Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why is being "gay" considered a political/social issue on these forums?
- Thread starter the8thark
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
We're making really quick progress though. Think in 10 years time we'll look back at sexual orientation and wonder what the hell the fuss was about.
It's a generation thing, and I've often wondered if those who are severely anti-gay and influence anti-gay laws to be created are perhaps gay themselves and in a huge amount of denial.
I agree, the improvements have been huge in a relatively short amount of time. Does give you some hope!
If Tim was black, then I'm sure you'd leave us another pearl of wisdom like below.
But to answer the OP's question, it is there because as soon as you get anyone who says the slightest thing against gays, you get responses like yg17. And in the case above, it was even before anyone said anything negative about homosexuality.
I don't see why I even need to hear the word. What people do behind closed doors should be left there. I don't need to see any parades about it either.
If Tim was black, then I'm sure you'd leave us another pearl of wisdom like below.
But to answer the OP's question, it is there because as soon as you get anyone who says the slightest thing against gays, you get responses like yg17. And in the case above, it was even before anyone said anything negative about homosexuality.
and then you get an equally ridiculous response like above.
Until everyone can get over the sexual orientation of another person, threads such as the one that the OP started belong in PRSI.
So you would agree that even making a list of the top 50 gay businesspeople is discriminatory, correct? Why even bring it up? It's as arbitrary as the top 50 businesspeople who are Pisces.
Regardless, this thread is a perfect example of why it belongs in PRSI.
I found your post rather interesting. I'll just add a few comments and let it go at that -
For me, I don't have any issue with "same sex" domestic contracts or as traditionalists say - marriage. Then again, marriage over the centuries referred to a religious and at times legal bond between men and women. Same sex marriage is prefaced by the term "same sex" and as such, more than implies something that is not typical ( presently ) or considered the norm.
Taking any select group to do a top 50 might for some viewer/readers have political or social connotations. There is no getting around that as we are a diverse nation. Given the recent more open and aggressive posture of pro same sex marriage and other legislation to protect or offer equal standing of same sex preference individuals, it remains political in nature if not religious and social. I would consider any subset to be of a similar nature though some might be more "accepted" or less provocative. As the latter happens, it might appear to more people as less of a political or similar topic as it is simply accepted. Not all things come instantly over night so I'll consider topics such as a top 50 of same sex preference individuals as being of a political/religious/social nature.
As you see, I don't use the word "gay." I want the word returned to the general population for what it means in the English language (half joking here and half serious).
Last - your tag line on the bottom about freedom of speech has zero to do with where one's rhetoric is placed in these forums or in fact, removed. I admit I learned this the hard way by chance and agree to the rules binding these forums.
I look forward to a day when the religious realize that same sex marriage is not a threat to their way of life, where culture and skin colour are merely facets that enrich culture and we are less concerned about differences than what makes us more alike as people in a 'free nation.'
To the OP...
I'm gay, and I don't mind that it got moved. Actually, I think it was the right decision from the mods, even though I wish it could be different. Here's why.
I don't think my existence, or the acknowledgement that I'm gay, should be automatically a social or political "issue." I absolutely agree with you about that.
But here in America (and especially in certain places, like the American South, where I live), the fact remains that my being gay is an "issue," whether I think it should be or not. If I mention to someone sitting next to me on a plane that I'm gay, there's a good chance that they'll immediately bring up issues related to politics, religion, gay marriage, LGBT rights, why they disagree with homosexuality, etc. It's just how things are right now. Do I want it to be that way? No. But as you can tell from this thread so far, people have very different views. In my work, I've recently conducted surveys showing that lots of Americans don't even share the same understanding of what the word "gay" means: Some see it as an unchosen orientation, while others believe it's a statement about who you choose to sleep with.
Given that context, it makes sense to me that the moderators would choose to move a thread focusing on Tim Cook's inclusion in a list of gay people to the forum designed specifically for handling topics likely to be controversial. It's not that the mods themselves are taking a position; it's that they know MacRumors forum users are diverse, and they'd rather avoid the inevitable controversy by starting the thread out in a place where other potentially controversial threads go.
