No, but I bet she’ll get a kick out of it. 
I’m gonna cast my vote as neigh on that one.
Absolutely!
But I don’t think when paul came on here and mistakenly told people they’re misusing the word homophobe; that he even came CLOSE to implying that gays are perverts, immoral or any of those other things you said in the above post.
You think? I believe ETF knows me well enough to recognize the humor at work. She most surely will be cognizant of the fact that I invented the word for her aggrandizement and amusement (you know, to kind of take the edge off of what will surely be for her my embarrassing compliments). I hope so, at any rate.
Wrong again.
Your post was that you didn’t “know of any other word in common usage where the suffix ‘phobe’ is added to a word to indicate mere aversion”. By reading the entire thread before posting, you would have realised that there is at least one other word that fits this criteria - “xenophobia”. The content of the thread therefore makes all the difference to your claim, unless of course you have not heard of the word “xenophobia” or any of the other words mentioned earlier in the thread in common usage and in respect of which the suffix “phobia” indicates mere aversion and not fear.
Being Canadian, you’d think he would be used to being overlooked by now. 
(Don’t hurt me)
Heck, I found “homophobe” to be an icky word, but it was the “homo” part (implying sameness or consistancy) that bugged me, not the “phobia” part. But no other, more accurate word has manifested itself in the common vernacular, so we’re stuck, for now.
You’re a ditz, Fitz.
Boy, the arguments one gets into around this place. :smack: Having heard of a word does not equate to its being in common usage among the populace at large.
However, having said that, so what? The point of the sentence containing the comment in question was that the suffix “phobe” appears virtually nowhere in common day-to-day discourse among the population in general, and/or in what it reads, hears or watches than in the word “homophobe.”
Right, I don’t think he was and didn’t mean to imply that he was. I was just saying that it’s not always the case that gay people are just waiting to jump all over your case the second you say the wrong thing, a lot of times people really do say the wrong thing.
I might’ve read too much into your post, and if I did I apologize.
*mmmm? Actually, if some very large number of people begin to use a word in a particular way, it really does pick up that definition. (Whether as an additional meaning or as a replacing meaning will depend on the size of the population and the stubbornness of those who continue to use the original meaning.) So the Argumentum ad Populum tends to not actually be a fallacy in the matter of word meanings.
However, SHAKES did get it wrong, anyway. The overwhelming majority of English speakers understand the word to mean “an aversion to” or “a hatred of.”
One may argue that it was deplorable that that word was given that meaning, failing on an etymological level. However, there is no legitimate argument against the accepted meaning (which corresponds to the meaning it has born for 30+ years), simply because the people who use it genuinely understand that accepted meaning.
Now, it is possible that the original coiners of the word were correct and that the hatred dempnstrated toward the GLBT communities arises from fear.
It is also possible that the hatred arises from some other source that does not include fear and that the word was coined incorrectly.
Regardless, the word as it is used means hatred or aversion, not fear. Railing against such usage makes as much sense as railing against pedophile and necrophile which should not have their current meanings because the -phile suffix is taken from a more spiritual love than the erotic love that is intended by the words in current use.
.
Of course, not. He simply laid out a string of (mostly false) stereotypes about “homosexual” behavior and pretended that those mannerisms (that are displayed by a tiny minority of gay men along with a few straight men) are the reason that people show aversion to homosexuals as a class even though few homosexuals match the stereotype he presented.
It is entirely possible that the word was coined in a technical error of etymology (provided, of course, that fear isn’t the driving motivation for that irrational hatred–a point that has not been proven to me). However, the word gained its current meaning pretty much simultaneously with its general entry into the language and whining about bad etymologies serves no purpose except to demonstrate ignorance of the way language works.
.
I know. I’m sure that some of your best friends are homosexual.
Right back atcha with the “so what” thing. We’ll let the dictionary have the final say then, shall we?
I couldn’t care less. Have you missed my posts above where I said I didn’t object to its use anymore?
I never said the dictionary didn’t define it as such. And I didn’t point out the dictionary only recently began to do so, either. It’s a living language, right? Definitions change. But they don’t come from out of the ether, and it’s the genesis for homophobe having come into its current meaning that Paul and (previously) I were having a problem with.
Dictionaries are cultural products reflecting the writers’/publishers’ prejudices, as well as being repositories of interesting etymological information. Additionally, many dictionaries merely butcher each other for definitions, so what one bloke thought 100 years ago takes on iconic status.
My gripe with ‘homophobe’ (or ‘racist’ for that matter) is that these types of words tend to be used by people who are lazy or reluctant to think. Their prevalence and acceptability means that there is no incentive for people to be doing what they ought to be doing, which is to explain what the speaker/writer has uttered that is unacceptable and why it is unacceptable.
To be fair, a lot of the latter does go on here, but it tends to become bogged down as people argue about words - which is rather a waste of time - and as they take up well-rehearsed battle stations in what increasingly comes to resemble heavily choreographed, shadow warfare.
Excellent points, roger. Well said.
Sure, dictionaries aren’t the be-all and end-all when it comes to defining words, but they’re handy descriptive tools, especially those with examples. But in the case of “homophobia”, the dictionary’s just one thing going to prove Paul wrong:
- the etymology of the word proves Paul’s thesis wrong.
- the popular usage of the word proves Paul’s thesis wrong.
- the dictionary definition of the word proves Paul’s thesis wrong.
And arguing about the meaning of the word is the entire point of this thread. It’s hardly “getting bogged down”, at least not in this case.
Perhaps I’m wrong, and roger can certainly correct me if so, but it was my impression that rt was alluding to most of the threads around the SDMB that are concerned with some aspect of homosexuality. I’ve seen plenty of them get bogged down and/or derailed by semantics.
Pretty much on the money, SA. Our currency on SDMB is words (and those dreadful smiley things, but I’d rather not consider them), and therefore it is helpful to know that we generally mean the same thing by the same terms. So using a word as a convenient shorthand is useful. But this only works when the word is not so controversial that it functions now only to inflame passions.
‘Bigot’ and ‘homophobe’ have been reduced virtually to snarl words - they function in the same way that a dog’s snarl functions, to establish who’s boss and to gather the pack round. Much better to write “You still do not support gay adoption, roger. Would you if you were convinced that kids would be just as benefitted in such an environment?” Better, that is, if you really want to give up the battle stations mentality, which, as I’ve said before, I’m not even sure isn’t a bit phoney. Sometimes I feel that the regular posters here need an enemy, and even take a slightly perverse delight in seeing how long it takes to drive an intruder away.
**Atticus ** reminded me of the notion of the ‘true believer’. The scary thing about such notions is that if they work at all, they work both ways. We can *all * continue to fight an imaginary enemy. Not just a Bush, a pubbie or a thornhill.
Then what are you playing?
Don’t you have to love someone that just proves to you that you ain’t the dimmest bulb in the pack?
Naw, it’s more like “Good boy!” and a handful of carrot chunks. An ear rub and eye stroking. Maybe a belly scritch if they’ve been really good.
“Well-vocabularized”? Why, SA! I’m certainly happified at your complimentful praiseness, but really, you’re occasionalifically a bit too admirational, ya know?
Tomndebb, I like your analysis of the whole use/misuse issue we’re flailing away at here. As SA points out, “It’s a living language, right? Definitions change.” In fact, some words can have definitions that start from the same place and go in strikingly different directions. Consider, for example, sanction.