is the 24hr expert moderation of content…

      Free speech site that openly encourages

the criticism of British/American/Western/liberal values but
is tightly moderated to remove or edit ALL violent and
offensive language.

      Aims to have a safe, respectful forum t

o challenge and protest against our western society

      Find that potentially aggressive people

have more in common across cultural divides than they think. I
am not sure whether the website would actually get evidence
that, for example a white supremacist and an Islamic jihadi
ended up agreeing with one another, and then expose this with
their consent, but that would be a key way to push
reorganisation of people’s values.

      The website through its moderation would

essentially provide training in how to express oneself and be
assertive without being offensive, aggressive, or violent

      The catch - this in itself is a Western

value - but it will be used to moderate the site until that
value changes!

      The site should provide creative

solutions to our society and advance our values for the 21st
century - help them ‘go up a level’ that is truly global, not
just the western liberal view of what global should mean.

      It needs to engage people who would

otherwise be radical, stubborn, and offensive, not
intellectuals who already write in the New Yorker or The
Guardian.

        People could use the website to

challenge:

• free speech itself

        - human rights either generally or

specific human rights

        - tolerance of unusual or dangerous

practices

        - assumptions of how different genders

or sexualities should be treated

• how children are treated

• how old people are treated

• portrayals of people in the media

• capitalism

• atheism

• multiculturalism

• acceptance of all religions

• ‘innocent until proven guilty’

• ‘turning the other cheek’

• much more…

Any thoughts?

    < div style="color: rgb(69, 69, 69); text-decoration:

-webkit-letterpress;">PS I hope that the PCT influence is
clear?

Warren

[rupert]

Yes, I’m aware of Charlie Hebdo to that extent, but didn’t see
how they were relevant to my post. I was talking about educating
children to think for themselves so that they are not ripe for
radicalisation in the first place

···

On 04/06/2017 18:32, Warren Mansell
wrote:

    Charlie Ebdo is a satirical secular magazine that is written

by liberals and takes liberal values as a given and often
provokes extremists with potentially offensive material, whereas
this would be a forum for potential extremists to constructively
criticise liberal values with arguments that due to screening
and editing are not offensive but respectful. I am not sure how
much they would stick with it as so much of their material
wouldn’t get through the screening process, and I haven’t
pre-empted what valid non-offensive criticisms would arise, but
it seems like something very different from the current systems
is needed. Maybe it could be piloted in adolescents first…

Warren

    On 4 Jun 2017, at 18:03, rupert@perceptualrobots.com
    wrote:

Would you elucidate, I’m not familiar with Charlie Hebdo?

        On 4 June 2017 17:02:40 BST, Warren

Mansell <wmansell@gmail.com >
wrote:

            Thank you Rupert! I realised that this initiative

would actually be the opposite of what Charlie Hebdo
do…

            On 4 Jun 2017, at 15:18, Rupert Young <rupert@perceptualrobots.com                >

wrote:

Sounds like a great idea!

                I think all so-called solutions I hear about in the

media are addressing only the symptoms of the
problem and not the cause. We see the end result of
the problem as ideology, but to get to the core of
the problem we need to address the process by which
that ideology develops. This issue goes far wider
than specifically Islamic ideology including any
ideology based upon unsubstantiated belief. For want
of a better term call it Faith Ideology, which would
also cover racism, nationalism etc, and
Christianity, moderate or otherwise.

                In this sense the process of faith (believing in

stuff without basis, and not questioning those
beliefs) is seen as a virtue across society. For
example, Faith schools are seen as a good thing by
the current UK government. I think this cultivates
and perpetuates an environment where any beliefs, no
matter how extreme, can take hold. If we bring up
our children to believe in nonsense we should not be
surprised that when anger, resentment and
dissatisfaction is thrown into the mix those beliefs
turn extreme.

                If, however, we bring up our children in an

environment of critical thinking and scepticism,
where they naturally question both what they are
told and their own internal beliefs, and to be
content with a neutral perspective rather than
requiring certainty then they are more likely to be
immune from extremism and radicalisation.

                A solution that is put forward that takes that

scepticism approach could extinguish extremism
within a generation. If not then it will remain with
us for many generations to come.

                Unfortunately I don't feel very optimistic that

this will change as the moderates (Christian and
Muslim) and the general “establishment” support this
process themselves; they are personally invested in
it, for whatever reason.

                I would be very interested in what Prof Pilkington

thinks about this and if there is any recognition of
it amongst those who are in positions of appropriate
influence.

      Regards,

      Dr Rupert Young

      [www.perceptualrobots.com](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.perceptualrobots.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=dDdygkne3oUrMnriV4WgtgPeuwb5IT5TpgoVUQ5XwAg&s=l2PHg6RQAByTghQoxVrp292eCP34FIhtfdp-s826jLM&e=)

      --

      Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my

brevity.

Regards,
Rupert

                On 04/06/2017 12:51,

Warren Mansell wrote:

                Ok, I can't help trying to use PCT to try to address

our current issues with terrorism. And for anyone
asking, yes I was in London last night, but luckily
far away from the area of the attacks.

                  This morning I was reading the responses to our

(Muslim) Mayor Of London’s commentary. They were
shocking, on both sides. So offensive to each
other. Conflict escalation big time. I am also
struck by the need to want to moderate social
media and both the impossibility of this and its
apparent clash with liberal values. I was also
struck by how much in common people those who
express themselves in aggressive and offensive
ways have with one another! If they weren’t aware
they were of opposite cultures, and could jointly
have a go at a third party, they would get on
marvellously!

                  It strikes me that the problem is nothing to do

with religion and culture and everything to do
with the kindness and respect one receives growing
up. I suddenly thought of our Mayor’s use of the
word ‘cowardly’ to describe them. This is not
quite right but it points to the fact that there
seems to be no safe forum for people to criticise
our western/liberal values without it getting
nasty. What if there was? Like good scientists,
shouldn’t we all value receiving constructive
criticism? Shouldn’t everyone have the chance to
develop the skill of resolving conflict without it
escalating to a degree that it makes it worse or
causes other conflicts?

                  So, the idea is a website... see below ...

Note, this is not pie in the sky. I have a meeting
with the holder of a massive international
anti-radicalisation grant - Prof Hilary Pilkington
on Thursday. I also want to talk to her about MOL
as a method to train community leaders to help
raise self-awareness in ‘angry’ people in their
community as a prev entative strategy.

                    THE IDEA.

YES It is a bunch of paradoxes - a forum for
criticism of liberal values moderated in a big
brother way by a liberally minded expert - but
that is the whole point. It’s like family
therapy via social media… the biggest
challenge is the 24hr expert moderation of
content…

                    Free

speech site that openly encourages the criticism
of British/American/Western/liberal values but
is tightly moderated to remove or edit ALL
violent and offensive language.

                    Aims to

have a safe, respectful forum t o challenge and
protest against our western society

                    Find that

potentially aggressive people have more in
common across cultural divides than they think.
I am not sure whether the website would actually
get evidence that, for example a white
supremacist and an Islamic jihadi ended up
agreeing with one another, and then expose this
with their consent, but that would be a key way
to push reorganisation of people’s values.

                    The

website through its moderation would essentially
provide training in how to express oneself and
be assertive without being offensive,
aggressive, or violent

                    The catch

• this in itself is a Western value - but it
  will be used to moderate the site until that
  value changes!

                    The site

should provide creative solutions to our society
and advance our values for the 21st century -
help them ‘go up a level’ that is truly global,
not just the western liberal view of what global
should mean.

                    It needs

to engage people who would otherwise be radical,
stubborn, and offensive, not intellectuals who
already write in the New Yorker or The Guardian.

                      People

could use the website to challenge:

                      - free

speech itself

                      - human

rights either generally or specific human
rights

                      -

tolerance of unusual or dangerous practices

                      -

assumptions of how different genders or
sexualities should be treated

                      - how

children are treated

                      - how

old people are treated

                      -

portrayals of people in the media

                      -

capitalism

• atheism

                    -

multiculturalism

                    -

acceptance of all religions

                    -

‘innocent until proven guilty’

                    -

‘turning the other cheek’

                    - much

more…

                    Any

thoughts?

                  < div style="color: rgb(69, 69, 69);

text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;">PS I
hope that the PCT influence is clear?

Warren

[Alison_Powers]

We are in a time when we need to push forward with this type of creative thinking as quickly as possible.

One of the best things about the psychological aspect of PCT is that it teaches people not only to own and be responsible for their own thoughts and actions but to understand that it is not the environment that drives our thoughts and actions but a series of goals that we have developed within each of us based upon each of our own experiences, our own needs and desires.

At any moment we have the ability to change if only we have enough insight into what motivates us. Let us hope that a PCT based dialogue may help those involved in such a discussion, feel that taking a more empathic, sympathetic, insightful, and peaceful approach to solving humanity’s problems is worthwhile.

It’s not mad. It’s brilliant. And starting with children could also serve as a great indirect way to get through to the parents.

···

On Jun 4, 2017 2:17 PM, “Rupert Young” rupert@perceptualrobots.com wrote:

  Yes, I'm aware of Charlie Hebdo to that extent, but didn't see

how they were relevant to my post. I was talking about educating
children to think for themselves so that they are not ripe for
radicalisation in the first place

  On 04/06/2017 18:32, Warren Mansell

wrote:

    Charlie Ebdo is a satirical secular magazine that is written

by liberals and takes liberal values as a given and often
provokes extremists with potentially offensive material, whereas
this would be a forum for potential extremists to constructively
criticise liberal values with arguments that due to screening
and editing are not offensive but respectful. I am not sure how
much they would stick with it as so much of their material
wouldn’t get through the screening process, and I haven’t
pre-empted what valid non-offensive criticisms would arise, but
it seems like something very different from the current systems
is needed. Maybe it could be piloted in adolescents first…

Warren

    On 4 Jun 2017, at 18:03, rupert@perceptualrobots.com
    wrote:

Would you elucidate, I’m not familiar with Charlie Hebdo?

        On 4 June 2017 17:02:40 BST, Warren

Mansell <wmansell@gmail.com >
wrote:

            Thank you Rupert! I realised that this initiative

would actually be the opposite of what Charlie Hebdo
do…

            On 4 Jun 2017, at 15:18, Rupert Young <rupert@perceptualrobots.com                >

wrote:

Sounds like a great idea!

                I think all so-called solutions I hear about in the

media are addressing only the symptoms of the
problem and not the cause. We see the end result of
the problem as ideology, but to get to the core of
the problem we need to address the process by which
that ideology develops. This issue goes far wider
than specifically Islamic ideology including any
ideology based upon unsubstantiated belief. For want
of a better term call it Faith Ideology, which would
also cover racism, nationalism etc, and
Christianity, moderate or otherwise.

                In this sense the process of faith (believing in

stuff without basis, and not questioning those
beliefs) is seen as a virtue across society. For
example, Faith schools are seen as a good thing by
the current UK government. I think this cultivates
and perpetuates an environment where any beliefs, no
matter how extreme, can take hold. If we bring up
our children to believe in nonsense we should not be
surprised that when anger, resentment and
dissatisfaction is thrown into the mix those beliefs
turn extreme.

                If, however, we bring up our children in an

environment of critical thinking and scepticism,
where they naturally question both what they are
told and their own internal beliefs, and to be
content with a neutral perspective rather than
requiring certainty then they are more likely to be
immune from extremism and radicalisation.

                A solution that is put forward that takes that

scepticism approach could extinguish extremism
within a generation. If not then it will remain with
us for many generations to come.

                Unfortunately I don't feel very optimistic that

this will change as the moderates (Christian and
Muslim) and the general “establishment” support this
process themselves; they are personally invested in
it, for whatever reason.

                I would be very interested in what Prof Pilkington

thinks about this and if there is any recognition of
it amongst those who are in positions of appropriate
influence.

Regards,
Rupert

                On 04/06/2017 12:51,

Warren Mansell wrote:

                Ok, I can't help trying to use PCT to try to address

our current issues with terrorism. And for anyone
asking, yes I was in London last night, but luckily
far away from the area of the attacks.

                  This morning I was reading the responses to our

(Muslim) Mayor Of London’s commentary. They were
shocking, on both sides. So offensive to each
other. Conflict escalation big time. I am also
struck by the need to want to moderate social
media and both the impossibility of this and its
apparent clash with liberal values. I was also
struck by how much in common people those who
express themselves in aggressive and offensive
ways have with one another! If they weren’t aware
they were of opposite cultures, and could jointly
have a go at a third party, they would get on
marvellously!

                  It strikes me that the problem is nothing to do

with religion and culture and everything to do
with the kindness and respect one receives growing
up. I suddenly thought of our Mayor’s use of the
word ‘cowardly’ to describe them. This is not
quite right but it points to the fact that there
seems to be no safe forum for people to criticise
our western/liberal values without it getting
nasty. What if there was? Like good scientists,
shouldn’t we all value receiving constructive
criticism? Shouldn’t everyone have the chance to
develop the skill of resolving conflict without it
escalating to a degree that it makes it worse or
causes other conflicts?

                  So, the idea is a website... see below ...

Note, this is not pie in the sky. I have a meeting
with the holder of a massive international
anti-radicalisation grant - Prof Hilary Pilkington
on Thursday. I also want to talk to her about MOL
as a method to train community leaders to help
raise self-awareness in ‘angry’ people in their
community as a prev entative strategy.

                    THE IDEA.

YES It is a bunch of paradoxes - a forum for
criticism of liberal values moderated in a big
brother way by a liberally minded expert - but
that is the whole point. It’s like family
therapy via social media… the biggest
challenge is the 24hr expert moderation of
content…

                    Free

speech site that openly encourages the criticism
of British/American/Western/liber al values but
is tightly moderated to remove or edit ALL
violent and offensive language.

                    Aims to

have a safe, respectful forum t o challenge and
protest against our western society

                    Find that

potentially aggressive people have more in
common across cultural divides than they think.
I am not sure whether the website would actually
get evidence that, for example a white
supremacist and an Islamic jihadi ended up
agreeing with one another, and then expose this
with their consent, but that would be a key way
to push reorganisation of people’s values.

                    The

website through its moderation would essentially
provide training in how to express oneself and
be assertive without being offensive,
aggressive, or violent

                    The catch

• this in itself is a Western value - but it
  will be used to moderate the site until that
  value changes!

