|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Felbrigg Hall lanyards
|
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
//continuing tangent
Googling "membership of the NT" gave me this.
If membership has fallen from 4 million in 2011 to 2.2 million now, something is clearly amiss.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
According to that same Annual Report, the membership was 2.02 million in 2013/14, and according to the 2014/15 Annual Report membership in 2012/3 was 1.97 million, so if the 4 million figure is correct, then whatever happened was between 2011 and 2012.
[ 12. August 2017, 09:51: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
According to that same Annual Report, the membership was 2.02 million in 2013/14, and according to the 2014/15 Annual Report membership in 2012/3 was 1.97 million, so if the 4 million figure is correct, then whatever happened was between 2011 and 2012.
In the 2014-2015 report(Doc. page 7, actual page 9) there is a line in a table Total number of memberships(m)³ that shows membership from 2012 to 2015 hovering around 2 million. However, the footnote³ says Actual number of members at the end of the year was 4,242,371
[ 12. August 2017, 15:29: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Up until recently, the Torlets were on mine and Mrs Tor's family membership. I don't know whether that counts as one membership, two, or four. Certainly, four members though.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Which words, exactly?
From page 1 you tried to make this about being forced to wear lanyards instead of objecting to mentioning homosexuality despite mentioning homosexuality being in the quotes from the objectors.
You also have tied to minimise the importance and scope of the campaign and tried to characterise it as activism. So, most of your words, not exactly particular words.
quote:
How do you expect me to know which words you take exception to if you just start being, um, "terse" (which to be honest is putting it mildly if you review some of the things you've said to me)
Yes, some statement have been made angrily to you. In legitimate response, IMO.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:For straight, white males power is normative.
Perhaps it is, but if you're interested in having a discussion here, including with straight white males, this is not a joker that you can play every time you get annoyed.
I do not play it every time. It is, however, the basis of much of the inequity in our society.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Part of the problem, I think, is that you sympathise, but do not yet empathise.
I recently gave a presentation at an international academic research symposium on the topic of empathy, and I think you have that exactly wrong.
Empathy requires one to understand, first. And if you came close to understanding, you would not have made the black activists moving into an area analogy.
quote:
quote:
Peacemaking, true peacemaking, is about doing what is best for both parties as much as possible. It isn't just concession.
Precisely. In addition to concessions, it involves the prospect of doing what is best for both parties - which involves at least assuming as a posture in discussion (if one cannot believe it to the core of one's being...) that the other party is entitled to basic respect, has rights and expectations, and that whatever ther views, they as individuals are no "less than" those on your side.
You missed the as much as possible bit. Respect is earned, not given. And it is not a totality. One can respect the rights of others without respecting their views. And their views are not synonymous with their rights.
quote:
(I would argue that the (fragile) peace in Northern Ireland was achieved by that route, same for the end of apartheid,
Ending Aperthied, and any that began in oppression, was made possible by confrontation. I do not condone the violent parts, but confrontation was necessary and vital.
A better example on your part would have been Mandela not seeking the retribution that would have been understandable had he done so.
quote:
I would further argue that outside Hell, these boards fuction on the principle that the parties are at least willing to "get round the negotiating table", as the picture at the top of Purgatory suggests).
Again, I haven't seen any sign of that at all from you here.
Nor I, you. Oh your good with make nice, pretty pretty words, but then you make statements and analogies which contradict understanding.
quote:
your absolutist position as I understand it: "the rainbow campaign was appropriate and justifiable, there were no reasonable grounds for dissent, and all opposers are ipso facto homophobes", and immediately gave you an honest offer to correct me: "Am I misrepresenting you there?
The Pride Campaign, and Felbrigg Hall's participation is appropriate and justifiable.
I didn't say that the dissenters were for a fact all homophobic, but that is the most likely explanation.
[ 12. August 2017, 16:52: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
From page 1 you tried to make this about being forced to wear lanyards instead of objecting to mentioning homosexuality despite mentioning homosexuality being in the quotes from the objectors.
Being forced to display advocacy values for X where X is not directly related to whatever one has signed up to and being branded X-phobes if one objects (which was actually said, although not by you) is what I took exception to.
I have said innumerable times that there is an issue re: homosexuality and its recognition here, but also that it is not the only issue. The fact that it is an important and worthy issue does not make the other issue trivial, if anything it makes the other issue gain in importance for me.
quote:
You also have tied to minimise the importance and scope of the campaign and tried to characterise it as activism.
I'm sorry, it's not clear to me which campaign you're talking about here. If you want an explanation you'll have to be more precise. quote:
Yes, some statement have been made angrily to you. In legitimate response, IMO.
However legitimate you might feel it to be, FWIW I don't think it does your position any good at all. You might like to consider the fact that other people apart from me have called you on it.
quote:
It is, however, the basis of much of the inequity in our society.
OK. Well perhaps we can take that as read now and move on.
quote:
Empathy requires one to understand, first. And if you came close to understanding, you would not have made the black activists moving into an area analogy.
The original analogy was Doc Tor's, not mine, I recognised above that it was not a good one to have extended and apologised. Did you miss that?
quote:
You missed the as much as possible bit. Respect is earned, not given. And it is not a totality. One can respect the rights of others without respecting their views. And their views are not synonymous with their rights.
I couldn't have put it better myself. A little more respect for me regardless of how you see my views would go a long way.
quote:
Ending Aperthied, and any that began in oppression, was made possible by confrontation.
Perhaps. But not by confrontation alone. In the context under discussion, don't you think gay rights have advanced beyond the initial "confrontation" stage? If the situation has got as far as working out how to redress wrong interpretations of LGBTQ history in the context of museums, I think that's evidence the process is a bit further along.
And besides, even if there is still a role for confrontation, I really don't think this forum is it. We're not a bunch of protestors and counter-protestors here. We're trying to have a discussion (or at least I am).
quote:
Nor I, you. Oh your good with make nice, pretty pretty words
Can you explain how statements like that are supposed to help constructive dialogue? How is that respect? What do they add? quote:
but then you make statements and analogies which contradict understanding.
Then the adult thing to do is either to ignore them or seek clarification, not cast around for insults.
quote:
The Pride Campaign, and Felbrigg Hall's participation is appropriate and justifiable.
I didn't say that the dissenters were for a fact all homophobic, but that is the most likely explanation.
Fine. Thanks for the clarification; that's helpful.
It's particularly helpful to me because the part of the conversation I'm interested in is the less likely explanations, whether real in this situation (which we'll never know) or more broadly, in other situations in which people are unwilling to be enlisted in a cause by the organisation they are working or volunteering for.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Originally posted by lilBuddha
quote:
Empathy requires one to understand, first. And if you came close to understanding, you would not have made the black activists moving into an area analogy.
The original analogy was Doc Tor's, not mine, I recognised above that it was not a good one to have extended and apologised. Did you miss that?
You apologised for going down the wrong road, but you didn't retract what you said. There is a massive difference.
That you made it in the first place is indicative of the problem. Understanding why the statement is so fucked up to begin with would be a step down the road to empathy.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
That you made it in the first place is indicative of the problem. Understanding why the statement is so fucked up to begin with would be a step down the road to empathy.
Then spell it out to me. I can't read your mind, and I'm not clear what, in what I said, you would like me to retract that isn't covered by my previous apology.
[ 12. August 2017, 19:12: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
That you chose to impugn the motives of the black family before addressing the racist behaviour of the whites.
That.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I have no idea if that's what LB has against what I said, but let's take that pending her answer. There might be a genuine misunderstanding here.
I said:
quote:
did the black family move in with an agenda backed by an advocacy group?
What I meant was not, "aha, but my a priori assumption is of course, being black in that neighbourhood, they must have moved in with an agenda" (which would have been impugning their motives) but (unwisely taking your analogy places it was never supposed to go), "supposing that they had?"
Which is what I tried to clarify here: quote:
the dynamics are very different if it turns out that the black family* didn't move into the white neighbourhood spontaneously but with an advocacy group behind them before the fact expressly encouraging them to provoke maximum outrage at the school.
*Insert any minority here.
Leorning Cniht certainly seemed to read it that way, and in the subsequent exchange with LC I think it was clear that my assessment of their motives would not, to the best of my ability, be based on any a priori assumptions on my part.
Does that help?
[ETA I didn't say anything about the whites' prejudice at all. My thought was that how the ensuing dynamic played out would be very different if the scenario I imagined for the new arrivals was true]
[ 12. August 2017, 20:18: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
You have a school where a proportion of the teachers are bellicosely racist enough to object to teaching black children, and your response was immediately to question the black family's motives.
quote:
(Another aspect is that I absolutely dread such a prospect emerging, not out of the normal course of church life but out of some activist group seeking to prove a point or establish a test case (to return to your analogy above, did the black family move in with an agenda backed by an advocacy group?). You can probably guess how I would respond if I discerned that to be the case).
It seemed to me that you said you would rather back racist teachers than you would a black child's right to an education, based on what you discerned to be the motive. Rather than asserting the child's fundamental human rights.
I believe you're better than that.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You have a school where a proportion of the teachers are bellicosely racist enough to object to teaching black children, and your response was immediately to question the black family's motives.
I wasn't considering the bellicose racist teachers at all. That's why it was stupid of me to try and pursue the analogy.
I was considering how catering for a newly-arrived oppressed minority in my church would go down differently depending on whether that oppressed minority came spontaneously or with an agenda, and that is why I picked up only on that half of your analogy. Which, again, was dumb of me.
Can I look you in the eye and say my initial assumptions about anybody and their motives are never impacted by my prejudices? No. Who can? But so help me God my next mental move is to struggle to overcome my prejudices in assessing the situation. That said, in responsibilities in which I have a duty of care towards a community, I would be a fool if I were not to take steps to discern newcomers' motives.
Lastly, I think you're correct in absolutum that rights are rights regardless of motive, but I think that the issue in play at Felbrigg Hall as regards LGBT+ people is not their rights but acceptance.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You have a school where a proportion of the teachers are bellicosely racist enough to object to teaching black children, and your response was immediately to question the black family's motives.
quote:
(Another aspect is that I absolutely dread such a prospect emerging, not out of the normal course of church life but out of some activist group seeking to prove a point or establish a test case (to return to your analogy above, did the black family move in with an agenda backed by an advocacy group?). You can probably guess how I would respond if I discerned that to be the case).
