Gay and Streaming

[jamesjazzguitar]

Is this a great country or what!

[Detective Jim McLeod]

[Lomm]

[jimimac71]

You aren't banned (obviously) jimimac. I didn't say YOU had to be a movie nut...I said that's why I was here. As to the "antiquated forum", it's actually very up to date and still maintained and updated regularly. You just don't like the way posting works here. There's nothing I can do about that, and I do honestly grow tired of the many demands (and they are very often demands, not requests). Your earlier post could be seen as equally offensive, to me, as my post was to you. I wasn't literally telling you to leave...I was telling you that if you were unhappy, you could just leave. I have enjoyed many of your posts here.

I do apologize for offending you Lomm.
I've been supportive of your efforts and do remember when I first came here, the abuse you received for not creating the Like button. I still don't like it and don't use it. Just once for you, after it was created.
The forum is awkward on a tablet, my most used device.
It seems odd to have the actual codes on the screen as a part of a post.
The other forum I use occasionally is MacRumors.
I have a refurbished iPad but prefer my Nokia Android tablet.
This forum is even harder for me on iPad OS.
Both the website and forum are overloaded with ads at MacRumors.
People don't like Google snooping, but websites gobble up their ads.
I lost a family member to Cancer this month. During the middle of 2022, she was the picture of health.
I don't mean anything morbid about you being the only person who can operate this forum.
Heaven forbid something happened and you were not here.
The lady who created this forum has passed as I recall.
I'd love to help you but I'd really mess things up.
I don't know code and have issues all the time, mostly with the name Microsoft attached.

[jimimac71]

Is this a great country or what!

I suppose you read MUTTS today. (The newspaper comic)

[Lomm]

Sorry for your loss jimimac.

They show the code in reply boxes so you can insert things, put replies intermingled with the other post (by adding quote tags) and customize your reply. For myself, on a tablet I avoid all that and just make sure to put my reply at the end after the last [/quote] marker.

[jimimac71]

Sorry for your loss jimimac.

They show the code in reply boxes so you can insert things, put replies intermingled with the other post (by adding quote tags) and customize your reply. For myself, on a tablet I avoid all that and just make sure to put my reply at the end after the last [/quote ] marker.

Thank You Lomm.
When I create a reply, the cursor automatically drops two lines below the end quote.
Otherwise I believe the quote and reply blend together.
That's the easy part. Changing text elements is a different story.

[HoldenIsHere]

Frankly, I don't understand Holden's strident objections to this issue which seem way out of proportion to what's been done. If it bothers him so much, just ignore the sub-forum. It seems we're back to the LIKE button all over again. It's just a message board. There are far more disturbing things going on in the world to get upset about.

Opposition to a “like” button is not the same as being offended by a sub-forum being created to separate discussions of movies about people from an historically marginalized demographic group. With the “like” button someone can simply chose not to use it, but now that the sub-forum is visible, there’s no way for someone who’s offended by it to not see that it exists here.

I realize that message boards may create those kinds of sub-forum with good intentions. But administrators are misguided if they think these kinds of sub-forums promote inclusivity. Instead, they perpetuate the notion that the wants and desires of gay people are categorically different than those of “regular” people. A movie about a romance between two men is discussed as an “LBGT drama” rather than a “drama.” I imagine if someone had proposed the creation of a sub-form to single out “Ethnic Films” there would have been vigorous protest about how regressive it would be for such a sub-forum to exist.

While this may be “just a message board,” there is nothing out of proportion for a member to voice serious objections to changes made here, regardless of other disturbances going on in the world. My objection may have been emphatic, but it was hardly strident. As others here have alluded to (specifically txfilmfan and jamesjazzguitar), the dissenting opinions among gays here on the need for a “safe place” sub-forum may be a generational thing. Older generations tend to be more concerned about discussing media depictions of gay characters “out in the open” without some sort of warning (by being posted in a “special” sub-forum) lest we risk offending the “regular” folks. Younger generations see these sub-forums as regressive – like being in a closet a with a glass door. I’ve found the posters here at the SSO to be mature and respectable with very few nasty creeps and trolls like we had at the old TCM message boards. I feel comfortable discussing any media content here without the need for posting my comments in a “special” sub-forum. And I sincerely believe that those “special” forums inhibit inclusivity rather than foster it.

[Swithin]

Hi Holden,

I continue to be sad that you are distressed about this and wish you would post in the new forum, if a subject appealed to you, though I realize that you won't. I don't see it in terms of it being a "safe place;" merely a convenient, easily accessible grouping of subjects (curation?), just like any of the other genres, even though we can argue about whether it constitutes a genre or not (which doesn't matter to me).

With regard to your "generational" comments, my alma mater has numerous "Affinity Chapters," including a few which are for LGBTQ+ students and alumni, though anyone is welcome to join. I'm on one of the gay Affinity committees and in regular contact with many young gay men and women. I think they would disagree with you and would not see these things as regressive. In fact, the existence of these groups would have been unthinkable when I was in college! They are commonplace, and expected, now.

