I think one thing that started this thread, was that I posted a link to a YT video by Camille Paglia that had almost 3 million views, but it was blocked on the forum. I tried again. It was again taken down. November Sierra also tried and he had the same experience.
Another thing that prompted this thread was that a moderator who didn’t like a short comment I made about humorless people told me “take a time out and go introspect” before posting again. Then put a “slow down” on that thread.
On “introspection” I found that being told to go sit in the corner with a pointy hat and “introspect” until I came to the correct conclusion, was offensive and condescending. For some reason it reminded me of communist “re-education camps,” where dissidents were sent to introspect and correct themselves so that they could conform with the party line. It irked the “non-conformist” in me.
At almost 70 I have come to my opinions through an enormous amount of study, suffering, travel (44 years as an expat), deep reflection, and experience. I am beyond “re-education.” Only a bullet through the head would change my mind.
His point was that “being told to go sit in the corner with a pointy hat and ‘introspect’ until I came to the correct conclusion” is not a conversation. It’s not even a lecture. Maybe a lesson. Or a conversion.
If it’s only a (successful) conversation if in the end your dialog partner changed his mind… well, that has interesting implications:
Say person A loves vegetables and person B loves pasta. They have a conversation about their favorite food. But by your definition they didn’t, unless now person A loves pasta and person B loves vegetables. So what’s the point talking about their favorite food?
The challenge is that we (society) cannot and do not agree on what is bigoted. Yes, there are common understandings that most would agree upon but there there is an increasing list of things that some very vocal people have deemed bigoted or wrong-think which many other people do not agree with that opinion. “leave it to the moderators” is great in concept but in today’s climate, it will not work. Political bias is always on display and is considered (by some) to be a badge of some self-congratulatory sort and a public display of virtue.
There are many other places to have political debate, discussion, lecturing, and whatever… let’s keep this place focused on writers, writing, and Scrivener’s products.
Well, part of the problem here is that the moderators are often involved in and/or exacerbating the political conflict. It does not make for a safe or welcoming vibe.
I intended to indicate that I have never experienced any unpleasant effects from moderators expressing opinions and nor have I witnessed it exacerbating political conflicts, and therefore my level of comfort remains fine.
Personally I think the peripheral discussions on matters relating (tangentially perhaps) to reading and writing are usually stimulating and useful. I realise that this may not be an opinion everybody here shares but that kind of difference may sometimes itself form the basis for a stimulating and useful discussion.
I have to agree. I would rather not discuss politics, politicians, climate change, etc. There are so many sites available to rave and rant about current events. Because many subjects are divisive and people feel so strongly about their opinion, there appears to be a tendency to resort to name calling, accusations, and incredibly vile rants. It’s not that I don’t use the colorful words; however, I try to aim them at computers, programs, and/or any other inanimate object. Cheers!
yes,moderators and admins especially should not engage in those debates and certainly should not contribute to name-calling, harassment, and ridicule of those with differing views. They need to remain “above the fray” and hold people to the ToS.
If you wish to follow Gandhi’s dictum then don’t read political posts. Don’t engage with them. If it bothers you, the solution is quite simple. Look the other way.