So, again, yes, I wish things were different. But I think the moderators made the right decision given the situation that currently exists, and given that their ultimate goal is to keep the forums as friendly as possible for the discussion of Apple-related topics. I appreciate your concern on behalf of folks like me, though, and I'm sure there are other gay folks on the forums who would disagree with me. That's just my two cents.
I'm gay, and I don't mind that it got moved. Actually, I think it was the right decision from the mods, even though I wish it could be different. Here's why.
I don't think my existence, or the acknowledgement that I'm gay, should be automatically a social or political "issue." I absolutely agree with you about that.
But here in America (and especially in certain places, like the American South, where I live), the fact remains that my being gay is an "issue," whether I think it should be or not. If I mention to someone sitting next to me on a plane that I'm gay, there's a good chance that they'll immediately bring up issues related to politics, religion, gay marriage, LGBT rights, why they disagree with homosexuality, etc. It's just how things are right now. Do I want it to be that way? No. But as you can tell from this thread so far, people have very different views. In my work, I've recently conducted surveys showing that lots of Americans don't even share the same understanding of what the word "gay" means: Some see it as an unchosen orientation, while others believe it's a statement about who you choose to sleep with.
Given that context, it makes sense to me that the moderators would choose to move a thread focusing on Tim Cook's inclusion in a list of gay people to the forum designed specifically for handling topics likely to be controversial. It's not that the mods themselves are taking a position; it's that they know MacRumors forum users are diverse, and they'd rather avoid the inevitable controversy by starting the thread out in a place where other potentially controversial threads go.
So, again, yes, I wish things were different. But I think the moderators made the right decision given the situation that currently exists, and given that their ultimate goal is to keep the forums as friendly as possible for the discussion of Apple-related topics. I appreciate your concern on behalf of folks like me, though, and I'm sure there are other gay folks on the forums who would disagree with me. That's just my two cents.
Thank you for all the great comments here.
The fact the list exists is fine. It's how people treated the list that is the topic is concern here. And I think a few of the other people here in posts above have answered this perfectly.
In a perfect world this would never be PRSI. But in our imperfect world where true equality does not exist, people will try to make an issue out of this. And maybe it's easier to put it in PRSI than heavily moderate the topic. I know the moderators can moderate such topics (seen it done on the past). But it is a case of resources. When people give their free time to moderate the place, best make their job easier than harder.
Yes this means some collateral damage (like otherwise harmless topics being moved to PRSI) exists. But it's probably the best compromise.
"Why even bring it up? It's as arbitrary as the top 50 businesspeople who are Pisces."
That would not be put in PRSI though. Bad example. The example given above about "If obama was black and it was a top 50 black people list" said above is a better example. And I think that would be moved to PRSI for the same reasons. Because our imperfect world basically.
----------
I am aware of this. As you know it's a quote from one of your US amendments. I forget which one now. I just have it as a signature as a reminder to my self I can say what I want (within reason). And there are some other reasons why I have it which I can't say Part of the dispute resolution process I guess.
Even though I'm not from the US I think it's something everyone should take to heart.
The whole thing was too long to have as a signature so I had to only put in the most important parts.
The fact the list exists is fine. It's how people treated the list that is the topic is concern here. And I think a few of the other people here in posts above have answered this perfectly.
In a perfect world this would never be PRSI. But in our imperfect world where true equality does not exist, people will try to make an issue out of this. And maybe it's easier to put it in PRSI than heavily moderate the topic. I know the moderators can moderate such topics (seen it done on the past). But it is a case of resources. When people give their free time to moderate the place, best make their job easier than harder.
Yes this means some collateral damage (like otherwise harmless topics being moved to PRSI) exists. But it's probably the best compromise.
"Why even bring it up? It's as arbitrary as the top 50 businesspeople who are Pisces."
That would not be put in PRSI though. Bad example. The example given above about "If obama was black and it was a top 50 black people list" said above is a better example. And I think that would be moved to PRSI for the same reasons. Because our imperfect world basically.
----------
I am aware of this. As you know it's a quote from one of your US amendments. I forget which one now. I just have it as a signature as a reminder to my self I can say what I want (within reason). And there are some other reasons why I have it which I can't say Part of the dispute resolution process I guess.
