<b>xenophobia</b>… a deep dislike of foreigners.
- <i>Canadian Oxford Dictionary</i>
Let me just add to this the observation that statements that begin with “Most…” or “Many…” while possibly true as a matter of fact are nonetheless unlikely to be useful, especially if trying to argue from the general to the specific.
In another thread, a question was raised about the stereotype of promiscuity. Now, I am absolutely convinced that gay men, as a general rule, are more promiscuous than straight men. (As I observed in the other thread, this is not for lack of trying on the straight mens’ parts). But the real question becomes: what of it? It’s a statistical observation, but you would certainly not be justified in drawing any conclusions about an individual based on that fact, because you have no evidence concerning the individual. Indeed, it’s difficult to understand what inferences might be drawn even if it’s demonstrated that a particular individual is promiscuous, but that’s another discussion.
- Rick
Is this any more meaningful or useful than defining a “blonde lifestyle” as “going through life with blonde hair?”
One characteristic does not make a lifestyle.
I absolutely agree that there is nothing remotely useful about defining a gay lifestyle as I did, or a blonde lifestyle as you did.
I don’t necessarily agree that these are invalid uses of the word “lifestyle,” though, because it’s unclear to me at what degree of specificity the word “lifestyle” gains relevance. Is there a musician’s lifestyle? Surely not, because I bet that a day in the life of Josie Scott is vastly different from a day in the life of Yo-Yo Ma.
“Lifestyle” is a word that defies a rigorous defintion. I contend it’s useless, and my example as well as yours bears that contention out.
- Rick
Ah, okay. I didn’t follow the link, my apologies.
You know, it would never have occurred to me before I started reading this board that “lifestyle” actually meant “The unspeakably evil things that all gay people do.” I think a lot of people use it to mean the state of being gay or the condition of having the people to whom one is sexually attracted be members of one’s own sex. For-real homophobic people definitely do use it in the pejorative sense, but the use of the word per se isn’t enough to discern the motivation behind it in the real world.
But of course that doesn’t matter if one’s objective is to pick a fight. For example, someone could refer to my use of the word “condition” in the previous paragraph, saying “What, you mean like a medical condition? Are you saying that being gay is a sickness? That it’s a disease of some kind? Lemme at 'im!” See? It’s alarmingly easy to pick a fight.
Bricker’s example is not hypothetical.
Check the thread in the Pit labelled “The State of the Civil Union”. Homebrew labelled Bricker as a homophobe, based on Bricker’s belief that it would better if the states handled the notion of gay marriage, rather than having it imposed on the rest of us by the Supreme Court. That is, he used the perjorative based not on any fear or hatred of gays, but on his understanding of the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment.
There are other threads in which lissener made the attempt to label anyone who felt anything but visceral approval of all aspects of gay behavior as a homophobe".
Because, on the SDMB at least, it does “happen all the time”. It has nearly become what the term “racist” often is - a signal that one side has begun to run low on arguments. Homebrew realized how silly it sounded to argue that he had a better understanding of Constitutional law than Bricker (and Dewey Cheatham and Howe, and fell back on the only recourse he could come up with.
Regards,
Shodan
This paper defines ‘heterosexist bias’ as
(Yes, I note their use of the word ‘lifestyle’ and point out that there is an enormous difference between the use of the word in the singular (which implies a uniformity to ‘gays’ that does not exist) and the plural (which implies as many ‘gay lifestyles’ as there are ‘gays’)
Queens University (in Kingston, Ontario) defines it as
This site offers a neat attitude test that hopefully will illustrate to you how and why it makes people awfully sceptical of ‘fence-sitters, conflicted or apathetic’ people who claim not to be ‘homophobic.’ What exactly are you conflicted about?
Except that’s not what happened. But the readers can check the thread themselves for their own opinion of the outcome. I’d note, however, the only person posting that they have been swayed in their opinion was influenced by my and Otto’s arguements.
Furthermore, and on top of that, I stand by my assertion that anyone who would deny Equal Protection and full Equality under the law because of sexual orientation is just as much a bigot as those who would do so because of race or gender.
The fact that bigots don’t like to be called on it doesn’t mean they’re not bigots.
Yeah thanks, I got it. I don’t deny that there are baiters around, both here and in real life. I don’t think it’s pervasive.
Well, this is still sort of hypothetical, but I’ve seen it applied to people that Polycarp describes.
I agree with Poly in that I wouldn’t call this person bigoted - yet, there are people here who would quickly label this attitude homophobic.
Lifestyle is defined as “a manner of living that reflects the person’s values and attitudes”, with occasional slight variants of phrasing, in a number of dictionaries, and “the typical way of life of an individual, group, or culture” by the Merriam-Webster. The usage note in the American Heritage dictionary adds, “When lifestyle became popular a generation ago, a number of critics objected to it as voguish and superficial, perhaps because it appeared to elevate habits of consumption, dress, and recreation to categories in a system of social classification.”
( http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lifestyle
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=lifestyle&x=19&y=16 )
From the usage note, it’s easy to tell why many people object to having their partnerships referred to as a “lifestyle”: it reduces their commitments to other human beings to being treated as the equivalent of whether they’re buying capri pants and how often they go to the movies. “Yes, male brunettes are in this year, and I thought Steve here would look lovely next to the divan.”
But to look at the word as much as is possible without those connotations: the definition talks about “way of life” and/or “manner of living”. Thus, a lifestyle descriptor would have to say something about the way a person lives – something which does describe a manner of living cannot be describing a lifestyle.
My manner of living is cluttered. It involves mostly stacks of books, though there are stacks of CDs and a couple shelves of DVDs too. My manner of living involves not driving, as I neither know how, nor possess a license, nor indeed a car. I fly occasionally for personal reasons, partially subsidised by using a credit card that links to a frequent flyer miles account. My manner of living involves being the stay-at-home partner of someone with a technical job (who is on call every third week or so and one of the primary backups the rest of the time); my manner of living involves working the equivalent of a third-shift job while at home, trying to get my own career started. I buy very little packaged food, preferring to prepare my own; I have a half-dozen or so various vitamin and herbal supplements sitting on the telly. I have two cats, and a snake; I order the snake’s food from a supplier I found on the internet. We go to the movies very occasionally and go out to dinner moderately more often. We have a little artwork on our walls; much of it was done by my relatives. My two primary social outlets are internet-based discussion (in a variety of fora) and a weekly games night hosted by the partner of my college roommate, which generally does board and card games with occasional forays into sexy people playing Twister, of which I highly approve.
That’s a pretty detailed lifestyle description, don’t you think?
Would me specifying my orientation add any significant description of the way I live?
So how did you reach that conclusion, Bricker? Have you personally conducted a scientific, comparative survey of a large number of heterosexual and homosexual men? Or is it just that you’ve slept with so many gay men you can confidently make that assertion?
Perhaps not homophobic, but you have to admit that ‘straight supremacist’ fits it to a tee.
I don’t know, the problem with ‘straight supremacist’ is that it evokes (perhaps intentionally) the phrase ‘white supremacist’ and the associated attitudes of hatred and self-superiority – neither of which are characteristic of the people that I think Poly is describing.
You know, if you’re looking to find a nice, neutral term to describe people who believe that they are, by virtue of their heterosexuality, superior to homosexuals, you’re going to be very disappointed.
I understand that it’s difficult for some people to face up to the idea that due to prejudice and bigotry, they’re assisting in the oppression of an entire segment of the population, but that realization is an integral part of getting the country accustomed to treating us as equals.
There were very nice religious people who believed that interracial marriage was wrong. Does their niceness absolve them of their bigotry? Does the religious basis for bigotry make bigotry any less harmful?
If the association with white supremacists makes the straight supremacists uncomfortable, good. By believing that my relationship is inferior because it’s a homosexual relationship, they earn the term ‘straight supremacist’ handily.
On the other hand, if someone doesn’t feel comfortable around homosexuality, but feels that homosexuals are just as deserving of equal rights as heterosexuals, if they don’t feel they’re superior to homosexuals by virtue of their heterosexuality, then they aren’t straight supremacists.
It’s an entirely apt term.
Ain’t possible. There is no way you can look a person in his eye, tell him that he is “sinner” based on his innate character and not come across as condemning. You don’t get a free pass just because your bigotry is based on your religion.
Uhh, Homebrew? Just whom are you addressing here?
I’ll give you a hint: nobody who’s in this discussion. The quote you used is c&p’d from Poly’s post, wherein he summarized the views of an unnamed member of this board.
You may be on the side of the angels in this fight, but the fight is not going to be prosecuted by angels, or for angels; it’s going to be fought by and for the benefit of people, who, for better or for worse, will have their opinions colored by the impressions they form of the combatants. If you present the image of a poorly-constructed Turing machine, programmed to pick up and respond to certain word strings, you’re going to invite an unfavorable impression and make your own task that much more difficult. So pay attention.
Xenophobia–hatred, disapproval or dislike of foreigners or aliens.
I am well aware that Polycarp doesn’t believe that himself and that’s why I didn’t cite “Originally Posted by Polycarp”. I was talking about the attitude displayed. I also know to whom he’s referring and I think he is indeed homophobic and certainly didn’t live up to #5 as expressed, charitably, by Poly. Perhaps I shouldn’t have used the generic “you” and instead used “There is no way someone can look a person in his eye …” to avoid confusion.
:rolleyes:
This is exactly what we’re talking about. I heavily resent being called a bigot because I adhere to a particular interpretation of the constitution, an interpretation which I cleave to for reasons wholly unrelated to matters of sexual orientation. Your assertion is stupid.
FWIW:
bigot – One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
I defy anyone to show that Bricker or I are “intolerant of those who differ,” particularly since we’ve expressed support for the repeal of sodomy laws and the adoption of civil union laws.