Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site timeinc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!timeinc!greenber From: greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) Newsgroups: net.news Subject: Re: net.flame (surprise!) Message-ID: <295@timeinc.UUCP> Date: Fri, 12-Jul-85 03:28:16 EDT Article-I.D.: timeinc.295 Posted: Fri Jul 12 03:28:16 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jul-85 12:21:08 EDT References: <702@vortex.UUCP> <1256@mnetor.UUCP> Reply-To: greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) Organization: Time, Inc. - New York Lines: 43 Summary: In article <1256@mnetor.UUCP> sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) writes: > >Now there is some stuff that is really VERY hard to take, such as the >discussion on rape and women's clothing that was going on for a while >in net.women. That's real stuff!! That is very PAINFUL to take if you >are a woman, much more painful than some silly pee-pee-ca-ca-cucumber >discussion. Yet I heard very few censorship cries when that discussion >was going on. There were women on the net who had been raped and who >read that discussion. I can't imagine how much it would have hurt them >to hear all those same stupid sexist nasty arguments again and again. >It hurt me and I haven't been raped. Yet this discussion went on and >on and on.... no net-wide discussion of whether this should be stopped >or the system administrators of those people called, even though it >hurt so much. I am not suggesting that such a discussion can be stopped >or that even that it should be stopped; it probably shouldn't: >hopefully something was learned by it. All I am saying is that the most >obviously offensive postings are not necessarily the most harmful. > The major point here (I think) was that old idea of social redeemability. The postings that caused this whole mess regarding net.flame really weren't very important, these postings were rude and offended many people. The discussion regarding women's clothing and rape was actually quite enlightening: it illustrated some of the differences between some women's opinions and some men's. Calling for censorship on something that *you* are uncomfortable with is pretty dumb, I feel. And calling what was felt by many to be legitimate issues "stupid sexist nasty arguments" doesn't help here. So you disagreed with certain viewpoints. That's is no reason to call for censorship, is it? And no reason to label it with silly terms that haven't been proven nor justified. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{ihnp4 | vax135}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. they would make me their spokesperson.