Article: 9473 of fa.future-culture Path: ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: Bill Hutten Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Community, Dissidents & Censorship Date: 7 Jun 1994 00:18:11 +0200 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 62 Message-ID: <2t07b3$3th@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: <<@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU:owner-futurec@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>> Original-Message-Id: <199406062218.29344.gyda.ifi.uio.no@ifi.uio.no> Original-Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 19:14:05 ADT Comments: To: Future Culture To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC Well, apologies to all for the amount of bandwidth (or, in this case, badwidth) that my "arrrggghh" post caused. However, the responses have stirred a few thoughts to the surface..... As M.Current said in his (reasoned, as opposed to my ranting) post, we are (hopefully) trying to build a _community_ here. Much of the talk of old.net.hands is about the "sense of community". People causually talk about "the internet community", or "virtual community". My question is (and apologies if this has been already discussed to death here or elsewhere, references appreciated) in what sense is this word appropriate to what we're doing here? I grew up in a "real" community of approx 600-800 people, mostly farmers. I went every week to the same church for the first 22 years of my life. I went to school with the same children from grade primary until grade 12. (Even had the same school bus driver for all 13 of those years!). When I was growing up there wasnt more than a couple people within a couple-mile radius of my parents farm whose name I didnt know. So, I'd say I pretty much grew up in a place that fits practically every traditional definition of community. Clearly, FC ain't nothing like that.......but obviously it's _something_ that I care about. I'm just leery about using a term like "community".....I suppose it's possible that we use "community" to identify what we do on the net because it gives us an understandable context that helps to comfort us even when the reality doesnt fit the term. Like malls mimicking "Main Street" architectural elements; it appropriates something we have experienced to acclimatize use to something we havent. Moving on.....Several people said that I was essentially calling for censorship by wishing/asking for LT to be removed from the list. I'm a pretty solid (although not absolute) believer in freedom of expression, so it kinda surprised me. Clearly, in a "real" community, or any physical space, words are just one facet of life, while on the net words are all that exists. Just as clearly, in physical life communities have the ability, and right, to exclude certain kinds of behaviour, and the people who practice those kinds of behaviour, from those same communities. That's the purpose of the justice system, to "censor" (in the older, wider meaning of the term) acts which harm the community. If all we have are words, then is it "censorship" (in the real-world sense) to revoke people's membership in a community because of the words they speak? Or are some words, words that do nothing but destroy what we're trying to build, justification for removing a person from our "community"? I _am_ _not_ argueing for the removal of people from FC whenever I disagree with their opinions. A persons beliefs are not even, at some level, the issue. It's their _behaviour_ in presenting those beliefs that is the issue. When people use words in ways that destroy the "community of words" it's not "censorship" to remove them, it's self-defense. This is complicated. Any other thoughts from y'all.....? - bill +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Bill Hutten - bhutten@fox.nstn.ns.ca | | 6411 Cloverdale Rd. Halifax, NS B3L 2N6 (902) 453 2482 | | "Just as sure as we's live today , sure we's born to die" - Bukka White | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Article: 9486 of fa.future-culture Path: ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: Mark Rogaski Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: Community, Dissidents & Censorship Date: 7 Jun 1994 05:53:30 +0200 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 68 Message-ID: <2t0qvq$bj8@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: <<@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU:owner-futurec@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>> Original-Message-Id: <199406070353.11877.ifi@ifi.uio.no> Original-Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 23:51:51 -0400 Comments: To: FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC In-Reply-To: <199406062213.SAA00977@phobos.lib.iup.edu> from "Bill Hutten" at Jun 6, 94 07:14:05 pm > If all we have are words, then is it "censorship" (in the real-world sense) > to revoke people's membership in a community because of the words they > speak? Or are some words, words that do nothing but destroy what we're > trying to build, justification for removing a person from our "community"? > | Bill Hutten - bhutten@fox.nstn.ns.ca | How do you decide (and who decides) that what a person is posting is an attempt to 'destroy what