Gay interest: Discussion v campaigning

[french frank]

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.

Given that I was the last person to post there, it should have shown up in red on everyone else's What's New list - and even higher up the P&CA forum list. That's why I bumped it.

And, as I say, you may have been away from the forum (lucky you!) for a long time, but it has been there for everyone else to see and they could have responded - in which case it would have been boosted up the list again.

[Bryn]

We are not all doing that. Neither A Hinton nor Richard Barrett, for example, is such a nom and I have no evidence to suggest that Jayne Lee Wilson is either.

Bryn is my given forename.

[ahinton]

Bryn is my given forename.

I know - and I'm sure that there are other examples of people here and elsewhere who identify themselves with complete or partial clarity.

[scottycelt]

We are not all doing that. Neither A Hinton nor Richard Barrett, for example, is such a nom ....

Which maybe just about clinches the case for the 'noms' ... ? :winkeye:

[Richard Barrett]

As we're all using noms de keyboards anyway I find it surprising that some peeps seem to take offence so easily.

That's an interesting issue. Speaking for myself, not using an alias is a way to emphasise that the opinions I post are the actual opinions of a real person (which those members with whom I'm personally acquainted would confirm I think), and maybe also a way of stopping myself from posting things that I wouldn't be prepared to say in "real life".

[Sir Velo]

That's an interesting issue. Speaking for myself, not using an alias is a way to emphasise that the opinions I post are the actual opinions of a real person (which those members with whom I'm personally acquainted would confirm I think), and maybe also a way of stopping myself from posting things that I wouldn't be prepared to say in "real life".

On balance, I prefer the use of pseudonyms. Firstly, if I started calling myself "Paul Smith" (for example) I doubt it would make any difference to the way I write or the way people respond to me. Moreover, there are probably thousands of Paul Smiths (or Richard Barretts, FTM) out there so I wouldn't have the hubris to imagine that I was so well known that everyone here would know me, anyway. Secondly, and more importantly, the whole point of a forum is that we give forthrightly held opinions. It would be rather a boring forum where members pussy-footed round the issue out of a vague wish not to give offence. Next, there is the issue of internet security. I doubt I'm alone in not wanting, particularly, to be identified. Not that I am ashamed or embarrassed by anything I say here, but rather I do not want the potential for any aggravation. On the old Radio 3 boards, it was considered the height of bad manners to "out" a poster, as happened in the case of one celebrated critic, and one current forum member.

So I'm with 8thOb on this: I can't for the life of me see why people get so easily offended here - some kind of absurd amour-propre I guess - although I am sick to death of the same old threads being resurrected under new guises. Provided one sticks within the parameters of common courtesy, and there are distinct forum rules by which members are required to act, then one should not feel restricted to post according to one's views.

[french frank]

maybe also a way of stopping myself from posting things that I wouldn't be prepared to say in "real life".

That's a very fair consideration - though it has to be said that most people don't post anything that they wouldn't be prepared to say under their real name - some do, of course.

And as it appeared to go unnoticed by at least one member who seems not to have obeyed the direction to 'read the House Rules before posting', my identity and pseudonym are both given there - under Administration and Moderation. Though another member who went to some trouble to 'identify' me by my real name via the internet, in fact identified me with someone unconnected with me, other than that she happened to share the same name - so much for 'real identities' - even if you think you have quite a distinctive one. [Pleae note: I do not live in Birmingham!]

And, Sir Velo, there is one other member here who shares your name and whom I mistook for you (he has since changed to a pseudonym to avoid confusion). Similarly there are already two Paul Smiths, so don't, please use that name! (In any case there is only one 'real' Paul Smith' and that's my lovely stolen mini.)

[scottycelt]

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 is more than capable of speaking for himself but, rather than posting an account of what scotty is alleged to have said, here is what he actually does say:

'Discrimination' can be extremely subjective. If the Russian Government decided to re-introduce old communist laws to ban the promotion of Christianity I very much doubt that our Flossie would shed a single tear. In fact I suspect he might even celebrate that particular 'discrimination' and publicly share his celebrations with a few other like-minded members on this very forum.

He is right on one thing though. Scotty certainly does believe the Russian people should be the ones to decide who they 'discriminate' against in law in Russia and not Flossie of Shawlands, Glasgow, Scotland.

[jean]

Scotty certainly does believe the Russian people should be the ones to decide who they 'discriminate' against in law in Russia.

That looks to me very like what Flossie said you said.

But you also said:

'Discrimination' can be extremely subjective. If the Russian Government decided to re-introduce old communist laws to ban the promotion of Christianity I very much doubt that our Flossie would shed a single tear. In fact I suspect he might even celebrate that particular 'discrimination' and publicly share his celebrations with a few other like-minded members on this very forum.

Which makes use of the interesting technique of attempting to mitigate the harshness of your own judgment by assuming that, mutatis mutandis, Flossie and others would reach much the same conclusion.

For which there is no evidence at all, and as far as I'm concerned, the assumption is quite wrong.

Another point about board identities: great outrage was expressed recently (though not, I think, by you) when you were addressed in a manner appropriate to your avatar.

