I'm sorry but I was honestly taken completely by surprise with Takei's take on Hardaway's rude remarks, I laughed pretty hard.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
What an awesome video. Good work George!
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Thanks! I have a number of people I have to share that link with.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
I've said this elsewhere, but I like the fact that Takei chose to respond to Hardaway's remarks with a humorous video. In a way this defuses the situation and exposes Hardaway as the bigot he is, with a sense of finality that an indignant press release wouldn't afford. Takei does however, have a bizarre sense of humour. His laugh at the end of the video wierded me out!
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
That was great!
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Awesome.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Although I like the idea of a humorous response, threatening rape doesn't seem like a very good response to hateful, bigoted commentary.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
he didn't threaten rape....he threatened "sex", "when you least expect it".
it's more of a happy surprise. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Which pretty much implies no consent. Which is rape.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I love George Takei.
-pH
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
<---failed attempt at humour
Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
Surprise sex is not the same as rape, rape is no laughing matter, unless you're being raped by a clown, then it's ok to giggle, 'cause come on, it's funny.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Surprise sex is not the same as rape
Surprise sex, by definition, has no explicit consent. Therefore, it is rape when there's no established sexual relationship of a sort to create a reasonable expectation of consent (and in some states, even this wouldn't be enough).
Such a relationship would clearly not exist if the sex happened when someone "least expects it," because the expectation is surely higher after the start of such a relationship.
quote: rape is no laughing matter
This is my point.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
I didn't catch any hint of threat in Takei's video. The video was clearly a comedy. So, IMO, arguing about consent in this situation is ridiculous.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Of course it wasn't a real threat. I haven't said that it was. He did, however, "threaten" rape as the basis for his joke.
Had he been more explicit, (such as "I'm going to tie you up, take you home, and make sweet love to you all night long") I doubt anyone would defend him, even though no one would interpret that as an actual threat.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My take on it was that Takei was ridiculing the idea that gay people were a threat. The concept that Takei could rape Hardaway is pretty absurd.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Yeah, the "sex with you" part seemed odd to me, though I thought it was more an error in comic timing, or in the progression of the joke, than an inherent unfunniness because of the topic. The "we LOVE YOU" part of the joke was hilarious. It was a direct response to Hardaway, and spun around his comments in exactly the way that would make him most uncomfortable. But there was a point where Takei sort of stepped over the line, and reached too far for a laugh he'd already gotten. So it got less funny at the end. But not because I was offended. It was just inept jokecraft Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
"If you tried us, <eyebrow-waggling stare into the camera for two beats> you'd like us to" would have been a very funny way to close the bit.
It also would have more directly addressed the perceived "threat" among many male homophobes. I've never heard one talk about a fear of being raped, but I have heard many talk about how "they" want to "convert us." My proposed ending would have been directly on point.
One of the reasons I raised the point at all is that there's fairly common "concealed" rape in a lot of stand-up - situations that sound inoccuous but, when broken down, are actually nonconsensual sex. It's started to leap out at me recently. I haven't seen an example here before this, and seized the opportunity.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Of course it wasn't a real threat. I haven't said that it was. He did, however, "threaten" rape as the basis for his joke.
Had he been more explicit, (such as "I'm going to tie you up, take you home, and make sweet love to you all night long") I doubt anyone would defend him, even though no one would interpret that as an actual threat.
You're taking it far too seriously. Hardaway said he was homophobic. Takei said the one thing that he figured Hardaway feared most, despite it being utterly absurd.
Suggesting that he threatened rape is like taking "you're pulling my leg" as an accusation of physical abuse.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Lisa, you left out the scare quotes. They were there for a reason. I have explicitly said that I don't think this was an actual threat. You quoted that, in fact, so I can't figure out why you think your simile is relevant to what I said.
What it was was a joke about rape. That's why I have a problem with it.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
There is a ton of stuff out there, routinely said and joked about, that has been taken as rape in legal cases. I presume that's what he's talking about.
Given that almost everyone now considers plying someone with drinks in order to get them to have sex to be rape, that indicts all KINDS of old standard jokes.
I do wonder what it says for the concept of "beer goggles" though.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: "If you tried us, <eyebrow-waggling stare into the camera for two beats> you'd like us to" would have been a very funny way to close the bit.
That would have been funnier.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I find it amusing all the way up until the comment about sex. I have to agree with Dag.
Of course it wasn't serious, and I'm sure Takei wasn't insinuating at all that he'd want to force anybody to have sex, but it was still a joke that referenced un-consensual sex and it fell completely flat.
Before that, I found it an extremely funny, very clever response to Hardaway's bigoted comments. It's a shame, really, because it ruined the whole bit for me.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Come on, it's obvious Hardaway is asking for it Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Hardaway was certainly asking for something, there's no doubt about that.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Belle, agreed.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I see the wet blanket brigade has been through here.
You guys should get a theme song or something.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Could you help us pick one out? How did the blustering blowhard brigade pick theirs?
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
If there's one profession that's full of blustering blow-hards, it's musical composition. If anything, we had a hard time choosing not because of scarcity, but because we all kept trying to take over conversation by talking over one another and striking dashing poses.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I think George and Tim should kiss and make up.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
I bet people would pay to see that.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Hardaway's homophobia is ugly. I guess it's good that he voiced his disgust. Now at least it can be a subject of conversation.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
You just know Hardaway is on the phone with Takei's agent trying to set up a secret rendezvous. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
At first I disagreed with Dag but I can see how he is right in that Takei could have probably been funny without suggesting that he would rape Hardaway.
Initially I just figured the final comment was an extension of a common misconception (like "they eat babies!") but the gay edition, "Gay people rape homophobes!"
I wouldn't say Takei owes Hardaway and apology as well now, but the segment, though hilarious, could have been in better taste.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: At first I disagreed with Dag but I can see how he is right in that Takei could have probably been funny without suggesting that he would rape Hardaway.
