-2
$\begingroup$

Well the few times i wrote a mgtow-like question people just spam downvotes and close my question,I thought there was freedom of expression here... Why is this such a sin?!

If some philosophies are prohibited here please let me know,I dont want to break the rules or lose more reputation.

$\endgroup$
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ Please define acronyms on first use. I've never heard this term. $\endgroup$ – SRM Mar 20 '17 at 4:32
  • $\begingroup$ @SRM en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_Going_Their_Own_Way $\endgroup$ – Seraph Myrmidon Mar 20 '17 at 4:33
  • $\begingroup$ @SRM mgtow.com $\endgroup$ – Seraph Myrmidon Mar 20 '17 at 4:39
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ I only see one question from you that would fall into this category. worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/71638/… That one is a poor question just because there's no way to meaningfully answer it. It is closed as "too broad", correctly in my opinion, because asking for all the ways that X would change society is an open ended list that no single answer can ever possibly cover in this format. You're asking for a PhD dissertation in a forum for 1-2 page essay answers. What other questions are you talking about? $\endgroup$ – SRM Mar 20 '17 at 4:42
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Note: Almost all "how would X change society" questions are too broad to answer, not just your question in particular. It has nothing to do with your topic. $\endgroup$ – SRM Mar 20 '17 at 4:44
  • $\begingroup$ @SRM worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/74652/… $\endgroup$ – Seraph Myrmidon Mar 20 '17 at 4:46
  • $\begingroup$ @SRM And other question about androids with artificial wombs that i deleted to stop losing more rep,That question was about male only society in japan,I dont remember the link it was like 2 weeks or more. $\endgroup$ – Seraph Myrmidon Mar 20 '17 at 4:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Click on your “score” in the header bar to go to your profile page, which includes a list of all your posts. I use that all the time to find stuff posted earlier to refer back to it. $\endgroup$ – JDługosz Mar 20 '17 at 5:01
  • $\begingroup$ @JDługosz Thank you sensei. $\endgroup$ – Seraph Myrmidon Mar 20 '17 at 5:28
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Just a reminder, voting is quite different on meta. $\endgroup$ – Mołot Mar 20 '17 at 8:26
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Also, you never use correct punctuation, which earns you unending downvotes and close votes from me, no matter what your question is about. $\endgroup$ – kingledion Mar 20 '17 at 18:14
16
$\begingroup$

No philosophy is prohibited, but there are some things you should keep in mind:

  1. Make sure that it is very clear that said philosophy is a philosophy of nation in your world, not yours. If it's also yours or not is irrelevant and best left out altogether.

  2. Make sure that this is very clear it's not just one person. This would be story-based, see Why is my question "Too Story Based" and how do I get it opened?

  3. Make sure you clearly describe how this philosophy relate to the realities of fictional world you are building. Is it reasonable? Or bull excrement? In the fictional world we don't know, not in our real world.

    • What is this philosophy? How does it work? What it assume?
    • What in-world circumstances created it?
    • Does it have real world analog, and what are the differences?
  4. Provide clarifications requested.

  5. Assume good faith - people comment to help you recover from bad question. Most of us are not native speakers so sometimes this may sound rough to you, and we have limited time and comment length (and patience), so we aren't always able to put enough "honey" in these comments. Deal with it and read carefully, without prejudice, what flaws in your questions these comments point out. You don't have to agree with them. But if these flaws are causing your question to get downvotes, show some gratitude for insight you got. Comments on votes are not mandatory, by commenting people are just trying to make you a favor.

I believe you failed at all these points.


"Freedom of speech" is not a shield from consequences. We acknowledge your right to post what you posted. But it's also our freedom of speech to vote it up or down or VTC, as we see fit. Calling it "spam voting" is unjust, you try to have your freedom of expression and at the same time take ours away.

* by "we" I mean me and people who posted similar comments under original question(s).

