# Do you have to be phobic to be a "homophobe?" **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 29, 2004, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-have-to-be-phobic-to-be-a-homophobe/226524 "2004-01-29T04:42:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2004, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-have-to-be-phobic-to-be-a-homophobe/226524/281 "2004-02-01T23:30:29Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > I don’t need to speculate that you’d think differently if you were gay to conclude that you are a bigot, Dewey. The very fact that you believe it is acceptable to impose upon my Civil Rights is enough. That doesn’t follow. _If_ he thinks it’s acceptable to impose on his own civil rights under similar circumstances as well, then he’s not displaying any intolerance or prejudice towards gays, and is not a bigot. There may be other morally negative epithets you could use that would be legitimate, but bigot wouldn’t be one of them. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2004, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-have-to-be-phobic-to-be-a-homophobe/226524/282 "2004-02-02T02:34:07Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > Where it gets tricky is in trying to determine how a person would feel if it were his own (moral) rights being repressed. After all, it’s easy for you to _say_ you’d be fine with it, since your rights are in no danger. I have in the past tried to push you on this issue (you may recall the “Dewey Jumps” discussion), and your usual response has usually been to (1)hide behind a legal analysis of why your rights couldn’t be curtailed in whatever fashion I suggest (it’d be a bill of attainder, this line of precedents precludes that sort of thing, etc), and (2)pronounce yourself confident that the majority wouldn’t impose on your rights in that fashion. But both of these responses are missing the point, since they don’t get at the question of whether you would place more value on your own rights than you do on the rights of gays. After all, the current denial of (moral) rights to gays is, you argue, legal, and it’s obviously imposed by the majority. Your evasiveness on this subject probably hasn’t done anything to undermine the beliefs of anyone inclined to think that you might be a bigot. You know, my [reply to the “Dewey Jumps” hypothetical](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=3280617&postcount=252) consisted of three paragraphs, of which your above summary only includes paragraphs one and three. Perhaps you missed the second, which read: > [@](#): > > OK, so assume they write [Dewey Jumps] into the Constitution, abolishing the bill of attainder restriction as well as the others mentioned, at least for this specific case. Well, then I guess I’m stuck. But so are the courts. I mean, if you’ve got an amendment explicitly saying this act is constitutionally OK, how on earth can the courts say the act is “unconstitutional?” At that point, my only recourse is to start checking out Canadian real estate prices. I don’t see how I’m being evasive in the slightest. My answer was pretty clear: absent a textual basis in the constitution to prohibit Dewey Jumps, I’m stuck. > [@Gorsnak](#): > > If you can honestly answer yes, then congratulations; you’re not a bigot. If you can answer yes, but suspect that if you’d grown up with your rights denied you’d have come to different views, then you aren’t a bigot (at least in my book), but you might consider whether it might not be appropriate to be a little more understanding of those who’ve reached the conclusion you yourself would have, had things been different. I’m not sure how I could be “a little more understanding” of those with opposite conclusions. I certainly sympathize with their cause; again, I’ve repeatedly expressed support for legislative solutions to the issue. And I’m certainly willing to engage in polite discussions with those willing to return the favor. What more can I do? What it sounds like you’re suggesting is that I should abandon or at least water down my principles – that I should suggest I _might_ be incorrect solely on the basis that I _might_ believe differently in some hypothetical parallel universe where I’m gay. Frankly, I find the suggestion childish. I do wonder why no one suggests that similar consideration be given by my opponents; where are the demands that **Homebrew** , et al, hedge ther positions with caveats that they _might_ be wrong? Why is it I’m the only one not allowed to exhibit certitude in my position? > [@Gorsnak](#): > > I’m not at all sure why “the ramifications of accepting this line of thinking are quite disturbing.” It doesn’t have the consequences you suggest it does, with regards to critics of affirmative action, etc - not least because it’s not remotely obvious that serious critics of affirmative action would feel differently if they’d grown up black, since numerous serious critics of affirmative action _are_ black. …and _they_ get slurred as psuedo-racist self-hating uncle Toms. Back when I was a law student, I personally saw Ward Connerly shouted down by undergraduate protestors. The notion that the bigot label can’t be used against members of the group at issue is fallacious. > [@Gorsnak](#): > > The differences in that debate are generally over what actually constitutes equal treatment, i.e., is structural compensation for past/present discrimination against a group required for equal treatment, or does it simply introduce a second set of inequalities. To the extent that anyone does oppose/support affirmative action because of a belief that one group doesn’t deserve as fair a shake as another, they _are_ racists and bigots, and there’s no problem in calling them that. A pesky detail that doesn’t really matter to the race-debate equivelants of **Homebrew**. They’ll just say “if you were black, you’d believe that affirmative action was a necessary component of equal treatment” and tar you with the bigot label. And again, all of this discussion is nice and interesting in an ivory tower kind of way, but it utterly ignores how the term “bigot” is applied in the real world in these kinds of discussions. It isn’t a merely descriptive label. It’s a slur designed to avoid difficult arguments by impinging on the moral character of your opponent. It is the kind of thing that has no place in a civilized, intelligent discussion of the issues of the day. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2004, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-have-to-be-phobic-to-be-a-homophobe/226524/283 "2004-02-02T02:59:35Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > But your ideas on jurisprudence alone aren’t the basis for my opinion of you. As I said before, you choose which arugments to enter and which side you take. It seems to me that someone who consistently defends bigots such as Lott, Thurmond and Santorum must have something in common with them. In reverse order: 1. Again, I didn’t defend Santorum so much as demand evidence for the proposition advanced by the OP. Indeed, once sufficient evidence had been provided, I ceded the OP’s point. I had never heard of Santorum before that thread, and I’m inclined to give people the benefit of the doubt – if you’re going to label someone, you should have adequate evidence marshaled to support your assertions. 2. I did not defend Thurmond’s record; I only suggested dancing on his grave was a bit unseemly. I think that is the case generally, even for my own political enemies. Broadly speaking, I think a person’s passing, even someone you intensely dislike, should be treated with dignity. 3. On Lott, I just said I thought his remarks about Thurmond’s presidential run was just an attempt to say something nice to a doddering old man on his birthday, and not an actual endorsement of the Dixiecrat platform. Lott may well be a racist, but Ieven he’s not dumb enough to intentionally wave that banner on national television. But it was a spectacularly dumb thing to say, even absent nefarious intent – perhaps you missed my several calls for Lott to resign his leadership role on those grounds. I weigh each situation independently. I think my position in each of the above three examples was the correct one. That does not mean that I don’t criticize Santorum or Lott (or, prior to his passing, Thurmond) when I think they’re wrong. Indeed, as noted, I did criticize Santorum after more evidence was brought to bear. And [I criticized Bill Frist](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=3634292&postcount=29) when he made asshatted remarks about gays. Your caricature of me is based solely on your own knee-jerk reaction to names like Santorum and Lott, without considering the underlying facts of each situation. Which is both pathetic and par for the course for you. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2004, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-have-to-be-phobic-to-be-a-homophobe/226524/284 "2004-02-02T03:10:37Z")
> [@Siege](#): > > **Starving Artist** , I’m afraid there’s not a forum on this message board where you won’t be asked for cites and evidence except possibly MSPIMS, and I wouldn’t even bet on that there. No matter how metaphorical or philosophical the subject, you will be asked for evidence, and “I feel” or “I think” won’t be enough. I’ve learned this from, among other things, spending a lot of time in religous debates. If you’d started this thread in GD, the debate and the requests would have been more rigorous and there would have been more requests for cites. The only thing there would have been fewer of is personal insults. That’s the way this board works and it’s one of the things I like about it – it challenges me to examine some basic assumptions. > > CJ **Cite?!?!