EPTOn June 25 2013 15:24 papaz wrote:
I couldn't care less if TL changed their logo from a horse to a rainbow.
I couldn't care less if TL changed their logo from a horse to a rainbow.
Why does it have to be one or the other? #FriendshipIsMagic
The Rainbow TL-logo - Page 68
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Shantastic
United States435 Posts
Why does it have to be one or the other? #FriendshipIsMagic | ||
|
NerdUpgrades
Canada41 Posts
| ||
|
Matoo-
Canada1397 Posts
On June 25 2013 15:04 Shantastic wrote: A source on general cultural knowledge? Men in heteronormative American societies have always been encouraged to wear darker, duller colors, and bright multi-color has been frequently associated with effeminacy, before and after the rainbow flag was designed. I thought you meant that anti-gay people had explicitely associated rainbow colors with gays as a means of derision. But in reality you're more talking about the "look this guy wearing a pink shirt, he's so gay" cliché. Apart from pink, guys have always been able to wear bright colors without getting called out for it, but anyway, yeah, I agree you've got a point. | ||
|
Arghmyliver
United States1079 Posts
On June 25 2013 14:31 Matoo- wrote: I support that. However, I often feel annoyed as how the rainbow has been taken over by the LGBT movement. I have rainbow wristbands from the 2008 Olympics, and also a great-looking rainbow umbrella bought just a few weeks ago. The colors of the rainbow have always been beautiful to me. But today if I go out by myself wearing either of those, people will think that I am either a) proclaiming my homosexuality or b) proclaiming my support of the LGBT movement. It's certainly not the end of the world, and I do support the LGBT movement, but there are times when I would like to wear the natural and timeless colors of the rainbow without all the added human baggage. I wish another symbol would have been picked. I dunno - someone correct me if I'm wrong - but I always thought the rainbow was a symbol of equality rather than just "gay" or "LBGT." Like - look at all the colors combining to create a comely collage! I consider myself a part of that rainbow - even though I'm a straight cis dude. I think we are all part of the rainbow. Spread the rainbow guys! | ||
|
RockIronrod
Australia1369 Posts
On June 25 2013 15:24 ZenithM wrote: "A torrent of whining white straight male people" vs "brave and heroic LGBT members", is that how we have to see it now? Sorry if I don't buy it. In people's minds oppressed minorities can do no wrong and are always the correct side no matter what. That, to me, devalues everything they do to the point of condescension. | ||
|
Shantastic
United States435 Posts
On June 25 2013 15:31 Matoo- wrote: I thought you meant that anti-gay people had explicitely associated rainbow colors with gays as a means of derision. But in reality you're more talking about the "look this guy wearing a pink shirt, he's so gay" cliché. Apart from pink, guys have always been able to wear bright colors without getting called out for it, but anyway, yeah, I agree you've got a point. Not explicitly anti-gay, but subtly homophobic. I was also talking specifically about multi-color. Wearing contrasting colors was (still is) associated with effeminacy and flamboyance, stereotypically "gay" traits. | ||
|
Arghmyliver
United States1079 Posts
On June 25 2013 15:34 RockIronrod wrote: In people's minds oppressed minorities can do no wrong and are always the correct side no matter what. That, to me, devalues everything they do to the point of condescension. Really? Everything they do? That seems a bit harsh. Maybe it's true progressive society gives more leeway to oppressed groups, but I don't think that devalues their cause. Certainly not to the point of condescension - especially at a general level. You are letting the possible allowances given to individuals of a population determine your overall negativity towards the group as a whole. That's like throwing away all your apples because you found a worm in one. | ||
|
Sententia
United States90 Posts
On June 25 2013 15:24 ZenithM wrote: "A torrent of whining white straight male people" vs "brave and heroic LGBT members", is that how we have to see it now? Sorry if I don't buy it. To be clear you're putting words in his mouth. His word choice of 'torrent' is maybe incorrect, more like 'small handful' of white cis straight middle class males, and he didn't imply heroism on his part just ignorance on their part. We should separate the semantic argument of the words privilege vs right from the idea of a person being offended that others have said their life is easier in many ways than a person in a similar situation but with the difference of orientation, I think they're both worth pursuing but if we keep conflating them the discussion gets confused. On June 25 2013 15:34 RockIronrod wrote: In people's minds oppressed minorities can do no wrong and are always the correct side no matter what. That, to me, devalues everything they do to the point of condescension. How in the world are you justifying that logic? An oppressed minority, by the definition of the term, has a harsh time of it. 'People' don't always take their side and ignore their wrongs, because if they (the people) did that, then they (the minority) wouldn't be oppressed. If you're talking about the concept of sacredness, of someone or something being above criticism, that's generally applied to religious figures not minorities. | ||
|
Sententia
United States90 Posts
| ||
|
RParks42
United States77 Posts
| ||
|
Sententia
United States90 Posts
| ||
|
RockIronrod
Australia1369 Posts
| ||
|
RParks42
United States77 Posts
On June 25 2013 15:04 Sententia wrote: You're incorrect here. I mean it depends on how you define definitive, as in do we have the same strength as a mathematical proof? No, but it's pretty damn conclusive evidence. While there are many prevailing theories on how you become gay, there is no definitive answer. I'm not saying this to dismiss being gay and support anti-gay rights, I say this because it's factually correct, and until legislation is passed or the scientific/psychological community finds consensus on a cause, it can't be said that it is 100% the choice or not the choice of the individual to be gay On June 25 2013 15:04 Sententia wrote: Regardless of whether people can choose to be gay the issue doesn't change. If a woman chooses to have a relationship with another woman, or if she simply can't have a real relationship with a man, either way she deserves the same rights as everyone else. You misunderstand the term discrimination if you think it doesn't apply to both situations. While there are many degrees to which there is discrimination, in legal terms in the United States, as long as the cause of the issue is one that is avoidable (aka not race/gender/height/age/weight/nationality and sometimes religion) it is acceptable for one to show an opinion on moral issues. When enough people have the same opinion, and the minority group is one that is by choice and capable of voicing their own opinion, then usually the laws will reflect this. Currently the Constitution says no to gay marriage, and it is my right, as it is yours, as an American to vote in a way that we see fit, and have the majority come to a decision. That is all I mean by discrimination, that there is going to almost always be some present, but it's whether or not there is an illegal amount of it happening. On June 25 2013 15:04 Sententia wrote: I can't believe you're comparing gay rights to hard drugs and murder, are you fucking serious? Obviously people who use the argument you quoted are doing it in the context of a fucking civil rights movement, not the trial for a murderer. You have some thinking to do if these are the "technically correct" arguments you were referring to. While I in no way want to insinuate that I put being gay on the same "moral acceptability level", it is on the same level in a legal sense currently. Many of the laws we have are dictated by a cultural morality, and are given the punishment or benefits that we see fit. If as many people in the US that are involved in the LGBT movement suddenly decided that the death penalty was wrong, it would be lobbied and debated for months until enough people felt that a change would be needed. When this happens, the State changes the law, and unless all but a few states go one direction and a few sour apples refuse to change (circa the Black Rights Movement), the Supreme Court need not be involved. This is what I mean by technically correct, as within the context of the laws and procedures in the country I reside, what I have stated is correct. To put it in StarCraft terms, just because I don't like how some units interact and need to be used, doesn't mean I can just completely state that the game is wrong and my strategy should have worked. I would make an opinion on an issue with the game, voice my complaint, and hope that the voice of the people changes the current landscape | ||
|
dartoo
India2889 Posts
| ||
|
Sententia
United States90 Posts
On June 25 2013 16:02 dartoo wrote: Hmm...okay, I still dont understand what the logo change was about.... at first I thought TL was hacked again, like the banner change that happened some time ago. Then I thought there was some announcement that was going to happen, like expansion into other games...that didnt happen either. Strange.. It isn't an announcement or any sort of change of coverage. It's a show of support for the battle for gay rights, because the TL staff are compassionate human beings and this week is a big one for pride organizations including the scene in NY, which is the TL HQ. | ||
|
RParks42
United States77 Posts
