| |
In lugnet.people, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.people, Lee Meyer wrote:
>
> > This last argument is always appealed to when a majority having a conservative
> > position is opposed to what a minority group with a more liberal viewpoint does
> > or doesn't want to do.
>
> Why cast this as conservative vs. liberal? I'm not seeing it that way and I am
> not sure it's a useful characterisation.
>
> > In this case the majority is cast as being ignorant,
> > hateful and unqualified to have their viewpoint prevail because they 'just don't
> > understand.'
>
> I am not seeing any characterisation of the 'majority' as ignorant, hateful or
> unqualified by anyone.
>
> I certainly think, now that you mention it, there may be some recent voices for
> which that label fits, but I think those voices bring that characterisation upon
> themselves based on their own words. As I said elsewhere, I was, until recently,
> rather impressed with how reasoned and well mannered this whole discussion has
> been.
>
> And what is the 'majority' you refer to here anyway? The majority of the
> *posters* seem to be in accordance with the thinking I outlined above, that the
> group ought to be created and the experiment tried. At this point I wonder if
> most of the viewpoints haven't already been explicated sufficiently well?
>
> That said, this is an administrative decision, not a majority one, and I believe
> the details of what has been decided will be forthcoming in due course.
>
> ++Lar
I have seen posts by people telling others to remove their posts (those against
this idea) and have seen posts calling those who posted against this idea
whitewashed as 'homophobic.' In the first post I replied to in this thread we
see someone posting the idea that the straight majority can't be counted on to
make the right decision because they just don't get it. We're not qualified
because we're assumed to not be gay, and therefore, we can't understand why gays
want a group like this. All of this adds up to my prior statement that I stand
by: this is calling those who disagree ignorant and/or hateful and/or
unqualified. The way 'homophobic' is being tossed around in these posts the
person is using it to describe someone against this negatively (either they're
ignorant or they are hateful). And if we're not gay and in the minority on this
issue, we're not qualified to make the decision about whether this group should
exist.
I also still stand by my own views on this: such posts should be in the
off-topic area, or on an independent web site devoted to GLBTI? Lego users.
Obviously some GLBTI? Lego builders do not feel fully equal with any other Lego
builders (they don't recognize they already are) but they want to carve
out a 'special' area for themselves. I am against this for the same reason I am
against creating a special area for Catholic Lego users, Black Lego users,
Buddhist Lego users, whatever. I'd put them all in off-topic areas or support
the idea of a Lego web site devoted specifically to their being Catholic, Black
or Buddhist.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