                    The site

should provide creative solutions to our society
and advance our values for the 21st century -
help them ‘go up a level’ that is truly global,
not just the western liberal view of what global
should mean.

                    It needs

to engage people who would otherwise be radical,
stubborn, and offensive, not intellectuals who
already write in the New Yorker or The Guardian.

                      People

could use the website to challenge:

                      - free

speech itself

                      - human

rights either generally or specific human
rights

                      -

tolerance of unusual or dangerous practices

                      -

assumptions of how different genders or
sexualities should be treated

                      - how

children are treated

                      - how

old people are treated

                      -

portrayals of people in the media

                      -

capitalism

• atheism

                    -

multiculturalism

                    -

acceptance of all religions

                    -

‘innocent until proven guilty’

                    -

‘turning the other cheek’

                    - much

more…

                    Any

thoughts?

                  < div style="color: rgb(69, 69, 69);

text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;">PS I
hope that the PCT influence is clear?

Warren

      Regards,

      Dr Rupert Young

      [www.perceptualrobots.com](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.perceptualrobots.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=dDdygkne3oUrMnriV4WgtgPeuwb5IT5TpgoVUQ5XwAg&s=l2PHg6RQAByTghQoxVrp292eCP34FIhtfdp-s826jLM&e=)

      --

      Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my

brevity.

[John_and_Leeanne_Wri]

[From Leeanne Wright 92017.06.05.11.54)]

Hi Waren,

I hope you don’t mind me adding my thoughts here?

WM: Ok, I can’t help trying to use PCT to try to address our current issues with terrorism. And for anyone asking, yes I was in London last night, but luckily far away from the area of the attacks.

LW: I’m glad you’re ok. I saw a report on the news this morning of a stampede at a football match in Turin, Italy, after the crowd was apparently spooked by the noise of a firecracker going off…… Overlaying this, it was loveely to see footage of the Manchester concert.

WM: This morning I was reading the responses to our (Muslim) Mayor Of London’s commentary. They were shocking, on both sides. So offensive to each other. Conflict escalation big time. I am also struck by the need to want to moderate social media and both the impossibility of this and its apparent clash with liberal values. I was also struck by how much in common people those who express themselves in aggressive and offensive ways have with one another! If they weren’t aware they were of opposite cultures, and could jointly have a go at a third party, they would get on marvellously!

LW: The idea of moderating a social media site, a classroom, a debate, a town hall meeting etc. is to to allow constructive dialogue to take place within an environment that is safe and respectful for all parties. That requires rules to ensure that people actually feel safe and respected. To me this is the fundamental nature of a free or liberal society. The rules in a ‘free’ society have as their goal ensuring that all citizens feel safe and respected at all times. To this end, forums where people can freely discuss and debate issues that concern them should be promoted, but without moderation they run the risk of devolving into conflict.

WM: It strikes me that the problem is nothing to do
with religion and culture and everything to do with the kindness and respect one receives growing up.

LW: I agree with a post by Rupert that to an extent there is a problem with the type of faith-based, non-critical thinking promulgated by religion in general…. Whetther by design, or as a by-product, it seems to me to foster an us-them mentality, a judgemental stance that makes conflict more rather than less likely…. There is no doubt that many religions teach kindness and respecct, but it seems to be kindness and respect for others that look, think and act the same as you….

WM: I suddenly thought of our Mayor’s use of the word ‘cowardly’ to describe them. This is not quite right but it points to the fact that there seems to be no safe forum for people to criticise our western/liberal values without it getting nasty.

LW: Absolutely agree! See my point above. Facebook certainly hasn’t created a safe forum for its users. People need to ‘hide’ their remarks or create a small circle of ‘friends’ if they don’t wish to be attacked. This means that you are only privy to the comments of people that generally already think the same as you do, rather than opening up opportunities for constructive dialogue. It is making the problem worse rather than better in many ways….

WM: What if there was? Like good scientists, shouldn’t we all value receiving constructive criticism? Shouldn’t everyone have the chance to develop the skill of resolving conflict without it escalating to a degree that it makes it worse or causes other conflicts?

LW: I think the CSG and MoL forums could be excellent forums for developing a type of rule-based forum model based on PCT. To a large extent from what I have seen in the short time I have been following discussions, the people already involved in these forums and their interest in PCT has meant that they have been able to self-moderate pretty successfully. There have been concerns from time to time, however, even in these forums, and I don’t see a problem with moderating them as a model for what could be done with forums on a larger scale. Self-moderation or regulation is ultimately self-interested and neutral ‘third-partyâ€? moderation ensures everyone feels safe and respected, so that free speech doesn’t turn into hate speech…(as happens on forums like Faceboook)… and newcomers feel safe to contribute…
<

WM: So, the idea is a website… see below … Note, this is not pie in the sky. I have a meeting with the holder of a massive international anti-radicalisation grant - Prof Hilary Pilkington on Thursday. I also want to talk to her about MOL as a method to train community leaders to help raise self-awareness in ‘angry’ people in their community as a prev
entative strategy.

LW: That sounds like a fabulous opportunity. It would be great to go ‘up a level’ from ‘ us’ and ‘ them’ to ‘we’ in our communities… You referred to this abovee, in terms of realising how much more we all have in common with each other, rather than focusing exclusively on our differences…

WM: THE IDEA. YES It is a bunch of paradoxes - a forum for criticism of liberal values moderated in a big brother way by a liberally minded expert - but that is the whole point. It’s like family therapy via social media… the biggest challenge is the 24hr expert moderation of content…

WM: Free speech site that openly encourages the criticism of British/American/Western/liberal values but is tightly moderated to remove or edit ALL violent and offensive language.

WM: Aims to have a safe, respectful forum t
o challenge and protest against our western society

WM: Find that potentially aggressive people have more in common across cultural divides than they think.

I am not sure whether the website would actually get evidence that, for example a white supremacist and an Islamic jihadi ended up agreeing with one another, and then expose this with their consent, but that would be a key way to push reorganisation of people’s values.

WM: The website through its moderation would essentially provide training in how to express oneself and be assertive without being offensive, aggressive, or violent

The catch - this in itself is a Western value - but it will be used to moderate the site until that value changes!

WM: The site should provide creative solutions to our society and advance our values for the 21st century - help them ‘go up a level’ that is truly global, not just the western liberal view of what global should mean.

WM: It needs to engage people who would otherwise be radical, stubborn, and offensive, not intellectuals who already write in the New Yorker or The Guardian.

People could use the website to challenge:

• free speech itself

• human rights either generally or specific human rights

• tolerance of unusual or dangerous practices

• assumptions of how different genders or sexualities should be treated

• how children are treated

• how old people are treated

• portrayals of people in the media

• capitalism

• atheism

• multiculturalism

• acceptance of all religions

• ‘innocent until proven guilty’

• ‘turning the other cheek’

• much more…

Any thoughts?

LW: I would personally think of it as a discussion of values, rather than a criticism of them. A way of giving people a voice. The value is in listening, even if you don’t agree with someone…
LW: Who would be participating in the forum if they are going to be edited? Shouldn’t participation be based on following the rules that everyone in the forum feel safe and respected? Editing someone’s words runs the real risk of misunderstanding, misrepresenting or misinterpreting those words and the person who spoke/wrote them…
LW: Agree wholeheartedly!!! Although rather than ‘western society’ I would just say a safe, respectful society; the use of ‘western society’ again sets up an us-them paradigm in which one set of values is presumed, unconsciously or otherwise, to be superior to another…
LW: Agree! LW: I don’t think it’s so much a Western value as a human value. There are certainly some countries/cultures, it is true, that express themselves differently. The Dutch and Gemans, for example, can be more blunt than British or Australians, but they tend to temper this with a lot of discussion from what I could gather when I lived there for a few years…But all societies, even Western societies, have individuals/groups/communities who are denied a voice and a place at the decision-making table…

LW: YES!!!
LW: I think it’s a wonderful idea Warren! I would probably use the word ‘discuss’ rather than ‘challenge’ as it is a more neutral word. ‘Challenge’ has connotations of conflict about it, at least until you are well down the road of a safe and respectful world. Scientists can challenge ‘facts’ but much of what people would be discussing on such a forum is a different way of viewing the world, but not one that is necessarily wrong’ (unless it is unsafe or disrespectful to others)…

LW: Best of luck with your meeting on Thursday!

Leeanne

···

On 4 Jun 2017, at 9:51 pm, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

<
div style=“color: rgb(69, 69, 69); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;”>PS I hope that the PCT influence is clear?

Warren

[wmansell]

Sorry Rupert, it wasn’t relevant - I just had the thought and put it in that email!

···

On 04/06/2017 18:32, Warren Mansell
wrote:

    Charlie Ebdo is a satirical secular magazine that is written

by liberals and takes liberal values as a given and often
provokes extremists with potentially offensive material, whereas
this would be a forum for potential extremists to constructively
criticise liberal values with arguments that due to screening
and editing are not offensive but respectful. I am not sure how
much they would stick with it as so much of their material
wouldn’t get through the screening process, and I haven’t
pre-empted what valid non-offensive criticisms would arise, but
it seems like something very different from the current systems
is needed. Maybe it could be piloted in adolescents first…

Warren

    On 4 Jun 2017, at 18:03, rupert@perceptualrobots.com
    wrote:

Would you elucidate, I’m not familiar with Charlie Hebdo?

        On 4 June 2017 17:02:40 BST, Warren

Mansell <wmansell@gmail.com >
wrote:

            Thank you Rupert! I realised that this initiative

would actually be the opposite of what Charlie Hebdo
do…

            On 4 Jun 2017, at 15:18, Rupert Young <rupert@perceptualrobots.com                >

wrote:

Sounds like a great idea!

                I think all so-called solutions I hear about in the

media are addressing only the symptoms of the
problem and not the cause. We see the end result of
the problem as ideology, but to get to the core of
the problem we need to address the process by which
that ideology develops. This issue goes far wider
than specifically Islamic ideology including any
ideology based upon unsubstantiated belief. For want
of a better term call it Faith Ideology, which would
also cover racism, nationalism etc, and
Christianity, moderate or otherwise.

                In this sense the process of faith (believing in

stuff without basis, and not questioning those
beliefs) is seen as a virtue across society. For
example, Faith schools are seen as a good thing by
the current UK government. I think this cultivates
and perpetuates an environment where any beliefs, no
matter how extreme, can take hold. If we bring up
our children to believe in nonsense we should not be
surprised that when anger, resentment and
dissatisfaction is thrown into the mix those beliefs
turn extreme.

                If, however, we bring up our children in an

environment of critical thinking and scepticism,
where they naturally question both what they are
told and their own internal beliefs, and to be
content with a neutral perspective rather than
requiring certainty then they are more likely to be
immune from extremism and radicalisation.

                A solution that is put forward that takes that

scepticism approach could extinguish extremism
within a generation. If not then it will remain with
us for many generations to come.

                Unfortunately I don't feel very optimistic that

this will change as the moderates (Christian and
Muslim) and the general “establishment” support this
process themselves; they are personally invested in
it, for whatever reason.

                I would be very interested in what Prof Pilkington

thinks about this and if there is any recognition of
it amongst those who are in positions of appropriate
influence.

      Regards,

      Dr Rupert Young

      [www.perceptualrobots.com](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.perceptualrobots.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=dDdygkne3oUrMnriV4WgtgPeuwb5IT5TpgoVUQ5XwAg&s=l2PHg6RQAByTghQoxVrp292eCP34FIhtfdp-s826jLM&e=)

      --

      Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my

brevity.

Regards,
Rupert

                On 04/06/2017 12:51,

Warren Mansell wrote:

                Ok, I can't help trying to use PCT to try to address

our current issues with terrorism. And for anyone
asking, yes I was in London last night, but luckily
far away from the area of the attacks.

                  This morning I was reading the responses to our

(Muslim) Mayor Of London’s commentary. They were
shocking, on both sides. So offensive to each
other. Conflict escalation big time. I am also
struck by the need to want to moderate social
media and both the impossibility of this and its
apparent clash with liberal values. I was also
struck by how much in common people those who
express themselves in aggressive and offensive
ways have with one another! If they weren’t aware
they were of opposite cultures, and could jointly
have a go at a third party, they would get on
marvellously!

                  It strikes me that the problem is nothing to do

with religion and culture and everything to do
with the kindness and respect one receives growing
up. I suddenly thought of our Mayor’s use of the
word ‘cowardly’ to describe them. This is not
quite right but it points to the fact that there
seems to be no safe forum for people to criticise
our western/liberal values without it getting
nasty. What if there was? Like good scientists,
shouldn’t we all value receiving constructive
criticism? Shouldn’t everyone have the chance to
develop the skill of resolving conflict without it
escalating to a degree that it makes it worse or
causes other conflicts?

                  So, the idea is a website... see below ...

Note, this is not pie in the sky. I have a meeting
with the holder of a massive international
anti-radicalisation grant - Prof Hilary Pilkington
on Thursday. I also want to talk to her about MOL
as a method to train community leaders to help
raise self-awareness in ‘angry’ people in their
community as a prev entative strategy.

                    THE IDEA.

YES It is a bunch of paradoxes - a forum for
criticism of liberal values moderated in a big
brother way by a liberally minded expert - but
that is the whole point. It’s like family
therapy via social media… the biggest
challenge is the 24hr expert moderation of
content…

                    Free

speech site that openly encourages the criticism
of British/American/Western/liberal values but
is tightly moderated to remove or edit ALL
violent and offensive language.

                    Aims to

have a safe, respectful forum t o challenge and
protest against our western society

                    Find that

potentially aggressive people have more in
common across cultural divides than they think.
I am not sure whether the website would actually
get evidence that, for example a white
supremacist and an Islamic jihadi ended up
agreeing with one another, and then expose this
with their consent, but that would be a key way
to push reorganisation of people’s values.

                    The

website through its moderation would essentially
provide training in how to express oneself and
be assertive without being offensive,
aggressive, or violent

                    The catch

• this in itself is a Western value - but it
  will be used to moderate the site until that
  value changes!

                    The site

should provide creative solutions to our society
and advance our values for the 21st century -
help them ‘go up a level’ that is truly global,
not just the western liberal view of what global
should mean.

                    It needs

to engage people who would otherwise be radical,
stubborn, and offensive, not intellectuals who
already write in the New Yorker or The Guardian.

