ADMIN: Discussions vs. Inflammations

[Haggridd]

No: HPFGUIDX 20053

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., John Walton <john at w...> wrote:
> Haggridd said:
> 
> > Penny, I know that you have a thankless and an almost impossible
> > task, but I think that you did not act impartially in this matter.
> > JKR did not write a slash fic, and anyone who sees such in the 
books
> > is indulging in wishful thinking, at best. Why is Joe's response 
any
> > more inflammatory than the twisting of the HP canon into something 
it
> > was never intended to be?
> 
> As a Moderator, I must jump in here in defence of Penny's decision 
(which
> all we Moderators agree with and support completely).
> 
> Haggridd, in answer to your question, Joe's response is inflammatory
> because, without ANY reference to the HP books, he condemned 
(condamned, in
> fact) homosexuals, saying "Still, I'll be damned if I'd ever
> put something in front of my kid that validates that kind of 
lifestyle and
> tries to portray it as normal.  The little joke that was played on 
this
> group was nothing short of sick", and calling the gay lifestyle
> "less-than-wholesome".
> 
> This is clearly unacceptable in a group of such a diverse membership 
in the
> twenty-first century. Women have the vote, black people are no 
longer
> property, and gay people aren't freaks. Learn to live with it.
> 
> Haggridd, you compare Joe's remarks with people "twisting" the HP 
canon. I
> wouldn't use the word "twisted" because of all the baggage attached 
to it,
> but the difference is that reading things that may not be there into 
the HP
> canon is *about HP*. Condemning gay people (or black people, people 
with
> blue eyes, Jewish people, Polish people, or any people) is NOT and 
will not
> be acceptable in this forum. Discussion about homosexuality's 
morality is
> not appropriate unless JKR brings it up in the canon. Discussion 
about
> characters' sexuality, however, is fine as long as it's canon-based 
and not
> inflammatory or offensive (so no "Gay People Are Evil" or "All 
Christian
> Moralists Are Evil"). This has been the group's position for as long 
as I
> have been a Moderator and will likely remain so, based on the 
feedback we've
> been getting from group members.
> 
> I hope this helps to explain the Mods' position. As always, our 
objective is
> to provide a friendly, positive forum for mature discussion of the 
Harry
> Potter books and phenomenon, where ALL people, regardless of any 
defining
> characteristic they might have, feel welcome. Bigotry, however, is 
not
> welcome here. If anyone has constructive suggestions which would 
help us to
> Moderate better for you, please don't hesitate to drop us a line at
> hpforgrownups-owner at y...!
> 
> --John, Moderator Team
> ________________________________
> 
I know that I said I wouldn't add flame to the fire, but, since I 
was publicly addressed, I will reply as a point of personal privilege. 
John, it may surprise you, and dismay Joe, that I agree with you 
completely as to the naturalness or unnaturalness of sexual 
orientations.  That is not the point.  There is no evidence that JKR 
has presaged a Sirius/Remus relationship, and that is not simply a 
matter of opinion (sorry, Penny).  I would love to see examples 
disproving that assertion, if there be any, rather than the bald 
assertion.  I used the word "twisted" simply in the sense of 
distorted, without any emotional charge or negative connotation.  But 
to drag this Homophile/Homophobe issue into JKR marvelous works is not 
just innocent speculation, it is a gauntlet thrown down, a challenge, 
just as much as is Joe's response.  To condemn the one and to 
characterize the other as legitimate is as destructive of the free 
exercise of opinion as you say you hope to protect.  Joe's arguments 
about gays should be refuted , IMHO (there you are, Penny); but step 
back and see the big picture.

BTW, if you wanted to take a chep shot at Joe, don't you think that 
simply putting (sic) after his mistake would be more elegant?

Haggridd