Forum Policy on remarks that aren't PC

[seeker5]

Mod: This post is spun off from the thread called "Women's Role" to avoid derailing that thread.

Originally Posted by Rose of Cairo

No but seriously, even though I personally am not offended by your post (it makes me grin ) I am going to report it. Sexism is explicitly prohibited by the forum rules.

Since you publicly reported the post, I'll publicly respond.

Talking about difference of opinions about men and women's role and way of being is tolerated on this forum, as long as it is done in a respectful, conscious, non-trollish, non-name calling, and non-attacking manner. This is because this thread here is about dating material which touches on women and men's roles.

If on the other hand a woman had a thread about trying to start a career and a vision, and someone came in and wrote the same things as AfterDream did, then that would be sexist and disempowering to her and wouldn't be tolerated.

Hope the difference make sense.

[Rose of Cairo]

Originally Posted by seeker5

Since you publicly reported the post, I'll publicly respond.

Talking about difference of opinions about men and women's role and way of being is tolerated on this forum, as long as it is done in a respectful, conscious, non-trollish, non-name calling, and non-attacking manner. This is because this thread here is about dating material which touches on women and men's roles.

If on the other hand a woman had a thread about trying to start a career and a vision, and someone came in and wrote the same things as AfterDream did, then that would be sexist and disempowering to her and wouldn't be tolerated.

Hope the difference make sense.

No, to me the difference does not make any sense.

Let's assume I think (I don't, but let's assume I do) that black people aren't born for intellectual work and that emotionally healthy black people prefer working with their hands above everything else.

1) If some black person starts a thread about how s/he wants to get a PhD in physics, and I reply that as a black person, s/he isn't born for intellectual work and should work with her hands instead, this would be racist and disempowering and wouldn't be tolerated.

2) Now let's imagine we're having a general discussion about, say, intercultural communication between America and Africa, and I claim that black people aren't born for intellectual work and should be naturally attracted to working with their hands instead. Would such a post be tolerated?

This is exactly similar to what AfteraDream said. Based on genetic factors only, members of some specific group are said to be "not born" for something, and that if they're emotionally healthy, they prefer xyz. (Which also means that if they happen not to prefer xyz, they must be kinda sick.)

This is called discrimination. So what you're saying is that posts with discriminating content are okay as long as the person who started the thread is not the one the discrimination is about?

I'm pretty sure that in case 2), my post would not be tolerated. So why are discriminating statements accepted when the discrimination is based on gender, but not when it is based on race?

Now maybe I'm mistaken and racism is tolerated as well. Is that so?

[Angela]

Right on, Rose!
Right on, Indiana!

Context didn't make AfteraDream's remark any less sexist:

She can have her own vision but women are not born for this (emotionally healthy woman prefers family and kinds over anything).

sexism
Dictionary: sex·ism (sĕk'sĭz'əm)
Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

[Brutha]

This is called discrimination. So what you're saying is that posts with discriminating content are okay as long as the person who started the thread is not the one the discrimination is about?

If the claim doesn't conflict with the purpose of the thread we probably wouldn't censor a remark as "black people aren't born for intellectual work and should be naturally attracted to working with their hands instead".

[sirkinm]

Did the original post get censored?

Though I don't necessarily think the post should've been censored, I'd have to agree with Rose that it is indeed sexist (and simple-minded). People are complex -- a woman can be emotionally balanced and not be a very nurturing or family-oriented person.

What about woman who are very masculine by nature, seeker5 -- do you think they are somehow unnatural or disturbed? There's a lot of variation within each gender.

Oops, I guess that's off topic, cause we're talking about forum rules here. I think the post should stand uncensored, but I agree with Rose that it is sexist. I bet if seeker5 refined his phrasing, he could have better expressed what he was trying to convey.

[Adrienne]

Originally Posted by sirkinm

Did the original post get censored?

Though I don't necessarily think the post should've been censored, I'd have to agree with Rose that it is indeed sexist (and simple-minded). People are complex -- a woman can be emotionally balanced and not be a very nurturing or family-oriented person.

What about woman who are very masculine by nature, seeker5 -- do you think they are somehow unnatural or disturbed? There's a lot of variation within each gender.

