harryu@warpten.Central.Sun.COM (Harry Ugol) (12/14/89)
First of all, please note this article is *not* about homosexuality. It is about the usenet group soc.motss. The article to which this is a followup deals with the morality of homosexuality; this article does not. Please keep m.o.h. discussions out of this particular subject thread. Second, please note I have directed followups to news.groups and soc.motss. This is to emphasize that the topic I wish to discuss is the structure and organization of Usenet groups, not homosexuality *per se*. In article <1989Dec13.220631.23749@cs.uoregon.edu> jdrew@dogmatix.cs.uoregon.edu (James Robert Drew) writes: >Cross-post Alert! > Damn straight :-(. Mr. Drew, I assume you cross-posted this article to soc.motss out of well-meant ignorance, and that you are not a regular reader of the group. Nonetheless, your article is going to bring the same old tiresome no-win flamewars down on our heads once again, and I for one am heartily sick of them. To just give a few instances of the inflammatory passages which I expect to see quoted far too many times over the next few weeks: >In article <18041@netnews.upenn.edu> duggan@eniac.seas.upenn.edu.UUCP (Paul C. Duggan) writes: >>In article <8912130736.AA21140@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> DPARMENTER@HAMPVMS.BITNET (Parmenator X) writes: >>> >>>As for whether it's a matter of choice, PLEASE explain to me why someone >>>would CHOOSE a lifestyle that would guarantee them a life of being unfairly >>>judged, ridiculed, prevented from working where they want to, prevented from >>>living where they want to WITH who they want to, and be forced for their >>>WHOLE LIFE being told that their lifestyle is a "hindrance to life" [...] > >>I'm told to "respect alternate lifestles" and not >>to knock it just because it doesn't turn me on, but then out of the other >>side of their mouth they tell me that it's just the way they are. [...] > >>If that's what it is then I'll pity them like I'd pity a drug addict, >>who can't help it. Otherwise, I respectfully submit that they have >>made a choice that is wrong. Homosexuals CAN change, it's just very >>difficult. > Over the two or so years in which I've been a devotee of soc.motss, periodic and painful flamewars have erupted over the following topics: 1) Whether homosexuality is moral. 2) Whether homosexuality is something a person chooses or whether it is an innate part of their nature. 3) Whether homosexuality is "natural" (which usually translates to whether homosexuality occurs elsewhere in the animal kingdom. No definition of "natural" is ever given. One of these days I'm going to start a discussion on the morality of "natural" :-)/2 ). 4) How much of a right gay people have to self-respect and self-expression at the expense of people who do not approve of homosexuality. These flamewars have all started by some incendiary article appearing, usually as a cross-post from some unrelated group, taking a homophobic view of one or more of the above issues. Some righteously indignant motss politico or other rises to the bait - usually a whole cadre of them - and the war is rolling right along within a day or two (and please note that I do not intend to demean the motss people who participate in these discussions, I'm just pissed at the results). Things flicker out in a couple of weeks, and that's that, until the next, inevitable, occurrance. The soc.motss charter says the group is not for the discussion of the morality of homosexuality, i.e. topic #1 above is not to take place. I would like to propose the charter be amended to include topics #2 and #3 above as well. My reasons are as follows: 1) I believe one of the major reasons morality-of-homosexuality discussions were prohibited is that, no matter how many discussions are held on the topic, people never change the views they held when the discussion began. I have also seen this behavior for topics #2 and #3 above. As such, these topics seem to me far better suited to a "talk" group than a "soc" group (I believe the "talk" hierarchy was first set up to house "discussions" which do not result in people's views changing - talk.abortion is a representative example). 