Jump to content


Photo

Incident in Beaulieu Heights Park


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
89 replies to this topic

#76 Muzza

Muzza

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 47 posts

Posted 07 June 2008 - 10:31 AM

I get quite annoyed when black people bang on about how white people treat them so badly when I and many white people donate money every month to help black kids and send loads of money whenever there is a disaster in third world countries.

Silver, I'm guessing you're white - maybe the reason 'black people bang on about how white people treat them so badly' is simply because they still experience racist treatment from white people? If you must get annoyed, how about being annoyed that white people still give them cause to complain? (There's a member of the BNP on the London Assembly... Even the most obvious forms of racism haven't gone away.)

I think the situation you are wanting will come a lot sooner if you stop suggesting that straight people en masse harbouring homophobic views. In my humble opinion, you would do better to object and fight the big predudices and the real serious homophobics.

I don't think Beefqueen wasn't accusing anyone of being homophobic - he was highlighting the fact that discussion about sex in parks had unwrapped some interesting assumptions. Trust me, homosexuals have to object to and fight the 'big prejudices' every day, especially in this part of the city where homophobic violence is still a reality. It's just that even in the context of acceptance/tolerance, residual notions from less liberal times can still crop up (usually unconsciously) in language.

Being opposed to people having sex in parks is NOT in itself homophobic - of course not. But this thread has also unpacked some extremely interesting assumptions, and highlighted the limitations of the tolerance that homosexuals (and black people) are asked to feel grateful for.

#77 beefqueen

beefqueen

    Member

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 200 posts

Posted 07 June 2008 - 11:41 AM

In my humble opinion, you would do better to object and fight the big predudices and the real serious homophobics.


But, surely, if gay people (and women and black people) don't fight the minor, everyday prejudice they face, that creates a society in which it is considered appropriate to promote the 'big prejudices'.

#78 Ziwa

Ziwa

    Member

  • Members 1
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,403 posts

Posted 07 June 2008 - 02:48 PM

I strongly agree with Muzza and Beefqueen's points about the undercurrents revealed by use of language and choice of topic in this conversation. Why should people be expected to put up with constant small slights if there are also bigger ones that may also need fighting? Small slights are revealing of prejudice, and if left unexamined, that prejudice can perpetuate and grow.

I'm interested in the use of language, but I also think of myself as conservative and pragmatic towards linguistic change. I remember decades ago when the discussion came up about use of gender in written English. I thought it was a waste of energy to write 'she/he', or include 'she' as an example now and then in text that would use the traditional, grammatically correct 'he'. But the activist feminists had an effect and now it is very common to use gender-inclusive writing styles. And you know what? I feel like it makes a difference - a big one. Especially as a scientist who has lived through a major change in social perspectives on issues of inclusivity for women in science (or any professional field), I think this keeps the argument on track and keeps the subconscious perspectives in register with big, legal decsions. It keeps the woodworms out of the framework.

So back on this topic, I'd say the same thing holds for this discussion about gay relationships. Read back through the threads and you'll see this is an uncritical linking of 'gay and seedy' and 'hetero and romantic' in some posts. This shouldn't go unchallenged; no gay person should have to put up with that link, no straight person should want to convey that.

But finally, we all make gaffs which speak volumes about our prejudices, and we all have prejudices, many of which should be critically examined if we want to be part of making the world a better place. So just pitching in on this spirited Tavern argument is a good thing and gives us something to think about later. Maybe we'll be more careful about our assumptions and our language in the future.

Edited by Ziwa, 07 June 2008 - 03:06 PM.


#79 Silver

Silver

    Member

  • Sponsors
  • 1,643 posts

Posted 07 June 2008 - 05:32 PM

[quote name='beefqueen' post='52022' date='Jun 7 2008, 12:41 PM']But, surely, if gay people (and women and black people) don't fight the minor, everyday prejudice they face, that creates a society in which it is considered appropriate to promote the 'big prejudices'.[/quote]

By all means fight it when it is really there! but not when it is NOT!

[quote name='Ziwa' date='Jun 7 2008, 03:48 PM' post='52027']
I strongly agree with Muzza and Beefqueen's points about the undercurrents revealed by use of language and choice of topic in this conversation. Why should people be expected to put up with constant small slights if there are also bigger ones that may also need fighting? Small slights are revealing of prejudice, and if left unexamined, that prejudice can perpetuate and grow.

I never said that they should ignore reall slights however small. I simply meant do not imagine trouble when there isn't any! This thread is a good example of this. People were posting perfectly rational intelligent posts and BeefQueen (who I hope I will be excused for assuming is gay with a name like that)found it necessrary to challenge their motives. It is that, not gay people, that is tiresome.

