cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
It’s only eleven days since I reappeared here after an absence of two-and-a-half years, and it’s already almost time to go. Before I do, I would like everyone – posters and lurkers alike – to carefully read and think about what I have to say and, where appropriate, to trawl through the site archives to confirm the accuracy of my observations.
First, though, I’d like you to think about why I made my initial post on 31 August. What did I have to gain? If I didn’t like this forum, I could create one of my own – or at least I couldn’t, because it would need to be a good quality set-up in order to have a decent chance of survival, and I don’t have the requisite skills – but I’m sure I could find others who do. I don’t think it would be difficult to create the initial traffic: I already know enough people who like the idea. But that isn’t, and never was what I wanted. I was trying to focus attention on speed with which this forum was self-destructing, and that was something which I care about a great deal. I don’t claim to have an unbroken posting record, because I had many other claims on my time, but I was here fairly regularly between 2001 and 2007. If you weren’t here then, check out the archives and see what the forum was like in those days; it was very different from today. It was pretty much unique. Obviously there was occasional friction – that’s inevitable among any group of individuals with a range of differing viewpoints – but on the whole disagreements were discussed amicably; if they couldn’t be resolved, those involved agreed to differ, remained friends, and started discussing something else. There was an eclectic collection of regulars, of widely varying ages, and on the whole it was a friendly pace to be. There were other gay forums, but most were plagued by verbal violence at fairly frequent intervals, much to the dismay of their respective owners. APOS was a special place, and it meant a great deal to a lot of people. It was very special to me, too. It was something worth preserving, and I hated to see it falling apart. That’s why I posted; I wanted to shake the complacency among some of the few remaining posters and to try to encourage discussion about remedial action. I was clearly too late, and I see little point in remaining in the prevailing atmosphere, even if I have that option, which I rather doubt.
I’ve carefully read what Warren has to say. I know that his intentions are good, but he, too, is too late and, I would suggest, a little naïve. People have been badly hurt by what has happened here. I’m not suggesting that their behaviour was impeccable – is anyone’s? – but by any reasonable yardstick they were the victims, not the aggressors. Yet they are still being treated with rudeness and effectively blamed for all that is wrong. It’s wholly unrealistic to expect them to accept such treatment with equanimity.
The eighteenth century ushered in the Age of Enlightenment – a period of burgeoning ideas in philosophy, science and many other fields. It embraced Western Europe and North America, both before and after the American Revolution. It introduced new ways of thinking – for example, it saw the rapid development of Freemasonry, one early objective of which was to provide a setting in which good men on opposing sides in religion or politics could meet as friends without arguing their differences. It also saw a immense growth in learned and philosophical societies, following the model of the Royal Society, the origins of which lay in the 1640s. Debating societies mushroomed, especially in academic environments, and a merger of three such societies led to the creation in 1815 of the Cambridge Union, the world’s oldest active debating society. The rules of debate were adapted to create a framework for resolution of disputes away from the debating floor. These ‘rules’ are informal but are still accepted as the only civilised way to conduct an argument in writing. There are several conventions. It’s legitimate to attack the views expressed, but not the individual who is expressing them. Rebuttal must address the core views expressed, and demonstrate why they are invalid; it isn’t acceptable to focus only on peripheral issues. There are more conventions, but – as you’ve probably realised – the general idea is to practice courtesy and integrity in even the bitterest of disputes.
When I posted on 31 August, I deliberately followed these conventions. I also made my religious and political standpoints clear, and so far as I was able I not only expressed my views but also attempted to explain how I arrived at them. I didn’t enjoy equivalent consideration in return. My core arguments were largely ignored. Some were denied without any attempt to justify an alternative view. It was asserted that we were ‘engaged in a war’; that assertion has been repeated ad nauseam as if it were a fact, but once again no attempt has been made to explain how using such terminology actually helps the gay cause. This essentially peripheral issue was used to deflect attention from the substantive issue which is, of course, how best to preserve the forum.