                      People

could use the website to challenge:

                      - free

speech itself

                      - human

rights either generally or specific human
rights

                      -

tolerance of unusual or dangerous practices

                      -

assumptions of how different genders or
sexualities should be treated

                      - how

children are treated

                      - how

old people are treated

                      -

portrayals of people in the media

                      -

capitalism

• atheism

                    -

multiculturalism

                    -

acceptance of all religions

                    -

‘innocent until proven guilty’

                    -

‘turning the other cheek’

                    - much

more…

                    Any

thoughts?

                  < div style="color: rgb(69, 69, 69);

text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;">PS I
hope that the PCT influence is clear?

Warren

[wmansell]

Thank you Alison, that is a great way of summing it up. Yes I wonder whether extremists often try to remove their personal responsibility by putting things down to ‘faith’ or ‘the will of god’. One hopes that any persistent but curious MOL questioner would raise awareness of that process…

Warren

···

On Jun 4, 2017 2:17 PM, “Rupert Young” < rupert@perceptualro
bots.com> wrote:

  Yes, I'm aware of Charlie Hebdo to that extent, but didn't see

how they were relevant to my post. I was talking about educating
children to think for themselves so that they are not ripe for
radicalisation in the first place

  On 04/06/2017 18:32, Warren Mansell

wrote:

    Charlie Ebdo is a satirical secular magazine that is written

by liberals and takes liberal values as a given and often
provokes extremists with potentially offensive material, whereas
this would be a forum for potential extremists to constructively
criticise liberal values with arguments that due to screening
and editing are not offensive but respectful. I am not sure how
much they would stick with it as so much of their material
wouldn’t get through the screening process, and I haven’t
pre-empted what valid non-offensive criticisms would arise, but
it seems like something very different from the current systems
is needed. Maybe it could be piloted in adolescents first…

Warren

    On 4 Jun 2017, at 18:03, rupert@perceptualrobots.com
    wrote:

Would you elucidate, I’m not familiar with Charlie Hebdo?

        On 4 June 2017 17:02:40 BST, Warren

Mansell <wmansell@gmail.com >
wrote:

            Thank you Rupert! I realised that this initiative

would actually be the opposite of what Charlie Hebdo
do…

            On 4 Jun 2017, at 15:18, Rupert Young <rupert@perceptualrobots.com                >

wrote:

Sounds like a great idea!

                I think all so-called solutions I hear about in the

media are addressing only the symptoms of the
problem and not the cause. We see the end result of
the problem as ideology, but to get to the core of
the problem we need to address the process by which
that ideology develops. This issue goes far wider
than specifically Islamic ideology including any
ideology based upon unsubstantiated belief. For want
of a better term call it Faith Ideology, which would
also cover racism, nationalism etc, and
Christianity, moderate or otherwise.

                In this sense the process of faith (believing in

stuff without basis, and not questioning those
beliefs) is seen as a virtue across society. For
example, Faith schools are seen as a good thing by
the current UK government. I think this cultivates
and perpetuates an environment where any beliefs, no
matter how extreme, can take hold. If we bring up
our children to believe in nonsense we should not be
surprised that when anger, resentment and
dissatisfaction is thrown into the mix those beliefs
turn extreme.

                If, however, we bring up our children in an

environment of critical thinking and scepticism,
where they naturally question both what they are
told and their own internal beliefs, and to be
content with a neutral perspective rather than
requiring certainty then they are more likely to be
immune from extremism and radicalisation.

                A solution that is put forward that takes that

scepticism approach could extinguish extremism
within a generation. If not then it will remain with
us for many generations to come.

                Unfortunately I don't feel very optimistic that

this will change as the moderates (Christian and
Muslim) and the general “establishment” support this
process themselves; they are personally invested in
it, for whatever reason.

                I would be very interested in what Prof Pilkington

thinks about this and if there is any recognition of
it amongst those who are in positions of appropriate
influence.

Regards,
Rupert

                On 04/06/2017 12:51,

Warren Mansell wrote:

                Ok, I can't help trying to use PCT to try to address

our current issues with terrorism. And for anyone
asking, yes I was in London last night, but luckily
far away from the area of the attacks.

                  This morning I was reading the responses to our

(Muslim) Mayor Of London’s commentary. They were
shocking, on both sides. So offensive to each
other. Conflict escalation big time. I am also
struck by the need to want to moderate social
media and both the impossibility of this and its
apparent clash with liberal values. I was also
struck by how much in common people those who
express themselves in aggressive and offensive
ways have with one another! If they weren’t aware
they were of opposite cultures, and could jointly
have a go at a third party, they would get on
marvellously!

                  It strikes me that the problem is nothing to do

with religion and culture and everything to do
with the kindness and respect one receives growing
up. I suddenly thought of our Mayor’s use of the
word ‘cowardly’ to describe them. This is not
quite right but it points to the fact that there
seems to be no safe forum for people to criticise
our western/liberal values without it getting
nasty. What if there was? Like good scientists,
shouldn’t we all value receiving constructive
criticism? Shouldn’t everyone have the chance to
develop the skill of resolving conflict without it
escalating to a degree that it makes it worse or
causes other conflicts?

                  So, the idea is a website... see below ...

Note, this is not pie in the sky. I have a meeting
with the holder of a massive international
anti-radicalisation grant - Prof Hilary Pilkington
on Thursday. I also want to talk to her about MOL
as a method to train community leaders to help
raise self-awareness in ‘angry’ people in their
community as a prev entative strategy.

                    THE IDEA.

YES It is a bunch of paradoxes - a forum for
criticism of liberal values moderated in a big
brother way by a liberally minded expert - but
that is the whole point. It’s like family
therapy via social media… the biggest
challenge is the 24hr expert moderation of
content…

                    Free

speech site that openly encourages the criticism
of British/American/Western/liber al values but
is tightly moderated to remove or edit ALL
violent and offensive language.

                    Aims to

have a safe, respectful forum t o challenge and
protest against our western society

                    Find that

potentially aggressive people have more in
common across cultural divides than they think.
I am not sure whether the website would actually
get evidence that, for example a white
supremacist and an Islamic jihadi ended up
agreeing with one another, and then expose this
with their consent, but that would be a key way
to push reorganisation of people’s values.

                    The

website through its moderation would essentially
provide training in how to express oneself and
be assertive without being offensive,
aggressive, or violent

                    The catch

• this in itself is a Western value - but it
  will be used to moderate the site until that
  value changes!

                    The site

should provide creative solutions to our society
and advance our values for the 21st century -
help them ‘go up a level’ that is truly global,
not just the western liberal view of what global
should mean.

                    It needs

to engage people who would otherwise be radical,
stubborn, and offensive, not intellectuals who
already write in the New Yorker or The Guardian.

                      People

could use the website to challenge:

                      - free

speech itself

                      - human

rights either generally or specific human
rights

                      -

tolerance of unusual or dangerous practices

                      -

assumptions of how different genders or
sexualities should be treated

                      - how

children are treated

                      - how

old people are treated

                      -

portrayals of people in the media

                      -

capitalism

• atheism

                    -

multiculturalism

                    -

acceptance of all religions

                    -

‘innocent until proven guilty’

                    -

‘turning the other cheek’

                    - much

more…

                    Any

thoughts?

                  < div style="color: rgb(69, 69, 69);

text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;">PS I
hope that the PCT influence is clear?

Warren

      Regards,

      Dr Rupert Young

      [www.perceptualrobots.com](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.perceptualrobots.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=-dJBNItYEMOLt6aj_KjGi2LMO_Q8QB-ZzxIZIF8DGyQ&m=dDdygkne3oUrMnriV4WgtgPeuwb5IT5TpgoVUQ5XwAg&s=l2PHg6RQAByTghQoxVrp292eCP34FIhtfdp-s826jLM&e=)

      --

      Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my

brevity.

[wmansell]

Hi Leeanne,

I think you have tweeted it just right. ‘Challenge and discuss human values’ is a better way of putting it, and it should be open to all.

I have one tweet to add to yours. I agree that the point is to set the rules and hope people stick to them, but reading the habitual hateful language on Facebook I have a worry that in the first instance some people have real difficulties asserting their views without hate and offensiveness! The aim of the site is not really to engage people who already find it easy to assert themselves respectfully although they are welcome to join in and provide examples. It’s not a problem in a private therapy session but where those statements are for all to see I think we risk locking the stable door after the horse has bolted for some people - the damage is done. One method might be that if you get a certain number of unedited contributions passed without being offensive/aggressive/inciting violence/demeaning others then you get to be unedited.

As you know I believer that free speech is not only right but it is potentially therapeutic. But I am quite confident one can learn to talk freely within constraints and it is still useful, in fact more useful.

The moderator would not be making any judgements about the contributor. Thinking about it, the moderator could be required to be anonymous to the contributor and just screen each contribution separately. The moderator is just applying some rules, rules which are themselves open to discussion…

It’s the hard work of these moderators that is the biggest hurdle I think!

Warren

···

On 5 Jun 2017, at 04:31, Wright Family jlws.wright@optusnet.com.au wrote:

[From Leeanne Wright 92017.06.05.11.54)]

Hi Waren,

I hope you don’t mind me adding my thoughts here?

On 4 Jun 2017, at 9:51 pm, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

WM: Ok, I can’t help trying to use PCT to try to address our current issues with terrorism. And for anyone asking, yes I was in London last night, but luckily far away from the area of the attacks.

LW: I’m glad you’re ok. I saw a report on the news this morning of a stampede at a football match in Turin, Italy, after the crowd was apparently spooked by the noise of a firecracker going off…… Overlaying this, it was loveely to see footage of the Manchester concert.

WM: This morning I was reading the responses to our (Muslim) Mayor Of London’s commentary. They were shocking, on both sides. So offensive to each other. Conflict escalation big time. I am also struck by the need to want to moderate social media and both the impossibility of this and its apparent clash with liberal values. I was also struck by how much in common people those who express themselves in aggressive and offensive ways have with one another! If they weren’t aware they were of opposite cultures, and could jointly have a go at a third party, they would get on marvellously!

LW: The idea of moderating a social media site, a classroom, a debate, a town hall meeting etc. is to to allow constructive dialogue to take place within an environment that is safe and respectful for all parties. That requires rules to ensure that people actually feel safe and respected. To me this is the fundamental nature of a free or liberal society. The rules in a ‘free’ society have as their goal ensuring that all citizens feel safe and respected at all times. To this end, forums where people can freely discuss and debate issues that concern them should be promoted, but without moderation they run the risk of devolving into conflict.

WM: It strikes me that the problem is nothing to do
with religion and culture and everything to do with the kindness and respect one receives growing up.

LW: I agree with a post by Rupert that to an extent there is a problem with the type of faith-based, non-critical thinking promulgated by religion in general…. Whetther by design, or as a by-product, it seems to me to foster an us-them mentality, a judgemental stance that makes conflict more rather than less likely…. There is no doubt that many religions teach kindness and respecct, but it seems to be kindness and respect for others that look, think and act the same as you….

WM: I suddenly thought of our Mayor’s use of the word ‘cowardly’ to describe them. This is not quite right but it points to the fact that there seems to be no safe forum for people to criticise our western/liberal values without it getting nasty.

LW: Absolutely agree! See my point above. Facebook certainly hasn’t created a safe forum for its users. People need to ‘hide’ their remarks or create a small circle of ‘friends’ if they don’t wish to be attacked. This means that you are only privy to the comments of people that generally already think the same as you do, rather than opening up opportunities for constructive dialogue. It is making the problem worse rather than better in many ways….

WM: What if there was? Like good scientists, shouldn’t we all value receiving constructive criticism? Shouldn’t everyone have the chance to develop the skill of resolving conflict without it escalating to a degree that it makes it worse or causes other conflicts?

LW: I think the CSG and MoL forums could be excellent forums for developing a type of rule-based forum model based on PCT. To a large extent from what I have seen in the short time I have been following discussions, the people already involved in these forums and their interest in PCT has meant that they have been able to self-moderate pretty successfully. There have been concerns from time to time, however, even in these forums, and I don’t see a problem with moderating them as a model for what could be done with forums on a larger scale. Self-moderation or regulation is ultimately self-interested and neutral ‘third-partyâ€? moderation ensures everyone feels safe and respected, so that free speech doesn’t turn into hate speech…(as happens on forums like Faceboook)… and newcomers feel safe to contribute…
<

WM: So, the idea is a website… see below … Note, this is not pie in the sky. I have a meeting with the holder of a massive international anti-radicalisation grant - Prof Hilary Pilkington on Thursday. I also want to talk to her about MOL as a method to train community leaders to help raise self-awareness in ‘angry’ people in their community as a prev
entative strategy.

LW: That sounds like a fabulous opportunity. It would be great to go ‘up a level’ from ‘ us’ and ‘ them’ to ‘we’ in our communities… You referred to this abovee, in terms of realising how much more we all have in common with each other, rather than focusing exclusively on our differences…

WM: THE IDEA. YES It is a bunch of paradoxes - a forum for criticism of liberal values moderated in a big brother way by a liberally minded expert - but that is the whole point. It’s like family therapy via social media… the biggest challenge is the 24hr expert moderation of content…

WM: Free speech site that openly encourages the criticism of British/American/Western/liberal values but is tightly moderated to remove or edit ALL violent and offensive language.

WM: Aims to have a safe, respectful forum t
o challenge and protest against our western society

WM: Find that potentially aggressive people have more in common across cultural divides than they think.

I am not sure whether the website would actually get evidence that, for example a white supremacist and an Islamic jihadi ended up agreeing with one another, and then expose this with their consent, but that would be a key way to push reorganisation of people’s values.

WM: The website through its moderation would essentially provide training in how to express oneself and be assertive without being offensive, aggressive, or violent

The catch - this in itself is a Western value - but it will be used to moderate the site until that value changes!

WM: The site should provide creative solutions to our society and advance our values for the 21st century - help them ‘go up a level’ that is truly global, not just the western liberal view of what global should mean.

WM: It needs to engage people who would otherwise be radical, stubborn, and offensive, not intellectuals who already write in the New Yorker or The Guardian.

People could use the website to challenge:

• free speech itself

• human rights either generally or specific human rights

• tolerance of unusual or dangerous practices

• assumptions of how different genders or sexualities should be treated

• how children are treated

• how old people are treated

• portrayals of people in the media

• capitalism

• atheism

• multiculturalism

• acceptance of all religions

• ‘innocent until proven guilty’

• ‘turning the other cheek’

• much more…

Any thoughts?