It seemed to me that you said you would rather back racist teachers than you would a black child's right to an education, based on what you discerned to be the motive. Rather than asserting the child's fundamental human rights.
Pretty much. Establishing a condition on acceptance isn't acceptance. It is just more subtle expression of "know your place".
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Lastly, I think you're correct in absolutum that rights are rights regardless of motive, but I think that the issue in play at Felbrigg Hall as regards LGBT+ people is not their rights but acceptance.
They are not separable. As the ongoing racial inequities and LGBT+ struggles demonstrate.
Without acceptance you have people legally being allowed to live anywhere, but being barred in practical application. AKA, redlining.
Intolerance will always be with us, the best we can hope for is reduction. Excusing it does nothing to reduce it.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Establishing a condition on acceptance isn't acceptance. It is just more subtle expression of "know your place".
Ok, so we're back to where my last attempt to discuss acceptance with you ended here.
Some years ago a friend of one of my kids inadvertently parked her car so that it blocked our next-door neighbours' garage (where we live it's actually quite easy to do this unwittingly). So what did my neighbour do? Did she ask round the street whose car it was to ask them to move it? No. Not even next door. She got the car towed.
No question, she was absolutely within her rights (indeed I marvel at her ability to get them enforced so fast). You could say that now, on the street, we "accept" her parking "rights". Did it encourage us to accept her as a good neighbour? No. Could our oppression of her garage rights have been better resolved for all of us? Certainly. (Fortunately we get on OK now. We have her keys while she's away).
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Intolerance will always be with us
No doubt. quote:
the best we can hope for is reduction.
And this is where we part company. It seems to me you're ignoring the undecided. If I can risk another analogy, the way your position comes across to me, you'd go for towing the car every time.
Not everyone on the other side is an extremist. And some people who could be won over will be turned off if they feel they are being co-opted against their will.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
But you've already accepted that your kid's friend's car was illegally parked. So would the driver, I expect.
What we have at Felbrigg is a bunch of people parking in the newly-painted disabled bays (because they've always parked there) and raising their middle fingers at those who might object.
Now, obviously, there needs to be some compromise. "You can park over there, we've extended the car park, we've made part of the car park staff-only". But the people who are parking their cars need to acknowledge that they can't park where they used to, because the rules have changed regarding disabled access.
I regret introducing analogies. We can talk about the thing instead of talking around the thing.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I regret introducing analogies. We can talk about the thing instead of talking around the thing.
That sounds like a great idea to me.
I don't think I'd be infringing LGBT+ rights by opting not to wear a rainbow lanyard.
Donning a rainbow lanyard might give an appearance of LGBT+-friendliness but it can't change the wearer's core attitude. If there is no due consideration of the latter it seems a pretty poor method of advancing acceptance of LGBT+ people to me.
If hesitant wearers' perception of the advancement of LGBT+ concerns is "stick this on or you'll be labelled a homophobe", it's not likely to make even the least bigoted very welcoming to those concerns. It will fuel prejudice, on both sides, not foster tolerance.
I also think the way the NT is using the rainbow flag is inconsistent and confusing.
It has been claimed they are trying to promote their universal LGBT+-friendliness (as suggested by this photo, from here. I can't help wondering, incidentally, whether the people in the picture were picked on an opt-in basis or not).
However, this campaign is not about that; it's about promoting specific sites, not as especially LGBT+-friendly, but as specially relevant to LGBT+ history.
That seems a mis-application of the rainbow flag to me, as it is a contemporary symbol, not a historic one.
Not only that, the same page and campaign lumps LGBT+ history in with a ménage à trois (admittedly of three women) at Smallhythe Place. I'm not quite sure what that says. Is the campaign, and the rainbow flag, advancing the cause of three-way relationships too?
[ 12. August 2017, 22:28: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Up until recently, the Torlets were on mine and Mrs Tor's family membership. I don't know whether that counts as one membership, two, or four. Certainly, four members though.
One membership, four members. I was going to make the same point.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Donning a rainbow lanyard might give an appearance of LGBT+-friendliness but it can't change the wearer's core attitude. If there is no due consideration of the latter it seems a pretty poor method of advancing acceptance of LGBT+ people to me.
We've been over this. The lanyards are symbols of the campaign, they were not intended to communicate the wearers position.
quote:
If hesitant wearers' perception of the advancement of LGBT+ concerns is "stick this on or you'll be labelled a homophobe",
There is nothing to show this was implied by the NT or that the objectors felt this.
quote:
That seems a mis-application of the rainbow flag to me, as it is a contemporary symbol, not a historic one.
Right. Whilst there are other symbols, they postdate Ketton-Cremer. Well, there is one that he would possibly have recognised. However, its use in his time had a quite different association.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Not everyone on the other side is an extremist.
I've repeatedly said prejudice is a spectrum. Hate isn't a necessary component of any form of prejudice, even racism.
And though the first steps towards acceptance might be the most difficult to take, the last are the most difficult to see.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Up until recently, the Torlets were on mine and Mrs Tor's family membership. I don't know whether that counts as one membership, two, or four. Certainly, four members though.
The may also be separating life memberships from annual memberships.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The lanyards are symbols of the campaign, they were not intended to communicate the wearers position.
You and I obviously differ over this. At the very least, I'd say it creates potential confusion, and the less trivial the thing the symbol stands for (LGBT rights compared to flavours of coffee) the greater the potential for that confusion.
Failure to recongise this demonstrates poor management by the NT in my view. To me it looks like they failed "diversity in the workplace 101". quote:
quote:
If hesitant wearers' perception of the advancement of LGBT+ concerns is "stick this on or you'll be labelled a homophobe",
There is nothing to show this was implied by the NT or that the objectors felt this.
Be that as it may, I think that onlookers to the debate we're having here could well draw that implication (essentially, of coercion) from some LGBT+ supporters' initial reactions to the kerfuffle (which is where, if you recall, I joined in).
And again, whether or not the original volunteers did experience it that way, I still think the NT handled a diversity issue badly.
If Felbrigg Hall were to have staged a professionally researched exhibition reexamining the site's history in terms of its owner's sexuality, and using the opportunity of the exhibition to raise concerns about LGBT+ issues, and invited exhibition-manning volunteers to opt in to the event by sporting the rainbow lanyard, I think it would have sent a far more positive diversity message overall and been just as effective. And I wouldn't have been complaining.
(I know some people here think this episode is an example of bigotry backfiring by serving to raise awareness of the campaign, but I think that's over-optimistic. I think it's a way of the media cynically fuelling culture wars for their own gain. You can see this in how the Telegraph and the Guardian have used the NT membership figures to bolster the perceived prejudices of their respective readerships instead of examining the different possible explanations as has been very thoroughly and objectively discussed by some here).
quote:
Whilst there are other symbols, they postdate Ketton-Cremer. Well, there is one that he would possibly have recognised. However, its use in his time had a quite different association.
You speak in mysteries here (at least as far as I'm concerned).
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
And though the first steps towards acceptance might be the most difficult to take, the last are the most difficult to see.
How do you see that applying here?
[ 13. August 2017, 06:21: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Sorry, that last quote is lilbuddha's, not mine obviously.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
It strikes me that, had the NT produced a little badge, complete with rainbow symbol, but quite clearly specific to this exhibition and asked volunteers to wear it, none of this kerfuffle would have happened.
Or else it would have confined the debate to the premise debated at the start: that Ketton-Cremer was "an intensely private man" and would never have agreed to such an emphasis being made at Felbrigg.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
The problem with accepting the premise that Ketton-Cremer was "an intensely private man" is that isn't the evidence from all sources. And if you were a homosexual male in a society when homosexual acts were illegal, you'd be intensely private too.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Yes, I don't disagree - although we must always be wary of predicating on historic figures how we think they would have behaved under different circumstances. Anyway, we've had this bit of debate before and it wasn't the primary point I was wanting to make.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
However, in the real world of working for organisations, the rest of us get to wear whatever we're asked to wear, to fit in with whatever we are doing.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
However, in the real world of working for organisations, the rest of us get to wear whatever we're asked to wear, to fit in with whatever we are doing.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
1. Again, what are the people in this photo supposed to be communicating?
Are they supposed to be communicating "each of us has been made aware of LGBT+ issues and are willingly demonstrating our support for them by wearing the rainbow flag", or "my boss told me to wear this t-shirt and smile?"
2. Is there no point at which you personally can imagine yourself balking at a symbol your boss asked you to wear, either because you fundamentally disagreed with what it signified or because you felt your employer had overstepped their prerogatives?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Looking at the age range of the participants in that photograph, I suspect they are likely to be happy to support an LGBT+ promotional campaign. I find it interesting that they have managed to gather a group of younger volunteers, which isn't the profile I imagine when I think of National Trust volunteers (from those I see at the places and shops I visit, although the volunteers on Inner Farne were young).
I haven't been asked, so far, to support a campaign I'm not prepared to endorse (Macmillan, Children in Need, Save the Children, GOSH, a small international charity providing health care and education in Namibia). As an adult in education we are expected to set a good example and that includes by endorsing different initiatives.
[ 13. August 2017, 11:49: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
However, in the real world of working for organisations, the rest of us get to wear whatever we're asked to wear, to fit in with whatever we are doing.
1. Again, what are the people in this photo supposed to be communicating?
Looking at the way they're dressed and the banners they're holding, I presume they're about to take part in a Pride Parade of some kind, rather than preparing for their shift at Felbrigg Hall?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
CK: Thanks, but that doesn't really answer either of my questions.
1. If one takes the view that volunteers and employees simply wear whatever symbol they are given to wear and no questions asked, it can hardly be taken as a meaningful display of corresponding acceptance on their part. Which to me would imply poor management, worse volunteer management, and terrible diversity management.
