Re-normalized Worldview

[crfriend]

Iain remarked a few messages ago about us being a bit unfair to Bob for pulling the thread that started this firestorm. Well, you can flame at me for that as well because I posted a private message to Bob encouraging, nay imploring, him to pull the thing because of probable misunderstandings in the future. I stand by my assertion that censorship is ill-advised in virtually all forums, but when one is dealing with societies with a witch-hunt mentality to certain offences (either real or perceived) one is treading on very thin ice.

Make no bones about it. This is not a laughing or joking matter. The crime itself is heinous enough, but that people -- possibly innocent people -- are now rotting behind bars based on spurious accusation is even worse. If we were dealing in a world of rational thought it'd be one thing, but we're not.

I understand that Bob may have been trying to invoke the notion of how an isolated community feeds upon itself to justify its actions. That said, I cannot for an instant believe that any of us don't know and viscerally understand that we are a tiny minority. But, we're a tiny minority that have commited no crime -- save for, perhaps, addling some overly-tender sensibilities in the fashion world.

[Departed Member]

Hear hear, crfriend! Those who quote "1996" would do well to remember that was a decade ago. The 'thought police' have emerged from their cess-pits in the meantime (big-time) and some spend their hours perusing sites such as these. These PC b*sta*rds are the new evil, the new Stazi, the new McArthys, the new Gestapo. Be assured, they are real. I, too, appreciate what Bob was trying to achieve but this isn't the time/place to risk such an analogy being 'picked up' by such cretins.

[Bob]

Skip... Asterisk language is not necessarily a sign of squeamishmess over a term; it has a more practical purpose in the age of Google. It is used to say something in a way that will get the point across, but will avoid having our community forum indexed under that term by the search engines.

[iain]

The reason I said anything was because the satirist called bob stalin and hitler, which I said was unfair. I didn't think the post was a good idea and I said so too--bob was responding to these comments, so labelling him in the same category as a man who sent 40 million people to their deaths is, well, what can I say? what can anyone say.

[The Satirist]

All of the men mentioned in the post believed in censorship. Sometimes people need to be shocked into seeing the truth. So it stirs some anger. Big deal. I thought this place held free thinkers, but now I can see that it's a bastion of paranoia. Certain people can make suggestions and they are ignored, but if others, (those in the right clique,) make a suggestion, it's jumped on. What type of free thinkers are we when we put up with that type of behavior? What type of free thinkers are we when we agree to be censored when the words we can no longer speak are already associated with people like us? We have to be able to discuss things in order to set them right, otherwise we are all in denial.

[iain]

you have such a lot of anger--why direct it at people here? it makes the act of coming here start to be something to be avoided. I don't login so much anymore because people just flame each other over nothing. it's like one of those groups that just gets sick of themselves and bicker over nothing whatsoever.

censorship can be seen here in a very practical context. people here are already ostracised for their fashion choices--my ex wife even intimated i was an unfit father because of it--you think after that it's a good idea to be on a web site where people are calmly savouring their lengthy discussions about the abuse of children? I DO NOT, thank you very much mr satirist.

none of the ensuing bickering and anger has much relevance to fashion. it's just like cabin fever. maybe when people run out of a common cause they just turn on each other.

[Departed Member]

you have such a lot of anger--why direct it at people here? ------ maybe when people run out of a common cause they just turn on each other.

Ah, but isn't that the crux of the matter? There isn't a common cause as such because everyone (well, a large percentage) has a different viewpoint on what they hope to achieve. Also, everyone has a different home/work/societal core on which they base their aims. Contrary to one view expressed on this topic, there are no cliques here - how can there be? We all live different lives, different backgrounds and have different aspirations. That is the strength of this site, not its weakness.

Personally, I have no interest in 'fashion freedom' per se. I'm interested to read the views of those who are, but I do sense some of those folk are only interested in the 'shock' value of pursuing their road to foster their own ego. "Look at me, I'm special!" Fine, but every one of those 'sets back' the desire of the folk who just want to substitute tr*users, or whatever, for something more comfortable, er, in this case, skirts. "Oh, if you want to be like that, why don't you just wear a Kilt, then?" Well, I do, but usually only in the cooler months. Kilts are great - excellent lower back support, non-restrictive movement-wise, but they do come with a 'price', and it's not just the £($) cost. They attract attention! :cheer: Which is great, if that's your aim! (And, I must confess, they are a serious 'babe magnet'!). But if you just want to quietly get on with your (comfortable) life, then the inevitable 'baggage' that can ensue (Are you regimental?) is just a bind.

Now, none of this is 'paranoia'. It has nothing to do with 'free thinking'. It ain't religion and it ain't politics. If you're that 'hung up' on what preachers do, or don't do, then visit a Christian website - I for one, was only too pleased to see the back of folk foisting their beliefs on this site. Equally, I'm not happy with opening up discussions to include those sad, mentally ill beings who prey on children. In today's world, that's not paranoia, that's common sense!

[crfriend]

There isn't a common cause as such because everyone (well, a large percentage) has a different viewpoint on what they hope to achieve. Also, everyone has a different home/work/societal core on which they base their aims.

I take polite umbrage with the first assertion here. I suspect that there really is a "common cause" involved here -- that of getting skirts on blokes accepted, at least marginally. It may not be elucidated eloquently enough, but I feel that it's there. As far as the second assertion is concerned, it's bang on because we are, after all, humans with lives that we have to lead (stunning as that may sound); this is one of the things that sets humans apart from so many other animals.

Personally, I have no interest in 'fashion freedom' per se. I'm interested to read the views of those who are, but I do sense some of those folk are only interested in the 'shock' value of pursuing their road to foster their own ego. "Look at me, I'm special!"

That's an interesting one, especially given some of the more recent threads pertaining to "back into the closet" (and, believe me, I offer no offence to anyone in that) and whatnot. Many of us are quite happy to shun the limelight; I know that for one, I tend to. But, any bloke who's seen wearing anything other than trousers (drat, I forgot the splat ("*")) is going to attract attention for the simple reason that he's being different. Would it not be wonderful for the notion of "differentness" to fade into the background?!

[Departed Member]

I take polite umbrage with the first assertion here. I suspect that there really is a "common cause" involved here -- that of getting skirts on blokes accepted, at least marginally.

Aha! That's what I would liked to have thought, too! I get slightly discouraged when I read about some posters wearing skirts so they can deliberately 'flout/flash their underwear'. That certainly doesn't help the 'cause' and is far more likely to damage it.

That's an interesting one, especially given some of the more recent threads pertaining to "back into the closet" (and, believe me, I offer no offence to anyone in that) and whatnot. Many of us are quite happy to shun the limelight; I know that for one, I tend to. But, any bloke who's seen wearing anything other than trousers (drat, I forgot the splat ("*")) is going to attract attention for the simple reason that he's being different. Would it not be wonderful for the notion of "differentness" to fade into the background?!

I agree! I'm not oblivious to the fact that wearing (say) a knee-length denim skirt or an ankle-length cargo-style skirt will give rise to the odd glance or baffled stare. Curiosity is not a bad thing, and well, you'd look too! Which is why I tend to stick to those alternatives. However, even though my 'knocking about' Kilt is relatively subdued, I do feel slightly more self-conscious, kilted. Ladies who wouldn't normally give me a second glance (in tr*users), do seem to go into the bee/honeypot syndrome! I don't mind that - it's what their other halves might do (to me!), if they catch them at it!