Initially I just figured the final comment was an extension of a common misconception (like "they eat babies!") but the gay edition, "Gay people rape homophobes!"
I wouldn't say Takei owes Hardaway and apology as well now, but the segment, though hilarious, could have been in better taste.
That's my basic opinion. I think the last joke was mostly just targeted at Hardaway to show how ludicrous his homophobia is. I mean, at least in my age group, the majority think that homosexuals are inherently promiscuous and feel like they will be pressured into sexual activities they wouldn't like. I think Takei was just capitalizing on this stereotype trying to show how ridiculous Hardaway's hate was.
But I do agree with Dagonee in that it was in pretty poor taste and it could have ended on a funnier note.
... But still, as a whole, I think it was funny.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
Dunno if you guys saw the Scoop Jackson interview that Hardaway did. It's a chance for some kind of public redemption but he never really takes it.
(I just got internet back at my house so I can watch videos again! Yay!)
It seemed to me that Takei wasn't insinuating any forced or nonconsentual sex with Hardaway. He only said that he would have sex with him. I assumed he was addressing a feeling that he assumed Hardaway had, one that, sadly, I know many guys to have: when you meet a gay man, the only thing he wants to do is have sex with you. Maybe it's a case of self projection, as that may be all these guys think about when they're with the gender of their desire. I don't know, but that was what I got out of what Takei said. Just another POV.
(Edited for accuracy)
[ February 27, 2007, 10:45 PM: Message edited by: vonk ]
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I think the real fear of homophobes is that maybe, just maybe, they might be gay themselves. They're terrified that they might be attracted to men, that one day they might actually have sex with another man.
Honestly, I don't think Takei was suggesting that he would rape Hardaway, which is obviously physically impossible. More, it was the suggestion that he would proposition Hardaway for sex, and Hardaway would accept, because he couldn't contain his animal passion for Takei (who I must say, has aged quite well).
Homophobes aren't afraid they'll be raped by gay men, because 1) they don't think any pansy fruity guy could possibly overpower them, and 2) because most guys just aren't afraid of being raped (except for prison). The fear is that they're really gay, or that they might somehow be turned gay against their will.
For example, Hardaway may some day open his door to find George Takei in his kitchen, wearing nothing but an apron, and he'll find himself sweeping Takei up into his arms and carrying him up the stairs to bed while the Righteous Brothers music swells in the background.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I disagree, on multiple counts.
quote:I think the real fear of homophobes is that maybe, just maybe, they might be gay themselves.
While that might be true for some people, I don't accept that it's true in general.
As the word is commonly used, I definitely fall under the umbrella of homophobe. And I've got to say, I'm really not afraid that I might be gay.
Of course, you're free to assume that I'm just repressing my fear of being a repressed homosexual, but then you're just being silly.
quote:Homophobes aren't afraid they'll be raped by gay men, because 1) they don't think any pansy fruity guy could possibly overpower them
Now you're really being silly.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
For example, Hardaway may some day open his door to find George Takei in his kitchen, wearing nothing but an apron, and he'll find himself sweeping Takei up into his arms and carrying him up the stairs to bed while the Righteous Brothers music swells in the background.
Yeah, I just thought I should quote that, in tribute to MightyCow's active imagination.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Heh. That's good stuff.
I didn't really find anything wrong with what Takei was saying, or threatening. You could be hyperliteral about a lot of things and get something offensive out of it if you're REALLY trying.
As the video was going on, I thought Takei was going to say "Well you know what, I don't like basketball players either!" or something like that.
I think it was over the top, but oh well, it was funny, and a great way to respond to something like that I think.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I had a Drama Professor in College who made witty comment. I won't call it wise, but definitely witty.
"There are only two reasons for a man to hate gay men. Either the gay men are hitting on him too much, or they aren't hitting on him enough."
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I think the real fear of homophobes is that maybe, just maybe, they might be gay themselves. They're terrified that they might be attracted to men, that one day they might actually have sex with another man.
Honestly, I don't think Takei was suggesting that he would rape Hardaway, which is obviously physically impossible. More, it was the suggestion that he would proposition Hardaway for sex, and Hardaway would accept, because he couldn't contain his animal passion for Takei (who I must say, has aged quite well).
...
For example, Hardaway may some day open his door to find George Takei in his kitchen, wearing nothing but an apron, and he'll find himself sweeping Takei up into his arms and carrying him up the stairs to bed while the Righteous Brothers music swells in the background.
I agree with all of this. The third paragraph I would question, but only because I have not seen evidence of this myself.
But that isn't to say that this is the case for all homophobes, or that Takei or anyone else thinks it is, only that it may be for some and this feeling was what Takei was addressing.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: As the word is commonly used, I definitely fall under the umbrella of homophobe.
You know, it's nice that most people these days would be ashamed to admit to being racist or anti-semitic. It's a pity that homophobes haven't yet learned to be ashamed of it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
In my experience, especially here on Hatrack, the word homophobe is used to describe anybody who holds certain views about homosexuality. It has nothing to do with actual fear.
I hold many of those views, and I am not ashamed of it.
:shrug:
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:You know, it's nice that most people these days would be ashamed to admit to being racist or anti-semitic. It's a pity that homophobes haven't yet learned to be ashamed of it.
You know, Lisa, perhaps if you'd trouble yourself to learn what definition Porter thinks the word 'homophobe' commonly has, you could decide whether or not he should be ashamed of it.
Instead of, you know, jumping to a hasty, insulting conclusion. But that's your standard method, so I'm not really very hopeful that will change.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
quote:Honestly, I don't think Takei was suggesting that he would rape Hardaway, which is obviously physically impossible. More, it was the suggestion that he would proposition Hardaway for sex, and Hardaway would accept, because he couldn't contain his animal passion for Takei (who I must say, has aged quite well).
