Feminism vs. the faint of heart: Help, help...I'm being repressed!

Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses!

Posted as a little thank-you to talented feminist blogger The Apostate, who found herself hosting an impromptu (and ever-growing) discussion group for the departing readers and ex-contributors (like Yours Truly) of The Feminist Blog Formerly Known as Shakespeare's Sister. In a June 4th post, Apostate wrote:

There’s more drama going on at Shakesville. It doesn’t seem like that blog is going to survive long in its current format. That format would be the “community we cherish” format. That format is doomed to failure because online communities are by definition dysfunctional.

If you read the threads linked in the comment I linked to, and if you have been following many of the ridiculous McEwan flounces over not getting enough money from blog-readers, and other conniption fits and the ensuing apologies, and the slams on regular commenters over minor infractions and the constant language policing, and the self-shaming and the worship at the altar of McEwan, and blah blah blah, you know what I’m talking about – it’s a madhouse.

Shortly thereafter, the 'Ville went dark, sending its current readers into a tailspin over the weekend. Then, early this week, a magisterial magnum opus appeared, one which chided "the community" for all its transgressions against their leader--to whose head, it must be noted, no gun was held (and that metaphor right there would've led to me being drawn and quartered, as would that metaphor), since blogging, as we know, is neither mandate nor sentence, but rather, a voluntary exercise in expression--and laid out an eight-point commenting guide (!) from which condescension dripped and splattered like so much spilled syrup.

As Apostate noted:

I’m not sure why online “communities” are so fragile. I think the problem really is the medium. You can’t do community except in person, face to face. Any time you start writing shit down, congregating around a cause, or are removed from the physical presence of your fellows, there’s that much more information to manage and agree to without the civilizing influence of looking another person in the eye.

Yes. The concept of a "safe space" is, ironically, far easier to uphold in a physical environment for that very reason: humans are much less likely to insult or threaten a three-dimensional, flesh-and-blood human being who's right in front of them.

If you haven't read the naughty konagod's take on safe, er chafe spaces, I commend to you, with my heartiest cheers, kona's lengthy, hilarious, Carlin-esque parody of the aforementioned Magnum Hopeless:

While konagod considers konagod a progressive blog, or at least considers himself progressive in a lazy hippie kind of way, this is also a chafe space. Visitors need not check their privilege at the door (we have no bouncers and somebody without privilege might make off with it) so best you keep it close at hand and just be aware of it. No one is expected to be perfect; everyone is expected to be willing to self-examine and if you want to touch yourself in strange places while here, far be it from konagod to interfere. Focus on the fun. It's a blog. He can't see you.

And if all this strikes you as an awful lot of insider baseball because you've never wandered over to that blog and aren't especially interested in watching a trainwreck-in-progress, well, at least you've now got two compelling, new-to-you voices to check out--The Apostate and konagod--and a terrific political Python clip to watch. What are you waiting for?!

Also at litbrit.

Comments

[big bad wolf]

great stuff.

[Sir Charles]

Oh God my favorite Python bit by a mile -- it's just so hard to work "moistened bink" into a conversation -- especially at Shakesville.

I have been known to sound like Dennis the Peasant after a few too many.

I actually do think you can have an online community (I'd like to think we have a rather nice one here), but it is necessary to have participants who are thick enough of skin to disagree without getting the vapors. te

[big bad wolf]

i think a thick skin is an important component of this community, necessary but not sufficient. why this blog works, i think, is that people seem to treat it like the real world; that is, they read it enough or, if newer, closer enough, to have a sense of the others before they rev up the keyboard. they have paid attention to how particular others express themselves---what specific turns of phrase or rhetorical flourishes others favor. they have paid attention to what issues run hotter or colder for particular others and for what reasons. they have, it seems, done a lot of what prup talked about the other day in his religion posts: figuring out what to say and how to say it in a manner that people might listen and think about, rather than hollering out the same old lines and declaring themselves brave and true. and credit where it is due, there is some very nice interaction and moderation, in both senses, in which the way you guys handle comments.

all i have is my voice to undo the folded lie in the brain. w.h. auden. if one is always yelling one loses one's voice and fails to remember one's own brain also contains mistruths.

thanks for being here guys.

