I don't want to patrol Barbelith like Chips looking for taste violations, or strappado those who have different tastes to me. I just think the slight restriction on my freedom in posting whatever title I want is more than counterbalanced by the right not to have to read offensive titles.
But, in allowing for subjective interpretations of "offensive" (basically, anything which anyone anywhere says they find upsetting or squeamish or that they'd rather not read), you're widening the definition to a degree which gets us onto incredibly dodgy ground. Once you expand the definition of "offensive" to that extent and decide that people have a "right" not to have to encounter anything "offensive", even momentarily, then you're effectively censoring to taste.
How restrictive is it to keep thread titles relatively low-ick? If I want to start a thread on grandma raping badger porn, how hard is it to be polite and keep the potentially offensive stuff to the thread itself? It's only a click away, how infringed is our freedom by leaving our ruder conversations for the body of the thread?
It's potentially very infringing, because "low-ick" is, as you've demonstrated, highly subjective. I could, for example, decide that I don't especially like reading the word "fuck" in thread titles. Following your reasoning, I decide it's "eye-bleedy" and therefore "offensive" - therefore a slew of Conversation threads must change or die. I could also decide, were I so minded, that I'd rather not encounter references to bisexuality or transsexualism. Your wide, uncritical definition means that, again, my claimed offendedness means bi/trans threads have to be moderated. I could decide, like Loomis, that Doctor Who irritates me so much that even the mention in a thread title raises my blood pressure. Fine: I'd rather not read the words "Doctor Who" which makes me offended which means those threads must be edited.
Do you see the problem, Quantum?
Am I the thought police for wanting my nan not to have to read about dog-cock if I recommend the site to her?
I think you're verging on it, yes, because what one person considers offensive another person considers acceptable - see my examples above. My own splendidly racist grandmother, were she alive, would likely prefer not to engage with the fact that non-Caucasian people live in the UK. Should Barbelith alter thread titles in event of hypothetical grandparents possibly encountering material they find distasteful?
I think nothing in a thread can be as offensive as censorship, but the title is a different matter- I want the freedom to choose whether or not to open a thread about a subject I find offensive, I want more easily-offended readers to feel they're in a safe space. I don't see why one person's freedom to post whatever they like as a title outweighs another person's right not to be offended.
Because distaste does not = offence. My examples above, while part-facetious, illustrate the problem of trying to create a space that's "safe" to the extent that the "easily-offended" can expect never to encounter anything which might possibly 'squick' them, even for a moment.
I'm not saying rude words=hatespeech, certainly not.
But you are. In conflating distaste with offence with harrassment, you put rude words on a par with hatespeech.
I'm saying keep potentially offensive words and phrases out of the title (and possibly abstract) out of politeness. If someone does post a dogsex thread title then I'm not saying ban them, just that it would be rude of them, and out of consideration for readers they may prefer to amend the title to something less controversial.
Again, "potentially offensive" and "less controversial" are infinitely moveable feasts. One man's "dogsex thread title" is another man's "trans thread title" is my nan's "existence of non-Caucasians thread title".
Here's a different example then- what if I were to start a dozen threads with offensive titles in the convo, just because I can (Like Rage on PCP)? I could be banned for spamming but not for content, is that right? Why? If I start a dozen interesting new threads that's not spamming, that's contributing to the board, so content makes a difference. What's the justification for offensive titles and abstracts, free speech? I don't buy it, freedom is not an inviolate right to be defended to the death, it's the converse of responsibility. We have a responsibility to our readers not to needlessly offend IMHO.
*more I suspect*
Quantum, you're repeatedly butting up against the fact that what you consider "offensive" is not necessarily the same as what I - or my dead grandmother or Peter Hitchens or the man on the Clapham omnibus - finds "offensive". This is one reason why claimed offence must be interrogated to at least some degree, and offence must be distinguished from simple distaste, irritation, squeamishness or 'squick'. |
