Should homophobia get more moderator attention?

Yes, then we could change the name of the forum from “In my humble opinion” to “An opinion that’s really not mine, nor is it humble, nor is it really my opinion, because some opinions aren’t allowed in a forum for humble opinions.” I don’t know if all that would fit in the title.

Lots of opinions aren’t allowed in IMHO already. If my opinion is that a poster is stupid, for example, I am prohibited from offering it. Right?

This is non-substantive. Of course some opinions aren’t allowed in a forum for humble opinions. The question is whether an opinion that someone’s family is inferior because they’re gay is one of those opinions.

So we should mod/suspend/ban every person who posts an inflammatory opinion? Do we really want that? Mods are smart enough to see an insult when it’s there. Why not just leave it at that?



Evidence suggests that they and I disagree on the presence of an insult. My persuasive powers are
incredible–not quite,
strong–dammit I wish I could figure out strikethrough code,
adequate–try one more
existent, so I figured I’d try to persuade them that this sort of nonsense should be treated as a personal attack. That’s why.

I have skimmed the thread, not read it closely, but ISTM that the unmodded post, to wit:

Seems an awful lot like threadshitting to me.

“Hey I am looking for advice, ideas, perspectives…?”

“You’re shoving gay propaganda down his throat!!!”

Yep, definite threadshitting. UrbanRedneck should have been slapped down hard.

I don’t see it as an issue of whether homophobia needs more moderator attention (although I generally agree that’s an issue to watch out for) so much as they need to realize that threads that touch on gay themes can go off the rails quickly with just a few inappropriate comments.

Imagine someone starting an IMHO or MPSIMS thread about what people are going to do with their day off for Martin Luther King Day, but then some bozo starts making hostile posts saying people shouldn’t do anything on King day because he was Communist and a womanizer and a huckster. The bozo should be shut down not because the statements are false but because they are inappropriate in a lighthearted thread about holiday activities.

I think there’s some… confusion here. It’s one thing to argue that the lack of a dad means that there are two moms, so one mom is having to remind the kid that it’s time to get a card for the other mom, and vice-versa, and that is mildly complicated or something.

It’s quite another to go off saying something like “it’s because you lesbians are trying so hard to force an agenda on your kid, that makes the kid uncomfortable and want to not participate in mother’s day”.

And even that is on topic - it’s rather bigoted and unsupported by any information, and presented in a harsh and accusatory tone, but there is a very minor possibility the kid is uncomfortable with having two moms and that is playing a role. Or, more likely, it’s just someone has to take the effort to make the kid participate because the kid wouldn’t do it without prodding. No “lesbian agenda” discomfort, just a forgetfulness, or even an agenda of not caring about Mother’s Day.

So, for relevance to ATMB, there is a thin margin of appropriateness for questions about how a “lesbian agenda” might be making the kid uncomfortable. But overall, the comment came off as threadshitting rather than as a constructive observation.

Which is completely different from the possible role of Christianity in the function of an automobile.

It’s all about context. Which thread? What’s the topic? Some threads that would be an acceptable comment, if obnoxious. Other threads, it’s not only obnoxious, it’s off topic and a hijack and a threadshit. It’s not just the forum that matters, it’s the thread topic.

To the extent the ATMB question turns on one’s evaluation of whether the lesbian Mother’s Day thesis is reasonable or based on “common sense,” then there may not be much further the thread can go without discussing the merits of that argument.

I don’t think it is reasonable or common sense. What is that thesis based on? Experience with lesbian couples? Doubtful. The ones I know with kids tend to be more on the ball with this kind of thing, because they are generally more self-conscious about cultural events involving family roles. The most charitable case you can make for this argument is that a lesbian Mom would feel more uncomfortable reminding her kid of an obligation that also involves herself, out of a sense of awkwardness about reminding her kid of an obligation owed to her. Even that argument is pretty thin, since of course such a Mom could easily just prod the kid to do something only for her spouse. Not to mention that most parents of kids that young have their own living mothers, other figures in their life, and all kinds of outside social reinforcement that make Mother’s Day pretty obvious. If both members of a particular lesbian couple failed to prod their child about the holiday–and the child somehow failed to learn about it otherwise–I don’t see why we would attribute that to their sexual orientation but wouldn’t attribute a father’s failure to do so to his sexual orientation.

Now, you may or may not agree. I gather most don’t agree, and think the thesis is “common sense.” But lots of people think theories of racial intelligence are also “common sense,” or that religious people being bad at logic is “common sense.” ISTM, we have a higher standard for allowing that kind of opinion/argument in an advice thread. Rank speculation is insufficient to allow something that is so close to an insult.

I’m not persuaded that such a rule would do anything other than allow advice threads to avoid being sidetracked, given the ample availability of spaces on this board for people to express their opinions on the failings of lesbian mothers outside a particular IMHO thread.

Yes, why not? You people - we people - are not really that important in her life, and here we are, dissecting her life like it’s on a slab. I wouldn’t listen either.

She has every right to shut her ears to a bunch of message board participants. She took what she needed from that thread. Good god, if she actually listened to all of the advice and did something stupid, we’d be like “Why were you listening to message board people?”