Oops, I guess that's off topic, cause we're talking about forum rules here. I think the post should stand uncensored, but I agree with Rose that it is sexist. I bet if seeker5 refined his phrasing, he could have better expressed what he was trying to convey.

The the sexist part was not removed. It was not censored. That is what the issue is and what got brought up was that some people feel this is sexist and should be censored on these forums.

[Savage]

This is an issue we had to discuss a lot on the mod team. These are not easy questions to answer. The hard part is deciding where to draw the line. Even if you assemble a group of pretty conscious people, not everyone is going to agree on what type of discussion should be banned on the grounds of sexism, racism, etc.

Ultimately I have to make the final call on divisive issues like this one, so if you don't like my answer, you'll have to hold me personally responsible for it.

I prefer to put a fairly tight definition on what would be interpreted as racist or sexist in terms of our forum rules. It would have to be pretty clear that someone is posting sexist/racist comments for trolling purposes, posting out of anger, or making personal attacks to intentionally disrespect other members. I understand that this is a lot tighter than most people would interpret these terms outside these forums.

I don't think it's wise for us to prohibit people from sharing personal opinions and perspectives that are not politically correct, especially when such viewpoints are present in society at large and are still being taught. If it appears that a member is simply voicing his/her honest opinion, even if that opinion is unpopular with certain members, I think it should be allowed, assuming it abides by the rest of the forum rules.

The purpose of these forums is to help people explore their own conscious growth. I don't think that prohibiting the sharing of non-PC opinions would help fulfill that purpose. I think it's better that we give people the freedom to explore their beliefs, which includes discussing them openly.

The specific text of the forum rules is there to reflect a greater intent, not to dictate it.

I understand that allowing more free speech and more diversity and using less moderator intervention may create more friction at times, but I think it's the right choice for us.

You're free to disagree of course, and I certainly understand if you do. I'm not trying to convince you that where I would draw the line for forum moderation is where you should draw it in your own life. But I do ask that if you choose to participate here that you at least find a way accept that this degree of free speech is acceptable here... even if you think it means the admin is a Cro-Mag in need of therapy.

[Asmoday]

Good ruling, Steve. Wasn't sure how you were going to handle that. Well, I was sure you weren't going to strike the post -- but I wasn't sure how you would frame it.

Intent -- hard enough to measure in person, let alone over text-based messages.

And, to those who might be upset by this ruling, as a side thought, you're never going to make the "sexist" people "unsexist" if you just keep shutting them out of the conversation.

What you resist, persists.

[Angela]

I'm not upset by this ruling, and I don't begrudge it -- it's a privately owned forum, not a democracy. And I'm confident that a person who expresses their honest opinion that a particular post has sexist, racist, or otherwise demeaning or offensive language in it will be given the same consideration. You're right -- it probably won't make a person who says sexist things say them any less, but perhaps it will just let them know that sexist statements won't simply be absorbed as the status quo and go unremarked upon.

It's kind of like ethnic slurs. Ethnic slurs were once part and parlance of American culture, freely slung about at parties and in the workplace. As more and more people spoke up, and would say to the joker/slurrer's face: "You know, that's an ethnic slur, and I don't think it's cool," (sometimes followed by, "...you big nincompoop.") the slurrers became slinkers, and now you just don't tend to hear the remarks and jokes that were bandied around in discussions 30 years ago. Maybe an overdose of annoying "political correctness" is the natural result of that, and the pendulum will probably swing back again, as it has here, but it looks to me like there's a general tendency rising of awareness, and alignment with love, in the public at large.

I see that happening less and less around here, though, as I keep getting pm's and emails from people who tell me they miss the old, loving, supportive atmosphere this forum once had, and ask me why sexist, racist, and otherwise demeaning and offensive posts are now being tolerated. After objecting a time or three, they tend to accept that this degree of free speech is accepted and they simply fade away from here..... there are quite a few very delightful, intelligent, well-spoken, and loving people whom I miss from that Golden Age of this forum.

It's a natural evolution, I think, and it's fine. It's just a different sort of growth opportunity.

[Dharma]

Originally Posted by Angela

I see that happening less and less around here, though, as I keep getting pm's and emails from people who tell me they miss the old, loving, supportive atmosphere this forum once had, and ask me why sexist, racist, and otherwise demeaning and offensive posts are now being tolerated.