** 😃 **Dewey** , when you have opportunity, would you address the question of _substantive due process_ over in the Massachusetts marriage thread in GD? I purposefully left it open for your input, as I don’t feel myself adequately skilled to explain the concept, the problems associated with it, and all the methodology the courts have created over the years to deal with it. And, with no intent to suck up, if anybody can make that explanation make sense to a layman, it would be you. I started three times to deal with it as part of a post there, and finally wrote the post to say I was leaving it for your explanation. **ETF** : When come back… 😉 ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2004, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-have-to-be-phobic-to-be-a-homophobe/226524/285 "2004-02-02T04:00:59Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > **ETF** : When come back… 😉 [Here ya go!](http://community.webshots.com/photo/57162437/63405060DScPnB) Or would you prefer [a slice of this](http://community.webshots.com/photo/100996478/101001786PSJTbq)? 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2004, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-have-to-be-phobic-to-be-a-homophobe/226524/286 "2004-02-02T11:43:38Z")
> [@EddyTeddyFreddy](#): > > At least, I think that’s what you were trying to get at. If I’m wrong, my apologies. If I’m right, feel free to take this and use it to start a GD thread. Thank you for the example and the suggestions. Clearly this would be a much better way to go about things. And thank you for the offer to take your very accurate description of my point to GB. However, I’m afraid that I’m going to have to work on that style of discussion somewhat beforehand, lest I quickly get in over my head and be thrashed. 🙂 > [@EddyTeddyFreddy](#): > > I’d stay WA-A-A-A-A-A-y away from any comments about the media, Hollywood, and politicians pushing a “gay agenda” or “gay lifestyle”. As has already been pointed out in this thread, those sorts of sweeping generalizations come across as code language for anti-gay animus. Whether or not you’re anti-gay, you’ve been projecting yourself as such in your choice of words here. For the record, I’m not anti-gay and most of the people who know me know this. Therefore no one so far has taken me to task for the use of these terms. I guess we all just know what I mean when I use such them. Obviously these terms have a different connotation here. (And not to split hairs or equivocate, but I believe “gay agenda” was one of the things that was attributed to me that I did not actually say. I may be wrong about this, but this term is one I recognize as being inflammatory and to the best of my knowledge has never been part of my vocabulary.) > [@EddyTeddyFreddy](#): > > I myself was sorely tempted to takes bets on how long it would be before you said “But some of my best friends are gay!” No, I would have known better than that, too. > [@EddyTeddyFreddy](#): > > Okay, lecture mode _off_. Would you care for some macaroons? Why, yes I would, thank you. They will go well with the milk I’m about to get from kaylasdad. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2004, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-have-to-be-phobic-to-be-a-homophobe/226524/287 "2004-02-02T11:54:39Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Well, **Starving Artist** , I wish you the best of luck, and a belated welcome to the SDMB. Thank you. I’m surprisingly pleased to find myself being welcomed so readily and graciously by my former adversaries. > [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Kudos to **lilrogue** for taking you aside to give you some perspective into the evnironment you have entered by becoming a Doper. I think she was hoping no one would make the connection 🙂 > [@kaylasdad99](#): > > And kudos to you for showing an ability to respond to the instruction. > [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Enjoy your virtual brownie. > > Got Milk? 😉 The virtual brownie was very good indeed. However, if the offer of milk isn’t tongue in cheek only, it would go very well with the macaroons I just got from EddyTeddyFreddy. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2004, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-have-to-be-phobic-to-be-a-homophobe/226524/288 "2004-02-02T14:28:44Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > For the record, I’m not anti-gay and most of the people who know me know this. Therefore no one so far has taken me to task for the use of these terms. I guess we all just know what I mean when I use such them. Obviously these terms have a different connotation here. Ah, there you’ve hit on one reason – one to keep in mind at all times here – why your choice of words has to be so well-considered on the SDMB. In real life, the people who know you can interpret your use of language in light of what they know about you. On this or any other message board, your readers are flying blind. All they can go by is the language of your message – no background of acquaintance, no nonverbal clues of facial expression or intonation. So you have to think hard about what connotations your words carry, especially when debating hot-button topics. That’s also why a judicious use of the smilies can head off some unintentional giving/taking of offense. I’ve been mulling over whether to bring up another thing, and decided I should: Trolls. Did the friend who introduced you to the SDMB tell you about trolls? If not, let me offer Trolls 101. Trolls inhabit the SDMB for the purpose of stirring up arguments. They revel in getting people riled up. They typically start threads on inflammatory topics, or post comments in other folks’ threads that are outrageous, and then gleefully continue poking the angry Dopers with their schtick. Most of them are quite rude and often profane; but not always. You weren’t here when a longtime Doper named **december** was banned for trollish behavior (posting inflammatory stuff that was phonied up to make his dubious point). Trolls typically don’t debate; rather they continue to insist they’re right and nobody’s proven them wrong, no matter how clearly others have refuted them. The jerkier of them even admit to getting off on infuriating their opponents. Ahhhhhh… Yes, you’re looking back over this thread and saying “Ooops!”, right? You’ve made it clear you’re NOT a troll – just a newbie who’s still learning the ropes here. That’s one reason why you got such a pile-on, by the way – Dopers despise trolls, and posters who come across as trollish will have a rough time of it. On the other hand, once it became apparent that you were honestly mistaken in your approach, and willling to learn from your errors, people who’d been kicking you offered you a hand up. We respect that. I hesitated to bring up trolldom because it’s such a serious crime here. It will get a person banned if the person doesn’t reform. It’s so grave an accusation that it shouldn’t be hurled at another Doper, no matter how egregiously they’re behaving. Rather, if you believe a poster is trolling, you should use the “Report Bad Post” button – the mods and admins will take care of it. Folks who think a poster is a troll can skate close to the edge with comments about folklore creatures, or not feeding the offender (aha! he says; now I understand that **ETF** post), but that’s it. I think you’ll do fine here, and you’ll never run the risk of seeing someone reply to one of your posts with “DNFTT”.\* 🙂 And now, would you like some blueberry pancakes for breakfast? With real maple syrup from Vermont! \*“DNFTT” means “Do not feed the troll”. It’s a plea (often ignored) not to keep gratifying the troll by continuing to argue with it. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2004, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-have-to-be-phobic-to-be-a-homophobe/226524/289 "2004-02-02T14:30:16Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > A pesky detail that doesn’t really matter to the race-debate equivelants of **Homebrew**. They’ll just say “if you were black, you’d believe that affirmative action was a necessary component of equal treatment” and tar you with the bigot label. You keep bringing up Affirmative Action as a blatant red herring. Affirmative Action is an attempt to remedy past injustice. The ban on gay marriage is a current, on-going denial of basic civil liberties. > [@Gorsnak](#): > > That doesn’t follow. If he thinks it’s acceptable to impose on his own civil rights under similar circumstances as well, then he’s not displaying any intolerance or prejudice towards gays, and is not a bigot. There may be other morally negative epithets you could use that would be legitimate, but bigot wouldn’t be one of them. I think it does follow because we have Dewey’s posting history to judge also. I think the fact that he accepts _Loving_ shows he knows the 14th Amendment protects more than just the strict analysis of the text. The 14th doesn’t mention marriage, but is used to protect those rights. Not incidently, the _Loving_ case involved a **straight white man** ’s right to marry a non-white woman. So we see Dewey **does** accept the reasoning of Due Process when he benefits. But, as you pointed out, he sits smug in his knowledge that as part of the majority, a straight white male, he doesn’t have to worry about his rights being violated. ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2004, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-have-to-be-phobic-to-be-a-homophobe/226524/290 "2004-02-02T14:32:01Z")
Eh, I forgot to add that **december** was always quite polite in his posts. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2004, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-have-to-be-phobic-to-be-a-homophobe/226524/291 "2004-02-02T16:19:42Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > You keep bringing up Affirmative Action as a blatant red herring. Affirmative Action is an attempt to remedy past injustice. The ban on gay marriage is a current, on-going denial of basic civil liberties. …which doesn’t change the fact that serious critics of Affirmative Action are routinely labeled racists and bigots, just as serious critics of judicial activism in the sphere of marriage receive that label from you. > [@Homebrew](#): > > I think it does follow because we have Dewey’s posting history to judge also. I think the fact that he accepts _Loving_ shows he knows the 14th Amendment protects more than just the strict analysis of the text. The 14th doesn’t mention marriage, but is used to protect those rights. Not incidently, the _Loving_ case involved a **straight white man** ’s right to marry a non-white woman. So we see Dewey **does** accept the reasoning of Due Process when he benefits. Have you even bothered to read my posts? I think I’ve been pretty clear that I agree with _Loving_ insofar as it relies on equal protection, but that I disagree with that case insofar as it relies on substantive due process. Either rationale is sufficient to eliminate miscegenation laws; the former I find constitutionally valid, the latter I do not. And, of course, the reason I accept the equal protection rationale in _Loving_, as I’ve stated numerous times before, is because the principal thrust of the framers in passing the 14th amendment was to prohibit governmental distinctions based on race. ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2004, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-have-to-be-phobic-to-be-a-homophobe/226524/292 "2004-02-02T20:34:00Z")
Looking back over my last couple of posts, **Starving Artist** , I see that I’ve omitted one important caveat: _I am not an administrator or moderator. I do not speak officially for the SDMB_. What I’ve offered is merely advice based on my personal observations of how things work around here. There’s sometimes a fine line between offering helpful pointers, and engaging in “Junior Modding”, as it’s called. The former is okay; the latter is verboten. Whenever a Doper tells you things about how to play well with others here, unless the word “Administrator” or “Moderator” is under the advisor’s name, you’re completely at liberty to accept, adopt selectively, or ignore the proffered counsel. (Although if **Siege** offers advice, you can be darn sure it’s golden. :)) Any time you have a question about right conduct here, it’s a good idea to email a mod or admin. Links for whoever’s in charge of a particular forum appear at the top of the page. It’s my observation that they’d much rather deal with potential problems that way than have to clean up a trainwreck. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to get the banana nut bread out of the oven. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Ferrous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Ferrous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ferrous)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2004, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-have-to-be-phobic-to-be-a-homophobe/226524/293 "2004-02-02T22:37:37Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > Thank you. I’m surprisingly pleased to find myself being welcomed so readily and graciously by my former adversaries. Well _I_ still think you suck. 😛 Nah, I kid, I kid. Good show, and all that. Plenty of posters have overcome rocky starts and gone on to become respected Dopers. Hopefully, you will be one of them. Good luck. I won’t offer you any baked goods though, as I understand that carbohydrates have recently been found to be deadly poison. There might be some virtual cheese left… ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2004, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-have-to-be-phobic-to-be-a-homophobe/226524/294 "2004-02-03T01:28:13Z")
> [@EddyTeddyFreddy](#): > > Ah, there you’ve hit on one reason – one to keep in mind at all times here – why your choice of words has to be so well-considered on the SDMB. In real life, the people who know you can interpret your use of language in light of what they know about you. On this or any other message board, your readers are flying blind. All they can go by is the language of your message – no background of acquaintance, no nonverbal clues of facial expression or intonation. So you have to think hard about what connotations your words carry, especially when debating hot-button topics. That’s also why a judicious use of the smilies can head off some unintentional giving/taking of offense. > > I’ve been mulling over whether to bring up another thing, and decided I should: Trolls. Did the friend who introduced you to the SDMB tell you about trolls? If not, let me offer Trolls 101. > > Trolls inhabit the SDMB for the purpose of stirring up arguments. They revel in getting people riled up. They typically start threads on inflammatory topics, or post comments in other folks’ threads that are outrageous, and then gleefully continue poking the angry Dopers with their schtick. Most of them are quite rude and often profane; but not always. You weren’t here when a longtime Doper named **december** was banned for trollish behavior (posting inflammatory stuff that was phonied up to make his dubious point). Trolls typically don’t debate; rather they continue to insist they’re right and nobody’s proven them wrong, no matter how clearly others have refuted them. The jerkier of them even admit to getting off on infuriating their opponents. > > Ahhhhhh… Yes, you’re looking back over this thread and saying “Ooops!”, right? No, actually I’m looking back over it and saying “Jeeez!!!” No wonder things went the way they did. > [@EddyTeddyFreddy](#): > > You’ve made it clear you’re NOT a troll – just a newbie who’s still learning the ropes here. That’s one reason why you got such a pile-on, by the way – Dopers despise trolls, and posters who come across as trollish will have a rough time of it. On the other hand, once it became apparent that you were honestly mistaken in your approach, and willling to learn from your errors, people who’d been kicking you offered you a hand up. We respect that. > > I hesitated to bring up trolldom because it’s such a serious crime here. It will get a person banned if the person doesn’t reform. It’s so grave an accusation that it shouldn’t be hurled at another Doper, no matter how egregiously they’re behaving. Rather, if you believe a poster is trolling, you should use the “Report Bad Post” button – the mods and admins will take care of it. Folks who think a poster is a troll can skate close to the edge with comments about folklore creatures, or not feeding the offender (aha! he says; now I understand that **ETF** post), but that’s it. > > I think you’ll do fine here, and you’ll never run the risk of seeing someone reply to one of your posts with “DNFTT”.\* 🙂 And now, would you like some blueberry pancakes for breakfast? With real maple syrup from Vermont! > > \*“DNFTT” means “Do not feed the troll”. It’s a plea (often ignored) not to keep gratifying the troll by continuing to argue with it. I really want to thank you for taking the time to explain these things. I’m sure they are going to make for a much more pleasant and rewarding SDMB experience (for all of us). 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2004, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-have-to-be-phobic-to-be-a-homophobe/226524/295 "2004-02-03T01:33:57Z")
> [@Ferrous](#): > > Well _I_ still think you suck. 😛 > > Nah, I kid, I kid. Good show, and all that. Plenty of posters have overcome rocky starts and gone on to become respected Dopers. Hopefully, you will be one of them. Good luck. I’d been wondering how you were going to shake out in all this. Once again, thanks. This is all most gratifying. > [@Ferrous](#): > > There might be some virtual cheese left… What a happy coincidence! As a matter of fact I’m just starting Atkins, and… ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2004, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-have-to-be-phobic-to-be-a-homophobe/226524/296 "2004-02-03T01:50:34Z")
> [@EddyTeddyFreddy](#): > > Looking back over my last couple of posts, **Starving Artist** , I see that I’ve omitted one important caveat: _I am not an administrator or moderator. I do not speak officially for the SDMB_. What I’ve offered is merely advice based on my personal observations of how things work around here. No, I never thought that you were affilliated with SD. I doubt you would have engaged in the previous raucousness (is that a word?) if you were. I don’t know to what degree your efforts to offer helpful pointers and advice may be judged negatively by other participants in this thread, but for my part, it’s much appreciated. (I do worry though about how many times I can express this appreciation without starting to appear smarmy.) 🙂 > [@EddyTeddyFreddy](#): > > (Although if **Siege** offers advice, you can be darn sure it’s golden. :)) Indeed. > [@EddyTeddyFreddy](#): > > Any time you have a question about right conduct here, it’s a good idea to email a mod or admin. Links for whoever’s in charge of a particular forum appear at the top of the page. It’s my observation that they’d much rather deal with potential problems that way than have to clean up a trainwreck. > > Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to get the banana nut bread out of the oven. 😃 Most certainly…and thanks again. Enjoy. ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2004, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-have-to-be-phobic-to-be-a-homophobe/226524/297 "2004-02-03T04:06:18Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > No, I never thought that you were affilliated with SD. I doubt you would have engaged in the previous raucousness (is that a word?) if you were. Yep, it’s a word, at least in my eyes, and I’m a proofreader by trade. Mods and admins do participate in threads, but they wouldn’t join in a pile-on. If things are getting out of hand, they’ll lock a thread. Occasionally a mod or admin will be accused of bias, but my observation is that overall the Powers That Be riding herd over Dopedom are admirably fair, especially when you consider what a vociferous, opinionated lot we are. > [@](#): > > I don’t know to what degree your efforts to offer helpful pointers and advice may be judged negatively by other participants in this thread, but for my part, it’s much appreciated. (I do worry though about how many times I can express this appreciation without starting to appear smarmy.) 🙂 Oh, don’t stop now! The smarmier the better! I just [lap it up.](http://community.webshots.com/photo/782975/784357)😃 ---
**Author:** ![nisosbar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c37758/32.png) [@nisosbar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nisosbar)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2004, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-have-to-be-phobic-to-be-a-homophobe/226524/298 "2004-02-03T04:09:35Z")
Somebody’s probably alread said this, but what the fuck, here goes: (oooo, that felt good! Never done that before) IMO, a person can be the most articulate, educated and sophisticated person around, but if they maintain that gays are not deserving of the same protections of the law as anyone else, then they are homophobic, since gays are either born gay or even if that is disputed, it can’t be disputed that it is an immutable characteristic. It can mean a lot of other things, but that description fits a recent experience I had. ---
**Author:** ![Ferrous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Ferrous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ferrous)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2004, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-have-to-be-phobic-to-be-a-homophobe/226524/299 "2004-02-03T04:30:18Z")
> [@EddyTeddyFreddy](#): > > Oh, don’t stop now! The smarmier the better! I just lap it up.😃 Oh, ferchrissake! Get a room, you two! Sheesh! Perfectly good knock-down-drag-out Pit train wreck turns into a freaking lovefest, just because the OP has to suddenly turn all _reasonable_ and shit. There goes the goddamn neighborhood. If either one of you posts again without at least one “fucknugget” or reference to goat-felching, I swear I’m gonna hurl. [/grumpy old man] ---
**Author:** ![MrVisible](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@MrVisible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrVisible)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2004, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-have-to-be-phobic-to-be-a-homophobe/226524/300 "2004-02-03T04:59:46Z")
Hmm. **Starving Artist** , you may be on the way to convincing me that you’re not a moron. But you’re not there yet, I’m afraid. One of the strange things about this board is that, as a member, you gather a reputation. People remember things you’ve said, and base their opinions about your on their past experiences with you. If you’re interested in earning some respect around here, to offset the damage done by this thread, you’re going to have to make a positive contribution to this community. Answer a few questions with well-researched and authoritative information in General Questions. Make some friends shooting the breeze in MPSIMS. Participate in some lighthearted discussions in Cafe Society, and do so with good grace, realizing that your opinion on an art form is just that, your opinion. When you’ve got the hang of things, and have been reading Great Debates steadily the whole time, you might wade into the fray there. Or not; some of us never work up to that level, or choose not to go in there much. But stay out of the Pit for a while. Read if you like, but keep out of the brawls for a while. Let people know the non-pit side of you first. These are just suggestions; I’ve seen people pull out of initial nose-dives and go on to become respected posters using this method. Best of all, despite the fact that this board has a long memory, it’s also long on second chances. It’s up to you. I think these boards are worth the effort it takes to be a resposible poster. You can have some great discussions here, meet some great people, learn some great things. But first, you’re going to have to convince people you’re not a moron. You started off on the wrong foot; it’s time to prove you’ve got another one. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-have-to-be-phobic-to-be-a-homophobe/226524.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-you-have-to-be-phobic-to-be-a-homophobe/226524.md?page=16)