Here's the list of places the word "homophobe" has been mentioned:
In which I spew out my political opinions October 21, 2004 Books, Films, Food and American Culture First use of the word- CStroman in a liberal bashing stance.
Religious stereotypes of a people September 24, 2004 Books, Films, Food and American Culture
Use of the word- CStroman in a liberal bashing stance.
Help! They're after me... September 05, 2004 Books, Films, Food and American Culture
Lalo- Arguably one of the most controversial and non-mainstream posters on the entire board (The liberal CStroman if you will, though he generally brings better references to the table when pressed)
My only problem with the whole "gay and lesbian" thing . . . September 05, 2004 Books, Films, Food and American Culture
Verily The Younger. I believe he's conservative, but in any case it was a very specific discussion on semantics of words.
Methodist court says homosexuality "incompatible with church teachings" May 03, 2004 Books, Films, Food and American Culture
Lalo again, Multiple people using the word to say that it is retoric and shouldn't be used and Pooka, a consdervative saying that she is one (the thread died before the discussion between her and Tom D continued and I would have liked a clarification, couldn't tell if it was in jest or not.)
Good GOD, OSC... February 27, 2004 Books, Films, Food and American Culture
Dagonee a conservative used the word to illustrate the rediculousness drivel on *both* sides of the argument.
How do you feel when God comes up? January 23, 2004 Books, Films, Food and American Culture
Lalo again, in an entirely humorous thread.
Finding out your parent is gay... January 08, 2004 Books, Films, Food and American Culture
pooka, a conservative again, in a semantic context
Episode 5,324 in Hatrack's continuing discussion on homosexuality September 11, 2003 Books, Films, Food and American Culture
PSI, a conservative, using it in a hypothetical sense of being called one, even though the word hadn't been used prior in the thread.
I'm not gay but..................... August 19, 2003 Books, Films, Food and American Culture
An odd post by a rare poster, and thus a relative newbie, that is a self-proclaimed prior homophobe and LDS member.
Gay Bishops? August 11, 2003 Books, Films, Food and American Culture Ryan Heart, a conservative, self-proclaimed homophobe in his early posting. Wonder what happened to him and what he'd say to Chad now?
Funniest essay on gay marriage that I've seen.... August 10, 2003 Books, Films, Food and American Culture
A single post by a poster who only has one post. Don't know if it was a troll, a screen name throwaway or what.
Homosexuality: The Biggest Problem Facing America Today August 05, 2003 Books, Films, Food and American Culture
Potemkyn, newbie only posted during July and August of 03 and hasn't posted since
The word has only ever been mentioned in 13 threads since 2003 and given the number of threads that go through this place that is a pretty respectable figure IMO.
Chad, even when using only the search-phrase "homoph" you only get 43 hits. Your claim of 50+ is incorrect.
Posts: 739 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stroman, this is obviously just a game for you. What, exactly, is anyone winning? Who are the imaginary judges? Who do you think reads your spiking-the-football-on-the-50-yardline post and thinks, "Hmm...quite a thinker, that guy."?
You're angling for a prize that doesn't exist. No one is keeping score.
quote: I didn't bash a single liberal in this thread. Go back and read the thread again.
Own up to it or use the edit button.
Chad this merely proves your nearsightedness. If you can't see how liberals or *anyone* (cause some conservatives disagree with you to) could call your stances on either of those threads as "liberal bashing" you've got major issues with your perception of reality.
posted
And again Chad, if someone had saved Hitler's brain and we reanimated it and put into the body of a convicted child molester and he accurately said that someone was doing something wrong, it would still be childish to respond with "Oh yeah, well you're the reanimated brain of Hitler in the body of a child molestor, so nanny nanny boo!"
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amka's point, and mine as well, were that as "bad" as OSC's posts on his own website are. The posts by his "guests" are just as bad.
Some people disagreed.
The last couple of posts confirmed it as a fact (and yours didn't help the cause either.)
Don't the people here read this thread and see that the exact same thing they accuse OSC of doing, is exactly what they are doing? In this thread no less?
Amka was right. The vitrol by those with differing opinions than her (and me apparently) or OSC, is on Par or surpasses OSC in this thread alone.
I have said NOTHING attacking anyone in this thread at all.
