Letters to the Editor
-
We are addressing the issue
You just don't like the answers we are giving.
With regards to your pet example, the example I ahve been discussing is this one:
http://letters.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2007/07/06/talk/permalink/e5addffaceafad071a5bae02640f14c7.html
AKA Smith's example.
What should you do if your relationship is with some fucktard who promises, never does what you say, will beat you if you try to do it yourself?
I think you should do as AKA Smith says and just pay $300 to the plumber to have it done.
I think you should dump him and go get yourself another SOB that won't communicate with you and resists all your attempts to communicate with him.
I think it would be a complete waste of your time to examine your own behavior and see if you are pressuring the guy, demanding he respond with a certain answer, or if there is anything passive aggressive in your relationship, or talk to the guy.
You already made him cardboard thin in character development, and he clearly has nothing positive to add to you, and he is incompetent and a liar and a brute so why are you wasting your life with him?
-
It's interesting you think a woman should respect a man who keeps saying he'll do something; never does it--and doesn't want her to do it.
and doesn't want her to do it.
Where did I ever say that?
Please point it out. If you can't find that, would it be too much of me to ask you for an apology?
-
hey deering, Juliebird
I think the boycott until there's moderation here is a good idea. Are you gals on board? This won't work unless we all do it.
-
can you have moderation without restricting content to a single viewpoint
the only two kinds of places I've seen where gender issues are discussed are "mens rights" type places where women don't post and the many hundreds of "feminist" blogs where anyone who doesn't take the party line is not allowed to post. Maybe thats the way most people want it, or maybe it isn't. Like I said we don't really know the relevant facts about traffic.
-
moderation and viewpoint
"You're fat and ugly," is not a viewpoint, it's an attack - no one here can see anyone else, so it cannot be an opinion.
I'm not aware of any other online space in which speech like the above is protected.
Visiting Broadsheet's letter pages makes me sick. I have encountered more dick-waving hatred here than in any other online forum, including ones run by teenaged boys. Reading Broadsheet's letters is like voluntarily wading through vomit. No reasonable person would do it for very long at all, which is why so few reasonable people are left.
-
nevertheless
my characterization of all the alternate venues is valid, that is why I asked the question
-
the day
I got called a republican nazi on this board was the day I realized that most of the opinions here are pretty useless.
But my husband got a big kick out of that one.
Makes me wonder: Are there any "republicsn nazi" costumes at the adult fantasy store?
-
Oh please, the abuse goes in both directions here, you just don't notice what you don't want to
Check out deering below calling people dimwitted and misogynists.
The other day desi_grrl called me a misogynist and a racist, and then admitted it was due to nothing I had written, it was just that I didn't strenuously agree with a point she had made.
The moderation you seek is not moderation, it is suppression so that you can get away with your bullying, mocking, demeaning, and continued ghettoization.
If you can't deal with people in an internet forum where almost everyone here agrees that everyone deserves equal rights, how can you hope to achieve any success in the real world with your arguments.
-
maybe it's a Karl Rove strategy
If every single member of the "base", in this case women, is commitedly on board you have a majority and maybe it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. I wonder though how people expect to be secure in knowing what people really think while at the same time creating and maintaining a system where people are punished for thinking wrong. It's true that abuse in a general sense goes both ways but as always when gender is involved there are differences which matter to people.
-
a good friend
of mine is working on a theatre piece about dis-connection in our age of mass-communication.
You bet he's tuning in to this piece.
Is it the anonymity that allows so many people to be so mean? Or is it that without a face or voice to connect to it's easier to think of everyone as not beig "real" and therefore not worthy of respect? Or is it merely a self-selecting community (only the stubborn, the patient or the vindictive stick it out while most of the reasonable, insightful people stay away or give up)?
It's interesting to me that whatever the topic might be, the conversation generally devolves into a few predictible headings:
1. the writer of the piece is an idiot and a man-hater.
2. the writer of the piece is also not writing about worthwhile subject
3. all the women who write in are eith man-haters, sexually repressed, stupid or desirous of a punitive miandrogynous double-standard.
4. men are geniuses whose only fault is trying to reason with women.
5. people make spelling or gramatical errors in their posts. Which renders everything they've said unworthy of consideration.
oh and
6. whoever is the most vitriolic is also a confirmed chick-magnet.
Since there are quite a few posters with welcome insights, including -gasp!- men, I try to wade through the bile. But, sheesh, it gets old.
-
Allie, I think it is a good idea, even though you didn't mention my name.
I was probably not going to post here much anymore anyway. I am just tired of the fat, victim, teabagging, etc. Maybe I will change my mind if things become more civilized. I like the idea because it really actually appeals to the libertarian side of me. Ordinarily, I would be a bit uncomfortable but Anonymous who suggested it mentions the free market. Voting with one's feet has always been a way that individuals can be heard.
If Juliebird and deering agree, then I'm in.
-
the effects of anonymity vary with the subject
I can assure you that when hot topics are being discussed the level of vitriol and personal attack can easily be HIGHER when fewer people are anonymous because everyone takes everything more personally and it's easier to be sure of your target. It is also true that while a personal history can add context and understanding and avoid confusion regarding what is being posted it can ALSO add EVEN MORE emotionally based distortion to a difficult subject than the already large amount present.