Erode_The_Soul wrote...
tmelange wrote...
I think that it's an erroneous assumption to suppose that BW didn't implement, or wouldn't implement, an m/m option because they couldn't figure out a way to do it. The thing about discrimination and phobic behavior is that nothing is ever enough. You can color code options and a good percentage of the masses will still cry bloody murder. There is no middle ground to be found when people hate you or what you are for reasons that allow freedom for them and less freedom for you.
Perhaps it is an erroneous assumption, but we have very little knowledge as to why the options were excluded, so all we can do is guess. It may be unlikely they could not find a means to implement it, but there is still a small chance this is true thanks to the vague, non-answers we have on the subject.
In terms of the "no middle ground," it may be true that there is no viable solution to appease both sides. But shutting down the dialogue helps no one. We may never reach an amicable solution, but there's no harm in entertaining/discussing them.
Hmm, I don't know. Does it harm anything to discuss this in this way? I think I lack standing to answer this (not being a gay male). I leave it to anyone who does have specific standing to consider if even the discussion of the topic, with solutions framed in this way, hurts more than it helps. Of course, I never said that anyone was prohibited from discussing anything they want, any way they want; I simply said that I wished the discussion was redirected.
On issues where I do have standing (gender, race), I would say that a discussion that frames limiting solutions is offensive and counter-productive to me, and I would not entertain such, e.g. a discussion that starts with the premise of how to allow women into the workforce without impinging on a man's right to be a man: let them be secretaries; or whether there should be more people of color in movies that cater to a larger majority audience that is caucasian: they can be sidekicks, hooks, crooks. Some things are offensive in what these things assume to be rights afforded to others and not to the class of people at issue. Catering to the underlying assumption, likely undermines your whole position. Though, of course, there are battles that have been won historically through compromise and conformity in the short term towards a larger agenda. I don't think that's the way to go in this instance, but...:shrug:
Modifié par tmelange, 26 février 2010 - 03:25 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