NOTHING, directly or indirectly.
But the vitrol level of the responses really show that what Amka was saying, was in deed correct.
That's all I'm saying.
She's right in my opinion. And this thread backs me up.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Sometime's the best advice one can give another, is best suited to the giver.
This was quite rude I'd say. Just assuming that AJ hadn't done her homework and you didn't even acknowledge her point. I thought she put you in your place quite nicely. Even if you still ignore her point completely.
The thing is Chad, that even after almost 1000 posts, you haven't realised that Hatrack is different from most places on the internet. It is populated by some of the best people you'll ever have the pleasure of communicating with. People who would never call someone a homophobe just because they disagree with the person in question. You can't just come in here and say that people do that without actually backing it up. And as you can see, things like that don't happen very often.
Posts: 739 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amka, you were right to leave this thread. I will as well. The level of vitrol exhibited by those with dissenting opinions is not worth the time.
Chad, even when using only the search-phrase "homoph" you only get 43 hits. Your claim of 50+ is incorrect.
How is this the same as characterizing someone as "enemies of civilization or the family, or as morons or dupes" or "bigots, homophobes, religious zealots, right wingers, enemies of democracy or peace, or morons or duped into believing in God"
quote:Amka's point, and mine as well, were that as "bad" as OSC's posts on his own website are. The posts by his "guests" are just as bad.
Some people disagreed.
MrSquicky has attempted several times to point out that this is not what people are generally disagreeing with you about. It's not, "Do others do this too," but rather, "Is it OK for person X to do it."
If you think person Y's doing this makes person X's doing it OK, then you should make that case. But you haven't taken that extra step in your reasoning. Instead, we're left with little more than, "Well, Y does it too."
Maybe that's true. How is it relevant to whether X does it and whether X should do it?
posted
Ok, back to answer Dag because he was respective in his question, I'm not saying that it's right or wrong, because we each have our own standards of that.
I'm saying that I found it ironic that the "ways" in which many cried foul over the "ways" in which OSC cried "foul" (in his articles) were two sides of the same coin.
They don't like the "delivery" of his message, while employing the same type of "delivery" in their own message or criticism of his "delivery".
I found that ironic. I found it more ironic that when pointed out in this thread no less, that evidence of that same type of "foul delivery" was actually IN the response to those posts.
That was my point.
To use a baseball analogy. You can't cry it's "foul" to bean or walk a heavy hitter on your team, then turn around and bean or walk a heavy hitter on that opposing team and say it's just part of the game.
That's what I was saying.
Thanks Dagonee for your question.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You really think the level of inflammatory rhetoric on Hatrack is at the same level as that in OSC's columns?
In most the instances of inflamatory rhetoric in the threads I gave above, they were used in chastisment of those being inflammatory. Hatrack *doesn't* tolerate inflammatory rhetoric well at all.
posted
But Chad, you started in with that accusation when no one in this thread had done so.
The people registering their objections to OSC's tone did not use that tone themselves. They didn't use the means of delivery they were objecting too.
To put it in your baseball terms, a person is not precluded from claiming it's "foul" to bean or walk a heavy hitter on your team because a sportswriter favorable to your team has urged the beaning or walking of heavy hitters on opposing teams.
quote:You really think the level of inflammatory rhetoric on Hatrack is at the same level as that in OSC's columns?
AJ, I've got to say I see at least the same level of inflammatory rhetoric on Hatrack as in OSC's columns. The difference being that, in a forum, the reprimand is more immediate and closer to the disfavored behavior.
The rhetoric on Hatrack is also diluted far more by the wonderful general level of posting. A fair comparison to establish the level of inflammatory rhetoric might be to shuffle OSC's articles in with his books. In that context, I doubt he looks as bad or worse than Hatrack.
We did get pretty inflammatory a couple weeks back.
posted
I've always considered cooking techniques that involve flaming alcohol to be a waste of perfectly good alcohol. That's the real crime, here, fugu, and you'll burn for it. In a nice non-alcohol flame, of course.
Dagonee P.S., has anyone seen a Hibachi chef make a tower of onion rings, fill it with sake, and make a volcano out of the burning alcohol?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm Dags, I see the level of inflamatory rhetoric at Hatrack greatly decreasing after Ornery began.
