Do you support a public LGBT Subforum?

[lewisnotmiller]

I don't think staff are ignoring anything. This is probably more about where to place things than anything.

:yes:

It's not being ignored. Having said that, I don't have an update for you re: an outcome. I can only say we'll update you when there is an outcome.

Following the processes, etc.

Thanks for your patience.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

:yes:

It's not being ignored. Having said that, I don't have an update for you re: an outcome. I can only say we'll update you when there is an outcome.

Following the processes, etc.

Thanks for your patience.

Hurry UP! NOW!!!! Why wasn't this done yesterday? Don't make me get a whip to motivate ya'll!

 

[DreadFish]

Hurry UP! NOW!!!! Why wasn't this done yesterday? Don't make me get a whip to motivate ya'll!

Hey, the whip stays in the Eros Room This isn't the place for that.

 

[columbus]

:yes:

It's not being ignored. Having said that, I don't have an update for you re: an outcome. I can only say we'll update you when there is an outcome.

Following the processes, etc.

Thanks for your patience.

Is there a place where I can vote for equality?

I'd like to vote for a place where anyone with an opinion can express it.

I don't actually see a need for anything new on RF. As far as I can see, anyone with an opinion on a sexual issue can just post it. Simple. But I don't see where that is an option to vote for.

Tom

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Is there a place where I can vote for equality?

I'd like to vote for a place where anyone with an opinion can express it.

I don't actually see a need for anything new on RF. As far as I can see, anyone with an opinion on a sexual issue can just post it. Simple. But I don't see where that is an option to vote for.

Tom

The idea is to create a sub forum where people can discuss topics among themselves without outsiders interrupting them. An example would be religious group A wants to discuss interpretations of a passage, book, or whatever, without having to be badgered by religious group B inserting their own views and without atheist group C going on about how such a view in not scientifically valid. If gives group A, as well as B and C, a quiet place of their own to talk among like-minded individuals.

 

[Drolefille]

The idea is to create a sub forum where people can discuss topics among themselves without outsiders interrupting them. An example would be religious group A wants to discuss interpretations of a passage, book, or whatever, without having to be badgered by religious group B inserting their own views and without atheist group C going on about how such a view in not scientifically valid. If gives group A, as well as B and C, a quiet place of their own to talk among like-minded individuals.

That's actually why I object to the DIR for LGBT/GSM and instead want a subforum. There's no single or base LGBT/GSM ideology. Unless you restricted it based on identity - and even then, I've seen gay people say ignorant things about trans people and lesbians say ignorant things about bisexuals and so on. So unless you have G, L, B, T, etc. separate subfora - and that's opening a new can of worms.

I think the DIR thing has becomes something of an "attack" thing - They get one, so how about me, so how about ME, what about MY CAUSE. etc. And I Think it's seriously getting away from what the DIRs are intended to be based on my understanding.

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to have a discussion about what exactly DIRs which does stand for "Discuss Individual Religion" not "Directory" are actually for and what we mean them to be.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Hurry UP! NOW!!!! Why wasn't this done yesterday? Don't make me get a whip to motivate ya'll!

In some people, the threat of whipping might just lead to deliberate tardiness...

:run:

 

[columbus]

The idea is to create a sub forum where people can discuss topics among themselves without outsiders interrupting them. An example would be religious group A wants to discuss interpretations of a passage, book, or whatever, without having to be badgered by religious group B inserting their own views and without atheist group C going on about how such a view in not scientifically valid. If gives group A, as well as B and C, a quiet place of their own to talk among like-minded individuals.

I understand all that. I realise that religionists can't be expected to explain why they believe what they believe. So I am OK with "discuss individual religion" (DIR) subforums. I assume that religious beliefs are irrational. They need special protection.
Capitalists too.

I'm gay and I don't feel any such need of special rights. Especially not on RF.

Tom

 

[CynthiaCypher]

They need special protection.
Capitalists too.

They do? Please 'splain.

 

[columbus]

They do? Please 'splain.

Take Christians as an example, their whole theological system is based on the premise that God messed up hugely and was forced to sacrifice His Son to repair the damage. It doesn't make any logical sense, but that is what has been taught for nearly two thousand years.

Capitalists teach that free markets will take care of everybody. Makes as much sense. So they need their own special protected place where people don't interfere with facts and reality and inconvenient stuff like that. Like religion, communism, and other forms of ideology capitalism needs a safe place. That isn't the real world.

Tom

 

[DreadFish]

Take Christians as an example, their whole theological system is based on the premise that God messed up hugely and was forced to sacrifice His Son to repair the damage. It doesn't make any logical sense, but that is what has been taught for nearly two thousand years.

Capitalists teach that free markets will take care of everybody. Makes as much sense. So they need their own special protected place where people don't interfere with facts and reality and inconvenient stuff like that. Like religion, communism, and other forms of ideology capitalism needs a safe place. That isn't the real world.

Tom

I understand your point, but im assuming that the idea here is to have, basically, a topic section for LGBT discussion. Not a DIR, in that there are restrictions on who can post; simply a section dedicated to that topic.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Take Christians as an example, their whole theological system is based on the premise that God messed up hugely and was forced to sacrifice His Son to repair the damage. It doesn't make any logical sense, but that is what has been taught for nearly two thousand years.

Capitalists teach that free markets will take care of everybody. Makes as much sense. So they need their own special protected place where people don't interfere with facts and reality and inconvenient stuff like that. Like religion, communism, and other forms of ideology capitalism needs a safe place. That isn't the real world.

Tom

I am going to tell you who needs special protection and given a voice. It is those who have been historically oppressed not capitalists. It is gays and lesbian, the transgendered who need special protection not straight cis-gendered capitalists. It women and people of color who need to be given a voice and special protection not straight cis-gendered white male capitalists. And too capitalists special protection is an obscenity and affront to the oppress.

