Talk to this user

  1. Lydia

    The case I’m referring to is the assault on my wife that I mentioned on the “100 years after suffrage, UK women still chase equality” article talk page. One of the assailants was arrested on a charge of assault by beating and is due to appear at Westminster Magistrates Court on Thursday to enter a plea. If he/she pleads not guilty, it will be sent to the Crown Court for trial by jury.

    This is the Met Police’s appeal: http://news.met.police.uk/news/appeal-following-assault-in-hyde-park-270076

    One of the issues I’m having trouble with is whether to refer to the person as he or she: as I understand it, he was born male (and still is, of course) but now identifies as a woman. I have avoided the gendering issue completely in what I have drafted but do you have guidance on this?

    If I create a new story for this, it obviously won’t be completed until after the court appearance: will it just be staff who see the draft and do I just add a note about it not being ready for publishing until Thursday? I clearly need to be careful about what I say and what the artcle says and I wouldn’t want it to be public. Or i8s it best to only create the new story after the court appearance?

    1. Alan, I have to tell you – you absolutely are forbidden to write about this for WikiTribune. This is a very personal matter for you and you have a very clear conflict of interest. It is not appropriate for you to write about matters directly relating to you at WikiTribune, as this is not a blogging platform.

      1. That’s not a problem, Jimmy. I understand. I think I could have created an entirely neutral account – and I’ve already declared my COI – but I do understand. That’s why I wanted to run it past a member of staff first.

        Many thanks.

      2. I can’t see any mention of this on your help pages, but I think there clearly needs to be something about COI. Perhaps on the How to write a piece of journalism for WikiTribune page?

  2. Hi Lydia,

    I really liked your “sex robots” article. But I’d like to add a perspective that no-one seems to think of.

    Ours is an age of accelerating transition. We have to get from yesterday to tomorrow. In, say, 1900 “tomorrow” and “yesterday” were about the same distance from “today”. But that is no longer true. Every year, “tomorrow” is further away from “today” than is “yesterday”. The rate of technical and concomitant social change is “stretching time”.

    In the not too distant future, being technically behind by ten years will place you close to those 100 years behind. Being in a tribal culture in the Middle East or Africa will mean you have no access to the present at all. This is already the case in much of the world where people can acquire a *technology* but their culture explodes with the social change arriving in the same box.

    What are we to “do” with all the people “left behind in yesterday”?

    Many of those people have obsolete social norms. Some are unable to form relationships in 2017, people once perfectly able to marry, lead productive lives, be seen as good family folk, good community members, good parents… but the bar was lower, the specifications a lot simpler, and they could pass or better. But not now.

    My grandmother was a perfect mother for the Middle East of the 1920s – her children were housed, fed, clothed in hard, hard times. The problem was she had emigrated to Australia and here…? Beyond inadequate as more was needed of a mother and grandmother than food-clothing-shelter.

    There are many men whose “social/emotional specifications” are obsolete. We cannot throw them out. We cannot upgrade them, by and large. We cannot sell them for spare parts. Some, with “political correctness”, will be able to “get by”. But for the rest there is loneliness, infinite sense of abject failure.

    “Sexbots” may well be part of the solution just as “old-care-bots” will be, and “pet-bots”, and all the other “x-bots” that can fill the ever-widening gap between tomorrow and yesterday.

    Otherwise, what DO we do with all the people, some BILLIONS of them, whose cultures, mores, values, education, … are simply “below spec” for tomorrow?

    Just a thought.

    Kind regards,

    ~~ Julian

    1. Hi Julian, sorry for the late reply on this.

      I think the acceleration aspect of tech story is interesting. I suppose only the future will tell what exactly will happen to all the people who are not “up to date” with technological advancements!

    2. A very poignant rebuttal, dude. I wholly agree that there’s an increasing demand for “modern” partners, from the vantage of people in developed countries. (Although I should point out that the demand is understandably less-pronounced in under-developed countries, at least some of which are slowly catching up.) These disproportionate and unreasonable expectations placed on partners are, I propose, the result of an ill-fitting blend of evolutionary survivalism and sociological/scientific advancements. Our primitive minds are trying to break out of hundreds of thousands of years of habitual human relationship practices, and we’re not doing so well.

      Point in case: relationships formed exclusively with partners who meet a specified educational criteria. Education equates to increased success of “survival” and fortunes in the modern world, so when people are looking for partners with greater educations (a practice far more pronounced among females) it is because they are being driven by evolutionary standards of self-preservation. Not by a desire to find a happy, personally compatible relationship. Obviously, that as problematic for the haves as the have-nots. A well-educated person can provide new avenues of perspective and inquiry to an under-educated partner; the presence of shared education is not a determining factor in the overall success of a relationship, whereas shared values are.

      But I think all that is less an issue than the fact that people are actually terrified by the prospect of heartbreak in a relationship these days. Humans have become so technologically advanced that we can order a meal and have it arrive from the other side of the planet the next day in time for dinner. This causes us to expect things to be far easier and quicker in everyday life than they realistically and typically are. This doesn’t mesh well with our outdated relationship techniques, since our notion of “romance” that has persisted for the past two thousand-some-odd years has been a thing of time and longing by separation. Well, the world is a much smaller place now and time is more trivial than ever. We’ve innovated the shit out of nearly every facet of our culture BUT the method by which we form intimate relationships.

      I could tell you I’ve solved that issue, but the problem is getting people to use my methods, at least insofar as to determine whether or not what I propose even works. Unfortunately, I’ve been struggling to acheive even that least committed of efforts from people to cooperate and engage the process. A bit disheartening, really. But there isn’t a single doubt that I have in my method, so it can only be a matter of time. Assuming I don’t die first; humanity has no idea how much that would suck for us all.

Subscribe to our newsletter and be the first to collaborate on our developing articles:

WikiTribune Open menu Close Search Like Back Next Open menu Close menu Play video RSS Feed Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Follow us on Instagram Follow us on Youtube Connect with us on Linkedin Email us