[HoldenIsHere]

Hi Holden,

I continue to be sad that you are distressed about this and wish you would post in the new forum, if a subject appealed to you, though I realize that you won't. I don't see it in terms of it being a "safe place;" merely a convenient, easily accessible grouping of subjects (curation?), just like any of the other genres, even though we can argue about whether it constitutes a genre or not (which doesn't matter to me).

With regard to your "generational" comments, my alma mater has numerous "Affinity Chapters," including a few which are for LGBTQ+ students and alumni, though anyone is welcome to join. I'm on one of the gay Affinity committees and in regular contact with many young gay men and women. I think they would disagree with you and would not see these things as regressive. In fact, the existence of these groups would have been unthinkable when I was in college! They are commonplace, and expected, now.

Swithin, you're missing my point. The gay Affinity groups for college alumni that you mention are not regressive.
Those kinds of groups provide a feeling of community for gay people.

But, as I stated in my previous post, singling out a sub-forum on a mass media discussion board to discuss so-called "LGBT Films" perpetuates the notion that the wants and desires of gay people are categorically different than those of “regular” people.
That is unequivocally regressive to me and to every other gay person I know personally. You and I will have to agree to disagree about it.

[Swithin]

Hi Holden,

I continue to be sad that you are distressed about this and wish you would post in the new forum, if a subject appealed to you, though I realize that you won't. I don't see it in terms of it being a "safe place;" merely a convenient, easily accessible grouping of subjects (curation?), just like any of the other genres, even though we can argue about whether it constitutes a genre or not (which doesn't matter to me).

With regard to your "generational" comments, my alma mater has numerous "Affinity Chapters," including a few which are for LGBTQ+ students and alumni, though anyone is welcome to join. I'm on one of the gay Affinity committees and in regular contact with many young gay men and women. I think they would disagree with you and would not see these things as regressive. In fact, the existence of these groups would have been unthinkable when I was in college! They are commonplace, and expected, now.

Swithin, you're missing my point. The gay Affinity groups for college alumni that you mention are not regressive.
Those kinds of groups provide a feeling of community for gay people.

But, as I stated in my previous post, singling out a sub-forum on a mass media discussion board to discuss so-called "LGBT Films" perpetuates the notion that the wants and desires of gay people are categorically different than those of “regular” people.
That is unequivocally regressive to me and to every other gay person I know personally. You and I will have to agree to disagree about it.

We agree to disagree.

I think you are also missing my point. I just find the gay sub-forum as a convenient catch-all for an increasing number of movies (plays, television shows, etc.) for ALL people to find easily. It's not just about the "wants and desires of gay people" but about convenience for everyone who wants quick access to various threads in a burgeoning thematic field.

Just like I go to the sub-forum here in the "Foreign Film" sub-forum. (My local library, btw, has stopped using the word "foreign" for its former "Foreign Languages Library" and now calls it "World Languages Library," deeming the world "foreign" to be pejorative.)

[jimimac71]

As I mentioned earlier, a lot of my computing is done on a tablet.
As funky as my vision is, I miss things.
Then again, "I can't afford to pay attention."
In looking with both eyes, wait, I can't do that. One or the other but not both at the same time. A little blurry too.
Everything shows about a thread. The name. Underneath, who started it and when, in addition to what category it is located in.
On the right side is who made the most recent post and when.
It is not necessary to open the thread to know everything necessary in advance.
That doesn't solve Holden versus Swithin. I like both of you.
I do take issue with regular versus different Holden. Your preferences are different than mine, but you are not different.
I can only relate this to blind versus sighted. Blind people have a comfort zone with those who are similar and understand.
We often fear what we don't understand.
I support the sub-category so I know in advance when something might be out of my comfort zone.
I won't take sides as both opinions are valid.

[jamesjazzguitar]

Hi Holden,

I continue to be sad that you are distressed about this and wish you would post in the new forum, if a subject appealed to you, though I realize that you won't. I don't see it in terms of it being a "safe place;" merely a convenient, easily accessible grouping of subjects (curation?), just like any of the other genres, even though we can argue about whether it constitutes a genre or not (which doesn't matter to me).

With regard to your "generational" comments, my alma mater has numerous "Affinity Chapters," including a few which are for LGBTQ+ students and alumni, though anyone is welcome to join. I'm on one of the gay Affinity committees and in regular contact with many young gay men and women. I think they would disagree with you and would not see these things as regressive. In fact, the existence of these groups would have been unthinkable when I was in college! They are commonplace, and expected, now.

Swithin, you're missing my point. The gay Affinity groups for college alumni that you mention are not regressive.
Those kinds of groups provide a feeling of community for gay people.

