Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Status
Not open for further replies.

the8thark

macrumors 601
Original poster
Apr 18, 2011
4,628
1,735
Why is being "gay" considered a political/social issue on these forums?

I want to bring to attention this article I posted on the forums.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1726173/

This topic was very quickly moved to the PRSI areas of the forums. And I am asking why this was.

To compare we have these previous MacRumor articles:

Apple Leaps to #6 in Latest Fortune 500 Rankings
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1579209/

Steve Jobs Ranked World's 110th Richest Person With Net Worth of $8.3 Billion
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1113366/

Both are old articles. And both are a number in a list. #6 in 500 and #110. They sit in the general article section.

But take a list of 50 people (very similar to the above 2 lists) and add one word "gay" and almost instantly it becomes PRSI material. Why is this? How is "gay", PRSI material but straight/heterosexual lists or lists where sexuality is not even mentioned not moved to PRSI.

Being gay is no different to being straight in response tot he topic I am writing now. Gay people deserve to be treated the same as straight people. Does someone on the staff here have an issue with the word "gay".

Also there have been mentions about topics getting out of hand because of the word "gay". I don't see this as a valid reason to move the topic to PRSI. The great moderation team here would have no issue with moderating the posts there and/or cleaning up the topic if necessary.

The topic is not political, religious and touches on no social issues apart from similar ones that other lists (not in PRSI) touch on.

So I would like to know why the staff here consider the word "gay" deserving to be in the PRSI area?
 

DeltaMac

macrumors G5
Jul 30, 2003
13,422
4,390
Delaware
And yet, "gay" remains a hot-button word, and, being a controversial subject, where discussion about those issues normally should be placed in PRSI.
Am I wrong by thinking that, by your use of the word "gay", and especially considering the context with which you ask - this thread naturally belongs in PRSI?
 

GGJstudios

macrumors Westmere
May 16, 2008
44,539
941
Why is being "gay" considered a political/social issue on these forums?
You're kidding, right? As hotly debated as that topic is, it's very clear that it is a social issue. Unlike the other 2 articles you mentioned, which only deal with business, this article makes a point to emphasize sexual orientation. Therefore, it's not purely a business article, and appropriately belongs in PRSI.
 

iMacFarlane

macrumors 65816
Apr 5, 2012
1,123
30
Adrift in a sea of possibilities
Would it be a big issue if the article stated the person was African American? A Woman? An atheist?

It seems like the only thing to do is give it time. As the human race slowly matures and gets over it's bad self, concentrating on or differentiating between people due to irrelevant physical characteristics, lineage, beliefs, or preferences slowly become the non-points they should be. America has progressed quite far along equality with race, then sex, and is now tackling sexual preference.

If everyone could just take a moment to realize we're completely alone in the universe, hurtling through the cosmos on an insignificant speck, and all we have is each other, I think people would be less apt to be crappy towards each other for any reason.

Well, there's the solution for world peace. Guess I'll start working on world hunger.
 

jdechko

macrumors 601
Jul 1, 2004
4,230
325
Because some people are incapable of having a discussion about certain issues without being an *******. The PRSI section has a minimum post limit to discourage random people from signing up and trolling.
 

iMacFarlane

macrumors 65816
Apr 5, 2012
1,123
30
Adrift in a sea of possibilities
You're not an anti-extraterrestialist, are you? ;)

No, definitely not! Given the numbers, there most definitely should be life out there. But then again, Fermi's paradox poses an interesting point: given the sheer number of observable galaxies, number of stars in each, and number of planets orbiting those stars, there should be lots and lots of life. So why haven't we heard from them?
 

SandboxGeneral

Moderator emeritus
Sep 8, 2010
26,482
10,050
Detroit
This topic was very quickly moved to the PRSI areas of the forums. And I am asking why this was.

