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,
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Exactly. If someone says that chocolate is nasty, or that nobody should ever join a military, or that General Hospital is the best show ever, that’s precisely the sort of thing I’m asking to be modded.
And it will continue to be that way. Sometimes the posters will be told to open a new thread. Sometimes if the participants turn the thread into a debate it is moved. For instance I moved this thread over to GD. What constitutes a hijack is a judgement call. It will change from thread to thread and each mod will interpret it differently. That’s just the way it is. It’s a judgement call. Ideally things will will work themselves out within a thread without mod interference except in instances of clear cut rules violations. If we stepped in every time there was an off topic side conversation that lasted a few posts there would be jackboot prints over most threads.
Are you deliberately mischaracterizing this discussion as a request for you to step in every time there is an off-topic side conversation, or are you unclear on what people are asking mods to consider?
By people do you mean you? No I understand. You want us to judge when a stated opinion is bigoted or wrong-headed and stop it from being stated in an opinion thread. Instead of how it is now where others are allowed to discuss and show the poster that their opinion is wrong as long as it doesn’t completely throw the topic off the rails. That about right?
Closer, and thank you for going away from the “unpopular opinion” nonsense. But still not right.
When someone is using their bigoted opinions to disparage another poster in a highly personal manner, THAT is when I think you should step in. Not just bigoted opinions in general, but bigoted opinions that imply, purely on the basis of bigotry, that a specific poster is an inferior person or has an inferior family.
Again, general bigotry is the sort of idiocy that’s gotta be allowed in order for the board to function. But the board can function perfectly well if, when it’s directed at specific posters, it’s treated as a personal attack and disallowed.
Edit: and no, by “people” I don’t mean just me. Or do you think I’m a lone voice in the wilderness here? BigT, iiandyiii, Tripolar, Aanamika, tapu, MichaelEMouse, Gyrate, and others have said fairly similar things just in this thread. Misrepresenting what’s going on does not further the discussion.