The Internet has funny values.

[RathWolf]

Okay, so I can't help but call attention to this. There's about three threads active right now on the subject of sex. These have not been locked. However, there was one thread that was just locked. What was it? "Is love mutual?". This just struck me as peculiar. There was nothing terribly bad happening in the topic, and besides the OP not having much to say on the matter, nothing seemed particularly bad about it. No one seemed to trolling and it appeared to be civil, so why was it locked?

Anyone else have thoughts on the matter?

Note: I am not saying that the other threads should be locked, or the thread in question should be reopened. I'm merely pointing out a situation that seemed odd to me.

 

[BonsaiK]

The reason why that thread was locked is because the OP has no content. It had nothing to do with the subject matter of the thread.

 

[Sleekgiant]

As long as a threads subject matter isn't overly explicit, it is quite alright to let it fly. Now the "love mutual" thread was a low content, confusing thread that deserved wrath.

 

[4fromK]

whats wrong with discussing sex? are you a nun or something? if the OP has nothing to say, the thread shouldnt exist.

 

[RathWolf]

whats wrong with discussing sex? are you a nun or something? if the OP has nothing to say, the thread shouldnt exist.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. Notice where I said "I am not saying that the other threads should be locked". I merely found it amusing that whereas traditional society makes sex taboo and embraces 'love', it seemed on the surface that what occurred here was the exact opposite.

Even if the OP has nothing to say, if others do, why shouldn't it exist?

But hey, in case I wasn't clear enough: I AM NOT CONDEMNING THE DISCUSSION OF SEX. I was just pointing out a situation that was amusing to me.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

The Internet has values???

 

[SnootyEnglishman]

It's not the they value one over the other when differentiating "love" and "sex", it's when the OP has little content and presenting a very weak discussion opportunity they strike.

 

[BonsaiK]

Even if the OP has nothing to say, if others do, why shouldn't it exist?

Threads are supposed to contain discussion value and content in the OP. A closed question such as "Is love mutual?" with no extra content in the OP to clarify what exactly we are supposed to be discussing besides giving a simple yes/no answer does not contain any inherent discussion value whatsoever. If any worthwhile discussion DID arise, it was in spite of the content of the OP, not because of it. Threads like this should be (and in this case, was) locked simply to teach the OP that this is not an appropriate way to make threads on this forum. For you to extrapolate that the locking indicates a reversal of societal values is an incorrect assertion which turns a blind eye to the real, far more obvious and mundane reason why the thread was locked - it disobeys the forum posting guidelines on short/low content posts.

 

[Marter]

I believe it was locked because the OP gave hardly anything to discuss. Had he/she added on to their post, it probably would have stayed open.

 

[RathWolf]

Even if the OP has nothing to say, if others do, why shouldn't it exist?

Threads are supposed to contain discussion value and content in the OP. A closed question such as "Is love mutual?" with no extra content in the OP to clarify what exactly we are supposed to be discussing besides giving a simple yes/no answer does not contain any inherent discussion value whatsoever. If any worthwhile discussion DID arise, it was in spite of the content of the OP, not because of it. Threads like this should be (and in this case, was) locked simply to teach the OP that this is not an appropriate way to make threads on this forum.

Thank you for this. The bemusement lied in the fact that despite the OP's lack of content, people appeared to be expanding the discussion and it was at that point closed.

For you to extrapolate that the locking indicates a reversal of societal values is an incorrect assertion which turns a blind eye to the real, far more obvious and mundane reason why the thread was locked - it disobeys the forum posting guidelines on short/low content posts.

However, I was not making that assertion. I suppose I should have been more clear that my amusement was over the apparent reversal, rather than any true change in values.

 

[BonsaiK]

Even if the OP has nothing to say, if others do, why shouldn't it exist?

Threads are supposed to contain discussion value and content in the OP. A closed question such as "Is love mutual?" with no extra content in the OP to clarify what exactly we are supposed to be discussing besides giving a simple yes/no answer does not contain any inherent discussion value whatsoever. If any worthwhile discussion DID arise, it was in spite of the content of the OP, not because of it. Threads like this should be (and in this case, was) locked simply to teach the OP that this is not an appropriate way to make threads on this forum.

Thank you for this. The bemusement lied in the fact that despite the OP's lack of content, people appeared to be expanding the discussion and it was at that point closed.

For you to extrapolate that the locking indicates a reversal of societal values is an incorrect assertion which turns a blind eye to the real, far more obvious and mundane reason why the thread was locked - it disobeys the forum posting guidelines on short/low content posts.

However, I was not making that assertion. I suppose I should have been more clear that my amusement was over the apparent reversal, rather than any true change in values.

The thread got lucky - a few discussions did in fact arise. However, experience is a teacher and it's a good idea to lock a thread like that to set a good example for future posters to follow.

Bemusement over apparent as opposed to actual change in values noted.

 

[RathWolf]

Bemusement over apparent as opposed to actual change in values noted.

I'm hoping that was a slip of the tongue on your part. Otherwise it might seem like you were taking a subtle jab at me, in the assumption that I did not understand the difference between amusement and bemusement.

 

[BonsaiK]

Bemusement over apparent as opposed to actual change in values noted.

I'm hoping that was a slip of the tongue on your part. Otherwise it might seem like you were taking a subtle jab at me, in the assumption that I did not understand the difference between amusement and bemusement.

Slip of the tongue. It's me who doesn't understand.