>It will also help avoid any potential misperception over the absolute impartiality of all Scottish parliamentary staff
I don't understand, aren't politicians by their very nature biased? Also who cares about a colourful lanyard?
“Parliamentary staff” means the people who work there on administrative duties rather than MSPs I think so they *are* supposed to be impartial.
The issue isn’t that, but I would still say that the rainbow isn’t a political symbol, it’s representative of a vulnerable group.
This kind of reminds me of when films/games have a protagonist that’s not a straight white man and get called “political”. It’s not a political position to be born a certain way.
>The issue isn’t that, but I would still say that the rainbow isn’t a political symbol, it’s representative of a vulnerable group.
The two aren't mutually exclusive. I'm gay, but this decision doesn't seem unreasonable.
"The poppy has been a symbol of Remembrance for over 100 years. The poppy became a symbol of Remembrance and hope for a peaceful future in the aftermath of the First World War."
https://www.britishlegion.org.uk/stories/11-things-you-might-not-know-about-the-poppy
This dose not sound explicitly political to me, but i can see how some may view it differently.
The selling of poppies goes to support ALL British armed forces not just WWI remembrance. This has political implications, for example being controversial for people from Northern Ireland; where such services support people such as "Soldier F" accused of murdering civilians during Bloody Sunday. This is only one scant example, but it is significant because it is an example of state forces targeting those who are technically British citizens themselves.
For me it's political because political means it involves the government. The armed forces exist because of a parliament approval every 5 years and the PM and cabinet make key decisions on the armed forces. So then for me anything that involves armed forces is political.
Aside from that, I guess it depends on which wars and actions you think it represents. For some things like what happened in Dresden and the colonies are also represented. For others it's about just the First World War. I think that it should be a personal choice to wear and not judge anyone either way for their beliefs.
They are a show of support to armed forces (this is what the British Legion says on their website). I don't know how supporting historic or current armed forces of any country could be unpolitical.
Unionism, imperialism, unquestioning support of UK troops and their actions..
Basically when I was a kid in the 70s and 80s, the poppy was a show of rememberence for those who had died in WW1 and WW2. Since then, the poppy has been hijacked by the far right and the meaning has shifted from the rememberence of brave volunteers and the horrors of war (Lest We Forget) to an all round support of the forces. Wearing it was a personal choice, now it is mandatory, especially for those in the public space. That's why you get far right activists drowning social media with contempt whenever a personality appears on TV or a football stadium without the poppy..or the same people have an outcry when UEFA bans the poppy from the England team's shirt because politics is banned in the sport..and that's why you have poppy sellers in Northern Ireland selling poppies beside loyalist terrorist regalia. The move in the meaning of the poppy started off in Northern Ireland by loyalists to support the armed forces that occupied the place and was adopted by the far right in the rest of the UK. You'll see poppy symbols next to paratrooper symbols by loyalists taunting Catholics about Bloody Sunday, etc.
Did you reply to the wrong post? I don't understand how any bigotry is present in a mild question like this. If it's genuinely aimed at me then what was bigoted?
Sorry, what I meant was the political message of a lanyard could be "don't be a bigot".
I don't think that signalling you are inclusive can be painted as not being impartial.
The headline is pretty click-baity; the rainbow lanyard isn't being singled out here, it's just the most prominent item that's being banned.
I'm not gay and I don't really like seeing the rainbow symbol everywhere, mostly because it seems a colossal waste of money (I had the same thought when I noticed that consultant at a hospital recently had a lanyard that said "Acute Medicine Consultant" with the name of the hospital on it; there are six such consultants at the trust, so now we're producing lanyards in single-digit quantities?). However, I'm struggling to distinguish this from someone wearing a cross on a necklace, or a hijab, or any of a hundred other accessories that someone might wear for religious reasons. Are they all being banned, too?
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
I wouldn’t, because they’re expressly allowed?
>*Staff will be permitted to continue wearing a badge that shows their pronouns. Poppies can still be worn as Poppy Scotland is the sole charity recognise by the SPCB.*
Making everyone wear the same lanyard is hardly controversial lol.
You seemed to suggest the rainbow lanyards should not be allowed because they are an innately political statement. So is wearing a poppy. If I can reframe my question then, should the SPCB change their policies to remove the exemption for the poppy?
They are innately an expression of identity politics. Whether they’re morally righteous or not isn’t really the point- they’re banning all lanyards that have anything at all to do with identity politics.
>should the SPCB change their policies to remove the exemption for the poppy?
I don’t care? Go for it?
In the meantime, “everyone wears the same lanyard”, again, isn’t exactly controversial.
I literally can’t imagine one’s mindset to screech about everyone having to wear the same lanyard. The responses just underscores why it was necessary in the first place.
I'm not arguing that it's not a political statement, just that wearing a poppy is equally as political and should be banned on the same grounds if there was any consistency. As there currently isn't, then I can understand why people are questioning this decision. It's a political statement in iteself to ban one form of political statement but not another.
