I often puzzle at the level of fear presented when it comes to the idea that a thread might get "out of hand". Let's think about it for a moment; what might happen? Someone will flame someone else and suffer the consequences? Someone will complain that their feelings were hurt?
It's words -- just text on a screen. It doesn't make anyone bleed. It doesn't threaten lives. It doesn't rob anyone of real property, and what's more, it's usually just opinions.
I realize this site extends well beyond the boundaries of the U.S., but as someone who lives in the U.S. and has spent, perhaps more than the average amount of time reading the thoughts, quotes and standards of the founding fathers, I note that the founding fathers seemed to have held to standards of real harm. That doesn't include hurt feelings, being offended, being politically incorrect or providing support for an assertion. All of those things are really fairly harmless. That doesn't mean there is absolutely zero potential for some form of harm, but as far as real, direct harm, the potential is very nearly zero.
When did the world become so completely petrified that someone might be allowed to express an opinion or worse yet, an unpopular opinion? When did we gain the right to present unsupportable beliefs and then tell those who can support beliefs to the contrary, that because they're out-numbered, they should keep their evidence to themselves? When did we decide that words and ideas were something to be chained, filtered, regulated, metered, weighed, scrutinized, categorized, enforced, banned, hidden, out-lawed, censored, washed, clipped, truncated, euphemized, castrated and prohibited?
What is this incessant fear of words and ideas? It's the end of potential to accept new ideas, the end of opportunity to be introduced to new ideas and to allow critical thought into areas where it has become popular to label anything as unsuitable. The competition displayed in pursuit of political correctness is something I find to be indicative of the need for caution. What does it mean to be "politically correct"? Does it mean we're being correct? Well, not really. If that's what it meant, we could just call it "correct". So apparently, it means something other than actually being correct. It means adhering to standards which we, as individuals, didn't develop, don't necessarily agree with, and might actually find harmful to society. But most will adopt them simply because they're popular and never give even a minute's consideration for whether or not these standards hold true merit.
The admins have no choice. They've agreed to the enforce the same standards the rest of us agreed to accept. So this should in no way be seen to be aimed at them. This is presented more for the consideration of the general membership. We shouldn't be afraid of contrary ideas. We shouldn't attempt to shut people up, just because we disagree with them. When that becomes the standard, it's often only a matter of time before the former majority finds itself of the minority and they end up being the ones being silenced simply for the lack of popularity behind their ideas.
For those old enough to remember JFK, there is some wisdom to be found in his urging that we encourage controversial books and controversial ideas. For that is from where true understanding often emerges. Around 400-years ago a man had an idea which many found not just preposterous and unpopular, but even dangerous and harmful. Today most of us are quick to remember his name -- Galileo. But in his time he was seen as a wicked man of distorted views and harmful ideas. So damaging did the populous rate his ideas that they were hidden away from the masses and he was forced to publicly denounce them. His ideas were censored away and he was placed under house-arrest where he died 9-years later. This is of course, one example of many which can be presented. But it is hopefully sufficient to demonstrate the impropriety of allowing ourselves to become fearful of new ideas, evidenced beliefs, words and unpopular concepts.
Think about it for a moment. What if these ideas had never escaped the bounds of social acceptability? We'd still have a rather backward view of the solar system which would negate our every attempt to breech the boundaries of space. Modern satellites would be thought impossible. There go your cell phones, trans-oceanic phone calls, GPS systems, advanced and accurate weapons systems, commercial navigation systems and a host of other technologies which are now commonly accepted and at the heart of our modern conveniences.
Don't be so quick to find fear. You needn't agree with ideas when they seem bizarre, unpopular or contrary to your own. But don't fear them. Allow them to thrive. If they hold no merit, it's unlikely they will ever displace ideas which do hold merit. But do provide them the chance to show any merit they may hold and allow yourself the opportunity to fairly assess them before attempting to eradicate them, simply because you don't like them.
We can censor the next Galileo and deprive ourselves of the advancements which might spring from what seems a bizarre, unpopular, non-traditional or frightening idea, or we can embrace them, assess them fully and carefully, and enjoy the accelerated advancement to the next levels in technology and the enhanced understanding of our reality.
Think just for a moment; what if Galileo's ideas had been accepted 100-years earlier than they were? What if we hadn't attempted to shun, stifle and mute the ideas of Giordano Bruno or Charles Darwin? How much farther might we have advanced by this point? A cure for cancer? Interstellar travel? Who knows? It's just possible. But it's only possible if we're cautious not to rob ourselves of new knowledge, through our fears, traditions, unevidenced-beliefs and standards of political correctness.
Censorship never advances anyone or anything, except for propaganda which could not survive without it. Don't believe me, ask Hitler. He was a staunch supporter and promoter of censorship. Can we learn from his example? Or will we doom ourselves to repeat his atrocities while patting ourselves on the back for being rank-and-file conformists, politically correct, and quick to silence anyone who steps out of our line?
