Homophobia is a overt fear of homosexuality and homosexuals.
I want a word for people who are not afraid, but are against gay marriage and other rights/benefits being given to homosexuals.
It is wrong for these people to call homosexuals by insulting names, and few do so. It is similarly wrong for those for gay rights to use an insulting pejorative for there opponents.
If we want to have a discussion on gay rights, gay marriage, and the equality of the LBGT community we need to avoid name calling.
I can't say "Conservative" because many conservatives, fiscal conservatives, log cabin republicans, and Libertarians are pro-Gay rights.
I can't say "Christian" because many Christians see the love of Christ as cause for gay marriage.
I can't say "Evangelicals" because others, who are not Christian Evangelical, want gay marriage to stop. Islamic and Jewish conservatives band together on this issue.
"Culture Warriors" can be those on either side.
How about:
Homodiacs--those who hate or annoyed by homosexuals? (from Homo-1 and the latin Odius or loathsome, annoying, hated)
Homoconteptics--those who have contempt for homosexuality?
Heterosupremists--those who believe that heterosexuals are the supreme sexual choice.
Yeah, I like Heterosupremists.
Other suggestions?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm not sure that the "supremacist" construction captures the right meaning here. Even white supremacists, while lynching black people and against intermarriage, didn't necessarily have an issue with black people marrying each other.
The group that we're talking about goes that extra step.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Heterosupremist
Do you really think that doesn't sound like a perjorative? It sure does to me.
Why do you need a label? What's wrong with the strictly factual "anti same sex marriage" or "gay marriage opponents"? They even have the same number of syllables as "heterosupremist".
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Yeah, Heterosupremist does sound to close to white supremist to be useful.
Why not "anti same sex marriage?" Basically, because I want to go beyond the same-sex marriage argument, and get into things like "don't Ask/don't tell" and other gay rights issues.
Similarly, we can't use "anti gay rights" because those people who are against gay marriage and gays serving in the military and gay adoptions, etc, don't see themselves as being "anti". They see themselves as being "pro-marriage" and "pro-military" and "pro-child".
And I can't say "pro-child" in an adoption debate, because that puts gay adoptees at a disadvantage. If they are against the pro-child people are they anti-child?
The same goes with pro-military and pro-marriage.
If I try Pro-heterosexual--it sounds like a prostitute.
Why a label? Because with out a label people will argue about a label. We will have arguments if a person is afraid of gays or anti family or not.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
We discussed this before and the best we could come up with is "anti-gay".
I know at first that tends to sound harsh, but in the end it, it is accurate, and short n sweet to boot.
I remember someone (Rabbit?) wanted it to be "anti-homosexuality" as it delineates the practice from the practitioners. But it's much longer and not as catchy and "gay" doesn't necessarily mean the people who do it.
I personally think "anti-gay" is the winner.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
The issue with titles is that they often create implication for the other side of an issue. To be pro-choice implies that those who disagree with you are anti-choice. To be pro-life implies that those who disagree with you are anti-life. Even if it doesn't imply that those with whom you disagree are of the opposite opinion, it at least implies that people aren't on board with your "positive" agenda. I don't think it's fair to say that those who aren't pro-life don't care about life, just as I don't think it's fair to say those who are not pro-choice don't care about liberty.
That's why I take issue with "anti-gay." Is it that you're simply opposed to homosexual marriage, or is it that you are opposed to homosexuals? I think it's possible to believe in heterosexual marriage without necessarily thinking less of homosexuals. Why not simply say that you are in favor of marriage pertaining to heterosexuals only and leave it at that? Why do we need to title people with this opinion?
I support homosexual marriage, I support keeping abortion legal. I don't think of myself as either "pro-gay" or "pro-choice."
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Similarly, we can't use "anti gay rights" because those people who are against gay marriage and gays serving in the military and gay adoptions, etc, don't see themselves as being "anti".
You asked a word to describe the people who are against those things, and now you're saying that we can't describe them based on their opposition to those things.
This is nonsense. If you want language to actually communicate meaning, then you should be *trying* to keep your language as close as to that intended meaning.
Your suggestions are likewise all nonsense. If you want to describe people who're opposed to homosexuality, then you should be using the term "anti-homosexuality". If you want to describe people who're opposed to gay rights, then you should be using the term "anti-gay rights".
Instead you tried to confuse the issue with *more* connotations, instead of less -- by using words that talk about "annoyance" or "contempt" or "supremacy" -- instead of the mere fact of OPPOSITION -- which is described by the word "anti-".
Now, if it's not actually OPPOSITION TO GAY RIGHTS that you want to be the descriptive characteristic of this group, then you should figure out what it is.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Partialists?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Bigot Anti-Civil rights Pro Hetero Ruling Class
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: That's why I take issue with "anti-gay." Is it that you're simply opposed to homosexual marriage, or is it that you are opposed to homosexuals?
I might agree, but the original goal was:
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: I want a word for people who are not afraid, but are against gay marriage and other rights/benefits being given to homosexuals.
If say you were okay with gays, but not gay marriage only, then a more appropriate title would be "anti-SSM". But he is looking for a catch all title for against all things gay and "anti-gay" fits the ticket nicely.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by AchillesHeel: Bigot Anti-Civil rights Pro Hetero Ruling Class
I understand where you are coming from AH, but if these two groups are ever going to be able to discuss and resolve their differences some of the righteous indignation which fuels comments like this must be put aside. I tend to agree with your sentiments, but sharing points of view through discussion is a good goal and you can't change people's minds or hearts with a fist.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Racist. . . Sexist. . . Gayist. . .?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Aros: See above.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Homophobia is a overt fear of homosexuality and homosexuals.
I want a word for people who are not afraid, but are against gay marriage and other rights/benefits being given to homosexuals.
That would still be homophobia.
quote:Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexuality and people who are identified or perceived as being homosexual. Although the suffix phobia normally refers to irrational fear, definitions of homophobia have expanded to refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, and aversion, as well as irrational fear.[1][2][3] It is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination[1][2] and violence on the basis of a perceived non-heterosexual orientation.
Yes. It is a descriptive term that is very easily used as a pejorative. So's "racist" or "anti-semite." Any word that we come up with to avoid pejoratively labeling homophobes will end up just being another pejorative label under some feelgood attempted PC. For instance, do you really think it would help to move to calling them "heterosupremist?"
If we're supposed to be against insulting labeling for its own sake, do we also have to come up with mewling, friendly labels for racists and antisemites? Both of those are insulting labels too!
It is a serious question.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Really it would be orientationist.
But the issue there is that the -ism suffix was co-opted from racism with the meaning being changed effectively to bigotry over what racism actually sort of is in a technical sense.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Really it would be orientationist.
People prejudiced against gays would indeed like the dovetailed connotations of the word orientation, due to the still greatly prevalent belief among them that it's like other orientations in like that you can switch and change if you really want to.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Perhaps so. But the "ist" suffix doesn't sound too favorable. Maybe that kind of a wash is what's needed.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
What we do is add "Anti Federalist" with "Homo" somehow.
AntiHomoFederalist? HomoAntiFederalist?
HomoDisaLegitimist is what I'm going with.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
..Which sounds dirtier than one might intend, when sounded out phonetically.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Why do we want a clean, non-offensive way to call a bigot what he / she is? As I was explaining to my son, it's no different than suffrage or slavery. A minority group is being oppressed and they haven't been granted protections yet by the government. We have a bunch of old and ignorant people who think that the rule of the majority is king to civil protections of minorities from said majority.
