|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Sorry folks, I just didn't "get" it (who knew?)
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
Well you heard it here first. Turns out my discontent wasn't because the H&As were picking and choosing when to enforce the 10Cs. I just apparently hadn't "read" them in my 5 years on the Ship (shades of the Covenant!). In my defence, I had not at the time become acquainted with the Hostly playbook on their enforcement, which I admit does clear up a great deal of the mystery.
I'm so sorry Spike had to endure the tedium of having to "bother to respond" to my frivolous complaints again. They had already given me that stump speech before, but I can only plead my previously identified illiteracy. Sure, I had expounded to Spike why their "response" was completely ineffectual the first time round, but at least they were trying to make up for quality with quantity, and I'm sure no one else than they was more surprised that their "explanation" didn't ring any truer with age. What more could I ask of them? To actually look back on where they'd lost the plot so they could avoid the same pratfall next time? Ridiculous. Waiting me out for two weeks is pretty much the same as addressing the issue, right? Especially when it's so clearly a necessary disciplinary step. After all, it's not as if I had just stated my intention to absent myself from the Ship so there was nothing at all petty or superfluous about telling me, "You can't quit; you're fired!"
It was a totally unwarranted conclusion for me to draw, that 50+ pages into a thread on whether queer families can be pleasing to God, the Good Ship Civility had long sailed out of port. Of course, the question of whether families like my own are a fifth column of invariable perverts threatening the church in our zeal to justify our sins* is a legitimate avenue of theological inquiry, totally incomparable to impetuous peanut-gallery comments from those of us who are under the moral stethoscope and awaiting the verdict on our guilt. Misgivings of this type are by no means the preserve of extremists or bigots. Like those who been subjected to hearing uppity (and probably menstruous!) women reading lessons at full volume in public, those who have had thrust on them the indignity of sharing a church with families as ignominious as mine have experienced real pain which cannot be belittled, and their theological convictions are wholly sincere.
Rook is right. You all deserve better than fair-weather friends like myself. After all, it's not like I spent some years here forming relationships and dialogues and left only when basically dared to. No, I just kind of waltzed in one day, heard the word but took no root, and then "flounced" again when the wind changed as quickly as I came. (Does anyone even remember talking to that guy? I think he was from Canada or something). Undoubtedly Dobby and Winky (to whom I owe an apology, for how could I have possibly conflated their eminently interchangeable cartoon-bigotry talking heads?) will go on to a provide a much more solid and lasting contribution to the discourse on that subject and others in this forum than I could have done. If you should deign to take me back, I promise that I will never again sass back at massa, but always submit respectfully to the prosecution's questions like a model sodomite.
---
*trans. note - For gay people, sexual "sin" means following the rules which, for straight people, are held to be normative in ordering relationships. That is to say, the heterosexual Christian who affirms that his choice is one of faithfulness in marriage or celibate chastity outside is correct; the gay person who says this is a most pernicious liar for suggesting that the former option is available. It's hard to keep up I know, but that's how Topsy Turvy hetero-argot works.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
Wow. 8 months to come up with a reply. Is that a record?.
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
So, you called someone 'Dobby', were asked not to and didn't like it?
Is this a 'farewell cruel ship' post? I can't quite make it out.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I am gay. I am not overjoyed that a significant strand of Christian thought is basically disgusted by this. I recognise that on a Christian discussion site it is inevitable that these views will be expressed - having those discussions corralled in Dead Horses makes it easier for me to avoid them and only engage in them when I want to. Just as I am sure you are not the only gay shipmate I am confident I am not the only gay crew member.
I don't see how being gay, and the existence of Dead Horses, makes it a problem for you to refrain from using personal insults outside of hell. I don't understand how it becomes such a major issue that you decide to leave the site, and I don't understand why you are posting a fairly hysterical screed about it now.
Keep calm and keep posting and being involved with the site.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Just as I am sure you are not the only gay shipmate I am confident I am not the only gay crew member.
Are you kidding? This place is like backstage at Finnocio's.
I wouldn't be a shipmate or crew member if I did not feel gay people could participate unrestrained.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I wouldn't be a shipmate or crew member if I did not feel gay people could participate unrestrained.
