I knew it. Even though I used caps for “if”. It is a hypothetical. You do know what a hypothetical is don’t you?
Excellent. Right on script: 1) circle the wagons, 2) demonize. Well done.
How about if you have research that shows they suck blood and eat Christian babies? How “hypothetical” do you want to get?
This is bullshit. THis is dishonest, lying, sore loser, defensive, morally bankrupt, painted into a corner but won’t admit you’re wrong bullshit.
More of the same.
How dare you! You are a liar, all through this, and as soon as you come across an insurmountable consensus that paints you clearly in the wrong, you try to lie your way out of with with this bullshit.
I think it’s incumbent upon those in the water drinking community to limit the use of the word “water” to mean either oceans or spoonfuls, then start using another term for the other. Your insistance on coming up with a new term for the killers of Mathew Shepard, so you can remain complacent in your own private homophobia, is transparently self serving and dishonest. You want to be a homophobe but you don’t want to accept responsibility for it.
It has been, by everyone but people who want their self-denial to be the standard. And no, it’s not “outside the gay community,” :rolleyes: --only withIN the homophobe community. Nobody denies being a racist quite as loudly as a racist.
Oh, but not the vast minority of the “gay rights movement”? There are still some rights you don’t think gay people should have?
And anyway, what’s this “gay rights movement”? Wake up, Rip. There’s no “gay rights movement.” You live in a world where more and more people understand that to talk about “gay rights” as separate from human rights is nonsensical. The only people who see the “gay rights movement” as being in need of such helpful advice about things that are “wise for the movement” are tinyminded, denial-entrenched homophobes.
Well you need to think of yourself in a different way, and you need to take responsibility for your own resentment. The only way to feel that you yourself are being called a homophobe, at the Dope, is self-identification. You see yourself in the definitions–all cited from external sources–and resent it. Then you want some individual, non-representative gay person here to address and assuage your personal resentment, to forgive you and give you permission to indulge your prejudices but escape the label.
What are you seeking here? You keep on, you keep trying to convince some member of the “gay community” to approve of you, to tell you it’s OK to have these quiet, private irrational prejudices about gay people. You want one of us to forgive you for your divisive language (every post you write is all colored “us” and “them”) and your defense of prejudice. You refuse to accept the overwhelming consensus (there’s those external cites again) that you ARE, in fact, a homophobe, and short of buying up and burning every English dictionary on the planet, there’s no escaping that fact. The only way to change that is for YOU to examine and alter your behavior. Advising me on how to alter my behavior so that you can remain complacently unbothered by your prejudices is just not gonna cut it.
You’re addressing a dictionary here? Cuz this ain’t the pit, right? It’s the dictionary bullying you, right?
:rolleyes: Dude, we can still read your other posts. Carefully mouthed denials at the end of this post don’t actually negate everything else you’ve said here.
You need to understand that YOU do not define the issues here. We do not need you to be comfortable with universal human rights. Your discomfort is your problem, not mine. I’m not going to relieve you of it. I can’t. Your magnanimous and patronizing “belief” that homosexuality (well, the vast vast majority of it anyway) is not “wrong or evil” is relevant to exactly nobody but you. I don’t need your permission, your approval, to exist. I already exist. You’re the one with the discomfort, you’re the one with the prejudice. That’s all on you. Nothing I can say will change that. Even if I–as some kind of sick joke–pretended to absolve you of your homophobia, I don’t represent anyone but myself. I will have changed exactly nothing about you and your prejudices and your place in the world. That is all entirely up to you.
Dude, you do understand that there is no such thing as “the gay agenda”? That it’s an urban legend–a joke? That anyone who uses that term seriously does so at the risk of putting his credibility in jeopardy? Additionally, that it’s a phrase used most visibly and vocally by homophobe wingnuts like Phred Phelps and Pat Robertson, so that by using it with a straight face you raise doubts about your own “agenda”? Certainly, to use it is likely to raise doubts about your understanding:ignorance ratio.
As I see it, most of the complaints in this thread are coming from people who, by their statements, show themselves to be prejudiced against homosexuals (should I name names? Perhaps not at this stage), but still don’t want to be labelled “homophobic”. What I say to them is - “Tough. You are homophobic. If you don’t like that, perhaps you should change your opinions, or at least stop expressing them.”
Why? This would imply there’s a point where “mild” homophobia becomes acceptable; I would strongly disagree with that. Is someone who says “I’ll serve a nggr at my store, but I wouldn’t let my daughter marry one” still a racist? I think so.