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "Make sure that it is very clear that said philosophy is a philosophy of nation in your world, not yours." I know I'm playing devil's advocate, but this seems unreasonable. $\endgroup$ – apaul Mar 20 '17 at 7:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ People have some strange ideas, they write stories about them... Just sayin that while their ideas may be offensive they shouldn't be barred from asking about them... Hopefully they will, and may actually hear the other point of view once in a while. $\endgroup$ – apaul Mar 20 '17 at 7:37
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @apaul34208 why isn't it reasonable? It doesn't matter what OP believes. It does matter what happens in his world. If question feels like it's about OP and real world, it will be a bad fit for this site, and attract downvotes. And here I'm advising how to avoid downvotes. $\endgroup$ – Mołot Mar 20 '17 at 7:40
  • $\begingroup$ True. It will attract downvotes, but would you have the same objections about more mainstream ideas? Would you advise a Christian or Muslim writer to separate their personal views from their story? $\endgroup$ – apaul Mar 20 '17 at 7:44
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @apaul yes, and I did it few times on this site. Usually also advising to avoid existing religions in fantasy, and being really careful in sci-fi. $\endgroup$ – Mołot Mar 20 '17 at 7:48
  • $\begingroup$ I think we're splitting hairs. I don't think that anyone should be forced not to state that they share the philosophy of their world, but I personally find it completely unnecessary and awfully distracting when people do. $\endgroup$ – Mikey Apr 3 '17 at 9:35
15
$\begingroup$

We will not build your world for you

In general, questions of the sort...

"Assume the world as we know it. Then I postulate that we change this one thing. Now tell me what the outcome is"

...questions of that sort are of very poor quality by Stack Exchange standards and — in my personal opinion — quite annoying.

The poor quality is because they are very broad and as such have no clear answer. They could take any number of directions from there. As a questioner you need to limit the scope of the question, because otherwise you have just done the Stack Exchange equivalent of asking "Ok, so I throw two dice. What happens?".

And the annoying bit is that the questioner is requesting that other people do the work that they themselves are meant to do.

Ok, so you came up with a High-concept. That is all good, very clever of you to come up with it. I salute your ability to think out of the box. And this is usually the start for some really good and interesting world building.

But to then dump that concept in someone else's lap and say "Develop this for me. Come up with all the consequences and tell me what happens"... no. Just: no.

We are not here to build your world for you.

We are here to help you build your world on your own. When you get stuck in that process; when you have a specific problem that must be solved, that is when you post a question. If there are some kinks and wrinkles that need ironing, we can help you. If you need a way around an inconsistency in your logic; if you require justification that will allow you to astroturf the field for a specific world; if you need a fact- or reality check... then we can do that for you, and gladly so.

But we will not build your world for you. That is your job.

The "sin" of your question about fembots was that you did just that which I said above: you introduced a high-concept, but then you did not take that anywhere. You did not even begin to try to figure out what happens in a premise such as yours. You did not say anything about what possible routes this could take.

Instead you just dumped the premise on Worldbuilding and asked everyone else to develop the world for you. That was your sin. MGTOW had nothing to do with the down-votes.

A note on Freedom of Expression

Freedom of Expression is a contract between you and the government. Freedom of Expression means that the government is not allowed to censor you, that is to say the government cannot demand to pre-approve that which you are about to express. (*)

And that is all that it is.

Freedom of Expression is NOT...

  • The right to demand to post anything, anywhere. People are not required to provide you with the means to express yourself. You have no right to conscript the usage of private assets — such as this forum — in order to express yourself. You are here as a guest, and your presence is by the good graces of the people responsible for Stack Exchange. The government is not an actor in this place, and so Freedom of Expression is not actually relevant here.

  • The right to demand people approve of that which you express. It feels silly to have to point this out this but it must be said: even under Freedom of Expression, no-one is required to like that which you express. If the reader does not like it, they are entirely entitled to form and hold such an opinion, and they are at least as much as you within their rights to express this opinion.

  • Immunity from criticism. See the point above. If people form the opinion that your posts are of such a quality that they do not approve of them, then they are within their rights to express this. And if they have valid arguments for their opinion, then it is the expressed purpose of the ratings and comments systems for them to use them to give you feedback as to why they think your post is of poor quality.

    You cannot use "Freedom of Expression" as a shield against criticism.

  • Immunity from other consequences. Freedom of Expression is not a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card, nor is it something you can invoke to escape other unpleasant consequences of that which you have expressed. Expressing yourself is an action. Actions may have consequences. Freedom of Expression does not exempt you from consequences. You are free to express yourself in the eyes of the government — they cannot stop you from doing it, even if they know what you are about to do and they do not like it — but you are not free from having to suffer for it, afterwards.

    Whether this rhymes well with your concept of "freedom" or not can be debated, but these are — never the less — the facts.

    EDIT: Thank you Frostfyre for the mandatory xkcd reference...

    enter image description here

(*) Usually there are some more bits to this — such as for example in the Swedish Act of Freedom of Expression where it is stated that the government may not prevent you from partaking of expressions — but the main point is that the government may not try to stop you from expressing yourself.