LW: I would personally think of it as a discussion of values, rather than a criticism of them. A way of giving people a voice. The value is in listening, even if you don’t agree with someone…
LW: Who would be participating in the forum if they are going to be edited? Shouldn’t participation be based on following the rules that everyone in the forum feel safe and respected? Editing someone’s words runs the real risk of misunderstanding, misrepresenting or misinterpreting those words and the person who spoke/wrote them…
LW: Agree wholeheartedly!!! Although rather than ‘western society’ I would just say a safe, respectful society; the use of ‘western society’ again sets up an us-them paradigm in which one set of values is presumed, unconsciously or otherwise, to be superior to another…
LW: Agree! LW: I don’t think it’s so much a Western value as a human value. There are certainly some countries/cultures, it is true, that express themselves differently. The Dutch and Gemans, for example, can be more blunt than British or Australians, but they tend to temper this with a lot of discussion from what I could gather when I lived there for a few years…But all societies, even Western societies, have individuals/groups/communities who are denied a voice and a place at the decision-making table…

LW: YES!!!
LW: I think it’s a wonderful idea Warren! I would probably use the word ‘discuss’ rather than ‘challenge’ as it is a more neutral word. ‘Challenge’ has connotations of conflict about it, at least until you are well down the road of a safe and respectful world. Scientists can challenge ‘facts’ but much of what people would be discussing on such a forum is a different way of viewing the world, but not one that is necessarily wrong’ (unless it is unsafe or disrespectful to others)…

LW: Best of luck with your meeting on Thursday!

Leeanne

<
div style=“color: rgb(69, 69, 69); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;”>PS I hope that the PCT influence is clear?

Warren

[Alison_Powers]

AP: Here are some thoughts regarding moderation: There is a website I frequent that is heavily moderated since there are people who log on and begin ranting on with hateful language which disrupts the overall effort. You do not need to edit anyone’s language. You simply set for the rule that all posts will be monitored for negative, unproductive comments and will not be posted if they only serve to disrupt and that moderators will be in contact with the violating poster to engage in a therapeutic discussion about how to express themselves in a non-violent, peaceful way. The moderators could then have a private dialogue with that individual and have a discussion about how the elevation in their emotional response has to do with an internal conflict, that anger is often an indicator that your self-preservation reference levels are threatened (just trying to come up with an example even if its not the best one). Give them a chance to rephrase their language so that they may still express their viewpoint on the website (this is where the therapeutic aspect would come in). Help them re-engage on a more moderate level that supports an ongoing dialogue. Possibly start a blog that would discuss that particular conflict that individual was experiencing to share what was going on so that others who are suffering the same reaction could benefit. I know this sounds a bit big-brotherish but this kind of moderation would be a problem if it were done on a mass, society-wide, scale. Doing it on a discussion website for the purpose of maintaining peaceful dialogue is a different matter.

···

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 2:18 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Leeanne,

I think you have tweeted it just right. ‘Challenge and discuss human values’ is a better way of putting it, and it should be open to all.Â

I have one tweet to add to yours. I agree that the point is to set the rules and hope people stick to them, but reading the habitual hateful language on Facebook I have a worry that in the first instance some people have real difficulties asserting their views without hate and offensiveness! The aim of the site is not really to engage people who already find it easy to assert themselves respectfully although they are welcome to join in and provide examples. It’s not a problem in a private therapy session but where those statements are for all to see I think we risk locking the stable door after the horse has bolted for some people - the damage is done. One method might be that if you get a certain number of unedited contributions passed without being offensive/aggressive/inciting violence/demeaning others then you get to be unedited.Â

As you know I believer that free speech is not only right but it is potentially therapeutic. But I am quite confident one can learn to talk freely within constraints and it is still useful, in fact more useful.Â

The moderator would not be making any judgements about the contributor. Thinking about it, the moderator could be required to be anonymous to the contributor and just screen each contribution separately. The moderator is just applying some rules, rules which are themselves open to discussion…

It’s the hard work of these moderators that is the biggest hurdle I think!

Warren

On 5 Jun 2017, at 04:31, Wright Family jlws.wright@optusnet.com.au wrote:

[From Leeanne Wright 92017.06.05.11.54)]

Hi Waren,

I hope you don’t mind me adding my thoughts here? Â

On 4 Jun 2017, at 9:51 pm, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

WM: Â Ok, I can’t help trying to use PCT to try to address our current issues with terrorism. And for anyone asking, yes I was in London last night, but luckily far away from the area of the attacks.

LW:  I’m glad you’re ok. I saw a report on the news this morning of a stampede at a football match in Turin, Italy, after the crowd was apparently spooked by the noise of a firecracker going off…… Overlaying this, it was lovely to see footage of the Manchester concert.Â

WM: Â This morning I was reading the responses to our (Muslim) Mayor Of London’s commentary. They were shocking, on both sides. So offensive to each other. Conflict escalation big time. I am also struck by the need to want to moderate social media and both the impossibility of this and its apparent clash with liberal values. I was also struck by how much in common people those who express themselves in aggressive and offensive ways have with one another! If they weren’t aware they were of opposite cultures, and could jointly have a go at a third party, they would get on marvellously!

LW:  The idea of moderating a social media site, a classroom, a debate, a town hall meeting etc. is to to allow constructive dialogue to take place within an environment that is safe and respectful for all parties. That requires rules to ensure that people actually feel safe and respected. To me this is the fundamental nature of a free or liberal society. The rules in a ‘free’ society have as their goal ensuring that all citizens feel safe and respected at all times. To this end, forums where people can freely discuss and debate issues that concern them should be promoted, but without moderation they run the risk of devolving into conflict. Â

Â

WM: Â It strikes me that the problem is nothing to do
with religion and culture and everything to do with the kindness and respect one receives growing up.

LW:  I agree with a post by Rupert that to an extent there is a problem with the type of faith-based, non-critical thinking promulgated by religion in general…. Whether by design, or as a bby-product, it seems to me to foster an us-them mentality, a judgemental stance that makes conflict more rather than less likely…. There is no doubt that many religions teach kindness and respect, but it seems to be kindness and respect for others that look, think and act the same as you….

WM: Â I suddenly thought of our Mayor’s use of the word ‘cowardly’ to describe them. This is not quite right but it points to the fact that there seems to be no safe forum for people to criticise our western/liberal values without it getting nasty.

LW:  Absolutely agree! See my point above. Facebook certainly hasn’t created a safe forum for its users. People need to ‘hide’ their remarks or create a small circle of ‘friends’ if they don’t wish to be attacked. This means that you are only privy to the comments of people that generally already think the same as you do, rather than opening up opportunities for constructive dialogue. It is making the problem worse rather than better in many ways….

WM: Â What if there was? Like good scientists, shouldn’t we all value receiving constructive criticism? Shouldn’t everyone have the chance to develop the skill of resolving conflict without it escalating to a degree that it makes it worse or causes other conflicts?

LW:  I think the CSG and MoL forums could be excellent forums for developing a type of rule-based forum model based on PCT. To a large extent from what I have seen in the short time I have been following discussions, the people already involved in these forums and their interest in PCT has meant that they have been able to self-moderate pretty successfully. There have been concerns from time to time, however, even in these forums, and I don’t see a problem with moderating them as a model for what could be done with forums on a larger scale. Self-moderation or regulation is ultimately self-interested and neutral ‘third-partyâ€? moderation ensures everyone feels safe and respected, so that free speech doesn’t turn into hate speech…(as happens on forums like Facebook)… and newcomers feel el safe to contribute…

WM:  So, the idea is a website… see below … Note, this is not pie in the sky. I have a meeting with the holder of a massive international anti-radicalisation grant - Prof Hilary Pilkington  on Thursday. I also want to talk to her about MOL as a method to train community leaders to help raise self-awareness in ‘angry’ people in their community as a prev
entative strategy.

LW:  That sounds like a fabulous opportunity. It would be great to go ‘up a level’  from ‘ us’ and ‘ them’  to ‘we’ in our communities… You referred to this above, in terms of realissing how much more we all have in common with each other, rather than focusing exclusively on our differences…

WM:  THE IDEA. YES It is a bunch of paradoxes  - a forum for criticism of liberal values moderated in a big brother way by a liberally minded expert - but that is the whole point. It’s like family therapy via social media… the biggest challenge is the 24hr expert moderation of content…

LW:  I would personally think of it as a discussion of values, rather than a criticism of them. A way of giving people a voice. The value is in listening, even if you don’t agree with someone…

WM: Â Free speech site that openly encourages the criticism of British/American/Western/liberal values but is tightly moderated to remove or edit ALL violent and offensive language.Â

LW:  Who would be participating in the forum if they are going to be edited? Shouldn’t participation be based on following the rules that everyone in the forum feel safe and respected? Editing someone’s words runs the real risk of misunderstanding, misrepresenting or misinterpreting those words and the person who spoke/wrote them…Â

WM: Â Aims to have a safe, respectful forum t
o challenge and protest against our western society

LW:  Agree wholeheartedly!!! Although rather than ‘western society’ I would just say a safe, respectful society;  the use of  ‘western society’  again sets up an us-them paradigm in which one set of values is presumed, unconsciously or otherwise, to be superior to another…Â

WM: Â Find that potentially aggressive people have more in common across cultural divides than they think.Â

I am not sure whether the website would actually get evidence that, for example a white supremacist and an Islamic jihadi ended up agreeing with one another, and then expose this with their consent, but that would be a key way to push reorganisation of people’s values.

LW: Â Agree!Â

WM: Â The website through its moderation would essentially provide training in how to express oneself and be assertive without being offensive, aggressive, or violent

The catch - this in itself is a Western value - but it will be used to moderate the site until that value changes!

LW:  I don’t think it’s so much a Western value as a human value. There are certainly some countries/cultures, it is true, that express themselves differently. The Dutch and Gemans, for example, can be more blunt than British or Australians, but they tend to temper this with a lot of discussion from what I could gather when I  lived there for a few years…But all societies, even Western societies, have individuals/groups/communities who are denied a voice and a place at the decision-making table…

WM: Â The site should provide creative solutions to our society and advance our values for the 21st century - help them ‘go up a level’ that is truly global, not just the western liberal view of what global should mean.

LW: Â YES!!!

WM: Â It needs to engage people who would otherwise be radical, stubborn, and offensive, not intellectuals who already write in the New Yorker or The Guardian.

People could use the website to challenge:

• free speech itself

• human rights either generally or specific human rightsÂ

• tolerance of unusual or dangerous practicesÂ

• assumptions of how different genders or sexualities should be treated

• how children are treated

• how old people are treated

• portrayals of people in the media

• capitalismÂ

• atheism

• multiculturalismÂ

• acceptance of all religionsÂ

• ‘innocent until proven guilty’

• ‘turning the other cheek’

• much more…

Any thoughts?

LW:  I think it’s a wonderful idea Warren! I would probably use the word ‘discuss’ rather than ‘challenge’ as it is a more neutral word.  ‘Challenge’ has connotations of conflict about it, at least until you are well down the road of a safe and respectful world. Scientists can challenge ‘facts’ but much of what people would be discussing on such a forum is a different way of viewing the world, but not one that is necessarily wrong’  (unless it is unsafe or disrespectful to others)…  Â

LW: Â Best of luck with your meeting on Thursday!

Leeanne

<
div style=“color: rgb(69, 69, 69); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;”>PS I hope that the PCT influence is clear?

Warren

[_Boris_Hartman]

Hi Alison…

···

From: Alison Powers [mailto:controlsystemsgroupconference@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 1:05 AM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Mad idea?

We are in a time when we need to push forward with this type of creative thinking as quickly as possible.

AP : One of the best things about the psychological aspect of PCT is that it teaches people not only to own and be responsible for their own thoughts and actions but to understand that it is not the environment that drives our thoughts and actions but a series of goals that we have developed within each of us based upon each of our own experiences, our own needs and desires.

HB : Great Alison. This is indeed one of the main points in PCT. Explain this to Rick. By his understanding »behavior is control«.  »Error« comes somehow from environment into organism through »Controlled Perceptual Vriable« and initiate control in organism. So the »error« from envirnment should be somehow eliminated by organism. But as you pointed out, : it is not the environment that drives our thoughts and actions…This is definitelly in accordance wtih what Bill and Mary Powers had to say about PCT.

AP : At any moment we have the ability to change if only we have enough insight into what motivates us. Let us hope that a PCT based dialogue may help those involved in such a discussion, feel that taking a more empathic, sympathetic, insightful, and peaceful approach to solving humanity’s problems is worthwhile.

It’s not mad. It’s brilliant. And starting with children could also serve as a great indirect way to get through to the parents.

HB : I must admitt that your PCT thinking is briliant. Where were you all these years when I and Rick had »battles« about who controls people. Not social neither physical enviroment. PCT as you say »teaches people to own and be responsible for their own thoughts and actions

Perfect !!!

Best,

Boris

On Jun 4, 2017 2:17 PM, “Rupert Young” rupert@perceptualrobots.com wrote:

Yes, I’m aware of Charlie Hebdo to that extent, but didn’t see how they were relevant to my post. I was talking about educating children to think for themselves so that they are not ripe for radicalisation in the first place

On 04/06/2017 18:32, Warren Mansell wrote:

Charlie Ebdo is a satirical secular magazine that is written by liberals and takes liberal values as a given and often provokes extremists with potentially offensive material, whereas this would be a forum for potential extremists to constructively criticise liberal values with arguments that due to screening and editing are not offensive but respectful. I am not sure how much they would stick with it as so much of their material wouldn’t get through the screening process, and I haven’t pre-empted what valid non-offensive criticisms would arise, but it seems like something very different from the current systems is needed. Maybe it could be piloted in adolescents first…

Warren

On 4 Jun 2017, at 18:03, rupert@perceptualrobots.com wrote:

Would you elucidate, I’m not familiar with Charlie Hebdo?

On 4 June 2017 17:02:40 BST, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

Thank you Rupert! I realised that this initiative would actually be the opposite of what Charlie Hebdo do…

On 4 Jun 2017, at 15:18, Rupert Young rupert@perceptualrobots.com wrote:

Sounds like a great idea!

