Please take this in the spirit intended. Just an observer of this and many other posts concerning civility, many heated and angry comments, etc.

Although I really like Cartouche's idea, it does seem to be a form of censorship. I vehemently disagree with holocaust denial yet find it fascinating to watch it defended and rationalized.

There is hypocrisy here on OS, much of it caused by emotions. I don't hold it against Cartouche for lashing out at people she finds offensive and reprehensible. We are human, filled with emotions, I don't want to read writing done by emotionless autobots all the time.

I would prefer my news delivered without all the emotion and partisan B.S. But writing encompasses all that we as humans are and as such we are going to be appalled by some and love others.

I have witnessed, been victim of and guilty of duplicity. What I see here on OS is the popular group is forgiven by their followers for their digressions and the less popular are villified.

I may be totally wrong. However, I feel there is enough evidence to present a pretty strong case.

 

A double standard if you will. A subtle, shadowy type of censorship.

 

I hate censorship. I almost didn't post my latest out of fear. Fear that I was speaking negatively about a certain group that kills abortion doctors (what a tool I almost was)... then I thought in some small way that would mean they won...so fuck them.

 

With that said we are all emotional. Although we all need to develop mechanisms to deal with harsh criticism, issues, stances we find reprehensible, ignorance, stupidity and just plain mean spirited name-calling. Most people here have feelings and will lash-out at times.

 

This is human nature. Telling people to get thicker-skinned has always seemed counter-productive to writing, as empathy and emotions are necessary ingredients for writers.

 

I wouldn't enjoy it here if we were all "Stepford" writers. Just like real life, people are like chemicals, we simply don't all mix well. Some people I find distasteful, many others find to be "Awesome"!

 

Many posts that are, in my opinion, drivel get glowing remarks. Many posts I'm fascinated by are ignored.

 

It's the yin and yang and occasional burst of genius and/or emotional supernova that breathe life into Open Salon. Mr. Mustard (Mean-free since 2009) writes dark, brooding, sometimes touching, haunting stories. This is my kind of thing, but it's not for everybody. But because I like it, I'm wondering what's wrong with the people that don't? We all do this.

 

Personally speaking, after watching the Editors Picks, it would seem pretty easy to duplicate what they're looking for if that's what you want.

 

Copy Saturn Smith's style and get the scoop on the next big story. Simple. However, I would not like it if everyone wrote like Saturn (leave that to her). It would be tantamount to all of us being dressed in gray and goose-stepping.

 

As with style goes substance: Just because a topic causes the veins in my forhead to bulge or bruises my hope for humanity doesn't mean it should not be discussed. It may mean just the opposite, we need to discuss it as much as we can. To strive to understand what seems beyond understanding and maybe it is.  Then we have considered both/many sides and are free to make our own judgement.

 

I've found many writers here present controversial ideas in a very academic and non-threatening way: Mick Arran, Rob St. Amant, Aaron Rury, Kent Pittman, Rick Lucke.

 

Open Salon has emotionalists, creative writers, comedians, idiots, court jesters, ignoramouses, intellectuals, pseudo-intellectuals, knuckle-dragging neanderthals, angelic voices, demons...and off into infinity. Considering we can all be many of these and more. 

 

It's the yin and yang and occasional burst of genius and/or emotional supernova that breathe life into Open Salon.

 

Viva la difference! Viva Open Salon!  (read that with faux French accent)