we've been trying to build'? One could say that the most extreme cases of genocide were just society working to protect their concept of 'community'. The pagans in Britain, the Hugenots in France, the Jews in Germany, the Blacks in the US, the Tibetans in China, etc. LT's opinion is just as valuable as anyone else's. He may not argue a point well, but he does approach the same topics you do, from a different vantage point. What doesn't kill you can only make you stronger. Instead of concentrating on what weak points he leaves in a post, focus on the point he is trying to make. How does it match yours, how does it differ? One of the most convincing demonstrations of the inability of most people to COMMUNICATE was shown to me a few years ago. 2 folks were arguing about some inflamatory topic - got pretty ugly. So the moderator sits them down, facing each other. The first person gives a succinct statement of his arguement. The second person reiterates what the first said WITHOUT INTERPRETATION. Just a restatement. Then vice-versa. It get the minds going after overly heated debate has closed them down. In most instances, the 2 are probably arguing the same or only slightly differing views. Try it sometime, it surprised the shit outta' me. Once you start censoring people for one thing, things start gettin weird. pretty soon, you get kicked off yerself just because someone thought you were not the type that should be on that list. Shall we call it "memetic cleansing"? Look back at the grounds that you attacked LT on. What's so awful about not knowing what a leased line is? I'm pretty sure that not everyone on this list is a certified Unix-weenie, not everyone knows RFC from IRC. ************ Okay, I'm trying to consolidate posts: Sean -- sorry, I knew it was sarcasm, but i had been working w/ WYSE 50 terminals all afternoon in a stinkin' hot basement and yr post reminded me of a guy i knew who actually said shit like that and meant it and said he was actually an elf and i had to blow of some steam and holler virtually just to hear the sound of my own virtual voice. There, i even consolidated the sentence. *********** I think it was alan S. who posted about being a bit nervous about the corporate types. I'm happy about the lack of success in the EDS - Sprint negotiations. It's scary to think about Ross Poirot driving down the Infermashun Souperhighway [sic] in an Abrams Tank :). I personally believe that the Inet is growing much too rapidly for MCI, AT&T, etc to mess up too much. Essentially, the best they could do is set up a CompuServe -esqe type Limited Acces Net for those who are not TCP/IP weenies who want to order from Eddie Bauer via fiber optics. Everybody get yr futurec-beanies on! What does the future hold for this so-called Infobahn while we're whizzin' around on the dirt trails of the Inet with virtual dirtbikes? Doc -- rogaski@phobos.lib.iup.edu (so as not to make anybody think i'm concealing anything) C C just to hear the sound of the key Article: 9489 of fa.future-culture Path: ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: John Frost Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: Community, Dissidents & Censorship Date: 7 Jun 1994 07:16:43 +0200 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 90 Message-ID: <2t0vrr$ce8@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: <<@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU:owner-futurec@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>> Original-Message-Id: <199406070516.12741.ifi@ifi.uio.no> Original-Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 22:14:01 -0700 Comments: To: Future Culture To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC In-Reply-To: <199406062216.PAA23707@mail.netcom.com> I think we are asking the wrong questions here... the question shouldn't be "do we want to toss-out LordT?" the questions should be "Do I want to be a member of this community?", "Can I live upto the responsibility a community would require of me, the commitment, (and truthfully) the pain and anguish building a community involves?" Everybody, including LordT, should answer these questions honestly. If you can't answer yes, then you should unsubscribe. On Mon, 6 Jun 1994, Bill Hutten wrote: > As M.Current said in his (reasoned, as opposed to my ranting) post, we are > (hopefully) trying to build a _community_ here. Much of the talk of > old.net.hands is about the "sense of community". People causually talk > about "the internet community", or "virtual community". My question is (and > apologies if this has been already discussed to death here or elsewhere, > references appreciated) in what sense is this word appropriate to what > we're doing here? There has been much musing as of late that the community is disappearing from the net. I think rather, that what every community we had before is simply morphing. Growing, consuming new nets and from that comes the pain of adolescence. > Moving on.....Several people said that I was essentially calling for > censorship by wishing/asking for LT to be removed from the list. I'm a > pretty solid (although not absolute) believer in freedom of expression, so > it kinda surprised me. Clearly, in a "real" community, or any physical > space, words are just one facet of