I think all so-called solutions I hear about in the media are addressing only the symptoms of the problem and not the cause. We see the end result of the problem as ideology, but to get to the core of the problem we need to address the process by which that ideology develops. This issue goes far wider than specifically Islamic ideology including any ideology based upon unsubstantiated belief. For want of a better term call it Faith Ideology, which would also cover racism, nationalism etc, and Christianity, moderate or otherwise.

In this sense the process of faith (believing in stuff without basis, and not questioning those beliefs) is seen as a virtue across society. For example, Faith schools are seen as a good thing by the current UK government. I think this cultivates and perpetuates an environment where any beliefs, no matter how extreme, can take hold. If we bring up our children to believe in nonsense we should not be surprised that when anger, resentment and dissatisfaction is thrown into the mix those beliefs turn extreme.

If, however, we bring up our children in an environment of critical thinking and scepticism, where they naturally question both what they are told and their own internal beliefs, and to be content with a neutral perspective rather than requiring certainty then they are more likely to be immune from extremism and radicalisation.

A solution that is put forward that takes that scepticism approach could extinguish extremism within a generation. If not then it will remain with us for many generations to come.

Unfortunately I don’t feel very optimistic that this will change as the moderates (Christian and Muslim) and the general “establishment” support this process themselves; they are personally invested in it, for whatever reason.

I would be very interested in what Prof Pilkington thinks about this and if there is any recognition of it amongst those who are in positions of appropriate influence.

Regards,
Rupert

On 04/06/2017 12:51, Warren Mansell wrote:

Ok, I can’t help trying to use PCT to try to address our current issues with terrorism. And for anyone asking, yes I was in London last night, but luckily far away from the area of the attacks.

This morning I was reading the responses to our (Muslim) Mayor Of London’s commentary. They were shocking, on both sides. So offensive to each other. Conflict escalation big time. I am also struck by the need to want to moderate social media and both the impossibility of this and its apparent clash with liberal values. I was also struck by how much in common people those who express themselves in aggressive and offensive ways have with one another! If they weren’t aware they were of opposite cultures, and could jointly have a go at a third party, they would get on marvellously!

It strikes me that the problem is nothing to do with religion and culture and everything to do with the kindness and respect one receives growing up. I suddenly thought of our Mayor’s use of the word ‘cowardly’ to describe them. This is not quite right but it points to the fact that there seems to be no safe forum for people to criticise our western/liberal values without it getting nasty. What if there was? Like good scientists, shouldn’t we all value receiving constructive criticism? Shouldn’t everyone have the chance to develop the skill of resolving conflict without it escalating to a degree that it makes it worse or causes other conflicts?

So, the idea is a website… see below … Note, this is not pie in the sky. I have a meeting with the holder of a massive international anti-radicalisation grant - Prof Hilary Pilkington on Thursday. I also want to talk to her about MOL as a method to train community leaders to help raise self-awareness in ‘angry’ people in their community as a prev entative strategy.

THE IDEA. YES It is a bunch of paradoxes - a forum for criticism of liberal values moderated in a big brother way by a liberally minded expert - but that is the whole point. It’s like family therapy via social media… the biggest challenge is the 24hr expert moderation of content…

Free speech site that openly encourages the criticism of British/American/Western/liberal values but is tightly moderated to remove or edit ALL violent and offensive language.

Aims to have a safe, respectful forum t o challenge and protest against our western society

Find that potentially aggressive people have more in common across cultural divides than they think. I am not sure whether the website would actually get evidence that, for example a white supremacist and an Islamic jihadi ended up agreeing with one another, and then expose this with their consent, but that would be a key way to push reorganisation of people’s values.

The website through its moderation would essentially provide training in how to express oneself and be assertive without being offensive, aggressive, or violent

The catch - this in itself is a Western value - but it will be used to moderate the site until that value changes!

The site should provide creative solutions to our society and advance our values for the 21st century - help them ‘go up a level’ that is truly global, not just the western liberal view of what global should mean.

It needs to engage people who would otherwise be radical, stubborn, and offensive, not intellectuals who already write in the New Yorker or The Guardian.

People could use the website to challenge:

• free speech itself

• human rights either generally or specific human rights

• tolerance of unusual or dangerous practices

• assumptions of how different genders or sexualities should be treated

• how children are treated

• how old people are treated

• portrayals of people in the media

• capitalism

• atheism

• multiculturalism

• acceptance of all religions

• ‘innocent until proven guilty’

• ‘turning the other cheek’

• much more…

Any thoughts?

< div style=“color: rgb(69, 69, 69); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;”>PS I hope that the PCT influence is clear?

Warren

Regards,
Dr Rupert Young
www.perceptualrobots.com

Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

[_Boris_Hartman]

Hi Alison.

···

From: Alison Powers [mailto:controlsystemsgroupconference@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 5:58 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Mad idea?

AP: Here are some thoughts regarding moderation: There is a website I frequent that is heavily moderated since there are people who log on and begin ranting on with hateful language which disrupts the overall effort. You do not need to edit anyone’s language.

HB : if you are talking about me, than you can say directly to whom your post is meant. Whatever you have in mind is very old problem. Ranting, insulting was introduced to CSGnet mostly by Rick. That’s not the invention of those who log on and begin ranting. They were taught by a master Rich himself. You just search the archive for Ricks »comments« and you will understand that nobody »begin ranting« on fresh here on CSGnet. It’s very old stuff. So your statement that somebody log on and begin »ranting« is misleading. But if you think on time when Rick log on and start ranting then I agree with you, So why don’t you propose him for psychotherapy.?

The problem is not one dimenssional as you think. So you have to put on both sides to psychoterapy or mediation process. . Otherwise I could think that you are trying to insult me that I’m mad or stupid and I need psychoterapy because I’m keeping CSGnet forum in PCT borders. I thnk that you should first have to deal with Rick because he is not offering any evidence for his imaginational constructs which has nothing to do with PCT. I think that you are too protective for him and not enough protective for science.

I could also imagine that CSGnet forum is getting back into times of »inquisition« ?. Are you trying to say that »holly« word of Rick and you has to be listened with any doubt as Church was doing for thousands years ? What are you really aming at ? To disable those who are not in accordance with Rick ???

AP : You simply set for the rule that all posts will be monitored for negative, unproductive comments and will not be posted if they only serve to disrupt and that moderators will be in contact with the violating poster to engage in a therapeutic discussion about how to express themselves in a non-violent, peaceful way.

HB : So who will be in »inquisition« board and how will the board select the »comments« which are negative and unproductive ? I assume that moderstors will be educated in »psychotherapy« or just any will do ? Who are those moderators that will be competent to »choose« what is negative and counter productive and will be quakified for psychotherapy job. ? And how will we know that they are educated for psychoterapy seance ?

What can be more productive from Bills’ literature and his understanding of how organisms function ? If I wouldn’t take care, Bills’ word would probbaly be very rarely present on CSGnet if at all.

And I was proposing for at least five years that you arrange board (core group) of scientist that will evaluate »comments« for being in accordance with PCT. As you always stand on Rick side despite the science. I’m sorry to doubt about credibility of who ever will select »comments«, because I have a feeling that into »negative« selection could be sorted also »commnets« which criticize Rick and his RCT. Could you also think that you could be responsable for all those »comments« which are »negative« in whatever sense you thought ?

AP : The moderators could then have a private dialogue with that individual and have a discussion about how the elevation in their emotional response has to do with an internal conflict, that anger is often an indicator that your self-preservation reference levels are threatened (just trying to come up with an example even if its not the best one). Give them a chance to rephrase their language so that they may still express their viewpoint on the website (this is where the therapeutic aspect would come in). Help them re-engage on a more moderate level that supports an ongoing dialogue. Possibly start a blog that would discuss that particular conflict that individual was experiencing to share what was going on so that others who are suffering the same reaction could benefit. I know this sounds a bit big-brotherish but this kind of moderation would be a problem if it were done on a mass, society-wide, scale. Doing it on a discussion website for the purpose of maintaining peaceful dialogue is a different matter.

HB : You don’t need moderators which role can be very questionable ? Why don’t you do it yourself ? You showed that you have enough PCT knowledge to settle problem between me and Rick. Is this proposal positive enough ?

Best,

Boris

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 2:18 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Leeanne,

I think you have tweeted it just right. ‘Challenge and discuss human values’ is a better way of putting it, and it should be open to all.

I have one tweet to add to yours. I agree that the point is to set the rules and hope people stick to them, but reading the habitual hateful language on Facebook I have a worry that in the first instance some people have real difficulties asserting their views without hate and offensiveness! The aim of the site is not really to engage people who already find it easy to assert themselves respectfully although they are welcome to join in and provide examples. It’s not a problem in a private therapy session but where those statements are for all to see I think we risk locking the stable door after the horse has bolted for some people - the damage is done. One method might be that if you get a certain number of unedited contributions passed without being offensive/aggressive/inciting violence/demeaning others then you get to be unedited.

As you know I believer that free speech is not only right but it is potentially therapeutic. But I am quite confident one can learn to talk freely within constraints and it is still useful, in fact more useful.

The moderator would not be making any judgements about the contributor. Thinking about it, the moderator could be required to be anonymous to the contributor and just screen each contribution separately. The moderator is just applying some rules, rules which are themselves open to discussion…

It’s the hard work of these moderators that is the biggest hurdle I think!

Warren

On 5 Jun 2017, at 04:31, Wright Family jlws.wright@optusnet.com.au wrote:

[From Leeanne Wright 92017.06.05.11.54)]

Hi Waren,

I hope you don’t mind me adding my thoughts here?

On 4 Jun 2017, at 9:51 pm, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

WM: Ok, I can’t help trying to use PCT to try to address our current issues with terrorism. And for anyone asking, yes I was in London last night, but luckily far away from the area of the attacks.

LW: I’m glad you’re ok. I saw a report on the news this morning of a stampede at a football match in Turin, Italy, after the crowd was apparently spooked by the noise of a firecracker going off…… Overlaying this, it was lovely to see foottage of the Manchester concert.

WM: This morning I was reading the responses to our (Muslim) Mayor Of London’s commentary. They were shocking, on both sides. So offensive to each other. Conflict escalation big time. I am also struck by the need to want to moderate social media and both the impossibility of this and its apparent clash with liberal values. I was also struck by how much in common people those who express themselves in aggressive and offensive ways have with one another! If they weren’t aware they were of opposite cultures, and could jointly have a go at a third party, they would get on marvellously!

LW: The idea of moderating a social media site, a classroom, a debate, a town hall meeting etc. is to to allow constructive dialogue to take place within an environment that is safe and respectful for all parties. That requires rules to ensure that people actually feel safe and respected. To me this is the fundamental nature of a free or liberal society. The rules in a ‘free’ society have as their goal ensuring that all citizens feel safe and respected at all times. To this end, forums where people can freely discuss and debate issues that concern them should be promoted, but without moderation they run the risk of devolving into conflict.

WM: It strikes me that the problem is nothing to do with religion and culture and everything to do with the kindness and respect one receives growing up.

LW: I agree with a post by Rupert that to an extent there is a problem with the type of faith-based, non-critical thinking promulgated by religion in general…. Whether by design, or as a by-product, it seems to me to foster an us-them mentality, a judgemental stance that makes conflict more rather than less likely…. There is no doubt that many religions teach kindness and respect, but it seems to be kindness and respect for others that look, think and act the same as you….

WM: I suddenly thought of our Mayor’s use of the word ‘cowardly’ to describe them. This is not quite right but it points to the fact that there seems to be no safe forum for people to criticise our western/liberal values without it getting nasty.

LW: Absolutely agree! See my point above. Facebook certainly hasn’t created a safe forum for its users. People need to ‘hide’ their remarks or create a small circle of ‘friends’ if they don’t wish to be attacked. This means that you are only privy to the comments of people that generally already think the same as you do, rather than opening up opportunities for constructive dialogue. It is making the problem worse rather than better in many ways….

WM: What if there was? Like good scientists, shouldn’t we all value receiving constructive criticism? Shouldn’t everyone have the chance to develop the skill of resolving conflict without it escalating to a degree that it makes it worse or causes other conflicts?

LW: I think the CSG and MoL forums could be excellent forums for developing a type of rule-based forum model based on PCT. To a large extent from what I have seen in the short time I have been following discussions, the people already involved in these forums and their interest in PCT has meant that they have been able to self-moderate pretty successfully. There have been concerns from time to time, however, even in these forums, and I don’t see a problem with moderating them as a model for what could be done with forums on a larger scale. Self-moderation or regulation is ultimately self-interested and neutral ‘third-partyâ€? moderation ensures everyone feels safe and respected, so that free speech doesn’t turn into hate speech…(as happens on forums like Facebook)… and newcomers feeleel safe to contribute…

WM: So, the idea is a website… see below … Note, this is not pie in the sky. I have a meeting with the holder of a massive international anti-radicalisation grant - Prof Hilary Pilkington on Thursday. I also want to talk to her about MOL as a method to train community leaders to help raise self-awareness in ‘angry’ people in their community as a prev entative strategy.

LW: That sounds like a fabulous opportunity. It would be great to go ‘up a level’ from ‘ us’ and ‘ them’ to ‘we’ in our communities… You referred to this above, in terms of realising how much mmore we all have in common with each other, rather than focusing exclusively on our differences…

WM: THE IDEA. YES It is a bunch of paradoxes - a forum for criticism of liberal values moderated in a big brother way by a liberally minded expert - but that is the whole point. It’s like family therapy via social media… the biggest challenge is the 24hr expert moderation of content…

LW: I would personally think of it as a discussion of values, rather than a criticism of them. A way of giving people a voice. The value is in listening, even if you don’t agree with someone…

WM: Free speech site that openly encourages the criticism of British/American/Western/liberal values but is tightly moderated to remove or edit ALL violent and offensive language.

LW: Who would be participating in the forum if they are going to be edited? Shouldn’t participation be based on following the rules that everyone in the forum feel safe and respected? Editing someone’s words runs the real risk of misunderstanding, misrepresenting or misinterpreting those words and the person who spoke/wrote them…

WM: Aims to have a safe, respectful forum t o challenge and protest against our western society

LW: Agree wholeheartedly!!! Although rather than ‘western society’ I would just say a safe, respectful society; the use of ‘western society’ again sets up an us-them paradigm in which one set of values is presumed, unconsciously or otherwise, to be superior to another…

WM: Find that potentially aggressive people have more in common across cultural divides than they think.

I am not sure whether the website would actually get evidence that, for example a white supremacist and an Islamic jihadi ended up agreeing with one another, and then expose this with their consent, but that would be a key way to push reorganisation of people’s values.

LW: Agree!

WM: The website through its moderation would essentially provide training in how to express oneself and be assertive without being offensive, aggressive, or violent

The catch - this in itself is a Western value - but it will be used to moderate the site until that value changes!

LW: I don’t think it’s so much a Western value as a human value. There are certainly some countries/cultures, it is true, that express themselves differently. The Dutch and Gemans, for example, can be more blunt than British or Australians, but they tend to temper this with a lot of discussion from what I could gather when I lived there for a few years…But all societies, even Western societies, have individuals/groupss/communities who are denied a voice and a place at the decision-making table…

WM: The site should provide creative solutions to our society and advance our values for the 21st century - help them ‘go up a level’ that is truly global, not just the western liberal view of what global should mean.

LW: YES!!!

WM: It needs to engage people who would otherwise be radical, stubborn, and offensive, not intellectuals who already write in the New Yorker or The Guardian.

People could use the website to challenge:

• free speech itself

• human rights either generally or specific human rights

• tolerance of unusual or dangerous practices

• assumptions of how different genders or sexualities should be treated

• how children are treated

• how old people are treated

• portrayals of people in the media

• capitalism

• atheism

• multiculturalism

• acceptance of all religions

• ‘innocent until proven guilty’

• ‘turning the other cheek’

• much more…

Any thoughts?

LW: I think it’s a wonderful idea Warren! I would probably use the word ‘discuss’ rather than ‘challenge’ as it is a more neutral word. ‘Challenge’ has connotations of conflict about it, at least until you are well down the road of a safe and respectful world. Scientists can challenge ‘facts’ but much of what people would be discussing on such a forum is a different way of viewing the world, but not one that is necessarily wrong’ (unless it is unsafe or disrespectful to others)… <

LW: Best of luck with your meeting on Thursday!

Leeanne

< div style=“color: rgb(69, 69, 69); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;”>PS I hope that the PCT influence is clear?

Warren

[Alison_Powers]

Boris - my last post was intended as a continuation of the discussion on this post. You are a bit off course with this. Did you read this entire thread?

···

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Boris Hartman boris.hartman@masicom.net wrote:

Hi Alison.

Â

From: Alison Powers [mailto:controlsystemsgroupconference@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 5:58 PM
To: csgnet@lists.illinois.edu
Subject: Re: Mad idea?

Â

AP: Here are some thoughts regarding moderation: There is a website I frequent that is heavily moderated since there are people who log on and begin ranting on with hateful language which disrupts the overall effort. You do not need to edit anyone’s language.

Â

HB : if you are talking about me, than you can say directly to whom your post is meant. Whatever you have in mind is very old problem. Ranting, insulting was introduced to CSGnet mostly by Rick. That’s not the invention of those who log on and begin ranting. They were taught by a master Rich himself. You just search the archive for Ricks »comments« and you will understand that nobody »begin ranting« on fresh here on CSGnet. It’s very old stuff. So your statement that somebody log on and begin »ranting« is misleading. But if you think on time when Rick log on and start ranting then I agree with you, So why don’t you propose him for psychotherapy.?

Â

The problem is not one dimenssional as you think. So you have to put on both sides to psychoterapy or mediation process. . Otherwise I could think that you are trying to insult me that I’m mad or stupid and I need psychoterapy because I’m keeping CSGnet forum in PCT borders. I thnk that you should first have to deal with Rick because he is not offering any evidence for his imaginational constructs which has nothing to do with PCT. I think that you are too protective for him and not enough protective for science.

Â

I could also imagine that CSGnet forum is getting back into times of »inquisition« ?. Are you trying to say that »holly« word of Rick and you has to be listened with any doubt as Church was doing for thousands years ? What are you really aming at ? To disable those who are not in accordance with Rick ???

Â

AP : You simply set for the rule that all posts will be monitored for negative, unproductive comments and will not be posted if they only serve to disrupt and that moderators will be in contact with the violating poster to engage in a therapeutic discussion about how to express themselves in a non-violent, peaceful way.

Â

HB : So who will be in »inquisition« board and how will the board select the »comments« which are negative and unproductive ? I assume that moderstors will be educated in »psychotherapy« or just any will do ? Who are those moderators that will be competent to »choose« what is negative and counter productive and will be quakified for psychotherapy job. ? And how will we know that they are educated for psychoterapy seance ?

Â

What can be more productive from Bills’ literature and his understanding of how organisms function ? If I wouldn’t take care, Bills’ word would probbaly be very rarely present on CSGnet if at all.

Â

And I was proposing for at least five years that you arrange board (core group) of scientist that will evaluate »comments« for being in accordance with PCT. As you always stand on Rick side despite the science. I’m sorry to doubt about credibility of who ever will select »comments«, because I have a feeling that into »negative« selection could be sorted also »commnets« which criticize Rick and his RCT. Could you also think that you could be responsable for all those »comments« which are »negative« in whatever sense you thought ?

Â

AP : The moderators could then have a private dialogue with that individual and have a discussion about how the elevation in their emotional response has to do with an internal conflict, that anger is often an indicator that your self-preservation reference levels are threatened (just trying to come up with an example even if its not the best one). Give them a chance to rephrase their language so that they may still express their viewpoint on the website (this is where the therapeutic aspect would come in). Help them re-engage on a more moderate level that supports an ongoing dialogue. Possibly start a blog that would discuss that particular conflict that individual was experiencing to share what was going on so that others who are suffering the same reaction could benefit. I know this sounds a bit big-brotherish but this kind of moderation would be a problem if it were done on a mass, society-wide, scale. Doing it on a discussion website for the purpose of maintaining peaceful dialogue is a different matter.

Â

HB : You don’t need moderators which role can be very questionable ? Why don’t you do it yourself ? You showed that you have enough PCT knowledge to settle problem between me and Rick. Is this proposal positive enough ?

Â

Best,

Â

Boris

Â

Â

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 2:18 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Leeanne,

I think you have tweeted it just right. ‘Challenge and discuss human values’ is a better way of putting it, and it should be open to all.Â

I have one tweet to add to yours. I agree that the point is to set the rules and hope people stick to them, but reading the habitual hateful language on Facebook I have a worry that in the first instance some people have real difficulties asserting their views without hate and offensiveness! The aim of the site is not really to engage people who already find it easy to assert themselves respectfully although they are welcome to join in and provide examples. It’s not a problem in a private therapy session but where those statements are for all to see I think we risk locking the stable door after the horse has bolted for some people - the damage is done. One method might be that if you get a certain number of unedited contributions passed without being offensive/aggressive/inciting violence/demeaning others then you get to be unedited.Â

As you know I believer that free speech is not only right but it is potentially therapeutic. But I am quite confident one can learn to talk freely within constraints and it is still useful, in fact more useful.Â

The moderator would not be making any judgements about the contributor. Thinking about it, the moderator could be required to be anonymous to the contributor and just screen each contribution separately. The moderator is just applying some rules, rules which are themselves open to discussion…

It’s the hard work of these moderators that is the biggest hurdle I think!

Warren

Â

Â

On 5 Jun 2017, at 04:31, Wright Family jlws.wright@optusnet.com.au wrote:

[From Leeanne Wright 92017.06.05.11.54)]

Â

Hi Waren,

Â

I hope you don’t mind me adding my thoughts here? Â

Â

Â

On 4 Jun 2017, at 9:51 pm, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

Â

WM: Â Ok, I can’t help trying to use PCT to try to address our current issues with terrorism. And for anyone asking, yes I was in London last night, but luckily far away from the area of the attacks.

Â

LW:  I’m glad you’re ok. I saw a report on the news this morning of a stampede at a football match in Turin, Italy, after the crowd was apparently spooked by the noise of a firecracker going off…… Overlaying this, it was lovely to see footage of thhe Manchester concert.Â

Â

WM: Â This morning I was reading the responses to our (Muslim) Mayor Of London’s commentary. They were shocking, on both sides. So offensive to each other. Conflict escalation big time. I am also struck by the need to want to moderate social media and both the impossibility of this and its apparent clash with liberal values. I was also struck by how much in common people those who express themselves in aggressive and offensive ways have with one another! If they weren’t aware they were of opposite cultures, and could jointly have a go at a third party, they would get on marvellously!

Â

LW:  The idea of moderating a social media site, a classroom, a debate, a town hall meeting etc. is to to allow constructive dialogue to take place within an environment that is safe and respectful for all parties. That requires rules to ensure that people actually feel safe and respected. To me this is the fundamental nature of a free or liberal society. The rules in a ‘free’ society have as their goal ensuring that all citizens feel safe and respected at all times. To this end, forums where people can freely discuss and debate issues that concern them should be promoted, but without moderation they run the risk of devolving into conflict. Â

Â

Â

WM: Â It strikes me that the problem is nothing to do with religion and culture and everything to do with the kindness and respect one receives growing up.

Â

LW: Â I agree with a post by Rupert that to an extent there is a problem with the type of faith-based, non-critical thinking promulgated by religion in general…. Whether by design, or as a by-product, it seems too me to foster an us-them mentality, a judgemental stance that makes conflict more rather than less likely…. There is no doubt that many religiions teach kindness and respect, but it seems to be kindness and respect for others that look, think and act the same as you….>

Â

WM: Â I suddenly thought of our Mayor’s use of the word ‘cowardly’ to describe them. This is not quite right but it points to the fact that there seems to be no safe forum for people to criticise our western/liberal values without it getting nasty.

Â

LW:  Absolutely agree! See my point above. Facebook certainly hasn’t created a safe forum for its users. People need to ‘hide’ their remarks or create a small circle of ‘friends’ if they don’t wish to be attacked. This means that you are only privy to the comments of people that generally already think the same as you do, rather than opening up opportunities for constructive dialogue. It is making the problem worse rather than better in many ways…./p>

WM: Â What if there was? Like good scientists, shouldn’t we all value receiving constructive criticism? Shouldn’t everyone have the chance to develop the skill of resolving conflict without it escalating to a degree that it makes it worse or causes other conflicts?

Â

LW:  I think the CSG and MoL forums could be excellent forums for developing a type of rule-based forum model based on PCT. To a large extent from what I have seen in the short time I have been following discussions, the people already involved in these forums and their interest in PCT has meant that they have been able to self-moderate pretty successfully. There have been concerns from time to time, however, even in these forums, and I don’t see a problem with moderating them as a model for what could be done with forums on a larger scale. Self-moderation or regulation is ultimately self-interested and neutral ‘third-partyâ€? moderation ensures everyone feels safe and respected, so that free speech doesn’t turn into hate speech…(as happens on forums llike Facebook)… and newcomers feel safe to contribute…/u>

Â

Â

WM:  So, the idea is a website… see below … Note, this is not pie in the sky. I have a meeting with the holder of a massive international anti-radicalisation grant - Prof Hilary Pilkington  on Thursday. I also want to talk to her about MOL as a method to train community leaders to help raise self-awareness in ‘angry’ people in their community as a prev entative strategy.

Â

LW:  That sounds like a fabulous opportunity. It would be great to go ‘up a level’  from ‘ us’ and ‘ them’  to ‘we’ in our communities… You referred to this above, in terms of realising how much more we all have in common with each other, rather than focusing exclusively on our differences…

Â

WM:  THE IDEA. YES It is a bunch of paradoxes  - a forum for criticism of liberal values moderated in a big brother way by a liberally minded expert - but that is the whole point. It’s like family therapy via social media… the biggest challenge is the 24hr expert moderation of content…

Â

LW:  I would personally think of it as a discussion of values, rather than a criticism of them. A way of giving people a voice. The value is in listening, even if you don’t agree with someone…

Â

Â

WM: Â Free speech site that openly encourages the criticism of British/American/Western/liberal values but is tightly moderated to remove or edit ALL violent and offensive language.Â

Â

LW:  Who would be participating in the forum if they are going to be edited? Shouldn’t participation be based on following the rules that everyone in the forum feel safe and respected? Editing someone’s words runs the real risk of misunderstanding, misrepresenting or misinterpreting those words and the person who spoke/wrote them…Â

Â

WM: Â Aims to have a safe, respectful forum t o challenge and protest against our western society

Â

LW:  Agree wholeheartedly!!! Although rather than ‘western society’ I would just say a safe, respectful society;  the use of  ‘western society’  again sets up an us-them paradigm in which one set of values is presumed, unconsciously or otherwise, to be superior to another…Â

Â

WM: Â Find that potentially aggressive people have more in common across cultural divides than they think.Â

I am not sure whether the website would actually get evidence that, for example a white supremacist and an Islamic jihadi ended up agreeing with one another, and then expose this with their consent, but that would be a key way to push reorganisation of people’s values.

Â

LW: Â Agree!Â

Â

WM: Â The website through its moderation would essentially provide training in how to express oneself and be assertive without being offensive, aggressive, or violent

Â

The catch - this in itself is a Western value - but it will be used to moderate the site until that value changes!

Â

LW:  I don’t think it’s so much a Western value as a human value. There are certainly some countries/cultures, it is true, that express themselves differently. The Dutch and Gemans, for example, can be more blunt than British or Australians, but they tend to temper this with a lot of discussion from what I could gather when I  lived there for a few years…But all societies, even Western societies, have individuals/groups/communities who are denied a voice and a place at the decision-making table…

Â

Â

WM: Â The site should provide creative solutions to our society and advance our values for the 21st century - help them ‘go up a level’ that is truly global, not just the western liberal view of what global should mean.

Â

LW: Â YES!!!

Â

WM: Â It needs to engage people who would otherwise be radical, stubborn, and offensive, not intellectuals who already write in the New Yorker or The Guardian.

Â

Â

People could use the website to challenge:

• free speech itself

• human rights either generally or specific human rightsÂ

• tolerance of unusual or dangerous practicesÂ

• assumptions of how different genders or sexualities should be treated

• how children are treated

• how old people are treated

• portrayals of people in the media

• capitalismÂ

• atheism

• multiculturalismÂ

• acceptance of all religionsÂ

• ‘innocent until proven guilty’

• ‘turning the other cheek’

• much more…

Â

Any thoughts?