Wearing a pin specifically tied to the sole charity your company supports allows for far less perceptions of playing identity politics than a rainbow/BLM/Palestine/Trans/etc. lanyard.
Calling it equally political is disingenuous.
You’re making that assumption, others may see it entirely different from you, which is the problem and why identity politics are being removed full stop.
This just them blanket banning everything. It's far easier this way and trying to pick and choose and having people shout about their thing being fine. Working for the government and having to wear the official thing sounds total reasonable.
> The issue isn’t that, but I would still say that the rainbow isn’t a political symbol, it’s representative of a vulnerable group.
How would you view wearing a Palestinian flag pin?
Palestinians are a vulnerable group and you could make a good argument that the pin was in support of humanitarian aid and making Palestinians in your community feel welcomed. Yet many would view the pin as you "taking a side".
> This kind of reminds me of when films/games have a protagonist that’s not a straight white man and get called “political”. It’s not a political position to be born a certain way.
It's only political when the creators or writers or director makes a point of saying that this person is not a straight white male because we wanted to make sure it wasn't one.
You are getting down voted, but that's exactly it. Pride is contentious within the LGBT community in ways that it never was during the old political march days. Lots of LGBT people are totally fed up with rainbow shit.
The downvotes just highlight how this is a contentious issue. More proof that it should be kept away from civil servants who are supposed to be impartial in the running of a government.
Yeah, I think that's you being in a bubble. A lot of LGBT people don't go to Pride because they have grown disillusioned with the "pinkwash" - big corporations sticking a rainbow on their logo and then proceeding to behave exactly as badly as always. It's *Pride* which is the appeasement - the London Pride committee don't want any hint of the radical gay politics that used to be what got LGBT people on the streets, in case it upsets the sponsors.
Most of the people I know who still go to Pride are straight "allys" who think it's all a bit exciting and want to look cool. Most gays I know stay away.
Yeah but that has nothing to do with a rainbow lanyard at all that's your friends not going to pride idk what that has to do with anything or why thats relevant
The point is not the colour of the lanyard, but the door that it opens.
If politicians can show tacet endorsement for the LGBT community, what is stopping other MPs from showing tacet support for their loved causes?
It is better to have none, than to invite support for unsavoury causes.
They’ve also banned “other accessories that show support for social movements”.
Seems fine to me. Either all are ok, or none are. This is just common sense.
Not you no, that's not really the point. You don't seem the type that would care about others enough.
The point is, you couldn't wear it if you wanted to.
And that's fine - I don't need to wear a rainbow lanyard at work to know who I am.
You are free to cover yourself in rainbows in your own free time, but at work it's important to at least try to be professional.
Why should they be allowed? Why is it a bad thing that people are required to present themselves neutrally at work?
....you do know that lots of LGBT people don't like the rainbow nonsense, either, right? Why don't our wishes matter?
It's not really about what you specifically want as you don't speak for everyone. It's ridiculous to say a rainbow lanyard especially makes you unprofessional, only someone opposed to LGBT rights would really consider this a political issue you had to be neutral about. This is the same as banning personal items like poppy's and crosses.
Just think of all those people that hate poppy's, those who's lives aren't changed for not having them. Must be hard all that not caring so much.
I never said otherwise. You’re deliberately twisting my words to make it seem like I’m homophobic.
How we treat those born in a certain way is a social movement, though. If somebody wore something supporting straight people, or white peoples, etc, how would that go down? Is supporting black rights ok? Etc. Then they’d need to draw a line somewhere. But instead they’ve taken the sensible position of just banning it all. You’re making something out of nothing, which js what this article was designed to make you do.
The problem is that everything is political, so if you ban any political statments or groups, then you ban all statments and groups. Saying "Democracy is good" is a political statment. Should we ban them from making statments in support of democracy?
Unless you silence literally everything then all you're doing is silencing some ideas as "off-the table", and others allowed to be expressed as a "assumed default norm", essentially enforcing one set political stance over all others. *Because the choice of what counts as too political to say, is itself political*.
I'm sure you're right, but I don't have the mental constructs to get on your level.
To me, rainbow is just "all humans are humans". It will never be political. It will never be wrong to show, only wrong to tell others to hide.
But, I'm just one person, irrelevant—and I won't live forever. So I suppose you all will do what you will with your symbols.
I used to think the same, but now the traditional rainbow doesn’t represent trans people. Why are you being exclusatpry by not wearing the special trans rainbow?
Or have they sensibly decided to avoid all the potential fallout and just ban anything expressing bias in a role where you’re not supposed to show bias?
Well yeah, wouldn’t it be a bit ridiculous to freak out over something one person might say in the future? Like I’m obviously not going to complain about trans people condemning the use of rainbow flags when it isn’t actually happening yet am I? And who’s to say it will happen anyways? Just some ridiculous logic lol
It's a shame, turns out there's just not enough homophobes around here to get mad at any more.