#80 James

James

    Member

  • Sponsors
  • 4,833 posts

Posted 07 June 2008 - 08:57 PM

Moderator's Note
We have received a complaint about comments posted in this topic.

This topic is temporarily closed pending moderator review.

European.vote - EU Referendum


#81 James

James

    Member

  • Sponsors
  • 4,833 posts

Posted 09 June 2008 - 08:56 AM

Moderator's Note
This topic has now been reopened.

Please can we remind everyone that although our forum guidelines are more relaxed in the VN Tavern section, and as stated above... "we would still like everyone to continue being respectful to one another, avoiding the use of bad language or saying something that others may find offensive"

European.vote - EU Referendum


#82 Muzza

Muzza

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 47 posts

Posted 09 June 2008 - 09:50 AM

By all means fight it when it is really there! but not when it is NOT! I simply meant do not imagine trouble when there isn't any! This thread is a good example of this. People were posting perfectly rational intelligent posts and BeefQueen... found it necessrary to challenge their motives.


The thing is, just because you don't see any trouble, it doesn't necessarily mean it's not there... Aren't you curious to know why some of us see trouble where you don't? I've found all of beefqueen's posts to be perfectly rational and intelligent; I'm not sure he was challenging anyone's motives, I think he was challenging their language.

By the way, in the wake of the temporary closure of this thread - I just want to say I've found the debate here incredibly inspiring. This is always likely to be a contentious subject, which I think makes it all the more important that we keep talking about it. But just because I may not agree with some opinions, it doesn't mean I don't welcome reading them!

#83 SallyClaire

SallyClaire

    Member

  • Members 2
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 54 posts

Posted 01 August 2008 - 11:53 AM

it used to be my cut-through from the top of SN Hill to my home in Auckland Road.


Is there an entrance/exit onto Church Road? I thought there was and wandered in there only to get lost and eventually find myself in Auckland Road!

#84 Spoon

Spoon

    Paolo Di Catio's mum

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,033 posts

Posted 01 August 2008 - 12:36 PM

I understand the way in from the top of the hill to be the gates just after you turn left at the South Norwood end of Church Road. But I've never been in so I should probably pipe down.

#85 twinkle

twinkle

    Member

  • Sponsors
  • 1,420 posts

Posted 01 August 2008 - 01:37 PM

i think there is a cut-through there - just opposite the hotel..... i only know this because my friend used to 'frequent' the park on a boring sunday afternoon *cough* *cough ...* - the stories he used to tell....although he has been mugged in that park and the robbers know damn well that most of the people in there are there for other reasons than to go 'bird spotting' or sun tanning! - so therefor most attacks never get reported due to the victims not wanting to bring their 'personal lives' into public eye and or the media circus that goes with it.
For all your graphic design needs please visit
www.jane-shearman-design.com

#86 Come on you Irons

Come on you Irons

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 240 posts

Posted 01 August 2008 - 01:42 PM

Honest question. Why DO gay people engage in this activity in parks and/or toilets. Is it not possible to 'get a room' as it were? I've never seen straight people cruising a park etc. Unless I'm in the miniroty here!

#87 Dazza

Dazza

    Council Boy

  • Members 3
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,327 posts

Posted 01 August 2008 - 02:14 PM

Especially public toilets its not exactly hygenic or private. I suppose some people like the thrill !

Dazza

PS Coyi I will be frequenting the railway bell toilets this evening who are also having a refurb where another toilet cubicle has also been installed , just thought that might be a bit relevant to this thread.
Your obviously mistaken me with someone who gives a fig

#88 gekko

gekko

    Sponsor

  • Sponsors
  • 4,570 posts

Posted 01 August 2008 - 02:36 PM

Moderator's note

Can we please move on from this obsession with cruising? COYI - for the record, not all gay people have sex in parks and not all people who have sex in parks identify as gay.

However, I don't think the last two comments on this thread are going to go anywhere but round in circles and, no doubt, upset a lot of people in the process. I'm starting to think that this thread has had its day and should be closed...
Mel, Forum Moderator

#89 Come on you Irons

Come on you Irons

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 240 posts

Posted 01 August 2008 - 02:43 PM

Gekko, you are a moderator so can close if you wish I'm sure. BUT could you tell me where exactly I said ALL Gay people do this, and how could my comments offend anyone when all i was doing was,as i said, asking an honest question . It's a well known fact that these activities occur, so i cant see any problem with what i said. Are ALL gay people offended by the glorification of these things by say George Michael in 'that' video? I dont think so.

#90 James

James

    Member

  • Sponsors
  • 4,833 posts

Posted 01 August 2008 - 02:52 PM

Moderator's Note
Okay, time out, I think we've had our fair share of complaint emails and PMs from members regarding this topic.

This topic is now closed.

European.vote - EU Referendum