Are you interested in finding a non-offensive term for a racist or sexist? The problem is, the people that you are defining are inherently negative. Whatever label you give will take on the definition and become negative anyway in time. So why not call them homophobes?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Sorry, 'homophobe' is the proper term. If they didn't feel strong attraction to homosexual experiences -- and that they needed strong barriers to prevent themselves from acting out on that attraction -- they wouldn't assume that everybody else is like them, and thus in need of laws to prevent gay marriages.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Aros: Oh please. People who oppose same sex marriage are not universally afraid of or angry at homosexuals. You may disagree with the rubric they use to judge what should and should not be a law, specifically the religious justification they use to vote their conscience. But even you must accept that in a democracy, there are times where the majority wins over the minority. Even in the case of civil rights. Otherwise you would support every single land claim the Native Americans make today.
If a person supports equalizing the government's handling of marriage to include same sex couples, but they also support their church in its belief that same sex couples cannot marry within that faith, are they still a homophobe? Or is it only if you oppose civil recognition that you suddenly become a mean name?
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
quote:Why do we want a clean, non-offensive way to call a bigot what he / she is? ...
Are you interested in finding a non-offensive term for a racist or sexist? The problem is, the people that you are defining are inherently negative. Whatever label you give will take on the definition and become negative anyway in time. So why not call them homophobes?
QFT.
It reminds me of having to dance around the idea of calling someone out on racism or sexism...as if it's somehow more offensive to point out racism than to say something racist.
If it sounds pejorative it probably should. Being homophobic is more unpleasant than the word "homophobic."
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
My only question is this: Why would someone be opposed to homosexual rights if they weren't already a homophobe?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... But even you must accept that in a democracy, there are times where the majority wins over the minority. Even in the case of civil rights. Otherwise you would support every single land claim the Native Americans make today ...
That doesn't necessarily follow.
There are a number of ways to resolve this, but one could for example, believe that there are no cases where the majority can restrict minority civil rights while simultaneously holding the belief that land claims can't be inherited across 'X' generations.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Most change like this happens when the old school die out and the next generation is more tolerant.
That being said, it should still be a goal to have the ability to discuss this and other hard topics without instant antagonism. Labels like "homophobe" and "bigot" are not at all helpful to an open dialog, just as "fag" or "queer" are not.
Change is difficult, and even harder when religious beliefs are involved.
The hugely vast majority of people with strong feelings on this matter are going to take those beliefs to the grave. But some people can change their view of the world. And if you hope to reach that minority even a little bit, name calling will drastically limit your success.
So, it is really a question of intentions. If you want to antagonize those who see gay rights as something to be opposed, continue calling them bigots and homophobes. If you are trying to have a serious discussion and maybe change some hearts and minds, I suggest a gentler approach.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: My only question is this: Why would someone be opposed to homosexual rights if they weren't already a homophobe?
I'm sure some do. And all the rest are nearly always assured that they're part of that select few, too.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: That being said, it should still be a goal to have the ability to discuss this and other hard topics without instant antagonism. Labels like "homophobe" and "bigot" are not at all helpful to an open dialog, just as "fag" or "queer" are not.
"fag" is the only word in that list that is unlikely to be helpful in an open dialog. For instance, in any open dialog with victims and perpetrators of bigotry, I defy anyone to tell me that the word bigot is off the table.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
There is a world of difference between trying to show someone that their beliefs culminate in bigotry and calling someone a bigot. Name calling (even truthful names) rarely lead people to having the open mind set necessary for change.
The question in the op is what label can be used to avoid words like bigot.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The question in the op is what label can be used to avoid words like bigot.
That's all well and fine when the primary consideration is the relatively plausible and worthwhile conversion and betterment via discourse of people who would otherwise be turned off by labeling, and there are no significant issues beyond this. There is, though, and it's the part that's way more important with their comfort level about labels describing what they are doing — it's about the vulnerable minority population who are victims of the things that they do that have earned them the labels in the first place.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Why do we want a clean, non-offensive way to call a bigot what he / she is?
Are you interested in finding a non-offensive term for a racist or sexist? The problem is, the people that you are defining are inherently negative. Whatever label you give will take on the definition and become negative anyway in time. So why not call them homophobes?
That's like saying, "Why do we want a clean, non-offensive way to call a baby killer (pro-choice) what he / she is?"
A non-offensive term is being sought in order to foster more open discussion. In a debate concerning abortion, if I call the opposing side "pro-baby killing" or something less dramatic like "anti-life" I shouldn't expect a calm and productive discussion to ensue. Even if such terms are accurate and politically correct to some, their use wouldn't bolster my arguments. In addition to sounding spiteful, "anti-life" wouldn't be an accurate description either because the person isn't likely to be all-around against life, as others have pointed out. Good communication comes from avoiding needlessly antagonistic language.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I don't disagree that the title is well earned, but honestly that old saw about two wrongs apply. I do not think that being called names is going to accomplish anything other then more anger and polarization.
We have more then stared down a path that is inevitable. Homosexuality will be a nonissue in a generation or two.
One does not win a war over intolerance with more intolerance. Reasonable people can disagree.
That their side is wrong is without question in my mind, but it is a mistake to hate them even if they have wronged some. It is short sighted to dehumanize them as they are people too, both flawed and virtuious like all of us.
I'm sure some who advocate oppression of those different from "the norm" are selfish, fear filled, small minded bigots, but not all or even most. Espessually those who are called to see homosexuality as a sin against God and a danger to family structure.
For these people, anger and name calling will only further alienate them and drive them further from the possibility of identifying with the feeling of injustice of their victims.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: We have more then stared down a path that is inevitable. Homosexuality will be a nonissue in a generation or two.
I'd actually be surprised if this is the case. We've been working on race not being an issue for far longer and that's still not true.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Compare race issues of 1932-1972 (one or two generations ago) to today. Nonissue. Sure, there's still progress to be made, but is racism a -real- problem in this country? Are the minority races struggling to be able to join the main stream culture or have an impact on our society?
Or to put it another way, if you were to list the top five problems that are facing this country, would racism be on that list? Top ten?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: One does not win a war over intolerance with more intolerance. Reasonable people can disagree.
An idealistic appraisal, but not really ... true. At all. You can use intolerance of one kind to properly and effectively challenge intolerance of another kind, drive it into submission, curtail it from being transmitted from generation to generation. Choke it out of the sociocultural milieu to the edges. Make it incredibly un-P.C., and association with it inherently derogatory. It has been done before. It is, actually, what is being done now. Is it wrong? It's certainly easy to argue it is, until it comes down to the issue of how this is something of an active fight to give people rights, respect, and a place in society that they should already have by now.
I get what the issue is here. I agree that homophobe doesn't have to be the term and that it could easily be better to opt to swap it out for a better word, so that The Anti-Gay Discriminators Formerly Known As Homophobes won't get hung up on phobe and won't feel tiresomely forced to assume and preach, regardless of common definition, that the term necessarily implies only direct and clear fear and/or hatred for homosexuals, a phobia, and that if they don't jump at the sight of homosexuals in the same way that an arachnophobe jumps at the sight of a spider, then the term is hateful and wrong and totally not about them, even when their personal attitude and intended legislative discriminatory measures against homosexuals clearly apply a worldview that is straightforwardly terrified of what happens when homosexuals aren't forced to hide their behavior, terrified of their children learning about them in contexts which don't start and stay on "homosexuality is bad," and terrified of letting them marry or serve openly in the military.
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
I still think "heteronormative" makes the most sense (as well as having provenance).