$\endgroup$
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Mandatory XKCD reference. $\endgroup$ – Frostfyre Mar 20 '17 at 12:52
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Frostfyre Thank you. Also: that comic is slightly wrong. Free Speech means the government cannot arrest you for that which you are about to say. The government can arrest you however, for that which you have said. $\endgroup$ – MichaelK Mar 20 '17 at 12:56
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @MichaelK not really. Government can arrest you for that which you have said only in very specific circumstances, specifically if other, more important values are violated by what you say, or if what you said implies you committed or are about to commit a crime. And that's pretty much it. $\endgroup$ – Mołot Mar 20 '17 at 13:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Mołot Only when it comes to things like state secrets and similar. But they cannot preemptively arrest someone even if they are about to commit hate speech for instance, even if they know that you are about to do it. Well... they should not be allowed to do it under perfect Freedom of Speech but this varies slightly between nations. One of the arrests of David Irving for instance was one such example and — in my case — quite appalling. He is a moron of a Holocause denier, but you cannot preemptively arrest him for that. $\endgroup$ – MichaelK Mar 20 '17 at 13:24
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @MichaelK in most jurisdictions I know, attempt to commit a crime is still a crime. Maybe not things like holocaust denial, but disclosing state secrets (which may lead to death of your people) and things like that are and should be included. Also, Irving was not arrested "preemptively". He was arrested for what he said and for trying to ignore entry denials. And the ideas he promotes may lead to massive killing one day, so, in my opinion, keeping him in jail with no contact with outside world wouldn't be too much. Or maybe even not enough? $\endgroup$ – Mołot Mar 20 '17 at 13:32
  • $\begingroup$ @Mołot Yes, attempting to commit a crime is usually grounds for preemptive interventions . But all such actions, where attempting them is also a crime, is usually codified as such, there say murder is one crime, and attempted murder, or trying to get someone to commit murder, are other separate crimes. And few jurisdictions have things like for instance "attempted hate speech" or "preparing to commit hate speech" codified as crimes, just because of Freedom of Speech. $\endgroup$ – MichaelK Mar 20 '17 at 13:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ But being banned from entering a country isn't preemptive, it's a result of act committed. Just as being arrested due to existing arrest warrant - this is caused by acts he supposedly committed and didn't, yet, went to court to settle. Nothing preemptive in that. $\endgroup$ – Mołot Mar 20 '17 at 13:39
  • $\begingroup$ Being banned from entering a country is not a matter of being convicted for a crime or arrested for attempting one. $\endgroup$ – MichaelK Mar 20 '17 at 13:41
  • $\begingroup$ Daily wire - Ben, is that you? :) $\endgroup$ – MolbOrg Mar 20 '17 at 17:20
  • $\begingroup$ @Frostfyre Thanks for beating me to it. :) $\endgroup$ – James Mar 20 '17 at 19:16
1
$\begingroup$

To pretend that all of the votes on your question were purely about the quality of the question is more than a little disingenuous. Honestly I voted the way I did because the premise seemed thin and it made the question "not useful" as far as I was concerned, as I pointed out in the comments.

With that out of the way I would like to say a few things...

steps up on his soap box

People are going to ask questions that in some way involve their personal world view. Some will be offensive to you personally.* That shouldn't be a reason to close a question out right, and as far as I know it isn't.

Please take these as opportunities to learn something, I personally learned a lot tonight. I didn't know that MGTOW was a thing and now I do. I don't agree with it or support it, but now I'm aware of it, and maybe being aware of an issue and talking to someone about it makes everyone involved a little better off.

People learn an awful lot from the stories they read, the games they play, and most essentially the worlds they interact with. If we can make our world a better place, by making our worlds/stories better, by taking the time to talk to someone we disagree with, everyone gains.

Your answer to a question may just change someone's point of view some day.**

*This is an unfortunate fact of life
**With great power comes great responsibility... or some such...

$\endgroup$
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ You don't have pretend anything. All explained votes are about quality of the question. Unexplained are unknown and that's it. Pretending or assuming is generally a bad taste, and I've seen people banned for trying to break voting anonymity On Stack site. $\endgroup$ – Mołot Mar 20 '17 at 8:29
  • $\begingroup$ Who asked you if you condoned MGTOW? Who put you in a position to condone it? No one needs your permission to come up with their own philosophy, silly or otherwise. Acting as if you are the arbiter of what other people should think is not part of your mandate, on this site or elsewhere. $\endgroup$ – kingledion Mar 20 '17 at 18:40
  • $\begingroup$ @kingledion perhaps condone was a poor choice in words... Just trying to say that while I don't particularly like or support the point of view I find value in being aware of it. $\endgroup$ – apaul Mar 20 '17 at 18:51

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .