JudgeGame said:
But you understand that the ignorance comes from the fact they are in a position of privilege and have been able to go through life blissfully unaware of the problems other demographics face, right?
Interesting, because in my country teenagers white and otherwise are over represented in the criminal justice system, given special legal status which upgrades normally civil offences to criminal offences, have bans put on their choices of clothing, excessively demonised in the media as criminals and thugs drumming up an incredible atmosphere of hostility and fear regarding this demographic.
I can't tell you how many times the TVs stations where I live will air the same seventeen year old video of some kids in hooded sweatshirts smashing a car up whenever they talk about teenagers. People cross the street where I live if they see teenagers on the same side of the road as them, and will automatically assume they are about criminal behaviour whenever they congregate, often using law enforcement to disperse them with the implied threat of violence, there are special laws for this group you see.
Oh and if you are a teenager and you are talking about anything with anyone online and they find out your age, you are far more likely to be marginalised and your views dismissed summarily usually derisively.
They are (mostly) children, of course they are going to be ignorant, and its got nothing to do with with the ever more common excuse to make presumption and prejudice against someone without ever having to get to know that person,
privilege, its because they are don't actually have any life experience yet.
I mean seriously, if children and teenagers are to be made to feel ashamed for asking adults about why they arrange their affairs in the way they do how will they ever learn anything?
Edit: clarification. I don't mean to sound as aggressive as I fear this does, heat with light and all that, certainly not in a directed manner towards you judge, but half the time people just call someone privileged so they never have to even get to know them.
Edit: additional and on topic.
My immediate emotional reaction was that I am against this, no rational, just emotion.
I thought about it to determine why I feel that way I figured it out pretty fast. I don't want gay people to have their own party because they might not come to my party and I want them to come to my party.
That having been said, I don't even go to cons so I don't know why I feel like nobodies coming to
mine, when I'm not even there myself. My feeling is that I want to have conventions where everyone who shares my hobbies and interests can be there so I can enjoy their presence, I don't want them not to be there, since that means I miss out on people who might be my friends.
Of course as JudgeGame and others have said anyone can go to this Gaymer con, so its more a Gaymer friendly con. Which is fine, and my dystopian vision of cons becoming ghost towns attended to by only a handful of souls is unfounded.
It isn't like gold rush towns, or to a lesser extent internet forums. Conventions by their nature are dynamic, occurring in instances, and motivated strongly by market forces so they can splinter, merge and splinter again and we will probably be better off by the end result, or at least no worse off for the journey.
The cartoons though.. No, I'm not seeing much applicability. Gay and non gay public toilets sound like a bad idea, too close to imposed segregation and Buddhist and non Buddhist temples are exclusive sets, where as gaymer con doesn't exclude by all accounts so that one doesn't really work either.