"Of, designating, or based on a world view which regards gender roles as fixed to biological sex and heterosexuality as the normal and preferred sexual orientation." (OED)
Though it sounds to me like the discussion is getting hung up on the definition of truth as something which exists objectively vs. a constructed tool to wield as power.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I think the flawed assumption is that you can have a productive discussion about a topic like gay marriage or abortion. People's views are generally fixed, and they'll just regurgitate the talking points that they were given at church or some website. Or worse yet, the aggressive quips that were birthed by original thought.
Do you think discussion about controversial topics actually changes minds? Do you think that the other person is even listening? They're just preparing their next talking point.
Conservatives only change their mind about homosexuals when they have personal experiences. Or through a lot of soul searching. Certainly the debate isn't about the word "marriage". We don't see conservatives lobbying for "civil unions". It's a strawman. They don't want to legitimize homosexuals. They don't want gays to be acceptable in our society. They don't want to speak to their kids about why gays are allowed to live and marry and adopt kids. And it's because they were raised that way, or their church tells them to believe that way. But when a loved one "becomes gay" they're forced to rethink.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:I think the flawed assumption is that you can have a productive discussion about a topic like gay marriage or abortion. People's views are generally fixed, and they'll just regurgitate the talking points that they were given at church or some website. Or worse yet, the aggressive quips that were birthed by original thought.
People's views are not fixed. The art of persuasion is just as real as any other. But if you fall back on derogatory language, the common reflex is to fall back on talking points.
quote:Do you think discussion about controversial topics actually changes minds? Do you think that the other person is even listening? They're just preparing their next talking point.
This is definitely the case much of the time, and if you are talking to somebody where this is the case, and nothing you do changes it, then discussion is fruitless. I have certain relatives where this is definitely the case.
quote:Conservatives only change their mind about homosexuals when they have personal experiences. Or through a lot of soul searching.
Replace the word only with usually and I'm more inclined to agree with you. So be the impetus that gives them experiences, or cause to search their souls.
There are definitely aggressive bigots who are against homosexuality, and at times one should call them out on it. But to paint the whole group that way with the justification "Well, what they are doing to gay people is worse than what I am doing, and ultimately this will shame them into seeing things my way" is short sighted and never really part of the solution. If somebody were doing it to you, you'd never appreciate it, even if they were right.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Since we are making up a word, let's at least have fun with it. How about "Poodlecup" or "fuddleboopy" or "Bekkio"?
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Why do we want a clean, non-offensive way to call a bigot what he / she is?
Because politics is the mind-killer, and if you don't have a neutral term to describe *EXACTLY WHAT YOU MEAN TO DESCRIBE* without deliberately adding negative connotations, then you just speed up the process of killing your mind.
quote:We have a bunch of old and ignorant people who think that the rule of the majority is king to civil protections of minorities from said majority.
Now, see, your mind has been killed already. Because you heard "opposed to same-sex marriage", you automatically assume you know what they believe about e.g. the role of the majority. What if they're Islamists who completely disapprove the rule of the majority they just want everyone to obey to Quran, regardless of whether they are majority or not? What if they're anarchists, who want the government to be abolished and no marriage to be granted *any* recognition? What if they're queer radical leftists who believe that same-sex marriage is a tool in service to the conservative status-quo (an attempt to 'normalize' the queer sex life) which should be fought.
BUT POLITICS IS THE MIND-KILLER. You heard *one* enemy idea (opposition to same-sex marriage and gay rights) and you immediately assume that everyone sharing that idea shares the whole list of traits you associate with that enemy.
Your mind has been effectively killed to the point you can't actually think about the issue itself BY ITSELF, you can only think it in terms of what it connotates to you.
quote:Are you interested in finding a non-offensive term for a racist or sexist?
Yes, I'm definitely interested in having different and specific terms for people who think different things about race and gender. For example there's a vast difference between people who think races can have on average significantly different physical traits (e.g. that West Africans are on average better sprinters), the people who think races can have on average significantly different mental traits (e.g. that the Ashkenazi have on average higher IQs), the people who discriminate against races because they believe it financially beneficial (e.g. the people who made Ged of Earthsea white in the tv adaptations), the people who believe that the state itself should en masse discriminate against people of other races, and those people and gangs who inflict physical racial violence on other races.
If you aren't capable of distinguishing between all the above, and just call all of them "racists", then at best you are incapable of actually discussing issues relating to race on any kind of intelligent fashion.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Compare race issues of 1932-1972 (one or two generations ago) to today. Nonissue. Sure, there's still progress to be made, but is racism a -real- problem in this country? Are the minority races struggling to be able to join the main stream culture or have an impact on our society?
Or to put it another way, if you were to list the top five problems that are facing this country, would racism be on that list? Top ten?
Yes!!
I won't deny that racism has decreased enormously in the US over the past half century, but only the privileged don't realize how big the problem is. The most explicit forms of racism have been disappeared but implicit racism runs so deep in our society that most people don't even recognize it.
Look at the stats. African Americans make up 12.2% of the American population but constitute 22% of the people living below poverty level, 39% of the people in prison, and 24% of the people who are food insecure. Conversely, they make up less the 9% of home owners, only 5.7% of people in the top 20% of household income, 4% of lawyers and medical doctors, and 1% of US senators and congressmen.
If you don't think racism is a real problem, how do you explain those facts? I only see two options. Either black people are still disadvantaged by a combination of current racist attitudes and a long history of racial discrimination or there's something else about being black (which has nothing to do with racism past or present) that makes people more likely to be poor and commit crime. That second option is, by definition, racist.
I know its a rather harsh conclusion, but I can't see a real third option. To believe that racism isn't still a major problem in the US, a person would either have to be ignorant of the enormous economic disparity between the races or have fundamentally racist attitudes.
[ March 01, 2012, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, to be perfectly fair, I think TW was probably raised in the same educational environment as most of us. In 2nd grade, they teach you about how in the 60s, there were "colored" bathrooms, and "white" bathrooms. And those are gone now, so racism is gone.
It's kind of hard to explain to an 8 year old that the bathrooms now being open to everybody is an indication of progress- not of real problem solving. I know for a fact that this general impression stayed with me for years after I first heard about it. Racism = segregation.
In some ways I think the gays will have it easier. They aren't as visible, as has often been said. For them, de-segregation is a huge piece of the puzzle. If the law doesn't actively discriminate against them, they're more or less free to operate in their professional and personal lives without nearly as much superficial discrimination as African Americans suffer on a daily basis. You know when you're talking to someone, even on the phone (quite often) what their race is. Their sexual preferences? Not so often.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote: Either black people are still disadvantaged by a combination of current racist attitudes and a long history of racial discrimination or there's something else about being black (which has nothing to do with racism past or present) that makes people more likely to be poor and commit crime. That second option is, by definition, racist.
What's your definition of racism? And also does your definition of racist beliefs include the necessity for those beliefs to be false, or can true beliefs also be considered racist?
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
My comments generalized and painted broad strokes. It was sort of a tongue-in-cheek commentary on the types of people I was critiquing.
But I certainly recognize that I was applying glittering generalities to a psychographic demographic (probably multiple demographics).
Most people don't discuss to persuade on "hot topic issues", they discuss to argue (justify their own beliefs). I'm not really sure that 99% of people can have a productive discussion on gay marriage or abortion (or many other issues). And I don't feel that there is generally any value whatsoever in attempting such a discussion, short of on an intellectual level.