The thread was moved because the topic of sexual orientation is a social issue and our rules require members to choose the most appropriate forum to create a new thread in. If they don't we'll decide which is the most appropriate forum and move it there ourselves.
 

jrswizzle

macrumors 603
Aug 23, 2012
6,107
129
McKinney, TX
Why do athletes and celebrities feel the need to "come out" publicly?

Same questions. Baffles the heck outa me. Do what you want, why do I care (or why should anyone care) who you choose to share the sack with.

If I were famous, I think I'd hold a press conference to "come out" and let everyone know I was into Hispanic chicks. I feel like that's something people should know.
 

yg17

macrumors Pentium
Aug 1, 2004
15,027
3,002
St. Louis, MO
The thread was moved because the topic of sexual orientation is a social issue and our rules require members to choose the most appropriate forum to create a new thread in. If they don't we'll decide which is the most appropriate forum and move it there ourselves.

Question: If Tim Cook was black, and the list was top black celebrities, would it be moved to PRSI?
 

chrono1081

macrumors G3
Jan 26, 2008
8,446
4,145
Isla Nublar
Why do athletes and celebrities feel the need to "come out" publicly?

Same questions. Baffles the heck outa me. Do what you want, why do I care (or why should anyone care) who you choose to share the sack with.

If I were famous, I think I'd hold a press conference to "come out" and let everyone know I was into Hispanic chicks. I feel like that's something people should know.

It's two fold:

One part of it is when you live in the closet you have this insane pressure building up. You have friends and family around you asking things like "Why aren't you married yet?" or "Why are you single?" or people trying to randomly hook you up despite telling them no.

You stay in the closet because you know that a large amount of people will think less of you, disown you, (if you live at home your parents may kick you out), they'll see you as some dirty abomination because you aren't like them and they can't comprehend something that is different.

The kind of stress this causes is crushing. When you tell people you're gay it's a huge weight lifted off of your shoulders because you don't have to hide anymore. Sure you will lose family and friends because they incorrectly think you chose to be gay (despite them never choosing to be straight).

The other part is celebrities feel a responsibility to show the world that gay is normal (uncommon but normal). By coming out they help show everyone that some people are gay and that its ok to be gay. Here they are, a famous person that some people may look up to being true to themselves and others.

Ellen Page had a really good coming out speech that nails it perfectly.

I wish I could fully come out because it is a HUGE reliever of stress (and would stop the women in the office from buying me chocolates and things) but since in my state you can be fired for being gay it's not safe to tell people at work. (It's also none of their business).
 

skottichan

macrumors 65816
Oct 23, 2007
1,082
1,264
Columbus, OH
No, definitely not! Given the numbers, there most definitely should be life out there. But then again, Fermi's paradox poses an interesting point: given the sheer number of observable galaxies, number of stars in each, and number of planets orbiting those stars, there should be lots and lots of life. So why haven't we heard from them?

Because we haven't been listening very long, and it takes extremely long amounts of time to "hear them". So if another world is developing at a similar rate as we are, we'll most likely not "hear" them until we physically run into them.
 

7thson

macrumors 65816
May 13, 2012
1,343
1,437
Six Rivers, CA
No, definitely not! Given the numbers, there most definitely should be life out there. But then again, Fermi's paradox poses an interesting point: given the sheer number of observable galaxies, number of stars in each, and number of planets orbiting those stars, there should be lots and lots of life. So why haven't we heard from them?

Have you heard Peter Mulvey's song, "Vlad the astrophysicist"? He explains quite well why we haven't and most likely won't hear from them. Sorry Mods for going off topic.
 

terraphantm

macrumors 68040
Jun 27, 2009
3,814
663
Pennsylvania
No, definitely not! Given the numbers, there most definitely should be life out there. But then again, Fermi's paradox poses an interesting point: given the sheer number of observable galaxies, number of stars in each, and number of planets orbiting those stars, there should be lots and lots of life. So why haven't we heard from them?

Lots of reasons. Most important is that the distances are... Well, astronomical. Light speed is downright slow on that scale. We also could very well be interpreting and messages sent out as mere junk.