No one grows while living in the 'nice box'. It cuts off necessary expression. I hope you responded back to those people and tell them about victimization, expression, and creating their reality. They are living it now and seeing their reflection of themselves in the posts on this forum. And really, you don't need to tell them that, it's been stated again and again on these pages.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Dharma

No one grows while living in the 'nice box'. It cuts off necessary expression. I hope you responded back to those people and tell them about victimization, expression, and creating their reality. They are living it now and seeing their reflection of themselves in the posts on this forum. And really, you don't need to tell them that, it's been stated again and again on these pages.

You're right about the growing, Dharma. But those people aren't seeing reflections of themselves here so much, because they're just gone -- they're seeing it some other aspect of the mirror. It's not about victimization (not in all cases, anyway!), but about evaluating what works well in your life. The lesson is not for THEM, it's for me, of course. I have resisted accepting, because I was trying to hold onto that atmosphere, in which people were safe from the environment that comes with sexist, racist, or homohostile posts -- as a moderator and a participant I felt that was right action for me and fun! I've been complainy about it while I was resisting the natural evolution, and now I'm letting go of that, as my own natural evolution takes place and I can accept that this forum is exactly as it *should* be.

As for only accepting the "nice" aspect of myself -- one of the lovely outcroppings of this all is that I'm learning to accept the politically incorrect parts of me, and to enjoy them -- to let go of squelching rage and to just go ahead and get the message so that I can keep the learning and let the emotion go. Resisting negative emotions, and thereby missing the message that those angels are trying to get through my thick skull, is just as unaligned with Love as is expressing them negligently. As a moderator, I felt like it was important to be more moderate all the time. And now, having let go of that, it's pretty fun to be a member, and to just 'member to be true to myself.

[Brutha]

It's kind of like ethnic slurs. Ethnic slurs were once part and parlance of American culture, freely slung about at parties and in the workplace. As more and more people spoke up, and would say to the joker/slurrer's face: "You know, that's an ethnic slur, and I don't think it's cool," (sometimes followed by, "...you big nincompoop.")

There a difference between calling someone on the remarks he says and explaining why those remarks are wrong and just shutting the other person out of the discussion.

Jokes are also something different than arguments and jokes are a lot more about wanting to share your own judgments with other people on an group identity level and don't happen on the level of an intellectual debate which looks at pro and cons.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Brutha

There a difference between calling someone on the remarks he says and explaining why those remarks are wrong and just shutting the other person out of the discussion.

Exactly so. Similarly, there is a difference between distinguishing what works for you, and declaring that it is true for everyone, or what someone is "born for" by virtue of their gender, race, or sexual orientation -- and that someone who doesn't agree or fit your declaration is psychologically sick or a threat to society. Declaring or hinting that someone is sick or a threat to society is an excellent way to shut that person out of the discussion.

Jokes are also something different than arguments and jokes are a lot more about wanting to share your own judgments with other people on an group identity level and don't happen on the level of an intellectual debate which looks at pro and cons.

Well, I would agree with you that jokes are usually propagating judgement at an unconscious level, whereas intellectual debate, looking at pros and cons, is more about evaluation. But that doesn't mean that prejudiced, universal judgements about an entire group of people based on their gender, race, or sexual orientation don't sneak into real and respectful intellectual debate.

Either way, it's propaganda -- that is, statements that are intended to bypass the conscious acceptor/rejector and go directly into the group level unconscious identity. Propaganda can be true or false, helpful or not, and either way it doesn't hurt to expose it as propaganda, and bring it to conscious awareness so that it doesn't just slide unnoticed into the gestalt, the way that destructive memes in the past have. You know, like how "AIDS is the gay plague -- god's punishment" was once propagated by ignorant or manipulative people, and having its fear-based prejudice brought out into the light prevented it from becoming "common sense" or unconscious habitual belief.

In the same way, pointing out that a remark made during a fair, respectful intellectual debate is sexist, racist, or gay-hostile sheds light on statements that might otherwise slip right past conscious evaluation, just as it would if it were part of an ethnic joke.