[litbrit]

I'm not old!

Sir C, I apologize in advance if this sounds like I'm displaying too much privilege here, because I really, really respect you and you're my favoritest writer in the entire universe and no-one says it quite like you, even when you're sounding like Dennis the Peasant, and I have the utmost respect for your writing (did I already say that?) but anyway, the phrase is moistened bint, not "bink" (?), with bint being colloquial Brit for girl, kind of like chick.

[litbrit]

I am thinking it might be a good exercise to have an open thread for readers to suggest their Favorite Python Sketches, kind of like asking people to pick their favorite kind of ice-cream of favorite sex position.

[Sir Charles]

Oh bint! I think the name should be changed to conform to how I misheard it.

Wow -- that trip to Shakesville was too much. I was waiting for people to begin addressing Melissa as the "brilliant compade."

[John]

I used to enjoy reading and commenting at Shakesville but haven't in quite some time. Somewhere along the line, things really went off the rails. It was nice to see so many former commenters at The Apostate. Thanks for linking that.

[konagod]

Thank you, dear litbrit!

Despite having spent well over a year in London (way back in the day), I was not familiar with that term moistened bint until now.

Which does remind me of a personal funny Britishism from my experience.

I was suffering from a particularly bad cold one day at work and a co-worker asked, "Do you have a night nurse?"

I wasn't exactly sure how to respond since I'd never heard that term before, and I didn't think my condition was that serious, so I replied, "No, but the landlady lives just down the hall."

He almost blew snot out his nose.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go check out this beautiful blog which I've never seen!

[Jamelle]

If I remember correctly, I stopped reading Shakesville during the primaries, when most of the contributors at the site went from being somewhat reasonable, to being language police of the worst kind - you couldn't even voice dissent of any kind without being labeled a "troll" or an "anti-feminist." Ridiculus est.

[Joe]

Sir C, is this really your favorite Python bit ? You like this one better than the one with the killer rabbit and the holy hand grenade of Antioch ? You like this one better than the Life of Brian where the crucified sing "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life ?" (although I admit this one is really funny).

[Sir Charles]

Joe,

Yes -- in part because of my own tendency when I was in my twenties and had a few too many -- which was often -- I would launch into Dennis-like denunciations of false consciousness and the repression of the working class. I also have a weakness for Michael Palin -- whether as sleazy television host, dim-witted hospital adminstrator, or lumberjack, the guy slays me.

[litbrit]

Bigbadwolf, thank you for the kind words, sir.

It's true: we do all have different views even as we share many. And no-one gets too exercised by language when it's plainly obvious that the commenter was trying, in good faith, to express his or her opinion.

I think that's probably the most off-putting thing about political correctness in general and that blog in particular: when "those in the know" automatically assume bad faith on the part of someone who is trying to join the conversation and leap to criticize him or her for every "wrong" word. Especially if those "wrong" words have multiple meanings in our culture--like insane--and are not being used in the context of ridiculing a disability but rather, in a colloquial sense. Our language is colorful, vivid, and oftentimes violent in its imagery, but "fuck you" isn't a rape threat, "take a flying leap" isn't an invitation to commit suicide, and "shove it up your ass" doesn't mean go out and buy some Astroglide and get busy. Good grief.

[big bad wolf]

il ike the help, help, i'm being repressed scene best of all the scenes in the movie, but death for not being sure of one's favorite color in the killer rabbit scene is my favorite moment in the film. screamingly funny on its own, and a wonderful comment on authority, interrogation, subjectivity, and a host of other things

[Corvus9]

My favorite Python sketch is The Parrot Sketch, followed closely by The Spanish Inquisition. (Yes, my favorite band is the Beatles, why do you ask?)

