Should homophobia get more moderator attention?

This isn’t correct. She mentioned that her son had two moms in the OP, and explained what she meant in the OP when asked.

If one says something in the OP, and then explain what you meant in your next post, then you meant it in the OP.

No, not false at all. She mentioned it in the OP, and confirmed later that she meant to do so.

It did in this case, and the OP confirmed that she meant to refer to it in her first post.

She already clarified that by “my son has two moms” she was talking about the fact that she was in a lesbian relationship. She said as much. So yes, I believe her.

Perhaps she believes that the fact that she is in a lesbian relationship makes no difference to the situation. That would be an opinion, not a fact that she can establish by assertion. And why start a thread asking for opinions if you don’t want to hear other opinions?

As I said, I am not sure it is possible to start a thread asking for opinions but enforce the requirement “but don’t tell me anything I don’t want to hear”. Especially if you put something in the OP that you think might be relevant, explain what you meant by putting it in the OP, and then saying “but you better not mention it again except to pat me on the back”. Opinion threads don’t always run like that.

Regards,
Shodan

She answered a question about the “two moms” thing – what she meant was “he has two moms”.

It was answering a question – what she meant, at least what I interpreted, was “my son has two moms”.

Not by my interpretation, but hopefully tapu can clarify.

And if she says “I only mentioned my lesbian relationship because someone asked about it, not because I think it is relevant to my question”, would you believe her? I hope that she’ll clarify, and we’ll see. I could be wrong. Do you recognize the chance that your interpretation might be wrong as well? Is there a tiny, tiny chance that Shodan might be wrong?

What you claim “she did” was " tried to rule out any reference to" there being two moms.

That’s why, when kanicbird wrote

tapu responded with anger at the reference to both moms, and most definitely did NOT respond with:

Note that this is just one of several examples where she clearly does NOT try to rule out reference to his two moms. What, pray tell, makes these references different?

This is presented as a hypothetical but it appears to be a sort of redaction of a real post. What thread is it from?

Yeah, I don’t get the idea that being a lesbian couple has nothing to do with the issue of her son celebrating Mother’s Day. As noted, many kids only celebrate Mother’s/Father’s day because the other parent reminds and pushes them. It’s a bit different when there are 2 moms. Plus, should the kid be celebrating both moms on Mother’s day? I would think so, unless there is some understand that one is the “real mom” and the other is just “a parent”.

A similar issue might come up in a single parent household.

It’s not about whether one is “cool with it” or not. It’s about having an opposite sex parent to drag you, often kicking and screaming, into getting something for the other parent. That’s pretty much what it was like when I was growing up. My dad took the lead in celebrating Mother’s Day and we mostly followed along.

From the linked thread:

As others have said, while there might be some issues involved with celebrating mother’s day in a family where there are two moms that don’t show up in a family with a mom and a dad,

  1. Discussing those issues clearly is clouded by folks who instead want to talk about how tapu’s family is inferior to a straight family; and
  2. tapu knows her family better than we do, and has thought about these issues in much greater depth than us straight people have. If she tells us that it’s not an issue, it’s really freakin’ arrogant for us to assume we’ve thought of ways it’s an issue that she’s not already thought of.

When I first read it, yeah, I thought that maybe the fact that both parents were expecting to be honored was probably a relevant difference from my family, where on Mother’s Day I’m on extra duty so to speak and on Father’s Day my wife is on extra duty. But given the ugliness associated with people saying Your Lesbian Family Sucks, I didn’t really want to bring it up; and if tapu assures me they’ve calibrated for this difference, why the fuck wouldn’t I believe her? Especially since straight families experience the same phenomenon that she’s describing, so we don’t need to multiply entities etc.

This thread is about moderation.Do you think points 1 and 2 require Moderator involvement?

Well, the thread has migrated :). Points 1 and 2 are not directly about moderation but rather are answering the question of whether any talk about two moms was relevant.

As to moderation, I think that if we’re gonna fight ignorance we have to let it into the ring. THat’s why I’m reluctantly okay with homophobic “gay families are inferior” posts showing up in Great Debates.

But in IMHO, it’s not appropriate. The post about gay propaganda was completely inappropriate for IMHO, IMHO. There’s a difference between stating a general bigoted belief as part of a debate about culture, and coming into someone’s thread about their personal life and using your bigoted beliefs to disparage them and their family. I think that’s a bright enough line that it can be moderated, and I see no benefit to not moderating it.

Not necessarily. Besides, she’s soliciting opinions from us on this MB. As long as the posts in question don’t break any rules, I’d call her trying to quash certain opinions “junior moderating”. We don’t get to tell other posters here what the content of their posts can or cannot be.

Gays and Lesbians can be just as blind as the rest of us about family flaws that we are too close to in order to see clearly.

So tell me. If she’d posted about how her son didn’t say anything during her synagogue’s Mother’s Day ceremony, would you be okay with:

If she’d mentioned in passing that her family was mixed race, would you be okay with:

Do you draw the line anywhere?

You mention “as long as the posts don’t break any rules.” I’m suggesting a rule: keep the goddamned bigotry out of IMHO.

I think you misunderstood, she wants us to accept her view of there is no difference, 2 moms, 2 dada, 1 of each, single parents. No difference, don’t look there. It is mother’s day, so thank you for wishing the moms a happy mother’s day because that’s how we do it when their is no difference.

Sure. Shodan’s claim rests on her forbidding discussion of something she brought up in the OP. She brought up 2 moms in the OP and didn’t forbid discussion of that. What she asked not to appear was discussion of how her filial problems stem from two moms. She didn’t discuss that in the OP.

Notice how you’ve moved the goalposts? I didn’t ask whether you would expect it. I asked whether you would like it. And I never said anything about parenting advice, because this isn’t about parenting advice. This is about your assertion that, because she mentioned having two moms in the OP, it’s acceptable to bring up lesbianism and talk negatively about it.

By that logic, all you have to do is mention your wife or kids, and it becomes fair game. Thing is, I did something similar with Dio back in my first Warning. I was being hypothetical, but the mods didn’t take it that way. (Marley admitted he understood but left the Warning anyway as a reminder to be more clear in the future. And Dio of all people understood what I meant and took no offense.)

This isn’t about someone saying “the father often reminds kids that mother’s day is approaching.” This is about arguing that kids are deficient when they are raised by two moms. This is about saying that kids need a male influence in their life–the fucking gay people shouldn’t be allowed to raise kids argument because you need influence of both parental figures.

It is bigoted and completely off topic, and you know it. Your posts look ridiculous when you bend to defend it.

Hate speech is still not allowed.

In a forum called “In My Humble Opinion” you will get opinions. Beware, you may get opinions you don’t like. I remember former regimes shutting down any sort of counter opinion or discussion about other’s opinions. IMHO was only for stating your opinion not for debating others. It has evolved from that. There is no problem with stating why you think someone’s opinion is wrong. If it turns into a debate it may be moved. I personally will usually lean towards more speech rather than less unless it inhibits the overall discourse.

This is a grossly misleading way to frame the objection.

If folks feel that they’re going to be the subjects of bigoted attacks if they post there, of course it will inhibit the overall discourse.

And if they feel that they will be Modded for unpopular views, it will inhibit the overall discourse. At least the bigoted views can be challenged and refuted. Dropping censorship onto the discussion allows for no recourse.

“unpopular” is a continuation of the misleading cast. This isn’t specifically about unpopular opinions, as I’m sure you realize.

If the discourse is inhibited by forbidding bigoted personal attacks–not “unpopular views”–that’s not a bad thing.

Again, those bigoted views may certainly show up in GD. But when they invade someone’s thread about their own lives, when people use them to attack someone else’s family, that should be viewed as crossing a line.

No. In fact, it is a matter of unpopular opinions.
If the statements cross the line into personal attacks, they can be Modded on those grounds. Short of that, you are asking that the Mods become arbiters of Truth. I am really not sure that you want to go there.

No, it isn’t. It’s about a bigoted hijack. In the past, such contentious hijacks have been told to open a thread in GD instead of continuing. For some reason, you guys are refusing to do that this time. I’ve seen you do it in GD even, if the topic was different. But not this time.

And let’s not forget the rule that exists to defend women against unasked for sexual comments/jokes in threads not about that. By your logic, those would just be “unpopular opinions.” But, because you cared about women and how they were treated, you decided to craft a rule making that something we can’t do.

You have the tools to deal with it without making about “arbitrating truth,” yet you don’t do so. You have in the past.

You talk about silencing people–what about the lesbian or gay parents who can’t ask questions in IMHO because they will have deal with this outright bigotry? Why do you care more about letting the bigots talk than about them?

All we ask is that they be told to go to an appropriate thread. It’s not silencing them. It’s not arbitrating truth. It’s just, well, moderating. Trying not to let things get out of control.

Look at my actual posts. I was responding to and addressing the more general comments about censorship. I have expressed no opinion regarding the specifics of this thread’s OP, but when the discussion opened to more general comments about censorship, I responded to that.