(Also I note you seem to have assumed they got a choice about appearing in the photo - ie you think it was on an opt-in basis. Why?).
2. My question was not about your past experience but about whether you could imagine a situation in which it might pose a problem for you.
Interestingly, the fact that you used the word "endorse" suggests to me that in fact you don't simply see yourself as a clothes-horse for your organisation.
[ 13. August 2017, 12:07: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
In my current role working with young people, I do have to endorse the organisations we, as a company, are supporting. Those young people will be asked to take part in fundraising or voluntary efforts towards whichever charity it is and I have to explain and encourage that involvement. I do read up on the charities and make sure I agree with them. In this current company I can't really see that I would be asked to endorse something I don't agree with, because the charities the company supports are pretty much related to the company's aims.
But I have argued against Operation Christmas Child and refused to support it in church. In contrast I backed and ran Fairtrade initiatives, mostly as an opt in, although we did agree, as a church, to move to serving fairtrade tea and coffee.
In answer to the question about the photograph, I assume the National Trust are using it to show that they have support from their volunteers for LGBT+ issues. I suspect from the demographics of those in that picture that it is an opt in. Somewhere on the NT website there is a comment about taking part in Birmingham Gay Pride, and this looks as if it might be that group (not sure where the photograph was taken).
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Somewhere on the NT website there is a comment about taking part in Birmingham Gay Pride, and this looks as if it might be that group (not sure where the photograph was taken).
It's Hurst Street, so in the heart of Birmingham's Gay Village.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
If your theory about the photo is correct (thanks Anglican't for that important piece of context!), then that's evidence that in that case at least, the NT adopted an opt-in policy.
And I think we in fact agree that there are limits to the "volunteers are simply clothes-horses" argument.
In the general case, I don't think it's unreasonable to argue that individuals have a reasonable say over what symbols of advocacy they can and can't be compelled to wear as they "do what they usually do".
Good diversity management involves organisations respecting their staff and working in cases of conscience towards a compromise that demonstrates respect towards the individuals in question and the organisation's values.
[ 13. August 2017, 13:55: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If your theory about the photo is correct (thanks Anglican't for that important piece of context!), then that's evidence that in that case at least, the NT adopted an opt-in policy.
And I think we in fact agree that there are limits to the "volunteers are simply clothes-horses" argument.
No, you're making that whole apples-are-oranges argument again. The NT asked for volunteers to represent them at another event.
In an event in their own properties the NT expected volunteers to do what they were asked.
Surely that's fairly normal practice.
quote:
In the general case, I don't think it's unreasonable to argue that individuals have a reasonable say over what symbols of advocacy they can and can't be compelled to wear as they "do what they usually do".
It isn't being used as a symbol of advocacy in the context it was used. I've already shown you how it is being used, I've already shown you how the NT said they were using the symbol, we've already discussed how people from the community concerned understand the symbol.
And yet you keep insisting it must be the thing you say it is.
quote:
Good diversity management involves organisations respecting their staff and working in cases of conscience towards a compromise that demonstrates respect towards the individuals in question and the organisation's values.
It seems like you think good organisational management involves people banging on about minor issues and getting themselves in the national press.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The problem with accepting the premise that Ketton-Cremer was "an intensely private man" is that isn't the evidence from all sources. And if you were a homosexual male in a society when homosexual acts were illegal, you'd be intensely private too.
Didn't seem to worry the Bloomsbury Group, Lord Mountbatten, Noel Coward and others.
They appeared to be immune from prosecution when others were set up and trapped.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Definitely Birmingham Gay Pride from this page*.
I do keep coming back to that out of the 11 properties involved in Prejudice and Pride, Felbrigg Hall is the only one that has objected¹. And that the original 10 who refused to wear the lanyards in the Daily Telegraph article of 4 August and Eastern Daily Press story of 2 August increased to 75 in the Daily Mail on 4 August, updated on 5 August. Further down that article the Daily Mail gives the number of volunteers unwilling to be involved numbered by the National Trust as 30.
In addition, the original story on 21 July was in the Daily Telegraph. The story didn't originate with the family and friends of Robert Wyndham Ketton-Cremer, the first stories that involve them are a letter from 26 July and a story from 29 July, or from the volunteers, when the first story originates from 2 August in the Eastern Daily Press and is picked up by the national press on 4 and 5 August.
The National Trust, managing these volunteers, started with 10 people unwilling to wear lanyards and badges out of a team of 350 and offered alternative opportunities. Then the National Trust was caught up in a media storm - with stories in the national press on 21 July, 26 July, 29 July, 2 August, 4 August and 5 August, At the same time the number of those opting out at Felbrigg Hall rose from 10 to 30 and possibly higher. I am not sure the National Trust were mismanaging this situation originally. To deal with an orchestrated reaction, the National Trust chose to relax the requirement to wear these lanyards at this property, which again seems proportionate as a way of dealing with a situation that was spiralling out of control.
* I was looking for the list of properties when I found that article
¹ The Daily Mail article of 4 August also says
quote:
The trust said it was unaware of complaints by volunteers at other properties.
