Is Homophobia the same as having a phobia about Gays, like phobias people have with clowns and dolls ?
Just a glimpse of Graham Norton or Sandi Toksvig gives me the willies.
Lol, the sad thing is that some homophobes do try and derail discussions using that logic -- i.e. "I dislike gays, but I'm not scared of them, so how can I be a homophobe?"
I have an irrational fear of spiders. Most people think so what....although some species can kill so fair enough. Either way, people the fear without too much judgement.
Different story though if I had an irrational fear of gays.
What I find difficult about the word bigot is that it just doesn't really mean anything.
Anyone who thinks they are right and others are wrong, and expresses that opinion, is a bigot aren't they? I certainly don't know anyone who holds a strong opinion which they believe to be wrong.
I have an irrational fear of spiders. Most people think so what....although some species can kill so fair enough. Either way, people the fear without too much judgement.
Different story though if I had an irrational fear of gays.
But does anyone actually have an irrational fear of gays, though? LOL.
Wouldn't it just be a fear of humans in general, considering everyone will have met at least one gay person even though they didn't know it?
I think they have. When you look at the way these words are used, they seem to be used to shut down discussions people don't like rather than because there is an actual, worthwhile reason to accuse anyone of being these things.
I find words like these very cartoonish now when it comes to the way people tend to wheel them out. A shame, because racism and homophobia and other forms of bigotry are very much still a major problem in society today. I fear people take that less seriously than they would because of the way the words have been devalued due to people being laughably quick to use them.
Undoubtedly yes. They are used way too loosely to be taken as seriously as they once were. Often being shouted at others simply for holding a perfectly debatable opinion.
Then when a genuine racist, homophobe or bigot emerges, the same word has less clout, as it's effectiveness has been diluted.
What I find difficult about the word bigot is that it just doesn't really mean anything.
Anyone who thinks they are right and others are wrong, and expresses that opinion, is a bigot aren't they? I certainly don't know anyone who holds a strong opinion which they believe to be wrong.
it's not just strong opinion though
I don't like heights but it doesn't make me a height phobic
No it's nothing to do with a difference of opinion it's everything to do with someone discriminating based on sexuality.
Why is it that the homophobes can't see that and object when that is exactly what they are doing?
It's like you saying that black people should be free from slavery and me saying oh I disagree and that I'm not racist, it's just a different opinion from you. :rolleyes: I would be discriminating against people base on racist and so therfore I would be a racist if I really thought that.
You see black and white and I see shades of gray. I know people who are mad football supporters who just see 'footballers'. In another context, they will bang on about 'johnny foreigner' taking our jobs. To label them simply as a racist, does not adequately describe them. It's the same here, to label someone a homophobe does not describe them accurately.
You see black and white and I see shades of gray. I know people who are mad football supporters who just see 'footballers'. In another context, they will bang on about 'johnny foreigner' taking our jobs. To label them simply as a racist, does not adequately describe them. It's the same here, to label someone a homophobe does not describe them accurately.
It depends who you are on about on here... On many occasions I have seen the same tripe spewed out over and over again by certain folk yet when they are called that word they take offense. I'm sorry but in some cases it is just the exact correct term to use. There is no grey area. I do know some band it about too much or too easy but at the same time there is a reason why many of us use it on the same people. If one person uses it on another then sure it could be labelled as an over reaction in some cases... But when several or more people label that same person then surely there is quite a lot of truth to that term being used. Especially when these people pop up in ANY gay related thread and then start with the anti equality stuff
What I find difficult about the word bigot is that it just doesn't really mean anything..........
It has a very specific meaning, which is in danger of becoming lost. It's someone with a closed mind, who won't listen to anyone else's views. What their own views are are unimportant, it's their unwillingless to consider anyone else's which makes them a bigot.
Hence, anyone who tends to use words such as 'bigot' and 'homophobe' as synonyms should realise there are just as many homosexual bigots. They may even form a higher percentage.
Undoubtedly yes. They are used way too loosely to be taken as seriously as they once were. Often being shouted at others simply for holding a perfectly debatable opinion.
Then when a genuine racist, homophobe or bigot emerges, the same word has less clout, as it's effectiveness has been diluted.
Which is why swear words have lost their value through overuse.
I agree with you. I've been called a homophobe and a bigot because I didn't agree with something a gay couple had done. The fact that I said I wouldn't have agreed with it had the couple been straight, was ignored.
If you are referring to a certain twit-storm (and related DS thread) involving a Soho pub and an (allegedly) over-enthusiastic couple being asked to take their passion somewhere more private then that was the point when "homophobe" jumped the shark for me.
"Bigot/Racist" became overused in the naughties when Labour drones used it to shout down any opposition to their reckless immigration policies, which is a shame because all they managed to achieve was to gift a veneer of credibility to those on the far right who were able to cash in on the dis-satisfaction of those in the working class who had the most to lose from uncontrolled immigration, even Labour accepted this was wrong in the end though I suspect this was more to do with the fact they were hemorrhaging voters than any sense that they were out of line.
The fact that it has been suggested on here that only "bigots" "racists" & "homophobes" would consider the premise in the OP to have any validity says all that needs to be said.
All these people saying that it closes down debate - WHAT DEBATE?
"I think that gay people are an abomination!"
"Oh really? Why do you think that?"
"God says so!"
"And where is your proof that this God you claim said something, even exists?"