But isn't there a whole board about participating restrained? If it is voluntary, should not matter gay or straight. Shame on you, Kelly. And you being from San Francisco... ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
That hurts my head, lilBuddha. I'm still trying to work it out.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Just as I am sure you are not the only gay shipmate I am confident I am not the only gay crew member.
Are you kidding? This place is like backstage at Finnocio's.
I wouldn't be a shipmate or crew member if I did not feel gay people could participate unrestrained.
Amen to that. Or, well, at any rate, no more restrained than anybody else. Probably safer to leave it at that. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
LQ, much as I like and respect you, I think you need to have a serious think about what your alternative solution to the issues that you see as problematical might be. As I regard it, the Ship does an extremely good job at providing an environment where LGBTQQ Christians (and indeed non-Christians) can discuss matters of importance to them, both those relating directly to their sexuality and those completely separate from it.
In the Christian world this is a precious resource and alas a rare one. If you have ideas for how it could be managed better I am sure that your input would be widely welcomed but at the moment your complaints just seem... well, inchoate. I'm sorry to put it so bluntly but I'd rather be honest about how I feel.
I hope you will take this reply in the spirit that it is offered, and don't be a stranger!
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That hurts my head, lilBuddha. I'm still trying to work it out.
Clue - private boards.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That hurts my head, lilBuddha. I'm still trying to work it out.
Clue - private boards.
Doh!
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I wouldn't be a shipmate or crew member if I did not feel gay people could participate unrestrained.
But isn't there a whole board about participating restrained? If it is voluntary, should not matter gay or straight. Shame on you, Kelly. And you being from San Francisco...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
You're right, I wasn't' thinking.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
So, you called someone 'Dobby', were asked not to and didn't like it?
Sounds pretty silly when you spell it out like that, doesn't it?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
I asked this in Hell, and was redirected here by Hellhost Sioni.
For the pitiably uninformed, can someone translate LQ's outrage-cum-apology, or whatever that OP is, into short, simple, English terms?
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
I asked this in Hell, and was redirected here by Hellhost Sioni.
For the pitiably uninformed, can someone translate LQ's outrage-cum-apology, or whatever that OP is, into short, simple, English terms?
Boogie already has!
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
So, you called someone 'Dobby', were asked not to and didn't like it?
Is this a 'farewell cruel ship' post? I can't quite make it out.
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
I asked this in Hell, and was redirected here by Hellhost Sioni.
For the pitiably uninformed, can someone translate LQ's outrage-cum-apology, or whatever that OP is, into short, simple, English terms?
Boogie already has!
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
So, you called someone 'Dobby', were asked not to and didn't like it?
Is this a 'farewell cruel ship' post? I can't quite make it out.
Possibly I'm dimmer than even I thought, but somehow a post ending with "I can't quite make it out" falls near the bottom of my personal Explanation Scale.
(Shrugs) Whatever. I guess it's on a "Need-to-know" basis, and I'm pretty sure I can live without knowing.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Sorry Porridge, I meant I can't quite make out his reasons for posting this. Does he want to stay or go? Was this a 'farewell' flounce or an attempt at re-engagement?
LQ has not been back since posting, so maybe our questions won't be answered anyway.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
Welcome back, LQ.
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
You're all right, Eliab.
I thin what it boil down to in this incident is, if you want us to tell people to back off when they name-call you, don't name-call other folk.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
Part of LQ's difficulty as I understand it, is that the debating discipline could be seen as disproportionate, given that it is perfectly possible within the rules of debate to politely state the view that homosexuality is an abomination and anyone who diagrees will burn in Hell for all eternity, but calling people silly names isn't allowed. Not an entirely unreasonable point.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
Maybe he had a point, but if called on something by a host, the correct place to dispute that is here, in the Styx and that's what he got called on by me.
Maybe you think that's disproportionate as well. Maybe you're right, but at least you're on the correct board to question it.
Spike
SoF Admin
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
It's also possible to perfectly politely state the view that Christianity is a 2,000 year old delusion which has led to millions of lives being ruined and blighted, especially those of women and gay people and to discuss whether people who believe in it with all their heart have some sort of mental problem but it doesn't help the chances of having that discussion seriously and in good order without massive derails if people insist on calling other posters 'witty' names like Gollum, Voldemort, Darth Vader or Noddy while they're about it.
