Gay interest: Discussion v campaigning

[ahinton]

Last time I looked, Piotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky seemed to be rather frequently a part of Radio 3 output. To try to suppress (or hide) this kind of discussion is itself a political act, - even if simply looking the other way whilst harm is done - most especially to artists and thinkers, who threaten The State most by their awareness and defiance of thought-control. Their freedom. But thankyou for (not) reading and (not) responding to post no. 324. If you feel that "political subjects" dominate the forum (which would be very hard to corroborate) then why not start a few "purely musical" posts yourself? Where there's a will...

Richard Barrett, in post no.50 on HS' "View from the Sidelines" thread, made a similar point far more eloquently - but, abstracted from any specific political context (in case you hadn't noticed, LGBT issues ARE political!) it only received positive, sagely-nodding responses. So easy for a musiclover to do that, feel good... and forget all about it the next day.

Whatever the arguments various may be about what might constitute a "political subject", it seems fair to me to state that only a small percentage of threads and posts on this forum might reasonably be seen as ovetly "political" or "politically" oriented. The implication, however, that those who listen to and wish to discuss what's broadcast on Radio 3, the policies of Radio 3 and such like are not, or oughtn't to be, interested in "politics" and "political issues" to the extent of desiring to initiate, contribute to or read threads on subjects that might be deemed "political" is surely as potentially dangerous as it is absurdly unrealistic. Why on earth might those who care about the kind of musics broadcast on Radio 3 be expected to be less caring about "political" issues of one kind and another than those who don't (or who don't read or contribute posts on a forum such as this one)? That makes no sense to me.

[french frank]

Last time I looked, Piotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky seemed to be rather frequently a part of Radio 3 output. To try to suppress (or hide) this kind of discussion is itself a political act,

One might also suggest that starting such a thread on 'Politics and Current Affairs' (rather than, say, 'Talking About Music') is a 'political act'.

But, to generalise, similar irritation has been caused in the past by one member who had an interest in starting threads on some 'musical aspect' of Nazism: these also got the reaction of, 'Oh, not again'. Similarly, another started a series of threads on immigration (and I remember who it was!) every time a news item offered the opportunity. It certainly provoked an 'Oh, not again' reaction in me. Another took a similar 'interest' in the EU and the latest 'outrage' - again probably in the Telegraph or the Daily Mail, or dug up from some anti-EU website. So this is not one isolated topic which is being singled out, simply the topic that some members feel very strongly about.

When you get a series of related threads from people who clearly have an agenda - whatever that agenda may be - it appears to be a systematic campaign which can alienate even those who are broadly sympathetic. Even FoR3 has moved its campaign to Facebook :-( rather than irritate those who don't support it.

[Sir Velo]

Last time I looked, Piotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky seemed to be rather frequently a part of Radio 3 output. To try to suppress (or hide) this kind of discussion is itself a political act, - even if simply looking the other way whilst harm is done - most especially to artists and thinkers, who threaten The State most by their awareness and defiance of thought-control.

A suggestion: why not have these threads moved to the "Diversions" forum? They would still be accessible to all forum members without necessarily appearing in such an inflammatorily prominent position. Alternatively, why not debate this issue by PM with those forum members who feel similarly strongly? No one is trying to restrict freedom of expression, just suggesting that to post so regularly on this forum is unnecessarily provocative and a strong deterrent to general music lovers posting on the subject which is closest to their hearts, viz music. Jayne, you have to realise that not everyone is as politically motivated in their lives as you and Richard Barrett clearly are!

[ahinton]

A suggestion: why not have these threads moved to the "Diversions" forum? They would still be accessible to all forum members without necessarily appearing in such an inflammatorily prominent position. Alternatively, why not debate this issue by PM with those forum members who feel similarly strongly? No one is trying to restrict freedom of expression, just suggesting that to post so regularly on this forum is unnecessarily provocative and a strong deterrent to general music lovers posting on the subject which is closest to their hearts, viz music. Jayne, you have to realise that not everyone is as politically motivated in their lives as you and Richard Barrett clearly are!

This sounds to me to be as patronising as it is disproportionate; Have you not read any of Jayne's posts about music or about broadcast quality and other sound engineering issues? Have you only ever read Richard Barrett on subjects that you regards as being "politically motivated"? Why only Jayne and Richard? What "deterrent" to reading and/or contributing posts about music can there possibly be in the mere presence of posts on politics and current affairs on the same forum? Richard Barrett questions why there is perceived to be a problem with this in the first place. I do likewise and I'm quite sure that we're far from alone in that.