I guess I also see what inflammatory rhetoric that does come, coming from specific people on the fringes and not "mainstream" hatrack. And that it generally is reprimanded internally.
But maybe you are right. It could be that I just take OSC's columns more personally and therefore "feel" they are worse because they hurt both me and people I know and love, while you may take other stuff that is more directly opposing you in the same manner and in reality they are about the same.
AJ
*and I do wonder whether Chad would survive, thrive or get eaten alive at Ornery.
posted
Amka, to get back to the original topic, I'm happy that you believe your political philosophy to be sound, sensible, and ultimately good for humanity; it would be depressing to believe otherwise, I think.
That I disagree with you should not come as a surprise -- but, then, I think the problem with OSC's article is not that he's not entitled to define what he believes are the primary aspects of conservatism but that, as a self-proclaimed conservative, he is perhaps less entitled to then define the primary aspects of liberalism than someone who understands their own reasons for adopting that philosophy.
In other words, it's a good thing that both you and OSC have reasons for believing what you believe. It's when you speculate -- or, even worse, insinuate -- on the reasons that people have for disagreeing with you that those people are right to take offense.
-------
"I do wonder whether Chad would survive, thrive or get eaten alive at Ornery."
Chad would fit in just fine at Ornery, which has a long tradition of conservative "thought" in his vein.
quote: But Chad, you started in with that accusation when no one in this thread had done so.
It was a parallel that there is a flip side to the same type of "labeling" that OSC does, by those that attack OSC. It was leveled at no one in particular in this thread, but the forum as a whole as just meant to point out that we are as guilty of what OSC does as he is.
I don't see the problem with pointing that out. There was no vitrol in my post. No finger pointing at anyone in particular. Just a "hey, this coin has two sides, look at that!"
To put things in perspective and balance things out.
But...there most definately was vitrol posted in response to it. Which reinforced the argument made to some degree.
quote:The people registering their objections to OSC's tone did not use that tone themselves. They didn't use the means of delivery they were objecting too.
And neither did I in my post. But their responses to me did. I pointed that out.
quote:To put it in your baseball terms, a person is not precluded from claiming it's "foul" to bean or walk a heavy hitter on your team because a sportswriter favorable to your team has urged the beaning or walking of heavy hitters on opposing teams.
Dagonee
But it is hypocritical to say it's wrong when it's your team, but ok when it's the opposing team. Or that the rules apply to them, but not to me.
Amka's original post was pointing out something that my post most definately hit upon.
I don't see what the problem was in my post, but I definately see what Amka was saying in the responses.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"It was a parallel that there is a flip side to the same type of 'labeling' that OSC does, by those that attack OSC."
But, see, there's no proof of this, Chad.
You SAID it; that doesn't make it true.
When people asked you for evidence, you cited the specific example of the phrase "homophobe." When Anna then went and showed you how rarely, in fact, the phrase "homophobe" has been used, you somehow used the fact that she proved you wrong to argue that, by disagreeing with you, her "vitriol" somehow proved you right.Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:P.S., has anyone seen a Hibachi chef make a tower of onion rings, fill it with sake, and make a volcano out of the burning alcohol?
No, how do they do that? What keeps the sake from just pouring out from the gaps between the rings, or if they're all fitted together from pouring out the bottom?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: In other words, it's a good thing that both you and OSC have reasons for believing what you believe. It's when you speculate -- or, even worse, insinuate -- on the reasons that people have for disagreeing with you that those people are right to take offense.
I agree Tom, but again, flip that arguement around (not at yourself, but at those that oppose OSC or Amka in general) and see if the same thing could be said.
That's all I'm saying.
Alot of time we point to the ugly outfit someone else is wearing, and then look in the mirror and see we are wearing the exact same outfit as they are.
Amka's point is as valid as Tom's in my opinion.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except if Tom isn't the sort saying that, then he isn't wearing that outfit, so your point doesn't apply.
Second, you have failed to show that any of the people posting in this thread are wearing the same outfit, and if they aren't, then your point doesn't apply.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Hmm Dags, I see the level of inflamatory rhetoric at Hatrack greatly decreasing after Ornery began.