To the extent that I understood the UR argument, what he was saying was that the kid might be uncomfortable/unhappy that he doesn’t have a father like other kids, and possibly resentful of the fact that this resulted from a deliberate decision by his parents. Since this is highlighted on Mother’s Day when his two-mother-no-father status is brought to the fore, he is reluctant to celebrate that day.

Is this true? I have no idea. Wouldn’t surprise me if it is. Wouldn’t surprise me if it isn’t.

But I don’t see any reason to treat this hypothesis as definitively untrue based on the mere absence of any proof that it’s true. And in the context of this MB, ISTM that absent the hot button aspect and from a logical standpoint it’s not unlike a lot of other opinions that people post based on what they think makes sense.

It would surprise me very much if it were true. It strikes me as something I would read in a Chick Tract, and is contrary to all of my lived experience with the children of gay couples. It would also surprise me very much if it were true that religious people had different brain structures that impaired their logical reasoning. They strike me as being in roughly the same category of rank speculation more likely attributable to bigotry than any sincere effort at truth-seeking.

But the levels of anticipated surprise about these findings vary greatly across posters, so what of it? I don’t see why our subjective assessment of the truth value of speculation matters. Either it’s a good idea to try to shunt offensive/distracting opinions about a poster’s core characteristics to their own IMHO, GD, or Pit threads, or it’s not. If it’s a good idea, we should do it in this situation too. If it’s a bad idea, we should allow speculation about how a poster’s race, religion, or whatever is leading to some negative result based on some theory that just so happens to align with the opinions of bigots.

If you don’t want your life dissected like it’s on a slab then don’t ask a bunch of random strangers who aren’t important in your life about personal situations in your life.

While it’d be bad enough if that’s all that he said, it’s important to note that his post also, out of nowhere, said things like, “Sorry to burst your gay bubble,” and, “your shoving alot of gay propaganda down the kids throat.” Set aside the three errors in that last quote: these are not words of helpful advice, but straight up unwarranted snarky attacks on the poster for being gay.

Even if one adopts the softer position that his thesis isn’t bigoted, or that bigoted theses are permissible in advice threads, his post comprised a personal attack.

Well he was certainly being unnecessarily snarky, I agree. To the extent that that’s the issue, that’s beyond the scope of my comments.

And that’s an important point. The justified displeasure with the nasty bigoted snark buries the actual issue: since our society is actually still sorting out this same-sex marriage thing, and the attendant changes to societal expectations, is it legitimate to ask whether a same-sex marriage family is under stresses and behaves slightly differently than a different-sex marriage family? Or are we going to set some kind of doctrinaire standard that SSM is 100% identical to DSM, and we will not tolerate anyone taking a contrary position, even if respectfully?

That’s what worries me about this discussion. I wonder if there are some here who want to enforce the latter position at the expense of legitimate discussion, using the bad behavior of a few to justify dictating an enforced position on the issue.

Again, I think parallels are helpful. If someone says that a black family might experience different stresses from a white family, that’s one thing. If someone says that a black family experiences different stresses because they’re less intelligent, that’s another entirely.

This is where the judgment call comes in. If someone is saying that a kid of two women experiences mother’s day differently from a kid of a man and a woman, that can be legitimate. If they say that the kid is confused and resentful because he doesn’t have a man in his life, that’s different, namely, it’s the sort of bigoted bullshit that belongs in GD, not IMHO.

You’re making an assumption about intent in asserting it’s bigoted. If it’s stated non-respectfully, yes, bigoted. If it’s factual and on-topic, not so.

“No male influence” in the context of the original thread has some potential relevance, because of one of the other phenomena mentioned in that thread: “mother” is a gender-based role, and “Mother’s Day” is nominally a day to celebrate a female parent.

A dual-mother SSM, therefore, has two people who should be celebrated. And, as pointed out in the thread, it’s usually a parent of the non-celebrated role (i.e., “father” in this context) who often cajoles a teenager to participate. No man in the kid’s life, no one to encourage participation (because, apparently, having one mother encourage the child to participate on behalf of the other mother doesn’t happen. Or didn’t, in this specific case.)

It’s a logistical difference, not necessarily a gender/sexual preference difference. Assuming it wasn’t said as a sneer or a snark.

As I said, if it was a sneering snark, it’s homophobia and should be moderated along with other bigoted personal attacks. If it’s the basis of a rational examination of a logistical difference, it shouldn’t.

As with many things, it’s not necessarily what’s said, it’s how and why it’s said. And that’s subjective.

For many reasons this is wrong, but one of the reasons is the assumption that a son of two women is not going to have a male influence in his life. Given the difficulties involved in two women starting a family together, you have to be pretty motivated to be a parent to do so, and it’s going to be vanishingly rare for two women to decide to do so, to have a son, and then not to have a male adult in the kid’s life.

Note also the bit about the kid being “confused” and “resentful.” Those have nothing to do with the sorts of essentially logistical challenges you’re discussing. There’s a line.

[del]I can’t get it to work either.[/del]