2) As I see it, the charter's proscription of morality-of-homosexuality discussions is based in the implicit assumption that homosexuality is moral. If so, it must be "natural" - so much for issue #3 (assuming, of course, that "unnatural" == immoral). Issue #2 does not depend on the morality of homosexuality *per se*, but it is only brought up by those who think homosexuality is immoral and that gay people can choose not to be homosexual. As such, I think issue #2 should be banned as well. Note that I do not advocate banning discussions of topic #4 (the rights of gay people to infringe on the space of people who do not approve of homosexuality). Quite frankly, I don't know what to do with this topic. On the one hand, the political struggle for gay rights is an important and perennial discussion topic on soc.motss, and is very important to the people there. On the other hand, with few exceptions the only people who are going to argue that gay people have no right to infringe on their opponents' space are those selfsame opponents. I do not know what the official procedure is for amending a Usenet group's charter - Usenet being what it is, I suspect there isn't one :-\. But I think it is highly necessary and long past time in this case. I also wish to propose the creation of a newsgroup devoted solely to those fruitless discussions of topics #1-3 above, i.e. to discussions of the morality of homosexuality and related issues, and that this group be placed in the "talk" hierarchy. This is because such discussions will inevitably occur - human nature, y'know - and my animus towards them does not extend to wishing their complete extermination; I just want my sanctuary to be left in peace and quiet. I do not intend to subscribe to such a group, but judging from the various incidents on motss for the past year or two, there will be plenty of traffic from others :-(. I know this will not eliminate flamewars cross-posted to soc.motss ("Ugol's (personal) rule #2: Never attribute to malice that which can be explained as stupidity or laziness"), but I hope that in time there will be far fewer of them in soc.motss once they have some other well-known appropriate place to go. PS - as for the current budding flamewar - could all my brother-and-sister motssketeers please, just this once, direct followups in *all* your followups to someplace else? Please please pretty please? I'd suggest rec.arts.comics or alt.flame myself. This stuff *really* does not belong in soc.motss (IMNSHO, of course). Harry Ugol UUCP: {backbone}!sun!warpten!harryu ARPA: harryu@Ebay.sun.com "Rivendell household rule #4: Nothing exceeds like excess."
ddern@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Daniel Dern) (12/14/89)
Is comic book reading a natural tendency or acquired? Is reading Marvel Comics unnatural, while DC is OK? is it possible for people to enjoy reading both Marvel and DC comics? Is it wrong to try to talk somebody out of enjoying Concrete? Didn't reading Zot used to be really weird? Aren't you tired of people flaunting their Marvel Comics reading in public? Do we assume that in rec.arts.comics-space we need not defend the basic act of reading (and enjoying) comics? Do you hold your comics in your left hand or right? WHich of the Fantastic Four's powers do you feel have the greatest potential for a) erotic stimulation b) birth control c) safe *** d) embarrassing moments in high school e) arguing with the phone company Who would you rather go to the movies with: a) Lex Luthor b) Bizarro c) John Byrne d) Jim Shooter Which of these arguments might we apply to a) eating dim sum b) sf lovers c) computer programming d) ah-ha! "Didn't used to be." Seasons greetings to all, and get those reindoor off my gutters before they break a hoof -- I _don't_ have zero-deductible in my renter's santa claus. daniel dern, wondering if r/a/c/ is being read by Buddy the Animal Man, and thinking about new wallpaper on that there fourth wall... -- Daniel Dern / PO Box 114 Belmont MA 02178 / (617) 926-8743 Internet: ddern@cs.bu.edu MCImail: dandern (@mcimail.com from arpa) "But FIRST they had milk an' cookies--right, Uncle Albert?" "Absobalootly! They don't call you wise men for nothin'!"
