![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Not allowing someone to voice their opinion on a subject because it is not the popular opinion is censorship. Just because someone is a member of a particular organization does not mean they must agree with all positions of that organization. Especially not in an organization that advocates freedom (in this case ASFAR). When that occurs those people become no better than sheep who blindly follow their master to the slaughterhouse.
A forum is meant to be a free exchange of ideas. When that exchange is interrupted and delayed it is destroyed. Conversations may be put on hold for several days until the moderator can get to it. This leads to frustration and a lost of interest. Activity decreases until there is none. The issue of the moderator is a problem in itself. Everyone who joins is moderated until proven worthy. What is worthy? Why have we left it to one person to decide which posts have merit and which do not. Could the moderator honestly say he has never once considered not allowing a post that conflicted with his opinions to pass or at the very least delayed approval? I doubt it. If there *must* be moderation, pull all members who are known to be real people and not spammers (since spam is the reason for it or so is said) off moderation. This would also decrease the workload of the moderator who would no longer have to intercept and approve legitimate messages and also remove the questions of his objectivity.
Next, the issue that bothers me most, president of said organization recently said that he seriously discourages peaceful civil disobedience because of the remote possibility of it becoming violent. That is easily the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, not just for that fantastic leap in logic, but for the simple fact that the realization of that statement will basically render the organization impotent. The movements that led to law changes for the better all involved *peaceful* civil disobedience in some form or another. Basically he is saying that even such benign actions such as sit-ins, rallies, handing out fliers, and other forms of peaceful protest that the organization have been utilizing (effectively) since its inception should no longer occur. This is not to say that other forms of action such as letter writing are ineffective because they aren't. However, they are not enough to facilitate the amount of change needed. I hope that those who have and will read his posting will disregard his misguided advice. If they do, if they do not move forward, I fear that the movement, much like the mailing list, will grow stagnant and eventually die.
I am Renee, the owner of this account, and I approve this posting. :)
A forum is meant to be a free exchange of ideas. When that exchange is interrupted and delayed it is destroyed. Conversations may be put on hold for several days until the moderator can get to it. This leads to frustration and a lost of interest. Activity decreases until there is none. The issue of the moderator is a problem in itself. Everyone who joins is moderated until proven worthy. What is worthy? Why have we left it to one person to decide which posts have merit and which do not. Could the moderator honestly say he has never once considered not allowing a post that conflicted with his opinions to pass or at the very least delayed approval? I doubt it. If there *must* be moderation, pull all members who are known to be real people and not spammers (since spam is the reason for it or so is said) off moderation. This would also decrease the workload of the moderator who would no longer have to intercept and approve legitimate messages and also remove the questions of his objectivity.
Next, the issue that bothers me most, president of said organization recently said that he seriously discourages peaceful civil disobedience because of the remote possibility of it becoming violent. That is easily the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, not just for that fantastic leap in logic, but for the simple fact that the realization of that statement will basically render the organization impotent. The movements that led to law changes for the better all involved *peaceful* civil disobedience in some form or another. Basically he is saying that even such benign actions such as sit-ins, rallies, handing out fliers, and other forms of peaceful protest that the organization have been utilizing (effectively) since its inception should no longer occur. This is not to say that other forms of action such as letter writing are ineffective because they aren't. However, they are not enough to facilitate the amount of change needed. I hope that those who have and will read his posting will disregard his misguided advice. If they do, if they do not move forward, I fear that the movement, much like the mailing list, will grow stagnant and eventually die.
I am Renee, the owner of this account, and I approve this posting. :)