I suspect the Daily Mail tried quite hard to find another property with complaints by volunteers. My daughter, who is local to one of the properties, mentioned letters in her local paper from volunteers at another property complaining that the Daily Mail had been asking for stories of protest there, but I can't find this online.
[ 13. August 2017, 14:46: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
No, you're making that whole apples-are-oranges argument again.
The "apple" of an event distinct from the NT is not at all the same as the "orange" of a special event at an NT property, and the rainbow flag is being used by the NT to cover both.
In fact if we're right about that photo, the "apple" is being used to promote the "orange" and yes that makes me uncomfortable because I think it unhelpfully blurs the distinction between two completely different things.
quote:
In an event in their own properties the NT expected volunteers to do what they were asked.
Surely that's fairly normal practice.
Only within limits. I'm not suggesting the NT are about to invite volunteers to torture people, but that there are reasonable limits to what volunteers can reasonably be expected to do.
quote:
It isn't being used as a symbol of advocacy in the context it was used.
If that were true, how is it that those opting out have attracted such ire here? quote:
It seems like you think good organisational management involves people banging on about minor issues and getting themselves in the national press.
No, good diversity management involves organisations acting in such a way that there is no excuse for the story hitting the national media in the first place.
It is my contention that if the NT had done things right the first time round at Felbrigg - specifically, inviting people to opt in to lanyard wearing rather than reposition them if they opted out - it would not have needed to back down.
[ 13. August 2017, 14:48: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If Felbrigg Hall were to have staged a professionally researched exhibition reexamining the site's history in terms of its owner's sexuality, and using the opportunity of the exhibition to raise concerns about LGBT+ issues,
That is exactly what happened. The way you phrase it implies they didn't.
quote:
and invited exhibition-manning volunteers to opt in to the event by sporting the rainbow lanyard, I think it would have sent a far more positive diversity message overall and been just as effective. And I wouldn't have been complaining.
Look at it this way then. The volunteer's reaction positively sent the message that acceptance of diversity still has a way to go.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Whilst there are other symbols, they postdate Ketton-Cremer. Well, there is one that he would possibly have recognised. However, its use in his time had a quite different association.
You speak in mysteries here (at least as far as I'm concerned).
The Pink Triangle is the only symbol that Ketton-Cremer's time would know. And it was a symbol of hate at the time. Certainly not one that he would have worn.
You want a period appropriate symbol? Perhaps this?
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally Posted by lilBuddha:
And though the first steps towards acceptance might be the most difficult to take, the last are the most difficult to see.
How do you see that applying here?
What do you mean by here?
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
And I think we in fact agree that there are limits to the "volunteers are simply clothes-horses" argument.
That argument doesn't need limits as no one actually made it.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If Felbrigg Hall were to have staged a professionally researched exhibition reexamining the site's history in terms of its owner's sexuality, and using the opportunity of the exhibition to raise concerns about LGBT+ issues,
That is exactly what happened. The way you phrase it implies they didn't.
It wasn't meant to. I'm satisfied that's exactly what happened. I was trying to point out that I had no quarrel with that, because that fact seems in danger of being overlooked. quote:
Look at it this way then. The volunteer's reaction positively sent the message that acceptance of diversity still has a way to go.
That's true. But the existence of the campaign and the lack of objections elsewhere send the message that it has already got quite some way, and I think that needs to be taken into account in the tone of the conversation.
quote:
The Pink Triangle is the only symbol that Ketton-Cremer's time would know. And it was a symbol of hate at the time. Certainly not one that he would have worn.
You want a period appropriate symbol? Perhaps this?
I'm trying really hard to keep the snark out of my posts. Could you do the same?
The problem to my mind is not that the rainbow symbol isn't sufficiently demeaning or hostile ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) , it's that it's an anachronism that is too bound up with a current advocacy cause to be imposed on wearers.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally Posted by lilBuddha:
And though the first steps towards acceptance might be the most difficult to take, the last are the most difficult to see.
How do you see that applying here?
What do you mean by here?
Felbrigg Hall.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
And I think we in fact agree that there are limits to the "volunteers are simply clothes-horses" argument.
That argument doesn't need limits as no one actually made it.
Exhibit 1 (I'm sure there are others, this is just the most recent): quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
However, in the real world of working for organisations, the rest of us get to wear whatever we're asked to wear, to fit in with whatever we are doing.
[ 13. August 2017, 15:08: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The problem with accepting the premise that Ketton-Cremer was "an intensely private man" is that isn't the evidence from all sources. And if you were a homosexual male in a society when homosexual acts were illegal, you'd be intensely private too.
Didn't seem to worry the Bloomsbury Group, Lord Mountbatten, Noel Coward and others.
They appeared to be immune from prosecution when others were set up and trapped.
Quite. If you want an example connected with another NT property, just look at the second Lord Faringdon at Buscot Park, who seems to have been a very ripe (and ISTM rather wonderful- I like his politics and I warm instantly to anybody who can absentmindedly address the House of Lords not as 'My Lords', but as 'My Dears' ) example of a comparatively flamboyant mid-C20 gay man. Curiously enough Buscot seems not to be part of the Prejudice & Pride thing: I don't know why, but I can only guess that this may be because the current Lord Faringdon, who administers it, didn't want it to be.
