Politics & Current Affairs board

[french frank]

It's not the removal of P&CA to a sidebar as such that bothers me, so much as the suggestion that talking about politics and society is somehow a different kind of thing from talking about music,

Most forums do have separate divisions of some sort, and here we have Choral Evensong, The Early Music Show, Jazz, Arts in separate places so that people can either avoid them or visit them regularly. The fact that many people were a bit browned off by all the political discussion was why I gave it its own forum in the first place - which I thought of as upgrading rather than downgrading.

It was then partly the fact that casual visitors could look in and find political discussion at the top of the list much of the time because of the quantity of posts that was a problem (as I mentioned - someone posted on FB that the site 'seemed to be about politics'); but mainly - and I realise this bothers some people a lot and others not at all - that there was so much backbiting: it didn't even give a good impression of the level of debate and certainly deterred people who might have wanted to participate.

It doesn't take much ingenuity to set up convenient short-cuts to that forum (since I have a bookmarks sidebar, I've put the link at the top so that it's actually easier to reach than any others - one click instead of two or three).

[doversoul1]

It's not the removal of P&CA to a sidebar as such that bothers me, so much as the suggestion that talking about politics and society is somehow a different kind of thing from talking about music, which I don't think is the case since I seem to agree and disagree with (or ignore) many of the same people whatever the subject might be...

I don’t know about in general but on this forum, all the boards are specified as to what they are for. If you think contemporary music is not music, or violins with gut strings should be kept in museums, you wouldn’t post on the Here and Now or The EMS boards. Other boards are less specific but you could say there is some kind of consensus as to what is and is not a suitable topic or the manner of discussion. We have Hosts to keep things in order.

The Politics and Current Affair board has no mechanism of this kind. When anybody can say anything they want, you can’t hope to have constructive discussion on topics that are controversial, sensitive or whatever it is that tend to get people much more personally involved. I think ff is very generous to offer a place for this awkward ‘beast’ on this forum. We could at least try not to abuse it.

[jean]

When anybody can say anything they want, you can’t hope to have constructive discussion on topics that are controversial, sensitive or whatever it is that tend to get people much more personally involved...

There are two kinds of personal involvement, I'd say.

One is caring very much about a particular topic - let's say homophobia - because you have personal experience of suffering it, or some personal understanding of what it might be like to suffer it.

The other sort of personal involvement is when you note that people you have tended to disagree with whenever you meet them are posting on a thread whose topic you care about, perhaps to say that the thread should not even exist, and you feel riled, and you respond in a rather personal way.

There is some crossover between the first and the second, of course, and opinions differ as to where the line should be drawn.

...We could at least try not to abuse it.

Is that best done by not posting at all?

[Richard Barrett]

When anybody can say anything they want, you can’t hope to have constructive discussion on topics that are controversial, sensitive or whatever it is that tend to get people much more personally involved.

But if that applies at all, it applies to the supposedly non-political boards too. People can say anything they want, for example about contemporary music, to which those of us who are personally involved (in either or both of Jean's senses) might have a strong reaction.

[french frank]

There are two kinds of personal involvement, I'd say.

One is caring very much about a particular topic - let's say homophobia - because you have personal experience of suffering it, or some personal understanding of what it might be like to suffer it.

The problem, as far as useful discussion of opposing views is concerned, is that there is a difference between giving factual information which derives from personal experience, and trying to persuade sceptics by conveying personal emotions. There is also the fact that if people 'care very much about a topic', they will tend to get it out of perspective, and feel it's more important than other topics equally deserving. Once the opposing forces go into overdrive, there's nothing stopping them, no room for other 'causes'.

It's not clear to me, for example, why women's rights across the globe, where injustice is horrendous for cultural reasons, do not feature as regularly (at all?).

Why do we not spotlight the harrowing tales of women suffering obstetric fistula through poverty and lack of proper medical care, who are cast out by their families to suffer in pain and atrocious conditions? They suffer for being women doing what men expect them to do - have children. Arguably there is more need to publicise such causes which many people know nothing about than those which feature in the western press.

Sometimes personal experience isn't necessary - you just need half an imagination.

[amateur51]

The problem, as far as useful discussion of opposing views is concerned, is that there is a difference between giving factual information which derives from personal experience, and trying to persuade sceptics by conveying personal emotions. There is also the fact that if people 'care very much about a topic', they will tend to get it out of perspective, and feel it's more important than other topics equally deserving. Once the opposing forces go into overdrive, there's nothing stopping them, no room for other 'causes'.

It's not clear to me, for example, why women's rights across the globe, where injustice is horrendous for cultural reasons, do not feature as regularly (at all?).

Why do we not spotlight the harrowing tales of women suffering obstetric fistula through poverty and lack of proper medical care, who are cast out by their families to suffer in pain and atrocious conditions? They suffer for being women doing what men expect them to do - have children. Arguably there is more need to publicise such causes which many people know nothing about than those which feature in the western press.

Sometimes personal experience isn't necessary - you just need half an imagination.

You make a good point about the situations facing women across the globe, french frank and I have been thinking for some time about posting about it.

However I have been so vilified for posting about gay matters and homophobia that I have, I regret, not done so. A failure of nerve perhaps or just battle-weariness?

[Sir Velo]

But if that applies at all, it applies to the supposedly non-political boards too. People can say anything they want, for example about contemporary music, to which those of us who are personally involved (in either or both of Jean's senses) might have a strong reaction.

Well, I think that's what we want isn't it? No one wants these boards to become anodyne, mealy-mouthed expressions of insipidity. The "Hear (sic) & Now" board obviously has to deal with contemporary politics in as much as it impacts upon a composer's work. To pretend otherwise would be a travesty. Where the forum becomes a slanging match for opposing views on subjects which have nothing to do with musical life or Radio 3 in any conceivable sense, that is where the reputation risk to FOR3 is greatest. If I understand FF correctly, this is what, understandably, she wishes to avoid.

