|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
So what do I do, now? Do I set the board so that each and every post is moderated before it goes up? Or can I trust you to behave properly to each other?
You all have opinions. Great. What you lack is the ability to express yourselves in such a manner that other people will listen.
Do I worry that Brody has an acerbic pen? No, not at all. But I worry when he attacks someone personally. He has a right to an acerbic pen, but he has no right to call names, nor to attack. Nor has anyone any right to attack.
Do I worry about the use of words such as Brit or Nigger? No. I worry instead about the context where they are used. A word is just that. It's a word. And the fashion for using words changes. It's not bullying to use the word. It is the context that bullies. I don't like hearing words used in a derisory context, but I don't get hung up on the word, just in the behaviour surrounding its use in a poor or offensive context. The Spastics Society became 'Scope' after it got fed up with poor usage of the word 'spastic'. Now they get called 'Scopies'. The British armed forces were forbidden to call the Falkland Islanders 'Bennies' because of their similarity in choice of headgear to a soap opera character. They started to call them 'Stills' Because, whatever the rules say, they are still Bennies, that's why.
Do I worry about some of you not appearing to understand that we are still fighting a battle for equality? Yes, I do. I don't give a tuppenny damn if you join me in campaigning for equality or not. I do worry that understanding is not exhibited. I worry that the war is ignored, or swept under the carpet.
Do I need to take control of this forum back and run it with a rod of iron? You've all proved that we queers are as bad as the rest of humanity in our inability to understand differences and to work within a framework of decency.
Do I care if anyone apologises to anyone else? Half. The other half wants to turn a fire hose on this place and sweep the lot away and start again.
Someone said to me that I need to set the rules out. I have, Can't you see them?
Why don't you read them, and think for a while.
If you come back after reading and thinking, ONLY come back in the true spirit of the place. Otherwise please never come here again unless and until you can behave. Don't post a goodbye note, just go. No-one needs to see you depart because we genuinely do not care. So go silently.
If you have something to say about how others have behaved, do not bother to say it. No-one cares.
So what do I want to see here?
Peace.
And we can discuss difficult topics peacefully. Or we could, once.
And we can campaign competently and peacefully. And we can comment upon the news that we see, or report or create competently and peacefully. And we can express our horror and distaste for things peacefully.
If you can't do that, go away and annoy other people. If you can do that and WILL do it, then stay.
CAN I trust you?
[Updated on: Tue, 31 August 2010 18:47]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
The man who makes this site work and I talk, unsurprisingly, about what happens here.
He has just said, on reading this post "I think you expect the impossible."
I queried this with him. He added "I meant it literally though. They cannot do what you expect. they are average. How could you expect not to get the normal share of human stupidity on that forum? just because there's a sexual bias in the distribution of people?"
I explained that a forum such as this can help those who need to raise their game.
He does not believe that you can. I believe that you can. What I wonder is whether you will.
It is interesting is it not, that, though he does not believe in you, he has always been more than willing to provide a forum for you to reinforce his disbelief. Either he, or I, or both if us may be masochists. One of us is right about you. Today I am not sure which of us it is.
You need to know that I have high expectations of you, some of which I fail to attain myself.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Timmy, I think you ARE over-optimistic, but your generosity of spirit is to be commended.
It is, I think, a matter of philosophy. That discipline embraces all political ideologies, and one of them offers a very clear illustration of the problem. Communism is an ideology which works perfectly in theory but has never been effective in practice, and the essential reason is its failure to take account of the imperfections of humanity. We will never accept being treated as universally equal because we are NOT universally equal. At one extreme, though there will always be a handfull of true believers who will be exceptions to the rule, services such as medicine and education will deteriorate because those who might otherwise be drawn to those professions are seriously demotivated by the realisation that all the extra effort required to accumulate the required knowledge will generate neither additional wealth nor additional status. At the other extreme, those inclined to criminality or egomania will find it relatively easy to manipulate their way into the corridors of power, and will be able to use that power to acquire ever more power and wealth by repression of those whom they control. So the ideology doesn't deliver, because we are imperfect creatures.
In microcosm, that problem exists equally in the interactions of a small group such as the users of this forum. If everyone - or indeed anyone - were to pusue his own agenda without compromise, the group would not survive, and that, of course, is the danger here. Compromise is the glue which holds all kinds of social groupings together. A group like the posters at this forum will be successful and attractive if all those concerned make due allowences for the feelings of the rest of the group. That was once the case; it isn't now.
You, Timmy, are in a special position. You own the forum and are thus in control, but if you want the group to 'gel' effectively it's essential to see things through the eyes of different posters. If even one or two posters find certain terms offensive, other posters can easily find alternative terms in which to express their views. It doesn't matter that you don't find the term 'Brit' offensive (and, for the record, neither do I); if others do, there's no need to use it, and to do persist in doing so is seen as an arrogant refusal to compromise - which, of course, it is. I do agree about the change of name of the Spastics Society, and I seem to recollect expressing similar views in a post some years ago, but that involved the creation of a new and essentially artificial identity. It isn't really a parallel situation.
Although I use the word 'campaign', which itself has military overtones, I don't like the overt militarism of words like 'battle' and 'war'. I am absolutely committed to the campaign (using the word in a political sense) to secure complete equality for gay people in every area of every society, but - though it's certainly a struggle - it isn't a battle and it isn't a war. The essence of campaigning is strategy; actions neet to be planned to secure progress - however small - towards the desired result. It's strategy, not protest, that wins hearts and minds. I don't think your worries are justified; I know of at least three regular or formerly regular posters who are ardent campaigners elsewhere but come here for the other benefits this forum has -or had - to offer.
