Ganesh I think Flowers specifically didn't alter anything because at that point no-one else was expressing concern.
It was put up for moderation yesterday, by Flowers. The reason, he's saying, is not that the former title was causing concern or offence but because it didn't, as he saw it, relate to the subject matter. If this were true, then whether or not people expressed concern is immaterial - unless they were specifically expressing concern that the title didn't directly relate to the subject matter.
I'd argue, again, that there are plenty of Conversation threads whose titles do not give a clear indication of subject matter - but, generally speaking, we haven't moved to moderate those. In this case, the abstract was adequately descriptive and searchable. If both title and abstract are opaque, then I'd agree that there's a problem. Not the case here.
So... if Flowers moved to moderate purely because the title wasn't sufficiently descriptive (as he appears to be claiming) then, again, I'd ask why start altering Conversation threads on this basis now?
If "expressed concern" were a factor, then I'd also have a problem with the decision, but a different problem: it'd worry me that we were altering titles because moderators found them 'icky'.
I personally am glad that Alex changed the title, because I did find it a bit offensive and it made me feel slightly queasy but I would not have(and didn't)put in a change myself because I realise my feelings are my own interpretation and may not be shared by others.
Absolutely. I still think it's worth discussing the reasoning behind putting the title up for moderation before Alex self-edited, however.
I agree that moderating for personal taste is not a road we wish to go down, but actually I think we should have a discussion about whether fellating dead dogs is something we want to read about and if we come to the conclusion that it is not perhaps it should not be acceptable even in a jokey title?
I'm not saying I think this, I'm just asking a question.
I think I might be sounding all censorious here and I don't intend to come across that way. Really it made me feel a bit sick is all. I don't very often picture oral dog sex, dead or otherwise.
Being hyperbole intended to indicate the degree of dislike for World Cup football, I'd see faint nausea as part of the intended effect.
I'm not sure "we" did "read about" fellating dead dogs: other than the imagery evoked in the hyperbole of the title, Alex didn't go into a great deal of detail. If you're asking whether particular subjects ought to be considered beyond the pale because "we" don't want to read about them, then by all means feel free to initiate such a discussion. I can think of at least half a dozen popular Conversation topics that I'd rather not read about. It hadn't occurred to me that these topics, jokily expressed or otherwise, should be considered unacceptable, merely because they weren't to my taste, but I'll happily engage with such a discussion.
First step would be to hone your question. Are you asking "do people want to talk about fellating dead dogs?", "should it be acceptable to talk about fellating dead dogs on Barbelith?" or "what should be on a list of unacceptable topics?" These questions all intersect, as I see it, and I'm interested to see how you address them. Defining "we" would also be helpful. |