[James81]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

This is an issue we had to discuss a lot on the mod team. These are not easy questions to answer. The hard part is deciding where to draw the line. Even if you assemble a group of pretty conscious people, not everyone is going to agree on what type of discussion should be banned on the grounds of sexism, racism, etc.

Ultimately I have to make the final call on divisive issues like this one, so if you don't like my answer, you'll have to hold me personally responsible for it.

I prefer to put a fairly tight definition on what would be interpreted as racist or sexist in terms of our forum rules. It would have to be pretty clear that someone is posting sexist/racist comments for trolling purposes, posting out of anger, or making personal attacks to intentionally disrespect other members. I understand that this is a lot tighter than most people would interpret these terms outside these forums.

I don't think it's wise for us to prohibit people from sharing personal opinions and perspectives that are not politically correct, especially when such viewpoints are present in society at large and are still being taught. If it appears that a member is simply voicing his/her honest opinion, even if that opinion is unpopular with certain members, I think it should be allowed, assuming it abides by the rest of the forum rules.

The purpose of these forums is to help people explore their own conscious growth. I don't think that prohibiting the sharing of non-PC opinions would help fulfill that purpose. I think it's better that we give people the freedom to explore their beliefs, which includes discussing them openly.

The specific text of the forum rules is there to reflect a greater intent, not to dictate it.

I understand that allowing more free speech and more diversity and using less moderator intervention may create more friction at times, but I think it's the right choice for us.

You're free to disagree of course, and I certainly understand if you do. I'm not trying to convince you that where I would draw the line for forum moderation is where you should draw it in your own life. But I do ask that if you choose to participate here that you at least find a way accept that this degree of free speech is acceptable here... even if you think it means the admin is a Cro-Mag in need of therapy.

Great perspective. I support your stance on this 100%.

Something else I've discovered in my time (I used to run my own forums and I was a moderator on another forum for a while), is that the absolute best and freest way to allow free speech on a message board, without offending mass quantities of people in the process, is to have a place for it. What I mean is, I used to recognize, for example, on my own forum a need for members to have a go at each other. Trying to restrict them from having their drama usually caused it to spill over throughout all the rest of the forums and it got out of hand.

So what I did was, I created a forum called "Quarantine" where people can fight, argue, saying anything to each other (within legal limits of course), and anytime they would veer a thread off course, it would get split and moved to Quarantine where they could argue till their hearts were content. It allowed them to move through their emotions, say their piece, and 99% of the time after a long heated thread, it would die out very quickly and they would go back to contributing in their own ways again.

It was from that that I discovered that the best thing I could do was to create my site in layers. Have a section that was heavily moderated for those who had thin skins and got offended easily and then have a section where people could be free with what they said with no repurcussions. And at the bottom of it all was my Quarantine and Garbage forums where I would move drama and useless posts and discussions.

When I did that, it seemed to please like 90% of the members because they now knew that if they did not want to get offended, then they should not go into a particular area of the forum and stay where there was more heavily modded forums.

The other 10% were just trolls or people you can never please no matter what you do.

I also noticed that there was rarely an instance that a thread would get locked. Most threads and posts suffered from getting bounced around and moved, but nobody could ever point their finger at me and say that I was restricting their freedom of expression. I simply moved it to the correct area.

Something to think about, based on my own experiences.

[liamona]

Originally Posted by James81

So what I did was, I created a forum called "Quarantine" where people can fight, argue, saying anything to each other (within legal limits of course), and anytime they would veer a thread off course, it would get split and moved to Quarantine where they could argue till their hearts were content. It allowed them to move through their emotions, say their piece, and 99% of the time after a long heated thread, it would die out very quickly and they would go back to contributing in their own ways again.

What a great idea. They ought to do that at the Mothering.com Forums. Instead, every forum is heavily moderated, to the point where they had to cancel the popular (but argument-rousing) Politics and Current News sub-forum because the moderators couldn't keep up with the volume of messages.

I guess that's understandable since there's over 130,000 members, but if they had a "Quarantine" forum for the inevitable cat fights, they probably wouldn't need that many moderators.

[Xanafax]

This whole PC thing is nonsense.

I have found that people will always be biased one way or another. It's not sexist, or racist, or sizist or whatever.

What irritates me is that people who are part of this PC-Brigade like to think they are doing the world a favour by over censoring things.