But, as I stated in my previous post, singling out a sub-forum on a mass media discussion board to discuss so-called "LGBT Films" perpetuates the notion that the wants and desires of gay people are categorically different than those of “regular” people.
That is unequivocally regressive to me and to every other gay person I know personally. You and I will have to agree to disagree about it.

We agree to disagree.

I think you are also missing my point. I just find the gay sub-forum as a convenient catch-all for an increasing number of movies (plays, television shows, etc.) for ALL people to find easily. It's not just about the "wants and desires of gay people" but about convenience for everyone who wants quick access to various threads in a burgeoning thematic field.

Just like I go to the sub-forum here in the "Foreign Film" sub-forum. (My local library, btw, has stopped using the word "foreign" for its former "Foreign Languages Library" and now calls it "World Languages Library," deeming the world "foreign" to be pejorative.)

You keep mentioning convenience. Yea, convenience for you. Please don't imply it was convenience for everyone, since you don't know how everyone felt about a separate sub-forum. As for convenience for everyone: when creating a thread can you please post the year of the movie?

That would make it more convenient for those whose focus is on studio-era film. Thanks

[Swithin]

Swithin, you're missing my point. The gay Affinity groups for college alumni that you mention are not regressive.
Those kinds of groups provide a feeling of community for gay people.

But, as I stated in my previous post, singling out a sub-forum on a mass media discussion board to discuss so-called "LGBT Films" perpetuates the notion that the wants and desires of gay people are categorically different than those of “regular” people.
That is unequivocally regressive to me and to every other gay person I know personally. You and I will have to agree to disagree about it.

We agree to disagree.

I think you are also missing my point. I just find the gay sub-forum as a convenient catch-all for an increasing number of movies (plays, television shows, etc.) for ALL people to find easily. It's not just about the "wants and desires of gay people" but about convenience for everyone who wants quick access to various threads in a burgeoning thematic field.

Just like I go to the sub-forum here in the "Foreign Film" sub-forum. (My local library, btw, has stopped using the word "foreign" for its former "Foreign Languages Library" and now calls it "World Languages Library," deeming the world "foreign" to be pejorative.)

You keep mentioning convenience. Yea, convenience for you. Please don't imply it was convenience for everyone, since you don't know how everyone felt about a separate sub-forum. As for convenience for everyone: when creating a thread can you please post the year of the movie?

That would make it more convenient for those whose focus is on studio-era film. Thanks

For your convenience, I have added the years to the two works (one television series, one play) that I've posted about.

[HoldenIsHere]

Hi Holden,

I continue to be sad that you are distressed about this and wish you would post in the new forum, if a subject appealed to you, though I realize that you won't. I don't see it in terms of it being a "safe place;" merely a convenient, easily accessible grouping of subjects (curation?), just like any of the other genres, even though we can argue about whether it constitutes a genre or not (which doesn't matter to me).

With regard to your "generational" comments, my alma mater has numerous "Affinity Chapters," including a few which are for LGBTQ+ students and alumni, though anyone is welcome to join. I'm on one of the gay Affinity committees and in regular contact with many young gay men and women. I think they would disagree with you and would not see these things as regressive. In fact, the existence of these groups would have been unthinkable when I was in college! They are commonplace, and expected, now.

Swithin, you're missing my point. The gay Affinity groups for college alumni that you mention are not regressive.
Those kinds of groups provide a feeling of community for gay people.

But, as I stated in my previous post, singling out a sub-forum on a mass media discussion board to discuss so-called "LGBT Films" perpetuates the notion that the wants and desires of gay people are categorically different than those of “regular” people.
That is unequivocally regressive to me and to every other gay person I know personally. You and I will have to agree to disagree about it.

We agree to disagree.

I think you are also missing my point. I just find the gay sub-forum as a convenient catch-all for an increasing number of movies (plays, television shows, etc.) for ALL people to find easily. It's not just about the "wants and desires of gay people" but about convenience for everyone who wants quick access to various threads in a burgeoning thematic field.

Just like I go to the sub-forum here in the "Foreign Film" sub-forum. (My local library, btw, has stopped using the word "foreign" for its former "Foreign Languages Library" and now calls it "World Languages Library," deeming the world "foreign" to be pejorative.)

I understood your point about having that "LGBT Films" sub-forum for "convenience."
But do you think the existence of a "Black Films" sub-forum so that anyone could "conveniently" access threads discussing movies about Black characters would be embraced as a positive addition?
It is extremely unlikely (like not at all likely) that any Black person would ever request such a sub-forum to be added to an existing discussion board.
And if a discussion board's administrators decided on their own to add a "Black Films" sub-forum, members would be crying foul at such a regressive action.

The use of keywords on a streaming platform (like Netflix or Amazon Prime) to help subscribers find movies of interest is a completely different practice than having discussion board sub-forums that single out discussions of media content featuring people from a specific demographic group.