This is a mischaracterization. There’s no such thing as a “gay point of view.”
That seems like a mischaracterization of lissener’s position to me, and one that others have repeated.
I would also say that your assumption that there’s such a thing as “a gay point of view” falls into my definition of “prejudice”.
But, as someone famous who I can’t be bothered to look up at this time of night said - “Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.” Both sides have expressed their opinions forcefully, no minds have, or are likely to be, changed. I think this discussion is functionally over.
Tears of laughter over that comment. I woke up one of my cats laughing so hard. Of course there’s a gay point of view. You’re making it every time you say there is only one true meaning of the word homophobe. Aside from being the self appointed word police on the subject you are representing the gay POV with every answer you give. Any way you want to google it you will get over a million hits on the subject.
Now if you can just get everybody to agree on a definition we’ll be done with this thread. I wonder how many pages that will take.
I agree but pigs need to learn they can’t sing and this discussion was functionally over before it started. Nobody wants to discuss the issues that created the word that everybody wants to define.
No, I’m supporting and defending the consensus, dictionary-backed definition. This has nothing to do with any gay point of view; it’s the accurate lexicographical point of view.
“Homophobia” denotes a “philosophy”; a point of view. magellan and others want to conflate it with the ACTIONS carried out by those who hold that point of view. “Homophobia” is the basic prejudice held in common by the killers of Mathew Shepard and by someone who is privately against gay marriage. The degree to which they act upon those prejudices is not the subject of this discussion; the nature of that prejudice–homophobia–is.
Insisting on a “unified theory” of homophobia–insisting that if a word is applicable to the prejudice underlying one act then it CANNOT be applicable the the same theory resulting in a different act, or no action at all, is pointless.
Re: the widely re-circulated but never backed up meme that “a homophobe is anybody lissener disagrees with.” Just repeating it doesn’t make it true. Either cite a post by me which supports that “theory” (talk about mind reading), or give it up. To hold a debate hostage until your opponent stops to defend something he never even said is childish and dishonest, and it’s why I’ve let it pass until now: an unsupported accusation, especially when it’s false, is not on me to deny; it’s on you to prove. But magellan, magiver, and evil captor have locked into daisy chain of “he said, so it must be true ↔ he said, so it must be true ↔ he said, so it must be true ↔ he said, so it must be true ↔ he said, so it must be true ↔ he said, so it must be true ↔ he said, so it must be true” ad nauseum. The only support any of has offered is that one of the other of you has repeated the same meme.
Back it up, or drop it. (I am not a mod, but is this kind of dishonest derailing of a debate by lying about what other debaters have said against any kind of rule around here? Or just in the real world?)
The dictionary defines the word. The consensus here agrees with that definition. Lone denialists notwithstanding, there really IS no debate. This “debate” is just an attempt by one party to deny the meaning of the word because they’re uncomfortable that it includes them.
Do you understand that Tevildo was disagreeing with you? Did you wake up your cats again when Tevildo pointed out the nonsensicalness of the “gay point of view”?
Yes I did. And no, it was just funnier when you said it because you’re all spooled up. The space heater has reduced both cats to purring balls of fur.
Nobody is arguing the death of Mathew Shepard, just your insistence that any political disagreement is homophobic. I think the closest you’ve come to making sense is to portray it as a philosophy.
cite?
Easy, lissner, easy. Call a friend and have them remove all the knives and medications and spend the night keeping an eye on you. It’ll all be okay in the morning. I’ll still be here, and since I, and others, will no doubt still disagree with you on at least one gay issue, we’ll all still be full-fledged homophobes. But I’m going to take my homophobia and go out for the night. Only question, I guess, is, am I going to go spray the gay bar with an uzi or simply avoid it? Oh, the suspense!!!
What’s a homophobe to do? I’m so confused. I’m so…irrational…being a homophobe and all.
Back this up with a cite or stop repeating this meme. Please show me where I have ever said anything that supports this.
Unless now you’re playing a game of “pushing lissener’s buttons,” and you have no intention of backing up your claim? Is that the same thing as trolling?
Oh, I forgot to thank you for adding to my list of definitions. I also forgot where we were—should this be # 11, 12 or 13? Or is it 14?
“Homophobia is now a philosophy.” I hope everyone remembers to clarify that when the word comes up in the next thread. Ooops, I forgot again: no asking for clarification. My bad.
Anyway, thanks. For both the additional definition and proving Evil Captor’s point as many times as you did. But the win does go to you. You wanted to derail any discussion of the issue and it seems you have succeeded. Congratulations.
Humpty Dumpty would be proud.
I realize that the tone has gotten non productive, so I’m trying to regain some evenhandedness. But your last few posts have been empy sarcasms. Are you really done? Or do you have any substantive responses?
You obviously understand, for instance, that my use of the word “philosophy” is an attempt to refine and clarify, and not to veer off in a new direction. But you’re more interested in making funny.
Is that the only option at this point? Or can you address the points seriously?
In case it does require clarification, my point in using the word “philosophy”–maybe not the best word–is to distinguish it from what seem to be, in your examples, mostly actions.
I’m saying that perhaps you think the accepted definition of homophobia is too broad because it describes, not this action or that action, but a basic philosophy; a basic belief about the difference between heteros and homos. As such, it can be the driving philosophy behind violent action and nonviolent action alike. It’s the “philosophy” that murdering Mathew Shepard has in common with voting against gay marriage, not the severity of the action.
Just like racism can drive lynching, as well as choosing not to sit next to a black person on the bus. Different extremes of action; same basic philosophy.
That “philosophy” is the only thing that I will ever consider to be “homophobia,” and not as you keep saying, simply the noble act of disagreeing with me.
If you’re not finished, and are willing to come back from your sarcasm drivebys, I would appreciate a response to my “deconstruction” of that meme, and I would appreciate a sincere attempt to show me my words, where I might have said anything that can be construed in that way.
(For what it’s worth, I apologize to whoever’s still reading this thread for posting while angry. But nothing gets me as angry as having words put in my mouth; people saying I said something, when in fact I said no such thing. And even angrier when my response goes ignored.)
Will this do?
If not, simply reread your portions of the thread.
No, I was simply hoping you were a person of his word. These words specifically:
As an added incentive, I won’t correct you over the “good faith” mention if you stick to your word. So let’s see if your word means anything to you…
And for the future, if you expect people to respond to specific inquiries (and to first go through the significant work required to isolate them from your foamaing ramblings), you might want to respond to the specifics that have been asked of you. And no, I am not going to point them out now. Reread the thread and find them. Here’s a hint: I wrote them and each one is followed by somehting that looks like this:
?
No. First of all, I wrote that AFTER you accused me, so it doesn’t count on that count alone. In addition, my point there (sorry if I wasn’t clear) was that there is no sweeping “anything” you disagreed with me on that made me think you were a homophobe. THere was only a very particular point.
Again, won’t do, because I maintain that I never said any such thing, and I’m asking you to point it out specifically.
So you came back and repeated it specifically to keep me out of the discussion? Is it any wonder that I accuse you of not debating in good faith?
AS to my foaming ramblings, I have apologized for overreacting. But you–and EC and magiver–ascribed words to me that I never said, and then refused to support your accusations. What you accused me of saying was literally slanderous, and you have still refused to follow up your accusations with any documentation as to their validity.
I feel that I have responded, in good faith, to everything that you seemed to be seriously asking me. If there is a point that you feel I missed, please raise it again.
I have raised a very specific point, which you have still not responded to.
Cite? No one is putting words into your mouth. The words you so object to have been noted NUMEROUS times to have come from Evil Captor. We’ve merely pointed out that they describe your sentiments exactly. Which they do. As is evidenced again from something you actually answered:
So I start a thread about a subject and try to stop YOU from derailing and shutting down the debate, and I"M not arguing in good faith? You do make me snicker from time to time. And yes, since your were simply frothing at the mouth, I was trying to be free of you. I’m glad you seem to have calmed down.
Cite, please. Who put words in your mouth? What words? When?
I believe that has now been addressed. So if you would be so kind as to respond to what you were asked in questions that appear in posts 59 and 67 (as well as in this post)—well, let’s just leave it there.
[
The problem that I have with your statement, here, is that I can find no genuine difference between what you claim to be saying and what magellan01 appears to be saying.
Your definition of homophobe appears (based on a broad review of this thread) to be: anyone who has ever said or thought any negative view regarding anyone who happened to be homosexual and anyone who has ever expressed an opinion contrary to what you believe everyone should believe about homosexuals.
Without even asking what the actual beliefs magellan01’s friend in the Castro district held regarding adoption by homosexuals, you decided that regardless how he arrived at his opinion, he was homophobic and threw in the gratuitous implication that he suffered from self-loathing. magellan01 is not claiming that “homophobic” means “anyone who disagrees with lissener,” he is pointing out–and I would have to agree–that your definition of “homophobic” is so broad as to eliminate any discussion on the topic because anyone who opposes anything about anything in relation to a homosexual issue is “homophobic.”
That said, I think that magellan01’s employment of such stupid phrases as “gay agenda” does not carry this discussion further and his attempt to come up with some narrowly defined meaning for the word when, as has been noted earlier, it can have a range of meanings and no one on the board is going to be able to dictate a single, narrow definition for it, seems rather pointless. I do not think it amounts to trolling, but I do think that it is naive in the extreme to think that anyone is going to get a consensus. Beyond that, a claim that we have some need to come up with some single definition seems just a bit disingenuous. We have broad definitions of racism, patriotism, faith, sexism, and a host of other words and phrases. The appropriate approach to a word that seems jarring in a post is to ask what the author meant, (or, more likely, around here, to leap to a conclusion, post a tart response, then have a merry donnybrook until the fifth page where everyone discovers they were actually agreeing, all along, with just a minor semantic confusion).
I’m not much into closing threads, but if all I’m going to see are hundreds of posts of people talking at each other and past each other with no effort to understand the others’ perspective and lots of enticements for people to step into Pit territory, I am liable to shut this one down.
lissener and magellan01, you are both investing too much energy picking at the poster or the expression. I don’t think either of you are posting in bad faith, but I think both of you are making each post more personal than it needs to be to carry out a discussion.
No more comments on the other’s posting style or comments. Address the issues, not the poster, or this thread dies.