This is the charitable interpretation, and the one I'm going to go with. Why not, when it's the funniest explanation?
Lisa, there's a difference between racism and anti-semitism versus "homophobism" (is that a word?) in that the literal meaning of "homophobe" is fear of gay men (or women). The same connotation is not present with racism and anti-semitism where the association is more towards hate than fear. I don't think Porter is suggesting that he hates gays, but that he disapproves of gay acts (as his religion dictates) and possibly (although I could be wrong here) feels some aversion or fear of having to come in contact with such acts himself.
Depending on who is speaking, being a homophobe could encompass hating gays, fearing gays, disapproving of gay acts, aversion to the thought of coming into contact with gays or gay sex, or some combination thereof or all of it. Before Porter clarifies which definition he believes is the one "commonly used", I think it's premature to compare him to racists.
Edit: aaaand, I took way too long time to compose that post.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals
This is the only definition I know of. Is this different than the working definition we are using here?
Believing there to be strong negative aspects of homosexuality (not that I do, mind you) is not the same as having an aversion to, or discriminating against, as far as I can tell.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Just as "anti-Semetic" is sometimes used to tar those who disagree with a particular policy regarding Israel and "racist" is sometimes used to tar those who oppose certain forms of affirmative action, "homophobe" is also overused to describe beliefs that should not invoke shame. Such uses of "homophobe" are far more common, especially here, than such uses of "racist" or "anti-Semite."
I've been told repeatedly here that believing that homosexual actions are sinful makes one a bigot or a homophobe - fortunately not in a very long while, but it has happened.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
To be fare, a person can be a bigot and not a homophobe; a bigot being "a person obstinately ... devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices." This sound like the description of a strongly religious person, if said opinions and prejudices are religiously based.
Edit - not to say that anyone is either of the two, just commenting on the wording of the definition as given by MW.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
As should surprise none of us, Dagonee not only understands what I was saying, but has managed to express it far better than I could.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:In my experience, especially here on Hatrack, the word homophobe is used to describe anybody who holds certain views about homosexuality. It has nothing to do with actual fear.
Who uses the word that way here? I don't. I can't think of any of the people whom I take seriously who do. I do, however, hear this accusation a lot and I know that I don't deserve it, nor do most of the people who post on the gay threads.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: As should surprise none of us, Dagonee not only understands what I was saying, but has managed to express it far better than I could.
The cutoff line for me was understanding you, I doubt I could ever say something somebody meant, better then they said it.
But I also see at first blush how Lisa might not have picked up on your meaning Porter.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It doesn't really matter what you think the word means, or how you use it, for the purposes of determining what Porter thinks it means.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:It doesn't really matter what you think the word means, or how you use it, for the purposes of determining what Porter thinks it means.
Except it kinda does, because he said "As it is commonly used", which references a shared context. The definition that he used is not the one commonly used on Hatrack, so other people won't necessarily know what he is talking about and will instead apply the common definition.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Argument by Bizarre Definition Example: He's not a criminal. He just does things that are against the law.
I wonder if I'm guilty of that.
---
What is it called when we perceive the frequency of bad things higher than their actual occurrence? For example, it seems like lights are always red for us because we stop and fume at them, while we just breeze past the green lights.
I also wonder if I'm guilty of that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Not commonly used by you, or as you qualified (making you correct no matter what, btw), "by the people I take seriously."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Not commonly used by you, or as you qualified (making you correct no matter what, btw), "by the people I take seriously."
I don't understand why that is relevant. You said:
quote:It doesn't really matter what you think the word means, or how you use it, for the purposes of determining what Porter thinks it means.
which is clearly false, as he referenced a shared context. It does matter what people think it means and especially how they use it, as he is talking about how it is commonly used.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's not clearly false, because we're talking about how he thinks it's commonly used. That kind of thing is always subjective.
Anyway, this is a strange conversation. Even if I were interested in arguing it further with you, I would not, because you set yourself up deliberately for a certain victory by saying "the people I take seriously".
Obviously, examples which contradict your opinion will not be from people you take seriously.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Except it kinda does, because he said "As it is commonly used", which references a shared context.
The common usage to which Porter referred is, apparently, not the one you have of the term. Nor is there any evidence whatsoever that your definition is the one commonly used.
quote:The definition that he used is not the one commonly used on Hatrack, so other people won't necessarily know what he is talking about and will instead apply the common definition.
Except that he's clarified to what definition he is referring. So anyone who applies the "common" definition to Porter's statements, even assuming that your assessment of that definition is valid, is now willfully choosing to apply the wrong definition to his statement.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I just heard The Daily Show's rant about this, and listening to all of this I found one thing disturbing, especially to me since its coming from my side of the argument.
Every joke that is made at Hardaway's bigoted attitude is the same--Hardaway's really gay.
What does that say about the pro-homosexual debate in this country?
Homosexuality is not a sin, a crime, or a problem. If you think it is, why then, your just Gay man.
We are insulting the opponents by claiming they are what we say is not an insult.
Sure, there are some Hippocratic and Poor Delusion insults built into the idea. What makes us chuckle and giggle like 7th grade boys looking at the bra ads in a Sears catalog is that we are just calling them "gay".
We cringe when they use the term as an insult, but then smile and laugh when we do.
Portia said that Homophobic translates to fear of homosexuals. It can also be translated into fear of the homosexual inside yourself. However, he said that the difference between homophobia and racism is that homophobia means fear. Racism and anti-antisemitism do not.
I disagree. I have yet to meet a racist who's racism isn't rooted in fear of the other. Blacks had to be kept down because the racist whites perceived them as a threat. The holocaust was created to save Germany from the Jewish threat.
I think the big difference is that very few racists or anti-semites (Hitler a notable exception) actually feared they might become the other.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
And no one has done so since he clarified what he meant.
