I know that this has come up before, but what do you think about merging the GLBT groups? Are they really that different that 2 (or 3) groups are needed? What would be needed in order for a 'merger' to occur? If not merging them, then maybe define the groups more in terms of their topics? I can't see a difference. Pros? Cons? Don't care? Could the be merged by just selecting one group, and leaving a comment line for the others stating something like "Let's all get together in one group - please join and leave comments in ....."?

Views: 101

Replies to This Discussion

"the name is kept, for the time being, as the most universally accepted term around the globe"

It is? Maybe I need to re-read this discussion.
I agree, you should re-read it.

Outside of one person from the Philippines who does not weigh in on the use of semantics, and a limited few from the UK and Ireland, all or almost all replies are from the US. This is really a very USA-centric discussion. The globe actually includes other countries - something that has been commented on in other discussions. While I have not surveyed people from other continents on the matter, most of my reading has suggested that 'gay' is more well known that the acronyms. Keeping the name for the time being is reasonable. It keeps the group searchable and easily located.
I did just reread the discussion. The consensus seemed to be on "Atheist Q".

There's no need to bold anything. Srsly.

You keep using that word "semantics". I see what you're doing there.

Yes, I know the globe includes other countries. Srsly.

I actually did some research and sent some email off to some international organizations to hear what terms they'd Google to find a non-theist rainbow balloon group, and none wrote back. I have not had time to write any other people. I may also have posted in one of the other groups about this, or forgot, and thought that I did.

It looks like you read some things into my message that weren't intended. Also, I should probably have quoted after "the name is kept, for the time being,". I can see I wasn't clear enough in the part I was questioning.

Please see the following link.

That should answer any questions about my own motivations and intentions.

There was an extensive discussion about global vs. US-centric issues on A|N, which you were also involved in, so you should understand what I was saying there. The major complaint was that people on A|N often do not take into account the people of other countries involved. I was being sensitive to that issue. However, as noted in the linked discussion, I will no longer offer any preference of my own about any name of the group, I will leave it up to the group to decide, and in a poll at that (If I am able to pull that off).

I actually have no idea of what the statement, "I see what you're doing there", means, even whether it is good, bad or neutral. Pardon me for being dense. My meaning for the word "semantics" is "It is often used in ordinary language to denote a problem of understanding that comes down to word selection or connotation." There is quite a lot of that "word selection" critique going on, here and in other discussions.



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service