Mad idea?

Thanks Leanne!

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…… Oveerlaying 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, 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