At least part of the reason why Radio 3 did away with the old boards was because the Platform 3 forum had degenerated into an atmosphere of bile, with which the BBC understandably did not wish to be associated. By trying to foster "communities of interest" it had instead created a monster.

[jean]

It's not clear to me, for example, why women's rights across the globe, where injustice is horrendous for cultural reasons, do not feature as regularly (at all?).

Why do we not spotlight the harrowing tales of women suffering obstetric fistula through poverty and lack of proper medical care, who are cast out by their families to suffer in pain and atrocious conditions? They suffer for being women doing what men expect them to do - have children. Arguably there is more need to publicise such causes which many people know nothing about than those which feature in the western press.

It's a very good point - and to your examples might be added FGM and little girls who die (like the eight-year-old whose story was reported recently) because their bodies cannot cope with sexual penetration by their much older husbands.

But it usually requires some soecific development to provoke a thread - such as the one started when Malala spoke at the UN - or some government intervention or failure tyo intervene about which we think we can do more than merely wring our hands.

[Sir Velo]

But it usually requires some soecific development to provoke a thread - such as the one started when Malala spoke at the UN - or some government intervention or failure tyo intervene about which we think we can do more than merely wring our hands.

Thing is, however worthy these issues are, how many people can you actually hope to reach on these boards? 50? 100? Hardly enough to alter the opinions of a wider society I'm afraid.

[amateur51]

Thing is, however worthy these issues are, how many people can you actually hope to reach on these boards? 50? 100? Hardly enough to alter the opinions of a wider society I'm afraid.

The tremendous pace of change around certain issues suggests to me that the use of social media may be generating its own impetus around issues that people care about enough to post about (clumsy sentence). i don't use social media but I do sometimes read friends' facebook/twitter pages and I respond to e-petitions. Perhaps discussion here can enthuse a social media-user to post accordingly?

[french frank]

But it usually requires some soecific development to provoke a thread - such as the one started when Malala spoke at the UN - or some government intervention or failure tyo intervene about which we think we can do more than merely wring our hands.

True - and it was a hopeful chance mailshot from a UK charity working in Ethiopia that informed me of this particular situation - and publicity can help which is why such posts are better on a public forum than hidden away. That is more than 'wringing hands': it is what we can do.

That said, I wouldn't be too happy about this forum being used as a publicity platform for all the charities, injustices and sufferings around the world; no more so for one cause that some people feel passionately about. The key issue would seem to be, What is the discussion point?

I wouldn't care to have to moderate a debate as to whether, given certain news stories, Christians suffered discrimination or 'moral injury' in society. One side might very well 'care passionately' about the topic, while the other would stick the boot in. I don't think there could be much of a discussion.

As far as I can see, the topics are being carried out pretty sensibly in The Netherworld - if individuals could be trained out of expressing their sheer animus and scorn towards people who hold opposing views ...

[jean]

Thing is, however worthy these issues are, how many people can you actually hope to reach on these boards? 50? 100? Hardly enough to alter the opinions of a wider society I'm afraid.

You might say the same about any topic that could be included under Politics & Current Affairs.

To give an example of what I mean.

We all deplore the practice of FGM. There is nothing much to discuss about that as a general topic.

But it has emerged recently that France has had far more success in prosecuting those who practise it than we have, largely because they are prepared to subject little girls to the sort of physical examination we have regarded as too invasive.

There's a discussion to be had there. And a number of campaigns one could sign up to.

[Ff has answered some of my points before I posted them!]

[aeolium]

It's not clear to me, for example, why women's rights across the globe, where injustice is horrendous for cultural reasons, do not feature as regularly (at all?).

Why do we not spotlight the harrowing tales of women suffering obstetric fistula through poverty and lack of proper medical care, who are cast out by their families to suffer in pain and atrocious conditions? They suffer for being women doing what men expect them to do - have children. Arguably there is more need to publicise such causes which many people know nothing about than those which feature in the western press.

Why not indeed, or also the hellish treatment of many children round the world? I suspect one reason as has been suggested is that these are endemic problems and do not appear as recent newsworthy phenomena. Another is that the issue of women's rights will inevitably involve discussion of women's rights in some Islamic countries where there are particular problems - not least education and genital mutilation. And here the unspoken allegation of Islamophobia will inevitably stifle discussion at birth - wrongly in my view. And this is one problem with the P&CA board that you have correctly identified, that some serious issues simply cannot be discussed because they have proved in the past to be too polarising (another such issue imo is the rise of right-wing, nationalist and anti-immigration parties right across Europe, again self-censored since discussion about anything to do with the EU appears to be too divisive). We may therefore through a kind of self-censorship reach a position where only uncontroversial issues are raised on the P&CA board, which may well reduce the squabbling but is not entirely satisfactory.

[jean]

At least part of the reason why Radio 3 did away with the old boards was because the Platform 3 forum had degenerated into an atmosphere of bile, with which the BBC understandably did not wish to be associated. By trying to foster "communities of interest" it had instead created a monster.

I think that was part of a larger BBC decision rather than a purely Radio 3 one. Once the Radio 4 boards had started to go, it was only a matter of time.

Platform 3 may have been a monster, but compared with the old Woman's Hour board, it was sweetness and light.

[jean]

...the issue of women's rights will inevitably involve discussion of women's rights in some Islamic countries where there are particular problems - not least education and genital mutilation...

(It should be clearly said that FGM is not an exclusively Islamic practice, and that it is not found in all Islamic societies.)