On June 25 2013 15:16 FabledIntegral wrote: Societal climate is wholly irrelevant. Doesn't matter if it will take time, it doesn't make the matter any less pressing, nor should it. Same with blacks and slavery. It still needed to be pushed hard in your face extreme back then. Just like the civil rights movement was as well. Social Climate is relevant, as if nobody were to have had a problem with slavery, and it was accepted in society that slavery was okay, it wouldn't have been outlawed like it was. There isn't a magical list that says exactly how everything is supposed to be and it'll one day be there. We get where we as a society would like to get. Secondly, while the Anti-Slavery movement and the LBGT movement are comparable in some aspects, there are some that they simply are not. One of those is in that blacks were not allowed to vote, and thus couldn't voice their own opinion and change the societal norm, that's why the supreme court had to stand in and change things via the 13th Amendment. Gays are not only capable of voicing their opinion, they have already made great strides in changing the communal view on them by passing legislation in states to legalize gay marriage. On June 25 2013 15:20 Shantastic wrote: Anyone else find it ironic that someone who has named themselves after Rosa Parks would be defending an anti-civil-rights position? Telling people what they can and can't do with their own body, to the harm of nobody else, is wrong. Your statement about not being able to murder someone is just stupid, and you know exactly why, so I'll ignore that. The reason you don't see anyone fighting for heroin user rights is that A) if you get your hands on heroin and ride out a heroin fix in the privacy of your own home, nobody is going to give two shits, B) drug use is not an integral part of western community life as matrimony is. If marriage opens doors financially and logistically to couples, it should be available to all couples. Also, anyone who thinks homosexuality might be a conscious choice should try choosing their orientation. Firstly I am not named after Rosa Parks, I just have the last name Parks, and secondly, I don't have an anti-civil rights stance, I have a "follow the law to a fault" stance on this and every other issue regarding social policy. While this may make my opinions seem sometimes "heartless", I make sure that my opinions are researched and follow US Legal precedent before voicing my "official" opinion. You seem to have the wrong definition of the word wrong, as it is my right to have an opinion as long as I follow the law, and currently the laws as they are in the US have many examples of telling people what they can and can't do regardless of the possibility of harm. So by you saying that part of my post was wrong, you are technically wrong. That is one of the hardest parts about this issue though, that the line between being correct or not is sometimes ambiguous, and always changing. And does anybody else think it's "ironic" that your reasons for why I can't do heroin are "nobody is going to give two shits", when apparently there are people that do care as it is specifically included in the Schedule 1 Banned Substance List, followed up with "drug use is not an integral part of western community life as matrimony is". You literally found a major part of the answer in your response, and purposely miss the meaning to justify an opinion of yours. If drug use isn't an integral part of our society, and it hasn't been made legal by the country, then there won't be enough of a movement behind it to ever change this. Marriage was deemed integral, and thus was included in the Constitution because enough people were for it. Gay marriage, is not, and has never been, an integral part of our society. That is fact, and it doesn't matter how "right" or "wrong" something is, or how much something should be a certain way, it's absence from our history as a country and scarcity in the history of the world in general is the result of it not being viewed as integral. Due to this, it is currently illegal, and has never had enough movement behind it to change this. It is already on the path of becoming legal though, and as more people join the movement this will only continue with time | ||
|
slytown
Korea (South)1411 Posts
| ||
|
No_Roo
United States905 Posts
On June 25 2013 13:45 Ghostcom wrote: I was contesting the lists, not purely based on semantics, but rather the fact that they were listed as reasons why a heterosexual person could never understand, or even sympathize with a homosexual. This is a logical fallacy. Especially when those reasons are, unlike their portrayal in this thread, NOT exclusive to homosexuals. It might not be due to sexuality, but due to other circumstances of which a person has equally no control over as this persons sexuality. Yes, completely with you on this point. It's very frustrating to be constantly told what I can and cannot possibly understand- as if someone other than myself could be the expert on such a topic. My ancestry, sex, and sexual orientation do not prevent me from being able to empathize with LGBT concerns. When people assert that someone cannot understand what it's like, what they're actually doing is saying they don't see any way you could understand. This is fallacious reasoning, it's an argument from personal incredulity. (I don't understand how you could understand, therefore you cannot understand.) I make a great effort (and encourage others) to not allow the people callously accusing us of not having basic empathy like this to dissuade us from being supportive of important equality issues. But please, if you realize you are one of the people doing it and the fact that the argument is fallacious isn't enough for you- please consider stopping, it does alienate your less patient supporters. I support equality because I can sufficiently understand what it would be like. If I couldn't understand it as some people are so willing to claim, then I would probably be another run of the mill bigot on these issues. | ||