life, while on the net words are all > that exists. Just as clearly, in physical life communities have the > ability, and right, to exclude certain kinds of behaviour, and the people > who practice those kinds of behaviour, from those same communities. That's > the purpose of the justice system, to "censor" (in the older, wider meaning > of the term) acts which harm the community. > I feel, except in extreme cases, that censuring/ban/exiling is one of the greatest evils in the world. However, used in moderation (Silent Treatements) the concept is useful. Read Lila for a wonderful explanation of this. I don't have the time here. > If all we have are words, then is it "censorship" (in the real-world sense) > to revoke people's membership in a community because of the words they > speak? Or are some words, words that do nothing but destroy what we're > trying to build, justification for removing a person from our "community"? again, this seems to be the wrong question. The question has to do with are we., as a group that wants to be a community, willing to do the things it takes to remain a community. It is my opinion that Inclusiveness is an important ingredient. Let me quote and paraphrase a little bit from "Different Drum: community making and peace" by M.Scott Peck. "Community is and must be inclusive." A community that aims to be more then the sum of its parts, must find and address the strengths and weaknesses of all of those parts. "The great enemy of community is exclusivity. Groups that exclude others because they are poor or doubters or divorced or sinners or of some different race or nationality are not communities; they are cliques [ exactly what lordT is accusing us of] -- actually defensive bastions against community." "Inclusiveness is not an absolute. Long-term communities [of which FC is arguably one] must invariably struggle over the degree to which they are going to be inclusive.... True communities... on the other hand... are always reaching to extend themselves.... Communities do not ask ' How can we justify taking this person in?' instead the question is 'Is it at all justifiable to keep this person out?' In relation to other groupings of similar size or purpose, communities are always relatively inclusive." "How is this possible. How can suck differences be absorbed, such different people coexist? COMMITMENT -- the willingness too coexist-- is crucial. Sooner or later, (and preferably sooner), the members of a group in some way must commit themselves tooone another if they are to become or stay a community. Exclusivity, the great enemy to community, appears in two forms: excluding the other and excluding yourself. [lurkers take note!] If you conclude under your breath, 'Well, this group just isn't for me -- they're too much this or too much that -- and I'm just going to quietly pick up my marbles and go home'" is to give up on humanity. "Our individualism must be counterbalanced by commitment." After this... we get into the tools for maintaining inclusivity. They include Transcendance, Consensus, realism, contemplation, safety,... > This is complicated. Any other thoughts from y'all.....? > It is complicated, yes. But I have found that the work is amply rewarded with the achievment of community. > - bill > -indigo Article: 9492 of fa.future-culture Path: ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: heath michael rezabek Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: Community, Dissidents & Censorship Date: 7 Jun 1994 07:58:43 +0200 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 10 Message-ID: <2t12aj$d7q@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: <<@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU:owner-futurec@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>> Original-Message-Id: <199406070558.13558.ifi@ifi.uio.no> Original-Date: Tue, 7 Jun 1994 00:58:02 -0500 Comments: To: FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC > I think we are asking the wrong questions here... the question shouldn't > be "do we want to toss-out LordT?"... hm. so weird. de ja vu vu vu.. was anyone on here around to see what eventually happened to Doctress Neutopia on leri@? i hear she's no longer around there, but i unsubbed for good a bit before that time. anyone? what happened? i'm curious about this.. rez Article: 9494 of fa.future-culture Path: ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: Dwayne Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: Community, Dissidents & Censorship Date: 7 Jun 1994 08:31:07 +0200 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 21 Message-ID: <2t147b$dug@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: <<@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU:owner-futurec@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>> Original-Message-Id: <199406070631.14285.ifi@ifi.uio.no> Original-Date: Tue, 7 Jun 1994 16:28:08 +1000 Comments: To: FUTUREC@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC In-Reply-To: <199406070619.AA25751@LUGA.latrobe.edu.au> from "heath michael rezabek" at Jun 7, 94 00:58:02 am heath michael rezabek blew a bubble, which danced and sang: : : > I think we are asking the wrong questions here... the question shouldn't : > be "do we want to toss-out LordT?"