Now I do not even consider gender an issue frankly, I judge people on their minds.

Before I get a load of comments about my apparent hatred of Muslims, remember Islam is a personal philosophy made by choice. I reserve the right to find abhhorent that which is assimilated by choice and that which causes measurable harm to others.

What I am trying to say here is that there will always be those ready to cry racist! or Sexist! when a topic gets too uncomfortable for them. These people should laughed at. Simple as.

[cacheborn]

IMO, such remarks should not be allowed. And it's not the question of being PC. Many atrocities have been committed in history based on ideas of discrimination in one way or other. When someone says something discriminatory, that person is voicing an opinion based on his/her philosophy, ideology etc. For instance, taking Rose's example, if someone makes such remark about blacks, he/she obviously believes in it. If that person is on a hiring committee, he/she may be more biased towards white applicants and may discriminate against a black candidate. If such remarks are allowed, we are helping that person in a tiny way to maintain his beliefs. Perhaps not so much practically, but from a principle point of view.

There are people in this world, who based on religion, caste, gender etc. have extreme opinions. In present era, the taleban regime can be an extreme example of the same. The question is, how far can the freedom of speech concept be taken? Some religious fanatic may be of the opinion that women are witches and should be burned or whatever. I understand it is a very fine line between freedom of speech and such type of remarks. But the important thing to realize is with that freedom comes a great responsibility. If the person voicing the opinion does not understand this repsonsibility, freedom of speech concept does not have much value.

[Xanafax]

cacheborn your idea sees noble but taken to the logical conclusion we must therefore remove all individuality because everything everyone does is going to offend someone somewhere.

You seem to be advocating a system where the beliefs the Government or "Society" deems acceptable are the only beliefs that should be allowed. Which to me seems ridiculous.

[cacheborn]

Xanafax,
I never said anything about offending anyone. Infact, the first line of my post is

And it's not the question of being PC.

I don't care about the govt. (taleban is a govt in Afganistan, btw) I just gave examples of cases where freedom of speech concept can be taken too far.

Edit : I did say such remarks should not be allowed.

My question is, where do you draw the line between freedom of speech and extremist opinions, which can be physically/emotionally harmful to people?

[Xanafax]

Me?

I believer everyone has the right to voice ANY opinion they so wish. However I totally and utterly reject the idea that physical force can be used to coerce a person in anyway, shape or form. If someone uses physical force against me, in my opinion they accept the consequences of such actions and deserve everything they get in return.

So for me, everything that is a choice is fair game. You see a religion or philosophy is a choice, and as such I believe that I have every right to question the validity of someone's faith irrespective of who they are.

I do not see it as appropriate to insult someone for being Black, White or anything else that is NOT a choice. (Unless your Michael Jackson...)

If a faith is truly as good as it professes it will be able to withstand questioning. Unfortunately we know that all religions fall short at this, and resort to threats about God and The Bible or The Koran or whatever. This is why I have no respect for religion btw. It's just not rooted in reality.

[Brutha]

If such remarks are allowed, we are helping that person in a tiny way to maintain his beliefs. Perhaps not so much practically, but from a principle point of view.

Why do you think that a debate about those believe only helps the maintainance of those beliefs?
Instead of censoring there also the possibilty to simply argue why the belief is wrong.
If you generally believe that there is a clear case to be made that a belief is wrong more discussion of the belief should lead to more people thinking that the belief is wrong.

Good ideas don't need the force of censorship to win over bad ideas in society. By allowing freedom of speech the market of ideas can work more efficently and the good ideas can spread better than the bad ideas without one authority having to make decisions about which ideas are good and which are bad.

Of course that needs some confidence, because you actually have to believe that your ideas are good.

[cacheborn]

Good ideas don't need the force of censorship to win over bad ideas in society.

Well, if we are talking about a discussion on a forum I understand your point as far as debating ideas is concerned. Personally, I still feel doubtful about usefulness of expression of extremist opinions, but that is a personal opinion. I do see the other point of view.

However, if we are talking about society, bad ideas can lead to bad actions. I do not mean a Big Brother kind of thing, obviously, where you have to censor each idea. But in society, we have to resist ideas, organizations, actions etc. based on discrimination, religious beliefs etc. that can be harmful.