If you want to have the gloves off and give up all pretence of discussing anything constructively or seriously because you think your adversary is a rat bastard who deserves it we have a special board - Hell - where you can do exactly that. What you don't get to do is to decide everyone else can follow the playbook for when we take things to Hell, but you are so offended you don't have to.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
As I regard it, the Ship does an extremely good job at providing an environment where LGBTQQ Christians (and indeed non-Christians) can discuss matters of importance to them, both those relating directly to their sexuality and those completely separate from it.
In the Christian world this is a precious resource and alas a rare one.
Indeed. The whole reason I got referred to the Ship (and you all got saddled with me ever since) was because of the fact that it provided a space where I might have a chance to be gay and Christian at the same time. The referral was because I was leaving a physical church where that space had gone.
This doesn't mean that everything's perfect. It doesn't protect me from occasionally running up against Shipmates I want to yell at for being freaking close-minded homophobes, etc etc. But the fact that there is room for me here, to be my queer-Christian-musical-lawyerly-analytical-argumentative self, is pretty amazing and not something I take lightly.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
It's also possible to perfectly politely state the view that Christianity is a 2,000 year old delusion which has led to millions of lives being ruined and blighted, especially those of women and gay people and to discuss whether people who believe in it with all their heart have some sort of mental problem but it doesn't help the chances of having that discussion seriously and in good order without massive derails if people insist on calling other posters 'witty' names like Gollum, Voldemort, Darth Vader or Noddy while they're about it.
If you want to have the gloves off and give up all pretence of discussing anything constructively or seriously because you think your adversary is a rat bastard who deserves it we have a special board - Hell - where you can do exactly that. What you don't get to do is to decide everyone else can follow the playbook for when we take things to Hell, but you are so offended you don't have to.
Excellent point. I't s not that name calling isn't "nice", it's that it usually, predictably makes the debate devolve into, repeated, hugely unedifying, mind-freezingly boring exchanges of -- more name-calling.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Maybe he had a point, but if called on something by a host, the correct place to dispute that is here, in the Styx and that's what he got called on by me.
Maybe you think that's disproportionate as well. Maybe you're right, but at least you're on the correct board to question it.
I don't have any quarrels with the rules of the Ship, and I don't hold the Ship responsible for the conventions of debate. I also agree that there are ultimately good reasons for those conventions being in place - it's just that some of those conventions do lead to rather bizarre outcomes. LQ's faux-naive narrative (let's hope it's faux, anyway) is in itself a legitimate and - in the right place - often quite effective technique. Sadly, this isn't the right place because it's not really a stance that invites debate.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
So, you called someone 'Dobby', were asked not to and didn't like it?
Is this a 'farewell cruel ship' post? I can't quite make it out.
I had hoped not, but given that the degree of comprehension, as your post demonstrates, has remained static, it would seem that I am indeed more invested in my relationship to the Ship than vice versa. Perhaps that's inevitable, but the "cruelty" is not and does not give me much to work with by way of staying.
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I don't understand why you are posting a fairly hysterical screed about it now.
From the use of words like "hysterical" and "screed", I take it that's a polemical lack of understanding, rather than the genuine kind that invites understanding. I don't "understand" why you're posting such a fairly disingenuous piece of ass-kissing reassurance to your hetero-overloards to distance yourself from trouble-making queens like me. ("It doesn't make me happy either, but it doesn't make me unhappy enough to threaten my cosy kapo colllaboration job helping to facilitate it").
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
If you have ideas for how it could be managed better I am sure that your input would be widely welcomed but at the moment your complaints just seem... well, inchoate. I'm sorry to put it so bluntly but I'd rather be honest about how I feel.
I hope you will take this reply in the spirit that it is offered, and don't be a stranger!
I like and respect you enough to know that you understand those two sentences don't hang together. If the idea that I should be entitled to the same application of the 10Cs as Dobby & co. is so novel and "inchoate" and hard to get your head around, I have my marching orders.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
So, you called someone 'Dobby', were asked not to and didn't like it?
Sounds pretty silly when you spell it out like that, doesn't it?
It does, doesn't it? If you paused for a moment of self-reflection, it'd almost make you think not every dispute is reducible to a trite, throwaway, Hellish Marvinesque bon mot. (But we can't have that!)
