Subject:
|
Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 18 Sep 2004 04:31:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2933 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lee Meyer wrote:
| |
James, I can tell you why this is an issue with homosexuals. They want to
tell other people they are gay because unless they are blatant about it
(visually or verbally) you and I don’t know it and they don’t like people
NOT to know it. They don’t like people not knowing they are gay, because as
the vast majority of people are not, they assume that everyone else is like
them too (not gay). They want affirmation from others about their
homosexuality. They desire external approval of others regarding their
sexual orientation.
|
Allow me to politely disagree with this view. I don’t think they are seeking
any sort of approval - they seem to just wish to avoid disapproval, which is
not the same thing. Basically, they just want to post with people who are
comfortable with what they are (I neither approve nor disapprove - I just
accept them at face value). Inasmuch as I am comfortable with what they are,
I tend not to see the reason for a separate forum for that. Wanna post a
park scene with nothing but male minifigs holding hands? I don’t have a
problem viewing it. I think they are marginalizing themselves, and that they
are still going to be judged (I have no filters, for example - if it shows up
on the common news scroll, I’ll see it most likely).
I’m wary of the dilution of lugnet with a (possible) social club attached,
and the possible attachment of other social groups that really don’t relate
to Lego in any particular way, which is why I tried to get someone to
actually say precisely what is being asked for (and largely ignored in that
request). But...!
...many people whose opinions I respect feel that it was within keeping of
the Lugnet hierarchy of forums to include such. So, I give my approval to go
ahead (not that it is required in the slightest, of course) - I have a great
deal of trust in them.
| |
As you can see from the posts on this issue, they sure don’t want to hear
anything negative or less-than-approving of what they want to do. That is
something they don’t want to tolerate, and will spend much time trying to
label people who don’t embrace what they want to do as ‘homophobic’. And
you can’t have a ‘safe space’ if you’ve got ‘homophobic’ people actually
disagreeing with what homosexuals want, so now maybe we start down the path
to censoring LUGNET people, or maybe banning people because they think
differently than a protected sub-class.
|
I have stated my opinion on the quick-trigger claims of homophobic. It’s too
often used in an attempt to marginalize someone’s dissenting opinion by the
use of a perjorative label (and even the only statement I noted that I felt
was homophobic has been modified). But the use of such pro or con doesn’t
really affect the actual decision (at least to me) on whether the proposed
forum should be implemented or not.
-->Bruce<--
|
Bruce wrote: ‘They want a place to post with people who are comfortable with
what they are.’
Bruce, if this is the main reason they want the group, it has nothing to do with
Lego - Lego is incidental at best. The primary reason is for them to be open
and be approved of, despite you saying this is not the case. If they are
seeking to avoid disapproval, as you stated, they can be like everyone else and
not bring up their orientation in their posts - I have never seen posts where
this just naturally comes in as part of the conversation going on (until this
current topic of discussion). I don’t feel compelled to tell people my sexual
orientation. I don’t need to have others affirm this or anything else about my
person.
This is the thing that gets me about this. Right now everyone is treated
equally on this site - black, white, Hindu, Protestant, Republican, heavy-metal
lover. Now you’re telling me that’s not enough because gays aren’t comfortable
here unless they can be known to everyone as homosexuals, and have people here
who are ‘comfortable’ (read accepting) with them. And you know this is what you
mean, Bruce, because if it’s not about being accepted as gays, then why do other
people have to know they’re gay? Being gay has nothing to do with their MOCs.
Your ‘with people who are comfortable with who they are’ phrase implies these
people are approving of homosexuals and their orientation. It’s just a
euphemism. People who are uncomfortable about ‘what they are’ are not going to
affirm them or make them feel comfortable.
You know, when I post stuff here, I have never worried that because people don’t
know certain things about me, that if they did, somehow if I didn’t have their
approval I would be uncomfortable.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
| (...) See Todd Lehman's response as to what Lugnet is. I had reserved my own opinion on the whole subject with the note that Lehman is the arbitrator of what Lugnet is, and knows his own philosophy on it better than I do. (...) And this is merely (...) (20 years ago, 18-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Lavender Brick Society
|
| (...) Allow me to politely disagree with this view. I don't think they are seeking any sort of approval - they seem to just wish to avoid disapproval, which is not the same thing. Basically, they just want to post with people who are comfortable (...) (20 years ago, 18-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
207 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