Â

LW:  I think it’s a wonderful idea Warren! I would probably use the word ‘discuss’ rather than ‘challenge’ as it is a more neutral word.  ‘Challenge’ has connotations of conflict about it, at least until you are well down the road of a safe and respectful world. Scientists can challenge ‘facts’ but much of what people would be discussing on such a forum is a different way of viewing the world, but not one that is necessarily wrong’  (unless it is unsafe or disrespectful to others)…  Â

Â

LW: Â Best of luck with your meeting on Thursday!

Â

Leeanne

Â

< div style=“color: rgb(69, 69, 69); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;”>PS I hope that the PCT influence is clear?

Â

Warren

Â

Â

Â

Â

Â

Â

Â

[John_and_Leeanne_Wri]

Hi Warren,

I agree that the work of the moderators is potentially the biggest hurdle too! The rules need to be unambiguous enough that there is isn’t constant misinterpretation in their application yet flexible enough to apply to an individual situation. The other issue, as you mention, is how to engage people in a frank yet respectful discussion. I think your idea of starting with young people is a good one. Training moderators to be curious rather than judgemental, and at the same time keep the forum environment safe and respectful is the challenge. This is easy to do in a ‘live’ forum, like a classroom, where you can see everyone else and the rules are simply that everyone is allowed to speak without interruption before others are allowed to reply. We used to do this regularly in my English classes (back in another lifetime) by putting all the chairs in a big circle. It worked fabulously well as a discussion tool and allowed students (and me) to incorporate ideas into their own thinking that would never have occurred to them on their own. Round table discussions are nothing new, however.

There is a television program that airs every Tuesday night in Australia called “Insightâ€? on a station called SBS. It deals with contentious issues (a different topic each week) with a moderator who asks questions and seeks to give all sides of the issue a voice… The goal is not to change people’s minds, altthough I imagine this happens often as people listen. Although everyone is welcome to speak, some people seem to come just to listen….

The topic/question is the engagement tool…If you put a topic out there for discussion, you allow people the freedom to engage (or not) rather than having to convince/engage/persuade them to participate…I think we need to think oof freedom more as a process rather than as content… If you are doinng things in a safe and respectful way (the process) then the content may be contentious (people may disagree) but it isn’t violent or aggressive (or else it wouldn’t by definition be safe and respectful)…I suspect it doesn’t occur to many people (or countries for that matter) that it is ok to disagree on some things as long as non-one’s safety or respect is violated. Some people are also offended by others who simply disagree with them and rather than looking inwards they call foul (the issue of women breastfeeding in public comes to mind here - many people seem to find it offensive even though it is not a violation of anyone’s safety or respect - we don’t ask adults to eat behind curtains)…

Individual therapy has a different set of boundaries to a live forum or online forum, but even there, I imagine, an individual must ensure that they act in ways that are safe and respectful of the therapist and others……There are always consequences for individuals who threaten thhe safety of others…. You can talk freely about how you feel, however, if a moderator reminds you of the rule that you must be respectful and can only talk for yourself and your own feelings…

Just some thoughts that were rattling around in my head……

<
Regards

Leeanne

···

On 5 Jun 2017, at 6:18 pm, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Leeanne,

I think you have tweeted it just right. ‘Challenge and discuss human values’ is a better way of putting it, and it should be open to all.

I have one tweet to add to yours. I agree that the point is to set the rules and hope people stick to them, but reading the habitual hateful language on Facebook I have a worry that in the first instance some people have real difficulties asserting their views without hate and offensiveness! The aim of the site is not really to engage people who already find it easy to assert themselves respectfully although they are welcome to join in and provide examples. It’s not a problem in a private therapy session but where those statements are for all to see I think we risk locking the stable door after the horse has bolted for some people - the damage is done. One method might be that if you get a certain number of unedited contributions passed without being offensive/aggressive/inciting violence/demeaning others then you get to be unedited.

As you know I believer that free speech is not only right but it is potentially therapeutic. But I am quite confident one can learn to talk freely within constraints and it is still useful, in fact more useful.

The moderator would not be making any judgements about the contributor. Thinking about it, the moderator could be required to be anonymous to the contributor and just screen each contribution separately. The moderator is just applying some rules, rules which are themselves open to discussion…

It’s the hard work of these moderators that is the biggest hurdle I think!

Warren

On 5 Jun 2017, at 04:31, Wright Family jlws.wright@optusnet.com.au wrote:

[From Leeanne Wright 92017.06.05.11.54)]

Hi Waren,

I hope you don’t mind me adding my thoughts here?

On 4 Jun 2017, at 9:51 pm, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

WM: Ok, I can’t help trying to use PCT to try to address our current issues with terrorism. And for anyone asking, yes I was in London last night, but luckily far away from the area of the attacks.

LW: I’m glad you’re ok. I saw a report on the news this morning of a stampede at a football match in Turin, Italy, after the crowd was apparently spooked by the noise of a firecracker going off…… Overlaying this, it was lovely to see footage of the Manchester concert.

WM: This morning I was reading the responses to our (Muslim) Mayor Of London’s commentary. They were shocking, on both sides. So offensive to each other. Conflict escalation big time. I am also struck by the need to want to moderate social media and both the impossibility of this and its apparent clash with liberal values. I was also struck by how much in common people those who express themselves in aggressive and offensive ways have with one another! If they weren’t aware they were of opposite cultures, and could jointly have a go at a third party, they would get on marvellously!

LW: The idea of moderating a social media site, a classroom, a debate, a town hall meeting etc. is to to allow constructive dialogue to take place within an environment that is safe and respectful for all parties. That requires rules to ensure that people actually feel safe and respected. To me this is the fundamental nature of a free or liberal society. The rules in a ‘free’ society have as their goal ensuring that all citizens feel safe and respected at all times. To this end, forums where people can freely discuss and debate issues that concern them should be promoted, but without moderation they run the risk of devolving into conflict.

WM: It strikes me that the problem is nothing to do
with religion and culture and everything to do with the kindness and respect one receives growing up.

LW: I agree with a post by Rupert that to an extent there is a problem with the type of faith-based, non-critical thinking promulgated by religion in general…. Whether by design, or as a by-product, it seems to me to foster an us-them mentality, a judgemental stance that makes conflict more rather than less likely…. There is no doubt that many religions teach kindness aand respect, but it seems to be kindness and respect for others that look, think and act the same as you….

WM: I suddenly thought of our Mayor’s use of the word ‘cowardly’ to describe them. This is not quite right but it points to the fact that there seems to be no safe forum for people to criticise our western/liberal values without it getting nasty.

LW: Absolutely agree! See my point above. Facebook certainly hasn’t created a safe forum for its users. People need to ‘hide’ their remarks or create a small circle of ‘friends’ if they don’t wish to be attacked. This means that you are only privy to the comments of people that generally already think the same as you do, rather than opening up opportunities for constructive dialogue. It is making the problem worse rather than better in many ways….

WM: What if there was? Like good scientists, shouldn’t we all value receiving constructive criticism? Shouldn’t everyone have the chance to develop the skill of resolving conflict without it escalating to a degree that it makes it worse or causes other conflicts?

LW: I think the CSG and MoL forums could be excellent forums for developing a type of rule-based forum model based on PCT. To a large extent from what I have seen in the short time I have been following discussions, the people already involved in these forums and their interest in PCT has meant that they have been able to self-moderate pretty successfully. There have been concerns from time to time, however, even in these forums, and I don’t see a problem with moderating them as a model for what could be done with forums on a larger scale. Self-moderation or regulation is ultimately self-interested and neutral ‘third-partyâ€? moderation ensures everyone feels safe and respected, so that free speech doesn’t turn into hate speech…(as happens on forums like Facebook)… and newcomersers feel safe to contribute…

WM: So, the idea is a website… see below … Note, this is not pie in the sky. I have a meeting with the holder of a massive international anti-radicalisation grant - Prof Hilary Pilkington on Thursday. I also want to talk to her about MOL as a method to train community leaders to help raise self-awareness in ‘angry’ people in their community as a prev
entative strategy.

LW: That sounds like a fabulous opportunity. It would be great to go ‘up a level’ from ‘ us’ and ‘ them’ to ‘we’ in our communities… You referred to tthis above, in terms of realising how much more we all have in common with each other, rather than focusing exclusively on our differences…

WM: THE IDEA. YES It is a bunch of paradoxes - a forum for criticism of liberal values moderated in a big brother way by a liberally minded expert - but that is the whole point. It’s like family therapy via social media… the biggest challenge is the 24hr expert moderation of content…

LW: I would personally think of it as a discussion of values, rather than a criticism of them. A way of giving people a voice. The value is in listening, even if you don’t agree with someone…

WM: Free speech site that openly encourages the criticism of British/American/Western/liberal values but is tightly moderated to remove or edit ALL violent and offensive language.

LW: Who would be participating in the forum if they are going to be edited? Shouldn’t participation be based on following the rules that everyone in the forum feel safe and respected? Editing someone’s words runs the real risk of misunderstanding, misrepresenting or misinterpreting those words and the person who spoke/wrote them…

WM: Aims to have a safe, respectful forum t
o challenge and protest against our western society

WM: Find that potentially aggressive people have more in common across cultural divides than they think.

I am not sure whether the website would actually get evidence that, for example a white supremacist and an Islamic jihadi ended up agreeing with one another, and then expose this with their consent, but that would be a key way to push reorganisation of people’s values.

WM: The website through its moderation would essentially provide training in how to express oneself and be assertive without being offensive, aggressive, or violent

The catch - this in itself is a Western value - but it will be used to moderate the site until that value changes!

WM: The site should provide creative solutions to our society and advance our values for the 21st century - help them ‘go up a level’ that is truly global, not just the western liberal view of what global should mean.

WM: It needs to engage people who would otherwise be radical, stubborn, and offensive, not intellectuals who already write in the New Yorker or The Guardian.

People could use the website to challenge:

• free speech itself

• human rights either generally or specific human rights

• tolerance of unusual or dangerous practices

• assumptions of how different genders or sexualities should be treated

• how children are treated

• how old people are treated

• portrayals of people in the media

• capitalism

• atheism

• multiculturalism

• acceptance of all religions

• ‘innocent until proven guilty’

• ‘turning the other cheek’

• much more…

Any thoughts?

LW: Agree wholeheartedly!!! Although rather than ‘western society’ I would just say a safe, respectful society; the use of ‘western society’ again sets up an us-them paradigm in which one set of values is presumed, unconsciously or otherwise, to be superior to another…
LW: Agree! LW: I don’t think it’s so much a Western value as a human value. There are certainly some countries/cultures, it is true, that express themselves differently. The Dutch and Gemans, for example, can be more blunt than British or Australians, but they tend to temper this with a lot of discussion from what I could gather when I lived there for a few years…But all societies, even Western societies, have individuals/groupss/communities who are denied a voice and a place at the decision-making table…

LW: YES!!!
LW: I think it’s a wonderful idea Warren! I would probably use the word ‘discuss’ rather than ‘challenge’ as it is a more neutral word. ‘Challenge’ has connotations of conflict about it, at least until you are well down the road of a safe and respectful world. Scientists can challenge ‘facts’ but much of what people would be discussing on such a forum is a different way of viewing the world, but not one that is necessarily wrong’ (unless it is unsafe or disrespectful to others)… &nbssp;

LW: Best of luck with your meeting on Thursday!

Leeanne

<
div style=“color: rgb(69, 69, 69); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;”>PS I hope that the PCT influence is clear?

Warren

[John_and_Leeanne_Wri]

[From Leeanne Wright (2017.06.06.12.49)]

Hi Alison,

I agree! When you moderate this way you are not editing content, just the manner in which it is expressed (disrespectful, aggressive etc) as well as providing another opportunity for someone who really wants to get their point across to learn some skills on how to do this effectively. One of the biggest barriers for people who are angry in getting their point across is that no one wants to listen to ranting.

You are right that it would be almost impossible to do on a society-wide scale but I don’t think it is big-brotherish at all to demand safety and respect for everyone. It is, however, big-brotherish to edit content and strip meaning from people’s words…. I really like the aim of “peaceful dialogue ?!

Regards

Leeanne

···

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 2:18 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Leeanne,

I think you have tweeted it just right. ‘Challenge and discuss human values’ is a better way of putting it, and it should be open to all.

I have one tweet to add to yours. I agree that the point is to set the rules and hope people stick to them, but reading the habitual hateful language on Facebook I have a worry that in the first instance some people have real difficulties asserting their views without hate and offensiveness! The aim of the site is not really to engage people who already find it easy to assert themselves respectfully although they are welcome to join in and provide examples. It’s not a problem in a private therapy session but where those statements are for all to see I think we risk locking the stable door after the horse has bolted for some people - the damage is done. One method might be that if you get a certain number of unedited contributions passed without being offensive/aggressive/inciting violence/demeaning others then you get to be unedited.

As you know I believer that free speech is not only right but it is potentially therapeutic. But I am quite confident one can learn to talk freely within constraints and it is still useful, in fact more useful.

The moderator would not be making any judgements about the contributor. Thinking about it, the moderator could be required to be anonymous to the contributor and just screen each contribution separately. The moderator is just applying some rules, rules which are themselves open to discussion…

It’s the hard work of these moderators that is the biggest hurdle I think!

Warren

On 5 Jun 2017, at 04:31, Wright Family jlws.wright@optusnet.com.au wrote:

[From Leeanne Wright 92017.06.05.11.54)]

Hi Waren,

I hope you don’t mind me adding my thoughts here?

On 4 Jun 2017, at 9:51 pm, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

WM: Ok, I can’t help trying to use PCT to try to address our current issues with terrorism. And for anyone asking, yes I was in London last night, but luckily far away from the area of the attacks.

LW: I’m glad you’re ok. I saw a report on the news this morning of a stampede at a football match in Turin, Italy, after the crowd was apparently spooked by the noise of a firecracker going off…… Overlaying thhis, it was lovely to see footage of the Manchester concert.

WM: This morning I was reading the responses to our (Muslim) Mayor Of London’s commentary. They were shocking, on both sides. So offensive to each other. Conflict escalation big time. I am also struck by the need to want to moderate social media and both the impossibility of this and its apparent clash with liberal values. I was also struck by how much in common people those who express themselves in aggressive and offensive ways have with one another! If they weren’t aware they were of opposite cultures, and could jointly have a go at a third party, they would get on marvellously!