It seems unreasonable to me to suggest - as you do - that no-one cares whether a poster has views about the behaviour of others. Nick obviously cared about Brody's behaviour, and was deeply hurt by it - and because have always had a profound respect for Nick's convictions, though I don't necessarily share many of them, I care simply because he was upset and I'd be very surprised indeed if I was the only one to feel that way.
So, despite my dislike of his anonymous status, I find myself in complete agreement with your moderator; your expectations of humanity are unrealistically high. The danger is that those who genuinely want the forum to regain its former status and function will courteously remain silent, whilst those whose self-righteousness transcends any hope of civilised compromise will continue to pursue their private agendas to the detriment of the forum and all all the others who contibute to it. And yes, I do mean Brody, and it seems pointless not to say so. Ultimately, the nettle will have to be grasped, but there's no need to damage the harmless plants which surround it.
Sorry to hijack the thread to express these views, but I genuinely believe that I am reflecting the views of the majority. If I've got that wrong, PLEASE say so - I don't want this to be a pesonal vendetta.
[Updated on: Thu, 02 September 2010 05:10]
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
There are several things I disagree with.
If you look at the USA, it is most assuredly a battle and a war. Even in the UK the battle is not won and the war is not over. Look at William Hague's unpleasant "I am not gay" statement and you will see that.
Words are not made special by their existence. They are made special by their context. Insisting that a word be not used is as much a bullying behaviour as using that word in an offensive context. If the word 'fag' is held as offensive, then the question 'Got a fag, mate?' is also offensive. Patently it is not.
When I say "If you have something to say about how others have behaved, do not bother to say it. No-one cares." I think you realise that I mean that no-one cares about people droning on and on about how 'Fred hit me and I hate him'. It detracts from the idea of getting this forum back on track. It's desperately upsetting that Fred hit me, but it is in the past. I used the past tense very carefully.
If people remain silent while wishing that things get better then they are living according to my colleague's assessment: "I meant it literally though. They cannot do what you expect. they are average. How could you expect not to get the normal share of human stupidity on that forum? just because there's a sexual bias in the distribution of people?" He is not the moderator, by the way. He's just an ordinary gay man and an observer of people.
I have always detested and despised the form of words "I'm sorry..., but..." All opinions are the better expressed without something that really says "I am going to say I am sorry, but I am not at all." When I have that phrase used to me in any context whatsoever I find that it downgrades what the person says to the level of valueless. When used in a customer service context I immediately cut the conversation and make a substantial complaint to the organisation about the rudeness of the person who utters it. It is a verbal stratagem to impose power on the person it is used against. WIth that in mind, please be surprised indeed that I answered any of your points.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Timmy,
Actually we do care, most of us, when people go away. When I dropped a hint that I might I had messages saying "Please don't go".
Actually the use of words can be moderate and caring or brash and uncaring and a gentle answer (sometimes) turneth away wrath. Surely we want the answers to be gentle?
I think Bush made a silly mistake when he called it "A war against terrorism" and his usage is creeping into the rest of the world's discourse. A war is between armies with soldiers. It is unhelpful to use the word when the combined forces of all nations couldn't even begin to fight because they haven't identified an enemy: there is no army to defeat. When an american soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan wants to kill someone all he has to do is say "There is a suspected terrorist." [OK I exaggerate, but I couldn't convey the truth in less than a paragraph.]
Even if we could kill the 'enemy' homophobes we would have done no good. Those we left alive and their friends would hate us more and, as they have discovered about us, new ones are being born and brought up all the time. Stonewall's circulation to schools of a video with a play showing how homophobia works is far more effective than fighting. And it works by persuasion, not confrontation. And it works, really it does. I don't believe the 'war on terrorism' has reduced the danger we [uk & usa] are in and any sympathy the third world felt for us has been dissipated by our actions.
And are you seriously surprised at the reactions of people such as David Laws and William Hague? They are frightened because the reactions of the world to their situations are so uncertain.
I think we should be trying to engage people's sympathy - even have them be sorry for us. At least it is liable to be less dangerous than war.
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
I did not think I was discussing Hague here. I am not. Had I wanted to discuss Hague, I would have chosen another thread.
I am watching people create the forum they deserve. My colleague is right. I must be over optimistic.
[Updated on: Thu, 02 September 2010 08:58]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RichardG
|
 |
Getting started |
Location: UK
Registered: December 2007
Messages: 12
|
|
|
I too have had an enforced absence though much shorter than Cossie- only a couple of months which included a while in hospital. Just before then I had said I would write about how I came to terms with being gay and found some inner peace. This was encouraged by a number of posters including Timmy. I have done some work on it although it is not complete.
However I would not consider posting after the events of recent weeks. The issues involved are just too sensitive for me to run the risk of someone denigrating me in any way.To make this sort of confession I really need to feel the audience is on my side. In particular because my chosen way to peace is not through campaigning, I feel that I ought to expect criticism (couched in acerbic language) from those in North America who believe we should all be at war. In short this is no longer a place of safety for me and I think for quite a few others. It is unrealistic to expect newcomers to read this forum over recent months and find it an appropriate place to share pain and anguish.
There may well be a role for a campaigning website although it would be largely preaching to converted. I am more confident that there is a role for a site to help those suffering because they are gay. I share Cossie's concern as to whether they can coexist on the same site.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Enough is truly enough 