I guess I also see what inflammatory rhetoric that does come, coming from specific people on the fringes and not "mainstream" hatrack. And that it generally is reprimanded internally.
But maybe you are right. It could be that I just take OSC's columns more personally and therefore "feel" they are worse because they hurt both me and people I know and love, while you may take other stuff that is more directly opposing you in the same manner and in reality they are about the same.
AJ
I’m post Ornery, so I don’t have that level to compare to. Also, you’re right in that the people most often guilty of that level of inflammatory rhetoric here are not held in the same regard most of us hold OSC in. So it’s much easier to dismiss it when it happens here.
quote: No, how do they do that? What keeps the sake from just pouring out from the gaps between the rings, or if they're all fitted together from pouring out the bottom?
Filling up was a misnomer. The onions are raw. He takes one fairly thick slice, and breaks out the rings. He stacks them on top of each other and then pours in the sake. It’s not enough to overflow even the lowest ring, which is on a very flat grill and is cut very smoothly, so there’s little leakage. After about 2 seconds, a blue flame shoots out the top. It’s very cool.
posted
I'm pretty sure that no one here opposes OSC or Amka, although plenty of people disagree with them on a handful of issues. That OSC might actually oppose people here, without having that sentiment reciprocated, has been a concern among many of the long-time posters; he has certainly insulted whole groups of people -- groups to which many of our regulars belong -- in a number of his articles, and in general the response of those same regulars, while dismayed, has been fairly reasoned and mild.
There's a certain "playing house" insult, in particular, that I remember literally bitch-slapped the breath right out of my lungs -- and yet the people on this board to whom that insult would most directly apply were, to a man, unfailingly polite about it.
I disagree that OSC is more educated than I am, or necessarily more educated than the average Hatracker. I do believe, unlike Amka, that some of his opinions are indeed formed because they represent party positions into which he has bought, made necessary by his decision to commit to a larger (and presumably more important) principle. And I think he has fallen into the deliberate role of Demosthenes -- or Grego -- without first providing for the existence of a Locke or Olhado. With every column in which he tries to Make, he seems unable to avoid letting loose with some throwaway insult, some gross generalization, which Unmakes all his intentions. I think it's more than a little tragic.
posted
I'm trying to figure out what vitriol I spewed.
I think the worst thing I've called Chad specifically in this thread was nearsighted?
As far as "liberal bashing stance" goes, which is the only other term he could possibly object to. If I'm a liberal (let's assume for the sake of argument I am, though that is debatable) and I felt his stance was "liberal bashing" by his comments then doesn't the term apply?
But the fact that it has happened, however "rarely" it still happens. That they chose ONE word out of the list when it could have been MUCH longer and included some such as Bigot or Racist or Nutjob, or whatever, shows that they have a problem with someone claiming that word has been used, when in fact it has.
I never claimed there were TONS of homophobe accusations. But it is a fact that it has been used in a negative light.
So the argument that yeah it happens, but not very often, still doesn't make it ok or false.
quote:When people asked you for evidence, you cited the specific example of the phrase "homophobe." When Anna then went and showed you how rarely, in fact, the phrase "homophobe" has been used, you somehow used the fact that she proved you wrong to argue that, by disagreeing with you, her "vitriol" somehow proved you right.
I don't know how you can claim that people using the word on the forum in a negative way, just not "often" (which was never claimed to begin with) means it never happened. She proved in fact that at least in two instances by the same person in one year, it has happened. That was all I claimed. That it had happened.
The vitrol is when she claimed I "bashed Liberals" with it, which is a falsehood. Blatant at that. The original post says:
quote: As opposed to characterizing people who disagree as bigots, homophobes, religious zealots, right wingers, enemies of democracy or peace, or morons or duped into believing in God?
I believe as "guilty" as OSC is of the offences listed above, others on this very forum are as guilty of the exact same from the other side of the line.
Just my opinion.
That somehow this implies "liberals" or all of them or someone on this thread directly on indirectly, is very, very bad judgement in my opinion and flat out false.
To assume that because it doesn't happen very often means it doesn't happen and that the original statement is false, is disingenuous at best. It also ignores all the other words listed as well.
It happened. I claimed it did. Whether or not it's "very often" is the argument to be upholding. Claiming that because it never happened when it did, is not an honest claim.