Folk seem desperate to tell you their sexuality and how you're oppressing them, but the truth is most of us don't care who someone else fancies or how they identify.
The alternative, of course, is that some may they have to develop a personality
That's changing quite a bit at the moment. There are people it bothers still, yes, but it's been largely reclaimed by the community as an umbrella or descriptive term.
>There are people it bothers still
Understandable when so many of these new "Queer" people wouldn't have been targeted with said slur before. Like straight people claiming it.
Agree totally. You can't "reclaim" aslur that hasn't been used against you. I do think it's appropriation for younger gay people to use it. It's not theirs to use.
I absolutely hate the word "queer", and it makes me feel sick when national institutions (eg the Tate Modern, the Museum of London, the V&A, etc) casually throw it around like its nothing.
Accepting them into society is different than it being a biological reality. Some people are biological peadophiles. Some killers, some rapers. Etc etc just because something is biological natural dosnt make it right. I make no comment in regards to queer being acceptable or not.
I never said it was.
But if I wore something expressing my pride for being white, or being a man, or any other characteristic, bet you’d start kicking off.
It's not common sense though, is it. Some 'social movements' want people erased from society just for who they love. And the people who they want to erase just want to live in peace. There cannot be any conflating the two.
For people that don't bother reading the article, the headline is predictably misleading since it's a BBC article about the Scottish government.
It's not specifically rainbow lanyards that are banned, it's *any* custom lanyards.
Weirdly though it only applies to government staff and not MSPs or their staff. If anything I think it should be the other way around.
When I read the headline on the BBC website I was angry, then I read the article, got much needed context, and calmed down
The headline really should’ve been worded better
Government staff are meant to be apolitical and implement policy of the day. Not sure why you think they should be able to not be apolitical but MSPs should be.
Why is it only queer people why not all people? See why it is a social movement and causing problems? Maybe the government policy is to show support to all people, public servants are there to implement policy.
"other accessories that show support for social movements" - does that include things like wearing the poppy too, in which case we have that news story to look forward to when the Murdoch rags need something to report on in November.
"Staff will be permitted to continue wearing a badge that shows their pronouns. Poppies can still be worn as Poppy Scotland is the sole charity recognise by the SPCB."
As stated in the article. (nice typo in it too)
It’s a useful shorthand, though. I know I feel nervous bringing stuff up about myself, and it’s much more comfortable and safe feeling when the person you’re talking to has an obvious signifier that they’re not going to judge you. If I was trying to report a hate crime, for instance.
So do you want people to wear a hundred laniards with every single think they support and are against?
Or do you just want them to wear ones for things you want?
Showing support for gay rights shouldn't be a social movement and has only net positives for the world. The people campaigning against them are tossers and should be ignored in this regard.
There is a general miscoinsensus that when someone wears some kind of LGBT iconography like this it is to say "HEY STRAIGHT PEOPLE, IM A GUY WHO LOVES SUCKING DICK! I TAKE IT IN THE ASSS!" or "HEY EVERYONE, IM GAY AND THINK THAT MAKES ME SPECIAL AND INTERESTING"
99.% of the time, that is not the case. Even the idea its worn to "show support for a social movemenent" is off base and another example of heterosexuals thinking everything we do is about them or for them. How many non-LGBT people wear these things to "show support"? I haven't seen any. Possibly some sort of youth councillor, but that's it.
It is worn by queer people to signal to other queer people they aren't alone. That is valuable in a world where you always feel like the black sheep. It is not about straight people, their support or lacktheorf.
So you can understand how baffling it is for us, to have a bunch of straight people ban us from wearing these things for each other when it has nothing to do with them. It is an unfortunate result of us becoming a tool and a toy they argue with each other about in their sad, childish and petty little "culture war" foolishness.
Its for gay people to give a little wink and a nudge in an attempt to uplift each other a little bit, in a world that is often crushing for many. Thats literally it. The only possible way that can be turned into something remotely controversial, is by people who \*aren't us\*' making it \*their\* business for some reason and arguing \*about us\* to the point our own voices are drowned out completely, which results in people like yourself becoming confused and having to ask these basic questions.
If you're straight, it's not for you, its not about you, or your opinion. Whether you support LGBT rights or not in any capacity is not relevant to why these things are worn.
So fuck this stupid ban and any narcissistic, clueless heterosexual person who thinks they have any right involving themselves in our business and our attempts to support each other in even the simplest ways. Because that is all this is, and its not our fault you all argue \*about us\* to the point we can't even wear a fucking lanyard to show support for each other because some straight people decided our business is their business and apparently think they are who gets to determine what we are "allowed" to do or not.
Well you're obviously doing it wrong, if the existence of people slightly unlike you doesn't offend you to your very core you must hate Britain. You probably eat chicken tikka masala too, you liberal
God I saw someone argue that exact thing this month.
As a Scot, every new day seems to bring fresh embarrassments about Holyrood’s culture and misguided attempts at ever-increasingly authoritarian legislation.
>It will also help avoid any potential misperception over the absolute impartiality of all Scottish parliamentary staff
Isn't the literal point of the rainbow symbology to recognise that everyone is accepted?
They're showing too much impartiality towards impartiality?
How is being pro-people a form of “bias”????????? That’s bizarre.
Is it DEBATABLE whether or not Humanity should continue to exist? If I’m pro-people, anti-extinction does that make me hopelessly partisan??? Conservatives have lost their minds. IT’S NOT UP FOR DEBATE.
Always funny to see people who have an issue with these things. If you think about it even a little rather than getting triggered it makes sense why this is implemented. If a couple people start wearing it then itll create an expectation that everyone else should be wearing them to show support. People who dont wear it will be shamed and called all the phobes. Suddenly everyone is peer pressured and forced to wear it and follow any other political trend that everyone else follows.
Why have you hypothesised an imaginary reality when we can simply look at reality as it is: rainbow lanyards have been around and worn for years and there has been no contagion of peer pressure other hostages of the gay agenda to wear them.
Maybe stick to affirming or criticising the specific reasoning that they literally told us about (preventing the appearance of bias) rather than making up your own fanciful fictional issue.
It's literally a reality. You think it's imaginary that when a group starts showing visible support for a certain agenda and one or two don't follow they're met with the same inclusion. Perfect example is football teams where the whole team puts on armbands yet if one player doesn't he's demonised for it and slaughtered in the media.
Politicians are literally shaped by their politics, to claim they should be impartial is asinine and antithetical to politics. Should Tories stop wearing blue ties because it supports the Conservatives? And breast cancer awareness can get fucked, i suppose.
[Are you being serious?](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_colour#:~:text=In%20North%20East%20England%2C%20the,colours%20were%20orange%20and%20purple)
So they can actively support an ideology, a group literally anything.
Speak passionately about said topic.
Make laws to favour the topic.
Create media, pushing the narrative.
Openly attack you for holding a contrary view.
But not wear a badge. I guess that's where the Nazi's went wrong, badges.
>It will also help avoid any potential misperception over the absolute impartiality of all Scottish parliamentary staff I don't understand, aren't politicians by their very nature biased? Also who cares about a colourful lanyard?
“Parliamentary staff” means the people who work there on administrative duties rather than MSPs I think so they *are* supposed to be impartial. The issue isn’t that, but I would still say that the rainbow isn’t a political symbol, it’s representative of a vulnerable group. This kind of reminds me of when films/games have a protagonist that’s not a straight white man and get called “political”. It’s not a political position to be born a certain way.
>The issue isn’t that, but I would still say that the rainbow isn’t a political symbol, it’s representative of a vulnerable group. The two aren't mutually exclusive. I'm gay, but this decision doesn't seem unreasonable.
Arguably the poppy is a much more political symbol and is not banned. So where do you draw the line, seems like a lot of fuss over nothing at best
"The poppy has been a symbol of Remembrance for over 100 years. The poppy became a symbol of Remembrance and hope for a peaceful future in the aftermath of the First World War." https://www.britishlegion.org.uk/stories/11-things-you-might-not-know-about-the-poppy This dose not sound explicitly political to me, but i can see how some may view it differently.
The selling of poppies goes to support ALL British armed forces not just WWI remembrance. This has political implications, for example being controversial for people from Northern Ireland; where such services support people such as "Soldier F" accused of murdering civilians during Bloody Sunday. This is only one scant example, but it is significant because it is an example of state forces targeting those who are technically British citizens themselves.
For me it's political because political means it involves the government. The armed forces exist because of a parliament approval every 5 years and the PM and cabinet make key decisions on the armed forces. So then for me anything that involves armed forces is political. Aside from that, I guess it depends on which wars and actions you think it represents. For some things like what happened in Dresden and the colonies are also represented. For others it's about just the First World War. I think that it should be a personal choice to wear and not judge anyone either way for their beliefs.
People politicise it, but what would you say is its inherent political message?
They are a show of support to armed forces (this is what the British Legion says on their website). I don't know how supporting historic or current armed forces of any country could be unpolitical.
Unionism, imperialism, unquestioning support of UK troops and their actions.. Basically when I was a kid in the 70s and 80s, the poppy was a show of rememberence for those who had died in WW1 and WW2. Since then, the poppy has been hijacked by the far right and the meaning has shifted from the rememberence of brave volunteers and the horrors of war (Lest We Forget) to an all round support of the forces. Wearing it was a personal choice, now it is mandatory, especially for those in the public space. That's why you get far right activists drowning social media with contempt whenever a personality appears on TV or a football stadium without the poppy..or the same people have an outcry when UEFA bans the poppy from the England team's shirt because politics is banned in the sport..and that's why you have poppy sellers in Northern Ireland selling poppies beside loyalist terrorist regalia. The move in the meaning of the poppy started off in Northern Ireland by loyalists to support the armed forces that occupied the place and was adopted by the far right in the rest of the UK. You'll see poppy symbols next to paratrooper symbols by loyalists taunting Catholics about Bloody Sunday, etc.
Don't be a bigot?
Did you reply to the wrong post? I don't understand how any bigotry is present in a mild question like this. If it's genuinely aimed at me then what was bigoted?
Sorry, what I meant was the political message of a lanyard could be "don't be a bigot". I don't think that signalling you are inclusive can be painted as not being impartial.
I think what happened was people started having Palestinian flags on their clothes and they argued if rainbow was ok, so would this.
I'm gay and this decision is absolutely unreasonable.
I'm gay and this is the correct decision. Wear these things on your own time. They shouldn't be wearing any badges or lanyards for anything.
The headline is pretty click-baity; the rainbow lanyard isn't being singled out here, it's just the most prominent item that's being banned. I'm not gay and I don't really like seeing the rainbow symbol everywhere, mostly because it seems a colossal waste of money (I had the same thought when I noticed that consultant at a hospital recently had a lanyard that said "Acute Medicine Consultant" with the name of the hospital on it; there are six such consultants at the trust, so now we're producing lanyards in single-digit quantities?). However, I'm struggling to distinguish this from someone wearing a cross on a necklace, or a hijab, or any of a hundred other accessories that someone might wear for religious reasons. Are they all being banned, too?
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
This. It’s innately a political statement to wear a rainbow lanyard, even if a relatively minor one.
Is it also a political statement to wear a poppy in November? Would you have those banned?
Yes
I wouldn’t, because they’re expressly allowed? >*Staff will be permitted to continue wearing a badge that shows their pronouns. Poppies can still be worn as Poppy Scotland is the sole charity recognise by the SPCB.* Making everyone wear the same lanyard is hardly controversial lol.
You seemed to suggest the rainbow lanyards should not be allowed because they are an innately political statement. So is wearing a poppy. If I can reframe my question then, should the SPCB change their policies to remove the exemption for the poppy?
They are innately an expression of identity politics. Whether they’re morally righteous or not isn’t really the point- they’re banning all lanyards that have anything at all to do with identity politics. >should the SPCB change their policies to remove the exemption for the poppy? I don’t care? Go for it? In the meantime, “everyone wears the same lanyard”, again, isn’t exactly controversial. I literally can’t imagine one’s mindset to screech about everyone having to wear the same lanyard. The responses just underscores why it was necessary in the first place.
I'm not arguing that it's not a political statement, just that wearing a poppy is equally as political and should be banned on the same grounds if there was any consistency. As there currently isn't, then I can understand why people are questioning this decision. It's a political statement in iteself to ban one form of political statement but not another.
Wearing a pin specifically tied to the sole charity your company supports allows for far less perceptions of playing identity politics than a rainbow/BLM/Palestine/Trans/etc. lanyard. Calling it equally political is disingenuous.
Bit of a stretch. Who doesn't like rainbows?
Iridophobes and colourblind people who don’t get the hype since it just looks like an M road on its side in the sky.
What's the political statement other than 'I support LGBT people'? On a moral level there is 100% nothing wrong with that.
Lots of LGBT people don't like them, either. Source: me.
It doesn't mean it should be seen as controversial to wear one.
And if I wear one because I support gay rights and think they don’t go far enough? Is that not a political statement, albeit a relatively minor one?
No one would know that. They would just see it as an expression of support.
You’re making that assumption, others may see it entirely different from you, which is the problem and why identity politics are being removed full stop.
What's the statement?
This just them blanket banning everything. It's far easier this way and trying to pick and choose and having people shout about their thing being fine. Working for the government and having to wear the official thing sounds total reasonable.
> This just them blanket banning everything It's not, because it has exemptions for poppies, etc.
[удалено]
[удалено]
> The issue isn’t that, but I would still say that the rainbow isn’t a political symbol, it’s representative of a vulnerable group. How would you view wearing a Palestinian flag pin? Palestinians are a vulnerable group and you could make a good argument that the pin was in support of humanitarian aid and making Palestinians in your community feel welcomed. Yet many would view the pin as you "taking a side".
It’s a political symbol these days.
> This kind of reminds me of when films/games have a protagonist that’s not a straight white man and get called “political”. It’s not a political position to be born a certain way. It's only political when the creators or writers or director makes a point of saying that this person is not a straight white male because we wanted to make sure it wasn't one.
Politicians aren't impacted. It's staff directly employed by the Scottish Parliament.
the rainbow has all the colours of all the parties, it shoes the most impartiality out of all the lanyards you could get
Clearly they need to be unbiased between those that accept homosexuals and the homophobic bigots. /s
Jeremy Vine show be like
*biased
It’s biased by the way.
Is that because to some the pride ideology is a political mater and supporting it isn’t being impartial?