[Brutha]

I still feel doubtful about usefulness of expression of extremist opinions, but that is a personal opinion.

You could argue that a lot of the things that Steve says are very extreme by the normal standards of society.
Having people with ideas that are far out of of the mainstream who are able to discuss those ideas on an intellectual level is in part what this forum is about.

But in society, we have to resist ideas, organizations, actions etc. based on discrimination, religious beliefs etc. that can be harmful.

There are different way that you can use to act against bad ideas in society than censoring those ideas.
And forbidding actions that do harm some people is different than forbidden ideas.

[Erin Pavlina]

Nothing in an of itself is offensive. It's up to the person hearing it to decide if they want to feel offended or not. We all have our limits and they are not the same. To police people's thoughts and freedom of speech is "1984" in nature and I'm opposed to that kind of thought policing.

however, what needs to happen is that people need to express their opinions and beliefs and then be open to being shown how they might be wrong about a certain group. Open honest discussions need to be had. If we're not allowed to talk about it, we can never understand the person's viewpoint and perhaps point out where their reasoning might be flawed.

May not be an easy task, but that's how change happens. You can't tell someone how they're supposed to think, you can only find out what they think and show them another way of looking at it.

[Andrew Brunelle]

Everyone has a right to their opinion and a right to express it. If someone is sexist or racist, they are going to say things some people may not agree with. But they have a right to say it due to free speech. Free speech should not be taken away ever. Censoring people's feelings and expression is a way to control thought, which is a powerful tool for social control. If you are offended by certain topics or certain statements, you can talk about it as well. It's your right. I agree with Steve and Erin's decision to keep that thread uncensored because everyone has a right to agree or disagree.

[Angela]

My perspective on this issue has shifted, and I'm fine with any sexist, racist, gay-bashing, or any other remarks that are posted here, regardless of who they offend. Really! I know that may sound suspicious after everything I've said about this, but here's something I've realized:

I was frustrated and angry, the way a child is, because I couldn't yet articulate to myself what was bothering me about these posts I evaluate to be sexist and gay-bashing. Brutha, the wonderful mod, asked me what I was trying to accomplish, and got me thinking about learning to articulate it more effectively. (Thanks, Brutha!) I needed to get the learnings through my thick skull so that I could let go of the negative emotion easily and effortlessly, and that's what has happened -- I got some learnings that are very valuable, I think, and will serve me well in other areas of my life, and was able to articulate them to myself. The frustration and anger just *poof!* disappeared!

So, yes, I am now good with Steve and Erin's choice to protect politically incorrect opinions, including ones that are, in my opinion, idiotic, bigoted, mean-spirited, or neanderthal. In fact, I'm even good with people posting things like the statements I would routinely delete when I was a moderator, like: "You're an as*hole/idiot" or "That's bulls*hit" (or, "you're an idiotic, bigoted, mean-spirited neanderthal" ) so it's probably a good thing I'm no longer a moderator, because I suspect the admins would not appreciate THOSE kinds of honest opinions being protected under free speech, and they will continue to be censored. To me, they fit in the same category as statements like, "women who don't put family first are sick" or "homosexuality is a threat to society," just maybe a bit less vitriolic-sounding. If you can keep the volume turned down on the sound of your vitriol (which isn't the same thing as the feeling of your vitriol, of course, but it's hard for many people to keep their feelings out of their sound), I think most opinions can probably pass muster.

(What would NOT fit into that category is something like, "F*** you!" or "go drown in a tub" or "I curse you and all your generations!" That kind of thing is not really an honest opinion; I think the moderators would be quick to recognize that as direct attack or insult and down you'd go. Which is a good thing, I think; other forums allow direct attack and insult and they look like that horrible stuffed bathroom cabinet that, when you open the door, all kinds of nasty, slimy gunk tumbles out.)

That paragraph before last might have sounded vitriolic, ironically, I just realized! But please know that when I say that those remarks are in the same category, I'm talking about a category that is now perfectly acceptable to me -- I have let go of my resistance to the trait they hold in common and seen that that particular trait is, for me, an opportunity for personal growth. It's something that's directly related to my purpose, and once again, I must thank you Brutha, for derailing my train so that I could see it.

