Subject:
|
Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 17 Sep 2004 04:40:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1121 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Tim Courtney wrote:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Gregory wrote:
> > > If LUGNET decides to make a subgroup for gay members, then others will start
> > > asking for more subgroups for every single type of person who's out there
> > > (Catholics, midgets, retired people, Mexicans, blondes, etc, etc, etc...).
>
> ...
>
> > And finally, how would
> > your LUGNET experience be hurt by forming any or all of these groups?
> >
> > Chris
>
> I've hesitated inserting my own comments (other than expressing agreement) on
> this subject until now -- but this is a question I feel comfortable answering.
>
> I believe my experience would be hurt by the addition of any or all of the
> groups David mentioned, because I believe it will give far more opportunity for
> discourse to focus on peoples' differences and thus be a lightning rod for
> strife.
>
> I'm here to talk to LEGO fans about LEGO. Not about their lifestyle choices,
> political affiliations, whether they're blue, pink, yellow, or spotted people,
> or other.
>
> Adding this to the mix will dilute everyone's ability to see other posters as
> 'just LEGO fans' where we can find more that unites us than divides us. That's
> one of the wonderful things about this site and this community -- you really
> don't know much detail about the other person until you've already gotten to
> know them on one level. This disarms any prejudice or stereotypes a person may
> have, and really lets them look at others more for who they are than what they
> are.
>
> That's what has allowed me to be more open to different types of people and
> different points of view -- I've seen them first as LEGO fans and later as the
> whole person with all of their characteristics and views. Getting to know them
> as AFOLs first has given me a picture of them unclouded by all of this other
> stuff. No matter how tolerant a person is, these affiliations have a connotation
> to them which I find undesireable -- I wish it didn't exist.
>
> Setting this precedent and introducing it here on LUGNET in my opinion is a bad
> idea. I believe it will encourage fragmentation and discourage unity.
>
> -Tim
>
> (My opinions are my own and should not be confused with the collective opinion
> of the LUGNET administrators.)
Though I agree in concept to what Tim is saying -- that LEGO brings people from
different backgrounds together -- the reality is the LEGO community is
fragmented. Precedent has already been set... we group discussions about space
here, train discussions go there, our club is here, your club is there, (we even
further segment club dicussions over in yahoo groups, because LUGNET has no
concept of private discussion groups vs. public discussion groups)...
The problem isn't about fragmentation, but it's more about how much
fragmentation. How far can we break down this diverse LEGO community, before it
comes to the point of diminishing returns. When LUGNET first started, there
were some discussion on the lugnet.loc.uk group about all the different
sub-groups by county (I thought there was a lugnet.loc.uk.kent group at one
time), but over time their group came to settle on just using lugnet.loc.uk. If
I recall correctly, because they felt at the time that further subdivision
wasn't needed & for lack of AFOLs. (I haven't followed the UK group in awhile,
so I'd imagine a lot has changed since then). But the point is, the group
it-self helped to self-regulate the size of the fragment.
Here's a segment of our society that's asking for their own forum, to give them
a sense of identity in our LEGO community. I personally don't see a problem
with this... Like many others have said, as long as it conforms to TOS.
As to the "I want to protect my children from this", I personally think LUGNET
needs to adopt some type of private discussion groups with ratings policy.
Clubs that want to discuss club business with out everyone on LUGNET
eavesdropping, should have a 'G' rating... it's for everyone, but only members
of the club can join (this would also imply a discussion moderator). If someone
wants to discuss LEGO & religion, we make it private, with a 'PG-13', meaning
it's still for those 'mature' enough to not get bothered by heated dicussions
(and maybe a little cussing). 'PG-13' is about where this group would fall...
And we really don't need a 'MA-17' rating, nor group discussions of that
nature... maybe all we really need is two ratings... I need to think on this
some more...
Anyway, I personally dislike the idea of segmenting a group this way in the name
of 'protecting the children', but I think it's a reasonable compromise. I'd
rather educate my children & let them draw their own conclusions over time.
Both my wife & I have friends that are gay. I would expect my children to treat
our gay friends just the same as our strait friends. Just as I would expect our
friends (gay or strait) not talk about adult subject matter in front of the
children. Why should we expect anything different from those in our LEGO
community?
--Mike.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
| (...) ... (...) I've hesitated inserting my own comments (other than expressing agreement) on this subject until now -- but this is a question I feel comfortable answering. I believe my experience would be hurt by the addition of any or all of the (...) (20 years ago, 16-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.general) !
|
106 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
