Subject:
|
Re: Why these news groups were created
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.nntp
|
Date:
|
Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:00:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
6508 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.nntp, Rob Limbaugh wrote:
| |
In lugnet.admin.nntp, Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
SNIPPED useless/pointless commentary from both sides
| |
| |
The irony is that subgroups want to be treated like everyone else... yet
they can’t live without labeling themselves and saying how unfair it is if
they can’t be labeled. Talk about insecurity...
|
Geez. Pot, kettle, black. You’re the one who thinks your kids will be
harmed bay the mere knowledge that gay people exist...or whatever it is you
believe. Talk about insecurity...
Chris
|
Our kids are taught indifference. Part of that is by not teaching them to
inappropriately label people (regardless of who wants the label). “LGBT” is
not a descriptive name, so as a parent, We’ll explain it to the kids. To
which, they’ll say something like “aren’t they like everyone else?”
In my opinion, the group LGBT (as well as “Couples” and “Singles”) have
nothing to do with skill level, aptitude, or ability with regard to building
with LEGO. The designations are strictly in regard to lifestyle choices of
companionship--which has absolutely NOTHING to do with LEGO or building with
it.
In addition, “LGBT” is a name that leads to discrimination by pointing out an
irrelavant difference between people just for the sake of doing so.
Specifically, it creates reverse discrimination, as there is no group called
“straight” or “heterosexual”. Discrimination is a byproduct of defining
differences.
A more relevant “people” subgroup would be in regards to those with physical
ailments or restrictions that would limit their ability or aptitude when
building with LEGO. How a gay person builds with LEGO is of no significance
compared to how quadriplegic or blind people build with LEGO. For that
reason, a group to denote physically/mentally challenged builders is more
appropriate than a group based on who one chooses to sleep with or whether
they want a sex change.
Why should LGBT people have a special place and hermaphrodites don’t? Where
is the group for divorced people? LGBT (and groups like it--including
religion) belong in organizations, off-topic, or LGBTNet (if it’s really
imperative that the world knows a LEGO builder’s sexual orientation/choices).
Adults, Kids, Members, Newbie, Parents, Organizations, Support, and Teens are
all sufficient group names that all people can fit in to without any
reference to race, creed, or sexual orientation. Are you and others
suggesting that someone LGBT doesn’t fit into any of those groups?
There can’t be tolerance or equality with labels.
Rob
|
And I would concur with the general idea about assigning labels leads to the
depreciation of folks. That said, here’s a thing--hypothetical--
Gay person wants to talk about his gayness in relation to his hobby. Either he
wants to ask advice on a certain matter, like showing up at a show with a
rainbow coloured boxcar and being shunned, or, well, anything that deals with
who he is and LEGO.
Now he could post in whatever group--say, general, and get a flurry of posts
against who he is based on religious intolerance or ‘moral superiority’ (not
that this would ever happen here on LUGNET), or the administrators could create
a group that would be more comfortable for him to discuss various topics that
concern his chosen hobby and his gayness.
Much akin to the ‘.loc’ and the ‘.org’ groups--I post many times in rtlToronto
because I’m from there, and posting in .general about things concerning my LEGO
group in Toronto would be annoying to those that don’t want to see it--the LGBT
group allows people a ‘safer’ or just even more comfortable place to discuss.
So LGBT people now have a place in LUGNET where they can post, discuss whatever
they wish to (just like any other group), and the upside is that others don’t
have to read it (appropriate news filters and such), and they can feel a little
more comfortable posting to LUGNET regarding their chosen hobby.
All the power to ‘em, I say.
Dave K
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Why these news groups were created
|
| In lugnet.admin.nntp, Christopher L. Weeks wrote: SNIPPED useless/pointless commentary from both sides (...) Our kids are taught indifference. Part of that is by not teaching them to inappropriately label people (regardless of who wants the label). (...) (20 years ago, 22-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, FTX)
|
151 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
|
|
|
|