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
Not an entirely unreasonable point.
Shh! careful, QLib, do you want to get the boot with me? Of course it is an entirely unreasonable point: haven't you been reading? The Borg have spoken, and it is decreed that I am just being a crybaby and pitching a temper tantrum. Once I've gotten over my crazy idea that Christian discussion site can or should handle homophobia the way it handles misogyny or racism, my PMS will blow over.
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Maybe you're right, but at least you're on the correct board to question it.
Yes, here we are. Guess you'll have to pick another excuse for not engaging the issue.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
OK, so what is the issue?
(BTW, calling people "Dobby" is out of bounds in The Styx as well)
Spike
SoF Admin
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
LQ - I'm sorry I reduced your argument to a line, I couldn't see how hurt you were. It would have been far better for you to put your complaint straightforwardly imo.
I was bullied terribly on another forum for refusing to go along with the homophobic nuances there. I left and came here.
I am as far from homophobic as it's possible to get.
The thing I didn't like was your tone - you don't get things changed by shouting and calling folk names.
The ordination of women is also in Dead Horses - this isn't because the Ship is in any way anti. It's just the nature of the debate (it tends to be very circular, sadly)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
Once I've gotten over my crazy idea that Christian discussion site can or should handle homophobia the way it handles misogyny or racism, my PMS will blow over.
First, misogyny is just as allowable in Dead Horses as homophobia. Second, both misogyny and homophobia are alive and well in Christianity at large, so why on earth would a discussion site populated mostly by Christians not reflect that? Much as I wish they were both things of the past, there are some kinds of Christianity that are still actively promoting misogyny and homophobia, so it is in fact a good thing that there is a place here for discussing them.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
LQ - I'm sorry I reduced your argument to a line, I couldn't see how hurt you were. It would have been far better for you to put your complaint straightforwardly imo.
I was bullied terribly on another forum for refusing to go along with the homophobic nuances there. I left and came here.
I am as far from homophobic as it's possible to get.
The thing I didn't like was your tone - you don't get things changed by shouting and calling folk names.
The ordination of women is also in Dead Horses - this isn't because the Ship is in any way anti. It's just the nature of the debate (it tends to be very circular, sadly)
Nor by posting in something other than clear English with a dollop of sarcasm sufficient to discourage rational debate.
I did read it, I promise, but I found your OP awfully hard going.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
It's also worth noting (as someone pointed out elsewhwere) that heterosexual marriage can sometimes be a Dead Horses subject when the subject of headship comes about.
Also, I would challenge the accusation made by The Silent Acolyte linked to in the OP where he says
quote:
...quarantine discussion of same-sex love to its own special ghetto and thereby officially sanction animadversion toward gay people and their families
Not true. I refer you to the thread in All Saints for Weddings and Civil Partnerships.
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
If the idea that I should be entitled to the same application of the 10Cs as Dobby & co. is so novel and "inchoate" and hard to get your head around, I have my marching orders.
You are treated the same way under the 10Cs as any other Shipmate. Calling them names like "Dobby" is personal attack, which is banned. You may find their views offensive, but so long as they are not personal attacks they are allowed under the 10Cs.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I don't understand why you are posting a fairly hysterical screed about it now.
From the use of words like "hysterical" and "screed", I take it that's a polemical lack of understanding, rather than the genuine kind that invites understanding. I don't "understand" why you're posting such a fairly disingenuous piece of ass-kissing reassurance to your hetero-overloards to distance yourself from trouble-making queens like me. ("It doesn't make me happy either, but it doesn't make me unhappy enough to threaten my cosy kapo colllaboration job helping to facilitate it").
I am inviting you back to your
hell call, because I understand the concept that certain kinds of negative remark on this site are restricted to the hell board. I suggest you learn this concept, it is not hard.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Also, I would challenge the accusation made by The Silent Acolyte linked to in the OP where he says
quote:
...quarantine discussion of same-sex love to its own special ghetto and thereby officially sanction animadversion toward gay people and their families
Not true. I refer you to the thread in All Saints for Weddings and Civil Partnerships.
[link provided]
Re-challenge might be the better word for it. Here is my response to your original challenge to the snippet you quote. I'm puzzled as to why you felt the need to drag me into this thread when you already had your swing at me in September. But, since you have, I'll say nobody could reasonably argue that there isn't a certain amount of topic bleed, even into Purgatory.
However, bruiting same-sex wedding announcements and same-sex cake forks in All Saints is hardly germane to a discussion bearing on proper topics for Purgatory.
As I said in my linked response, I understand the rationale for the policy, I disagree with the policy, and, not wishing to re-litigate it, I dropped the topic way back in September.
But while I'm here, I'll commend RuthW, who most convincingly argues for the policy when she states upthread: quote:
[B]oth misogyny and homophobia are alive and well in Christianity at large, so why on earth would a discussion site populated mostly by Christians not reflect that? Much as I wish they were both things of the past, there are some kinds of Christianity that are still actively promoting misogyny and homophobia, so it is in fact a good thing that there is a place here for discussing them.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
...
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I don't understand why you are posting a fairly hysterical screed about it now.
From the use of words like "hysterical" and "screed", I take it that's a polemical lack of understanding, rather than the genuine kind that invites understanding. I don't "understand" why you're posting such a fairly disingenuous piece of ass-kissing reassurance to your hetero-overloards to distance yourself from trouble-making queens like me. ("It doesn't make me happy either, but it doesn't make me unhappy enough to threaten my cosy kapo colllaboration job helping to facilitate it").
...
This is the Styx, the board to discuss Ship's business. It is not Hell and personal attacks are not permitted. Calling another poster a kapo, aka a concentration camp guard, simply because they don't agree with you, is not acceptable. If you want to fight, then take it to Hell.
Which is kind of where we came in ...
Tubbs
Styx Host
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
I'm puzzled as to why you felt the need to drag me into this thread when you already had your swing at me in September.
I didn't drag you into it. It was LQ who linked to that post in the OP. To be honest, I'd forgotten all about it.
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
Once I've gotten over my crazy idea that Christian discussion site can or should handle homophobia the way it handles misogyny or racism, my PMS will blow over.
First, misogyny is just as allowable in Dead Horses as homophobia.
As is racism - I'm pretty sure we've had BNP supporters posting in Purg before now.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
Once I've gotten over my crazy idea that Christian discussion site can or should handle homophobia the way it handles misogyny or racism, my PMS will blow over.
First, misogyny is just as allowable in Dead Horses as homophobia. Second, both misogyny and homophobia are alive and well in Christianity at large, so why on earth would a discussion site populated mostly by Christians not reflect that? Much as I wish they were both things of the past, there are some kinds of Christianity that are still actively promoting misogyny and homophobia, so it is in fact a good thing that there is a place here for discussing them.
LQ raises an interesting question. Opposing the ordination of women and believing wives should submit to their husbands is not the same as saying all women are going to Hell. LQ asks why it is permissible to claim homosexuality is an abomination and gays and lesbians are going to Hell. The obvious answer is because millions of Christians truly believe homosexuality is an abomination and all gays and lesbians are on the highway to Hell. Fair enough. On the other hand, would a shipmate espousing the same opinion of a particular race also be tolerated? Would the views of Black Muslims and followers of Christian Identity be censored simply because the Nation of Islam and Christian Identity movement have fewer adherents than say The Southern Baptist Convention?
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Would the views of Black Muslims and followers of Christian Identity be censored simply because the Nation of Islam and Christian Identity movement have fewer adherents than say The Southern Baptist Convention?
If one of them turns up here we'll let you know. Until then I see little value in discussing such an extreme hypothetical situation.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I'll put this simply.
We are not censoring views. People have a right to say "homosexuality is an abomination, and homosexuals are going straight to Hell". People also have an equal right to say "that's a load of bollocks". People have a right to say that Shine Jesus Shine is a glorious song in praise of God, others have a right to disagree. There is no difference between discussion of homosexuality and any other subject.
We are censoring some ways of expressing views. Name calling is not an acceptable form of discussion, except in Hell.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Are you saying a Black Muslim,follower of Christian Identity would equally free to express their religious views on race as a fundamentalist Christian is their views on homosexuality?