Excellent post, lissener. Let’s hope that some people actually read it.
Thsi is not my definition you are commenting on here. But the more you type the more you show that Evil Captor was right on the mark.
Oh, really? How about explaining why.
What? What have I been lying about? Up unitl recently I haven’t even stated a position on anything, this thread has been on exploring whether we can agree on a definition of homophobia. There has not been an issue on the table from which asking for a definition is trying to skirt a question. What the hell are you talking about? If this thread was about an issue involving gays and the question was then brought up you might have a point, but it’s not and you don’t. Try to calm down and let the synapses fire in a more normal fashion.
I refer you to Evil Captor’s definition again:
So everyone who isn’t clear on what “homophobia” means is a homophobe. Brilliant! Evil Captor’s definition is proven more correct every time your fingers hit the keyboard.
That is not the issue and you know it. We are not talking about anyone’s stance on any issue, the thread was offered to explore whther we could ALL agree on a definitiuon so we could communicate better, in contrast to the thread I excerpted.
Score another one for Evil Captor. And so sorry if I’m not up on the latest nomenclature, but you know damn well what I meant: the issues that are important to the gay community. I know you know beceause you were able to answer the question just above.
You’re wrong and I don’t forgive you. You are the one who is giving an entire group a label that is deserved by just part of that group. It is unfair, not to mention dumb.
No, I’d like you to acknowledge that the word homophobia has too broad a definition. And to see that it is used—intentionally or not—to unfairly demonize people who might have legitimate disagreement with you over any gay issue.
What?! I’m trying to gain consensus on the meaning of a word. Cite, please.
You have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about. Your anger since the beginning of this thread has been as noticeable as it it is ill-placed. Now we see, that it has interfered with the ability to think. Calm down. And since you do not agree with Evil Captor, you might want to stop proving him to be so right.
And please, point to the definition that proves me to be a homophobe. Or supply your own. Granted that might constitute adding something of value and I gather that is not something you like to do.
It was not and is not directed at anyone in this thread, therefore, from what I understand, acceptable. If you took it differently, I apologize.
Like what? Please, oh please, point to my sins.
That’s where you are wrong. It is incumbent upon all of us to be reasonable. That is the most I’m asking for. And the fact that you take such great offense when someone simply seeks to gain consensus on a word—without even caring what that definition be, except that it not be so broad to be meaningless—speaks to your profound hate. For some reason you are afraid to communicate more clearly. Why is that? Why would anyone be against more specific speech, ESPECIALLY ON A DEBATE BOARD?!!! Well, why? Answer that question. What benefit does it serve to keep using a word to mean so m any things that misunderstanding is just about guaranteed? Do you think we should try to make speech more helpful to communication or less? Should we keep words like giggle, guffaw, snicker, yuk, chuckle, and twitter? Or throw them all away and just use laugh?
I think the answer it that it is you who want to be devisive. You want two neat little boxes: either you sign on for every single aspect of the gay agenda and are with us, or your against us. Good guys vs bad guys. (Oooo, I used “gay agenda” again. Bad, bad, bad…) Sorry, the world doesn’t work that way. People who think don’t work that way.
And your characterization of what I said is flagrantly dishonest. You took two different statements on two different topics and sewed them together. My statement “Given that I believe that homosexuality is not, wrong, or evil, or anything except something as natural as heterosexuality, I would hate to see an unnecessary rift develop.” as you can see, is without qualification.
Your dishonesty is no doubt due, in part, to your inability to see that someone can simultaneously hold that opinion and disagree with you on a specific issue important to the gay community. You are small minded. You are intolerant. You are rabid. And you are intellectually dishonest. Not a good combination. I strongly suggest you seek help, particularly with the rabid part.
Simply, you are a bully. You want people to submit. You enjoy being able to throw around “homophobe” to quash any degree of disagreement.
Evil Captor, well done.
IF my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle.
You want demonizing?? Try looking at it from OUR side. Want some quotes> Just say so, There are plenty out there. As for “my definitions”, they were lifted from the web, in a quick google search.
So because some on the OTHER side have demonized gays, then it makes sense to demonize everyone who doesn’t agree with you 100%? C’mon, you’ve got to see that that doesn’t make sense and is grossly unfair, not to mention counter-productive. And sometimes when a group is the victim of an injustice, they are very sensitive to it and try NOT to visit the same ugliness on others. I’m quite surprised that that is not the case here.
And I appreciate you finding the definitions. You helped make my point that two people can be usiing the word and mean it to mean very different things. I showed that to be the case in my example. This thread is another example. And as I’ve said, I don’t care what the definition is. I just think it would be much more useful as a word if it was not used or defined as broadly as it is. That’s it. So please tell me, what is so unreasonable or evil or hateful or irrational or “homophobic” about that?
So you DO understand the concept, yet choose to not further the discussion. Okay…
Because it was pointless to follow that path. Essentially you were saying “IF it could be proven that X was Y then X would be Y.” It’s true, but so what?
Using the word “homophobe” is not demonizing. It is just a convenient word. We could use the following:
Those who want gays to have fewer rights and privileges or none at all
Those who want gays killed
Those who merely want to beat the shit out of them
Those who merely want them all castrated
Those who, for no reason other than spitefulness, revel in tossing open insults at people, such as faggot, queer, sissy, etc.
Those who accuse us of threatening the American way of life
Those who accuse us of wanting to destroy marriage
Any other unfounded and ridiculous accusation that could come up
Those who keep saying all gays are fucked up and are going to hell - and delight in saying so, over and over and over and over.
Those (including a certain pope) who say they have no value
Those who just think they are gross and nasty
Those who think gays are subhuman, or merely “not as good” - and proceed to treat them as such
Those who are afraid every gay in the world wants to rape them or their children
Those who are afraid every gay in the world wants to recruit them or their children
Those who believe in some undefined “gay agenda” and need to crush it, whatever it is.
The list could go on forever. But what for??? No other group has to narrowly and specifially restrict their word. Everyone understands the meaning of “racist” or “anti-Semitic”. Do blacks or Jews have to constantly redefine “their” word? Then why should we?
It is an empty argument. It is a strawman. We could use some word, like “gxzauduerneldfdlflsujglflksdfgh” and still it would not change the real issues. The word is nothing. The problems it addresses are the problem, and the problems exist.
[QUOTE=Humpty Dumpty]
It means exactly what I mean it to say. No more, no less[/Humpty]
This is what it comes down to. You want to have your particular set of prejudices excluded from the definition of “homophobia” so you can say “I’m not homophobic, but…”
There is no such thing as a minor, or acceptable, or irrelevant degree of prejudice. One is either prejudiced, or one isn’t.
Do you think all those things are even roughly equal? You want to equate people who think “gays are subhuman” or “want to beat the shit out of them” or “want gays killed” with those who might have an argument (reasoned, but not necessarily correct) on policy concerning military service, SSM, or boy scout troop leaders? Talk about your broad brush. There seem to be a VERY wide range here. I simply think it would help a discussion if people knew what was meant when the word “homophobia” comes up. “Do you mean beating and killing or disagreeing on a specific policy?” Surely you don’t think that someone who merley disagrees is as eveil and vile as someone who wants to kill gays, do you? Then why would you want to ask them to wear the same vile label?
You make a good point. The word racist has similar problems, but not as badly (it doesn’t start out with a literal meanin—irrational fear—that is usually divorced from how it is used). Surely those in the KKK shouldn’t be confused with people who oppose affirmative action, many of whom are black. But get into a debate with a person who favors such programs and it’s just a matter of time before you’re accused of being a racist. It is cheap, unfair, and begins to strip the word of it’s power. In the meantime, some well-meaning person with a different point of view is demonized.
“Homophobic” suffers from the same misuse.
Yes. Yes. I agreee. But if we are goinig to describe the problems and talk about them, particdularly with those who might not agree, the discussion benefits by using words that specific meaning, the more specific the better. This notion does not just apply to issues revolving around gays, it is important in communication, period. I would have thought that peolpe who participate in a debate board, would accept that rather readily.
I don’t think this helps your point. He is used as an example of an inability or unwillingness to communicate. From Through the Looking-Glass (Chapter 6):
I hope you don’t mind, but I altered your Humpty Dumpty attribution, to make it clear that it came from you.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Do you think all those things are even roughly equal? You want to equate people who think “gays are subhuman” or “want to beat the shit out of them” or “want gays killed” with those who might have an argument (reasoned, but not necessarily correct) on policy concerning military service, SSM, or boy scout troop leaders?
[quote]
In a word, yes. Bigotry is bigotry. I hope this clarifies my position, at least.