Also worth noting that the key to the diversity of life on this planet was the endosymbiosis of mitochondria. In the nearly 4 billion years life has been around, only one lineage (eukaryotes) managed to evolve beyond simple unicellular organisms (unless other offshoots of archaea and/or bacteria died out in the many mass extinctions that occurred). So while the odds are that life out there exists, the odds that there are complex forms of life are a fair bit lower. Then intelligence evolving on top of that is an even tougher order. I do believe they exist, but I believe they are not common, and that we're unlikely to make contact within our lifetimes. I would love to be wrong on this one however.
 

the8thark

macrumors 601
Original poster
Apr 18, 2011
4,628
1,735
The thread was moved because the topic of sexual orientation is a social issue and our rules require members to choose the most appropriate forum to create a new thread in. If they don't we'll decide which is the most appropriate forum and move it there ourselves.

Being gay is not more a social issue than being straight is. I put the topic in the most appropriate location. The list was just 50 random supposedly powerful people. The fact they are all gay as well has almost no importance. It's no different to the 50 richest people or 50 most powerful people from the USA etc etc. Just the top 50 people from a random group in society. Every other group is not considered a "social issue". But being "gay" is by the moderators of these forums.

To me this is discrimination to the gay community. They deserve to be treated just like everyone else. Someone is in a relationship. Who cares if they love someone of the same or opposite sex. We don't all go around moving lists of straight people to PRSI. And gay people deserve that respect too.

I can see why the moderators have made their choice to move the topic. And it just shows their attitudes towards the word "gay". I am so glad I don't feel the same way about this word as the moderators of this forum do. I would be ashamed with myself if I did. Even though I am not gay I respect the gay (and every other community) too much to act in the way the moderators have done here.

If we all lived in the UK I'd take you all to the Alan Turing project. It is a play being developed currently by the Pet Shop Boys about the life of Alan Turing the how even though he played a major part in wining WW2, the british government treated him less than human because he was gay. Maybe that would open up your eyes.

I just want every group to be treated equally. Straight, gay, black, white, etc etc all deserve equal treatment on these forums, and the moderators actions have proved they are not. Rather disappointing but it is a fact of life I guess, discrimination exists everywhere, even on the internet.

----------

You're kidding, right? As hotly debated as that topic is, it's very clear that it is a social issue. Unlike the other 2 articles you mentioned, which only deal with business, this article makes a point to emphasize sexual orientation. Therefore, it's not purely a business article, and appropriately belongs in PRSI.

This is exactly what is wrong here. People keep treating "gay" like it's some taboo subject that has to be hidden away in special areas of the forum. It's no different to the other 2 lists. Gay or straight or whatever. It's just a group of people. The article talks about nothing about the social issues of being gay. It just plucks 50 random people from a community "the gay one" and lists them.

I think the article is just as business as the other 2 I listed. "Gay" is only hotly debated because it's not treated equally as straight people are. Once the prejudice and discrimination is gone then it won't be as hotly debated. I will be glad when people say they are happy in their relationship and not be forced to say whether it's gay or straight. Both gay and straight is a choice and both sides should be free to talk about in the open (ie not forced to be stuck in PRSI). But I think that'll be a long time coming.
 
Last edited:

maflynn

macrumors Haswell
May 3, 2009
73,412
43,304
To me this is discrimination to the gay community. .
How is a thread's relocation considered discrimination? The moderation team, based on the topic, moved the thread, as it was our opinion that its more of a Social Issue thread and thus belongs in the PRSI.

Just to be on the same page here's the webster definition
the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people

In no way is a thread's relocation is considered treating a person unfairly or differently because we applied our rules/guidelines uniformly without regard to a person's sexual orientation, religion, color or ethnicity.
 
Last edited:

roadbloc

macrumors G3
Aug 24, 2009
8,784
215
UK
Some people's morals still live in the past. Death will eventually deal with this problem.
 

the8thark

macrumors 601
Original poster
Apr 18, 2011
4,628
1,735
In no way is a thread's relocation is considered treating a person unfairly or differently because we applied our rules/guidelines uniformly without regard to a person's sexual orientation, religion, color or ethnicity.

