Authoritarian Control

[Mole]

Authoritarian control has been imposed on my thread Psychopathology and Drugs.

And this is authoritarian control imposed by the instigation of my fellow members of Typology Central.

I had hopped their narcissism would have moved beyond authoritarian control, but I guess under stress we regress to what we know. And authoritarian control is familiar, and it feels safe, but the price is free speech.

And to speak freely we need to be able to breath freely, so the visceral response of the authoritarian is to control each breath. Narcissists break out of this authoritarian control, but naturally they are afraid of punishment by the authoritarians, so they have a bet both ways. And although the narcissist breathe more freely than the authoritarians, they hate each breath, as a way of forestalling the punishment for breathing more freely.

But plainly on Typology Central, hating ourselves is not enough, our voice must be stilled as well.

 

[Qlip]

Authorial Control vs Authoritarian Control

Authorial Control is the strongest control there is. When an author creates an effective story, a thread, for people to participate in, to inhabit and experience, there is no room for Authoritarian Control. This is the same as trance. Therefore, when one looses Authorial Control, then one is vulnerable to Authoritarian Control and looses their way in the great online trance, enlightenment, and stuff.

 

[Mole]

Authorial Control is the strongest control there is. When an author creates an effective story, a thread, for people to participate in, to inhabit and experience, there is no need for Authoritarian Control. This is the same as trance. Therefore, when one looses Authorial Control, then one is vulnerable to Authoritarian Control and looses their way in the great online trance, enlightenment, and stuff and crap.

Indeed, authoritarian control has a history. It began with the invention of the printing press in 1440 and the printing of the first book, the Gutenberg Bible. And interestingly the author of this book was the God of the Book. So under the Great Author, authors have given us the benefits of authoritarianism. There is no authoritarianism without authors.

Authoritarianism was of great benefit to us because it moved us one step beyond abuse. So rather than teaching children by abusing them, we impose external authoritarian control. And authoritarian control has created the modern world, for instance, I live in a beautiful planned city called Canberra, it must be one of the world's most liveable cities, yet it has been created by authoritarian control.

Yet it must be kept in mind that in part we are moving beyond external authoritarian control, and beyond internal narcissism, to the helping mode of child rearing leading to empathic and creative personalities.

 

[Galaxy Gazer]

What are we even talking about here?

 

[Mole]

What are we even talking about here?

In the Universities the Left and the Islamists have a tactic of silencing anyone with a politically incorrect opinion, by shouting them down at meetings, or disrupting the meetings with noise, chaos, and insults.

And a group of members have picked up the bad habits of the Left and the Islamists in the universities, and have silenced me on the important thread, Psychopathology and Drugs.

The thread is important for young teenagers entering puberty, and entering a window of psychosexual development, that only lasts a while, then closes forever.

 

[Galaxy Gazer]

In the Universities the Left and the Islamists have a tactic of silencing anyone with a politically incorrect opinion, by shouting them down at meetings, or disrupting the meetings with noise, chaos, and insults.

And a group of members have picked up the bad habits of the Left and the Islamists in the universities, and have silenced me on the important thread, Psychopathology and Drugs.

The thread is important for young teenagers entering puberty, and entering a window of psychosexual development, that only lasts a while, then closes forever.

I agree with you on the first part, since PC culture is out of control, but what does your thread have to do with Islam or the left? Or political correctness?

 

[meowington]

In the Universities the Left and the Islamists have a tactic of silencing anyone with a politically incorrect opinion, by shouting them down at meetings, or disrupting the meetings with noise, chaos, and insults.

And a group of members have picked up the bad habits of the Left and the Islamists in the universities, and have silenced me on the important thread, Psychopathology and Drugs.

The thread is important for young teenagers entering puberty, and entering a window of psychosexual development, that only lasts a while, then closes forever.

I'm left wing. I don't silence anyone. I for one am not responsible for closing that other thread. I thought it was pathetic and lacked any form of logic, but I was as much surprised as you, to see it getting closed.

 

[Typh0n]

I agree, Mole, that free speech is what is in question here. While I don't agree with your views regarding how the question drugs needs to be addressed, I at least respect your opinion. I wish you would at least have respected mine enough not to rep me like you did. But its cool, no harm is done.

While this is a private forum, and doesn't contain a free speech clause, the problem is that the mods react to demands of members, and when members attempt to shut down discussion and call others bullies because they express an opinion they don't agree with (lol) this works. But it also works both ways, and our more sensitive(for lack of a better word) members need to be aware of that, when it comes to free expression, there can be no compromise. If you say, "I am for free speech but..." guess what? You're not for free speech. Once a policy against free expression has been passed against one group, due to pressure from another group, it can, even generations later be used to censor the very group that promoted this policy.

Let me use an example to illustrate what I mean. If we pass a law forbidding women to wear Islamic scarves in a western country, this is one group, "westerners" passing a law against "muslims". This is a law forbidding free expression, more specifically the desire (imposed by others or not) for a muslim woman to wear a headscarf. 50 years later this very same law can be used by muslims to prevent non-muslim women from wearing miniskirts or bikinis - once a particular group has initiated censorship against another group, the first group to be censored is free to use this policy to silence the other party, and what we have then is the law of the jungle - no respect for minority groups in society, because those in power have no checks to keep them from abusing the power that they inherited from someone else's policy-making. Another exmaple would be people who claim we should stop climate change skeptics from saying their opinion on climate change. Well, if climate change skeptics overturn the political situation and gain power, later, they can use the same law or same violation against free-speech as the basis from preventing those who believe in climate change from speaking their mind.

Think about that.

 

[anticlimatic]

Man loves chaos because he loves the idea of creating order out of it. Man loves the Internet for the same reason. Won't be long now...