---
You know, while we don't have many pro-gay people using the definition that porter was, it is very common for anti-gay people to accuse them of it. So, maybe from that perspective, it really is sort of the most common one, edit: albiet an inaccurate one that is not conducive to honest debate and is disrespectful of the many pro-gay who really try to discuss the issue responsibly.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And no one has done so since he clarified what he meant.
I didn't say they had.
quote:You know, while we don't have many pro-gay people using the definition that porter was, it is very common for anti-gay people to accuse them of it. So, maybe from that perspective, it really is sort of the most common one.
"Anti-gay people"? What, exactly, does this mean?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, I'm not interested in playing your games.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: What is it called when we perceive the frequency of bad things higher than their actual occurrence? For example, it seems like lights are always red for us because we stop and fume at them, while we just breeze past the green lights.
I also wonder if I'm guilty of that.
I also wonder if I'm not the only one.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:albiet an inaccurate one that is not conducive to honest debate and is disrespectful of the many pro-gay who really try to discuss the issue responsibly.
As is bringing up the many bigots who oppose civil same sex marriage.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
porter, If you've got something to accuse me of, could you just come out and say it?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:As is bringing up the many bigots who oppose civil same sex marriage.
In any context? Care to explain how that is?
edit: For myself, I see a large difference betweening discussing gay marriage in the context of there being a lot of bigots out there and people inaccurately characterizing people on this site as commonly using "homophobe" in an irresponsible manner.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Dag, I'm not interested in playing your games.
WTF does that mean?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm not interested in playing your games.
Oh, give me a break, Mr. Squicky. Games? You asked a dishonest question. You set up the issue so that it was impossible for you to be wrong. Any contrary opinion would be from "people not taken seriously".
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:As is bringing up the many bigots who oppose civil same sex marriage.
In any context? Care to explain how that is?
In the context of a debate about whether civil same sex marriage should be implemented, in exactly the same way, and to the exact same extent, as your silly little accusation about the common definition of homophobe not being conducive to honest debate.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If you've got something to accuse me of, could you just come out and say it?
Just as I wonder if my perception of the frequency of people using the word homophobic in grossly inappropriate ways is skewed, I wonder if your perception of how often people bring that up is skewed.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Dan - Do you see a difference between the jokes accusing Hardaway of being gay and accusing Hardaway of being afraid that he is gay, or accusing Hardaway that he is afraid that a gay man will seduce him?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Wondering, or passive-agressively insinuating?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Wondering.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:As is bringing up the many bigots who oppose civil same sex marriage.
In any context? Care to explain how that is?
edit: For myself, I see a large difference betweening discussing gay marriage in the context of there being a lot of bigots out there and people inaccurately characterizing people on this site as commonly using "homophobe" in an irresponsible manner.
The context is discussions concerning whether a particular law should be passed. Alleging that some people who oppose the law are bigots is irrelevant. The only purpose it serves in the context of such a debate is to tar the other side by association.
quote:Wondering, or passive-agressively insinuating?
What's next, Squick? Do we get to hear how you wish you were popular now? That is the usual progression once you start accusing someone of passive aggressiveness.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
porter, Could you explain how that fits with you posting it on a public message board? Was your post designed to let us know how you were thinking and you didn't realize that it could be viewed as an accusation? It really felt like an veiled accusation to me, especially in light of how you refrained at first from directing it at me when we've since clarified that you were specifically talking about me.
If you are wondering, I would love it if you went back through the conversations we've had here (and the OSC articles) about this issue and see how many times people have leveled that accusation and compare that to how many times someone who is not a fringe poster or Lisa actually did it. Perhaps I'm even wrong about the relative frequencies on this. If you tell me that you honestly went back and looked, I'll believe you.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Vonk, there is a difference in magnitude between the three options. What I find disturbing is the overwhelming reaction of pundits across the spectrum that make the same style joke. Its as if there is only one PC response to someone bigoted against homosexuals, and that is to call them closeted gay folk.
I am not sure that such name calling can solve the issue.
As far as the other argument going on in this thread, I see a parallel between the term "Homophobic" and "Bush hater". Each is a quick term used by one side of an argument, that the other side quickly dismisses as being too harsh to fit reality. If you are against homosexual unions but have no fear of homosexuality, you get angered when someone mislabels you "homophobic". So to, if you disagree with the President, but have no personal feelings against him, you get upset when people mislabels you "Bush hater." Suddenly the debate is no longer about the issues, but about the labels, and we get nowhere.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It's not an accusation, because I haven't come to any conclusion myself. I think it may be happening with me, you, or both of us, but I don't know. I'm wondering out loud.
quote: I would love it if you went back through the conversations we've had here (and the OSC articles) about this issue and see how many times people have leveled that accusation and compare that to how many times someone who is not a fringe poster or Lisa actually did it
Ick. I'd hate doing that, which means that I'll probably never get past the wondering stage and actually find out the answer. I'm OK with that.
Also, I don't see why you want to remove from the equation the words of "fringe posters or Lisa".
edit: Or rather, I don't see why it is valid to ignore the words of "fringe posters or Lisa" in this discussion.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Thanks Dan. Now that I think about it, that is the most common response to homophobia, and it doesn't really make sense. It seems like it's only furthering the bigotry by making it an insult. Hmm, I'll have to be conscious of this response in the future, and try to combat it with more solid arguments.
I also agree that arguing about labels will get no one no where. Can we just agree on a working definition of "homophobe" for this discussion and let it go at that? My vote is for MW's definition.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Here's a couple of places to get you started: 1 2 3 4 5
edit: Hey, you don't have to go in-depth. Just do a search for the word "Homophobe".
