Gay interest: Discussion v campaigning

[french frank]

But there was a response - not to the specific content of the post so much as the fact that it existed at all.

That comment now forms the OP to this thread.

That was my express point: it was not a response to the specific content, and therefore did not continue a discussion of the topic. That's why it was moved to a separate thread, and why the original was bumped - to give people an opportunity to respond to the specific content if they so wished.

[jean]

My point is that after the post which is now the OP here has been posted, it's too late.

The self-censorship sets in.

[doversoul1]

I agree with ff.

Nobody has said discrimination of gay people was not wrong, or there was nothing wrong in a government interfering with artistic expression. So what is it that JLW and others want to ‘discuss’?

Repeatedly posting messages that say, in effect, ‘For-gay Good. Anti-gay Bad’ is surely a campaign and not an invitation to a discussion?

I think setting up two separate threads is perfectly reasonable.

[jayne lee wilson]

I agree with ff.

Nobody has said discrimination of gay people was not wrong, or there was nothing wrong in a government interfering with artistic expression. So what is it that JLW and others want to ‘discuss’?

Repeatedly posting messages that say, in effect, ‘For-gay Good. Anti-gay Bad’ is surely a campaign and not an invitation to a discussion?

I think setting up two separate threads is perfectly reasonable.

You seem to be unaware that my opening post was PRECISELY ABOUT the Russian government interfering with freedom of artistic expression in a film about Tchaikovsky. I can't blame you since the moderators chose to begin this transferred thread with a tired old lament from Mr. Pee, of all the generous-spirited metrosexual liberals, rather than my original comment about that film (which would have made sense of this very discussion!). Is that post, critiquing the Russian government's view of a great Russian composer, now seen as too "inflammatory" to repeat? If so, congrats comrade! The homophobes on this forum will be smiling. If I lived in Russia now, I might be in some remote region sharing a coffee with a member of Pussy Riot. If I was lucky.

I've always (oh so fondly) imagined that anyone with an intelligent interest in classical music or "art music" of any century would also be interested in the wider culture in which it exists, relates to, critiques and takes its meanings from. To list a discussion of persecution of any group of individuals under "Diversions" is breathtaking; it's one of the better cliches to say that for evil to triumph it is only necessary for good men and women to do nothing. So don't take your freedoms for granted now, especially in the anglo-american GB of 2013.

[Serial_Apologist]

You seem to be unaware that my opening post was PRECISELY ABOUT the Russian government interfering with freedom of artistic expression in a film about Tchaikovsky. I can't blame you since the moderators chose to begin this transferred thread with a tired old lament from Mr. Pee, of all the generous-spirited metrosexual liberals, rather than my original comment about that film (which would have made sense of this very discussion!). Is that post, critiquing the Russian government's view of a great Russian composer, now seen as too "inflammatory" to repeat? If so, congrats comrade! The homophobes on this forum will be smiling. If I lived in Russia now, I might be in some remote region sharing a coffee with a member of Pussy Riot. If I was lucky.

I've always (oh so fondly) imagined that anyone with an intelligent interest in classical music or "art music" of any century would also be interested in the wider culture in which it exists, relates to, critiques and takes its meanings from. To list a discussion of persecution of any group of individuals under "Diversions" is breathtaking; it's one of the better cliches to say that for evil to triumph it is only necessary for good men and women to do nothing. So don't take your freedoms for granted now, especially in the anglo-american GB of 2013.

I agree totally - well said JLW.

[Flosshilde]

Nobody has said discrimination of gay people was not wrong, or there was nothing wrong in a government interfering with artistic expression.

I think you are wrong there. Mr Pee and/or Scotty have said that a) Russia should be able to pass what laws it likes without interference from the West - ie there's nothing wrong in Russia discriminating against gay people; and b) that the government hasn't interfered with the script of the film in question.

[Mr Pee]

You seem to be unaware that my opening post was PRECISELY ABOUT the Russian government interfering with freedom of artistic expression in a film about Tchaikovsky. I can't blame you since the moderators chose to begin this transferred thread with a tired old lament from Mr. Pee, of all the generous-spirited metrosexual liberals, rather than my original comment about that film (which would have made sense of this very discussion!). Is that post, critiquing the Russian government's view of a great Russian composer, now seen as too "inflammatory" to repeat? If so, congrats comrade! The homophobes on this forum will be smiling. If I lived in Russia now, I might be in some remote region sharing a coffee with a member of Pussy Riot. If I was lucky.

I've always (oh so fondly) imagined that anyone with an intelligent interest in classical music or "art music" of any century would also be interested in the wider culture in which it exists, relates to, critiques and takes its meanings from. To list a discussion of persecution of any group of individuals under "Diversions" is breathtaking; it's one of the better cliches to say that for evil to triumph it is only necessary for good men and women to do nothing. So don't take your freedoms for granted now, especially in the anglo-american GB of 2013.

You chose as the main part of your thread title "Homophobia", yet again. You did not mention Tchaikovsky. So your agenda was clearly indicated by that title. Having just exhausted that subject on another thread, I felt that to start yet another with Homophobia as the main concern was completely un-necessary. I suggested that this new thread was one too many.

If you have read through all the responses here, you will realise that a fair proportion of respondents share my view.

[french frank]

Sorry to insist, but I'd like this point addressed first

I agree totally - well said JLW.

I can't say I do. When JLW says:

Is that post, critiquing the Russian government's view of a great Russian composer, now seen as too "inflammatory" to repeat? If so, congrats comrade!

