On the showing of the “pride flag, and appropriate activism.

[Zwing]

You are to assume someone there wanted to display their support for the lgbtq community.

“Someone there” doesn’t speak for themselves at that property, they speak for the Audubon Society, which makes no claims to homophobia or homophilia. If they want to display at their own house, then…

 

[SomeRandom]

Then, why should it be displayed at the Audubon Center? Are we to assume that if it is not, that the Audubon Society is homophobic? If I open a diner like @Jayhawker Soule’s Hartland, and I don’t display a pride flag and a BLM flag, then I am to be surmised to be homophobic and racist?? Is this the implication?

Why shouldn’t it? Does bird watching disqualify someone from supporting certain communities or causes?
The company chose to display that flag
I thought Americans were supposed to be for freedom to exercise one’s choice?

 

[fantome profane]

“Someone there” doesn’t speak for themselves at that property, they speak for the Audubon Society, which makes no claims to homophobia or homophilia. If they want to display at their own house, then…

Someone there does speak for the Audubon society.

You don't.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Hey all. I had an experience earlier today which was a bit disturbing to me. I had occasion to stop at the local Audubon society center (Audubon - Wikipedia), and was surprised to encounter two so-called “pride flags” (the banner supporting homosexual rights) being displayed on the premises, while there are no other flags in evidence. My personal opinion about homosexuality is that it is no big deal, ever being an occasional natural occurrence in the population, and that in any case sexuality is a personal issue which should have no bearing on day-to-day social interaction.

I support the idea that homosexuals shouldn’t be discriminated against, and to that end I support the showing of the pride flag where doing so is appropriate and meaningful. An example of this is the showing of that banner by a welcoming Christian church; since Christianity has a history of anti-homosexual rhetoric and action, such a showing sends the message that “this particular church welcomes you”, and this justifies the flag being flown within that context. I can, however, see no similar justification for the “pride flag” to be flown on the premises of an environmental/naturalist center. Is there some history of environmental centers discriminating against homosexuals, of which I am unaware, and which might be said to justify such a showing, especially where no other flags, including the American flag, are flown?

I sought out an Audubon staff member, that I might express my feeling of impropriety to context. I was told by her that the flags were being shown to express support for “gay rights”. I responded that I didn’t think there to exist any supposition that the Audubon Society or any other environmental organization sought to discriminate against homosexuals or otherwise abrogate such “gay rights”. I was then favored with the spectacle of witnessing the woman shrugging her shoulders and saying, “well, that’s what we do here”. I then said to her that “Jews have faced quite a bit discrimination in this country and in all countries where they have represented a diasporic presence, why don’t you fly an Israeli flag as well? For that matter, why don’t you show an American flag?” Again, I was favored with the shrug, and a hearty “I got nothin’ for ‘ya”.

What do you make of this? Is it not inappropriate to show the “pride flag” within such a context? Is this a case of misplaced and inappropriate activism? Your thoughts and discussion please.

Why is itevem an issue to you? Lots of people hate LGBT, lots don't. Showing support for a marginalized group that has another group gunning for their rights shouldn't be a controversy.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Someone there doesn’t speak for themselves at that property, they speak for the Audubon Society, which makes no claims to homophobia or homophilia.

Yeah, but they chose that it was the right thing for them to do. You know, the land of the free and all that.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I guess you've never been to a Primus concert. I'll try to find footage of Maynard doing just that.

No. They're not my cup of tea. I just know I wouldn't bring my kids to Pride. I wouldn't want to have to explain why a man is whipping another man, etc. I wish they would make up their minds whether to be sexualized or family friendly at these parades and festivals. Can't be both. It's jarring and disturbing.

 

[Zwing]

No. They're just showing support. They don't have to do it. But, from me, it's appreciated.

Why would you appreciate such virtue signaling any more than a correct opinion on private sexuality, which is that it is of no consequence?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why would you appreciate such virtue signaling any more than a correct opinion on private sexuality, which is that it is of no consequence?

Because it is not just about private sexaulity. There is more to it than that.

 

[SomeRandom]

Why would you appreciate such virtue signaling any more than a correct opinion on private sexuality, which is that it is of no consequence?

If it’s of no consequence, threads like this wouldn’t exist in the first place

 

[Zwing]

Does bird watching disqualify someone from supporting certain communities or causes?

No, but that does not mean that an organization which is moot on the subject should be seen to support a given cause. What if there are members or employees of the organization who don’t support that given cause? Should their opinions be trammeled? Organizations are not individuals, and should not behave as individuals.

 

[Zwing]

If it’s of no consequence, threads like this wouldn’t exist in the first place

You are wrong, because this thread, as heretofore noted, is not about sexuality.

 

[SomeRandom]

You are wrong, because this thread, as heretofore noted, is not about sexuality.

What is it about then?

 

[Zwing]

What is it about then?

It is about virtue signaling, rather than about virtues, and where that is appropriate.

 

[SomeRandom]

No, but that does not mean that an organization which is moot on the subject should be seen to support a given cause. What if there are members or employees of the organization who don’t support that given cause? Should their opinions be trammeled? Organizations are not individuals, and should not behave as individuals.

Tell that to your government. The US like I said, largely treats organisations like people. Most societies do to a degree, I guess. But it’s especially prominent in the US. And you guys love to harp on about freedom so, you guys gotta live with the consequences I guess l

 

[Viker]

Why would you appreciate such virtue signaling any more than a correct opinion on private sexuality, which is that it is of no consequence?

It's a similar reason people celebrate St. Patrick's day or fly Irish flags and colors. It's about pride or self-esteem and about support from others. Wasn't long ago LGBTQ we're delegated to closets and back alleys, by force. It's not just the private sexuality that was admonished but the fact of being a certain way as well.

It's not "virtue signaling", "virtue signaling" is a made up phrase by reactionary opponents of communities like LGBTQ.

 

[SomeRandom]

It is about virtue signaling, and where that is appropriate.

Companies have always virtue signalled. They pretend to care about what the society cares about. They just want customers. They did this during the war eras,
Proudly displaying patriotic symbols and declaring their support for troops. Just for example.
From what I hear, it was especially prominent in US businesses during the immediate fall out of 9/11.
Welcome to marketing and Public Relations, what can I say?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

It is about virtue signaling, rather than about virtues, and where that is appropriate.

Virtue signalling is one of the most bizarre buzz words I've come across because almost every time I see it being used, it's by people signaling their own virtue. X group should behave y way because of z virtue is always virtue signaling.

 

[Zwing]

The US like I said, largely treats organisations like people. Most societies do to a degree, I guess. But it’s especially prominent in the US.

This is only for the purpose of litigation, that a corporate entity might be prosecuted or sued as if it were an individual…a necessary legal conceit.

 

[Zwing]

Companies have always virtue signalled.

The Audubon Society is not a company…not an organization whose purpose is monetary profit.

 

[SomeRandom]

This is only for the purpose of litigation, that a corporate entity might be prosecuted or sued as if it were an individual…a necessary legal conceit.

And as a consequence they get to exercise their rights as a person. Companies largely don’t care, they will follow media and social trends to appease PR. That’s it.
Who cares?