katamari
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- May 18, 2008
- Messages
- 2,949
While I agree with much of what has been said on here, I do think there is one important missing piece. I think whenever you ban deep topics (esp. politics) you get more vanilla posts (and I mean this both as a play on Matata's hypothetical conversation and as without controversy or substance).
For instances, regarding Steel's assessment of the pet peeve thread, I would agree that there were some comments made that we could have used for a springboard to discuss heterosexism, sexism, or classism. However, since we are not allowed to discuss these topics for fear that people assume they turn political (or, to some, are political in their being), we instead revert to a discussion of feelings and individualize it. As I see it, things that could be somewhat political posts instead turn into perceived personal attacks since that is the only way we are allowed to talk about them. This doesn't mean I am necessarily advocating listing the ban on forbidden topics, but I do think when you remove the ability to have discussions around contested topics you get a lot more vapid topics. I also know I sometimes bite my tongue or don't post because I am political and discusses controversial topics and I try to respect the forum's rules to do not do this. (Although I do also agree to be as much the same poster as I can be pre-transition as I am post-transition, in respect to the pledge now circulating in this thread).
I also agree that a lot of central and frequent posters left during the transition, perhaps partially because they had other means of contacting each other. This means a lot of thread starters and contributors are now gone. I also feel like we have fewer people hanging on past BWW and LIW than before.
ETA: when I saw "agree" in para2, I mean to the posters who express concern in the pet peeves thread.
For instances, regarding Steel's assessment of the pet peeve thread, I would agree that there were some comments made that we could have used for a springboard to discuss heterosexism, sexism, or classism. However, since we are not allowed to discuss these topics for fear that people assume they turn political (or, to some, are political in their being), we instead revert to a discussion of feelings and individualize it. As I see it, things that could be somewhat political posts instead turn into perceived personal attacks since that is the only way we are allowed to talk about them. This doesn't mean I am necessarily advocating listing the ban on forbidden topics, but I do think when you remove the ability to have discussions around contested topics you get a lot more vapid topics. I also know I sometimes bite my tongue or don't post because I am political and discusses controversial topics and I try to respect the forum's rules to do not do this. (Although I do also agree to be as much the same poster as I can be pre-transition as I am post-transition, in respect to the pledge now circulating in this thread).
I also agree that a lot of central and frequent posters left during the transition, perhaps partially because they had other means of contacting each other. This means a lot of thread starters and contributors are now gone. I also feel like we have fewer people hanging on past BWW and LIW than before.
ETA: when I saw "agree" in para2, I mean to the posters who express concern in the pet peeves thread.