Let me just repeat my basic stance on the 'war' issue. Ultimately, laws need to be changed to provide protection and integration (at least as good as that provided in the UK) for the worldwide GLTB community and all other similar minorities. Being gay, though a minority condition, is recognised by the scientific community as a natural state; it is not deviant. We would benefit from further independently-funded studies, particularly some research into the fundamental distinctions between homosexuality and bisexuality – if there is indeed a fundamental distinction rather than a scale of graduation – but from what has been established already we know that gayness is essentially genetic, although other factors appear to play a part. It certainly isn’t something we can either choose or reject. Many religious groups denounce homosexuality, all of them for archaic reasons, clinging to views formed long before science began to investigate the condition. In some groups, the denunciation amounts to sheer irrational hatred. This has to be overcome. How can it be overcome? In the ultimate analysis nothing short of a fundamental change in the law has a snowflake’s chance in hell of bringing lasting change. How do we achieve such a change? Well, we are by definition a minority group in every country. The only way we can secure change is by winning the support (what I have described as the ‘hearts and minds’) of those in the middle ground, who do not actively support the religious bigotry. One major strength of our position is the behaviour of the bigots and their free use of invective, violence and unscientific quasi-facts. If we stoop to their level, we lose that strength. Surely the only sensible course is to draw attention to the weaknesses of their arguments and the excesses of their behaviour, but without adding invective or speculative ‘facts’ of our own. There have been only two distinct responses to my argument – the first being the insistence that there is a war, as mentioned in the previous paragraph.
The second I found totally incomprehensible. I was told that I needed to take account of floating voter theory. Now the theory itself is extremely interesting, but it is a statistical concept and we have no database to which to apply it. And even if we did, I can’t see its relevance, since our need is to win majority support. Whether the votes of support come from those who have become fully committed or from those who are committed less firmly is immaterial. This gem was presented as if I had overlooked a basic scientific principle, but – as ever – no attempt was made to develop a counter argument.
Even worse was the crass rudeness of the ‘Parable’ thread, which in context can only have been directed at me. It implied that I was the ‘stony ground’ upon which the seeds of wisdom could not germinate. The irony, of course, is that the boot was firmly on the other foot – at no time had I denied the severity of the world situation, just the folly of describing it as a war. I have also been criticised for not taking a global view. Of course I take a global view, but the way to achieve influence is to deal with the ‘home’ situation and thus to secure the exercise political influence from the ‘home’ government. That’s exactly what is happening in Europe, and it works. I see the situation in the US in a different light, and I have explained in some detail why I cannot see how non-US residents can exert any influence in that arena.
And as regards crass rudeness, I would also refer you to the sequence of posts following that headed ‘Fribbles?’ in the ‘Evidence of War’ thread.
By now you have probably guessed where I’m going, so I’ll get down to the nitty-gritty. Go to the forum heading and read what it says there. Now – if you can summon up the necessary degree of masochism – read the last three or four pages of the archive posts, together with the current page. Make a note of all the posts you think are rude. On any realistic assessment, the site owner will be responsible for many of them; he does not appear to feel the need to follow his own rules. Note also that you, the posters are blamed for the predicament of the forum. You are getting what you deserve. When I came back to the site I delved deeply into the archive posts. It simply isn’t true. Timmy seems bent on getting rid of all that was good about this place. He seems incapable of appreciating that he is creating an unattractive and unfriendly atmosphere in which posters – never mind lurkers – no longer feel at ease. He comes up with a poll which produces entirely predictable results, but expresses surprise that those who would use a forum to obtain advice and information have not posted here. It’s because the site no longer inspires confidence or offers the safety mentioned in its title. Timmy has always had a bit of an ego problem – I can’t remember him ever apologising for being wrong – but his behaviour in recent weeks is astonishing and in many areas indefensible.
I will resist the temptation to say more. Timmy will inevitably have the forum he wants (and deserves). You don’t have to agree with me, but I hope you will at lease think deeply about what I’ve said. If you stay (or are allowed to stay), don’t sit on the sidelines, or on the metaphorical fence. Stand up and be counted, whichever view you take. Timmy may own the site, but it should not be allowed to become nothing more than a source of sycophantic adulation. If you simply keep your head down and accept the status quo, you do yourselves an injustice.
I doubt very much whether I will ever return; there really isn’t anything left to attract me. If you disagree with all or part of what I’ve said, feel free to e-mail me; I’ll think about what you have to say, and I promise to reply. Flames, of course, will be treated with the contempt they deserve.
Goodbye.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