It is just a matter of degree. Like a disease (now that’s a hot button comparison), that may have extreme symptoms in one person, while another person may be a carrier and completely unaware they “have it”.
You’ve “heard” me say it before. I don’t care what a person thinks, until they act on it. For example, one person may hate and want to lynch blacks and then set them on fire. Obviously a racist. Another just thinks blacks are lazy and stupid, with the excuse that “it isn’t their fault, it’s just how they are”. Another racist. A third, just doesn’t want them living next door. Racist. A fourth fears them because “they all steal and rob”. Racist.
It’s the same thing, just a matter of degree, from the dangerous psycho, down to the less harmful minor bigot. So, I think the word “homophobe” is just fine.
As for the Humpty Dumpty quote, that was a lame attempt at humor.
I’m torn.
On the one hand, I agree that “homophobe” is a perfectly valid term to use to describe those who show bias against homosexuals, as long as we add the caveat that this bias must be outside of the realm of sexuality. Someone who prefers to watch straight erotica instead of gay erotica is not a homophobe. Someone who prefers to work alongside straights rather than gays is.
On the other hand, I was attacked on this board for being anti-gay a couple years ago because I defended the legal right of a jackass to wear a homophobic T-shirt to school (it had hand-printed Bible slogans condemning homosexuality, and the jackass wore it on a Day of Silence). No matter how clear I made it that I disagreed with his wearing of the shirt and that I defended his legal right only on free-speech grounds, I was still accused of being anti-gay. And that rankled.
That doesn’t mean that all gay activists were using their agenda to attack me. I’m not an idiot. However, it did signify that one gay activist was using his agenda to attack me. And he was using the charge of homophobia to silence his opposition.
So yes: the word is sometimes misused, just as “racist” and “sexist” and “fascist” and “knee-jerk” and many other words are often misused. Just as in these other cases, though, the misuse of a word by an activist does not invalidate its usefulness.
(Actually, I just looked at the thread in question, and while I was called a monster in it, I’m not sure that I was ever called a homophobe. Hmmm.)
Daniel
I think I vaguely remember that. There were a lot of hard feelings, and many of us felt that the t-shirt wearer was an obnoxious asshole who had done it deliberately, to get a negative reaction. It wasn’t about free speech per se, it was about someone using that freedom to purposely incite trouble. Not much different from going into the diamond district in a “Hitler was right” shirt, or going to the South Bronx in a Klan uniform. Come on, you know what’s going to happen.
Just what is this agenda? maybe you can explain just what sinister plan I have, because I don’t have a clue, other than the good old Amurrican “Leave me alone”.
Exactly.
You and EC continue to say that the word “demonizes everyone who doesn’t agree with you 100%.” This is not true. It is a lie. It is lazy and childish debating. Every time you find this point or that point on which there is disagreement, you go, “See? You’re calling me a homophobe for disagreeing with you about anything at all!”
No. You’re being called a homophobe for being wrong about this particular point, or that particular point. This “anyone who disagrees with them” is pure godwinization. It’s a clear indication that you are not willing to engage about particular points, but can only participate in an argument if you get to use the broadest possible brush. It is godwinization because it is dishonest, and it indicates that you are willing to be dishonest in a debate, which pretty much signals the pointlessness of debating with you. It is an attempt to preemptively disregard any input from people who disagree with you. You seek to innoculate yourself against any disagreement by preemptively equating disagreement with baseless attack; you suggest that anyone who disagrees with you will be attacking you merely because they disagree with you. This is dishonest. It’s chickenshit. It’s cowardly.
People mostly let it stand because it’s so outrageously obvious that it’s a childish “tactic” and is not worthy of response. But every time someone doesn’t respond to it, you interpret that as a point scored. But it’s not. It’s just an indication that to play the “anyone who disagrees with them” card is to reveal yourself as not worthy of respectful engagement.
Again, your surprise should indicate to you that your paradigm needs adjusting. That surprise should be a wakeup call.
You’ve made that very clear. You would have been far more honest if your OP had been titled, “Can we change the definition of homophobia to exclude the little nugget of prejudice that I can’t let go of, to preserve my complacency?”
The fact that the consensus (which is that your little nugget of prejudice is irrational and homophobic) makes you uncomfortable is a comment on your prejudice, not on the consensus. The fact that you are in the vast minority on your understanding of the word homophobia should suggest to you that it is your own understanding that needs revision, not the word.