I'd point out that the post was freed up from all the disputacious garbage and bumped up to the top of the What's New list with people invited to get back to the said topic. That was ten hours ago. Instead, people still prefer to wrangle about this rather than return to the topic JLW started. They could, of course, do both ...

[jayne lee wilson]

Sorry to insist, but I'd like this point addressed first

I can't say I do. When JLW says:



I'd point out that the post was freed up from all the disputacious garbage and bumped up to the top of the What's New list with people invited to get back to the said topic. That was ten hours ago. Instead, people still prefer to wrangle about this rather than return to the topic JLW started. They could, of course, do both ...

FF - you run a great forum, and do as well as anyone could in your attempts to gently herd all the cool and screaming cats that visit. But I couldn't see that post when I first came here today, only this Pee-lead thread. I can only find my Musical Homophobia thread-starter by looking at the list of my own recent posts.

And I called it that PRECISELY to link it to (and distinguish it from) my earlier one about the Russian World Championships. It is about a musician. About Russian social change. You can't "exhaust the subject" of any form of discrimination (as you might (at least temporarily) exhaust the subject of Badgers or Bruckner) because it is woven into the fabric of life in a given society in all its forms. A society which in Russia is currently changing and developing in alarming directions.

[Mr Pee]

FF - you run a great forum, and do as well as anyone could in your attempts to gently herd all the cool and screaming cats that visit. But I couldn't see that post when I first came here today, only this Pee-lead thread. I can only find my Musical Homophobia thread-starter by looking at the list of my own recent posts.

And I called it that PRECISELY to link it to my earlier one about the Russian World Championships. It is about a musician. About Russian social change. You can't "exhaust the subject" of any form of discrimination (as you might (at least temporarily) exhaust the subject of Badgers or Bruckner) because it is woven into the fabric of life in a given society in all its forms. A society which in Russia is currently changing and developing in alarming directions.

Right, so your thread was not primarily about Tchaikovsky, or music, it was about Homophobia. Again.

Thanks for finally clearing that up.

[doversoul1]

You seem to be unaware that my opening post was PRECISELY ABOUT the Russian government interfering with freedom of artistic expression in a film about Tchaikovsky. I can't blame you since the moderators chose to begin this transferred thread with a tired old lament from Mr. Pee, of all the generous-spirited metrosexual liberals, rather than my original comment about that film (which would have made sense of this very discussion!). Is that post, critiquing the Russian government's view of a great Russian composer, now seen as too "inflammatory" to repeat? If so, congrats comrade! The homophobes on this forum will be smiling. If I lived in Russia now, I might be in some remote region sharing a coffee with a member of Pussy Riot. If I was lucky.

I've always (oh so fondly) imagined that anyone with an intelligent interest in classical music or "art music" of any century would also be interested in the wider culture in which it exists, relates to, critiques and takes its meanings from. To list a discussion of persecution of any group of individuals under "Diversions" is breathtaking; it's one of the better cliches to say that for evil to triumph it is only necessary for good men and women to do nothing. So don't take your freedoms for granted now, especially in the anglo-american GB of 2013.

Do you not understand that my post is about your posts and not about what Russian Government is doing?

When you opened the original thread, people queued up to agree with you that Russian Government was wrong. OK, two members said Russian government could do what they liked, but even these two did say they deplored discrimination against homosexuals. So why are you still repeating the same thing?

If you seriously want to discuss, you will have to learn to stop venting your feelings or making endless sweeping statements. Instead, you need to present the point(s) to be discussed. Nobody responded to you post about Tchaikovsky because there is nothing to discuss. You stated your opinions in a highly subjective language. That’s fine in itself but you can’t complain that nobody responded. It is obvious that saying anything other than ‘hear hear’ will be less than pointless.

Also, I assume you understand that people can oppose discrimination against gay people without being sympathetic to them or even personally disliking them.

[VodkaDilc]

Even FoR3 has moved its campaign to Facebook :-( rather than irritate those who don't support it.

I don't normally read these threads, but I've just come across this. Since I know nothing of Facebook (and have no wish to), am I missing anything vital about the current state of campaigning by being a non-participant?

[doversoul1]

I think you are wrong there. Mr Pee and/or Scotty have said that a) Russia should be able to pass what laws it likes without interference from the West - ie there's nothing wrong in Russia discriminating against gay people; and b) that the government hasn't interfered with the script of the film in question.

OK. I’ll change it to ‘majority of people said discrimination against gay people was wrong, or a government interfering with artistic expression was wrong’. I don’t think this will alter my points.

[Flosshilde]

I'm not sure what your points are. It's a bit diffivcult to untangle the thread, as it's been split up into what seems like several strands. But Jayne's original post seemed to have attracted the usual moans - they are the ones at fault, surely, rather than Jayne, as they made no attempt to respond to the subject of her post?

(Oh, & when you make a comment like "Also, I assume you understand that people can oppose discrimination against gay people without being sympathetic to them or even personally disliking them. ", try putting 'you' instead of 'them'. or perhaps even try 'me'.)

[french frank]

I don't normally read these threads, but I've just come across this. Since I know nothing of Facebook (and have no wish to), am I missing anything vital about the current state of campaigning by being a non-participant?

Not really, there are other ways ... very few people actually 'participate' but I can see that the majority of 'friends' and 'likes' are entirely new people. There does seem to be, realistically, a limit to how many people it 'reaches' compared with an open forum like this where anyone can read anything (or most things).

But I never wanted this forum to be the 'Friends' forum, since that might put some people off joining :-D - and I wanted it to be for all those who missed the old messageboards.

As for Facebook - I was dragged kicking and screaming. I don't like the idea at all.