Most people only really think about "big topic" issues once or twice in their lives, form an opinion, and generate an anchoring bias. It's really difficult to change most people's views. And the more diametrically opposed the point is to their counterpoint, the more difficult it becomes. I'd wager that the difficulty approaches infinity in when intelligence is low or religious fervor is high.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote: Most people only really think about "big topic" issues once or twice in their lives, form an opinion, and generate an anchoring bias. It's really difficult to change most people's views. And the more diametrically opposed the point is to their counterpoint, the more difficult it becomes. I'd wager that the difficulty approaches infinity in when intelligence is low or religious fervor is high.
Or when someone wrote a paper on the subject and had to funnel a bunch of points into a coherent thesis. Or when someone's favorite blogger espouses a certain view. The reasons why someone might be resistant to having their views changed are legion.
However, I think it has more to do with what you yourself are willing to change. You said it in the preceding paragraph: it's possible to have a productive discussion in which people are persuaded to change their views. But that never works when you think of the other person as hopelessly boneheaded and entrenched. If you can't start your own approach with openness and understanding, why would you ever expect the other person to reach out to you?
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:I'm not really sure that 99% of people can have a productive discussion on gay marriage or abortion (or many other issues).
If only 1% of the people can have a productive discussion, that still leaves almost 70 million people around the world who are capable of having one.
Besides, that's exactly why we must support productive methods of discussion, and oppose unproductive methods -- because productive discussions are rare and precious.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: You can use intolerance of one kind to properly and effectively challenge intolerance of another kind, drive it into submission, curtail it from being transmitted from generation to generation. Choke it out of the sociocultural milieu to the edges. Make it incredibly un-P.C., and association with it inherently derogatory. It has been done before. It is, actually, what is being done now. Is it wrong?
It is not wrong, as a movement, to have no acceptance of this kind of prejudice and socially brand it as what it is, bigotry.
But there is a huge difference between a social movement and a discussion between individuals. For the sake of individual discussion, where minds can be changed and -how- you talk is as important as what is said, name calling is poison.
quote:Originally posted by millernumber1: I still think "heteronormative" makes the most sense (as well as having provenance).
Like "Pro-Choice" and "Pro-Life" which only look at the label's belief holder's view of the topic, this title will likely stick. I still think that "Anti-Gay" is more accurate, as well as "Pro-Body-Freedom" and "Pro-Fetus-Rights" would be more accurate too. To quote Princess Bride, "Get used to disappointment."
quote:Originally posted by Aros: I think the flawed assumption is that you can have a productive discussion about a topic like gay marriage or abortion. People's views are generally fixed...
It is hugely important that we do not give up on the power of discussion to change minds. Words do fail at times, but to not even try is just giving up hope of avoiding violence. Wars are what happen when words fail.
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Since we are making up a word, let's at least have fun with it. How about "Poodlecup" or "fuddleboopy" or "Bekkio"?
Because it negates the whole point. The point being that to facilitate discussion we need a title that is a accurate but not offensive. "Poodlecup" fails on both criteria.
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: If you aren't capable of distinguishing between all the above, and just call all of them "racists", then at best you are incapable of actually discussing issues relating to race on any kind of intelligent fashion.
Slightly stronger worded then I would have put it, but right on the money none the less.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If you don't think racism is a real problem, how do you explain those facts? I only see two options...
.I don't buy for a second that the statistical lack of success of African Americans automatically means racism is the cause -and- therefore is one of the top problems in this country.
Only two options? Simple answers to complicated problems are comforting and wrong. Take into account parent's education level, urban or suburban setting, quality of schools available, importance of education and work ethic in whichever subculture individuals belong, prevalence of drug use, marital status of parents, and twenty or thirty other variables and might start to scratch the surface of the whys behind the stats you quoted.
"Blacks aren't doing as well = racism" is about as good proof as "The cookies I left were eaten, so Santa Clause is real."
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Well, to be perfectly fair, I think TW was probably raised in the same educational environment as most of us.
I assume you meant SW...I didn't spot any other posters with the initials TW.
quote:In 2nd grade, they teach you about how in the 60s, there were "colored" bathrooms, and "white" bathrooms. And those are gone now, so racism is gone.
To an extent you are right on. Every single "isum" out there will not die entirely, they will live on in the hearts of us, the people, well, forever. But the battle is to push those "isums" into the dark recesses of the human heart and out of legislature. The "hump" is when the law no longer can be used as a tool to discriminate. This "hump" has been crossed by many minority groups, and now it is time to get homosexuals on the down hill side of their struggle.
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Most people don't discuss to persuade on "hot topic issues", they discuss to argue (justify their own beliefs). I'm not really sure that 99% of people can have a productive discussion on gay marriage or abortion (or many other issues). And I don't feel that there is generally any value whatsoever in attempting such a discussion, short of on an intellectual level.
Oh I agree about "most people" but not 99%. As an example, I was raised Pro-Life, my mother told me often that if she were raped she would have the child as it wasn't the babies fault. I was convinced by discussion, and changed my views. People who are convinceable are rare, but not so incredibly rare that it isn't worth trying.
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: ...it's possible to have a productive discussion in which people are persuaded to change their views. But that never works when you think of the other person as hopelessly boneheaded and entrenched. If you can't start your own approach with openness and understanding, why would you ever expect the other person to reach out to you?
This. Exactly. This is why it is important to not start a discussion with name calling, with dehumanizing the other side and reducing them to the perpetrators of the worst consequence of their beliefs and not even try to understand the process involved with those beliefs.
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: If only 1% of the people can have a productive discussion, that still leaves almost 70 million people around the world who are capable of having one.
Besides, that's exactly why we must support productive methods of discussion, and oppose unproductive methods -- because productive discussions are rare and precious.
+1
P.S. Sorry for the long post.
[ March 01, 2012, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Okay, maybe my point is that I find it pointless to endlessly debate these issues in family / friend group settings. You only have a slim chance to change someone's mind. And I don't think that it's worth the effort or the damage to relationships.
It's like protesting. It's good, and someone has to do it. But I'd rather be reading or playing the guitar with my free time. The internet is the only place that I dabble in conflict.
Eh, in 50 years all the activists will have resolved these issues. That's the beauty of America. I kind of argue from the long-view perspective.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Excellent attitude for a citizen in a democracy!
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
When you call a group, "homophobe" some one in that group would respond by thinking "I'm not afraid of gays. He is wrong about that. He is probably wrong about everything."
When you call them, "anti-gay" some will think "I am not anit-gay. I am pro-straight." Then we get all the arguments about the "Gay agenda" etc.
But if we use a term like, "Hetronorms" or the "Hetrosupremisist" you stop people and they have to think about it. "Is that an insult? Well I do think Hetrosex is normal, or superior to homosex." It opens up their ears.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:..."I am not anit-gay. I am pro-straight."...
This is not true though. If people were just "pro-straight" then they wouldn't care about what gays do, because they would be so busy being happy about being straight.
It's like this, you are in space, and your suit has a leak. Are you "pro-air" or "anti-suffocation". Now let's say you are on earth. Your "pro-air" stance is meaningless. Because you aren't "pro-air" at all, you are in truth "anti-suffocation".
All those other "hetro-ya!" names are not an accurate portrayal of your position, which is against gays, or at least against gay rights.
I'm with you on finding a non inflammatory title for your (assumed) side, but we do have to be real here too.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Introducing a new word in the first place, without consensus--here's what I am going to call you--has the effect of boxing that person into a definition of their beliefs and motivations that they very likely won't agree with. Saying "Let's not sugarcoat it. We should call them what they are" might have plenty of justification but does nothing to persuade anyone out of their trench into yours.
To be fair, I appreciate Dan's attempt at consensus here, whatever the rhetorical motives behind the thread. Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
On an individual basis, I find it best to just use whatever labels someone chooses to describe themselves, and then try and discuss the issue itself rather than what it's called. So I don't really see the value in calling someone hetero-normative any more than I see value in calling them a homophobe.
