[p2p-research] Jimmy Wales against on-line culture of violence

[Michel Bauwens]

Hi Andy,

the p2p list fits a subject specific list, 'peer to peer', but accepts
pluralism within that,

however, I think it is legitimate to refuse say racist theorizing here,
since that would clearly indicate a radical opposition to any realization of
p2p

I do however, also insist on civility, i.e. all can be said, but must be
able to be said without harsh ad hominem attacks, insults and the like

of course, our elastic is quite large, and it is only a systematic
insistence on crossing that line that would create an issue

as for moderator powers, I gave them away on this list, to kevin and ryan,
on ning, I have to ban spammers on a weekly basis

we had one conflict here, with marc fawzi, who wanted to unilaterally demand
a governance change on this list; I proposed to create a panel to discuss
it, he refused that, and left the list,

all in all, I think we do have a longstanding civil discourse here, and I
personally believe that is a good think; actually, I think it is a
disservice to the oppressed to hold them to lower standards in that regard,
and I think most people have a natural understanding of what respectful
communication actually means

Michel

On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com> wrote:

>  On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 8:26 AM, Andy Robinson <ldxar1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> But the danger is, who decides what counts as "uncivil"?
>>
>> These standards often vary culturally, subculturally, along lines of
>> psychological difference, etc.
>>
>
> I agree with most of Andy's post, and I think these are critical issues.
> They also permeate through societies, especially small and local ones where
> "blackballing" and other means of censorship are regularly applied.  Nearly
> all small social groups apply heavy handed norming to appearance, culture,
> ways of being, etc.
>
> There is basically one high level bifurcation.  The split is between those
> who believe the individual is best protected and those who believe the
> society is best protected.  There are ills associated with both approaches.
> Invariably, stable systems combine some combination.  At present, most of
> the world leans toward social protection (e.g. China, Japan, much of
> post-modern Europe).  Some leans toward individual protection (U.S., UK,
> France, Australia).   Very wealthy and very poor countries both tend toward
> social protection strategies.  Normally wealthy ones tend toward the
> individual.
>
> Once a path is chosen, there is a path-dependency of moral and political
> reasoning that occurs until some sea change in the basic worldview.  n that
> sense, history matters.  Sea changes tend to be rare...following
> catastrophic government failures, for instance.  People who find themselves
> in a system where they are basically at odds with the main local tenets are
> particularly at risk.  This is particularly true at local levels.  In an
> individualistic system, someone who is oriented toward social protections
> will find their threats coming from iconoclasts or similar disruptive
> influences.  In a social system, the individual will feel constrained and
> channeled toward losses of liberty and self-expression.  Chinese newly
> arrived in the US worry intensely about crime.  Americans in China fear the
> heavy hand of the state.
>
> To my mind the best solution is relatively freedom of movement.  Most
> nations now allow relatively liberal internal resettlement so that people
> can find their own local balances.  This then pushes problems to a national
> level where consensus and national norms are difficult.  Consequently, most
> large systems that were predicated on some sort of cultural or military
> empire find stability and consistency to be their biggest issues (India,
> Canada, Brazil, Russia, the US).  What one tends to see in those places is
> an emphasis on cultural hegemony.  People must adhere to a way of being that
> is very normative, complex and difficult to fully explain, but that is yet
> pervasive and identity defining.  I find Canadians abroad to be intensely
> interested in "Canadianness" far more than even Americans.  Australians are
> similar.  Their national traits are heightened by being outside their
> normative structures.  This is not true of Norwegians, Austrians or
> Pakistanis.  Those more social and protective cultures tend to shed
> individualists who seek external affiliations...not core orthodox members.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>


-- 
Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Think thank:
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100103/96c0072d/attachment.html>