Conference turris::womannotes-v1

            <<< BETHE::$DISK3:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX_1988.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< Soapbox 1988 - Digital Internal Use Only >-
================================================================================
Note 11.263                Soapbox - Policy Discussion                263 of 270
INDY::DMARTEL "lynch communists"                     44 lines   8-JUN-1988 17:06
              -< Athens invented ostracism to avoid censorship. >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    RE: .261
    
    	Your opinions are not "unpopular."  You err.  They are
    all-too-popular.  One hears them day in and day out.  Admittedly,
    most of the brethren use the Revised Standard Version.  You stick
    to the good old King James Version.  That is the only difference.
    In the Revised Standard Version (RSV), the "working classes" appears 
    as "oppressed minorities," and "capitalist bosses" is rendered 
    "establishment."  In the Blue Jeans Bible, "capitalist bosses" appears
    as "greedheads."
    
    	No, your opinions are not unpopular.  They are tedious, childish,
    contrived and just plain dumb.  They are the opinions of an Ass.
    Example:  the appearance of "Lynch Niggers" as a personal name would
    not be "intimidation."  Somebody may not like it, but it wouldn't
    be "initimidation."  You're a wonderful example of those "thinkers"
    who long ago confused words with things.  I often think, by the
    way, that your head must be full of mucilage.  Take this snot-curdling
    sentence:
    
>    That would be very serious intimidation and if the corporation
>    or the moderators of this or similar forums did not prevent it then
>    it would look like they were being given some leeway that they want
>    to push further.
    
    Samuel Johnson must be spinning in his grave like a lathe.  If we
    knead it for meaning, we emerge with something like, "If somebody
    uses 'I love God' as a personal name it must mean that everybody
    agrees with him."  Well, it doesn't.  It means the person using
    the personal name loves God.  Let the theory be tested:  I have
    changed my personal name as you see above (_vide supra_).
    
    	Now try and follow:  persons who desire to "lynch niggers" here at
    DEC and who say so publicly will be very lonely people.  No one will
    have to fire them.  Persons who get disciplined for speaking their mind
    are being censored, however.  The corporation that values differences
    will not object if I refuse to work with the persons who desire to
    "lynch niggers."  If no one will work with the persons who desire to
    "lynch niggers," then those persons will have to go someplace else to
    work.  They will have to quit.  Or get help. They will need help with
    their problem of wishing to work among people who hate persons who
    desire to "lynch niggers."
                              
    Dick Martel

    A couple of days ago I got a mail message from a woman reader of
    the Soabox file. She had been following the debate on Soapbox policy
    and directed my attention to some cases that she thought were
    intimidating to women.
    
    I reviewed all the notes in question and would have to agree that
    there were some pretty offensive and intimidating atmosphere allowed
    to be maintained.
    
    Any suggestions?
    
    Thanks,
    
    Les

    Les, I'm not quite sure what you're asking us for.
    
    ...Would you like personal opinions from readers of womannotes?
    
    ...Would you like personal opinions from people who read both womannotes
    and soapbox?
    
    ...Are you asking us to draw comparisons between the way this file
    and soapbox are moderated?
       
    I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea of asking readers of one
    file for their reactions to something happening in another conference.
    At the same time, I respect your intentions to gather some data
    from a slightly wider audience.
    
    Could you help us help you by being a little more specific as to
    how readers of womannotes could help?
    
    Holly
    
                             

    The whole thing is based on the conflict between free speech and
    the responsibilities of adhering to P&P.  Soapbox is particularly
    resistant to anything remotely resembling censorship.
    
    The argument, as I understand it, is that slurs should not be set
    hidden or deleted by the moderators.  In the first place, people
    should have a right to express their opinions.  In the second place,
    the community is and should be self-policing; anyone using a {racial,
    ethnic, sexist, etc} slur would get flame-toasted by the rest of
    the noters.  Mr. Martel has also argued that, were he to say "Lynch
    niggers," no one would take him seriously.  (Not entirely true,
    and that's not exactly the point anyway.)
    
    As it happens, the vast majority of writers in Soapbox are male,
    most likely white (not too many have claimed other racial backgrounds).
    So it's not too likely that they would have been the targets of
    {racial, ethnic, sexist, etc.} slurs.  Slurs on their intelligence
    and morals, sure, but not much that wasn't based on their characters.
    This means that they're not exactly in the best position to determine
    the impact of such slurs on noting community.  They can understand
    the situation intellectually, perhaps, but not empathetically.
    
