Striving for Equality

[tyler212]

I didn't even know this was a big deal on Bulba. I guess it has to do with me never caring much about others preferences.

But reading though the list of changes, I think the debate needs to be clarified a little but more. To me it sounds like your allowed to voice your opinion on the thread, you'll be hated for it but you still can say it. Where is the line in the sand before it becomes an infraction or worse. I have an infraction for asking if someone was on drugs for liking justin beibers music (I meant it jokingly), but most likely the person posting anti-LGBTQ things is going to be much worse, not always but I can imagine it happening.

 

[DerMißingno]

I'm definitely chaotic good (or evil depending on how you think of me).

If that's what you think, then my blog will definitely get some interesting responses =)

 

[Goodbye Blue Monday]

But reading though the list of changes, I think the debate needs to be clarified a little but more. To me it sounds like your allowed to voice your opinion on the thread, you'll be hated for it but you still can say it. Where is the line in the sand before it becomes an infraction or worse. I have an infraction for asking if someone was on drugs for liking justin beibers music (I meant it jokingly), but most likely the person posting anti-LGBTQ things is going to be much worse, not always but I can imagine it happening.

I'm not staff, but I think the OP in this thread is fairly unambiguous about this:

Anti-gay opinions of any kind will not be allowed outside of the Campaign Bus. What makes this difference from the original policy is basically that they're not going to try to make a distinction between "YOUR a fag!!111!!!11" and "well I just don't know if I think homosexuals are morally right or should be allowed to get married *innocent look*" All of that stuff is unnecessary and will be infracted. You don't have to ask where the line will be drawn because it's already been pretty clearly drawn.

For those of us with access to the Bus, the OP also said that details for the new rules for that forum will be posted there.

 

[Ultra Pidgeot]

This rule is not up for debate, Ultra Pidgeot.

We've been considering this issue for a long time - the idea was first proposed back in October 2011. It is not a product of "not thinking about it" - it's the product of a long, and sometime difficult reflection for many of us.

The decision is now made. The new policy is out.

I should have been more clear, apologies. I do not mean I intend to debate the rule in an attempt to get it removed. I am just debating the merits and implications of the rule.

 

[Bikini Miltank]

I should have been more clear, apologies. I do not mean I intend to debate the rule in an attempt to get it removed. I am just debating the merits and implications of the rule.

What part of "the rule is not up for debate" are you missing here?

 

[Ultra Pidgeot]

I should have been more clear, apologies. I do not mean I intend to debate the rule in an attempt to get it removed. I am just debating the merits and implications of the rule.

What part of "the rule is not up for debate" are you missing here?

Fine. Then if that is the case we (or at least I) are just debating what equality is.

 

[Hellion]

This rule is something that really makes me proud to be staff member on this site and I applause the staff for voicing their support for LGBTQ users and people.

Fine. Then if that is the case we (or at least I) are just debating what equality is.

This is not a debate thread. Period. If you want to create a general debate about whether or not laws prohibiting racism, homophobia, religious intolerance and such should be made in the name of equality or if they should exist at all, you can do so in Nicoleta's Bus. If you're not already allowed in Nicoleta's Bus, send @Nicoleta01; a pm asking her to be part of it. But, I think we've made it clear that the rule itself was not up for debate and it is expected for all users to comply to it.

 

[Ultra Pidgeot]

This rule is something that really makes me proud to be staff member on this site and I applause the staff for voicing their support for LGBTQ users and people.

Fine. Then if that is the case we (or at least I) are just debating what equality is.

This is not a debate thread. Period. If you want to create a general debate about whether or not laws prohibiting racism, homophobia, religious intolerance and such should be made in the name of equality or if they should exist at all, you can do so in Nicoleta's Bus. If you're not already allowed in Nicoleta's Bus, send @Nicoleta01; a pm asking her to be part of it. But, I think we've made it clear that the rule itself was not up for debate and it is expected for all users to comply to it.

I made a thread in the Campaign Bus about equality. It was promptly locked.

Lastly, I do intend to comply with the rule.

 

[Iteru]

I made a thread in the Campaign Bus about equality. It was promptly locked.

EDIT - Also, let's keep in mind that this is NOT to debate whether homosexuality is wrong or not. It is to debate the merits of the rule.

Nope.

Do feel free to make an actual thread about equality there.

 

[Ultra Pidgeot]

I made a thread in the Campaign Bus about equality. It was promptly locked.

EDIT - Also, let's keep in mind that this is NOT to debate whether homosexuality is wrong or not. It is to debate the merits of the rule.

Nope.

Do feel free to make an actual thread about equality there.

Yes, in retrospect, I shouldn't have thrown in the bit about the rule at the end. C'est la vie.

 

[Pastellorama]

I'm all for this. However, it is my hope we will see some similar rules appear for other areas and that there will be a stronger push to stop extremism in all areas more than anything.

 

[Master Mew]

Perhaps an equally forthright assurance of protections for other demographics would help assuage users' misgivings?

I worry that those whose religions teach the now censored perspectives (among others) will feel unwelcome without similar assurances of protection against hate-speech.

There's a chance that this will fall on deaf ears, but if censorship is the route we're going, let's at least be proportionate about it.

 

[Musashi]

Perhaps an equally forthright assurance of protections for other demographics would help assuage users' misgivings?

I worry that those whose religions teach the now censored perspectives (among others) will feel unwelcome without similar assurances of protection against hate-speech.

There's a chance that this will fall on deaf ears, but if censorship is the route we're going, let's at least be proportionate about it.

5. Other forms of discrimination
Other forms of hatred, such as racism, and sexism, will generally be given the same treatment as above, although some topics may be altogether banned (instead of tolerated) in Nicoleta's Bus; if they are, the rules of the Bus will say so.

