Thread: Striving for Equality

Originally Posted by Aestivate

Asking people to keep their bigoted beliefs that oppress a group of people away from Bulbagarden is hardly a retraction of rights. It is not intolerance to take a stance against intolerance.

Indeed. If somebody started a Pro-Ku Klux Klan (for those non-US folks, they are a racist group that was originally started in the Southern United States after the Civil War to restore white supremacy ideals) social group on our forums, I doubt that many would complain if we took it down. Sadly, when we do the same to discrimination against homosexuals, some people complain because this hatred against homosexuals is still considered "socially acceptable" in many parts of the world (as is proven time and time again with laws created with the sole purpose of keeping LGBTQ people as second class citizens).

These are some really inspirational posts and so is the thread. :D

Woot! I'm glad you made a point about this.

However, I would just like to state something, because a few posts have reeeeally annoyed me.

Don't blame homophobes on The Bible. I'm heavily Christian, but I am in no way against same sex marridge or the like. I'm perfectly okay with it, like many who are religious.

As for "those who go to church and read the bible are taught to be homophobes" ... no. No we are not. We decide whether we agree with The Bible or not. Religion does not provoke homophobes.

Would just like to state that sticking up for this announcement doesn't mean you have to bash The Bible.

Thanks. And awesome rule, well done Bulbagarden

May I remind everyone of the actual text in the announcement?

We are NOT asking every last member, or staff member, to agree with us, or argue for this point of view. Everyone is free to reach their own conclusions. What we do demand is that people respect the rules and policies we have decided on as a result of our conclusions.

You don't agree with it? That's cool. We're not outlawing you from being on the forums. All we're asking is for you to respect the rules dictated to you, the rules you agreed to abide by when you joined the site. If not, be prepared to face the consequences. We're not being demonic or authoritarian in any way.

Originally Posted by Evil Figment

And frankly, it IS equality to say that our LGBTQ users should be able to enjoy the forum without having to deal with people telling them what they are is immoral/wrong/a disease/disgusting/whatever other idiocies the anti-gay side can conjur up.

After all, our straight members get to enjoy the site without being called any such things.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but since there are already rules against Flaming and Baiting, Abuse and Harassment, and Violent Acts, I would think (and I think that's what a few others also understood) that such behavior was already frowned upon. In fact, I have to agree with... another user, whose name eludes me at the moment, in that I have never seen any sort of anti-gay sentiment on the forums. Maybe there was, and the mods dealt with it swiftly enough that some of us never even noticed it; which just goes to show how well the people in charge are at what they do. Ironically enough, the first time in two years that I've ever seen any sort of anti-gay sentiment was in either this thread or the news thread about this announcement.

Personally, I have no hatred whatsoever of LGBTQA people. Quite the contrary, I find those who do to be intolerant and bigoted. However; when you say "this group of people is off-limits" -and that goes for any group of people-, it doesn't sound like equality. It sounds like -and again, please forgive me if this sounds inappropriate-, special treatment. The issue isn't "we should have the right to insult people" (at least not for me; I have said a few times that I have no intention of insulting anyone, and I apologize if it might end up sounding that way), but rather "we shouldn't be barred from discussing certain topics".

And making it a rule that you can't isn't equality, even if it's the right thing to do. In an administrative position, I'd have done the same thing - but I wouldn't say it's equality. I'd simply say, "this is my site and I don't want people to do this". Which is, as you said, exactly what's going on, and those who don't like it can leave.

Originally Posted by Quattro ~ Bajeena

Sorry, but standing up for the bigots does not make you a social activist or a freedom fighter...it makes you a bigot because you're reinforcing that behavior.

A bigot, according to the dictionary, is "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion". Under this definition, even someone with the "right" opinion can be a bigot.

If I say that a bigoted ass has the right to be a bigoted ass, it doesn't mean I support his or her opinions, bigotry, and/or stubborn foolishness. It just means that he has the right to his views, even if they're views that I myself would find morally reprehensible.

Although I know most of this forum would disagree with me, I applaud Ultra Pidgeot for saying what he did. It takes a lot of guts to put yourself out on the floor like that where everybody can rip you apart, even if you agree with the views of the people ripping on you.


Also, congrats to the staff for stepping up the game. You just made many, many forum users happy.

Originally Posted by Ultra Pidgeot

This rule is not equality, it is just taking the hatred, the intolerance, and the non-acceptance, and redirecting it at another group. That is not, nor will ever be "equality".

Nowhere in this new policy is it saying that people are now allowed to tell individuals who hold homophobic values that they are "going to hell" or are an "abomination" and that they shouldn't have the same basic human rights the rest of the population gets, or that they aren't allowed to hold the views that homosexuality is wrong. It is simply saying that those individuals themselves can't say those things to others.