Sir C. and litbrit, your exchange reminds me of this one Python routine, I think from one of their comedy albums, where Eric Idle is talking to Michael Palin, and reveals that he can't pronouced the letter c, and thus is always replacing it with the letter b. Palin suggest replacing c with a k. "Pronounce balour with a k? Kalour? Oh, I'd never thought of that. What a silly bunt."

I don't think the Shakesville Tribe would like that joke.

[Sir Charles]

Corvus reminded me of one of my other all time favories -- the "North Minehead By-election" in which Mr. "Hilter" is running, assisted ably by Heinrich Bimmler (retired vindow cleaner, pacifist, and not head of the Gestapo) and Ron Vibbentrop. Mr. Hilter is running on the "National Bocialist" ticket on a platform of annexing Poland and that contends that Taunton is historically a part of Minehead.

http://arago4.tnw.utwente.nl/stonedead/tv-series/sketches/fc-12/visitors-mr-hilter-north-minehead-by-election.html

[Sir Charles]

Back to being serious for a minute -- I just went and read the comment thread at Shakesville and found it to be absolutely chilling in its cult-like quality. Really reolent of some sort of zombie Stalinist or Maoist obeisance and self-criticism. It was almost as unpleasant as reading the comments threads in Freeperland.

I have to say I feel I have frighteningly little in common with these folks despte putatively being on the same side politically.

Saying "fuck you" means you wish someone would get raped?!! Jesus.

This may be the most humorless, insecure band of people ever assembled in one "community." How the hell do they function in the real world?

[Corvus9]

It's funny to see a link drawn between Python and Shakesville. Shakesville, perhaps due to its Shakespere's Sister's former glory, has become a kind of exemplar in my mind of the dangers of certain Liberal tendencies, while Python is just an excellent exemplar of the glories of bad taste. Sacred cows taste the best.

I actually ran across that post before seeing this one. I clicked over to Shakesville on Friday, thinking, hey, I wonder what has been going on over there. Maybe it's gotten better? I always kinda hoped that what I regarded as growing insanity over there was really just the bile upchucked by the primaries, which I hoped was over. Our guy beat McCain, the Secretary of State is doing a good job, Penn isn't in the government. All is forgiven (except by lambert). So things should be returning to normal right?

Then I read the post. Nope, guess not. Kinda ironic, how quickly my question got answered. When I clicked on the comments the first one made me laugh out loud. The next ten denouncing it made me feel less jolly.

[litbrit]

Sir C et al, these guys have put up a rather fitting little graphic (scroll down).

Just to reiterate: no-one, least of all Yours Truly, is arguing that it's wrong to call people out for being sexist, racist, homophobic, or insulting to anyone of any color, sex, religion, physical or mental disability, etc. What I think is getting conflated, based on the few "Why are you such a hater?" emails I've received, are two separate issues: my being all for free speech at this blog and my own, where there *isn't* a massive, detailed comment policy (there are none, actually) and there are no henchmen rushing in and chiding people for saying "lame" or "insane" in a sentence--and with readers and blogger alike being free to counter that speech and call someone out for his or her insults--well THAT is being interpreted (twisted?) as my somehow being against civility, decency, kindness, and consideration for the suffering of others--progressive values, in short.

I'd hope that people who know me, here or in real life, would see that second characterization for the bullshit it is.

And as Lisa would say if she were moved to comment on this (and I'm not surprised she isn't!): more blabbosphere silliness.

[Sir Charles]

D.

Oh my sweet Jesus -- that picture made me laugh so hard it hurt. It's perfection -- exactly what I was envisioning as I read the comment policy.

[Joe]

What I can't figure out is why McEwan who used to be an interesting writer and who provided a platform for other interesting writers (now at other blogs- Litbrit, Jeff Fecke) went down this road. Is there some intellectual basis for what Shakesville has become ? Is the SVille set-up based on some school of thought in Women's Studies or contemporary feminism generally ?

