-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
LGBTQIA Thread |OT5| Can't even drink straight
- Thread starter Blood Diamonds
- Start date
- Status
Hello guys, I added more to the OT6 Rough Draft. I changed the title to DA's title suggestion, I hope you all like it. Otherwise, we can continue to come up with more fun titles. I added the rules, resources, the eventual wall of shame, and more words. I removed the Ally explanation from the acronym, based on the discussions we've had before about the topic. Ratsky told me not to over-think it so the thread is very casual, nothing too verbose. In any case, if there's something that you guys want me to change or added feel free to tell me.
Thank you all :3
I'm also thinking of using a gif.
Edit: this one, well one very similar to this:
Does anyone have the link for the other one that says Gay Agenda? Would love to use that one.
Thank you all :3
I'm also thinking of using a gif.
Edit: this one, well one very similar to this:
Does anyone have the link for the other one that says Gay Agenda? Would love to use that one.
chronos4590
Member
I think any of these titles are awesome XD.
You two are doing gods work today. Bless you guys. Now off to google
with no filter on
RatskyWatsky
Hunky Nostradamus
*thumbs up*
Aarglefarg
Member
It was just in a list of people regarding condemning our/their persecution, nothing specific.
"As Americans, we respect human dignity, even when were threatened, which is why Ive prohibited torture, and worked to make sure our use of new technology like drones is properly constrained. Its why we speak out against the deplorable anti-Semitism that has resurfaced in certain parts of the world. Its why we continue to reject offensive stereotypes of Muslims  the vast majority of whom share our commitment to peace. Thats why we defend free speech, and advocate for political prisoners, and condemn the persecution of women, or religious minorities, or people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. We do these things not only because theyre right, but because they make us safer." https://medium.com/@WhiteHouse/pres...remarks-as-prepared-for-delivery-55f9825449b2
Hours Left
Member
Good job.
Looks great. GoT memes. <3
DOWN
Banned
I'm personally not opposed to letting straight LGBT+ supporters know we want to speak to them too, so the ally inclusion made sense to me before. Some of them go out of their way to help the community, even when it isn't smart for them socially or politically, at work, among friends, and so on. I thought the ally reference was for those who go above in being supportive, instrumental, and in building their lives alongside LGBT+ friends and family so that it is indeed community for all involved and aware of the challenges being faced.
I always figured an appreciation of those people got them mentioned in the acronym rather than some perception that they forced their way in or are average passive straights needing our welcome in thanks for tolerance. There's a certain type of person who says something when a lot of people won't, who are willing to be a support and speak out, asked to or not. I'd personally say that they are in my own picture of what the acronym is referring to in it's popular sense, which is to represent the community who drives the rights and social movement toward acceptance, and those in need of its progress.
From parts of the conversation I've seen, it's felt like the decision to remove the mention of allies in this OT or lettering in general, was in part based on some sort of disdain for what it could be saying, rather than what it would actually be saying, and in part on pragmatism, which I don't think play into how the letters are generally used in a social setting like this one.
I wouldn't mind if ally wasn't included in a 'just because' sense of efficiency with the letters, but recalling the disagreement and confusion over its inclusion makes me wonder if it was specifically removed without a real need when it wasn't doing harm and certainly could have been doing good as it seemed to have first been intended here.
I suppose I'm just not sure of why it was removed or why anyone wanted it left out in the future for this thread, and I didn't see a good reason to do so.
I always figured an appreciation of those people got them mentioned in the acronym rather than some perception that they forced their way in or are average passive straights needing our welcome in thanks for tolerance. There's a certain type of person who says something when a lot of people won't, who are willing to be a support and speak out, asked to or not. I'd personally say that they are in my own picture of what the acronym is referring to in it's popular sense, which is to represent the community who drives the rights and social movement toward acceptance, and those in need of its progress.
From parts of the conversation I've seen, it's felt like the decision to remove the mention of allies in this OT or lettering in general, was in part based on some sort of disdain for what it could be saying, rather than what it would actually be saying, and in part on pragmatism, which I don't think play into how the letters are generally used in a social setting like this one.
I wouldn't mind if ally wasn't included in a 'just because' sense of efficiency with the letters, but recalling the disagreement and confusion over its inclusion makes me wonder if it was specifically removed without a real need when it wasn't doing harm and certainly could have been doing good as it seemed to have first been intended here.
I suppose I'm just not sure of why it was removed or why anyone wanted it left out in the future for this thread, and I didn't see a good reason to do so.
Blood Diamonds
Banned
what the fuck???? where's allies??? i'm so MAD!!Hello guys, I added more to the OT6 Rough Draft. I changed the title to DA's title suggestion, I hope you all like it. Otherwise, we can continue to come up with more fun titles. I added the rules, resources, the eventual wall of shame, and more words. I removed the Ally explanation from the acronym, based on the discussions we've had before about the topic. Ratsky told me not to over-think it so the thread is very casual, nothing too verbose. In any case, if there's something that you guys want me to change or added feel free to tell me.
Thank you all :3
I'm also thinking of using a gif.
Edit: this one, well one very similar to this:
Does anyone have the link for the other one that says Gay Agenda? Would love to use that one.
good job, this might be the most in-depth OT we've had lol
Hours Left
Member
LGBTQIA+ |OT6| Converting the Alphabet
Hello guys, I added more to the OT6 Rough Draft. I changed the title to DA's title suggestion, I hope you all like it. Otherwise, we can continue to come up with more fun titles. I added the rules, resources, the eventual wall of shame, and more words. I removed the Ally explanation from the acronym, based on the discussions we've had before about the topic. Ratsky told me not to over-think it so the thread is very casual, nothing too verbose. In any case, if there's something that you guys want me to change or added feel free to tell me.
Thank you all :3
I'm also thinking of using a gif.
Edit: this one, well one very similar to this:
Does anyone have the link for the other one that says Gay Agenda? Would love to use that one.
I've reworked some parts with the help of Dany <3
Mainly the first paragraph and the letters explanation. I'll go to bed now, but if anyone has more suggestions please don't hesitate to tell me.
I think Sai-kun explained it very well, I can't find his specific quote. Allies can be anyone, and it's not a sexual orientation or not related to it. Of course allies are always welcome but the decision not to include them in the acronym is not in a sense a political one. I guess pragmatism would be a reason why. I could add it back if you guys want. But again, I don't see the point? I can see where both sides are coming from and I agree with both! No one is wrong, both sides have a point.
Blood Diamonds
Banned
I don't get it like.. Ally is not a sexuality nor a gender... you're not oppressed because you're an ally... you don't have to "come out" as an ally...you don't have to seek shelter in other people like you... you're not persecuted for being an ally... you're not denied basic rights because you're an ally... you're not thrown off a building because you're an ally...
...so...??? what's the point?
...so...??? what's the point?
DOWN
Banned
Okay, maybe you guys could give me your perception of why it became a popular inclusion in the first place before I get into another long response?
Because if you have to go out of your way to take it back via consensus and note what sounds to me like 'reasons those straights don't deserve it', that seems like more than the idea of efficiently cutting out the 'unnecessary' in an acronym, and it doesn't carry such a neutral tone from what I am reading either.
Because if you have to go out of your way to take it back via consensus and note what sounds to me like 'reasons those straights don't deserve it', that seems like more than the idea of efficiently cutting out the 'unnecessary' in an acronym, and it doesn't carry such a neutral tone from what I am reading either.
Meicyn
Gold Member
Isn't the end-game to make sexuality NOT an issue? Aren't allies an integral part of making this end-state happen?
After all the bitching that went on in recent anti-gay threads, it strikes me as bizarre that we're so ready to relegate allies as less deserving of a letter in our acronym on the grounds of their heterosexuality while simultaneously proclaiming to the world that sexuality shouldn't be an issue. It's overcompensating? Our LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ acronym is already overcompensating in the first place! That's entirely the point!
I still hold strong to the opinion I gave weeks ago: what's the harm in being all-inclusive? I know I got an answer at the time, but it didn't change my mind. At any rate, that's my take on this whole deal.
After all the bitching that went on in recent anti-gay threads, it strikes me as bizarre that we're so ready to relegate allies as less deserving of a letter in our acronym on the grounds of their heterosexuality while simultaneously proclaiming to the world that sexuality shouldn't be an issue. It's overcompensating? Our LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ acronym is already overcompensating in the first place! That's entirely the point!
I still hold strong to the opinion I gave weeks ago: what's the harm in being all-inclusive? I know I got an answer at the time, but it didn't change my mind. At any rate, that's my take on this whole deal.
Blood Diamonds
Banned
...and the whole point of LGBT+ is minorities being repressed? it's not "hey there's just as much homosexual/transgender people as straight people but we don't like them so we have our own little group" it's "we're being persecuted, killed, denied basic rights, thrown off from buildings so we have this little group to try and find shelter in"
Dead Prince
Banned
too much text. not enough pictures.
kitchenmotors
Banned
I really dislike all nuisance regarding the inclusion/exclusion of ally. This thread is primarily for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender members along with other sexual and genders users. What purpose does the addition of ally serve when it's implicitly implied to any thread on this website? Anyone can post here or anywhere. But this thread serves a purpose and a focus and Blood Diamonds stated above.
No one is saying that del.
No one is saying that del.
umop_3pisdn
Member
Have straight people ever expressed an interest in being included or what meaning they'd gain from us including them? Because frankly I'm not sure what it would be to them. Obviously we're going to appreciate the people that appreciate us, but arguably the purpose and integrity of 'fringe' identities comes from them being lateral to the centre somehow.
I'm not for it, no. I don't think that being an ally makes you a member of a group. It's nice when done well, but there's always a gap between the experience of being a member of an oppressed minority and simply supporting that group as an outsider.
Of course, if you guys wanted to have it in the title I'd be fine with whatever but it's not something I'm going to advocate for.
I like the idea of allies being represented as part of the community as well. For example, what about the straight child of same-sex parents?
Adding a bit more nuance to the conversation, I guess you could also say that "ally" doesn't necessarily have to mean that one is straight; for instance, a gay or lesbian person could be an ally for transgender rights.
(I'm ultimately not that fussed though, just adding my 2c.)
Adding a bit more nuance to the conversation, I guess you could also say that "ally" doesn't necessarily have to mean that one is straight; for instance, a gay or lesbian person could be an ally for transgender rights.
(I'm ultimately not that fussed though, just adding my 2c.
)
Meicyn
Gold Member
Well, I've been completely mistaken all this time then. I was under the impression that this community was about the common goal of achieving equality for all. Apparently the point of LGBT+ is to complain about repression.
Eh, I'm out. I've said my piece. Do what you all will.
Alright then.
No. We are for the progression of LGBT+ rights. We are not equal not should be pretend to be.
I agree with this.
Necromanti
Member
Having the title be something like the acronym of choice addended with "...& allies" could be a compromise if people really wanted it, no? It doesn't necessarily need to be rolled into the acronym itself. However, I would lean towards the stance that it may not be a necessary addition and that it might go without saying. (A line or two could be added to the OP reflecting that appreciation, however.) But what do I know?
chronos4590
Member
The whole ally thing is to become as inclusive as possible BUT it really defeats the purpose of the rest of us queer folk really. Especially when they are people who are stigmatized and oppressed for not strictly aligning in part of a binary perspective of sex and gender that we live in. People who are different in their sexuality(Or lack of), sex, gender intersex or sex category so many people are at harm for not fitting under what our allies have the privilege to be in.
Its a no brainer that anyone who is accepting to come in talk or ask questions but what we are here for is for our people. thats our focus. Plus for a lot of people the A is asexual (which is what i thought it always was anyway) And when you live in a world feuled by sex and things are so organized by gender and sex and you may not have the drive (lack of better words) or dont fit in so strictly to that binary assumption of sex sexuality and gender, one can see that as kinda a slap to the face to them i guess.
Its a no brainer that anyone who is accepting to come in talk or ask questions but what we are here for is for our people. thats our focus. Plus for a lot of people the A is asexual (which is what i thought it always was anyway) And when you live in a world feuled by sex and things are so organized by gender and sex and you may not have the drive (lack of better words) or dont fit in so strictly to that binary assumption of sex sexuality and gender, one can see that as kinda a slap to the face to them i guess.
ZombiePlatypus
Member
I feel like this is maybe becoming more of an issue than it really should be. I really don't mind either way, but I guess I fall more onto the "always go the inclusive route" so my 2cents are might as well include allies as a nod to them. Some of them get persecuted by extension or association...
I like the idea of allies being represented as part of the community as well. For example, what about the straight child of same-sex parents?
Adding a bit more nuance to the conversation, I guess you could also say that "ally" doesn't necessarily have to mean that one is straight; for instance, a gay or lesbian person could be an ally for transgender rights.
(I'm ultimately not that fussed though, just adding my 2c.
I don't see why allies have to be included as part of the community. No other community does this. No other OT feels the need to include "& Allies" at the end of it. Why this one all of a sudden? Just because they're technically not part of the LGBT community it doesn't mean they can't be part of THIS gaf community. They are still more than welcome. That's expected of any thread on this site just like Dany said.
I always thought it was for asexual too.
Oh I don't think they have to be an explicit part of a title/OT - like I said, I'm not that fussed (I've usually seen the "A" standiing for Asexual foremost, and sometimes Ally second). To elaborate with a bit of personal experience about where I was coming from with that example, I'm the child of same-sex parents (though I'm not straight either, lol), and by extension, due to the circles we mix in I know several other same-sex couples with adult children - they're not all lesbian/gay/bi, but it still feels like they're part of that community. So that's why I guess I've always been fairly open to the idea of acronyms making reference to LGBT+ allies.
But I do completely understand the argument that Dany and others are making too.
RatskyWatsky
Hunky Nostradamus
It is, though it could technically also mean Allies. Or Alligators. Whoever sees the acronym can get whatever they want out of it since some of the letters are ambiguous (Q for queer or questioning, etc.) - if you're asexual you say to yourself "Oh, I'm included!" or if you're an ally you think "How nice, I'm welcome too!".
For that reason, I don't think we need to include "& Allies!!" in the thread title, but for the last few OT's we've made a point to say that everyone is welcome (even non lgbt folks):
From Sai's OT:
Mine:
This one:
so I don't see why there shouldn't be something similar in the next OT.
I think it'd be great to include something like that in the next OT. It's how we've always approached things (except for that Jeffrey guy that didn't want lesbians here).
RatskyWatsky
Hunky Nostradamus
with gay parents, how could you be?
DOWN
Banned
Again, I'd really love to hear why people think ally became a popular inclusion, since it clearly was not started by people in this thread. And I was never specifically talking about the title, but rather of any mention of allies and the debate about whether the A that is going to be in the title is being singled out as not-for-ally.
I'm not in that 'your inclusion makes my exclusive group weaker' perspective and I don't get it. I think it is one thing to debate about adding allies to the abbreviations if it had never been thought of before, but this sounds like a discussion to get rid of it's use as part of this thread.
It seems like ill-spirit being a cause for removing something that was included in good spirit. Like some feelingl it has to be ours as a thread because straight people already are part of too much just because they are straight, so even if they are a true ally, they are straight and threatening based on that alone.
A worry that it would look like over-compensating or saying it was unnecessary sounds like there is some lack of security around whether or not we are accidentally acknowledging passive or negative straights some of us feel scorned by, when I understand ally to be specific enough to be secure in who it is referring to, what their track record is, and how close the movement is to them, too.
Deciding to specifically stop mentioning allies in the new OT or to stop considering the A to have ally as one of it's meanings seems far less necessary than whatever reasons it became popular to include in the first place.
I'm not in that 'your inclusion makes my exclusive group weaker' perspective and I don't get it. I think it is one thing to debate about adding allies to the abbreviations if it had never been thought of before, but this sounds like a discussion to get rid of it's use as part of this thread.
It seems like ill-spirit being a cause for removing something that was included in good spirit. Like some feelingl it has to be ours as a thread because straight people already are part of too much just because they are straight, so even if they are a true ally, they are straight and threatening based on that alone.
A worry that it would look like over-compensating or saying it was unnecessary sounds like there is some lack of security around whether or not we are accidentally acknowledging passive or negative straights some of us feel scorned by, when I understand ally to be specific enough to be secure in who it is referring to, what their track record is, and how close the movement is to them, too.
Deciding to specifically stop mentioning allies in the new OT or to stop considering the A to have ally as one of it's meanings seems far less necessary than whatever reasons it became popular to include in the first place.
Elitist1945
Member
That show fucking rocked.
Dunno, if anything its probably because its slightly pandering as allys are of course welcome. A has been asexual to my minds eye. A for ally distorts the abbreviation and our intentions and i think more folks realize that.
He's posting that because of our discussion.
- Status