 

[citizen cane]

Yet more pseudo-intellectual rambling from [MENTION=3325]Mole[/MENTION]. Forums can't possibly be a pure democracy, and you and the rest of TypoC knows a forum must be moderated. TypoC doesn't use trigger warnings and simply asks that people don't cross certain lines of incivility or unethical behavior. Any inability to adhere to those standards is reflective of the forumer, not the forum. But of course, there will always be those who cannot be satisfied by any leadership nor by anarchy.

 

[geedoenfj]

I'm sorry.. All I see is "You gotta agree with me because I'm right, you disagree with me then you're:
1. Been deluded.
2.Been manipulated by narcissists.
3.Taking my freedom to breath away from me"

I mean I am not a native English speaker, I could be wrong, but that's what I got from this whole thread..

 

[Typh0n]

Yet more pseudo-intellectual rambling from [MENTION=3325]Mole[/MENTION]. Forums can't possibly be a pure democracy, and you and the rest of TypoC knows a forum must be moderated. TypoC doesn't use trigger warnings and simply asks that people don't cross certain lines of incivility or unethical behavior. Any inability to adhere to those standards is reflective of the forumer, not the forum. But of course, there will always be those who cannot be satisfied by any leadership nor by anarchy.

Honest question. What lines of incivility or unethical behavior did he cross?

 

[citizen cane]

Honest question. What lines of incivility or unethical behavior did he cross?

I'm not saying he did, necessarily, just that we don't really have a better system of keeping this place functioning than trusting that a majority of the mods came to the correct decision. I'm not familiar with the thread, but what comes to mind judging by it's title would possibly be giving out mental health-related advice that the mods thought should be left to professionals.

 

[Typh0n]

I'm not saying he did, necessarily, just that we don't really have a better system of keeping this place functioning than trusting that a majority of the mods came to the correct decision. I'm not familiar with the thread, but what comes to mind judging by it's title would possibly be giving out mental health-related advice that the mods thought should be left to professionals.

I followed the thread, at least the first half of it, and if that was the case the mods could've locked the thread from the start. Its possible that Mole gave some advice he wasn't suited to give in the second half of that thread, I don't know, but I get the sense that the mods locked it because it was getting out of hand(not just from Mole but from others in that thread). Which in my opinion was the right thing for the mods to do, I'm not contesting the decision of the mods.

What concerns me more is how some members are reacting to Mole simply (as I see it) speaking his mind. Like I said I don't agree with Mole on alot of things and I'll state right away if I don't. But what is a concern is how many members seem to want to shut down Mole for his opinions. I realize ridiculing people who you think are stupid and repeat the same stuff over and over is part of behavior on forums, but the way I see it, if you really think that about someone its best to ignore them, not bully them.

Also it must be said that when it becomes trendy to bully someone and ridicule them, people start doing that just because its what everyone else is doing. Again, part of being on forums sometimes, I know, but that doesn't make it right.

 

[Tater]

Authoritarian control?

I think you have the forum moderation confused with this guy:

 

[anticlimatic]

Yet more pseudo-intellectual rambling from [MENTION=3325]Mole[/MENTION]. Forums can't possibly be a pure democracy, and you and the rest of TypoC knows a forum must be moderated. TypoC doesn't use trigger warnings and simply asks that people don't cross certain lines of incivility or unethical behavior. Any inability to adhere to those standards is reflective of the forumer, not the forum. But of course, there will always be those who cannot be satisfied by any leadership nor by anarchy.

Why does a forum need to be moderated? Seems like an anti spam bot would suffice.

 

[citizen cane]

Why does a forum need to be moderated? Seems like an anti spam bot would suffice.

Because ban-worthy does not necessarily equal spam. Someone can always stalk, slander, insult, or manipulate another forumer without spamming, per se. I'm surprised this isn't obvious to everyone who uses the Internet. Then again, Hemingway observed over half a century ago that "An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools".

 

[anticlimatic]

Because ban-worthy does not necessarily equal spam. Someone can always stalk, slander, insult, or manipulate another forumer with spamming, per se. I'm surprised this isn't obvious to everyone who uses the Internet.

It's not obvious because those are really weak reasons for requiring a small team of prejudiced individuals to control the flow of information between the much larger (and equally prejudiced) group. A mute/block button solves stalking, current libel laws solve slander, and growing a pair solves insults and manipulations. Employing moderators just gives certain types of prejudice more authority to bully than others. It creates an uneven playing field, forces a large number of topics and ideas into the self-censored (or just censored) margins, and hinders the cultivation of organic conversation and novel/uncomfortable ideas. Wouldn't it be nice if the only people participating in discussion forums had a spine- the backbone of integrity? I think the quality of discussion would be much higher. And much more interesting.

I don't know, but I get the sense that the mods locked it because it was getting out of hand(not just from Mole but from others in that thread). Which in my opinion was the right thing for the mods to do, I'm not contesting the decision of the mods.

Someone deserve a pat on the head and a cookie I think.

 

[Mole]

Yet more pseudo-intellectual rambling from [MENTION=3325]Mole[/MENTION]. Forums can't possibly be a pure democracy, and you and the rest of TypoC knows a forum must be moderated. TypoC doesn't use trigger warnings and simply asks that people don't cross certain lines of incivility or unethical behavior. Any inability to adhere to those standards is reflective of the forumer, not the forum. But of course, there will always be those who cannot be satisfied by any leadership nor by anarchy.

It's true, I do ask you to come for a ramble with me in each post. And I hope I lead you to an interesting viewpoint. A ramble to a nice view is not so bad, is it?

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

There is authoritarian control based on majority rule (even in a Democratic society). Minority wants the authoritarian control. So everyone bitches about being silenced when they are just bitching about not having control. If they were silenced, no one would hear the bitching to begin with.

*yawn*