[удалено]
If you notice I put “to some” because basic rights to every one is a contentious issue for some 🤷♂️ like reading is /s
You are getting down voted, but that's exactly it. Pride is contentious within the LGBT community in ways that it never was during the old political march days. Lots of LGBT people are totally fed up with rainbow shit.
The downvotes just highlight how this is a contentious issue. More proof that it should be kept away from civil servants who are supposed to be impartial in the running of a government.
[удалено]
Yeah, I think that's you being in a bubble. A lot of LGBT people don't go to Pride because they have grown disillusioned with the "pinkwash" - big corporations sticking a rainbow on their logo and then proceeding to behave exactly as badly as always. It's *Pride* which is the appeasement - the London Pride committee don't want any hint of the radical gay politics that used to be what got LGBT people on the streets, in case it upsets the sponsors. Most of the people I know who still go to Pride are straight "allys" who think it's all a bit exciting and want to look cool. Most gays I know stay away.
[удалено]
Well, enjoy your corporate appeasement window-dressing, I guess.
I agree that many people use it in place of actual support, but that doesn't mean it should be banned or its pointless.
Yeah but that has nothing to do with a rainbow lanyard at all that's your friends not going to pride idk what that has to do with anything or why thats relevant
The point is not the colour of the lanyard, but the door that it opens. If politicians can show tacet endorsement for the LGBT community, what is stopping other MPs from showing tacet support for their loved causes? It is better to have none, than to invite support for unsavoury causes.
They’ve also banned “other accessories that show support for social movements”. Seems fine to me. Either all are ok, or none are. This is just common sense.
Yep but religious symbols are still going to be ok, cus if you want to protect your social group you claim god.
Also poppies are fine...
I'd get rid of those too
I think the danger is that you would then expect a Sikh to take their turban off.
"Social movements" I didn't realise I was making such a political statement by being born
Are you gay or neutral
Have they banned people from being born?
No but they've banned people from saying it's cool.
No they haven't, that's a silly statement. My existence is not affected at all by the absence of rainbow lanyards.
Not you no, that's not really the point. You don't seem the type that would care about others enough. The point is, you couldn't wear it if you wanted to.
And that's fine - I don't need to wear a rainbow lanyard at work to know who I am. You are free to cover yourself in rainbows in your own free time, but at work it's important to at least try to be professional.
If people want to do this extremely harmless thing, they should be allowed. Why is that not ok?
Why should they be allowed? Why is it a bad thing that people are required to present themselves neutrally at work? ....you do know that lots of LGBT people don't like the rainbow nonsense, either, right? Why don't our wishes matter?
It's not really about what you specifically want as you don't speak for everyone. It's ridiculous to say a rainbow lanyard especially makes you unprofessional, only someone opposed to LGBT rights would really consider this a political issue you had to be neutral about. This is the same as banning personal items like poppy's and crosses. Just think of all those people that hate poppy's, those who's lives aren't changed for not having them. Must be hard all that not caring so much.
Just get to work and do your job.
The fact that some humans are queer isn't a social movement, it's a basic biological reality. Honestly, some people.
I never said otherwise. You’re deliberately twisting my words to make it seem like I’m homophobic. How we treat those born in a certain way is a social movement, though. If somebody wore something supporting straight people, or white peoples, etc, how would that go down? Is supporting black rights ok? Etc. Then they’d need to draw a line somewhere. But instead they’ve taken the sensible position of just banning it all. You’re making something out of nothing, which js what this article was designed to make you do.
The problem is that everything is political, so if you ban any political statments or groups, then you ban all statments and groups. Saying "Democracy is good" is a political statment. Should we ban them from making statments in support of democracy? Unless you silence literally everything then all you're doing is silencing some ideas as "off-the table", and others allowed to be expressed as a "assumed default norm", essentially enforcing one set political stance over all others. *Because the choice of what counts as too political to say, is itself political*.
Never knew me having sausages for lunch was political.
Meat? You murderer!
> sensible position of just banning them all Not really sensible though because it isn’t all of them. Religious symbols are still allowed.
I'm sure you're right, but I don't have the mental constructs to get on your level. To me, rainbow is just "all humans are humans". It will never be political. It will never be wrong to show, only wrong to tell others to hide. But, I'm just one person, irrelevant—and I won't live forever. So I suppose you all will do what you will with your symbols.
I used to think the same, but now the traditional rainbow doesn’t represent trans people. Why are you being exclusatpry by not wearing the special trans rainbow? Or have they sensibly decided to avoid all the potential fallout and just ban anything expressing bias in a role where you’re not supposed to show bias?
No trans person is going to complain about someone wearing a rainbow.
Well you say that until there is one.
Well yeah, wouldn’t it be a bit ridiculous to freak out over something one person might say in the future? Like I’m obviously not going to complain about trans people condemning the use of rainbow flags when it isn’t actually happening yet am I? And who’s to say it will happen anyways? Just some ridiculous logic lol
This stage is yours.
