I have not been to this thread for some time. It has been more than a year since anyone posted in this thread. The thread has certainly covered a lot of ground and it would take several books to deal with the issues and, even then, I'm sure there would be plenty of disagreement. I think, rather than trying to deal with the multitude of issues, I will make a tangential statement that I have been giveing some thought to for years when there is much disagreement and criticism of people's views. I post this statement below for the possible pleasure of readers. If it is too long just skim and scan to your taste.-Ron
---------------------------
INTERNET SITES: AN OVERVIEW
Internet communities are like micronations. Some are not governed at all; a sort of literary chaos reigns. The posts and images at these sites represent the worst features of contemporary literary society: loud, crass, illiterate and completely devoid of what you might call an etiquette of expression. Others are governed by tyrannical rule. This tyranny often leads to a whimsical enforcement of arbitrary rules and law. Personally and emotionally induced muscle flexing operates at such sites in the hands of moderators, administrators and site entrepreneurs. Still other site organizers try to hit a middle ground between these two extremes. It seems to me that this site does not do a bad job at hitting this middle ground.
I find, as a retired teacher, that the various modus operandi and modus vivendi at internet sites are very much like the different philosophies and styles that I used to see teachers using to cope with the increasing number of difficult students filling our modern society. Some teachers resort to the iron rod of verbal and assorted disciplinary forms available to them. Some of these teachers have success and others do not. Other teachers are too permissive and get walked all over by their charges. These authoritarian and democratic styles are also found at websites.
There is usually no way to know just how oppressive system operators are at internet sites as all access to the records of their decisions are hidden from public view. But a short stay at one of these authoritarian regimes will give the novice, the new comer, a quick feel of the atmosphere and usually a quick response from one of the interpreters of the rules. For these rules and guidelines are like some biblical text with literalist interpretations rampant. The more permissive sites are just the opposite and you are just as likely to be told in no uncertain terms where to get off with lots of “F” words, slang and a vocabulary that you will not find in any good dictionary. As I said above, it seems to me, the quality of the dialogue here has a good measure of civility given the relative intensity of the disagreements.
These site interpreters, moderators and administrators, like teachers, have a difficult job in our modern society. Traditional standards of excellence and agreed on definitions of the literary and grammatical canon on just about anything are all up for grabs, so to speak. Like the hundreds of teachers I knew in the half century(1949-1999)when I was a student and a teacher, these standard setters at internet sites have a tough job. It is not surprising that at many sites there are no standards at all.That is not the case at this site.
The purpose of a nation or a community—or a website—is to support progress and interaction, to provide information and integrate ideas and actions into some harmonious and philosophical whole. This is a tough ask a goal that is difficult to achieve. To pick and choose posts, to accept some and deny others based on some fixed criteria, tests and patience of Job and the wisdom of Solomon—and there are few of these old wise men around these days. If people only follow strict traditions and the community banishes someone at the slightest hint of a heretic, does it not undermine it's own purpose for being, as if a man were to decide feet are bad because they are not like the hands, and cut them off. Societies exist to encourage progress as well as to maintain stability. It is a difficult balance to strike.
If those in charge find a routine, a rule, that works, they do their best to stick to it. This is often called tradition, law, schedule, taboo. It is all about keeping the boat steady. Risk-taking is often difficult. Society’s systems and the systems at websites are not easy to keep running with some order and form. The places require effort and time on the part of those who have accepted the responsibilities for running the show. Storms and radical thinkers may throw them off course; they will resist with all their might, never giving up until the vessel has been overturned and they are forced to start anew. Change in this paradigm is bad and even if you tell the crew, "Look, we are headed for a cliff, we will crash to our death, if you don’t alter course!"--it will not change their steadfast position.
They do not care about where they are going; they assume all is okay even if their ship is old and falling apart. Some fall apart from too many rules and others from too few; some from not enough money and others from not having people to do the jobs required to keep the sites in operation. Repetitive tasks are required to keep things going as they have been and often nothing will awaken the administrators except the ice-cold water as their ship sinks to the dark depths of the ocean floor. The iron cake of custom and tradition is difficult to alter. In our world of crises and the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune—you can’t really blame these internet site arbiters.-Ron Price, Tasmania.
_____________________