Also, I want to remove finge posters because, this being the internet, we have people come up and post inflammatory things and get castigated for it. I don't believe that they can be considered as representative of the community, especially since I am one of the strongest pro-gay people on the board and I castigate them. Lisa, because referring to her is like referring to KoM.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I already said that I have no interest in going through old threads and doing that.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Could I respectfully request that you stop characterizing Hatrack the way you have been then? And maybe note in the future conversations of this topic that people don't actually use the word the way you've accused them of doing?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
No, I don't think that's a reasonable thing to ask me to do.
You are free to disagree with anybody's perception of Hatrack, and free to try to persuade them that their perception is wrong, but it is not fair for people to have to prove those perceptions or shut up about them.
It would be equally unfair for me to ask you to stop characterizing Hatrack the way you have until you prove that it is correct.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
So, you're not willing to even look at the evidence, even when someone gets it for you, or even do a simple search with the term "homophobe" but you're still going to be making accusations?
When I make accusations, I can back them up (like I just did above). To me, that's the only intellectually honest thing to do. You're making false, perjorative claims about a group of people that you are unwilling to check the evidence of. Isn't that basically the definition of bigotry?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
We're only on page two, and I've already been called a bigot. I'm pretty sure that's no record, although I'm not willing to check it.
edit: I see know that it's been edited. Slightly.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Let me point out that it is not spite nor fear that keeps me from drudging through all those old posts. Some deliberately vicisious and mean-spirited things have been said to me and others in discussions on homosexuality. Things which were personally very hurtful. To read through those treads would be a very unpleasant experience for me.
I'm perfectly fine with the knowledge that you and I have different perceptions of what has happened, and I'm not going to subject myself to unpleasantness in order to try to eliminate that.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I said you shouldn't be suprised if people call you a bigot. I didn't call you one myself. But, yeah, I think you are acting like one in that you are making false, pejorative claims about a group of people that you are unwilling to check the evidence of.
edit: I get vicious things said about me in threads about homosexuality all the time. You implied some pretty nasty things about me in this thread. I'm asking you to stop doing that unless you actually have some proof that we can talk about.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
Oh, give it up, everybody. This discussion is pointless.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
So, you're saying that I shouldn't be surprised if people call me a bigot, and that I am acting like a bigot, but you're not explicitly calling me a bigot. Yeah, I guess that's technically true. That's an awfully fine line for somebody complaining about passive-aggressiveness.
quote:You implied some pretty nasty things about me in this thread.
I merely implied that your perception of the frequency of some occurrences may not be accurate. I hardly see how that is "pretty nasty", especially since I explicitly said that I think I myself might be guilty of the same misperception.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I said you shouldn't be suprised if people call you a bigot. I didn't call you one myself. But, yeah, I think you are acting like one in that you are making false, pejorative claims about a group of people that you are unwilling to check the evidence of.
OK, you're not actually calling him a bigot...he's just acting like one, and you're calling him on that.
I've been doing some searching so far, and searching this issue on the basis of one word terms is not very productive. "Homophobic" only returned 25 hits, going back to 2004. I'm certain we've had more discussions where the issue came up than that.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You implies that I am part of a culture that accepts the common usage of homophobe as a way of labelling all of their opposition. As I am one of the more vocal pro-gay people in the board, it's not far to say that I use the term that way myself. In fact, I get hit with a very similar accusation in many of the gay issue threads, that I say that everyone who opposes gay issues is a bigot, despite not only never saying this, but specifically stating my opposition to this idea.
Also
quote:I merely implied that your perception of the frequency of some occurrences may not be accurate
When I asked you if that was what you were doing, you denied it. Which is it?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Rakeesh, Do you disagree with my definition of bigotry?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:In 40 years, I think most people are going to look back on the movement to keep gay people from getting married as akin to the people wo tried to prevent interracial marriages.
Hey, Mr. Squicky, that one's from you! What, I wonder, would you call someone who attempted to prevent legalized interracial marriage?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: What does that say about the pro-homosexual debate in this country?
Homosexuality is not a sin, a crime, or a problem. If you think it is, why then, your just Gay man.
No. But people who behave irrationally against gay people, like Hardaway, for example, clearly have issues going on that aren't centered in their intellect.
There are people who are cool with discriminating against gays and lesbians for what they think are good reasons. And there are people who just plain bigots. "Let it be known: I hate gay people" is the latter.
People like OSC (and Porter, I'd guess) are not like that. At least not as far as I can tell. In Card's case, the fact that he's willing to use legislation as a weapon to imprison gay people is part and parcel of his general collectivist agenda. I have no idea if Porter agrees with OSC about this, and my default position would be to assume that he does not.
Not everyone who has a problem with homosexuality is a homophobe. But people who would discriminate against gays and lesbians because of it are homophobes.
(Now, of course, our resident master of the pedantic arts is probably going to jump in and start dissecting this. "Discriminate in what way?" "Any discrimination? Even in a religious setting?" And I'll ignore him, because I think I'm being clear.)
For the record (as if it's necessary), I am not in favor of legislating non-discrimination. Not for gays, not for Jews, not for blacks, Asians, Hispanics, redheads, lefties, women, or any group whatsoever. If someone wants to be a homophobe, that's their right, up until the point where they engage in violence or fraud, or violate contractual obligations. But it's equally my right to call them homophobes.
Is Porter a homophobe by my definition? Or was he merely attributing a strawman position to those with whom he disagrees by labeling himself a "homophobe" by a definition that's fringe and extreme? I don't know. I can only go by what he said. I've been called a bigot by many people on this forum, and for the most part, I just ignore stupid statements of that sort. I certainly would never post, "According to prevailing definitions, I'm a bigot". And that's more or less what Porter did.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Err...it depends. What is the nature of their objection?
Do you disagree with my assessment of the likely perspective of people 40 years from now?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: I disagree. I have yet to meet a racist who's racism isn't rooted in fear of the other. Blacks had to be kept down because the racist whites perceived them as a threat. The holocaust was created to save Germany from the Jewish threat.