Questioning me by "insinuation" (That's not an OSC "delivery" is it?) by telling me to "search for the word," then posting that it does appear and that there are negative postings about it and whole threads where that word becomes the subject, and then claiming that the person who claimed it happens on this forum is "wrong"...is....well..I'll let you answer that?
The correct arguement would be: "Yes it has happened in the past, but not very frequently and usually by newbies who come and go"
You can defend that. You can't really defend it never happened and then do a search and still try to defend that stance.
And as much as I know you all like talking about me, Amka's point is very valid.
quote: I felt his stance was "liberal bashing" by his comments then doesn't the term apply?
Let's say I felt your tone and post was vitriolic. You implication in questioning the words I used in my list claiming were used on this site (and were in fact used, but excused by yourself) was vitriolic. By your comments then doesn't the term "vitrol" apply?
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hm. A quick check on Dictionary.com, Chad, suggests that while her post may not have been vitriolic by definition, your selection of the word "vitriolic" to describe her post may have been.
------
So would you agree, Chad, that the words "bigot," "homophobe," etc. are in fact used very rarely in criticism on this site?
posted
Chad, you seem to have this odd opinion that members of this forum are responsible for the postings of other members of this forum.
You are talking with the people in this thread. The people in this thread have been stating their objections to OSC's rhetoric (note: they haven't even gotten into his positions, really) in ways that are more polite than he goes about it. While we may care to various degrees how other people use rhetoric, it is not particularly relevant. You talking about how other people on this forum use rhetoric is not relevant. What relevance does it have to this discussion that there are other people out there who use rhetoric in a hurtful or incorrect way? We have been discussing how OSC uses rhetoric, not those other people. I could care less, personally, if someone named Sam in Boston uses rhetoric badly, and I only care mildly when many of the people on this forum do, but in neither case is it relevant to whether or not OSC is using rhetoric badly.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: So would you agree, Chad, that the words "bigot," "homophobe," etc. are in fact used -- and I quote, here -- "very rarely" in criticism on this site?
Have I claimed anything different or implied such?
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Have I claimed anything different or implied such?"
So, just to clarify: you were not saying that we're not entitled to criticize OSC's rhetoric because we engage in similar rhetoric ourselves?
I thought that's what you were saying, and apologize if that wasn't your point. What was your point, then?
---------
LA, there are already a number of people I care about who're on the fence about sticking around, over exactly this issue; please don't give 'em any additional reasons to split.
posted
You've definitely implied that it somehow matter to how those of us here discuss OSC's rhetoric. Actually, I think you may even have stated that one.
Would you care to explicate how the fact that those rarely used words are sometimes used by other people here on hatrack matters to our discussion of OSC's rhetoric?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Chad, you seem to have this odd opinion that members of this forum are responsible for the postings of other members of this forum.
Fugu you seem to have this odd notion that when someone claims that words have been used by people on this forum, (which fact has been established) that that means everyone.
Notice, then when I was talking..to you...that I used ...your name. Why? Because I am talking...to you and talking about you.
Now, what would be the difference of saying "Some people have this odd notion that....."?
See the difference? What is the difference?
quote: While we may care to various degrees how other people use rhetoric, it is not particularly relevant.
Fugu, I would point you to the original post and that's all I can do.
EDIT: And specifically her 3rd post which was a response to yours.
posted
Chad, when you attempt to rebut someone's complaint with "well, sure, some people might think 2+2=4, but some people are rude donkeys," I think it's natural for the person to whom you're speaking to think that, given you were directly engaged with conversation with them and clearly meant your comment to somehow rebut their own argument, that your comment was meant to describe them.Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Might I point you to the very lengthy post(s) I made in response to her?
Also, given she has been a longtime and fairly involved member on this forum, and we've run down lists of OSC's factual difficulties before, I thought she might recall some of them.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, that is incorrect (notice how I used YOUR name), and I would refer you to the subsequent posts to my original one which clarify that even more.
Specifically, Tom:
quote: I believe as "guilty" as OSC is of the offences listed above, others on this very forum are as guilty of the exact same from the other side of the line.
And
quote: Icarus, as the second paragraph denotes, I was talking in generalities as it relates to this forum.
I did in fact clarify it further.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
Tom