My preference is that members, as well as the public at large, speak respectfully and with an honest desire to understand and generate positive feelings in the conversation, as Erin was suggesting in her recent post, but I don't expect others to do what I want them to do just because it's my preference! I don't even expect ME to do it just because it's my preference.

I only have one more busy-body suggestion to make regarding policy here, and that is that the rules be modified to more accurately reflect it. As Erin says, nothing is in and of itself offensive -- and Adrienne the moderator acknowledged that a standing post was sexist -- so the rule that says that sexist and offensive messages won't be tolerated doesn't really make so much sense, from that perspective -- it's not really congruent, the way it's currently worded. But that's Steve and Erin's business, and I will say no more about that.

[Rose of Cairo]

OK, I'm going to post several times in a row now. I'm sorry about that and apologize in advance. For the sake of clarity, I'd like to reply to people individually instead of writing one overwhelming monsterpost. I have a lot to reply to, for I waited until I was emotionally detached from the issue before replying. Here it is.

Originally Posted by Adrienne

The the sexist part was not removed. It was not censored. That is what the issue is and what got brought up was that some people feel this is sexist and should be censored on these forums.

I don't feel that this is true, or at least not for me, and not the way you just put it.

You're almost making it sound like we / I want to have sexist posts censored out of moral indignation, because they're "politically incorrect" and kinda evil. That is absolutely not the case. There's a reason why I think they're detrimental to these forums that has nothing to do with moral judgment.

[Rose of Cairo]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

I prefer to put a fairly tight definition on what would be interpreted as racist or sexist in terms of our forum rules. It would have to be pretty clear that someone is posting sexist/racist comments for trolling purposes, posting out of anger, or making personal attacks to intentionally disrespect other members. I understand that this is a lot tighter than most people would interpret these terms outside these forums.

Then don't write in the forum rules that racist or sexist comments won't be tolerated, when they really are. No matter how broadly you interpret it, if "Black people aren't born for intellectual work and should be working with their hands instead" is not a racist comment, I am the pope. It would be more congruent to write that sexist or racist comments made explicitly for trolling purposes, out of anger, or as a personal attack to intentionally disrespect other members won't be tolerated.

I don't think it's wise for us to prohibit people from sharing personal opinions and perspectives that are not politically correct, especially when such viewpoints are present in society at large and are still being taught. If it appears that a member is simply voicing his/her honest opinion, even if that opinion is unpopular with certain members, I think it should be allowed, assuming it abides by the rest of the forum rules.

The purpose of these forums is to help people explore their own conscious growth. I don't think that prohibiting the sharing of non-PC opinions would help fulfill that purpose. I think it's better that we give people the freedom to explore their beliefs, which includes discussing them openly.

First of all, I'd like to say that I don't know why (Adrienne and) you seem to make this an issue about political correctness. I couldn't care less about being politically correct. That's not the point.

What you're saying sounds all logical and right and I agree with it, yet I still don't agree with your decision. It took me a long time to find out what exactly I don't agree with, but I think I nailed it now.

You seem to see this forum as a place where people discuss ideas related to personal development, on an intellectual level. So for you it's a positive thing that this forum be a realistic mirror of society, with all kinds of ideas being represented and discussed openly. I can see how this totally makes sense. (Although with some restrictions that I'll talk about in another post)

For me, this forum was, until now, something different. It was a place where people help each other grow. Growing and talking about growth are two very different things. They're not mutually exclusive, but the focus is different. Helping each other grow includes discussing ideas of course, but also a lot more. For example emotional support, advice and guidance, and especially unconditional love and acceptance.

As I saw it, the purpose of this forum was to provide a loving, empowering environment for everybody to grow in. This especially includes allowing us to make our own conscious choices free from social pressure.

From this viewpoint, posts with discriminating content are detrimental. They're not contributing to creating an atmosphere of acceptance and respect for the individual, unique persons we are. Instead they do contribute to the social conditioning going on at large.

On your blog, you encourage us to screw social conditioning, but then here on the forums we get to hear that women should take care of the kids and forget about their own vision or else they're sick, or that understanding, nurturing men are just wimps and are no real men.

If I get to hear the same here that I can hear on TV and in real life, now honestly, what's the point in sitting in front of a computer discussing ideas with a bunch of unknown people over the internet, when I can discuss ideas with real people in real life? The discussion here is not any more conscious or smarter than what I get to hear in real life. And at least in real life I can hug the people I like.