Sam has one thing dead-to-rights: It doesn't matter what you call it, because you think it's bad, and that's what they're going to pick up on. My conclusion from here differs from Sam's, though, because I wonder: Why the need to assign a label to someone at all?
Now, when someone brings up some other source in a discussion, at that point it can be nice to have an accurate label that sums up your opinion of that source. And if someone cites an explicitly bigoted source, it can be valuable to point that out.
But (as many have said really eloquently already) when you apply that criticism to an individual, it drastically reduces the likelihood that they will listen to what you're saying.
In general, personalizing criticism often makes people less receptive to it, while keeping it general, hypothetical, or applied to a 3rd party allows the person to maintain some distance and look at the issue more objectively. If you can persuade them in this state, then once they realize it applies to them too it creates cognitive dissonance which will hopefully result in a critical self-analysis.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Excellent attitude for a citizen in a democracy!
Reminds me of a quote I heard somewhere. If you're young and a conservative then you haven't got a heart. If you're old and you're a liberal then you haven't got a mind.
I served in the military. I vote. I have faith in the process. I can see both sides on controversial issues. I'll leave it to the young to correct the process (though I would fight for a process for national referendum). Everything isn't perfect. That's what the courts are for. The only drawback is that it can often take decades for the system to self-correct. But our government is subject to Darwinian laws.
I do fundamentally believe in the good of people, in my country, and that we're moving in the right direction.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How young do you consider young, whippersnapper?
You do get somewhat of a pass for having served, but the process that you have faith in only works if people get involved. Otherwise, the process we get is further consolidation of power (and everything else) in the hands of the few.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: It is not wrong, as a movement, to have no acceptance of this kind of prejudice and socially brand it as what it is, bigotry.
But there is a huge difference between a social movement and a discussion between individuals. For the sake of individual discussion, where minds can be changed and -how- you talk is as important as what is said, name calling is poison.
There's no disagreement here on that. In an individual discussion, labels are approached delicately. They still have to be used, because people have behaviors that need to be approached, whether it is about the person themselves or about a habit or a trait that they have ended up invested in (for example: othering), but they can for most people be used in a productive fashion.
I did this with my grandparents. I asked them to confront their racism. I didn't call them racist until I had laid out the case about what they were doing and explaining the avenues of disinformation and prejudice they were working on. But it all eventually came down to them having to confront something about themselves which is going to be A Label, one way or another. I asked them to confront the fact that they had racist attitudes.
I have done the same thing with friends. I have said something along the lines of "You're not just heteronormatively biased. You are expressing homophobic beliefs." Again, after the storied individual caseload. You would note the same individual restraint in me for private messages, assuming we even had them and there existed for some reason an individual discussion. Most of what you see here is open disagreement as part of a movement where I am given no substantive reason in most cases to mince words — either personally or tactically. I feel that the people who are trying to "protect" marriage from the gays have given many reasons to make their homophobia a heavily criticized issue. Even when (or perhaps especially when) most attempt to assert and hang on a narrative that insists that what they are doing is perfectly tolerant and respectful of gays and is not in any way, shape, or form motivated by fear of a (to them) aberrant, disgusting behavior.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Sorry, 'homophobe' is the proper term. If they didn't feel strong attraction to homosexual experiences -- and that they needed strong barriers to prevent themselves from acting out on that attraction -- they wouldn't assume that everybody else is like them, and thus in need of laws to prevent gay marriages.
So this is still the best there is? I first remember hearing this particular load of garbage about 20 years ago. It was a worthless tripe then, and the fact that a better argument has yet to be constructed is gloriously pathetic.
Disapproving of something is not at all akin to being afraid you might BE that something. Among other things, I disapprove of murder, strongarm robbery, and Spongebob Squarepants. And no point in my entire life has anyone EVER accused that my disapproval of these things has its genesis in the fact that I am afraid that I am a murderer, strongarm robber, nor Spongebob Squarepants.
Yet somehow this one particular facet of society has been deemed the only place that a person cannot express disapproval, lest they be accused and labeled as a person who fears that they themselves are gay.
If a person expresses disapproval of sex with the same gender, it MUST be because they themselves want to have sex with the same gender.
I'll apply your own logic and pose the question straight back to you then, aspectre, as well as the others who buy into this ridiculous mantra:
Why do you insist that "homophobe" is the correct term? Is it because deep down you know that you yourself are a homophobe? You are afraid that you yourself wish to oppress, bully, abuse, and harass people of homosexual orientation? It must be. If you didn't have that deep desire to oppress and violate the rights of homosexuals, then you would not be so outwardly disapproving of so-called "homophobes."
It's sad really.
Sad in a rofl kind of way.
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Like "Pro-Choice" and "Pro-Life" which only look at the label's belief holder's view of the topic, this title will likely stick. I still think that "Anti-Gay" is more accurate, as well as "Pro-Body-Freedom" and "Pro-Fetus-Rights" would be more accurate too. To quote Princess Bride, "Get used to disappointment."
I'm a bit confused - in both this an a subsequent post, you deny that being "pro" something (or decide that something is normative, thus declaring anything outside that norm as deviant and "other") is an adequate description. The "anti" part of being pro-life doesn't just come from being anti-abortion (unless you subscribe to the belief that all pro-life philosopies are fundamentally only about being anti-woman, which I think is a bit flawed) - it comes as a direct consequence of what you are "pro."
And saying someone is defined only by what they are against does not seem more accurate than defining them by what they affirm. The reasoning about being "pro-air/anti-suffocation" doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I don't buy for a second that the statistical lack of success of African Americans automatically means racism is the cause -and- therefore is one of the top problems in this country.
Only two options? Simple answers to complicated problems are comforting and wrong. Take into account parent's education level,
It's likely that black children are less likely to have well educated parents but how do you explain why black parents are less likely to be well educated than white parents? Is it the result of racist policies (past and present), or is it something about black people that has nothing to do with 400 years of discrimination that makes them less likely to get an education?
quote:urban or suburban setting, quality of schools available, importance of education and work ethic in whichever subculture individuals belong, prevalence of drug use, marital status of parents, and twenty or thirty other variables and might start to scratch the surface of the whys behind the stats you quoted.
Again, why do you think it is that these factors are strongly correlated with race? Why are these factors different for blacks than they are for whites? Is it the result of discriminatory practice (past and present) or is it something else that black people have in common besides a 400 year history of racial oppression?
quote:"Blacks aren't doing as well = racism" is about as good proof as "The cookies I left were eaten, so Santa Clause is real."
Then give me a third option because I see only two. It's either nature or nurture. Blacks in America are either doing worse than other races either because blacks are worse genetically as a race or because the environment in America is worse for blacks. If the answer is nurture, you have to explain why nurture is correlated with race in America. The only reason I can find that nurture would be correlated with skin color, that doesn't amount to genetics, is that our society has used skin color to determine how we treat people for a very long time.
If you say blacks have it bad because "black culture doesn't value hard work and education the same way other cultures do", it just leads in a circle back to the same to options. Why do people with different colored skin have different cultures? Either culture is inherited the same way skin color is or skin color has played a role in the development of culture? If cultural differences exist because different cultures evolved under different environmental factors, then a correlation between race and culture would only exist if different races were treated differently.
All the socially complex arguments you pointed to don't offer a third option. There has to be some reason for why all those social/cultural factors you've pointed to correlate with race and I can only think of two reasons those factors would correlate with race. The cultural differences between races exist either because the world has treated people differently because of their race, or the cultural differences are caused by genetic.