[oddjob]

I am certain Melissa studied feminism while an undergraduate at Loyola back in the mid-90's, whether formally in classes, or informally on her own time, I don't know.

[oddjob]

I have enormous difficulty naming a favorite Python scene/sketch because I love so many of them for different reasons. As to their glorying in bad taste, I saw Robert Klein interview the surviving Pythoners on television maybe five years ago, and they specifically mentioned how much Graham Chapman adored tastelessness.

Apparently back in the late 60's when they'd become known in the UK for their television show, some people in Germany wanted to bring them over (forget exactly what it was about). During their stay their hosts took them to one of the concentration camps, but they arrived so late in the day the place was closing. As their hosts attempted to persuade the staff to remain open long enough for the Pythoners to tour the camp Graham leaned out the car window and said, "Tell them we're Jewish!"

[Crissa]

I left Shakesville not for anything they said, but for... the commenting policy. I really don't want a place where one side or another of a discussion is deviled or blocked, and I don't want yet another log-in.

I understand that feminist blogs, the bigger they get the more concerted effort is taken at spamming them, which is much a shame.

I don't think, particularly, there's anything wrong with the articles. I just hate reading stuff designed for comment when I can't comment.

...On a vaguely related point, there seems to be a housewife PC crowd that start getting uppity that you call some idea that isn't getting, or can't get any traction 'lame' and then say that's an ableist comment. Okay, yeah, sure, calling someone a retard maybe isn't nice. But there should be some limit! At some point every comment that has a negative connotation is ableist, and you should also be able to call a spade a spade, at least...

I dunno, but if I'm an idiot, please call me on it, 'cause gosh darn it, I wouldn't know otherwise, would I?

[litbrit]

What Crissa said.

The whole point of comments is to engender discussion. As such, silencing anyone who might have an opinion that deviates from the "right" one immediately establishes an imbalance and a biased outcome. It also, in my opinion, invalidates some discussions altogether.

I don't call people retards, either. But the word is extremely commonplace in the vernacular of this generation of teenagers, trust me. My eldest son is seventeen; everything is either lame or retarded when you're that age. And he is the kindest, most thoughtful child in general, someone who'd never want to hurt a disabled person with his words.

Turning off comments altogether would seem to be SV's best option if they want to avoid upsetting even a single person in the universe.

[Sir Charles]

The more things change -- as I recall, "what, are you retarded?" was a veritable staple of the junior high school Socratic method when I was a teenager. Of course, it was better being from Boston, because you said "re-taahded" in a way that made you sound well, retarded. Or lame, if you prefer.

[Stephen]

as my eldest son is

litbrit! I'm shocked - your son is neither lame nor retarded! Or did I misread the sentence?

Speaking of those words, I went to the KC Royals game yesterday - and as a recovering Evangelical, it's so nice to go with a group from one's church and have one of the key laypersons in the church tell everyone where to get Guinness on draft and then for the priest to buy one a beer - and was discussing swear words with another parent. She was talking about how she hates the word "retard," that any other bad word is fine by her as long as her kids stop saying "retard." At which point her eldest son perked up considerably and said, "even the F word?"

Damn kids are always listening, even when they look like they aren't.

[litbrit]

Stephen, hahahahaha! Clearly I didn't mean it that way she. I typed the sentence while being attacked on four fronts by maple-syrup-covered warriors.

If we had a church in Ruskin that was cool with beer and wine and had a preacher as compelling and entertaining as Reverend Wright, I'd totally go to church.

As they say: Sadly, No.

[litbrit]

(Eeek, "when", not she. Damned iPhone autocorrect.)

[FlipYrWhig]

I dunno, but if I'm an idiot, please call me on it

Actually there'd be a case to be made that "idiot" is in fact "ableist language." It refers to a permanent mental deficiency. By the same token, "dumb" would have to be "ableist" too!

[Neil the Ethical Werewolf]

Whatever it means to be tarded, it definitely doesn't sound like a good thing. And then if you got tarded again, you're probably in really bad shape.

[Magnetic Crow]

...I have to say, that this (and a lot of the comments here) is bothering me a lot.
Melissa at Shakesville didn't take a hiatus because she was offended, or hurt, or angered by the comments. She's always been pretty open about gently correcting people who are being insensitive to others, or making fun of trollish idiocy, and then moving on.
Her hiatus was due to comments that directly triggered her PTSD. It's not a matter of not having a "thick skin", it's a matter of trying look after one's own mental health and well being.

If people are violating your rules to the point that it is causing you to have violent flashbacks to your past experiences as a victim of rape, I think you have every right to chastise them and take some time away.

I agree that the post put up by her co-bloggers while she was away was a tad misleading (and confusing), but I think that all of us here are mature enough to understand that some people have been through more traumatizing shit than we have, and that some people also have more difficulty coping, and be sensitive to that.

[Jeff Fecke]

and that metaphor right there would've led to me being drawn and quartered, as would that metaphor

Oh, God, that touched a nerve.

The whole point of comments is to engender discussion. As such, silencing anyone who might have an opinion that deviates from the "right" one immediately establishes an imbalance and a biased outcome. It also, in my opinion, invalidates some discussions altogether.

This and that together make up the reason why generally I've been a happier writer since leaving Shakesville. I remember getting attacked for saying that in some state or another (I think Indiana, but I'm not sure anymore), Obama had delivered the coup de grace to the Clinton campaign. This got me labeled as someone who overtly supported violence against women. (I also was attacked for using, offhandedly, the phrase, "Clinton's sin in this case," because sin==Eve==Jeff is a woman-hating misogynist, rather than the sense I intended it, which was sin==bad thing==thing Clinton did, which is bad.)

As litbrit said, I'm not averse to being corrected and encouraged to examine my privilege and my phrasing; I've tried hard to purge "lame" and "insane" from my vocabulary (though as a sufferer of mental illness [severe depression, ADHD], I feel like I have some claim on the latter), and I think I'm better for it. But too often, discussion at Shakesville devolves into a search for the hidden proof that someone is, in fact, a vile excuse for a human being because they misplaced a comma, and not enough time is spent actually listening to what the person was trying to say. There's a difference between, "You really shouldn't describe someone as lame; that's ableist" and "You called Michele Bachmann's proposal lame, therefore you hate disabled people." Too often, Shakesville tends toward the latter.

Now, of course, it is Melissa's right to run her blog however she wants to, and I support her in that; I left with no hard feelings, and I mean that. The way I wanted to be able to write and discuss things was not lining up with the way Melissa wanted me to write and discuss things, and it was her blog, not mine. So while I may disagree with the way Shakesville runs these days, I don't wish anything but good for the site; I just think the site would be better if it loosened up enough to accept a more open and free-wheeling discussion.

[Sir Charles]

MC,

It wasn't a tad misleading and confusing, it was a bizarre cultlike prescription of acceptable behavior on the site and a chiding of the faithful for not being faithful enough. And the series of "all in" comments, reminded me of nothing so much as the mega ditto set on Limbaugh's program. All in all, it was creepy as shit.

I have no idea what was said in comments that is purported to have triggered PTSD, so I express no opinion here. However, I have stopped by the "safe space" -- a concept I find fairly absurd -- often enough to see all manner of censoriousness direted at those who have somehow violated the prime directive from the brilliant comrade, and none of it seemed trauma inducing to me.

[oddjob]

Sir C., at the same time, can you see how a politically liberal woman might be annoyed at seeing a politically liberal man denigrate other people for being pussies?

I'm not defending Shakesville's comment policies per se, I'm pointing out that I've more than once read Melissa mention this as the genesis of her desire for safe space as she defines it. I don't agree with her definition, but I totally "get" its genesis.

[oddjob]

(FWIW, as I've mentioned on another blog, not that I'm a mental health professional or anything, but it seems to me as someone who often is relatively perceptive of others that at this point Melissa would probably be better off finding another venue for her writing than blogging. I don't think Shakesville is healthy for her, healthy for those contributors who are enabling her, or healthy for her readers and commenters.)

[Stephen]

Well, Neil, there are plenty of 'tards out there living really kick ass lives. I heard of one lady that was tarded, and she's a pilot now.

[Corvus9]

I really like Jeff Fecke's points. Well said, Jeff Fecke.

One of the problems I think with PC language policing is that it's just a bad way of achieving the desired result. I am pretty sure it is human nature (it sure is my nature) that being scoldingly told not to do something just makes you want to do it even more. It's not even necessarily conscious! Sometime after this thread started, I have suddenly started to use "retarded" to refer to soemthing I think is dumb or stupid (Lord help us if those words are declared off-limits). I normally don't use that word! I have known some developmentally challenged people, and I know that some of them consider the term offensive, and I don't really like to do anything that causes hurt to others for no good reason. But there I have been, callign things retarded, and I think, it's because some part of me just wants to show up some asshole who wants to tell me I can't use that word that way. Which is silly, but there it is.

I can also see the point on not calling people pussies. I can see why women would find that offensive, especially given what the word is meant to imply. Unfortunately, every time I hear someone call someone a pussy, I laugh. Perhaps the the thrill of the forbidden, but I think that its partly just that pussy is a really funny word, like aardvark or Canada. So I am on the fence on that one.

I am not giving up cunt though. Offended people can suck it. It's one of Carlin's (PBUH) Seven Words, and I demand to have the full arsenal on command. Seeing Snatch in the theatre that one time was a revelation. The English have created such a colorful palette of profanity with this word (litbrit, take a bow), to take it away would be like losing the color red. Or blue. No, yellow...

[big bad wolf]

i liked jeff fecke's comment too. i am always suspicious of people or organizations that use words like prove or proof often, or which draw equivalencies not readily apparent. that always strikes me, a skeptic, though one who chooses to accept and pursue certain unproveable ends, as the mark of someone looking to enforce a personal vision and to control the "consensus." there is no good but my good.

and corvus, thanks for the ending to that last comment.

[MR Bill]

I once worked at a place called "the Dekalb Co. Center for the Mentally Retarded". It's now the "center for Exceptional Children". WE live and learn.
I really try not use abusive language: that said, my exboyfriend was a total dick, and my daughter can't seem to get thru a conversation without using 'cunt'.
I understand that there is a Patriarchy, and that, in fact it hurts men. I understand that there is male privilege: that doesn't mean so much as an underemployed artist/single parent/gay father/sorta homeless guy in Blue Ridge GA as my reality.
I used to enjoy Shakesville, but the willingness to demonize anyone who took issue or had a different slant drove me away.. I think good temper and not giving into rage work best, and am skeptical of most 'empowering anger'. (of course, I was physically abused as a kid, and have anger issues.) There is some good stuff up at Pandagon about this today...
And I have a used computer finally up and running, after replacing the harddrive and scavenging ram...

[litbrit]

Hooray-- Mr Bill is back! So good to hear from you. I will write a bit later.

Jeff, thanks for your thoughts, which pretty much echo mine (other than the leaving amicably part--I was shouted away as a contributor by the usual suspects about whom many, many others have complained, then as a very occasional commenter, even, this time by a few extremely underhanded and dishonest attacks from Brilliant Comrade herself.)

Seconding bbw's appreciation for the "Red Or blue. No, yellow!" line, Corvus.

[Sir Charles]

MR Bill,

Welcome back -- I hope things are going a little better. And that you're fully enjoying your many privileges.