I disagree. Regardless of the rhetoric that was used, I don't think there was a single German who actually feared a Jewish threat. It was an excuse to act on their hatred.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I do not disagree with the definition you used. It is one quite applicable definition of the term 'bigotry', in my opinion.
I do disagree very strongly with the *explitive omitted* method you're using to call Porter a bigot while not calling him a bigot. Just own up to it already, would you? It's obvious. You think he's a bigot. He knows you think he's a bigot. Why are you beating around the bush here?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Dag, I'm not interested in playing your games.
Now, MrSquicky, is that nice?
I'm glad to know that I'm not the only one, though.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:As I am one of the more vocal pro-gay people in the board, it's not far to say that I use the term that way myself.
I disagree. That would be an unwarranted extrapolation of what I said. It's certainly does not represent what I was trying to communicate, as I never thought that you, specifically, have used that word in that way.
I can understand why you'd be upset if you thought I was saying that about you. I'm sorry if I gave that impression.
quote:When I asked you if that was what you were doing, you denied it. Which is it?
I denied that I was implying it in any passive-aggressive manner. I explicitly said it about me, then implied it about you (in a manner which at the time I thought was extremely straight-forward, but which I now realize unfortunately came across as passive-aggressive), and then at your prodding I explicitly said the same thing about you that I had already said about myself.
Let me also point out that now that I have thought about it and am doubtful of the accuracy of my own perceptions, I will certainly be more cognizant of such events. I will be pleasantly delighted if, over time, I come to realize that either my perception was wrong, or that Hatrack has changed for the better.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Regardless of the rhetoric that was used, I don't think there was a single German who actually feared a Jewish threat.
So you what, used a Magic 8-Ball Gallup Poll to determine this?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think his actions fit the definition of bigotry that you just agreed to. Are you saying that my perception is invalid?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Wondering, or passive-agressively insinuating?
What's next, Squick? Do we get to hear how you wish you were popular now? That is the usual progression once you start accusing someone of passive aggressiveness.
Interesting non-sequitur, Dagonee. The truth is, your particular brand of pedantic logic chopping is very passive-aggressive. God knows what popularity has to do with it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yes.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: If you are wondering, I would love it if you went back through the conversations we've had here (and the OSC articles) about this issue and see how many times people have leveled that accusation and compare that to how many times someone who is not a fringe poster or Lisa actually did it.
Hell, you can even include me. I doubt you'll find much.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Lisa, because referring to her is like referring to KoM.
Ouch.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Regardless of the rhetoric that was used, I don't think there was a single German who actually feared a Jewish threat.
So you what, used a Magic 8-Ball Gallup Poll to determine this?
I've never seen any evidence of fear on the part of Germans. Never. And I've seen a lot of evidence of hatred. Now, if you want to suggest that it was fear, you might want to bring something to support it. Otherwise, I'll just stick with what I said, thanks very much.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Also, I want to remove finge posters because, this being the internet, we have people come up and post inflammatory things and get castigated for it. I don't believe that they can be considered as representative of the community, especially since I am one of the strongest pro-gay people on the board and I castigate them. Lisa, because referring to her is like referring to KoM.
I just saw this.
I don't think it's appropriate to ignore the words of the fringe members of this board. As much as we try to limit it, a single persistent poster who is not interested in real discussion can have enormous effects on the abilities of everybody else to discuss things in a productive manner.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Now, MrSquicky, is that nice?
I'm glad to know that I'm not the only one, though.
If only that were true...
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
MrSquicky -- I don't think your definition of bigotry applies here, because I am willing to re-examine my views on this matter. I am currently in a state of active doubt about whether or not they're accurate. When I said "I wonder if I'm guilty of this", I really meant it. I really do wonder.
But I am still not willing to go through old posts looking for ugliness. Bleh. What a horrible way to ruin my day.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Dag, I'm not interested in playing your games.
Now, MrSquicky, is that nice?
I'm glad to know that I'm not the only one, though.
Lisa thinks actually being clear and precise about what one says is a game. Who'd a thunk it?
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Wondering, or passive-agressively insinuating?
What's next, Squick? Do we get to hear how you wish you were popular now? That is the usual progression once you start accusing someone of passive aggressiveness.
Interesting non-sequitur, Dagonee. The truth is, your particular brand of pedantic logic chopping is very passive-aggressive. God knows what popularity has to do with it.
It's not a non-sequitur, it's based on a series of events over the past several months, almost none of which involved me. For the record, Squick hasn't accused me of being passive-aggressive to my recollection, so the entire premise of your post is fiction.
With anyone else I'd explain more, but you'd either ignore it and pretend that the explanation didn't exist or you'd accuse me of being pedantic.
It is interesting, though, that you can be counted on to resort to name calling and disparaging logical thought when you are unable to actually respond to "logic-chopping" in a logical manner.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
porter, As I said, I've gotten very used to people saying false, perjorative things about me in homosexual threads (and many other types of threads for that matter). I'm not upset about the personal aspect of it (other than realizing that false, nasty attacks, especially from your clique, is one of the prices I pay for posting here). I'll accept that this wasn't your intent here anyway (Though I got to tell you the "I wonder if some people aren't do X." followed by "I'm not accusing you of doing X. I'm just wondering if you are and publicly posting that." comes off a realy, really passive-aggressive to me).
I am upset about what I see as a common tactic of people dismissing people by saying that those people automatically dismiss what they say. I'm against people dismissing others' arguments for invalid reasons in any case, but this one for some reason really gets under my skin. OSC and many others on this site seem to me to feel free to level these attacks at me personally and at groups that I belong to. And I do see it as bigotry and as a way of dealing with arguments that you can't answer.
