Homophobia
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-09-2010, 01:45 PM
RE: Homophobia
(20-09-2010 09:00 AM)athnostic Wrote:  Just for the record, I find the male-bashing attitude of a lot of women equally reprehensible.

Amen! Big Grin

Small suggestion if i may. If you should ever feel the urge to start a thread on something along the lines of "the relevance of feminism in todays society", please don´t hesitate to do so. It could lead to an endless number of pages of fun discussion.

I´d do it myself if i was not so useless at getting discussions started. Blush

I want to rip off your superstitions and make passionate sense to you
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2010, 09:13 PM
 
RE: Homophobia
(20-09-2010 01:45 PM)ThinkingNorseman Wrote:  
(20-09-2010 09:00 AM)athnostic Wrote:  Just for the record, I find the male-bashing attitude of a lot of women equally reprehensible.

Amen! Big Grin

Small suggestion if i may. If you should ever feel the urge to start a thread on something along the lines of "the relevance of feminism in todays society", please don´t hesitate to do so. It could lead to an endless number of pages of fun discussion.

I´d do it myself if i was not so useless at getting discussions started. Blush

It could indeed. It does sound like you have something to say on the topic though. Just go for it!! Smile
Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2010, 02:11 AM
 
RE: Homophobia
(20-09-2010 09:37 AM)BnW Wrote:  
Quote:You seem to be trying to have it both ways. Where do you draw the line between being "ridiculously PC" and the sinister implications of jokes?

At the point that I'm actually offended, of course.

And, that is pretty much never. Jokes don't offend me, and people I don't respect who try to make jokes at my expense don't offend me. Even in my Boy Scout scenario the issue has nothing to do with me being offended. It's a simple matter of how I want my children to be treated and my instincts not to put them in a position where they are not looked upon as equals. They have plenty of time in their lives to fight those battles.

If they learn how to fight those battles as children, then they'll be better equipped as adults. You can't protect your children from unequal treatment. In any group of children, there will be those who are picked-upon, and those who do the picking. The sooner they learn to ignore the words, the better, imho. When they see unequal treatment, they should recognize it for what it is, and learn to not accept being demeaned when there's no good reason for it!

(20-09-2010 09:37 AM)BnW Wrote:  Also, I'm not actually advocating that anything be done about jokes, language, etc. I'm a near absolutist when it comes to free speech. The only time I think a restriction can be justified is if speech is likely to cause imminent harm to others (like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater or working a crowd up to a frenzy with the intent of them, at that moment, committing acts of violence). Beyond that, I think people have the right to say what they want and individuals do not have the right not to be offended. I'm ok with all of that. I'm also ok with the notion that whether or not you are offended is up to you.

My point here is simply this: words do not exist in a vacuum. You may have the right to offend people but that doesn't make deliberately offending people right. The fact that some are "choosing" to be offended does not mean their feelings are wrong. Perhaps I'm reading something more into your statements, but you seem almost dismissive of the fact that words can have real impacts, as if it exonerates people who deliberately try to offend people. Maybe I'm not perceiving this exactly right.

You're quite right - you're reading into my comments things I don't intend. I do believe, however, that the most effective way to deal with potentially offensive words is to "dismiss" them. You've mentioned several times that "words don't exist in a vacuum" - OK, fine. I've never disputed that words can be powerful and even harmful. What I've been talking about is basically what you've just agreed to above. To it I would add that deliberately offending people isn't always wrong, as well. The fact that some choose to be offended doesn't always mean their feelings are appropriate.
Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2010, 02:23 AM (This post was last modified: 21-09-2010 02:32 AM by No J..)
RE: Homophobia
(20-09-2010 05:48 AM)Soldieringon Wrote:  And if I improve my friends, can I change myself?

Change yourself. You can't change others. You can influece others to change. Leading by example has been the trademark of the most influential people in history.
(20-09-2010 07:34 AM)Kikko Wrote:  Most of the youth is secular, but still against gays (not so much against lesbianity for some ''odd'' reason), but I do'nt think many can properly answer the question ''why against gayness?'' (if anyone can).