I guess one of the things that I react to viscerally is the kind of hot house flower, what you said hurt my incredibly delicate feelings quality to some of this stuff. As progressives, we face opponents who are really remarkably vicious people, see, e.g., my card check post above. You damn well better be able to slug it out with such people and win if you really want to bring about political change and not just engage in holier than thou mental masturbation.

One of the things that I like best about the lefty blogosphere (and what particularly drew me in during the worst parts of the Bush years) was the absolutely no-holds barred rhetoric of people like atrios, kos, amanda, etc. The willingness to call bullshit bullshit and to not suffer fools gladly was, I think, an important weapon in changing the debate, especially among young people. To me, accustomed as I was to years of Village speak within the belly of the beast, it was such a personal morale builder.

And I think we need to be able to carry on the same type of conversations within our own community -- not discussion thats mean spirited or nasty -- but free flowing, funny, irreverent, and not written from a defensive posture of fear of offending.

[litbrit]

Oh, and we use the word "pussy" all the time:

There are too many pussies in this house.
Four of them, and they all fight and shed too much.

Pussy in this house is outnumbered.
Because I am.

Don't be such a pussy.
If I can figure it out, so can you.

Awww, look at the beautiful pussy.
Because he is.

If pussy is happy, everyone is happy.
Okay, but first move the cat. (With apologies to the late Johnny Carson.)

[big bad wolf]

i wanted to clarify that i think cunt, in the u.s. is a word that should be avoided. it is rarely not anger-filled when used by men, and thus is difficult to hear as anything but threatening and demeaning. of course, it gets to stay in private discourse, but its public use is, i think, difficult to defend. there are lots of other terms that it is better to refrain from using and we are all better off for in the sense that tensions are not raised. we need to make these decisions as a social group and through learning , not fiat. i don't think we can legislate these things or even set a lot of private rules on places like blogs and expect any positive effect.

i also think that folks ought to take things a bit more tolerantly. attacking and presuming the worst of someone because of one statement or one word says more about the attacker or the presumer than about the speaker. so too, trotting out the tired logical equivalencies (tricks, mostly) that you learned in grad school or, god forbid, law school, to show everyone to be flawed and lesser doesn't help build the better society that those folks claim to be seeking; it just shows that you like to feel superior. oddly, feeling superior seems to require feeling besieged. (look out for flying cows). all this puts me in mind of richard rorty's great line that the nation of whitman has become the nation of poe.

all right, i'm being preachy about being preachy, so i'll stop. (can i say preachy?)

[litbrit]

the nation of whitman has become the nation of poe.

Oh my, but I love that. (As if I wouldn't.) Thanks, bbw!

[Corvus9]

Chiming in again, I think the main problem with the concept of safe space is that it neuters Liberalism's effectiveness. It's really easy for conservatives to maintain cohesion and work towards their goals,since what they all want is That Which Came Before. Liberals, however, basically agree on what the problems are, and have vastly different opinions about how to resolve them.

What happens in safe spaces is that almost invariably they become more and more reductive. Once you decide to cut out ideas that some people find offensive, it makes it easier keep removing ideas. Well, if people can't say this around here, why can they say that? If people can't say something is retarded, why can they say something is lame? Why can they say something is crazy? If everyone here has to be feminist, why should people be allowed to disagree on whether serving wine with dinner makes you a rapist? Next thing you know, people like ballgame are rape apologists, and everyone not in your circle, that doesn't agree with you on every issue, is the enemy. And even if you find a community that agrees with you on everything, if will be so small and fanatical it might as well be a cult, as Sir Charles has pointed out, and any chance of having a positive effect on the larger world has been forsworn.

Liberalism requires robust, healthy debate in order to have any useful effect, because we have to be willing to unite on the issues we do agree on when they have a chance of actually being implemented. Besides, let's face facts, guys, a lot of our own individual ideas of what solutions should be pursued, or by what tactics they should be pursued, are wrong. We need debate and good-faith discussion in order to make sure that whenever we do get a chance to change things, the change is the right one, and not some pinheaded solution that leaves things just as bad or worse.