If you equate a policy that tells people to stop spreading hate-speech on the forums to redirecting hatred, intolerance, and non-acceptance, then I really don't know what to say to you. What's happening here is the silencing of hate-speech on a Pokemon forum so that, we as fans, can gather together in a positive space and discuss what we love, namely Pokemon.

If you are an individual who believes that creating a positive space for one group infringes on your positive space, making your overall experience more negative, then this is your issue.

Personally, I was confused with the announcement because I was under the assumption that the current rules already protected all users from being the target of hate-filled speech regardless of their social group. The only difference that I see now is that the BMGF staff are taking an active role with LGBTQ-rights by explicitly stating the rules that we currently have are applicable to homophobia and heterosexism as well. Quite ironic that there is even dissent given that this policy did not need to be explicitly stated to have been upheld under the current rules. I mean, did it just hit you on the head now that this kind of speech wasn't allowed at all? Or did you think it wasn't allowed except for this one exception?

I still find it amazing that in this modern age that people can still hold onto such bigotry, does it really matter what person's preferences are in terms of liking the same or opposite gender? I honestly have no problem at all with the subject, the gift of free will lets us decide these things. While I personally prefer the opposite gender, I know there is another person who would prefer the same gender, there are some who even like both the same!

All over the world people preach about freedom of speech, well what about the freedom to love whomever we choose and be allowed to express it without fear of reprisal? Future generations will judge us for the choices we make now, choose to stop the hatred and choose to let all men and women, young and older, be equal everywhere!

We all live under the same sun.

I appreciate Bulbagarden's efforts to create an Oasis in a rather bleak world and I support this.

I still harbor mixed feelings toward homosexuality, a part of me says that it is immoral yet another part says that a lot of things I do are immoral.

Perhaps I'll never understand homosexuality and perhaps I'll never fully support it but I am glad of this attempt of peacemaking.

As one of Bulba's LGBT users, I am really thankful to the staff for this.

The fact that homosexuality/bisexuality/transgender identities are real and should be accepted, and those people should be equal citizens, should be no more of a "debate" than whether women or non-white people should be accepted as equal citizens.

And for those who are butthurt about this rule, and claiming it's "Big Brother"-esque: Oh, come on. If you honestly think it's "oppressive" that someone has to keep a certain hurtful, inflammatory opinion to themselves on a private website* you have no idea what true oppression is. Take it from a relatively-privileged LGBT person: what we face from homophobes is much, much, MUCH worse than what you're being asked to do here. Your ability to see this as "oppressive" is itself a marker of your privilege.



*Also, while it's already been said in various forms that the First Amendment only applies to government/public institutions, not private ones, I just wanted to say as a huge anti-censorship advocate that those of you who conflate the two are really, really NOT helping our cause.

I chose a great time to wander these parts again, it's great that the Pokemon community is tolerant

You know what I hate about announcements like this one? It brings stuff like this out of the woodwork:

Originally Posted by Vhazhiphor

when you say "this group of people is off-limits" -and that goes for any group of people-, it doesn't sound like equality. It sounds like -and again, please forgive me if this sounds inappropriate-, special treatment. The issue isn't "we should have the right to insult people" (at least not for me; I have said a few times that I have no intention of insulting anyone, and I apologize if it might end up sounding that way), but rather "we shouldn't be barred from discussing certain topics".

Those "topics" are bulbacrap.

And let me tell you, as a bisexual transgendered person there's nothing anyone could bring up in one of those "topics" that I haven't already heard twenty times. Because those "topics" are nothing but harrassing other people and being incredulous of how they choose to live their lives, in ways that don't hurt anyone else.

Unless you face that kind of crap everywhere you go. Unless you're scared that everyone who is friendly towards you will suddenly hate you when they find out. Unless you're terrified to so much as put an arm around your significant other. Unless you've shaken with fear while trying to use the public restroom, because you feel like you're being smuggled out of Soviet Russia and if anyone finds you they'll beat you down. Then you have no idea what you're talking about, or what you're trying to insist is okay.

These "topics" are as flat-out wrong as the racist examples that people are using. As yelling at poor people, kids, and the elderly. The only difference is that you live in a society where it's still acceptable, to voice your honest opinion that people like me are diseased and sinful and unnatural and sexual predators and are going to hell for eternity. To not have to understand what it's like to know you can face that at any moment, from anyone, including someone you loved.

Please, until you do understand, shut up. Everyone who wants to defend this. Just stop it.

Does anyone know when the relevant thread in the Campaign Bus will go up? I didn't see anything about it.