Fear that one may be gay or have gay tendencies will scare the crap out of men with sexual anxieties. Attacking gays is a way of proving that they are not gay. Many of these morons are trying to convince themselves that they are not gay because they are that insecure about their own sexuality. Lesbians don't pose a threat because they know that they couldn't be a lesbian.

If there is a god, he did a very bad job on the human brain. Some people get working models, some get junk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2010, 03:58 AM
 
RE: Homophobia
(21-09-2010 02:23 AM)No J. Wrote:  
(20-09-2010 05:48 AM)Soldieringon Wrote:  And if I improve my friends, can I change myself?

Change yourself. You can't change others. You can influece others to change. Leading by example has been the trademark of the most influential people in history.

It was kind of a rhetorical. What I meant essentially was that by leading by example was a sure way to influence others, and after influencing them, I could further influence myself to continue the positive changes.
Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2010, 04:44 PM
 
RE: Homophobia
Pejoratives abound in our culture. They're employed as verbal weapons to assault, insult, demean, those they target. Be it men, women, gays, Theists, non-Theists, etc...

In the case of gays, pejoratives are applied because they're the minority community amid those who very often believe heterosexuality is normal for themselves and thus, by proxy, anything other is unnatural. And as the fear paradigm dictates, those that are considered abnormal are denigrated. Be it verbally or legally.
Suffragists fought this. Civil rights activists fought for the right to be free, equal and black in this free country for whites only, at the time. Pagans fought for the protection inalienably guaranteed for everyone that was monotheist and Christian, or at least not able to be painted as "devil worshipers" by the ignorant. And even the devil worshipers enjoy freedom of religion too.
It's a matter of those virus related to, "ism" and phobia. Sexism, racism, class-ism, homophobia, heterophobia, etc...

What's contrary however, in those prohibitions to pejoratives, is there are exceptions or pardons to the rule of non-tolerance. Friends and I venture out to gay bars from time to time, because they're gay and I'm invited. I love to study people and social dynamics, as a lay person of course. And I find that it's no longer surprising, yet is consistently prevalent, that what is considered a slur for a straight person to use in terms of calling someone a fag,etc... is common place in the parlance of an atmosphere of familiars.

In other words, I've been in gay bars from Tampa Florida to points north over the years, and I've heard gay men refer to one another as fag. I've heard them say, in relating a story of this or that; 'that's gay!' I've heard gay men refer to one another as, "girl".
So the outrage, that gays express when hearing such phrases or pejoratives uttered by straights, is a matter of permissions and pardons that denote a double standard in terms of taking offense.

A discrimination in it's own right, as it's not a matter of what is said, but who says it.
Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2010, 07:32 PM
 
RE: Homophobia
(11-10-2010 04:44 PM)GassyKitten Wrote:  A discrimination in it's own right, as it's not a matter of what is said, but who says it.

Interesting thought, this seems to follow the pattern of the dreaded "N-word". I've heard it claimed previously that black people (please, no references to the race thread, okay?) are trying to "take it back" (not that there's any real validity to that..)

I wonder if the use of normally derogatory terms in certain circles of the gay community is similar to that.

What about over use, though? At what point does a word lose its power? If a woman walks down the street wearing a shirt that proclaims "bitch" or "whore", those terms can no longer be really used to insult her. If a gay man walks down the street in a shirt that proclaims "fag", then that, too, ceases to be an insult. And if you use words like "fuck" and "shit" too often they simply become a part of your normal speech patterns and no longer offend those near you. Sort of a desensitization.

Personal intent on the part of the speaker and fear of differences (which I believe is normal, BTW, as a sort of left-over "survival instinct") are what cause something to be offensive.

This all ties in to a conversation on a different thread about our natural need to categorize and group ourselves through labeling. It's the same coin, but a different side.

In the other discussion we were talking about the classification of atheists according to aggressiveness and belief, now we are discussing the denigration of people through derogatory terms. It's all still classification.

I identify myself as a straight male, and (for instance) fit in with other straight males by defining others according to their differences. When aggressiveness kicks in, and I feel the need to be more dominant, I use perjoratives. I essentially use their differences to identify them as "not one of us", and emotionally and socially prop myself up.
Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2010, 02:49 PM
 
RE: Homophobia
(11-10-2010 07:32 PM)Soldieringon Wrote:  
(11-10-2010 04:44 PM)GassyKitten Wrote:  A discrimination in it's own right, as it's not a matter of what is said, but who says it.

Interesting thought, this seems to follow the pattern of the dreaded "N-word". I've heard it claimed previously that black people (please, no references to the race thread, okay?) are trying to "take it back" (not that there's any real validity to that..)

I wonder if the use of normally derogatory terms in certain circles of the gay community is similar to that.

What about over use, though? At what point does a word lose its power? If a woman walks down the street wearing a shirt that proclaims "bitch" or "whore", those terms can no longer be really used to insult her. If a gay man walks down the street in a shirt that proclaims "fag", then that, too, ceases to be an insult. And if you use words like "fuck" and "shit" too often they simply become a part of your normal speech patterns and no longer offend those near you. Sort of a desensitization.

Personal intent on the part of the speaker and fear of differences (which I believe is normal, BTW, as a sort of left-over "survival instinct") are what cause something to be offensive.

Words are simply the vibration of air at certain frequencies by our mouth, tongue and vocal cords. These vibrations are then picked up by the small bones of the listener's ear and transmitted as electrochemical signals. They themselves are utterly meaningless. However, it is the idea that is associated with the the word that carries weight. If my friend says to me "Fuck you" it has absolutely no meaning carried with it, because I know he is kidding. Words are designed (or have evolved to be to use the correct terminology) to be ways humans can express ideas to each other. It is these ideas, and not the words themselves that matter.

I think I basically just restated what you said so I guess I am expressing my accordance with your ideas.
Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2010, 05:13 AM
 
RE: Homophobia
(12-10-2010 02:49 PM)TruthAddict Wrote:  Words are simply the vibration of air at certain frequencies by our mouth, tongue and vocal cords. These vibrations are then picked up by the small bones of the listener's ear and transmitted as electrochemical signals. They themselves are utterly meaningless. However, it is the idea that is associated with the the word that carries weight. If my friend says to me "Fuck you" it has absolutely no meaning carried with it, because I know he is kidding. Words are designed (or have evolved to be to use the correct terminology) to be ways humans can express ideas to each other. It is these ideas, and not the words themselves that matter.

I think I basically just restated what you said so I guess I am expressing my accordance with your ideas.

I wonder if we're not looking at this from the wrong end, as it were. What if the problem were not the words themselves, or the intent of the people, but the permissibility of the people around them. I, for instance frequently use words that I won't say around my family. I use pejoratives with certain groups that I won't use with another, and I tone down my language when a female is present (sexist, I know...)

maybe if we made as much of an effort to ask others to watch their language, as we do trying to figure out if the words themselves are offensive, then we could create a culture that refuses to condone the language instead of trying to change the individuals.
Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2010, 06:45 AM
RE: Homophobia
Quote:maybe if we made as much of an effort to ask others to watch their language, as we do trying to figure out if the words themselves are offensive, then we could create a culture that refuses to condone the language instead of trying to change the individuals.

I think this misses the point. The words are never a problem, it's the intent behind them. Words only have power if we give them power but they do represent a state of mind. So, using the dreaded "N" word as an example, black people use it for whatever reason but it's taboo for white people to say it because it almost has to be a pejorative. I suppose white people can use it the same as black people but most people are not going to get into that level of semantics.

At some point, the whole thing really becomes silly. If I call someone "black" and someone else calls that person "African American" (assuming we are in the US), does that make me a racist and the other person accepting? What if the other person is advocating that African Americans are somehow inferior to whites? Then does it matter he or she is using the political correct term?

We've all gotten to caught up on the words themselves without enough thought behind the intentions and meaning of people.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: