General Category > Updates


<< < (4/4)

Lord Raven:
While NC did do that to spite same-sex stuff it was in the end cutting off your nose to spite your face so to speak- it wasn't *just* same-sex marriages.  And even then, there are other states that are pushing same-sex marriage and even our president spoke out in favor of it.  Not only that, but while people I know are against same-sex marriage on religious grounds (to be honest i'm not going to care to argue this anymore, the argument is too obvious but lost on too many) they are not intolerant in the slightest against homosexuals.  Something widespread like this to go against values held for so long doesn't happen in a day, which people have a very difficult time grasping.

I'd also like to add that there are more people in a 50 mile radius of where I am typing this post than certain states put together, and even certain other states entirely.  I live in a more liberal state, but the east coast (once you get from northern virginia upwards and disregard bad seeds like WV) in general is very progressive and Texas (yes, people, Texas isn't that ass-backwards) also has its places of progression.  And on a more fundamental level, you do not interact with people everyday so you have no reason to judge or make that comment.  Because if you are in the right to make that comment, then I am in every right to make a comment about how the UK is quite xenophobic towards immigrants

Trainer Dave:
Put simply Raven, I don't intend to offend you here. While you may see it as 'judging' your country, my comments are a product of the legislation that some of your states are passing. Of course, the progressive states are less likely to have this problem, but the fact that this sort of discrimination exists in the legal system and is actually supported by a large enough proportion of the people in some areas to pass does speak to other nations about the state of gay rights in the US. While this may correlate with religious beliefs, I'm well aware that the vast majority of the people in the USA aren't waving "God hates gays" signs.

It's still interesting that there's such a split across the country over this, but given that US-based websites attempt to cater for the entire US audience I had thought that this would therefore mean a larger proportion of members that do have issues with gay rights.

And yes, some areas in the UK can be quite xenophobic towards immigrants. I suspect this is true for all countries, but the existence of parties such as the BNP would give you grounds to make that statement. You have every right to make that comment. =p


--- Quote from: Mulholland on June 12, 2012, 16:32 ---Whilst Bulbagarden had good intentions in many ways it just feels patronising. If this site made a news item saying we are now taking a pro-black or pro-jewish stance it would just look terrible...

--- End quote ---

Too be fair, It'd be a lost worst if they announced they were taking an anti-black or anti-jewish stance. -nods-


--- Quote from: Ledyba on June 13, 2012, 07:45 ---Too be fair, It'd be a lost worst if they announced they were taking an anti-black or anti-jewish stance. -nodes-

--- End quote ---

... Way to miss the point with that comment!

Or sort of move it past that.

Saying that a group needs special protection, beyond that what's afforded to all such minority groups, first, seems unnecessary. Second, you could argue it's a form of discrimination in itself - it's apparently necessary to give and affirm that extra attention, both because we can't take it and because it's that necessary? (Yeah, it did feel a bit insulting, I can defend myself without you having to ban the other side of the discussion)

If they were announcing they were anti-something, at least that'd be a clear stance. Here it's a dubious stance announced as good - while the intentions are there, it's weird to make such a big deal about it, and wrong to ban other opinions the way it is. It's more insidious, and that's what's harmful.

Besides, with how major an announcement this has been made (it shows up on the main Pokemon news feed!), it almost feels more like a publicity stunt than actual commitment. It's a bit dirty - get more eyeballs by a big speech, that in the end would be more harmful than good.

I know what the point was! :P and I agree with it.

I just found the hypothetical mental image of a pokemon site announcing they were anti-group in the same prominent way as if they're pro, funny in its absurdity.

although on a serious note, intentions good nevertheless, I'm a bit surprised this is happening.  Not because I think other sites are promoting an anti-gay agenda, I thought it was one of those neutrally agreed things, like y'know, not being racist to someone on your site, or flaming or idunno.

I applaud the intention, but, feel it could have been done in a better way.


[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page

Go to full version