LQ can correct me if I'm wrong but I think that is at the heart of his concern. LQ responded in a Hellish way to a post he thought was Hellish. I understand why you are saying the original post wasn't Hellish. It wasn't a personal attack on LQ. In my mind, the question then becomes would the same type post be allowed in Purgatory (not Dead Horses even) if the claim was about race and not sexual orientation. If the answer is yes, then LQ has no case. If the answer is no, then LQ has the right to ask why racist theological views are not allowed to be aired but homophobic ones are allowed.
For the record, I'd allow both to be expressed so long as no direct personal attack was made. On the other hand, hosts and admins accept as fact that one is as incapable of changing their sexual orientation as they are of changing their race. What basis is there then to treat abstract homophobic statements any differently than abstract racist statements?
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Well, there is an argument that the birther objection to Obama's presidency is a not very closet racist position. Certainly, the discussion on the 2012 POTUS thread suggested various participants thought other participants were expressing racist views. IRRC nobody was warned for expressing such views. Though there were periodic warnings to turn down the heat on the thread.
I believe some years ago people were banned when they registered under racially abusive user-names but that is a I think a slightly different issue.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Example of one such exchange on the thread. I make no comment on whether the attributions are correct.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Well, there is an argument that the birther objection to Obama's presidency is a not very closet racist position. Certainly, the discussion on the 2012 POTUS thread suggested various participants thought other participants were expressing racist views. IRRC nobody was warned for expressing such views. Though there were periodic warnings to turn down the heat on the thread.
I believe some years ago people were banned when they registered under racially abusive user-names but that is a I think a slightly different issue.
Do I really need to post links to the kind of stuff I'm talking about?
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
If you can find it on the ship it would be helpful - it just doesn't come up that often.
Closest we get on theological grounds tends to come up in threads about Israel or the persecution of Christians by arabs who are not Christian.
[ 20. December 2012, 18:00: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Are you saying a Black Muslim,follower of Christian Identity would equally free to express their religious views on race as a fundamentalist Christian is their views on homosexuality?
Yes
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Fair enough
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
I'm puzzled as to why you felt the need to drag me into this thread when you already had your swing at me in September.
I didn't drag you into it. It was LQ who linked to that post in the OP. To be honest, I'd forgotten all about it.
But, you did, Spike; it wan't LQ.
He incorporated you by name in his dog's breakfast of an opening post, but you gratuitously dragged me in—by name, with a quote—to a thread where I had been silent.
In September, you encountered my comment on the referenced thread (or, accusation, as you frame it) and you replied to it with proof-by-assertion and an admonition to read guidelines. Three months later you raise it up on this thread, apparently in an attempt to refute it and you could only offer us same-sex wedding announcements. In September, perhaps you were posting as an exasperated and testy Admin; I get that, in a Rodney Dangerfield way. However, your two interventions toward me on this thread seem to me to be purely petty pot shots.
I'll repeat it again: I understand the rationale for this policy, I believe RuthW makes its best defense here, I still disagree with the policy, I think it misguided, but settled policy, and, I have no interest in re-litigating it.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Example of one such exchange on the thread. I make no comment on whether the attributions are correct.
Perhaps the difference is that, at no time in my posts, did I condemn anyone or anything with my comments. I didn't say anyone was bad nor wrong; I merely stated my opinion of the recent election result. However, everyone who was offended (which was pretty much everyone) was quick to interpret my remarks as racist or worse.
That remains my biggest disappointment with the Ship: Everyone talks a big, liberal game, but that's only if you agree with their ideals. Heaven forbid you express distress over homosexuality (NOT condemnation, just concern), propose the idea that there actually are divisions among the races (NOT advocating them, merely pointing out the reality of it), and so on. Someone who is not open-minded to others' opinions, who sneers, berates and makes fun of you because you have a different opinion, belief or ideal, who all but calls you stupid, ignorant, disgusting -- that is really not the definition of being liberal. And that's what continues to happen here and makes this an unfriendly and unwelcoming place to try and have any kind of give-and-take that offends the "liberal sensibilities" of those who apparently know better than I. Liberal means, loosely, "not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms", but it seems they are simply bound by another form of self-service, as are we all.
Why can't liberals just be pro-liberalism? Why do they have to combine it with anti-conservatism? I've just never understood how that behavior can be justified by those who consider themselves to be life's most tolerant. I respectfully disagree.
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