What made this forum such a special and attractive place (to me) (until now) was exactly that unlike in other forums, and unlike in real life, this forum was a very loving, empowering and safe place for everybody to be exactly the way they are. I have seen long time forum members, including myself, grow tremendously as a result of this supportive atmosphere.

For example now sexist comments just make me grin, but when I joined this forum almost two years ago, I really had big issues with my own being "masculine". The feedback I got in real life ("You're such a guy!" "You're not a real woman!") wasn't exactly helpful. Here on the boards, nobody said such things to me. I felt accepted and loved unconditionally, for what I was as a unique individual. I was free to talk about it and felt safe talking about it. I was free to explore all kinds of options about my own feminity and masculinity, to experience with different energies, and eventually to make my own choices regarding gender matters. Now I feel confident about my being the way I am, and of course I don't get any negative comments about it in real life anymore. I am deeply thankful to this forum that it gave me the opportunity to work through this issue in an environment free from social pressure and stereotypes.

I feel sorry for all the people who will not be given such a chance. For all the "masculine women" who will be told that they are sick for not wanting kids, or unattractive for not being in desperate need of a provider. For all the "feminine men" who will be called "just wimps" and despised for not being "real men". For the gays who haven't come out yet, and who will repeatedly hear that homosexuality is a symptom for social sickness and an abject threat for society. Etc. How is that going to help them grow?

Of course we are all responsible for our own feelings, and have the choice to be affected by such comments or not. In theory I absolutely agree. This works only with fairly conscious and aware people though. Of course those won't be bothered by such comments. It's the others I'm thinking of. Those who are still making baby-steps, all insecure about themselves. Discriminating comments do affect such people on a very concrete level. By allowing them, you are also shutting all those who can't take it out of the forums.

That is of course a valid choice to make. But is this forum for people who are growing, or for people who are already grown? It's not only the discriminating comments themselves. Alone allowing them also creates an entirely different mindset on these boards. The general atmosphere has already shifted a lot in the last few months. It has become less loving and supportive. I remember old time forum members working through very painful issues with everybody's support and encouragement. I cannot really imagine such a level of vulnerability being displayed here anymore.

I guess the point is that I am all about protecting everybody and creating a positive environment, whereas your target audience are people who are interested merely in intellectual discussion of ideas. Fair enough, it's your forum and your choice, and I respect that. I won't report any discriminating posts and won't protest about them being tolerated anymore. I'm still not convinced that this is the best choice for this forum though.

I'm kinda grieving now. I used to see the forum as some kind of family. It was my team. Loving people working all together, helping each other grow, and aiming to change the world. Now it's just going to be a bunch of strangers talking about theories online and throwing arguments at each other's heads. Oh well.

[Rose of Cairo]

Originally Posted by Dharma

No one grows while living in the 'nice box'.

First, we are not living on these forums. It's just a place that we visit from time to time, when we consciously choose to. Being a member here does not make our life all rosy by miracle. We all have enough unniceness outside the forums. I don't think keeping this place a loving, empowering, accepting place is going to prevent all growth.

Second, it is very well possible to grow in a "nice" environment. It is so much easier to learn in a positive emotional state. Accepting, respectful and non-judgmental does not necessarily mean non-challenging. I remember some forum members (including you, Dharma, thank you) who definitely challenged me. They pushed me out of my comfort zone, destroyed my beliefs, made me terribly angry at times... and made me grow. But this worked only because they were also being very loving and accepting of who I was. How efficient would their influence have been if at the same time I had been called a wimp or a virago, if I had felt judged, pressured and diminished? If you ask me, not very much. But maybe that's just because I am so rebellious.

[Brutha]

You seem to see this forum as a place where people discuss ideas related to personal development, on an intellectual level.

We think that there are threads which are about intellectual discussion and there are as well threads that are about helping another person to deal with his or her problems.
That's the distinction that seeker5 wanted to explain above.

If Alice opens a thread to discuss one of her personal problems and Bob would respond with sexist commands he would delete Bob's posts and warn Bob.
If one the other hand the thread would be about having an intellectual discussion we would allow the post.