|
gruff
Sweden2276 Posts
On June 25 2013 15:56 RParks42 wrote: While there are many prevailing theories on how you become gay, there is no definitive answer. I'm not saying this to dismiss being gay and support anti-gay rights, I say this because it's factually correct, and until legislation is passed or the scientific/psychological community finds consensus on a cause, it can't be said that it is 100% the choice or not the choice of the individual to be gay Sure science can't say exactly what makes someone gay but it can say with a fair amount of certaintly that it's not 100 % a choice. | ||
|
Sententia
United States90 Posts
On June 25 2013 15:56 RParks42 wrote: While there are many prevailing theories on how you become gay, there is no definitive answer. I'm not saying this to dismiss being gay and support anti-gay rights, I say this because it's factually correct, and until legislation is passed or the scientific/psychological community finds consensus on a cause, it can't be said that it is 100% the choice or not the choice of the individual to be gay I understand there are many theories and no definitive answers, it could have a lot to do with genetics, it could be heavily related to upbringing, or certain differences in the way the brain functions, etc. The fact is, and this is what I was referring to in the quote you have from me, none of the best theories have to do with choice. I assumed you'd understood this already and were just being pithy for some reason. Regardless of which theory proves out or if it ends up being a combination of these that we more clearly define in the future, none of it has to do with choice, and given the years and years of medical and statistical evidence and theoretical conjecture we've given to this subject I don't think it's a rushed conclusion at all. We're past the point where choice factors into this debate. On June 25 2013 15:56 RParks42 wrote: While there are many degrees to which there is discrimination, in legal terms in the United States, as long as the cause of the issue is one that is avoidable (aka not race/gender/height/age/weight/nationality and sometimes religion) it is acceptable for one to show an opinion on moral issues. When enough people have the same opinion, and the minority group is one that is by choice and capable of voicing their own opinion, then usually the laws will reflect this. Currently the Constitution says no to gay marriage, and it is my right, as it is yours, as an American to vote in a way that we see fit, and have the majority come to a decision. That is all I mean by discrimination, that there is going to almost always be some present, but it's whether or not there is an illegal amount of it happening. It doesn't matter how much discrimination exists or whatever you're saying, what matters is actions. You can't force someone to not think discriminatory thoughts, that's a feature unfortunately inherent to the human race through our years of social evolution, what you can do is punish discriminatory actions, for example using words like nigger or faggot. And sure we could make certain discriminatory actions illegal, but right now we're not even trying to do that, we're trying to remove the discrimination that the system itself enforces. Right now the system itself is treating some people unfairly, it's de jure prejudice. On June 25 2013 15:56 RParks42 wrote: While I in no way want to insinuate that I put being gay on the same "moral acceptability level", it is on the same level in a legal sense currently. Many of the laws we have are dictated by a cultural morality, and are given the punishment or benefits that we see fit. If as many people in the US that are involved in the LGBT movement suddenly decided that the death penalty was wrong, it would be lobbied and debated for months until enough people felt that a change would be needed. When this happens, the State changes the law, and unless all but a few states go one direction and a few sour apples refuse to change (circa the Black Rights Movement), the Supreme Court need not be involved. This is what I mean by technically correct, as within the context of the laws and procedures in the country I reside, what I have stated is correct. If you consider 'technically correct' to mean that is what the law currently says, then sure I guess you're right. Right now by law a gay person is less than a normal person, but don't you realize how you sound like a bigot when you say that view is 'technically correct'? You're throwing a confusing spin on the debate by not using the most applicable words. It would better represent your view to say that this discrimination is 'currently inherent to US law' not 'technically correct'. Unless you mean to imply you believe the current state of the law is how we should judge our morals or future changes to the law, which would be a terrible mistake. Laws by their nature being written in the past and slow-moving will always, always be behind whatever the current debate is on how they need to be changed, it doesn't matter if we're talking about civil rights or sports-ball or whatever the hell. | ||
| ||