hm0f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Hugh Moore) (12/14/89)
>just this once, direct followups in *all* your followups >to someplace else? Please please pretty please? >I'd suggest rec.arts.comics or alt.flame myself. What did WE do to deseve this? OK, lots of people have tried to make this next point, but it hasn't worked yet, and I think I know why. Here goes. . . Let's have a complete stop of all flames. Why has this suggestion not worked? Because of the delay time messages get going to the bboard. It never fails that four posts later we have a power-flame. This breaks the calm and everyone is up in arms again. If EVERYONE just decides to igone the next one days flames after this, then the problem will be gone. Just like that. Mad Uncle
dyer@spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) (12/14/89)
In article <1004@male.EBay.Sun.COM> harryu@warpten.Central.Sun.COM (Harry Ugol) writes: >I do not know what the official procedure is for amending a Usenet >group's charter - Usenet being what it is, I suspect there isn't one >:-\. But I think it is highly necessary and long past time in this case. A plea to a newsgroup's "charter" is a rhetorical device. No newsgroup has a "charter" except insofaras it might be observed in the breach. Readers of soc.motss make the groundrules insofaras the people who decide to post have any authority through their ability to persuade others. That's all. If you want to "amend the charter", such as it is, discuss it in soc.motss. Readers of news.groups don't have any say, nor do I think they much care. >I also wish to propose the creation of a newsgroup devoted solely to >those fruitless discussions of topics #1-3 above, i.e. to discussions >of the morality of homosexuality and related issues, and that this >group be placed in the "talk" hierarchy. This is because such >discussions will inevitably occur - human nature, y'know - and my >animus towards them does not extend to wishing their complete >extermination; I just want my sanctuary to be left in peace and quiet. I've already made my opinion known in soc.motss that I think this is a very BAD idea. Nice of someone to create an alt group for it simply on the basis of Harry's article. Feh. And what the hell difference do you think it will make? Nothing at all, except it carves out a place for phobes to rant and rave as they will. It institutionalizes intolerance. It will not stop the very infrequent intrusions in soc.motss from people who wish to discuss issues of "morality" or religion, which quite frankly, have been handled very smoothly over the past seven years or so. To think that creating a ghetto for anti-gay ranting and raving somehow constitutes an "improvement" of affairs is like saying that creating soc.feminist.bashing solves the problem of women having to deal with sexism here on the net. -- Steve Dyer dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer dyer@arktouros.mit.edu, dyer@hstbme.mit.edu
aru@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Sriram Ramkrishna) (12/14/89)
In article <sZVn0fK00XoI4dGkVw@andrew.cmu.edu> hm0f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Hugh Moore) writes: > >What did WE do to deseve this? > I guess we started it. :) >EVERYONE just decides to igone the next one days flames after this, then >the problem will be gone. Just like that. Just like that? When cows fly my friend. Nothing is that simple. But lets get back to comics shall we. OBJ comic post...so that it is not a total waste of bandwidth, eh? Has anybody currently read the Predator comics? I thought it was quite good, but I would like to hear other comments from other people about it. Sri
toto@tank.uchicago.edu (Sandra Jessica Smyth) (12/14/89)
In a long posting, Harry Ugol (harryu@Ebay.sun.com) proposed to ammend the charter of soc.motss to exclude discussions of whether homosexuality is something one chooses and whether it is "natural." To justify this charter change he notes that flame wars regularly break out in soc.motss. >These flamewars have all started by some incendiary article appearing, >usually as a cross-post from some unrelated group, taking a homophobic >view of one or more of the above issues. Some righteously indignant >motss politico or other rises to the bait - usually a whole cadre of >them - and the war is rolling right along within a day or two... It seems to me that what we have here is not a problem with the charter, but a problem with the people who fan the flames, as it were. An "incendiary article," in and of itself, should not mean flames. Posters have to follow-up, flaming the original poster. Note that Mr. Ugol is not suggesting to do away with flame wars, per se, but rather to do away with two subjects of discussion. I would assume that members of soc.motss are able to discuss these matters without strum und drang, and might, in fact resent Mr. Ugol's reining in their liberties. If you don't want flame wars, don't respond to "incendiary articles," and encourage your colleagues likewise. But don't start on that slippery slide of outlawing legitimate topics of discussion. -- Sandra Jessica Smyth Believer in lost causes toto@tank.uchicago.edu