Using such an image does leave you open to that sort of thing, you know.

[Pabmusic]

...'Discrimination' can be extremely subjective. If the Russian Government decided to re-introduce old communist laws to ban the promotion of Christianity I very much doubt that our Flossie would shed a single tear. In fact I suspect he might even celebrate that particular 'discrimination' and publicly share his celebrations with a few other like-minded members on this very forum.

He is right on one thing though. Scotty certainly does believe the Russian people should be the ones to decide who they 'discriminate' against in law in Russia and not Flossie of Shawlands, Glasgow, Scotland.

It doesn't take much thought to say that few people (knowing what they do now) should have said in - say - 1935 that 'the German people should be the ones to decide who they 'discriminate' against in law in Germany'. Discrimination against minority groups is simply wrong. Wherever it happens. It's called morality.

I also think that (1) it's a blind leap of faith to think that Flossie would think or act in any particular way (unless you and he are close buddies, and you at least think that you can guess his likely reaction), and (2) that there are others on this forum who can be relied upon to follow like sheep, just because he has one view.

Negative discrimination against any group is wrong. It was wrong that we banned Catholic rites until 1829 (a period that was worse for British Catholics that communist Russia was for the Orthodox Church - where the various churches could at least continue to hold mass within the churches).

[PJPJ]

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?

I would say "Yes". I find it a very useful way to keep up to date with the current state of campaigning.

EDIT: On the other hand, I would also say "No" as there are other ways to keep up to date with the current state of campaigning, but the Facebook page gives me an easy way to provide support without having to write copious posts.

[scottycelt]

That looks to me very like what Flossie said you said.

But you also said:


Which makes use of the interesting technique of attempting to mitigate the harshness of your own judgment by assuming that, mutatis mutandis, Flossie and others would reach much the same conclusion.

For which there is no evidence at all, and as far as I'm concerned, the assumption is quite wrong.

Another point about board identities: great outrage was expressed recently (though not, I think, by you) when you were addressed in a manner appropriate to your avatar.

Using such an image does leave you open to that sort of thing, you know.

My point was that many of us can easily hurl the accusation of discrimination. If none of us exercised some form of discrimination we'd be in a fine pickle. UK Catholic adoption agencies having to close because they can't in conscience place children with homosexual parents is very much 'discrimination' on both sides. So children have to suffer simply because some won't be bullied by the ruling liberal elite. It's a bit like the Russian government saying to Russian gays that if you become 'straight' we won't bother you!

As for my avatar it is used quite deliberately, of course, as a bit of fun. I don't remember any great forum outrage over an uncharitable connection between myself and my avatar, and I'd be utterly astonished if there was (great forum outrage).

Of course, one rather naive and obvious insult may have gone unnoticed among the many far better and much more appreciated ones!

[ahinton]

UK Catholic adoption agencies having to close because they can't in conscience place children with homosexual parents is very much 'discrimination' on both sides. So children have to suffer simply because some won't be bullied by the ruling liberal elite. It's a bit like the Russian government saying to Russian gays that if you become 'straight' we won't bother you!

I know that the last but here is meant to be frivolous, but the rest of it is either incorrect or misleading; you refer to matters of "conscience" on the part of those adoption agencies but, as you also sidestep the fact that the 'discrimination' that they would otherwise have exercised (i.e. had they not taken the decision to close) would clearly have contravened the law of the land, your allegation of "'discrimination' on both sides" is unsound, to the extent that it appears to imply that one half of that 'discrimination' is on the part of the UK government that makes the law that would otherwise have risked being broken - in other words, you seem to allegee that the law concerned is 'discriminatory'.

"UK Catholic adoption agencies" are obliged to comply with all relevant laws just as are other adoption agencies; the fact that those laws are secular gives them no reason to exonerate themselves from responsibility under them. You reference to such agencies othewise risking being "bullied by the ruling liberal élite" strikes me as merely a deliberately inflammatory way in which to express what you erroneously believe to be condoned under the relevant laws in terms of government behaviour; the government is as obliged to comply with the law as is anyone else (not that it can always be relied upon to do so, of course!).

You also allege that "children have (had to) to suffer" on account of the closure of those agencies; were such agencies to have felt obliged to act illegally had they not decided instead to close, how might this have been in the interests of the children entrusted to their care and why - unless insufficient places were available to reaccommodate those children through the offices of other non-Catholic adoption agencies - would it necessarily cause those children to "suffer" beyond the inconvenience of the responsibility for them having to be transferred from one such agency to another?

[Pabmusic]

...As for my avatar it is used quite deliberately, of course, as a bit of fun. I don't remember any great forum outrage over an uncharitable connection between myself and my avatar, and I'd be utterly astonished if there was (great forum outrage).

Of course, one rather naive and obvious insult may have gone unnoticed among the many far better and much more appreciated ones!

I too can't recall any degree of furore about it. But... Do you mean it's an avatar? Not a photo??

[ahinton]

I too can't recall any degree of furore about it. But... Do you mean it's an avatar? Not a photo??

Very droll indeed! - but take care; it mnight incite scottykilt to tell you to put something in that well photographed pipe in your own avatar and smoke it!...