[ 13. August 2017, 15:18: Message edited by: Albertus ]
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I have a dress code for work and I had to sign I would accept this when I signed up for the job. We ask all staff to do this, even temporary staff. It's actually not brilliant for the work required in some aspects, e.g. we are not allowed to wear trainers, but we have to be able to run after absconding students.
The National Trust says:
quote:
Annabel Smith, Head of Volunteering & Participation Development at the National Trust said: “All of our staff and volunteers sign up to our core ambition when they join us
<snip>
“However whilst volunteering for the National Trust we do request and expect individuals to uphold the values of the organisation.”
The National Trust is trying to move into the 21st Century with this Prejudice and Pride season - baby steps - and are facing vilification for even this move forward.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm trying really hard to keep the snark out of my posts. Could you do the same?
The snark helps me keep this here in DH.
quote:
The problem to my mind is not that the rainbow symbol isn't sufficiently demeaning or hostile , it's that it's an anachronism that is too bound up with a current advocacy cause to be imposed on wearers.
Way to miss the point. There is no symbol appropriate to Ketton-Cremer's time. Anachronism is a blind, intentional or not.
quote:
Originally Posted by lilBuddha:
I've repeatedly said prejudice is a spectrum. Hate isn't a necessary component of any form of prejudice, even racism.
And though the first steps towards acceptance might be the most difficult to take, the last are the most difficult to see.
This was written in response to your not everyone on the other side is an extremist comment. It would apply at Felbrigg Hall the way it applies anywhere else.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
And I think we in fact agree that there are limits to the "volunteers are simply clothes-horses" argument.
That argument doesn't need limits as no one actually made it.
Exhibit 1 (I'm sure there are others, this is just the most recent): quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
However, in the real world of working for organisations, the rest of us get to wear whatever we're asked to wear, to fit in with whatever we are doing.
You said 'simply clothes-horses'. CK makes the point that lanyards, badges, shirts and such are a normal thing that doesn't imply wearer views. You twisted that into meaning she said wearing such is their only function.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The "apple" of an event distinct from the NT is not at all the same as the "orange" of a special event at an NT property, and the rainbow flag is being used by the NT to cover both.
In fact if we're right about that photo, the "apple" is being used to promote the "orange" and yes that makes me uncomfortable because I think it unhelpfully blurs the distinction between two completely different things.
OK. Just be aware that not everyone sees it like you do, and moreover some of us don't really give a shit what people who aren't involved think of the flag.
quote:
]Only within limits. I'm not suggesting the NT are about to invite volunteers to torture people, but that there are reasonable limits to what volunteers can reasonably be expected to do.
Oh god, you really just used the Milgram experiment as some kind of argument about your perception of a flag. In a stately home in a country you're visiting.
If you can't see that this has nothing to do with it, I can't help you.
quote:
If that were true, how is it that those opting out have attracted such ire here?
I'm not sure why you are asking me to explain other people's reactions or why you think this is really any kind of explanation for the use of the flag.
Once again you seem insistent that your way is the only possible way to understand the thing, even when everyone involved seems to be telling you the opposite.
quote:
No, good diversity management involves organisations acting in such a way that there is no excuse for the story hitting the national media in the first place.
Bullshit. I mean, really. Why should the NT kowtow to a very small number of people at one property out of several solely on the basis of the Telegraph and Mail using coded language to whip up feelings.
The reality is that a small number of volunteers got their knickers in a twist, supposedly about something else altogether. And then the keyboard warriors are somehow uniting to say that their rights are being abused, which is clearly nonsense. And then when challenged on this point, they pivot and claim it is about the use of a fucking flag.
I mean really.
quote:
It is my contention that if the NT had done things right the first time round at Felbrigg - specifically, inviting people to opt in to lanyard wearing rather than reposition them if they opted out - it would not have needed to back down.
I don't really care any more.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
I think, on reflection and much reading around, that I've come to a settled conclusion.
The NT have mostly done entirely the right thing throughout. If they've done anything wrong, it was assuming that they didn't have a small bunch of asshats volunteering at Felbrigg Hall. When confronted with the asshats, they may have panicked a bit, because the NT is actually a genteel and nice organisation, and local managers are probably more used to complaints about scones and loose dogs than they are reactionary socio-political arguments about LGBT issues, of which they may be only tangentially aware of.
I appreciate the importance of getting people on board with new initiatives, especially volunteers who can reasonably withhold their labour without suffering the economic consequences of a full-blown labour dispute. Perhaps earlier communication could have helped, but it may also have exacerbate the problem. We don't know that.
It's also reasonably clear that the small group of volunteers who objected to the rainbow lanyards were doing so because they didn't want to be associated with a symbol of LGBT emancipation. They may have various reasons for that, but I'm also reasonably certain that for many of them, it's because they believe that gay people should have fewer rights than straight people.