On this site, neither I nor many of my opinions are particularly popular. In many cases, the only way I can have a chance for people to give what I'm saying a fair look is to make it so that people who throw false accusations back them up.
I know I don't use homophobe or bigot the way many people accuse me of doing. I'm pretty sure many of the other people who post here on the pro-gay side don't either. We don't deserve this accusation.
---
If I recall correctly, Leto threw this at you. He's one person who got banned and I went head to head to him on multiple occasions for things like that. Lalo may have also done when he was younger. I tried to work on him to soften out his rougher edges and take other people's persepctive into account more. I think I was moderately successful.
---
quote:Let me also point out that now that I have thought about it and am doubtful of the accuracy of my own perceptions, I will certainly be more cognizant of such events. I will be pleasantly delighted if, over time, I come to realize that either my perception was wrong, or that Hatrack has changed for the better.
That's more of a win than I expected when I got into this. Thank you for that.
For what it's worth, I can understand not wanting to revisit upsetting threads where you were personally insulted. If that's your motivation, I don't think your actions would fit the definition of bigotry I posted either. I should note that the threads that I think you are talking about are like 4 years old now and that I'm pretty sure that the more recent ones I linked won't have any such unpleasantness for you.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Not to argue the point, but just because it made me think - I find it very difficult to distinguish between hatred and fear. I think they are very closely linked and more often than not found together.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I am not sure of the particulars of these arguments about whether people who disagree with homosexuality are or are not homophobes. I do not know if on hatrack there is a tendancy to use the label that way or not.
But I do know there is a lot of aggression and hate on this thread, and I request that it cease.
Please.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:As I said, I've gotten very used to people saying false, perjorative things about me in homosexual threads...
Evidence, please?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:But I do know there is a lot of aggression and hate on this thread, and I request that it cease.
I don't get this. I get accused of this constantly when people say bad things about me and I won't back down when I try to get them to support their accusations.
I don't feel hate. Being firm and clear in what you are saying and not backing down (and yes, being aggressive) are not indicative of hate or anger to me.
I sometimes wonder if that may cause a big difference between mine and many other people's perceptions here. I rarely ever get angry or personally upset by anything here. celia used to chide me about that.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Rakeesh, Evidence of me getting used to it? What, you want to probe my psychic calluses?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I should note that the threads that I think you are talking about are like 4 years old now and that I'm pretty sure that the more recent ones I linked won't have any such unpleasantness for you.
You probably are correct with the specific word "homophobe" as applied to me. But if we expand it to similar words (X-hater, bigot, etc.), implications of such, and don't limit it to attacks on me personally, there's quite a bit out there.
Why, just a few days ago, Lisa said that pooka is bigoted toward adoptive parents because of her views that people across the board desire children who are genetically linked to them.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Why, just a few days ago, Lisa said that pooka is bigoted toward adoptive parents because of her views that people across the board desire children who are genetically linked to them.
Oh, good God. There's such a thing as context, Porter.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:But if we expand it to similar words used unjustified (X-hater, bigot, etc) and don't limit it to attacks on me personally, there's quite a bit out there.
I'm not on Hatrack anywhere near as much as I used to be, but I find that very hard to believe.
And, wow, you mean Lisa said something nasty and unjustified?!? Next, you're going to tell me that KoM was disrespectful of someone's religious beliefs.
I don't think it is reasonable to take one person's predictible flaws that the rest of the community disapproves of as indicative of a general trend in the board.
---
quote:I don't think it's appropriate to ignore the words of the fringe members of this board. As much as we try to limit it, a single persistent poster who is not interested in real discussion can have enormous effects on the abilities of everybody else to discuss things in a productive manner.
Only if people let him. Hatrack does seem congenitally unable to deal with people who consistently act in bad faith, but, to me, that's as much a problem with Hatrack as it is with the individual's bad behavior. I tried to introduce the "What the crap are you talking about" meme specifically to deal with this.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:But I do know there is a lot of aggression and hate on this thread, and I request that it cease.
I don't get this. I get accused of this constantly when people say bad things about me and I won't back down when I try to get them to support their accusations.
I don't feel hate. Being firm and clear in what you are saying and not backing down (and yes, being aggressive) are not indicative of hate or anger to me.
I sometimes wonder if that may cause a big difference between mine and many other people's perceptions here. I rarely ever get angry or personally upset by anything here. celia used to chide me about that.
You are not being singled out, and I am not accusing YOU of anything. I am perceiving a strong amount of venom in this thread, and I trust my perceptions as much as you do yours. As this threads author, and as I have not yet abandoned it, feel responsible for it. Please discuss the merits of people arguments rather then talking about people's motives and perceptions and claiming you know more then they do about them. This whole thread has turned into this sort of bickering and I doubt it can come to a useful conclusion.
Again, I am not singling you out Mr S. And if you are indeed NOT doing it, then you should have nothing to get defensive about.
I just do not feel respectful conversation has been taking place over the last 2 pages.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:But if we expand it to similar words used unjustified (X-hater, bigot, etc) and don't limit it to attacks on me personally, there's quite a bit out there.
I'm not on Hatrack anywhere near as much as I used to be, but I find that very hard to believe.
Depending on how you interpret "quite a bit", you are right. I didn't mean that most people on any side of an issue do it. It doesn't happen all that frequently, either.
But one thing I know -- thereis enough of it to put a damper on discussion. I know that I personally am much less willing to discuss certain matters on Hatrack now because of some personally hurtful things said toward me within the last year.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:I just do not feel respectful conversation has been taking place over the last 2 pages.
Are there gold stars for the people that tried?
