posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not commonly used by you, or as you qualified (making you correct no matter what, btw), "by the people I take seriously."
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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".
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