African American culture didn't orginate in Africa, it developed in America right along side white American culture. Slaves brought from Africa didn't bring a shared culture with them. African American culture is a product of America. If Africans Americans experienced a different environment than white Americans, it wasn't because the natural world treated them different. If was because society treated you differently if you were black. If Black Americans have a different culture today than white Americans, it's either because of our racist past and present or its something inherent in their race.
If you see a third reason please tell me. Is there something other than nature and nurture? Is there some reason other than genetics or a history of racial oppression that could have resulted in a strong correlatation between skin color and culture in America?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by millernumber1: The reasoning about being "pro-air/anti-suffocation" doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
The point of that example is that without opposition (something you are against, or "anti") you don't have any strong feelings on the matter.
Here on earth where breathing is taken for granted, you aren't "pro-air", because you don't bother thinking about it. Only when you are in danger of suffocation is it on your mind.
Same with gays. Were there no gays, would you still be pro-straight? There would be no point. because you aren't suggesting that what you do is right, you are suggesting that what they do is wrong.
Rabbit...I'll get back to you a bit later in the day, duty calls.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by odouls268: Disapproving of something is not at all akin to being afraid you might BE that something. Among other things, I disapprove of murder, strongarm robbery, and Spongebob Squarepants. And no point in my entire life has anyone EVER accused that my disapproval of these things has its genesis in the fact that I am afraid that I am a murderer, strongarm robber, nor Spongebob Squarepants.
But you are afraid of getting robbed...you are afraid of being killed. You may fear the effects that spongebob has on you or your kids (studies show it causes ADD in children). There are different levels of fear, and fear can occur for various reasons. You don't have to be afraid being a murderer or a thief, but you might fear something else about them.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
Jeff C.
That is a sound and well reasoned argument.
I like it. Well played.
If there was a handshake emoticon, I would use it here.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
With that said, I don't feel that it is a clean mirror of the issue at hand.
What is at stake is the insinuation that anyone who disapproves of a homosexual lifestyle can only be feeling that disapproval if they feel that in truth they themselves are homosexual. Therein lies the weak kneed argument that I find so reprehensibly pathetic.
YOUR argument appears to stand on its own. People who disapprove of the homosexual lifestyle are likely feeling that way because they are, in fact, holding a measure of concern and even fear about what socially accepted homosexuality might do to society around them (and therefore the effect it would have on their family and them personally).
This I can see, and can accept as an argument.
But this often lauded horse excrement about "You don't like gays because you're afraid that YOU'RE gay!" simply makes me simultaneously shake my head and vomit inside my own mouth a little bit.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Rabbit...
Take one of the factors I mentioned (say lack of access to proper schooling), and apply it to all races across the board, and then compare it to the opposite (good schools) again, ignoring race, and compare the results.
Do the same for urban setting, or negative subculture...is it the oppression of the majority that is causing the end result lack of success or is the problem a matter of circumstances? I can understand the argument that a past racist system has led to many of those circumstances. I fully acknowledge that this country has been very hard on certain groups though out its history (native Americans, women, blacks, gays, etc).
But how do you account for the successful African Americans?
Hatred and anger will always have a place in the human heart in this world, but to say that you either acknowledge that racism is a major problem or you are a racist yourself is just silly.
I'll ask you a question. Two applicants show up for a job. Both are equally qualified on paper, but one speaks well using standard English with no slang, and the other speaks Ebonics. The job requires speaking to the general public as a representative of the company. Is it racist to pick the standard accent applicant? Notice I did not supply any racial information about either one. Say for fun the standard speaker is black, and the slangy one is white. Or the reverse?
This is my point. It isn't always about racism. Sometimes its about circumstance.
Racism is a word that gets thrown out there a lot and is a catch all for nearly any disadvantage that needs to be accounted for.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Why the need to assign a label to someone at all?
Because labels have power. Calling someone who doesn't share my views a bigot may be unlikely to sway that person, but I think it does have some potential effect on others that observe the exchange who may not yet have strong feelings on the subject but nonetheless apply the connotations of "bigot" to the opposing position. I may not care that much about gay rights, but I know I don't want to be a bigot and if bigots oppose gay rights...
Not that I can recall ever calling someone a bigot, but I can see a potential utility in doing so.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Yeah, Matt, I see that too, but it's ultimately trying to argue/persuade via appeals to emotion.
I think that's a bad way to argue, so not only would I not want to do it, but I would be unimpressed with those who did.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Excellent attitude for a citizen in a democracy!
Reminds me of a quote I heard somewhere. If you're young and a conservative then you haven't got a heart. If you're old and you're a liberal then you haven't got a mind.
I served in the military. I vote. I have faith in the process. I can see both sides on controversial issues. I'll leave it to the young to correct the process (though I would fight for a process for national referendum). Everything isn't perfect. That's what the courts are for. The only drawback is that it can often take decades for the system to self-correct. But our government is subject to Darwinian laws.
I do fundamentally believe in the good of people, in my country, and that we're moving in the right direction.
Oh joy, I would fight against a process for national referendum. But I was born n a state where the citizenry, ( and thus corporations) are tyrants over their own legislature. It doesn't work.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: Reminds me of a quote I heard somewhere. If you're young and a conservative then you haven't got a heart. If you're old and you're a liberal then you haven't got a mind.
I owe you a quarter, because I'm using that line for sure.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If a person expresses disapproval of sex with the same gender, it MUST be because they themselves want to have sex with the same gender.
Neurologically, it appears that self-described strong disapproval of same-sex intercourse is strongly correlated to sexual arousal from images and descriptions of same-sex intercourse. It may just be the allure of the forbidden, but I think there's a strong element of self-denial that manifests here.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
quote: If you're young and a conservative then you haven't got a heart. If you're old and you're a liberal then you haven't got a mind.
Ugh. I hate that saying. My in-laws use it all the time to smugly assure us that once we're wise enough we'll be super upset about paying taxes to support the less fortunate. And, you know, infrastructure. Right now we're just too dumb to realize how much we're paying.
Or something.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It's one of the weirder things about all this, and it always ensures a ready supply of tragic, self-loathing gays who go right off the deep end in vilely condemning homosexuality.
Not that it should be claimed that this is a necessary integral part of homophobia. Just that a disturbingly prevalent part of many people's virulent homophobia has turned out to be that they themselves are homosexual or bisexual and are acting out in a defense mechanism related to being indoctrinated plainly to see that part of them as disgusting, shameful, and wrong.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Liz B: Ugh. I hate that saying. My in-laws use it all the time to smugly assure us that once we're wise enough we'll be super upset about paying taxes to support the less fortunate.
It's as much a worthless canard as the notion that people trend towards being more conservative as they get older (they don't).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Liz B: Ugh. I hate that saying. My in-laws use it all the time to smugly assure us that once we're wise enough we'll be super upset about paying taxes to support the less fortunate.
It's as much a worthless canard as the notion that people trend towards being more conservative as they get older (they don't).
Well, at least not if you control for education. Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:If a person expresses disapproval of sex with the same gender, it MUST be because they themselves want to have sex with the same gender.
Neurologically, it appears that self-described strong disapproval of same-sex intercourse is strongly correlated to sexual arousal from images and descriptions of same-sex intercourse. It may just be the allure of the forbidden, but I think there's a strong element of self-denial that manifests here.