LW: The idea of moderating a social media site, a classroom, a debate, a town hall meeting etc. is to to allow constructive dialogue to take place within an environment that is safe and respectful for all parties. That requires rules to ensure that people actually feel safe and respected. To me this is the fundamental nature of a free or liberal society. The rules in a ‘free’ society have as their goal ensuring that all citizens feel safe and respected at all times. To this end, forums where people can freely discuss and debate issues that concern them should be promoted, but without moderation they run the risk of devolving into conflict.

WM: It strikes me that the problem is nothing to do
with religion and culture and everything to do with the kindness and respect one receives growing up.

LW: I agree with a post by Rupert that to an extent there is a problem with the type of faith-based, non-critical thinking promulgated by religion in general…. Whether by design, or as a by-product, it seems to me to foster an us-them mentality, a judgemental stance that makes conflict more rather than less likely…. There is no doubt that many religions teach kindness aand respect, but it seems to be kindness and respect for others that look, think and act the same as you….

WM: I suddenly thought of our Mayor’s use of the word ‘cowardly’ to describe them. This is not quite right but it points to the fact that there seems to be no safe forum for people to criticise our western/liberal values without it getting nasty.

LW: Absolutely agree! See my point above. Facebook certainly hasn’t created a safe forum for its users. People need to ‘hide’ their remarks or create a small circle of ‘friends’ if they don’t wish to be attacked. This means that you are only privy to the comments of people that generally already think the same as you do, rather than opening up opportunities for constructive dialogue. It is making the problem worse rather than better in many ways….

WM: What if there was? Like good scientists, shouldn’t we all value receiving constructive criticism? Shouldn’t everyone have the chance to develop the skill of resolving conflict without it escalating to a degree that it makes it worse or causes other conflicts?

LW: I think the CSG and MoL forums could be excellent forums for developing a type of rule-based forum model based on PCT. To a large extent from what I have seen in the short time I have been following discussions, the people already involved in these forums and their interest in PCT has meant that they have been able to self-moderate pretty successfully. There have been concerns from time to time, however, even in these forums, and I don’t see a problem with moderating them as a model for what could be done with forums on a larger scale. Self-moderation or regulation is ultimately self-interested and neutral ‘third-partyâ€? moderation ensures everyone feels safe and respected, so that free speech doesn’t turn into hate speech…(as happens on forums like Facebook)… and newcomersers feel safe to contribute…

WM: So, the idea is a website… see below … Note, this is not pie in the sky. I have a meeting with the holder of a massive international anti-radicalisation grant - Prof Hilary Pilkington on Thursday. I also want to talk to her about MOL as a method to train community leaders to help raise self-awareness in ‘angry’ people in their community as a prev
entative strategy.

LW: That sounds like a fabulous opportunity. It would be great to go ‘up a level’ from ‘ us’ and ‘ them’ to ‘we’ in our communities… You referred to tthis above, in terms of realising how much more we all have in common with each other, rather than focusing exclusively on our differences…

WM: THE IDEA. YES It is a bunch of paradoxes - a forum for criticism of liberal values moderated in a big brother way by a liberally minded expert - but that is the whole point. It’s like family therapy via social media… the biggest challenge is the 24hr expert moderation of content…

LW: I would personally think of it as a discussion of values, rather than a criticism of them. A way of giving people a voice. The value is in listening, even if you don’t agree with someone…

WM: Free speech site that openly encourages the criticism of British/American/Western/liberal values but is tightly moderated to remove or edit ALL violent and offensive language.

LW: Who would be participating in the forum if they are going to be edited? Shouldn’t participation be based on following the rules that everyone in the forum feel safe and respected? Editing someone’s words runs the real risk of misunderstanding, misrepresenting or misinterpreting those words and the person who spoke/wrote them…

WM: Aims to have a safe, respectful forum t
o challenge and protest against our western society

WM: Find that potentially aggressive people have more in common across cultural divides than they think.

I am not sure whether the website would actually get evidence that, for example a white supremacist and an Islamic jihadi ended up agreeing with one another, and then expose this with their consent, but that would be a key way to push reorganisation of people’s values.

WM: The website through its moderation would essentially provide training in how to express oneself and be assertive without being offensive, aggressive, or violent

The catch - this in itself is a Western value - but it will be used to moderate the site until that value changes!

WM: The site should provide creative solutions to our society and advance our values for the 21st century - help them ‘go up a level’ that is truly global, not just the western liberal view of what global should mean.

WM: It needs to engage people who would otherwise be radical, stubborn, and offensive, not intellectuals who already write in the New Yorker or The Guardian.

People could use the website to challenge:

• free speech itself

• human rights either generally or specific human rights

• tolerance of unusual or dangerous practices

• assumptions of how different genders or sexualities should be treated

• how children are treated

• how old people are treated

• portrayals of people in the media

• capitalism

• atheism

• multiculturalism

• acceptance of all religions

• ‘innocent until proven guilty’

• ‘turning the other cheek’

• much more…

Any thoughts?

LW: Agree wholeheartedly!!! Although rather than ‘western society’ I would just say a safe, respectful society; the use of ‘western society’ again sets up an us-them paradigm in which one set of values is presumed, unconsciously or otherwise, to be superior to another…
LW: Agree! LW: I don’t think it’s so much a Western value as a human value. There are certainly some countries/cultures, it is true, that express themselves differently. The Dutch and Gemans, for example, can be more blunt than British or Australians, but they tend to temper this with a lot of discussion from what I could gather when I lived there for a few years…But all societies, evenn Western societies, have individuals/groups/communities who are denied a voice and a place at the decision-making table…

LW: YES!!!
LW: I think it’s a wonderful idea Warren! I would probably use the word ‘discuss’ rather than ‘challenge’ as it is a more neutral word. ‘Challenge’ has connotations of conflict about it, at least until you are well down the road of a safe and respectful world. Scientists can challenge ‘facts’ but much of what people would be discussing on such a forum is a different way of viewing the world, but not one that is necessarily wrong’ (unless it is unsafe or disrespectful to others)…

LW: Best of luck with your meeting on Thursday!

Leeanne

<
div style=“color: rgb(69, 69, 69); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;”>PS I hope that the PCT influence is clear?

Warren

[wmansell]

Fabulous, on my wavelength!

Warren

···

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 2:18 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Leeanne,

I think you have tweeted it just right. ‘Challenge and discuss human values’ is a better way of putting it, and it should be open to all.

I have one tweet to add to yours. I agree that the point is to set the rules and hope people stick to them, but reading the habitual hateful language on Facebook I have a worry that in the first instance some people have real difficulties asserting their views without hate and offensiveness! The aim of the site is not really to engage people who already find it easy to assert themselves respectfully although they are welcome to join in and provide examples. It’s not a problem in a private therapy session but where those statements are for all to see I think we risk locking the stable door after the horse has bolted for some people - the damage is done. One method might be that if you get a certain number of unedited contributions passed without being offensive/aggressive/inciting violence/demeaning others then you get to be unedited.

As you know I believer that free speech is not only right but it is potentially therapeutic. But I am quite confident one can learn to talk freely within constraints and it is still useful, in fact more useful.

The moderator would not be making any judgements about the contributor. Thinking about it, the moderator could be required to be anonymous to the contributor and just screen each contribution separately. The moderator is just applying some rules, rules which are themselves open to discussion…

It’s the hard work of these moderators that is the biggest hurdle I think!

Warren

On 5 Jun 2017, at 04:31, Wright Family jlws.wright@optusnet.com.au wrote:

[From Leeanne Wright 92017.06.05.11.54)]

Hi Waren,

I hope you don’t mind me adding my thoughts here?

On 4 Jun 2017, at 9:51 pm, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

WM: Ok, I can’t help trying to use PCT to try to address our current issues with terrorism. And for anyone asking, yes I was in London last night, but luckily far away from the area of the attacks.

LW: I’m glad you’re ok. I saw a report on the news this morning of a stampede at a football match in Turin, Italy, after the crowd was apparently spooked by the noise of a firecracker going off…… Overlaying this, it was lovely to see footage of the Manchester concert.

WM: This morning I was reading the responses to our (Muslim) Mayor Of London’s commentary. They were shocking, on both sides. So offensive to each other. Conflict escalation big time. I am also struck by the need to want to moderate social media and both the impossibility of this and its apparent clash with liberal values. I was also struck by how much in common people those who express themselves in aggressive and offensive ways have with one another! If they weren’t aware they were of opposite cultures, and could jointly have a go at a third party, they would get on marvellously!

LW: The idea of moderating a social media site, a classroom, a debate, a town hall meeting etc. is to to allow constructive dialogue to take place within an environment that is safe and respectful for all parties. That requires rules to ensure that people actually feel safe and respected. To me this is the fundamental nature of a free or liberal society. The rules in a ‘free’ society have as their goal ensuring that all citizens feel safe and respected at all times. To this end, forums where people can freely discuss and debate issues that concern them should be promoted, but without moderation they run the risk of devolving into conflict.

WM: It strikes me that the problem is nothing to do
with religion and culture and everything to do with the kindness and respect one receives growing up.

LW: I agree with a post by Rupert that to an extent there is a problem with the type of faith-based, non-critical thinking promulgated by religion in general…. Whether by design, or as a bby-product, it seems to me to foster an us-them mentality, a judgemental stance that makes conflict more rather than less likely…. There is no doubt that many religions teach kindness and respect, but it seems to be kindness and respect for others that look, think and act the same as you….

WM: I suddenly thought of our Mayor’s use of the word ‘cowardly’ to describe them. This is not quite right but it points to the fact that there seems to be no safe forum for people to criticise our western/liberal values without it getting nasty.

LW: Absolutely agree! See my point above. Facebook certainly hasn’t created a safe forum for its users. People need to ‘hide’ their remarks or create a small circle of ‘friends’ if they don’t wish to be attacked. This means that you are only privy to the comments of people that generally already think the same as you do, rather than opening up opportunities for constructive dialogue. It is making the problem worse rather than better in many ways….

WM: What if there was? Like good scientists, shouldn’t we all value receiving constructive criticism? Shouldn’t everyone have the chance to develop the skill of resolving conflict without it escalating to a degree that it makes it worse or causes other conflicts?

WM: So, the idea is a website… see below … Note, this is not pie in the sky. I have a meeting with the holder of a massive international anti-radicalisation grant - Prof Hilary Pilkington on Thursday. I also want to talk to her about MOL as a method to train community leaders to help raise self-awareness in ‘angry’ people in their community as a prev
entative strategy.

WM: THE IDEA. YES It is a bunch of paradoxes - a forum for criticism of liberal values moderated in a big brother way by a liberally minded expert - but that is the whole point. It’s like family therapy via social media… the biggest challenge is the 24hr expert moderation of content…

LW: I would personally think of it as a discussion of values, rather than a criticism of them. A way of giving people a voice. The value is in listening, even if you don’t agree with someone…

WM: Free speech site that openly encourages the criticism of British/American/Western/liberal values but is tightly moderated to remove or edit ALL violent and offensive language.

LW: Who would be participating in the forum if they are going to be edited? Shouldn’t participation be based on following the rules that everyone in the forum feel safe and respected? Editing someone’s words runs the real risk of misunderstanding, misrepresenting or misinterpreting those words and the person who spoke/wrote them…

WM: Aims to have a safe, respectful forum t
o challenge and protest against our western society

LW: Agree wholeheartedly!!! Although rather than ‘western society’ I would just say a safe, respectful society; the use of ‘western society’ again sets up an us-them paradigm in which one set of values is presumed, unconsciously or otherwise, to be superior to another…

WM: Find that potentially aggressive people have more in common across cultural divides than they think.

I am not sure whether the website would actually get evidence that, for example a white supremacist and an Islamic jihadi ended up agreeing with one another, and then expose this with their consent, but that would be a key way to push reorganisation of people’s values.

LW: Agree!

WM: The website through its moderation would essentially provide training in how to express oneself and be assertive without being offensive, aggressive, or violent

The catch - this in itself is a Western value - but it will be used to moderate the site until that value changes!

LW: I don’t think it’s so much a Western value as a human value. There are certainly some countries/cultures, it is true, that express themselves differently. The Dutch and Gemans, for example, can be more blunt than British or Australians, but they tend to temper this with a lot of discussion from what I could gather when I lived there for a few years…BBut all societies, even Western societies, have individuals/groups/communities who are denied a voice and a place at the decision-making table…

WM: The site should provide creative solutions to our society and advance our values for the 21st century - help them ‘go up a level’ that is truly global, not just the western liberal view of what global should mean.

LW: YES!!!

WM: It needs to engage people who would otherwise be radical, stubborn, and offensive, not intellectuals who already write in the New Yorker or The Guardian.

People could use the website to challenge:

• free speech itself

• human rights either generally or specific human rights

• tolerance of unusual or dangerous practices

• assumptions of how different genders or sexualities should be treated

• how children are treated

• how old people are treated

• portrayals of people in the media

• capitalism

• atheism

• multiculturalism

• acceptance of all religions

• ‘innocent until proven guilty’

• ‘turning the other cheek’

• much more…

Any thoughts?

LW: I think it’s a wonderful idea Warren! I would probably use the word ‘discuss’ rather than ‘challenge’ as it is a more neutral word. ‘Challenge’ has connotations of conflict about it, at least until you are well down the road of a safe and respectful world. Scientists can challenge ‘facts’ but much of what people would be discussing on such a forum is a different way of viewing the world, but not one that is necessarily wrong’ (unless it is unsafe or disrespectful to others)…

LW: I think the CSG and MoL forums could be excellent forums for developing a type of rule-based forum model based on PCT. To a large extent from what I have seen in the short time I have been following discussions, the people already involved in these forums and their interest in PCT has meant that they have been able to self-moderate pretty successfully. There have been concerns from time to time, however, even in these forums, and I don’t see a problem with moderating them as a model for what could be done with forums on a larger scale. Self-moderation or regulation is ultimately self-interested and neutral ‘third-partyâ€? moderation ensures everyone feels safe and respected, so that free speech doesn’t turn into hate speech…(as happenns on forums like Facebook)… and newcomers feel safe to contribute…

LW: That sounds like a fabulous opportunity. It would be great to go ‘up a level’ from ‘ us’ and ‘ them’ to ‘we’ in our communities… You referred to this above, in terms of realising how much more we all have in common with each other, rather than focusing exclusively on our differences…

LW: Best of luck with your meeting on Thursday!

Leeanne

<
div style=“color: rgb(69, 69, 69); text-decoration: -webkit-letterpress;”>PS I hope that the PCT influence is clear?

Warren