Edited to give context.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
porter, I'm coming from the perspective of someone who assumes that there are going to be people piping in to say nasty things about him and have no one call them on it, so maybe I'm not seeing it, but, save for our standouts like KoM, Lisa, and the idiot conservative brigade, I think Hatrack is more personally respectful on many of our hot button topics than at many times in the past. But, then again, I've been on less recently than previous and I'm also not seeing it from your perspective.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:And, wow, you mean Lisa said something nasty and unjustified?!? Next, you're going to tell me that KoM was disrespectful of someone's religious beliefs.
Again, I don't think that you can say "Oh, that's just X. Ignore them." Even if you choose to ignore them, their posts have an affect on Hatrack, even if they are "just X".
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:save for our standouts like KoM, Lisa, and the idiot conservative brigade, I think Hatrack is more personally respectful on many of our hot button topics than at many times in the past.
Again, I don't think you can ignore the effects that such folk have on the forum.
Barring that, I think that what you said is correct about some topics, but false about others.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk:
quote:I just do not feel respectful conversation has been taking place over the last 2 pages.
Are there gold stars for the people that tried?
Edited to give context.
Almost only count in horseshoes and hand grenades Vonk. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm not saying they don't have an effect. I'm saying they don't typify the community at Hatrack.
I accept that they can be prolific and, in that case, there is "a lot out there", but going back to before, I don't think that their behavior or definitions for things can be said to be commonly accepted at Hatrack.
There can be productive discussion had at Hatrack, as the commonly acceptible behavior is conducive to such. That people engage and give extended attention to the bad behavior of others diminishes this, but people who withdraw and aren't producing positive conversation do as well. Which is not to say that I don't do the latter or that it is necessarily something wrong, just that it has an effect.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
quote: people who behave irrationally against gay people, like Hardaway, for example, clearly have issues going on that aren't centered in their intellect.
Lisa, we agree. I'm just not sure that "they must be gay in denial" that is whipped out as the joke-du-jur in these cases is accurate all the time. Hardway may not be scared of his own homosexual tendencies. He could be just a big idiot in love with the sound of his own voice. He could be an attention whore playing the media for his 15 minutes of fame. He could be a clueless follower of the conservative nut of the day. Attacking his motives for being an a..... idiot without even trying to find out what those motives are reflects badly on those who believe he is an idiot.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: porter, I'm coming from the perspective of someone who assumes that there are going to be people piping in to say nasty things about him and have no one call them on it, so maybe I'm not seeing it, but, save for our standouts like KoM, Lisa, and the idiot conservative brigade, I think Hatrack is more personally respectful on many of our hot button topics than at many times in the past. But, then again, I've been on less recently than previous and I'm also not seeing it from your perspective.
The only 'serious' topic that really gets much play by a variety of people, with a variety of substantive opinions, is religion(edit: ish issues).
People like KoM and Lisa and Irami are almost the only ones who have something interesting to say on this forum.
Otherwise, it's just the usual meta-argument of 'You're mean!' 'No, you're mean!' that pretty much every thread devolves into--including this one. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I accept that they can be prolific and, in that case, there is "a lot out there", but going back to before, I don't think that their behavior or definitions for things can be said to be commonly accepted at Hatrack.
From my perspective, it doesn't matter whether most people do it or accept it. What matters is that if you want to have a discussion about certain topics, you're going to have to deal with people behaving that way. You seem to find that an acceptable price of admission. Others don't.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
With that in mind, do you realize why you saying that people using homophobe as a label to dismiss anyone who disagrees with them is commonly accepted here can seriously discourage people who have tried very hard to remain respectful and encourage/enforce a respectful environment in gay issue threads?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'll have to think on that one.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:You seem to find that an acceptable price of admission. Others don't.
I've never known it to be any different. That's the price of a public forum to me. I try to counter act it when these people become ingrained in the community, but fringe nastiness I see as pretty much a given.
To me, the only way to counter-act it is to keep them fringe by not giving them extended attention (but that takes a lot of maturity and responsibility in the forum members as a whole) and/or having and fostering productive discussion.
---
As part of this, I often take on the mean guy or hardass role. I don't particularly relish it, but, to me, it's a role that someone has to play. At one time, I used to sometimes get back up from people with a softer approach, but who didn't immediately go to vacuous fluff or "everyone stop being mean." and that often had the best effects.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven:
quote: people who behave irrationally against gay people, like Hardaway, for example, clearly have issues going on that aren't centered in their intellect.
Lisa, we agree.
It was bound to happen eventually. <grin> I've had these million monkeys typing away for ages now.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: I'm just not sure that "they must be gay in denial" that is whipped out as the joke-du-jur in these cases is accurate all the time. Hardway may not be scared of his own homosexual tendencies. He could be just a big idiot in love with the sound of his own voice. He could be an attention whore playing the media for his 15 minutes of fame. He could be a clueless follower of the conservative nut of the day.
You could be right. But since it's not coming from his brain, no rational response is going to have any effect on him. Do I actually think he's worried that he might be gay? If I had to put an arbitrary number on what I think the chances of that are, it'd be 20% or so. But do I think that suggesting such a thing is out of line? No. Do I think I need to care a whole lot what his actual motivations are? Again, no. Someone like Porter, I care what his motivations are. Someone like Hardaway... not so much. Not at all, to be honest.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Attacking his motives for being an a..... idiot without even trying to find out what those motives are reflects badly on those who believe he is an idiot.
I don't really agree. I make distinctions. What you're saying would be true about Porter, kat, and OSC (to an extent). It's not true about, Hardaway, Fred Phelps, General Sax, and their ilk.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:He could be a clueless follower of the conservative nut of the day.
There are a lot of people in this nation who hate gay people. And these bigots aren't a hundred years-old. This kind of bigotry doesn't come from cluelessness, it comes from an unfortunate understanding of religion. I don't know what to do. You can't just appeal to their sense of humanity, because their humanity is founded on a religion that they understand to be anti-homosexual. If someone simply believes that God doesn't support gay people, then there really isn't much one can do, except maybe show how love is love is love.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)