That, in and of itself, presents a management issue, because there is absolutely zero doubt that gay people will have visited Felbrigg before this current furore, and undoubtedly have encountered these volunteers in their professional capacity. There may have been some unpleasant behaviour from the volunteers to these people. There may be some in future, because of the exhibition. Knowing that some of your volunteers may well discriminate against some of your visitors isn't an enviable position.
So, I'll be interested to see where the NT takes this next. I suspect that they'll try and simply ignore the problem until the next time, adopting a fire-fighting strategy rather than explicitly requiring all volunteers to re-dedicated themselves to welcoming visitors regardless of their race, age, sexuality etc.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I think one this is for certain: they're not going to be asking volunteers for their comments on uniform.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
some of us don't really give a shit what people who aren't involved think of the flag.
What's your involvement? Just curious.
quote:
Oh god, you really just used the Milgram experiment as some kind of argument about your perception of a flag.
Yes, because it was, albeit in an extreme way, as I conceded, devoted to quote:
focusing on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience
If you can't see that this has nothing to do with that, I can't help you.
quote:
quote:
If that were true, how is it that those opting out have attracted such ire here?
I'm not sure why you are asking me to explain other people's reactions
Because you brought it up again.
quote:
Once again you seem insistent that your way is the only possible way to understand the thing, even when everyone involved seems to be telling you the opposite.
Acknowledging diversity means acknowledging that "my way" (for all values of "my") is not the only possible way and working out how a better compromise could be achieved. It is not true that everyone "involved", whatever that means, is telling me the opposite.
quote:
Why should the NT kowtow to a very small number of people at one property out of several solely on the basis of the Telegraph and Mail using coded language to whip up feelings.
They did. Given their obvious support for LGBT issues, that suggests to me that they weren't sure enough of themselves to stick to their guns.
My contention is that if they had engaged in better diversity management, they could have, and that this would have been to the benefit of the LGBT cause, not its detriment.
quote:
when challenged on this point, they pivot and claim it is about the use of a fucking flag.
What is this flag supposed to communicate about the occupants of Smallhythe Place?
quote:
I don't really care any more.
What strikes me as really odd is that you feel the need to post that. Why is that? You could just scroll past.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Given their obvious support for LGBT issues, that suggests to me that they weren't sure enough of themselves to stick to their guns.
It suggests to me that they were surprised by the bigotry they encountered and nonplussed by the reaction.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Orginally posted by mr cheesyI don't really care any more.
What strikes me as really odd is that you feel the need to post that. Why is that? You could just scroll past.
Perhaps he communicating how what you post makes him feel. I'm told that is a valid thing.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I think, on reflection and much reading around, that I've come to a settled conclusion.
Very solid and reasonable conclusion.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Yes, because it was, albeit in an extreme way, as I conceded, devoted to quote:
focusing on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience
If you can't see that this has nothing to do with that, I can't help you.
But as I've told you several times now, this isn't how this thing went down.
1. There is a programme promoted by people from within the community to encourage businesses and others to use the flag to show that LGBT+ people are welcome
2. This is exactly how the NT said they were using the flag.
3. Volunteers who objected to the flag - for whatever reason - were given the opportunity to volunteer in other ways or even not volunteer at all during the programme period.
4. A small number of disgruntled volunteers moaned via the local media in a really pathetic way to pretend that this was all about the dead owner and nothing about not-wanting-to-give-a-welcome to the gays.
5. As a result a bunch of other people started some kind of campaign.
6. In order to kill the story, the NT changed the policy, in the process highlighting that there were volunteers at this property who did not want to show that people from a particular community were welcome.
7. As a result of this, keyboard warriors somehow think this is an example of bad management, bad volunteer management, bad PR and bad whatever-else-you-think-of-today.
8. Using the most disingenuous argument possible, you say this is like Milgram.
9. No doubt you are now going to try to pretend that the reaction means something-something-something-something about you and gays because
10. This is really all about you.
quote:
]Acknowledging diversity means acknowledging that "my way" (for all values of "my") is not the only possible way and working out how a better compromise could be achieved. It is not true that everyone "involved", whatever that means, is telling me the opposite.
There is nothing to compromise. The NT is going to welcome LGBT+ people. If the volunteers don't like it, don't volunteer.
If you don't like it, don't go to NT properties. Perfectly simple.
quote:
They did. Given their obvious support for LGBT issues, that suggests to me that they weren't sure enough of themselves to stick to their guns.
Oh FFS. They don't have obvious support for LGBT issues they just want to publicly welcome people from different communities in the country. This isn't really hard to understand.
quote:
My contention is that if they had engaged in better diversity management, they could have, and that this would have been to the benefit of the LGBT cause, not its detriment.
And my contention is that nobody gives a shit what you think given that you've taken exception to a flag. A flag that the community themselves say is a symbol of a welcome, and which everyone else understands does not mean that the individual or the organisation concerned is actively campaigning for gay or trans rights.
Just that gay and trans people are going to be recognised, welcomed and hopefully not feel threatened whilst coming to a NT property at this time when their hidden history is being explored.
quote:
What strikes me as really odd is that you feel the need to post that. Why is that? You could just scroll past.
Because when you are like this, you really can't see how boring you are. And it is really quite tiring given the effort other people have made to explain it to you.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
