I honestly and happily concede that I am perhaps one of the more acerbic posters in this forum, at least when it comes to current events. In most other ways I try to be cheerful and supportive with my brethren. For example, if someone posted a pic in which he looked ridiculous, IMO, I would not say so. I would simply pass by the post. But politics should not be personal in the same way. It’s not that I set out to offend, but I will stand by the idea that words worth speaking inevitably abrade thin skin. I believe, however, that I have consistently reserved my “poking with a sharp stick” for those things that are broadly sociopolitical; things that no man needs hold in his psyhe or soul as something definitive of his deeper character - unless he has chosen to so define himself.
Political belief is neither inherent or terminal; the condition can be managed with few complications, even if the pox of one’s affliction is alarming.
In fact, a bit of rational/moral/ethical challenge on a daily basis might be healthy exercise for us old-timers, mentally, like trying to touch our toes in the morning.
It is, most assuredly, a very healthy exercise for our society.
And, as Stevie D. noted, these are effectively nouveaux-Orwellian times, and we clearly dwell in a “target-rich environment” for sociopolitical criticism of all stripes. It should not be taken as personal unless directed as such. At that juncture, I feel that we should offer apology or explanation, to remain verbally civil.
What troubles me most about this ongoing “mod-fest” is that, despite the advanced age of our most active membership, there still exists some sense that members need protection from opinions, no matter how impersonal, or how restrained their presentation, that challenge sociopolitical belief. I’d hope that by this point in life, no one here is too sensitive or fragile to be confronted with a differing POV; that they can discern between a criticism of their choices and a criticism of themselves as individual men. I believe we are entitled to a civil presentation of opinion. I don't believe we're entitled to a guarantee that no one will post something with we strongly disagree. In that regard, the degree of moderation threatened is, I believe, suspicious overkill.
Too, I’d hope, and expect, that by his sixties and seventies, a man’s views are fully “gelled” and that he can articulate a reasoned defense of those views. I’d suggest that if a man cannot expound upon a position about which he feels strongly, he might sit down and consider that position a bit longer. Obviously, in that regard, I have been disappointed. The sum of “defense” to my “sharp pointed stick” has been, figuratively, “That’s my candidate you’re poking. So, SHUT UP! SHUT UP! Or the mods will shut you up!” How old do we need to be before we stop needing the protection of censors and start speaking for our own beliefs?
Regardless, censorship apparently prevails. Congratulations; the Moderation Wall got funded. Having now been thusly admonished to silence, I shall return to squatting like a plaster gnome in the flower-beds of banality to which most of these fora are invariably redirected, lest they be closed to opining.
Your faithful correspondent,
Dillon
aka ‘Harrison Smith.’
As a matter of fact, the sun DOES shine out of my ...
