Questions about wrongplanet's mandate ! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !

Post Reply New Topic

Shadexiii wrote

So you want this site to make you feel perfectly welcome from day one, the comfort of others be damned, eh? It doesn't work like that.

Refusing to enforce some rigid mindset of what is and isn't "right" isn't the same as encouraging what may be wrong.

If the free speech of some members creates a hostile environment for some who the forum is intended to serve, that should be considered a problem. It may be decided that the free speech is valued more, but this should be a decision, not a presumption.

I'm not sure where this is located, but I believe somewhere in the rules. . . like, in the first item. . . it mentions that language that is racist, sexist, or belittling other groups on WP is not allowed. Language that is intrinsically derogatory to women pops up from regularly, but is not, in my opinion, the real problem. More frequently- and quite pervasively- the problem is seen in semi-reasonable arguments that display a very misogynist world view.

While I would hardly wish to argue that quashing individual perspective is an acceptable way to go about changing this, I do feel it needs attending to. Not by censorship, for the most part; since it is in the rules that certain things are not allowed, those rules should be enforced, but I'm thinking of something else. If the people who run WP seriously intend it to be a useful place for women, there should be

a) Some public and reasonably prominent statement to the effect that women and men are considered equal here, and that while opinions to the contrary will not be censored, they are not condoned by the WP management/ownership/establishment.
and

b) A very precise definition of what language is not permitted- among other reasons, so that it's quite clear that the moderators aren't failing to remove posts because they agree with them. This is not an accusation; it appears, though, that a lot of things go uncensored because free speech is valued. It would be helpful if it were clear that they do stay for the sake of free speech, not because they are considered acceptable by the governing interests of the site on any other grounds.

I make this argument from the perspective of one who has given a great deal of serious thought to the possibility that women are genuinely inferior to men. If I weren't beyond the need to question that now, the fact that this assertion of inequality seems to lurk not far behind the words of so many WP members would make it a very difficult place for me to come.

I have no problem with a men's forum. . . I would have no problem with men reading the women's forum, provided they were quiet if they couldn't be respectful. I'd expect to have to display the same decorum reading there.

Of course, these are suggestions in the case that making WP female friendly is a priority. If not. . . well, then not, and I suppose I'd have to argue about that on other grounds.

Any system of censorship will entail value judgements; I'm only asking that these be made transparent. I value free speech quite a lot, but I wouldn't host an open forum without transparency regarding my own biases. I also wouldn't do it without a very clear idea of what things I wanted to accomplish, and what the priorities among these things would be.

Well why have a boss then?

It was a rhetorical question in response to the idea that members could regulate each others' behaviour on different threads. To a degree this is not a bad idea. Taken too far though, and it becomes mob rule.

WP has already lived thru a period of overmoderation by PC fanatics. I don't think anyone wants that again.

This is the post PC era. It's just another weapon anyway, why pretend otherwise?

What is his problem? lol