    I think Les is looking for help in developing arguments against
    the laissez-faire position.  Some womannoters might have a better
    understanding of the impact of such a policy.

  In my opinion one of soapboxes strengths is that it allows people
to say what they think,even if what they think is stupid.The more
policies you try to enforce the more the moderators have to act as
notes police to enforce those policies.Could you put in a pointer to
where the discussion is taking place in soapbox? I do not feel I will
be allowed to discuss my views on the subject in this file.

                   George D.

    
    	The whole company runs very efficiently in ways similar to the
    products we build. Part of the "program" is the P&P rules, guidlines,
    call them what you will. There's no room for exceptions. There's
    no value in an outlet for that which is human, that "devil inside"
    that might generate a trashnote or offending slur. It does the employee
    no good to proceed down that avenue with his/her anger and chip.
    For sure, no ones gonna learn anything about themselves, certainly
    not through a forum that allows somewhat unrestrained interaction with 
    others who are their working peers. And no one could possibly learn
    anything about other people and what they're really like, simply by 
    reading some of the things written in an open forum! So lets keep things
    completely sterile and by_the_book; factual information only - no
    expressions of opinion - please. That way, we can ensure that many
    - no most- will suffer...for the benefit of a few. 
    
    	Joe Jas

    I set note 870.1 hidden. Please refer to BETHE::SOAPBOX_1988 note
    11.263 (the place where this note resides)
    
    Les

    re -.3
    
    Holly,
    
    Soapbox is open to anyone in DEC. I would hope that anyone would
    feel welcome. It is intimidating by the nature of the hard and often
    not too courteous discourse.
    
    I think the tone is too intimidating, but that is not the issue
    that I am bringing up. What I am bringing up is that the line should
    be drawn at refusing to tollerate intimidation based on racial,
    sexual, ethnic, religious slurs.
    
    I think that people of color, women, gays, and political minorities
    should be able to participate in any forum (including soapbox) without
    having to be bombarded with ugly slurs that are not normally tollerated
    elswhere and are specifically against company policy.
    
    These policies are our rights to be heard and contribute without
    harrassment based on sex, race, religion, sexual preference. We
    should defend the aplication of these policies to enhance discussion.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Les

    I stay out of soapbox because of the intimidation level.
    
    I get enough grief in my everyday life without going out looking
    for more!
    
    --bonnie

    I am one of the people who would have heeded the warning entered
    in soapbox - I read it for 3 days once and got so
    riled/infuriated/frustrated that I deleted it, and haven't gone
    back.  The people who do stay on there have shaped the notesfile
    to be the way they must like it.  The only thing that will change
    that notesfile is DEC policy.  I got the impression that the people
    who do write there are extremely into "speaking freely", "arguing
    freely", and in some cases pulling-out-all-the-stops in an argument,
    and not holding back anything.  It will be a difficult file to bridle,
    if that is the outcome of any policy decision, and it might be better
    just to leave it as is in hopes that whatever is objectionable will
    subside over time, and be overtaken by other discussions.
    
    In all honesty, were I to read what was pointed to, I would probably
    find it offensive.  However, since I do not participate in it, I
    feel I have no reason to make their policies for them.
    
    -Jody
    

    I'd seen a couple references to SOAPBOX and had been vaguely
    thinking of adding it to my notesfile.  Assuming the stuff
    printed in .0 (.1?) is typical, I won't do it now.

    I guess if there are some people in the company who really
    feel a need to use intimidating, degrading, belittling
    speech, and there's a place where they can do it that I don't
    have to read/hear it, I don't care.  Especially if they can
    confine themselves to that place and other places where I
    don't have to read/hear that sort of verbal abuse, whether
    it's directed at me or not.

    -- Linda

    re .0:
    
    I think it is inappropriate to discuss (i.e. criticize) the activity
    of one notesfile in another.
    
    If you are looking for advice on how to moderate SOAPBOX, there
    is a notesfile dedicate solely to the discussion of moderating.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /

    Note 870.1 has been unhidden with permission of the author.
    
    Les

    Re: .11
    
    >Assuming the stuff printed in .0 (.1?) is typical
    
    If you mean racial, sexist, or religious slurs, then no.  They are
    extremely rare.  Insults (distinguished from slurs in that they
    are directed at an individual rather than a class) are common,
    especially insults about one's intelligence.
    
    Most of the conversations are like what you'd find at a cocktail
    party.

    Soapbox is a mirror of reality and oftentimes it helps to view
    the anger that you feel on reading sapobnox as being within the
    reader and not within the 'box.  If one hasn't learned to control
    one's own reactions to events in the world at large and people
    who aren't being polite and YES_ing you for political purposes;
    then you should read soapbox daily and never reply until you've
    learned self-control and self-discipline.  Soapbox was different.
    
	    ~--e--~  Eagles_Had_Time_Once_2_Perfect_Ourselves_...
 	            ..._Now_We_Spend_Time_More_Constructively_!!!

What Les seems to be asking is where are the boundaries -- when does
a spirited, fiesty discussion become aggressive, intidating, or harrassing.
Consider how you would feel if a man participated here with an insulting
personal name.

Would you shrug it off, complain to the writer, protest to the moderators,
or go to personnel?  I suspect that, for any individual, one could invent
personal names that could elicit any or all of these responses.

While there are more  appropriate notesfiles, this community does have a
fair amount of experience discussing this matter.

Martin.

    Ya know, I often wondered if the boxer's every thought  who may
    be reading "their" notesfile.... this is not meant in a bad way, just
    a thought, because I read the file and sometimes I wonder who these
    people are and where they're coming from. I guess we all do when we've
    read something that raises our level of consciousness (good or bad).
    
    I take the file as people talkin issues,  getting pisted, and 
    even sometimes going beyond the boundries.  But I guess I am a visitor
    (I'm not the soapbox type) as men are  visitors to the womannotes
    file, and woman are visitors to mennotes, if I do choose to read what 
    these folks are saying I can comment if I like (although I never have, 
    like someone said before I get enough grief in my life) or I can
    delete the file or I can read what I want and let the rest go, as I do
    now.
    
    Chris
     

    The day the Earth stood Still.

    
    Soapbox has been deleted. It is probably safe to suggest that
    this discussion was instrumental in getting it removed. 
    
    Many of us looked upon it as the last outpost of frank outspokenness.
    Perhaps its not possible for a corporate resource to be so forgiving
    of such daringly worded opinions as were excerpted here. 
    
    It's just too bad... too bad there are people with thin skins, too
    bad there are persons with foul mouths and little discretion, and
    too bad there are those who will sue at the drop of a hat.
    
    
    

    I doubt this topic had anything to do with the closing of the 'Box'.
    It was headed toward closure way before this topic was ever conceived.

    also reply to .20....as far as I have been able to discern, the
    spin off discussions in this and two other files had no impact
    on the closure of soapbox.
    
    Bonnie

    Speaking as one who has never looked at soapbox, or wanted to, I
    celebrate its passing. Only because now, maybe there won't be
    discussions of soapbox in conferences that are occasionally
    meaningful. Once the post-mortems settle down, anyway.

    Chuck

    The passing of SOAPBOX can cut both ways; it was originally created
    as a place for flames and other garbage notes so they needn't
    clutter other conferences. It was mildly entertaining when it
    started, but lost its charm very quickly. 

    I mourn but not for the reasons most do.
    
    It allowed some people a vent;therefore, less in other places.
    
    It also allowed one to really "see" what some "people" think;therefore,
    to avoid such "people".
    

    I was a reader of SOAPBOX from day one. I haven't been too involved
    there since the first of the year (because it was too addicting)
    but will miss it. I found it to be, in many ways, like WOMANNOTES.
    I was interesting, provocative, rough, informative, and even
    enlightening. Strong language and ideas were used and discussed and
    the weak of heart found it a hard place. As did those who lacked
    the ... to support their beliefs. (Anyone see any differences with
    WOMANNOTES so far? I don't.)
    
    There will be a new SOAPBOX. Permission has been received by a
    new host. Rules will be formulated and enforced. I believe that
    discussion will once again continue there on all matter of
    controversial issues. A good thing too or you'd see them start
    to pop up in other conferences. That is why SOAPBOX was started
    and the several times that SOAPBOX has been closed the need to
    re-open was soon evident. Those of you who are not sad to see 
    SOAPBOX closed probably don't really understand what it is all
    about.
    