If that was the case, the article would not have been moved. It was moved because of it coming from a "Gay" magazine. Spelling out their sexual orientation is what facilitated the move. Articles without mentioning Tim Cook being gay are not moved but articles that come from a gay magazine (even nothing to do with being gay apart from listing 50 gay people) are moved. That is moving articles based on a person's sexual orientation. In this example the person is Tim Cook.

I not saying the decision should be fixed. I understood why it happened. I totally disagree with the decision though. And I just shake my head at it. You're not alone, many people feel the same way, feeling the need to hide anything with the word gay in a box.

I don't blame the moderators at all. It is an issue that needs to be addressed. Being gay does not. But the discrimination of it does.

At the very least we all now understand the moderators attitudes to the word gay.
 

GGJstudios

macrumors Westmere
May 16, 2008
44,539
941
"Gay" is only hotly debated because it's not treated equally as straight people are. Once the prejudice and discrimination is gone then it won't be as hotly debated.
It is exactly that reason why the topic belongs in PRSI. It is a hotly debated issue, which you are proving by your own arguments here. If the article had remained in the other forum, the discussion would have eventually turned into a debate on the gay/straight issue, instead of focusing on just the business aspects of the article. I believe you chose that particular article intentionally because of the orientation, rather than purely for the business aspects. As such, you're trying, as you are in this thread, to push an agenda that has nothing to do with someone's business experience or achievements. While there's nothing wrong with that, it is for those reasons, and the illustration provided in this thread, that the thread belongs in PRSI, where the debate appropriately belongs.
 

the8thark

macrumors 601
Original poster
Apr 18, 2011
4,628
1,735
Question: If Tim Cook was black, and the list was top black celebrities, would it be moved to PRSI?
Can a moderator please answer this one for me?
If Tim Cook was black that is. And I'd like to know the answer too.

----------

It is exactly that reason why the topic belongs in PRSI. It is a hotly debated issue, which you are proving by your own arguments here. If the article had remained in the other forum, the discussion would have eventually turned into a debate on the gay/straight issue, instead of focusing on just the business aspects of the article. I believe you chose that particular article intentionally because of the orientation, rather than purely for the business aspects. As such, you're trying, as you are in this thread, to push an agenda that has nothing to do with someone's business experience or achievements. While there's nothing wrong with that, it is for those reasons, and the illustration provided in this thread, that the thread belongs in PRSI, where the debate appropriately belongs.

We agree to disagree.

1. The moderators can moderate topics just fine without moving them to PRSI.
2. Being gay should be treated equally to being straight. End of story.
3. The fact being gay is not treated equally is a hotly debated issue as you said. But remember context. The article I put up has nothing to do with how being gay is perceived in the community. It's just a list of 50 people who happen to be gay. Therefore my article should not be in PRSI but it is.
 

SandboxGeneral

Moderator emeritus
Sep 8, 2010
26,482
10,050
Detroit
Sexual orientation is a social issue for society in general, not just on these forums. The fact that your post included this as part of it dictated that the more appropriate forum would be PRSI as that is what the primary part of the post was about. There is nothing bad, or wrong about having a thread in the PRSI forum as opposed to another one.

The rules of the forum were applied properly and the thread moved. The moderation team has no position on the word 'gay' as it relates to social issues.

If Tim Cook were black and that led to posts that focused on his race we'd move that to PRSI too.

-The Moderator Team
 

TPadden

macrumors 6502a
Oct 28, 2010
741
410
.......
1. The moderators can moderate topics just fine without moving them to PRSI.
2. Being gay should be treated equally to being straight. End of story.......

Agreed; any list of Top 50 Straight celebrities (excluding gays) discussion should be moved to PRSi ........ it isn't like the topic is banished. :cool:
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.