3 ms·

My point with It Gets Better is that she is suggesting there may be unintended negative consequences to the movement. First, this is sensationalism. Second, her

My point with It Gets Better is that she is suggesting there may be unintended negative consequences to the movement. First, this is sensationalism. Second, her own words ironically have unintended consequences since people who "oppose" LBGT groups will no doubt use this argument in the future. What would danah boyd think about giving the latest talking point to the likes of, say, the Westboro Baptist Church?

lkrubner 15y ago
Your argument is irrational and incoherent. You write "This is sensationalism" but you don't bother to say why. boyd is a researcher who focuses on issues such as the effect online social services have on teen social pressures. In what sense is her question invalid? Why is this not a valid topic for further research? I gather that you are mostly worried about the unintended consequences of her words. To the extent that I can find a coherent line of reasoning in your words, it amounts to fear, and a desire to shut boyd up. The gist of your fear could be summed up as "boyd should shut up or her words might be used by the enemies of the LBGT community". You don't seem to consider that perhaps she has a loyalty to the truth that goes beyond her desire to give support to policies endorsed by some LBGT non-profits, and also, and more importantly, her research might ultimately do good for the LBGT community by pointing out that some of those policies currently being pursued by various levels of government and also NGOs (It Gets Better) might be doing harm. In other words, you are criticizing her without ever considering the possibility that what she writes might be true. You then try to make a point using the Westboro Baptist Church as an example. Your point amounts to "boyd should lie or otherwise the Westboro Baptist Church might misuse her research." Your argument is ridiculous.

lkrubner 15y ago

Your argument is irrational and incoherent. You write "This is sensationalism" but you don't bother to say why. boyd is a researcher who focuses on issues such as the effect online social services have on teen social pressures. In what sense is her question invalid? Why is this not a valid topic for further research? I gather that you are mostly worried about the unintended consequences of her words. To the extent that I can find a coherent line of reasoning in your words, it amounts to fear, and a desire to shut boyd up. The gist of your fear could be summed up as "boyd should shut up or her words might be used by the enemies of the LBGT community". You don't seem to consider that perhaps she has a loyalty to the truth that goes beyond her desire to give support to policies endorsed by some LBGT non-profits, and also, and more importantly, her research might ultimately do good for the LBGT community by pointing out that some of those policies currently being pursued by various levels of government and also NGOs (It Gets Better) might be doing harm. In other words, you are criticizing her without ever considering the possibility that what she writes might be true. You then try to make a point using the Westboro Baptist Church as an example. Your point amounts to "boyd should lie or otherwise the Westboro Baptist Church might misuse her research." Your argument is ridiculous.