... : : hm. so weird. de ja vu vu vu.. was anyone on here around to see what : eventually happened to Doctress Neutopia on leri@? i hear she's no longer : around there, but i unsubbed for good a bit before that time. anyone? what : happened? i'm curious about this.. We got bored and started ignoring her, she got miffed and left. Thank [insert the diety of your choice, preferably Kali] Dwayne. if we do not hold on to hedonism, we will lose our souls. -- mordwyn .sig under construction internet---> hiscdcj@lux.latrobe.edu.au irc--------> ddraig on #leri in undernet Article: 9487 of fa.future-culture Path: ifi.uio.no!internet-mailinglist From: bookish Newsgroups: fa.future-culture Subject: Re: Gods of FC? (and community?) Date: 7 Jun 1994 06:12:59 +0200 Organization: Internet mailing list Lines: 72 Message-ID: <2t0s4b$bp5@ifi.uio.no> Reply-To: Future Culture NNTP-Posting-Host: ifi.uio.no Return-Path: <<@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU:owner-futurec@UAFSYSB.UARK.EDU>> Original-Message-Id: <199406070412.12066.ifi@ifi.uio.no> Original-Date: Mon, 6 Jun 1994 23:40:51 -0400 Comments: To: Future Culture To: Multiple recipients of list FUTUREC In-Reply-To: <9406070335.AA16063@andy.bgsu.edu> heh... a lot of events the last day or so seem to be telling me the same story, and, probably not coincidentally, it's a story about community... several of the virtual forums that i'm involved with have recently been bogged down in an alternating mess of flamewars and meta-discussions about the proper 'rules of engagement.' i've seen a lot of folks that i respect drawn into the fray, and i've been sucked in a time or two myself. (anybody who still logs into MediaMOO probably knows some of what i'm talking about.) earlier, someone mentioned the PMC-MOO 'terrorist wars,' which split that site in ways very similar to the recent splits here. i was among the primary opponents of the 'terrorists' - but not because of anything particularly wrong with the ideax they were attempting to explore. my main objection was that they did their 'work' as if they could somehow stand outside the community they were 'experimenting' on/with, all the while aserting their rights as citizens of a 'postmodern' MOO to engage in such experimentation. this seems very much the position taken by the now-infamous L.T. and a few other partisans of that 'side.' as others have articulated before, that position seems a little contradictory. it's not clear what good it does for anybody. but there are some funny ironies here as well. seeing Richard Ginn listed among the 'dissident' faction - potentially violating the basic rules of FChood - strikes me as funny when Richard is, to me, so clearly part of 'this crowd.' i don't always agree with him, but i value his contributions and his presence. but i know - as well as we know anything out here - that he also values this community. if i could be sure of that in the case of L.T., then i would be happy to welcome him - too-numerous, sometimes-caustic posts and all. without attempting to answer the community question fully, we might say that one of the ways you recognize virtual communities is that they have enough long-term stability to handle stresses. so far, FC has proved itself by those standards. there are lots of veterans still here. (including a few i thought were gone. nice to see Aaron Dickey's name on the list. long time...) i could name names, but i think a bunch of us remember a time quite recently when a few of the 'FC gods' [hehe] were at each other's throats. we're still here. Chris had a good idea to make FC available to his little corner of the net, and we've all had to deal with some growing pains. but i think FC has weathered worse, and can weather worse. for folks who haven't been around too long, it may be easy to dismiss the 'community' talk, and it may be easy to write off 'poetry.' stick around, maybe you'll find there's some real wheel-hitting-the-road revolutionary power there. one of the things that makes FC the great place it is is the fact that we give a shit about each other. we may not use the word much, but there's a lot of love floating around here. and if you think love is just for net-wimps, then i suggest you think again. why don't we put away the flames... until next time. we'll pass this way again. we always seem to. but let me tell you a little story... with one significant exception, all of the folks most actively involved in the PMC-MOO terrorist wars are still around the MOO. a lot of them only check in. a bunch of them are helping to run other, newer sites. and all of us learned a great deal about just what it takes to make community on someone else's hard drive. a valuable lesson, that. worth the hassle. just like the site, however it was transformed, remains worth the hours i still put in there. the now-tamer terrorists and opposition remind me of a generation of now-tamer, and wiser, FC hotheads, who have paid there dues on the frontline here. disruptions are frustrating. bad manners are frustrating, no matter who is responsible. and it would be foolish for a community to surrender its ground to any new force that came along. but our little wars end, if we're willing to get back to the business of working on the hard, human, RL stuff. --shawn aka bookish