blogs_blog_297

Yo, Lyg, you should prolly lock this.

The discussion has been civil so far.

 

If it ought to be locked a blog assistant will do it. I plan to leave it open otherwise.

Interesting discussion here... I'd like to bring out a point here.

 

Lyg, you said:

 

In this situation what I'd deem fair is ban all love stories. Otherwise, let them all be.

 

And at first that makes sense, but, if you think about it, it really doesn't. Think to other rules--we could go with the "No excessive violence" rule. This doesn't ban all violence, just the extreme that becomes offensive. The same could be said about the "No love between real BZP Members" rule. Again, it doesn't ban the whole topic, just the extreme part that tends to get out of hand. This rule falls in that category. It only bans the part that tends to get out of hand.

 

I don't really have anything at stake here, though. I don't write; I don't read. Just thought I'd point out the little error in your logic though...

 

//.Tek

Interesting discussion here... I'd like to bring out a point here.

 

Lyg, you said:

 

In this situation what I'd deem fair is ban all love stories. Otherwise, let them all be.

 

And at first that makes sense, but, if you think about it, it really doesn't. Think to other rules--we could go with the "No excessive violence" rule. This doesn't ban all violence, just the extreme that becomes offensive. The same could be said about the "No love between real BZP Members" rule. Again, it doesn't ban the whole topic, just the extreme part that tends to get out of hand. This rule falls in that category. It only bans the part that tends to get out of hand.

 

I don't really have anything at stake here, though. I don't write; I don't read. Just thought I'd point out the little error in your logic though...

 

//.Tek

Not from my point of view. There's a distinction between intensity/extremity and variety. Blood/gore is extreme on the spectrum of violence, but fighting with magic vs. fighting hand-to-hand are different varieties of violence. Same thing here.

 

The BZP members rule is a different issue because things get complicated when you involve representations of real people. Adds another dimension to the issue.

 

The rule against any mature/sexual content I'd consider a rule on the allowable extreme of love stories. Heterosexual love stories vs. homosexual are different varieties of the love story, but neither is inherently tied in with being more extreme or explicit.

 

As for just banning whatever gets "out of hand"... bad criteria, if you ask me. You're going to end up with loads of little specific topics you can't discuss. What other sorts of discussions have gotten out of hand? Debates on game consoles, certain novels, TV shows, RPGs... do you propose to say, "This topic has gotten out of hand, you're not allowed to discuss it anymore," for all of those?

 

If the extreme end of a subject is not suitable for the site, then blanket ban it; but all the variations within it, if you ask me, should be left.

In the interest exclusively of accuracy, I think Lyg's got it right. By way of comparison, the no-religious-discussion rule has been extended to ban both any religious discussion and also discussion of evolution. Since these are, broadly, the two sides of that particular topic, the rule is quite impartial. With love stories, the two halves are gay and straight, so allowing straight love stories but not gay ones creates the apperance of favoring one side over the other. Thankfully, that's an inaccurate appearance (which is why I don't mind the rule that much), but still.

 

Contrast with the various rules against more extreme levels of things. Some degree of violence is allowed, but there's a problem if it gets into excessive gore or graphicness. Romance is great, but not if it gets in any way sexual.

 

So that's why I personally disagree with the rule, but, like I said, the reasoning behind it is actually quite good, since this -does- generate an awful lot of unnecessary controversy. Alas that it must be so.

 

 

At any rate, the reason I was going to post here in the first place was to congratulate everyone on actually keeping this discussion civil and for the most part quite rational. I wouldn't have thought it was possible on the internet... (Now, don't go and prove me wrong. That wouldn't be very fun.)

On a side note:

 

Does anyone else dislike the term "close-minded?" I mean, it's a very hypocritical term that in itself is close-minded (for lack of a better term...maybe that's why it's still used). Maybe it's just me.

 

Not picking on you Lyger, lol. It's just something that I thought of.

 

I'm enjoying this discussion. Everybody has intelligent comments with well-educated and logical points for the most part.

I dislike the term, and not for ideological reasons at all. On the contrary, I think the word closed-minded makes a lot more sense. But that's just me and my personal syntax a-rumbling.

 

As for the term "homophobia", I do think it is sometimes thrown around a bit too much. It certainly shouldn't apply here-- I can think of several non-phobic reasons people would be uncomfortable with a concept they don't understand (especially kids who don't yet understand sexuality of any kind), and even more reasons people might be uncomfortable with the backlash that has so far gone unprompted. I do not support the rule by any means, as Lyger does offer a good point on how unfair it is to bar just one type of romance story. However, I am not an administrator or an authority of any kind and thus would personally be unprepared to deal with any hateful repercussions to eliminating the rule. Thus, I cannot hold it against the staff for choosing this easier way of enforcing order, regardless of its unfairness.

 

EDIT: And I don't mean to imply that homophobia doesn't exist or isn't a relevant problem. I just want to express that BZPower does not have this rule for homophobic reasons.

Because this is a site geared towards children, I think the rule fits in. I usually don't like supressing, but keep in mind the variety of views here on BZP.

 

-Omi

I never said that the Administrators did this for homophobic reasons. What I disagreed with was the reference to homophobia, as a "sillly term". I realize it is abused, but just because a term is abused doesn't make it any less really. I really dislike how the term "anti-semitic" is pinned on anyone who questions Israel, but that doesn't make anti-semitism an invalid term.

And what I fail to understand about the "this is a kid's forum" argument is this:

On this kid's forum, I can stab people in the heart, burn them to death, crush them with avalanches, tern them into living icicles, cut their and kill or torture them in various nasty ways, as long as I don't get into much detail about. Yet, I can't make two male characters hold hand and say "I love you."

What makes violence more okay?

It's not as controversial?

This.^ Many parents aren't so bothered by blood and gore. That's just how it goes.

 

The thing is, I don't see anti-Semitic being thrown around a lot, and I definitely don't see anybody being hurt/punished as hard for it as they would be if they were accused of homophobia. That's all. I didn't mean it in any offensive way, so please don't go taking it as such. I didn't even write it using negative words, or I didn't intend to (for those who take silly as being negative).

Well, honestly, I don't disagree with this new rule at all. And this has nothing to do with personal beliefs, but with common sense. As Arpy said, this whole issue is controversial. No matter what people's views on it may be, there's no getting around the fact that homosexuality is a very touchy subject across the world, and it's very likely that it will never get to the point where it doesn't bring up controversy. Just like how topics like religion and politics have generated so much strife and arguments throughout the centures, same sex love has also had the same history.

 

That is why I feel that it has no place on BZP. It's not because I agree with censoring free speech on BZP - it's just that getting into topics like this on a site with tons of kids is simply not a good idea. The moderators want to keep this site as friendly and non-controversial as possible, and they don't want anyone getting offended on either side of the issue. There's simply not really any reasonable option but to keep this issue off limits in creative works, otherwise a whole floodgate of problems could be opened.

 

Also, I agree that homophobia is a valid and reasonable term, but I also agree that it's use has been getting way out of hand. I think both sides of the issue have been expressing hatred towards the opposite viewpoint, and it's really disapointing that so many people can't just sit down and discuss the issues fairly. That's why I'm glad that this blog entry has generated such a honest and respectful discussion - it's refreshing to see people talking on such friendly terms for once.

 

~~END~~