    The reason SOAPBOX was closed was not (or so I understand) forced
    or driven or even aided by discussion in this conference BTW. It
    looks like the discussion in MODERATION did that. How ever no vote
    was taken FYI. People did what they felt was the right thing and
    sat back and took the heat. I wish I could say I had a part of it
    but I can't.
    
    				Alfred

    re .26
    >>I found it to be, in many ways, like WOMANNOTES.
    >>I was interesting, provocative, rough, informative, and even
    >>enlightening. Strong language and ideas were used and discussed and
    >>the weak of heart found it a hard place. As did those who lacked
    >>the ... to support their beliefs. (Anyone see any differences with
    >>WOMANNOTES so far? I don't.)
      
    I don't see the comparison between the 2 conferences at all, but
    maybe there is something there.  The few times that I went into
    SOAPBOX, I felt like I was really in foreign territory, like
    I didn't understand the rules.  Maybe it feels like that here for
    some people, too..
    
    As an aside, does anyone else find it an interesting statement
    that when we want to say a person acted courageously, we say
    he OR SHE  has b*lls (see above - I'm assuming the "..." was
    supposed to mean b*lls.)?  I like it when people say
    I'm brave, but I'm not at all complimented when someone tells
    me I have "..."   I've made a personal committment to avoid using
    that word in that way.  Anyone care to join me in that?
    
    People here may get their assumptions challenged; I know mine get
    challenged, and that can be scary, but people are not directly and
    personally attacked as they have been in other conferences.
                        
    Justine
                                                           
    

       In one very important way, Soapbox, Womannotes, and every other
       conference share a common thread: the value and level of interest
       of the conference is determined its participants.  If notes are
       interesting, witty, intellectually provocative, and representative
       of a broad spectrum of thought, then the conference will tend to
       flourish.  In some ways, Soapbox' recent (temporary?) demise was
       due to the value of the notes contributed by its participants.
       
       But the primary reason for Soapbox' closure was the concern and
       fear of some non-participants, after reading some excerpts in a
       context similar to this topic (that is, outside the context of the
       Soapbox conference).  Anyone who values this or any other
       conference ought to be concerned: the apparent lesson is that
       non-participants of a conference can express sufficient concern to
       threaten the very existence of a conference.  Someone who has
       never opened the Womannotes conference, for example, might find a
       note that has been reproduced somewhere outside of this conference
       -- for example, a note that speaks bitterly yet from the heart
       about paternalism, or a note that sets forth a seemingly
       non-egalitarian conference policy -- and decide that the potential
       cost of this conference isn't worth the risk. 
       
       The lesson from Soapbox is that everyone can speak less freely, and
       that a sword hangs over the neck of every conference.
       
       --Mr Topaz

<      The lesson from Soapbox is that everyone can speak less freely, and
<       that a sword hangs over the neck of every conference.
       
 I don't see it that way.  I am REALLY glad that they are bringing SOAPBOX 
back, and REALLY glad they are bringing it back with enforced rules.  
SOAPBOX had some terrific discussions.  I learned a lot from that file about
a multitude of current events.  However, I intensely disliked the name-calling
and group slurs.

A good notesfile should allow such interesting discussions without allowing
people to resort to such negative (and yes, intimidating) slurs.

                  Carol

>    (see above - I'm assuming the "..." was supposed to mean b*lls.)?  

    Incorrect assumption. There were roughly 10 words I could think
    of that fit (none of them was balls as I don't use that expression
    normally) so I left it open for people to put in what ever word
    they thought described what sort of inner strength is required
    to support their belief under fire. Perhaps a discussion of why
    masculine type words are used so often is grist for a new topic
    in the new file?

    			Alfred

    Is "moxie" gender-related ?

    re:.31
    
    No, Moxie is a carbonated beverage. :-)
    
    --- jerry

    
    	Someone talked of "value" of a conference; they must have meant
    "face value", cause apparently that's all anyone sees as far as
    the informational content goes...
    
    	People see that which they can take offense to. People see that
    which they can profit from, either egotistically or materialistically.
    People see the negatives only as such, completely forgetting the
    lesson each negative expression confirms. People see the works of
    others and conclude that it must of come from a sort of non-person.
    Face value...all anyone ever looks at.
    
    	Joe Jas