Originally Posted by Jewelfox

As yelling at poor people, kids, and the elderly.

I think these are still pretty socially acceptable. I mean, if I had a nickel for every time I heard the pathetic "Poor people are just lazy! They just need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get a job!" argument in Internet political debates...

And condescending views of children or the elderly are actually the norm in some circles.

(Sidenote: I don't know if I really agree with people that "no one gets mad if you try to prohibit racism or sexism." My experience with those issues here on Bulba has mostly been good but, overall, as a bisexual woman I've felt more attacked for my gender than for my sexual orientation in my encounters online, and I've seen more resistance from people if you try to ban sexist remarks than homophobic ones. People may not be debating women's rights to political equality but there still is plenty of male butthurt on the Internet when you so much as suggest that women and girls should be able to comment without having to hear "show us your tits" or "shut up and go make me a sammich" every time their gender comes out. And that's not even going into more subtle forms of online sexism that women often encounter, such as mansplaining. As a white person, I can't speak to racism as well since it isn't usually directed at me, but I've heard similar things from people of color about those issues.)

+1 to my faith in humanity, which was dipping in the negative digits as of recently. Thank you, Bulbagarden. I really needed that.

Originally Posted by Jewelfox

You know what I hate about announcements like this one? It brings stuff like this out of the woodwork:

Originally Posted by Vhazhiphor

when you say "this group of people is off-limits" -and that goes for any group of people-, it doesn't sound like equality. It sounds like -and again, please forgive me if this sounds inappropriate-, special treatment. The issue isn't "we should have the right to insult people" (at least not for me; I have said a few times that I have no intention of insulting anyone, and I apologize if it might end up sounding that way), but rather "we shouldn't be barred from discussing certain topics".

Those "topics" are bulbacrap.

And let me tell you, as a bisexual transgendered person there's nothing anyone could bring up in one of those "topics" that I haven't already heard twenty times. Because those "topics" are nothing but harrassing other people and being incredulous of how they choose to live their lives, in ways that don't hurt anyone else.

Unless you face that kind of crap everywhere you go. Unless you're scared that everyone who is friendly towards you will suddenly hate you when they find out. Unless you're terrified to so much as put an arm around your significant other. Unless you've shaken with fear while trying to use the public restroom, because you feel like you're being smuggled out of Soviet Russia and if anyone finds you they'll beat you down. Then you have no idea what you're talking about, or what you're trying to insist is okay.

These "topics" are as flat-out wrong as the racist examples that people are using. As yelling at poor people, kids, and the elderly. The only difference is that you live in a society where it's still acceptable, to voice your honest opinion that people like me are diseased and sinful and unnatural and sexual predators and are going to hell for eternity. To not have to understand what it's like to know you can face that at any moment, from anyone, including someone you loved.

Please, until you do understand, shut up. Everyone who wants to defend this. Just stop it.

I'm sorry if what I'm saying sounds offensive to you. I do not pretend to understand what you've been through. I know that I can't. But I think you're misunderstanding what I'm trying to say, because I'm not trying to make any points in that regard.

What is it that I'm trying to insist is okay? I'm trying to say that it should be okay to talk about things. Topics, issues, people. That's all I'm trying to say. I never said it was okay to offend, or insult, or persecute them in any way. I have said that I think it's wrong when that happens. And I'd like to point out that I am discussing this rule, not any particular concerned party. As I've stated in my posts, I'll give the same reply to any other "topic" that came up. I feel the need to explain that I harbor no ill will whatsoever precisely because of misunderstandings like this one.

Now, I do take issue that such a ruling -a ruling whose sentiment I insist, share, and agree with- is labeled as "equality" when it isn't, even if it's the right thing to do, which I said in the very post you quoted. But I have no need or desire to insult, persecute, or otherwise bash anybody. Do you think I want the topic/issue/situation open to discussion so I can hate on people? Because it seems to me you're under the impression that I want permission to call you names and make you feel horrible about yourself, and I do not want that at all. I'd like to know if there's anything I've said that makes you feel that way, so I can revise it and try to explain myself better.

To clarify my point of view, I don't think excepting a certain issue -repeat; any issue- from discussion falls under the definition of equality. I don't think censorship is ever a preferable method to healthy discussion. It's not about prohibiting gay-bashing (which I am in favor of, and was under the impression that was already forbidden), it's about prohibiting discussion. That's the part I don't agree with.

And I'm sorry, but saying that somebody can't weigh in on an issue because they don't understand it the way you do is a fallacy. Special Pleading, to be precise. That doesn't mean that you're not right, but I feel compelled to point it out.