Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
The term "thought police" is shorthand for an entire, fairly nuanced concept. It's not an insult -- like, say, "doodyhead". The point of it, and of my entire post, was that what I've seen so far is a fantastic intolerance among other posters. This apparently extends to colors, which is unbelievable. The entire debate has become, already, focused on -- obsessed with -- ideology and symbolism. This is the classic methodology for using form instead of content to transform what could have been an exploration of some interesting concepts into a power struggle. Ideas with which you do not agree are labelled "offensive" and from that moment on cease to exist.
"Offensive" is a wonderful word. What it basically means is that the entire community has to respond to, and help enforce, your personal emotional reaction to someone else's statement. It becomes everyone duty to defend your emotional state, which is kind of similar to a household in which the parents are afraid of their own children. "Now, Morgan, please stop hitting the dog with that hammer, sweetheart."
And your post has thoughtfully proven my point. Rather than encouraging a diversity of voices, perspectives and opinions, your response, like many others, is to call for supression of dissent. And this blog is only two days old. Your first reaction is to call for community standards -- i.e., right out of the gate, as a first resort, you're already seeking to forcibly silence someone else.
Admittedly, if someone repeatedly posts abusive, off-topic or threatening comments, some form of monitoring may be necessary. But this entire forum is allegedly about discussion and ideally, disagreement. That's how ideas are tested, and refined. But it seems to me that the open exchange of ideas, again, is something a lot of posters here don't actually want, although they pay it lip service. That's frightening.
I posted this elsewhere, but feel it belongs here. I am yet another distressed premium subscriber and long time supporter.
Let me clearly spell out my particular gripes:
The LEAD story should ALWAYS be an important NEWS story - NOT an opinion piece, NOT a book review, NOT a piece on sex issues (I usually enjoy those pieces, but they shouldn't lead). It would help if there was some investigative reporting, as there used to be in the good old days. This is the number 1 reason I originally started reading Salon and the number 1 reason I decided to give you $$ - you were reporting NEWS that was hard to find elsewhere during the Clinton impeachment fiasco and the 2000 election. You were so good then. Lately you seem to be all about preaching to the choir.
A lead article on sex issues (I usually enjoy sex articles, sexuality fascinates me) causes a HUGE problem for those of us who visit Salon from work. In fact, Salon used to be my home page at work. But I cannot afford it anymore. I do not need coworkers / senior management asking why I am visiting sites with large pictures of condoms and sex dolls when I am, in fact, looking for NEWS. This really should be a no-brainer, and indicates how out of touch you are with those of us who work in offices outside of the Bay Area.
What is up with all of these touchy feely women's issues? Enough already. Good god, I mean, did you guys decide to hire all the unemployed chicks who wasted their college years majoring in "womyn's studies"?
I guess the point is that I originally came to Salon (my wife and I had two subscriptions - now down to 1 - perhaps soon down to none) because you were a great PRIMARY source of news. In fact, this was also my reason for making it my home page at work, as my job requires me to keep abreast of certain types of current events. However, you seem to have lost your way, and no longer view yourselves as a primary news source. Long opinion pieces preaching to the choir with no new info and lots of rehashing of what we already know have taken the place of real hard news. That and stroies about how hard it is to help a 7 year old with homework and the cheeky new women's blog and new high tech rubbers and how creepy it is that some guys like fucking expensive dolls and comments from readers on their favorite TV shows. Enough!
P.S. King, you rock. I am not even much of a sports fan, but read you religiously. And sometimes you even printed my letters to you.
Don't be a martyr. There are a few notes that defend Broadsheet and those folks' opinions are welcome. You did not post an opinion about Broadsheet. You attacked those who have criticized the blog, unnecessarily belittled them, questioned their intelligence, hinted at hysteria, and made ad hominem arguments. Absent from your first post is a single statement explaining why you believe the Broadsheet is interesting, enjoyable, or otherwise acceptable to you. In your second post you attempt to turn the debate away from Broadsheet and toward some kind of judgment as to who is the most intolerant.
Argue your point like a grown-up. You were called to task for failing to add to the discussion on the topic at hand. Feel free to defend Broadsheet (no one at Salon seems willing to do so), but do so by talking about Broadsheet, not by attacking those with whom you disagree. If you disagree with the criticism of Broadsheet, say so and explain why the critiques are wrong or off-point. But do not try to pretend that your right to express your opinion has been violated simply by virtue of the fact that you hold the minority opinion.
Nonesuch argues, implicitly, that anger is pathological, political outrage is equivalent to ideological repression, and that colors are devoid of social coding, and have nothing whatever to do with gender (regardless of what even the most casual shopping experience for items as seemingly neutral as appropriate clothing for a newborn or a schoolchild might indicate to the contrary).
Perhaps people also object to the pink simply because it clashes so violently with the predominant red color scheme and hurts people's eyes? Color theory, good design principles, established editorial policies and responsive customer service are themselves fairly neutral principles, nonesuch, based in sound business practice. A large part of the reader outrage being expressed here is based on the sense that those principles, at the least, have been abandoned.
Nonesuch, the intensity of your response, and the degree of anxiety you express, in turn puzzles me.
Perhaps the opinion nonesuch expresses is representative of the new demographic Salon hopes to attract with its new editorial policies?
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