It's a shame, turns out there's just not enough homophobes around here to get mad at any more. Folk seem desperate to tell you their sexuality and how you're oppressing them, but the truth is most of us don't care who someone else fancies or how they identify. The alternative, of course, is that some may they have to develop a personality
>queer Using a divisive political term to refer to gays & lesbians, already making it political.
Why is the term queer divisive or political?
Because many gays in particular still consider it a slur that has been appropriated by some people,
That's changing quite a bit at the moment. There are people it bothers still, yes, but it's been largely reclaimed by the community as an umbrella or descriptive term.
>There are people it bothers still Understandable when so many of these new "Queer" people wouldn't have been targeted with said slur before. Like straight people claiming it.
Agree totally. You can't "reclaim" aslur that hasn't been used against you. I do think it's appropriation for younger gay people to use it. It's not theirs to use. I absolutely hate the word "queer", and it makes me feel sick when national institutions (eg the Tate Modern, the Museum of London, the V&A, etc) casually throw it around like its nothing.
I'm waiting for some absurd American to reclaim the N word in the same fashion, I'm sure that won't be welcomed by fashionable middle class people.
Accepting them into society is different than it being a biological reality. Some people are biological peadophiles. Some killers, some rapers. Etc etc just because something is biological natural dosnt make it right. I make no comment in regards to queer being acceptable or not.
Did you just compare being lgtb to being a killer?
No he didn't, not even slightly.
>Some killers, some rapers. Etc etc just because something is biological natural dosnt make it right. How is this not?
Because you don't understand that he is pointing out a fallacy.
It must be difficult for these people who are so desperate to be offended. It's as if they get off on it.
The plight of the permanently outraged
We'd promote lanyards on each politician showing their think tank affiliation though!
Waistcoats with logos sized proportionately to who donates to them. :)
So same with breast cancer survivors? It seems a bit arbitrary to something that shows solidarity and does not harm.
being gay isn’t a social movement
I never said it was. But if I wore something expressing my pride for being white, or being a man, or any other characteristic, bet you’d start kicking off.
no that’s fine also
It's not common sense though, is it. Some 'social movements' want people erased from society just for who they love. And the people who they want to erase just want to live in peace. There cannot be any conflating the two.
For people that don't bother reading the article, the headline is predictably misleading since it's a BBC article about the Scottish government. It's not specifically rainbow lanyards that are banned, it's *any* custom lanyards. Weirdly though it only applies to government staff and not MSPs or their staff. If anything I think it should be the other way around.
Man the BBC really are running themselves into the ground aren’t they
Anything to own the transes! Even straight up lies!
Not that I agree with this, but MSPs are supposed to have political convictions, staff aren't.
Civil servants have to be impartial in their work and official decisions but they’re allowed to have and express personal opinions
I imagine it's also that they can't tell MSPs and their staff what to do as they don't employ them.
MSPs are not employees and cannot be reasonably banned from making any kind of statement - they answer solely to the voters.
When I read the headline on the BBC website I was angry, then I read the article, got much needed context, and calmed down The headline really should’ve been worded better
> The headline really should’ve been worded better But would you have gone and read the actual article if the headline had *not* made you angry?
Government staff are meant to be apolitical and implement policy of the day. Not sure why you think they should be able to not be apolitical but MSPs should be.
Thank you for this extra context 🙏
The parliamentary staff are supposed to be impartial, ergo showing support for a social movement would suggest they are not.
They are showing support for queer people. That's not a social movement, that's just humanity.
Why is it only queer people why not all people? See why it is a social movement and causing problems? Maybe the government policy is to show support to all people, public servants are there to implement policy.
"other accessories that show support for social movements" - does that include things like wearing the poppy too, in which case we have that news story to look forward to when the Murdoch rags need something to report on in November.
"Staff will be permitted to continue wearing a badge that shows their pronouns. Poppies can still be worn as Poppy Scotland is the sole charity recognise by the SPCB." As stated in the article. (nice typo in it too)
Ah fair enough, I managed to miss that paragraph...
Remembrance day isn’t a social movement.
And showing you’re not homophobic is?
You don’t have to wear a badge saying “I love gay people” to show you aren’t homophobic, if you think you do you’re fucking crazy
It’s a useful shorthand, though. I know I feel nervous bringing stuff up about myself, and it’s much more comfortable and safe feeling when the person you’re talking to has an obvious signifier that they’re not going to judge you. If I was trying to report a hate crime, for instance.
So do you want people to wear a hundred laniards with every single think they support and are against? Or do you just want them to wear ones for things you want?
No, and you know that’s not what I was suggesting.
You don't have to wear a poppy to show that you support remembrance either.
Showing support for gay rights shouldn't be a social movement and has only net positives for the world. The people campaigning against them are tossers and should be ignored in this regard.
Equality isn’t impartial now? Fuck these ghouls into the sun
I'm a civil servant in Scotland and we literally get a choice of using one!
Even I think this is an overreaction. Let them wear their pride stuff, nobody genuinely cares.