 

[columbus]

I understand your point, but im assuming that the idea here is to have, basically, a topic section for LGBT discussion. Not a DIR, in that there are restrictions on who can post; simply a section dedicated to that topic.

So, where can I vote for that? Not the OP, that is very clear.

What problem does a queer have posting here on RF? About anything? Frankly, I get annoyed by them quite often. Then I get modded for being honest.

I don't want special rules for queer folk. It makes me angry when they expect them.

Which is what this whole thread is about. Look at the OP and then what the poster changed his mind to mean. It never was about gay people.

Tom

 

[Shadow Wolf]

They do? Please 'splain.

It would be so they could discuss Capitalist ideas, theories, authors, and so one, without simultaneously debating non-Capitalists.

That's actually why I object to the DIR for LGBT/GSM and instead want a subforum. There's no single or base LGBT/GSM ideology. Unless you restricted it based on identity - and even then, I've seen gay people say ignorant things about trans people and lesbians say ignorant things about bisexuals and so on. So unless you have G, L, B, T, etc. separate subfora - and that's opening a new can of worms.

I think the DIR thing has becomes something of an "attack" thing - They get one, so how about me, so how about ME, what about MY CAUSE. etc. And I Think it's seriously getting away from what the DIRs are intended to be based on my understanding.

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to have a discussion about what exactly DIRs which does stand for "Discuss Individual Religion" not "Directory" are actually for and what we mean them to be.

Well, it does give us old timers another chapter to RF history. The DIR rush of '14. Years ago there was a period when people started to get very suspicious of Mormon members, and what used to a decent sized Mormon community (especially for a site not dedicated to it) dwindled in size and left only a few. And of course there are times when people start being especially mean to a certain group. Theists tend to get that one more than others.
But, yeah, it would have to a subforum divided up into several smaller forums, which, given the no-use status of the rainbow room, I don't see much potential for use in a GLBT DIR. And as you mentioned, breaking it down to appropriate individual groups would be a mess. Though I see making the Rainbow Room a non-members only sub forum that DIR rules apply to. Maybe even a new catagory of subforum for "polite discussions" that could house all the new DIR stuff that does not relate to religious things but still deserves its own time for discussion of members.

In some people, the threat of whipping might just lead to deliberate tardiness...

:run:

Around here?

 

[DreadFish]

So, where can I vote for that? Not the OP, that is very clear.

What problem does a queer have posting here on RF? About anything? Frankly, I get annoyed by them quite often. Then I get modded for being honest.

I don't want special rules for queer folk. It makes me angry when they expect them.

Which is what this whole thread is about. Look at the OP and then what the poster changed his mind to mean. It never was about gay people.

Tom

I dunno, the OP suggests to me that he wanted a category-specific place to discuss LGBT stuff. I saw the progression of semantics and definitions which lead to the idea changing from DIR to subforum.

I don't see any suggestion of special rules for queer folk. Maybe im missing something.

 

[Glaurung]

What say you?

No objections from me.

 

[samosasauce]

I think that sounds fabulous

 

[Drolefille]

Well, it does give us old timers another chapter to RF history. The DIR rush of '14. Years ago there was a period when people started to get very suspicious of Mormon members, and what used to a decent sized Mormon community (especially for a site not dedicated to it) dwindled in size and left only a few. And of course there are times when people start being especially mean to a certain group. Theists tend to get that one more than others.
But, yeah, it would have to a subforum divided up into several smaller forums, which, given the no-use status of the rainbow room, I don't see much potential for use in a GLBT DIR. And as you mentioned, breaking it down to appropriate individual groups would be a mess. Though I see making the Rainbow Room a non-members only sub forum that DIR rules apply to. Maybe even a new catagory of subforum for "polite discussions" that could house all the new DIR stuff that does not relate to religious things but still deserves its own time for discussion of members.

The rules for the discussion subfora seem to me to cover the "polite discussion without debate" thing, and I think that would probably do fine. I'd personally probably argue for FEWER discussion subfora (I'm enjoying playing with the latin right now) and for broader categories rather than separating everything out.

That said I understand how Trans issues don't really fit into Sexuality (Honestly changing the name to Gender and Sexuality would pretty much address that, or Gender and Sexual Minorities -GSM rather than LGBT. The initialisms keep expanding and GSM covers the most with the fewest letters. (Although QUILTBAG isn't horrible either.)

I recall having issues with how GSM issues were being treated here when I first started. I still have a problem with the idea that racist remarks are inappropriate but anti-gay remarks have wiggle room. Or are left because they're "jokes." But I think things have gotten a lot better.

I don't like the current DIR trend.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

(Although QUILTBAG isn't horrible either.)

QUILTBAG is a new one to me. It seems good, but the transgender/transsexual will cause dispute. Even just having two separate T's for each still wont satisfy. Sexuality and Gender/GSM is probably a better route, if only because the most simple solution is usually the best, and it's the broadest catch all without getting nit-picky and technical.

 

[Drolefille]

QUILTBAG is a new one to me. It seems good, but the transgender/transsexual will cause dispute. Even just having two separate T's for each still wont satisfy. Sexuality and Gender/GSM is probably a better route, if only because the most simple solution is usually the best, and it's the broadest catch all without getting nit-picky and technical.

I usually see Trans* used anymore as a umbrella term much as I've sometimes seen LGBTTQQIA+ with the Ts being Trans* and Two-spirited and the plus being the catchall.

I lean towards the broad. If this were a Queer forum, I'd have different opinions and there would be different quantities of people and sorts of interest, but it isn't.