Even though I'm not from the US I think it's something everyone should take to heart.
The whole thing was too long to have as a signature so I had to only put in the most important parts.
This is an interesting thread... but I'm not going to comment on the main point about what should be in PRSI or not.
However... I did want to expand on your comment about 'marriage'... While it is true that a 'marriage' traditionally was something created in a religious setting, it is also something that the state (as in nation-state) has taken on. And in most western jurisdictions the state is in essence sub-contracting the formalization of marriages to the various religious entities.
I won't expand on that thought since that might push this into PRSI...
... but I will just say I live in a community where 'same sex' marriages have been going on so long it is just generally referred to as just 'marriage'. The novelty factor has worn off. The term is still used, of course, but there is not sense of 'specialness' .. it is just to help clarify details - like gender. For instance... the traditionalists here still like to have dinner parties with an even mix of men and women. So if they have a couple of female same-sex married couples they then try to balance that with a couple of male same-sex married couples.
Very well explained.
I find MacRumors an exemplary, very enjoyable site, a view that seems to be shared by many. One look at the huge number of members and the daily activity, proves that this is one of the best tech forums in existence.
You win the "posting a question when the question, and the answer has already been posted in this thread" award.
check posts #46 and #47 -
You win the "posting a question when the question, and the answer has already been posted in this thread" award.
check posts #46 and #47 -
I win that too? Wow, I'm on a roll today!!
Oh, and thanks.
The fact that there are strong opinions about the issue illustrate why the thread was moved to PRSI. But I'll address a few comments:
No. What you understand is the reaction that has proved to be the norm in threads where the word "gay" figures prominently.
Decisions to move threads to PRSI often have to do with the type of response we have seen tends to be the norm. Such comments are often off-topic, and tend to spin about of control Why? Because typical for discussion of social issues is that they become heated/polarized, with disregard for the Rules for Appropriate Debate. When that happens, the thread is derailed.
In some cases, we wait and see before moving; a comment or two can just die down, with no harm done. In other cases, we move right away. But even in cases where we wait, the result is generally the same.
Whether or not it "furthers a discrimination towards non-straight people" is entirely up to the responses that are posted. It's the responses that ultimately cause the move, not any particular bias on the part of moderators.
This pretty much sums it up.
If there's a discussion about skin color, sex etc, not directly related to a tech issue, then yes, it's a social issue and belongs in PRSI.
Although this is a tech site, members want to discuss other issues. That's why we have a PRSI section. The alternative is not to allow that sort of discussion.
We draw a line between a discussion where members are voicing their opinions, and for example hate speech. Whether or not someone is a bigot is really in the eye of the beholder.
Agree. But until the day it's a non-issue, we have a PRSI section. When we move a thread to PRSI, it's not punishment. By moving it, we allow the discussion to continue - and that's the goal, after all.
No. What you understand is the reaction that has proved to be the norm in threads where the word "gay" figures prominently.
Decisions to move threads to PRSI often have to do with the type of response we have seen tends to be the norm. Such comments are often off-topic, and tend to spin about of control Why? Because typical for discussion of social issues is that they become heated/polarized, with disregard for the Rules for Appropriate Debate. When that happens, the thread is derailed.
In some cases, we wait and see before moving; a comment or two can just die down, with no harm done. In other cases, we move right away. But even in cases where we wait, the result is generally the same.
Whether or not it "furthers a discrimination towards non-straight people" is entirely up to the responses that are posted. It's the responses that ultimately cause the move, not any particular bias on the part of moderators.
This pretty much sums it up.
If there's a discussion about skin color, sex etc, not directly related to a tech issue, then yes, it's a social issue and belongs in PRSI.
Although this is a tech site, members want to discuss other issues. That's why we have a PRSI section. The alternative is not to allow that sort of discussion.
We draw a line between a discussion where members are voicing their opinions, and for example hate speech. Whether or not someone is a bigot is really in the eye of the beholder.
Agree. But until the day it's a non-issue, we have a PRSI section. When we move a thread to PRSI, it's not punishment. By moving it, we allow the discussion to continue - and that's the goal, after all.
- Status