Though it is likely not true in most cases, still it is an undeniable phenomenon that there are those who express disapproval of sex with the same gender who themselves want to have sex with the same gender. Here is an old thread replete with links of high-profile cases. (George Rekers from NARTH, David Campbell: Australian 'family values' MP, Pastor Eddie Long, U.S. Rep Mark Foley, Senator Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, Bob Allen, Phil Hinkle)
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: It's one of the weirder things about all this, and it always ensures a ready supply of tragic, self-loathing gays who go right off the deep end in vilely condemning homosexuality.
Not that it should be claimed that this is a necessary integral part of homophobia. Just that a disturbingly prevalent part of many people's virulent homophobia has turned out to be that they themselves are homosexual or bisexual and are acting out in a defense mechanism related to being indoctrinated plainly to see that part of them as disgusting, shameful, and wrong.
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
quote:The point of that example is that without opposition (something you are against, or "anti") you don't have any strong feelings on the matter.
Here on earth where breathing is taken for granted, you aren't "pro-air", because you don't bother thinking about it. Only when you are in danger of suffocation is it on your mind.
Same with gays. Were there no gays, would you still be pro-straight? There would be no point. because you aren't suggesting that what you do is right, you are suggesting that what they do is wrong.
Ah, I see. Thanks for explaining - that makes a lot of sense now.
Though I think that homosexuality, while a huge part of heteronormativity as a movement, is hardly the only opposition which gave rise to the movement.
quote:Because labels have power. Calling someone who doesn't share my views a bigot may be unlikely to sway that person, but I think it does have some potential effect on others that observe the exchange who may not yet have strong feelings on the subject but nonetheless apply the connotations of "bigot" to the opposing position. I may not care that much about gay rights, but I know I don't want to be a bigot and if bigots oppose gay rights...
Not that I can recall ever calling someone a bigot, but I can see a potential utility in doing so.
Thank you - a strong articulation of my problem with the way political discourse appears today - no matter which side uses them.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
One thing about teaching in a school where my classroom is 90/60 (90% of my students are minority, and 60% are free or reduced lunch) is that I have a new perspective on the achievement of minorities debate.
I can tell you I see almost zero difference between my white students and minority students in terms of work ethic, parent support, all the things people like to point at and say "That's why blacks aren't successful - their culture doesn't value education!"
It happens here no matter what color of skin the student has. I don't think it's about race as much as economic status, but I'm just a high school teacher. I've read all of Ruby Payne's stuff, and her critics, and I admit I do side with the critics that say she generalizes too much and doesn't base her findings on any real research, just anecdote. But when her anecdotes track so closely with mine, it's hard to ignore all of what she says.
I do believe we have a generational poverty problem, and it just so happens that in America generational poverty correlates strongly with race. I'm not all that concerned about what caused it, other than in an academic way...my immediate concern is how to fix it. How to convince a 15 year old whose mother just had a heart attack from cocaine use that he has other options than to sell drugs to support his now disabled mom and his three younger siblings. A kid like that doesn't really care much about the literature that is on my course of study today. And I teach more kids like him than I do kids who are trying to get into college. For most of my kids, the mention of the word college in the classroom is a joke to them - they laugh at it. They know they would never get in, and if they did, it could never be afforded. Of my over 100 students, probably 10% read on grade level...college is not an option. So what do I do to help them break the cycle of poverty in their families? If education is not the answer, what is?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
100 years ago Race was used to enforce class distinctions.
Today class is used to reinforce racial distinctions.
In other words, it was easy to tell the poor from the better by the color of the skin 100 years ago. Today they explain away class based differences by blaming it all on race.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Why is the idea that someone is strongly anti-homosexuality (whichever term we're gonna use) might be or is likely a closeted homosexual so extremely outrageous, odouls? Don't get me wrong, it's very often (though not quite always garbage, and however liberal the speaker is, is also often used as a slur.
So, granted freely: it's often sloppy, dishonest, cheap rhetoric and thinking used just to be dismissive. Lots of politics out there like that. What makes this one so extra-special nasty-awful?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't think that everyone or even most of the virulently anti-gay folks out there are latent homosexuals. I do find it baffling that they seem to be so obsessed with it, though.
[ March 02, 2012, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't think that everyone or even most of the virulently anti-gay folks out there are latent homosexuals. I do find it baffling that they seem to be so obsessed with it, though.
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
There are things I don't care for. Like the lion's share of reality television. Instead of going on rampages against the decadent nature of the stuff, I simply choose not to watch it. I only complain when the scheduling of more reality television comes at the cost of television I prefer. These days I seldom watch television.
The fact is that while I dislike reality television and I do think it has some negative cultural aspects, I simply choose not to indulge in watching it. I don't need to watch the stuff. It does nothing to me, and I only find reason to complain when it does.
I think of people who are vehemently obsessed with their agenda against homosexuality in the same way as I do with reality television. Homosexuality does nothing to you, you're not forced into being in a homosexual relationship. At worst, you have to confront it in public every now and then. It doesn't make sense to be obsessed with something you so despise. You don't like reality tv? Change the channel and let those who enjoy it have their fun. You don't like homosexuality? Go enjoy your heterosexuality and let homosexuals be who they are.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The obsession is multifaceted. To a point. The assessment of sociological studies of the constructions of the attitudes fighting against gay marriage shows a clear trend — not just here, but in other places like Ireland and Australia, where it has also, unsurprisingly, been studied. Generally, the advancement of gay rights represents the encroachment of an agenda for an expressly sinful lifestyle, a corruption, which to many of them is despoiling society and threatening collapse of society and the disfavor of god (and to a lot of them these are very, very linked). To not treat them like second-class citizens is, in their mind, a literal imperilment of civilization.
First, yes. It is expressly religious, even when they claim otherwise and spend a lot of energy trying to craft rationales that will ostensibly succeed a secular test for secular law and institutions (see: the disastrous defense of Proposition 8). Actually nonreligious objection to SSM is so rare as to be a negligible component of the cultural conflict over gays and gay marriage.
Secondly, this is all about why homophobia is a real thing. It's not a wildly inapplicable term that falsely frames the issue in inapplicable psychological implications.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: I think of people who are vehemently obsessed with their agenda against homosexuality in the same way as I do with reality television. Homosexuality does nothing to you, you're not forced into being in a homosexual relationship. At worst, you have to confront it in public every now and then. It doesn't make sense to be obsessed with something you so despise. You don't like reality tv? Change the channel and let those who enjoy it have their fun. You don't like homosexuality? Go enjoy your heterosexuality and let homosexuals be who they are.
It's not that simple for most of them, because of the aforementioned implications of corruption. Many of them aren't compatible with the 'live and let live' idea because it results in a society that erodes acceptable norms. For instance, many of them are terrified about secular corruptions of their children, and don't want their children to grow up in a society that teaches the tolerance of homosexuality. or, for that matter, to even mention the existence of homosexuality at all. Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: I think of people who are vehemently obsessed with their agenda against homosexuality in the same way as I do with reality television. Homosexuality does nothing to you, you're not forced into being in a homosexual relationship. At worst, you have to confront it in public every now and then. It doesn't make sense to be obsessed with something you so despise. You don't like reality tv? Change the channel and let those who enjoy it have their fun. You don't like homosexuality? Go enjoy your heterosexuality and let homosexuals be who they are.
It's not that simple for most of them, because of the aforementioned implications of corruption. Many of them aren't compatible with the 'live and let live' idea because it results in a society that erodes acceptable norms. For instance, many of them are terrified about secular corruptions of their children, and don't want their children to grow up in a society that teaches the tolerance of homosexuality. or, for that matter, to even mention the existence of homosexuality at all.
