A horrible human tragedy has unfolded partly before our eyes. It was, you confirm, presaged here, and responded to here in the large majority of posts to Mark Barton in a profoundly disturbing way. That is not an illegitimate item of SI history in which to express an interest it would be gratuitous to label 'prurient,' I think; on this particular thread, especially. It was important. It has caused unhappiness on the part of some posters, and has contributed to the departure from SI of a long-time, respected poster. I see no reason at all for this incident to be off-limits as a subject for discussion. If you do, Edwarda, what might it be?
I myself will not be participating in any discussion, having already said all I had to say on the subject. But in principle, I don't comprehend the rationale for disapproval if others want to discuss it, especially on the grounds that it has prurient, that is, sexual, lascivious, content, which, as far as I know, it doesn't. (Though maybe you were using the word metaphorically, thinking there were only unwholesome, or at least frivolous, reasons to think it worth discussion....?)
In truth, though, I don't care whether it's discussed or not; to me it's water under a very sad bridge. But... if someone wants to discuss it, well, it's not, in my mind, a frivolous or taboo topic. And I wanted to say that. |
