I also was rather shocked by your note, the one that begins: “This thread is only for folks who are not just anti-racist, but anti-white supremacy.”

I mainly use the internet to find opinions and analyses (well… that and comics too…) basically in the same way I read newspapers. If you want an example one of my favourite newspaper columnists is Howard Jacobson and the funny thing about that is I barely ever agree with anything he has to say. But the guy 1) can actually write and write extremely well, 2) always makes me think, always forces me to analyse why I hold such and such opinion. He is somebody against whom you can always bounce your arguments and sometimes somebody who forces you to change ever so slightly your position. His is a peculiar case – mainly because I so rarely agree with him and on such a wide range of topics – but it is a good example of what I, and I hope a lot of others – not that I am putting myself up as an example to follow or anything! – are looking for when reading opinions and editorials.

Now I read this “disclaimer” we are all supposed to agree to and I must say I find it extremely objectionable. Other blogs are pretty much happy to ask commentators to follow a certain code of conduct, avoid swearwords, racist or sexist comments (basically what you here call “treating other posters with respect”) but you go one step further and presume to tell us not what we can say or write but what we must think!

You are going to tell me that Alas is your blog and that you can basically write whatever and invite whoever you wish but I have to ask: how are you ever going to change anybody’s thinking if you even refuse to engage in dialogue with people who disagree with you? If you refuse to treat potential readers as adults with their own positions and insist in treating them as “customers” who have to buy their opinions from you or to reject them wholesale? If basically you insist on them surrendering their critical faculties before they can even open their mouth?

Thoughtcrime anyone?

Justin, referring to other posters with contempt-filled language (i.e., “people like Rachel S.”) isn’t allowed here. Also, if you had read what Rachel actually wrote, you would have seen that she said that she does feel a little sorry for the three accused boys.

Point of order: Does refering to a contemptuous group as “allies” of a commenter when there’s connection between them count as “contempt-filled language” ?

Regarding comments on this post: Please don’t use comments here to continue the discussion that was going on earlier today in the “Moderation Policy” thread.

You guys make all these claims about how you come here with good intentions, but then you aren’t willing to do any actual work to prove it. If you are asked to listen without having the privilege of retorting, you refuse and choose instead to shut your ears.

I’d say the point that a lot of us feminists have been trying to make over the past week or so about the value of having anti-feminist men here has had another bit of evidence in support added to the ever-growing pile.

I am personally acquainted with (in one case related to) women from El Salvador and Greece, and both sets push their men around shamelessly. Nicely of course. “Sweety, do this. Honey, do that. Sweety, it’s time to do this other thing now. Johnny, one of the burners on the stove sputters a bit.” (Johnny knows that there had better be men there the next morning to rip out the entire stove and put in a new one.)

I’m not decrying this or praising it, particularly. Just observing. The assumption seems to be, these men are incapable of dressing themselves without help. As one Greek girl said, “Joe (the husband) needs structure in his life.” And she’ll provide it.

Well, in a way I can understand this, because it is frustrating to read things that you can’t respond to. On the other hand, if guys like RonF say they are here to hear different ideas, etc., doesn’t that attitude pretty much defeat the purpose?

Of course, the image could be blanked later.

But damage may already have been done to the viewer.

And actually, one reason I’d like it up front is so that I won’t bother reading the posting.

I think Maia does a very good job of moderating. She knows what she wants to discuss and keeps things focused on that part of the conversation withought making the moderation deccision seem personal.

Of course, the flip side is if you put it at the top than people will forget about it after 99 comments.

So I’m not really helping much. Sorry