 

[Goodbye Blue Monday]

I worry that those whose religions teach the now censored perspectives (among others) will feel unwelcome without similar assurances of protection against hate-speech.

I'm pretty sure the Bulba staff have always been proactive in infracting actual hate speech toward religious groups (including the non-religious).

The problem is that way too many of the people who whine about this think that any criticism of their religion's tenets or practices from outsiders is considered "hate speech."

 

[Master Mew]

The problem is that way too many of the people who whine about this think that any criticism of their religion's tenets or practices from outsiders is considered "hate speech."

Wouldn't that be a proportionate protection given this new policy?

 

[Goodbye Blue Monday]

No, it wouldn't. And if you really don't understand why it isn't, I..... don't even know where to begin with you.

 

[The Outrage]

Religion is a belief system, and you can debate the merits and downfalls of people having such a belief system. However, I'd think the rule would protect religious views by not allowing people to call religious individuals "mindless sheep" and whatnot. I've seen the merits of religion debated without such name calling.

 

[Master Mew]

No, it wouldn't. And if you really don't understand why it isn't, I..... don't even know where to begin with you.

Nice. Rather than explain your position, you just declare me too stupid to converse with.

Since you didn't expound on the stated difference, I'll assume here it would have fallen somewhere along the lines of one choosing their faith-based values, while one does not choose their sexual orientation - thus validating the disproportionate protections.

Of course, what is to you a choice is to the religious no choice at all - from their perspective, their faith is the reality of the world around them. They can't simply change it at will because they are tired of being mocked. If I were to mock someone for believing the sky is blue, would you suggest that they merely stop believing that and the problem would go away? Unlikely.

You believe, I assume, that homosexuality is natural based off of, I assume, personal knowledge and experience. The religious believe that a higher power exists and that their holy books are authored by that power, based not off of a mere, off-the-cuff "choice," but due to their personal knowledge and experiences. There are many reasons why one might change their beliefs about the world around them, but being mocked isn't one of them.

To them, their beliefs are every bit as much an incontrovertible reality as a sexual orientation is to anyone else.

Obviously there are no perfect metaphors, there will always be differences between any two things one attempts to parallel, but I see no consequential difference here.

If we ban the mocking, harassing, insulting, and degrading of one group unilaterally, why not extend that same protection to everyone?

 

[Goodbye Blue Monday]

Yes, Master Mew, the reason I wasn't addressing you is because you've shown a certain degree of willful ignorance and obtuseness on this issue in the past, and I fail to see why I should waste my time arguing with someone like that. All your wall-of-text did was further convince me that I was right. Your argument had nothing to with anything I was thinking.

But I'll state the obvious anyway, for the sake of others listening in:

Again, as I said, I have no problem with getting rid of ACTUAL religiously-motivated harassment. I'm all for infracting someone who says something like "All Muslims are terrorists" or "If you're religious you must be stupid" or whatever. I don't believe that just because religion is a choice (and I think that's a rather shallow way of looking at it anyway, since it's more "deeply felt conviction" than flippant choice) that people should be harassed for it. But an outsider disagreeing with the tenets and practices of a particular religion is not harassing people of that religion. First of all, there is no religion on Earth where people all interpret those the same way. Christians alone run the gamut from extremely liberal to extremely conservative, strict Biblical literalism to reading the Bible metaphorically/allegorically to not caring much about the Bible at all - and everything inbetween those extremes. So bashing one particular belief (say, opposition to homosexuality) is not bashing a whole religion.

Second of all, it's not like being an outsider of a religion means that you are not affected at all by it. Many of us were raised in one religion and later converted to another one or became non-religious; you bet we still have opinions on our former faiths. My dad's a pastor, for Pete's sake, so Christianity is a frequently-discussed topic in my family even though I don't consider myself a Christian. In addition, given the way that religious values and stories have influenced so many other, secular aspects of our culture - from philosophy to the arts - it's a part of our shared cultural heritage. Lastly, religious values, particularly the fundamentalist Christian values that I know are the ones you're thinking of here, are frequently used as a way to limit the rights of those who are not members of that religion. LGBT rights are one of the most prominent examples of this. You can't very well use those as a weapon to attack MY rights and then tell me I can't fight back.

On the contrary, there are no "tenets" or "practices" to being LGBT. ALL it's about is which gender(s) you are sexually or romantically to and/or which gender(s) you identify as. NOTHING else. There is nothing you can criticize about "being LGBT" that doesn't essentially amount to criticizing LGBT people themselves. Whereas, there are a lot of ways you can criticize tenets of Christianity (or Islam or Buddhism or Wicca or atheism) without bashing Christians (or Muslims or Buddhists or Wiccans or atheists), for the reasons I explained above.

Religion is an identity and a belief system. Sexual orientation/gender identity are just identities. That's the difference. It's the criticism of identities that is wrong here, not the criticism of beliefs.

 

[Fig]

1. While religion has a great importance in the life of many people, at the end of the day, embracing a religion or not remain a choice.

2. As such, while it will receive protection against discrimination and negative opinions, educated commentary on the topic, even if it goes against this or that belief, will be allowed. Criticism of religious organizations (which are like any other human organizations) will not be banned.

Example:
a. "The crossing of the red sea is such a fairy tale, it's dumb to believe someone could have parted water". Not okay.
b. "The crossing of the red sea is a part of Hebrew oral history that was written down centuries later. It should not be taken as a perfect historical account. Some translators believe it refers not to the red sea, but to a reed sea." Acceptable.
c. "The Catholic Church has at various time immoraly covered up sex scandals involving priests." Acceptable.

3. This thread not being about religion, drop it.