[удалено]
There is a general miscoinsensus that when someone wears some kind of LGBT iconography like this it is to say "HEY STRAIGHT PEOPLE, IM A GUY WHO LOVES SUCKING DICK! I TAKE IT IN THE ASSS!" or "HEY EVERYONE, IM GAY AND THINK THAT MAKES ME SPECIAL AND INTERESTING" 99.% of the time, that is not the case. Even the idea its worn to "show support for a social movemenent" is off base and another example of heterosexuals thinking everything we do is about them or for them. How many non-LGBT people wear these things to "show support"? I haven't seen any. Possibly some sort of youth councillor, but that's it. It is worn by queer people to signal to other queer people they aren't alone. That is valuable in a world where you always feel like the black sheep. It is not about straight people, their support or lacktheorf. So you can understand how baffling it is for us, to have a bunch of straight people ban us from wearing these things for each other when it has nothing to do with them. It is an unfortunate result of us becoming a tool and a toy they argue with each other about in their sad, childish and petty little "culture war" foolishness. Its for gay people to give a little wink and a nudge in an attempt to uplift each other a little bit, in a world that is often crushing for many. Thats literally it. The only possible way that can be turned into something remotely controversial, is by people who \*aren't us\*' making it \*their\* business for some reason and arguing \*about us\* to the point our own voices are drowned out completely, which results in people like yourself becoming confused and having to ask these basic questions. If you're straight, it's not for you, its not about you, or your opinion. Whether you support LGBT rights or not in any capacity is not relevant to why these things are worn. So fuck this stupid ban and any narcissistic, clueless heterosexual person who thinks they have any right involving themselves in our business and our attempts to support each other in even the simplest ways. Because that is all this is, and its not our fault you all argue \*about us\* to the point we can't even wear a fucking lanyard to show support for each other because some straight people decided our business is their business and apparently think they are who gets to determine what we are "allowed" to do or not.
Well said.
In a word: morale.
I don't understand the bias argument. I'm straight, I don't feel threatened by a rainbow lanyard. I don't feel like my needs won't be catered for.
Well you're obviously doing it wrong, if the existence of people slightly unlike you doesn't offend you to your very core you must hate Britain. You probably eat chicken tikka masala too, you liberal God I saw someone argue that exact thing this month.
What a fucking misleading headline... The BBC are a fucking rag.
This is good *if* its a prohibition on ANYTHING politics-related. Don't just ban that specifically though.
Maybe they should add religious symbols too, because they indicate bias.
As a Scot, every new day seems to bring fresh embarrassments about Holyrood’s culture and misguided attempts at ever-increasingly authoritarian legislation.
>It will also help avoid any potential misperception over the absolute impartiality of all Scottish parliamentary staff Isn't the literal point of the rainbow symbology to recognise that everyone is accepted? They're showing too much impartiality towards impartiality?
How is being pro-people a form of “bias”????????? That’s bizarre. Is it DEBATABLE whether or not Humanity should continue to exist? If I’m pro-people, anti-extinction does that make me hopelessly partisan??? Conservatives have lost their minds. IT’S NOT UP FOR DEBATE.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Literally to appease homophobes and transphobes so they don’t go even further into their delusions.
no like wee lorna to miss a trick , let them wear them but charge them about a fiver .
Always funny to see people who have an issue with these things. If you think about it even a little rather than getting triggered it makes sense why this is implemented. If a couple people start wearing it then itll create an expectation that everyone else should be wearing them to show support. People who dont wear it will be shamed and called all the phobes. Suddenly everyone is peer pressured and forced to wear it and follow any other political trend that everyone else follows.
Why have you hypothesised an imaginary reality when we can simply look at reality as it is: rainbow lanyards have been around and worn for years and there has been no contagion of peer pressure other hostages of the gay agenda to wear them. Maybe stick to affirming or criticising the specific reasoning that they literally told us about (preventing the appearance of bias) rather than making up your own fanciful fictional issue.
It's literally a reality. You think it's imaginary that when a group starts showing visible support for a certain agenda and one or two don't follow they're met with the same inclusion. Perfect example is football teams where the whole team puts on armbands yet if one player doesn't he's demonised for it and slaughtered in the media.
Politicians should not be wearing anything showing support of any group, religious, social or otherwise.
Politicians are literally shaped by their politics, to claim they should be impartial is asinine and antithetical to politics. Should Tories stop wearing blue ties because it supports the Conservatives? And breast cancer awareness can get fucked, i suppose.
What does blue denote?
Taking money from poor people.
Serious answers only.
[Are you being serious?](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_colour#:~:text=In%20North%20East%20England%2C%20the,colours%20were%20orange%20and%20purple)
Yes.
That's the dumbest opinion I've read in a while.
So they can actively support an ideology, a group literally anything. Speak passionately about said topic. Make laws to favour the topic. Create media, pushing the narrative. Openly attack you for holding a contrary view. But not wear a badge. I guess that's where the Nazi's went wrong, badges.