Well, I must toddle off for now, kiddies. Try to grow up a little while I’m gone, won’t you? Remember, intolerance in the cause of tolerance is ultimately self-defeating.
Ta, ta. 
Already done, way back near the beginning of the thread, where Homebrew started using the perjorative because Bricker disagreed with his notions of the Constitution.
Other people got it after it was mentioned half a dozen times. Why don’t you get it?
Oh yeah, I know now - because you are doing the same thing that was tried in the other thread - distract from a thread that is going against you. Homebrew tried it by yelling “homophobe”; you are doing it by yelling for a cite that has already been provided.
Bullshit indeed, as you rightly stated.
Regards,
Shodan
The dictionary and vernacular usage proves you wrong. You have no semantic argument, give it up.
Or maybe you could provide a cite that anyone has ever tried to argue that homophobia is a clinical phobia.
Only a fucking moron would take it that way.
Your OP is debunked. You have no other point. Fuck off now, please.
It’s time for that pie.
The Bricker example does not support the OP. It does not support his asinine semantic objection and it does not support his allegation of something called the “gay cause” deliberately tagging “fence sitters” or neutral individuals as being “homophobic” in a dishonest way or of accusing them of having a mental illness.
Furthermore, I addressed the fucking Bricker example already. I see it as resulting from a misunderstanding of a position not a deliberately dishonest atempt to smear a non-bigot.
The OP has failed to define who the victims are, who the perpetrators are and exactly what the crime is. He’s also made some patently dumbass allegations about a massive Hollywood conspiracy to achieve some undefined “societal goal.”
He’s danced around every attempt to define the terms of his own OP. The Bricker thing is a fucking red herring.
You’re looking ver pretty today, have you done your hair, hay can I help with the washing up …
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
…a massive Hollywood conspiracy to achieve some undefined “societal goal.”
QUOTE]
Massive? Don’t believe I used the word, massive…or anything like it. Just said, media, Hollywood, politicians.
Once again words are being put in my mouth by the frustrated and ineffectual who feel they have to resort to such tactics to win their argument.
And on the subject of profanity, I’m certainly not uncomfortable with it. I was likely using it abundantly decades before Diogenes the Ineffectual was born. I just don’t think it’s a very effective way of getting one’s point across. It makes one look like a hotheaded asshole, and an immature one at that. And in keeping with this thought, I wonder if he would even be able to talk without it.
Now hopefully, I’ll be able to get out of here before I have to respond to yet another inanity.
It seems there are two arguments going on here.
- Starving Artist objects to people being called homophobes when they are not actually “phobic” about gay folks. Instead, they just dislike them.
Argument 1: stupid.
- Some people do throw around the term homophobe quite frequently, from time to time without enough cause to do so. I can understand why; being attacked and in the minority (as gay people generally are) makes one defensive. However I do think it would be advisable for people to re-evaluate their use of the word, reserving it only for people who actually are homophobes.
Argument 1: still stupid, despite argument 2.
Actually, I agree with this conclusion. Even though I brought it up, I think it’s tangential to the main point of the OP.
Before you can begin to decide if “homphobe” is levelled unfairly at people, you must decide what it means. The OP’s attempt to reduce the word to a mere clinical definition, as though we were relying solely on the DSM-IV for guidance, is misplaced. The fact of the matter is that ‘homphobe’ is used in common parlance to mean only a clinical ‘phobia’ for homosexuals, but a general non-clinical attitude of discomfort, discrimination, avoidance, or other derogation.
If we go forward with that understanding of what the word means…
…I’d say that it’s undoubtedly true that this charge is levelled unfairly against people at times… but no more so than any other ad hominem attack. It’s not, in other words, a coordinated effort of gay activists; rather, when used improperly, it’s simply the same sort of fallacious attack as the “race card” played by defense lawyers needing a distraction.
So… yes, it happens, but no more and no less than any other baseless ad hominen attack tactic.
- Rick
The problem with the word “homophobe” that no one currently here seems to be bright enough to recognize is the subliminal effect it has. I am not the one clinging to a one-meaning only definition of the word, you people are clinging to a one-sided misapplication of it and are attempting to justify this by critisizing my more literal condemnation of it, which is borne of the very obvious subliminal effect it has which I believe is the original reason the word came into this kind of use to begin with.
Not stupid, LaurAnge, just a couple levels above you. 
[/QUOTE]
So what you’re saying is these kinds of slurs are just a natural side-effect to any cultural disagreement and therefore should just be recognized as such and forgotten about?
Once again, intolerance in the name of tolerance is self-defeating as it tends to alienate those who might be more likely to come around to your way of thinking.
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
None of which you have provided support for and all of which, collectively, would comprise a massive conspiracy.
Incidentally, can you cite a single example of a politician calling anyone a “homophobe?”
How have I misrepresented your argument?
“Decades before I was born,” huh? You’d have to be in your 60s then. Surprising since you sound like a frat boy.
Run away, run away.
I’ve been making an effort to stay civil, and I’d appreciate it if you did the same.
I don’t believe it has any subliminal effect, whatever that may mean to you. No one considers it to be a phobia, definitely not in the sense of mental illness. We have discussed other words that have similar double meanings such as xenophobe. We have discussed alternate terms, such as straight supremacist and heterosexist.
I think we can conclude that while homophobe does mean soemthing negative, it is not an overly negative word for the meaning. Subliminally.
Okay, I had to go back to page one to find this crucial set of statements:
And on a related note:
Then from Ferrous, comes this bit of clear thinking:
Now, right now, I’m not going to insist on the answer to that (like I’d get one if I did :rolleyes: ) I’m just going to note that, superficially, we have here two different sets of goals that can be ascribed to the “homosexual cause”; the first is “achieving acceptance by society in general,” and the second is achieving protection of “full and equal civil rights for gays.”
I guess the question I have for you, Starving Artist is: do you see those as being interchangeable definitions of the term “homosexual cause”? See, if “acceptance by society in general” = “full and equal civil rights for gays”, then you’re going to have to work to establish that a neutral or “fence sitting” position can exist (I’m voting “no it can’t,” FWIW). If, however, you take the position that the two are not equivalent, you may have an easier time arguing for the existence of a neutral position on the first definition, at least, but you’re still in a pickle. If there is more than one valid way of defining the “homosexual cause”, then there has to be more than one valid way of describing the group of people who “support the homosexual cause.”
Now, let’s break this down: pejoratives aside, people who self-identify as supporting civil rights are in a very strong position when they divide everyone who has considered the issue to be either for the civil rights protections or against them. Using a pejorative to label those who are against them may be impolite or discourteous, but it does not dishonestly apply the label to anyone who is not legitimately in the opposing “camp,” if you will.
There may be a subset of “homosexual cause” supporters who will not settle for civil rights, but will insist that utter societal acceptance, including total disappearance of the “ick factor” from each individual heart, is the true Gay Agenda, toward which all right-thinking, non-homophobic people of goodwill must strive (your use of the phrase “achieve acceptance by society in general” suggests that you believe this to be the “homosexual cause,” as pursued by “the gay community and its supporters” ). If this group really exists, and displays such a “you’re either with us or you’re against us” attitude, I will concede that their use of a pejorative to label opponent and half-hearted supporter alike amounts to bullying, punishing, and even dishonesty, if you like.
If.
If such a group is significantly large, widespread, and backed with the awesome might of the Hollywood politico-cultural monolith.
As for me, I consider such a group entity to be chimerical, and accusations of bullying and dishonesty largely meaningless. Now, far be it from me to set up a strawman, constructed from unverified assumptions about the meaning of what you’ve posted. But without further explication from you, that’s the image I carry, of what you consider to be the pro-gay cause “camp.” Mind you, that’s just me, the prince of a fellow who’s been hyperextending his benefit-of-the-doubt muscles for the past two days. Everyone else will use the words you’ve posted to form their own images; I’m not betting that theirs are going to cast you in any better light than mine does. The only tool you have to influence our images is going to be truthful information about what you DO believe.
Until you provide such information, your insistence on discussing the issue in terms of a “camp” of gay rights supporters being dishonest will continue to be dismissed as disingenuous.
[QUOTE=LaurAnge]
QUOTE]
I don’t believe calling my assessment of homophobia stupid twice in a three item post constitues much civility.
Homophobe may or may not denote mental illness to the participants in this thread. My objection is the (here it comes again and I’ll say it loud and clear: subliminal) effect it has among the population in general, serving to portray anyone not overtly cheerleading for gay rights as deficient in their thinking.
I believe this tends to undercut support for the gay rights movement and only causes its opponents and the undecideds to dig in their heels and be even less likely to come around.
Ah, having Starving Artist is a moron utterly failed Starving Artist is a moron to refute any Starving Artist is a moron of the arguments Starving Artist is a moron that have demolished Starving Artist is a moron his pathetic OP Starving Artist is a moron, Starving Artist wades even farther Starving Artist is a moron into the psychological swamp Starving Artist is a moron he insists on Starving Artist is a moron miring himself in. Starving Artist is a moron
Why, thank you so much, my dear! Here, have a second slice of pie. Do you have room left for some peanut butter cookies? Maybe some brownies? Now, let them cool from the oven first, there’s a love.
I feel there’s a big difference between calling one’s argument stupid and a person stupid.
Please show me any instance in known history where homophobia was treated as a mental illness, or anyone percieved it as such. Surely if it has such a… subliminal effect (maybe you could give me your definition of subliminal as well? You seem to have your own dictionary) there will be exaples.
I’m still curious to hear your answer to my question: how many times must this “misunderstanding” be explained to a given poster before his use of the term “homophobe” becomes an actual, deliberate, dishonest attempt to smear a non-bigot? How many bites at the apple do they get?
(I agree this is tangential to the OP, too, BTW).
[/QUOTE]
First of all, thank you for hyper-extending. It’s makes you a much more pleasant person to talk to. Your rational and intelligent post is the kind of thing I like to see here.
Secondly, the part of your post that reads as follows sums up most of my feelings pretty well:
There may be a subset of “homosexual cause” supporters who will not settle for civil rights, but will insist that utter societal acceptance, including total disappearance of the “ick factor” from each individual heart, is the true Gay Agenda, toward which all right-thinking, non-homophobic people of goodwill must strive (your use of the phrase “achieve acceptance by society in general” suggests that you believe this to be the “homosexual cause,” as pursued by “the gay community and its supporters” ). If this group really exists, and displays such a “you’re either with us or you’re against us” attitude, I will concede that their use of a pejorative to label opponent and half-hearted supporter alike amounts to bullying, punishing, and even dishonesty, if you like.
Where we seem to disagree in this regard is on the question of “if.” You believe this group to be small and relatively ineffectual, I believe it is pervasive. I will grant you that we would both probably be hard pressed to prove our relative positions conclusively. However, my perception of it is what is fueling my contributions to this thread.
[QUOTE=LaurAnge]
I feel there’s a big difference between calling one’s argument stupid and a person stupid.
QUOTE]
I didn’t say you called me stupid. I said you called my assessment stupid…twice in a three item post. I believe you are being disingenuous in trying now to portray your post as not an uncivil insult.
I don’t know how to quantify it. If I think the accuser truly understands that his epithet is dishonest and bullying then I will call him on it.
I’m not disputing that there are individual assholes or that the word gets thrown around unfairly. I’m disputing that ther’s any sort of organized “cause” to that effect.