A gay cruise liner has rescued 11 refugees adrift in a small boat in the Gulf of Mexico in an “emotional” moment.

I think this counts as uplifting news!

  • DenixenEnglish
    123·
    8 hours ago

    Don’t you mean the Gulf of Trump? Or was it Gulf of America? I don’t remember…

  • sga013@lemmy.worldMEnglish
    19·
    4 hours ago

    I am sorry, but why do we have to specify they are “gay cruise” - I am not against LGBTQIA+ folks, but I think one of the things for equality is proper acceptance, and mentioning gay cruise definitely puts a bad light on it (overly emphasising on theee gay part rather than the rescue part). And it also unnecessarily adds to the stereotypes (which I would not be explaining here). Not homophobeic, but i would have prefered if title would have been - A cruise rescues …

    • celeste@kbin.earth
      3·
      21 minutes ago

      First off, is this the perspective of Uplifting News as a community? I posted an article from an lgbt oriented news site on this community before, and got a similar question. You’re a mod, so if you think we shouldn’t post articles from queer news sites, could you let us know that?

      I’m queer, so I read queer news all the time, and sometimes there’s something that cheers me up a bit on those sites instead of depressing me, so I’ll be like “i should share this with that uplifting news group!” If it’s going to be a debate every time we post from lgbtnation, pink news, transvitae, etc, then let us know. They are always going to autofill with headlines about the group they are writing news about and for.

      • sga013@lemmy.worldMEnglish
        1·
        2 hours ago

        (overly emphasising on the gay part rather than the rescue part)

        that was my whole point - how rescue does adding the word gay add to conversation - we might as well add there racial identity, ethiniicity and what not /s. Maybe using “bad light” was not appropriate wording - let me rephrase it better - we are focussing on wrong thing here - instead of focusing on rescue, we are focussing on the fact they are gay - I dont have problem with them being gay - but that is not the very fabric of their being is it. Whenever we try to put labels on people we ignore there lives as a whole and just focus on labels.

        let my try to show my point of view from an example - just switching one wword from title

        • Gay cruise rescues refugees adrift in Gulf of Mexico

        • Indian cruise rescues refugees adrift in Gulf of Mexico

        • American cruise rescues refugees adrift in Gulf of Mexico

        • Alien cruise rescues refugees adrift in Gulf of Mexico

        In any of these situations did the meaning really change. Just some part of identity of rescuers changed. Now from persepective of this community - Uplifiting news, what is the uplifting news - I am presuming - rescue happened. Does identity matter here.

        Maybe I am wrong - then correct me - does the the identity matter here?

        • gid@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOPEnglish
          3·
          1 hour ago

          To me headline highlights the intersectionality and solidarity shown when of one group of historically oppressed people (refugees) is rescued by another group historically oppressed group (gay people).

          The fact that the rescuers were from a gay cruise doesn’t make their actions inherently more special than if they were from any other kind of cruise, but there’s an importance in having positive media portrayal for LGBTQIA+ folks when the current political climate in many countries is turning more towards intolerance and oppression of queer people again.

        • sga013@lemmy.worldMEnglish
          1·
          2 hours ago

          Also from perspective who writes stuff (my domain is scientific articles, so may not directly apply) - Your title is the hook for article - and it is the photo of your product which goes in the catalog, and since catalogs have limited space - you can only put a finite amount of details in it, ideally the most enticing one. If you put “Gay” as the very first word in the title, this story (from the perspective of person just reading the title) would see this as the main element in story. This is again putting a label on them and their identity.

          • gid@lemmy.blahaj.zoneOPEnglish
            2·
            59 minutes ago

            If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that putting emphasis on the “Gay” description is reductive?

            I don’t necessarily disagree, but headlines need to be short, capture attention and accurately summarize the content of the article. I think this headline succeeds in all these aspects.

            Also it’s worth noting that this cruise was chartered by a company that advertises itself as specialising in gay & LGBTQ+ holiday packages. I doubt anyone taking part in this cruise would object to it being described as gay.

      • sga013@lemmy.worldMEnglish
        1·
        2 hours ago

        Sorry, but I have never heard of them (they are not big over where I live). From checking out there about page - they produce media related to LGBTQIA+. I dont have any strong opinionabout them, but If I extrapolate from the little bit that I got from there recommended articles on the linked page

        56 celebrities you didn’t know are gay, bisexual or lesbian

        this just seems like people who capitalise on people who are fans of these celebs, and also potentially LGBTQIA+ folks who may look upto them. I don’t have any problem with latter, It is good to know about people who have a successfull carreer, but I do have problem with first (which has arguably a large audience - any celeb fan). I am in general not interested about any celebs and I dont like this kind of content.

        Going to their homepage - I found politics. Mostly statements by US leaders (conservatives vs liberal) views on LGBTQIA+ folks and their rights. And there are other celebrity posts. I am not American, so I don’t really care about them.

      • sga013@lemmy.worldMEnglish
        1·
        2 hours ago

        I am not going to reply to your snarkiness. Read my perspective here https://lemmy.world/comment/15354645

        And your reply also over generalises my being from 2 words. I am not triggered by hearing gay - but maybe I am too. I have friend who is queer, but even they don’t like that their description should start from them being queer. They would much rather prefer if you charecterise them by their name or work, and not just 1 part of identity.

        I would also prefer if you would read my original comment again.