[Mr Pee]

A suggestion: why not have these threads moved to the "Diversions" forum? They would still be accessible to all forum members without necessarily appearing in such an inflammatorily prominent position. Alternatively, why not debate this issue by PM with those forum members who feel similarly strongly? No one is trying to restrict freedom of expression, just suggesting that to post so regularly on this forum is unnecessarily provocative and a strong deterrent to general music lovers posting on the subject which is closest to their hearts, viz music. Jayne, you have to realise that not everyone is as politically motivated in their lives as you and Richard Barrett clearly are!

I agree entirely.

[jean]

And I disagree profoundly.

[eighthobstruction]

>>>>"

Quote Originally Posted by Sir Velo
"If we are all too frightened to say what we really think for fear of hurting another person's feelings what's the point in posting? I want to hear what people really think; to express themselves passionately. As we're all using noms de keyboards anyway I find it surprising that some peeps seem to take offence so easily. It's all a bit of fun innit? ."<<<<<

....and then?

[ahinton]

I agree entirely.

Well, you would, of course - but what exactly is this "inflammatorily prominent position" and on what grounds is it allegedly more of one than that in which any other threads in this forum appear? Moving certain threads to the "Diversions" forum surely suggests that they are - or at least that they're to be regarded as - "diversionary"; that would involve a kind of value judgement which, if exercised as suggested, must determine that certain subjects are to be regarded as "inflammatory" in themselves and therefore more appropriately discussed behind closed doors between consenting members - or at least not as openly as other subjects here; would the responsibility to make decisions on each and every possible case of this not confer an inordinately onerous - not to say unnecessary - burden on FF? - and might it not also risk sending out an unwelcome message to the effect that members interested in music, its broadcasting, recording and performance, or musicology, or Radio 3, etc. are not - or ought not to be - interested in those other allegedly "inflammatory" subjects?

[ahinton]

we're all using noms de keyboards anyway

We are not all doing that. Neither A Hinton nor Richard Barrett, for example, is such a nom and I have no evidence to suggest that Jayne Lee Wilson is either.

[eighthobstruction]

Sorry ah, I meant the emphasis to be on Sir Velos change of mind on this thread #17/#18...." I want to hear what people really think; to express themselves passionately."(was from another thread about the same subject)...

....though he says " No one is trying to restrict freedom of expression" #33

[ahinton]

Sorry ah, I meant the emphasis to be on Sir Velos change of mind on this thread #17/#18...." I want to hear what people really think; to express themselves passionately."(was from another thread about the same subject)...

....though he says " No one is trying to restrict freedom of expression" #33

That's OK - no problem - and your emphasis was precisely as you intended in any case!

[Mary Chambers]

And I disagree profoundly.

So do I. It's just a discussion.

[ahinton]

So do I. It's just a discussion.

Exactly - and this is, after all, a discussion forum. I imagine that merely referring or drawing attention to any campaign during the course of a thread here (provided that it is done reasonably and proportionately) is also acceptable on the grounds that a member may introduce information about such a campaign without necessarily overtly "campaigning" him/herself. Once again, I do not see what the problem is, really.

[french frank]

So do I. It's just a discussion.

The point about whether it's a discussion or campaigning lies in the individual's perception of whether a topic is introduced because the poster wishes to hear other people's views or whether it was posted to promulgate their own views or for publicity by using a public forum.

As one can see, no one actually responded to JLW's post at all, even though nothing prevented them from doing so. So the reality is that it wasn't discussed. It was up to others to decide whether the topics held a wide interest for the community or just to a small minority.

And, if the latter, would it not be better to recognise that, as with the other topics I mentioned (Nazism, anti-immigration, anti-EU) discussion would only be possible if those who disagreed were excluded from the debate, since no meaningful discussion actually occurs (I think this is a discussion).

Since the "FoR3" forum is not used even for the advocacy of FoR3 - my own "obsession" [sic] - (though it is, occasionally, attacked) I would not favour it being used for individuals to use it to repeatedly raise related topics (one might add 'film music' to that) which happen to be of particular interest to them.

[jean]

As one can see, no one actually responded to JLW's post at all, even though nothing prevented them from doing so.

But there was a response - not to the specific content of the post so much as the fact that it existed at all.

That comment now forms the OP to this thread.

Once such a comment has been made, subsequent posters are likely to engage with that, rather than the post whose existence it calls into question.