cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/1476849
Archived version: https://archive.ph/0Su3f
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230815101452/https://www.euronews.com/culture/2023/08/15/amsterdam-opens-trailblazing-skatepark-a-safe-haven-for-lgbtq-and-women-skaters
Why not both?
I’m not sure why your response is so hostile against my support of the idea, or why you make so many unfounded assumptions.
How do you know I don’t raise my voice against those views in public? And I never said anything about such spaces being “zones out of sight”, that was your addition. I didn’t say that this article’s idea was the limit of what I support.
Sure it could be “even better”… literally any idea could be even better. But if you attack everything less than perfection, we will never get anywhere.
No, that’s not some “not quite perfect but definitely an improvement”-idea. It’s bullshit moving people out of sight. And no that is not “my addition” but a simply fact, one very prominently pointed out in the very first sentence of this report (“Nestled within a warehouse…”).
That’s a problem, a “but we did something to help”-diversion at best, but no solution.
Because out “of sight, out of mind” does never actually solve anything. It literally pushes LGBTQ out of sight so the homophobics hopefully find another topic to be enraged about… for some limited time only.
That’s not a solution. I thought we all had agreed at this point that solving the issue is about open and fair representation as a completely normal part of, as well as clear support in society…
(Just like being personally offended when someone doesn’t perfectly agree with you doesn’t solve anything. Or how did you interpret my criticism about cheering for a project that creates out-of-sight safe zones as anything other but critcism about the initiators of the project and the author of that report? Is there something on your mind that I should have read - between your … one line of statement? Yes, you can read that part as personal criticism or just dismiss it as a quip because I really have no clue where you found that hostility…)
I interpreted it as directed at me and my comment, because you wrote it as a reply to my comment, rather than a reply to the article.
The rest… i will leave you with that. I still disagree with your perspective.