I should hope it's not that simple. It's no fun feeling morally superior to others when there's no one to feel morally superior to. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: I think of people who are vehemently obsessed with their agenda against homosexuality in the same way as I do with reality television. Homosexuality does nothing to you, you're not forced into being in a homosexual relationship. At worst, you have to confront it in public every now and then. It doesn't make sense to be obsessed with something you so despise. You don't like reality tv? Change the channel and let those who enjoy it have their fun. You don't like homosexuality? Go enjoy your heterosexuality and let homosexuals be who they are.
It's not that simple for most of them, because of the aforementioned implications of corruption. Many of them aren't compatible with the 'live and let live' idea because it results in a society that erodes acceptable norms. For instance, many of them are terrified about secular corruptions of their children, and don't want their children to grow up in a society that teaches the tolerance of homosexuality. or, for that matter, to even mention the existence of homosexuality at all.
But it isn't that simple either. There are plenty of things that are contrary to various religious beliefs that don't get everybody's knickers in a (possibly dampish) bunch.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
That's just a function of time and what the controversy du jour is. In a relatively short while, we won't be getting our knickers in a twist about it anymore, just like how we used to be doing almost the same thing with interracial marriage but moved past it.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I strongly disagree that it is just a matter of "controversy du jour"...as if the problem just goes away by itself...both with interracial and gay marriage...a lot of people suffered a lot and worked very hard to get this country were it is/going.
[ March 02, 2012, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It's not a problem that goes away by itself. It is not a problem of the day, it's a controversy of the day, precisely because we've grown up enough that it's what's now on the social chopping block.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: [QUOTE]It's like this, you are in space, and your suit has a leak. Are you "pro-air" or "anti-suffocation". Now let's say you are on earth. Your "pro-air" stance is meaningless. Because you aren't "pro-air" at all, you are in truth "anti-suffocation".
Such a good analogy.
Posted by coppertoe (Member # 12791) on :
You can't fit everyone against changing the definition of marriage under one label. (Remember that homosexuals are entitled to marry; marriage is defined as one man and one woman. They have equal rights to marry.)
You can't fit everyone who believes homosexuality is a sexual perversion under one label. Some hate the individual as well as the act. Others follow the Christian view of "love the sinner, hate the sin."
Why don't we just skip trying to fit everyone who doesn't love homosexuality into one label, hmmm? Oh wait--we can't do that. The homosexual agenda doesn't leave us room for that. We need a definable enemy so that we can whine when we feel attacked by said enemy.
Just sayin'...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I love that, in a post which complained about overgeneralization, you hauled out "the (singular) homosexual agenda" without any sense of irony whatsoever. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by coppertoe: You can't fit everyone against changing the definition of marriage under one label. (Remember that homosexuals are entitled to marry; marriage is defined as one man and one woman. They have equal rights to marry.)
just like blacks had "equal rights:" to marry under anti-miscegenation laws. Just not marry outside their race.
The right to marry outside your orientation is not an equal right, when it is shared with people who have the right to marry within their own. Yu might as well say that if straight marriage was illegal, straights would still have equal marriage rights. To marry people of their own sex. It only works if you ignore gays as a distinct class of people. If you do that, you don't understand anything about gay people anyway.
He does not love freedom, who does not love freedom fr all people. This statement doesn't incline me to believe the person who says it much cares about liberty.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I have trouble taking coppertoe's post seriously...wiffs of troll...too inflamitory and from a poster with four whole posts.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
How about -
nonhomologue - some one who believes these things are not equal, or not deserving of equal rights.
nonhomologous - the belief that the things under discussion are not equal.
Because, that is essentially what the person is saying. 'I have nothing against gay people, I just don't think they deserve equal rights.'
Or restated, I don't have anything against gay (black/women/Chinese/Irish/other) but they are not the equal of me.
Isn't that what this gets down to?
The resistance is primarily from the older generation. Most young people today are way past this issue. They don't see the problem.
Steve/bluewizard
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
To answer your question, I don't think it is a matter of "X is not equal to me me". From what I have gathered from those who are against SSM, they are against the changing of institution of marriage, and are specifically -not- thinking of the impact on individuals (and their rights). That is part of the problem.
I can understand how this happens...if some of those who believe this way had to look individual gay people in the eye and tell them "I am trying to make sure you can never marry the person you love." it might help change some hearts.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't think that everyone or even most of the virulently anti-gay folks out there are latent homosexuals. I do find it baffling that they seem to be so obsessed with it, though.
Kind of like how Al Gore has one huge ass carbon footprint, I think. Though for me, that means I've got more carbon to atone for, not that I shouldn't try.
I never did know, in the story of the mote and the beam, whether you look for motes because you have a beam or you get a beam by looking for motes.
Myself, I'm not bothered by being called a bigot, or I should say, it seems a small thing compared with going contrary to what I understand of God's law. Granted, I know people who support gay marriage in the name of Christian Charity, and I recognize that's where they're coming from even though I don't agree. But I know, many of us have known people who don't feel they can be friends with someone who thinks of them as a bigot.
I disagree with gay marriage, but I don't fight it because I dislike fighting. I may go to hell either way, for being unloving or for sliding on my good intentions.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:But I know, many of us have known people who don't feel they can be friends with someone who thinks of them as a bigot.
And yet gay people are supposed to, I'm not sure what exactly, not take it personally when they're told they can't marry their loved ones, can't enlist in the military, can't be openly homosexual without risking ridicule or even safety and career, so on and so forth.
I don't say you do those things, pooka. I have a hard time imagining you would. But the thing is, it really seems to me that members of a group who seek to confirm second class citizenship for another group-for whatever reason, because God say so though of course to the people being degraded, it's not God-members of that group are in a poor position to have their feelings hurt when that intolerance (again, whether it's God's or not) is given a label.
Put another way, opponents of SSM in this country (not exclusively Christians) weren't simply minding their own business when proponents came along and started criticizing them.
Posted by taibreamh (Member # 12412) on :
Heterosexist: a person, usually a heterosexual, who believes that heterosexuality is the only valid choice and that it is superior to all other sexualties
or
one who is accused of having a bias against homosexuals and holds the opinion that heterosexuals are superior
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
looks like we have some fun new things to talk about in terms of trends and backgrounds for homophobes and homophobic attitudes.
Strict parenting and same sex urges lead to homophobia.
quote: Across all of the experiments, the subjects with supportive and accepting parents were more in touch with their implicit sexual orientation, while those from authoritarian homes revealed the greatest discrepancy between explicit and implicit attraction.
CONCLUSION: The fear, anxiety, and aversion that some seemingly heterosexual people hold toward gays and lesbians can grow out of their own repressed same-sex desires, says co-author and University of Rochester psychologist Richard Ryan in a statement. "In many cases these are people who are at war with themselves and they are turning this internal conflict outward."
SOURCE: The full study, "Parental Autonomy Support and Discrepancies Between Implicit and Explicit Sexual Identities: Dynamics of Self-Acceptance and Defense," is published in the journal Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
tl;dr - no tl;dr, please. read the article.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
The conclusion is elegant, but the methodology of priming has significant issues. Plus, the study depends on self-reporting the "supportiveness" of family and the strictness of parenting. When I can think of several ways a repressed person could introduce bias into his own self-report, possibly to blame his parents for his lack of self-actualization. That, and those in touch with their sexual identities may feel obliged to report that their parents were not strict, because they do not detect any inward conflicts that are the likely results of strict or unsupportive parenting. They do not feel repressed, ipso facto, they were not repressed by their parents.
I would trust the results of a collection of case studies over anything like this.
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
just like blacks had "equal rights:" to marry under anti-miscegenation laws. Just not marry outside their race.