Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Site and Forum Feedback

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Apr 16, 2014, 11:00 AM   #1
the8thark
macrumors 68040
 
the8thark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Why is being "gay" considered a political/social issue on these forums?

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.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=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
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1579209

Steve Jobs Ranked World's 110th Richest Person With Net Worth of $8.3 Billion
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=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?
__________________
Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
the8thark is offline   4
Old Apr 16, 2014, 11:41 AM   #2
DeltaMac
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: 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?
DeltaMac is offline   3
Old Apr 16, 2014, 12:06 PM   #3
GGJstudios
macrumors Westmere
 
Join Date: May 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by the8thark View Post
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.
GGJstudios is offline   8
Old Apr 16, 2014, 01:10 PM   #4
iMacFarlane
macrumors 65816
 
iMacFarlane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Phaselocking Psychos somewhere on Pandora
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.
__________________
"We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers."-Carl Sagan
iMacFarlane is offline   6
Old Apr 16, 2014, 01:14 PM   #5
dejo
Moderator
 
dejo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: The Centennial State
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMacFarlane View Post
If everyone could just take a moment to realize we're completely alone in the universe...
You're not an anti-extraterrestialist, are you?
__________________
dejo is offline   6
Old Apr 16, 2014, 01:50 PM   #6
jdechko
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
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.
jdechko is offline   2
Old Apr 16, 2014, 02:00 PM   #7
iMacFarlane
macrumors 65816
 
iMacFarlane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Phaselocking Psychos somewhere on Pandora
Quote:
Originally Posted by dejo View Post
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?
__________________
"We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers."-Carl Sagan
iMacFarlane is offline   0
Old Apr 16, 2014, 02:03 PM   #8
SandboxGeneral
Moderator
 
SandboxGeneral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: The New World
Quote:
Originally Posted by the8thark View Post

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.
__________________
"Gee, I've been on this diet only ten minutes and I've already lost something, my sense of humor."
SandboxGeneral is offline   3
Old Apr 16, 2014, 03:06 PM   #9
jrswizzle
macrumors 603
 
jrswizzle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: 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.
__________________
Nexus 5 | iPhone 6+, 6, 2G | Lumia 635 | iPad Air 2 | Kindle Fire 7" HDX | 21.5" iMac (Early 2012) | 13" Macbook Air (Mid 2013)
"Innovation, my ass!" -Phil Schiller
jrswizzle is offline   5
Old Apr 16, 2014, 03:36 PM   #10
firedept
macrumors Demi-God
 
firedept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Somewhere!
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMacFarlane View Post
So why haven't we heard from them?
Maybe they are smart enough to stay away from this mess called earth.
__________________
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt!
firedept is offline   2
Old Apr 16, 2014, 06:19 PM   #11
yg17
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: St. Louis, MO
Quote:
Originally Posted by SandboxGeneral View Post
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?
__________________
Barack Obama is not a foreign born, brown skinned, anti-war socialist who gives away healthcare. You're thinking of Jesus.
yg17 is offline   4
Old Apr 16, 2014, 07:28 PM   #12
chrono1081
macrumors 604
 
chrono1081's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Isla Nublar
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrswizzle View Post
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).
__________________
Mac Pro (2010): 3.33Ghz Intel Xeon (6 core) - 24 GB RAM - NVidia Quadro k5000
Macbook Air (2010): 2.13 Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo - 4GB RAM
chrono1081 is offline   7
Old Apr 16, 2014, 07:48 PM   #13
skottichan
macrumors 6502a
 
skottichan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Columbus, OH
Send a message via AIM to skottichan Send a message via MSN to skottichan
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMacFarlane View Post
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.
skottichan is offline   0
Old Apr 16, 2014, 07:48 PM   #14
7thson
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Six Rivers, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMacFarlane View Post
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.
7thson is online now   0
Old Apr 16, 2014, 10:44 PM   #15
terraphantm
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Pennsylvania
Quote:
Originally Posted by iMacFarlane View Post
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.
terraphantm is offline   0
Old Apr 17, 2014, 08:48 AM   #16
the8thark
Thread Starter
macrumors 68040
 
the8thark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by SandboxGeneral View Post
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.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by GGJstudios View Post
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.
__________________
Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.

Last edited by the8thark; Apr 17, 2014 at 08:55 AM.
the8thark is offline   3
Old Apr 17, 2014, 08:51 AM   #17
maflynn
Moderator
 
maflynn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Boston
Quote:
Originally Posted by the8thark View Post
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
Quote:
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.
__________________
~Mike Flynn

Last edited by maflynn; Apr 17, 2014 at 09:01 AM. Reason: clarification
maflynn is offline   3
Old Apr 17, 2014, 09:16 AM   #18
roadbloc
macrumors 604
 
roadbloc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: UK
Some people's morals still live in the past. Death will eventually deal with this problem.
__________________
roadbloc is offline   3
Old Apr 17, 2014, 09:22 AM   #19
the8thark
Thread Starter
macrumors 68040
 
the8thark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by maflynn View Post
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.
__________________
Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
the8thark is offline   1
Old Apr 17, 2014, 09:34 AM   #20
TPadden
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadbloc View Post
Some people's morals still live in the past. Death will eventually deal with this problem.
Reply is a good example of why it belongs in the political/social section.
TPadden is offline   2
Old Apr 17, 2014, 09:37 AM   #21
yg17
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: St. Louis, MO
Quote:
Originally Posted by yg17 View Post
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?
__________________
Barack Obama is not a foreign born, brown skinned, anti-war socialist who gives away healthcare. You're thinking of Jesus.
yg17 is offline   0
Old Apr 17, 2014, 10:01 AM   #22
GGJstudios
macrumors Westmere
 
Join Date: May 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by the8thark View Post
"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.
GGJstudios is offline   3
Old Apr 17, 2014, 11:15 AM   #23
the8thark
Thread Starter
macrumors 68040
 
the8thark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by yg17 View Post
Question: If Tim Cook was black, and the list was top black celebrities, would it be moved to PRSI?
Quote:
Originally Posted by yg17 View Post
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.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by GGJstudios View Post
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.
__________________
Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
the8thark is offline   3
Old Apr 17, 2014, 11:46 AM   #24
SandboxGeneral
Moderator
 
SandboxGeneral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: The New World
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
__________________
"Gee, I've been on this diet only ten minutes and I've already lost something, my sense of humor."
SandboxGeneral is offline   3
Old Apr 17, 2014, 11:54 AM   #25
TPadden
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by the8thark View Post
.......
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.

Last edited by TPadden; Apr 17, 2014 at 12:06 PM.
TPadden is offline   1

Closed Thread
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Site and Forum Feedback

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Pic&Click - Social Polling" [Free] - The New Social Network ajnicola iPhone and iPod touch Apps 0 Oct 16, 2013 02:19 PM
Is this battery life for my iPhone 5 considered "good" or "average?" Mr. RPG iPhone 25 May 26, 2013 06:45 PM
2010 27" iMac screen issue..."dirty", "cloudy", image retention issues MMcCraryNJ iMac 1 May 18, 2013 05:02 PM
Resolved: Urgent help requested: 13" MBPr vs 13" MBA (light gaming considered) di1in MacBook Pro 12 Mar 22, 2013 09:05 AM
Is it considered smug to start a post with "Ahh,.." CoreyLahey Community Discussion 33 Sep 10, 2012 05:44 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:55 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC