What did they want you to think? For example, if they told you that you’re wrong for thinking “homosexuality is an unnatural abomination”, even if you then go on to think “but it’s not their fault they have these urges; hate the sin, not the sinner” - then yeah, I agree, stay the fuck away from roles involving caring for children, some of whom may be LGBTQ.
You are correct, the “but I have a black friend” defense counts for nothing.
I’m dying to know what horrivle brainwashing they tried to use on @bump. Did they tell them they’re homophobic unless they have gay sex three times before breakfast every day? Did they make them watch hours and hours of gay porn in a windowless room? Or did they just tell them, “gay people are just like everyone else, and it’s homophobic to think of them any differently”?
The fact that there are “differing, conflicting, subjective definitions” just here in this thread, and in the cites you yourself provided, is clear evidence that there has been much more to the use of the word than just the two options of…
a) only an awareness of systematic injustices and prejudices (by the good guys)
b) only a pejorative used by adversarial political forces (by the bad guys)
No, you didn’t claim that, but you do seem to be claiming that it went from definition (a) to definition (b) with no intermediate steps. I dispute that.
I’d stick with option (a) above. A definition that you yourself provided and that I agree with.
I guess we can’t say unless bump comes back and clarifies, but I have to say, that’s a heck of a lot of excluded middle there don’t you think?
I get very uncomfortable when the language strays into the territory of what people should or shouldn’t think. In your sentence above I’m far less bothered about what a person thinks about someone than I am about the intentional treatment of that individual.
If what was stated to bump was
it’s homophobic to treat them any differently
Then yes, for me that is a perfectly reasonable demand in a civilised society.
So it is o.k.to actively promote hatred and hateful actions as long as you take no action yourself?
That doesn’t make sense.
Actively promoting hatred and hateful actions is taking an action, you are actively doing something to carry out that promotion.
You are sending mixed signals here.
No mixed signal from me, what did I write that gave you the impression that I think…
It’s not, IMHO, but it’s also not in any way “anti-woke”.
It’s saying that activists shouldn’t be smug about being “politically woke”, and should not focus their attention on nitpicking disputable details rather than working for meaningful change.
But Obama is definitely not saying that there’s anything wrong with being “woke” per se. If you think that remark is a disparagement of political “wokeness” in and of itself, I think you’re totally misreading it.
So you’re saying you can think gay people are an unnatural abomination and expect us to believe you can “not treat them any differently”? That’s delusional thinking. And yes, I wouldn’t hire you if you openly admitted you thought that way.
Right. It was about being a slacktivist/keyboard warrior and claiming that shows how “woke” you are. It’s “so you’re woke — good: now do something about it more than flaming in the comments”.
I know for a fact that pretty much any devout Muslim thinks of me as an abomination but I’ve run my life so far on the assumption that the vast majority of such people I come into contact with will treat me as their equal. Seems to work just fine for me.
Huh? Are you Salman Rushdie??
I assume then you wouldn’t hire any reasonably adherent Muslim or similarly devout religious person?
In terms of the beliefs I hold about the Muslim faith and pretty much any organised religion, yes, I’m very much of the same mind as Rushdie.
I really don’t think you know that for a fact.
What don’t I know for a fact?
That most devout Muslims thinks of you as an abomination.
What an odd exchange. OK, I’ll go back to lurking on this thread.
Well I think their holy book is a hate-filled load of nonsensical lies and apologia for murder, their prophet was a paedophile. Drinking is fine, homosexuality is fine, sex outside of marriage is not only fine but to be encouraged, pork is fine, circumcision is bad, women are the full equal of men and there is zero good evidence for the existence of god.
It may be that “abomination” is not quite the word for how devout Muslims think of someone with views such as mine. But I’m sure they take a dim view. I am also pretty sure that most can manage to treat me perfectly civilly anyway.