"Oh I don't have any and don't need any and now I'm off to vote to try and force my stupidity of everyone else and force them to do as my God says"
That's not debate and not worth having if one side point blank refuses to back up what they claim. We can all sit here dreaming up nonsense, posting it like fact and then complain that people are not debating it.
All complainers against calling people exactly what they are and exactly what they are guilty of are just letting these people get away with it and validating that they should be listened to and have a valid point to debate instead of getting the message across to then that they are talking nonsense and that that is where the problem lies.
All this weak, fluffy, wooly-headed thinking on DS just allows stupidity to fester.
If someone discriminates against someone based on race then they are a racist. Fact! Why pussyfoot around the issue and let them get away with that and not call them what they are as it might upset them? :rolleye: (Wooly-headed thinking at its worst!)
It has a very specific meaning, which is in danger of becoming lost. It's someone with a closed mind, who won't listen to anyone else's views. What their own views are are unimportant, it's their unwillingless to consider anyone else's which makes them a bigot.
Hence, anyone who tends to use words such as 'bigot' and 'homophobe' as synonyms should realise there are just as many homosexual bigots. They may even form a higher percentage.
Which is why swear words have lost their value through overuse.
Well this "homosexual bigot" claim is largely nonsense. What kind of person would ask a homosexual to listen to and accept an argument that they are inferior or less worthy of rights than a straight person? You aren't a bigot for not taking that kind of rubbish.
I found the thread about the "bigot of the year award" by Stonewall pretty silly with all those claiming that homosexuals should "tolerate" being called deviants (and far worse) and respect their views or else they are bigots themselves, pull the other one.
It has a very specific meaning, which is in danger of becoming lost. It's someone with a closed mind, who won't listen to anyone else's views. What their own views are are unimportant, it's their unwillingless to consider anyone else's which makes them a bigot.
Please join my club to get my invisible pink giraffe elected Prime Minister.
Now you simply have to take me seriously and waste your time debating this and you must not expect me to back anything I say with evidence as it's what I believe to be true or else you with by your own definition be nothing but a bigot!
So is everyone who refuses to take this seriously and debate with me a bigot?
They are sometimes misused here, and also sometimes very accurate descriptions of the words and sentiments that constitute certain opinions here. It's not either/or. You have a brain to determine when a word is used correctly or not. You don't have to dismiss valid uses of those words just because they are also sometimes misused.
Yes because slaughtering millions is the same as disagreeing with someone on DS. :rolleyes:
The problem is on DS is that the people who claim they are not bigots or homophobes say things that clearly are then take offense.
It doesn't matter if your Christian beliefs mean that Gay people shouldn't be married or shouldn't be equal. In essence your religion is preaching intolerance. Also not everyone is religious so why should religious views trump all others and infringe on their rights? Thats the problem. People are so adamant that they are entitled to free speech (which to an extent they are) but when it's outright telling someone that the way they live their life is wrong then it's not fair.
They have been used far too much for minor things and when all the PC stuff happened back in the noughties it became less about the person being offensive but more about certain quarters of society(and not even the ones that would have been offended) stamping their feet and taking offence for the supposed hurt party, when the hurt party would just shrug it off.
Words like racism, slavery and bullying have become cheapened by overuse. People talk about 'dog racism', and use the word racism, when they really mean nationalism. 'Modern day slavery' is equated to the transatlantic trade. Bullying is thrown around way too often as well, which makes us less responsive to those who are suffering.
If someone discriminates against someone based on race then they are a racist. Fact! Why pussyfoot around the issue and let them get away with that and not call them what they are as it might upset them?
Exactly. You'd think the racists, bigots and homophobes would be used to having their half-witted ideas challenged and come up with some more convincing ones by now.
But instead they whine on about how unfair it is that a bigot can be labelled a bigot
Comments
"Long-time lurker" perhaps.
Just a glimpse of Graham Norton or Sandi Toksvig gives me the willies.
Lol, the sad thing is that some homophobes do try and derail discussions using that logic -- i.e. "I dislike gays, but I'm not scared of them, so how can I be a homophobe?"
Then you hear a collective facepalm...
Different story though if I had an irrational fear of gays.
Anyone who thinks they are right and others are wrong, and expresses that opinion, is a bigot aren't they? I certainly don't know anyone who holds a strong opinion which they believe to be wrong.
But does anyone actually have an irrational fear of gays, though? LOL.
Wouldn't it just be a fear of humans in general, considering everyone will have met at least one gay person even though they didn't know it?
The two things I've described though was arachnophobia and homophobia.
Undoubtedly yes. They are used way too loosely to be taken as seriously as they once were. Often being shouted at others simply for holding a perfectly debatable opinion.
Then when a genuine racist, homophobe or bigot emerges, the same word has less clout, as it's effectiveness has been diluted.
it's not just strong opinion though
I don't like heights but it doesn't make me a height phobic
Lol I had noticed at least one name in here and thought "Oh the irony!"
It depends who you are on about on here... On many occasions I have seen the same tripe spewed out over and over again by certain folk yet when they are called that word they take offense. I'm sorry but in some cases it is just the exact correct term to use. There is no grey area. I do know some band it about too much or too easy but at the same time there is a reason why many of us use it on the same people. If one person uses it on another then sure it could be labelled as an over reaction in some cases... But when several or more people label that same person then surely there is quite a lot of truth to that term being used. Especially when these people pop up in ANY gay related thread and then start with the anti equality stuff
It has a very specific meaning, which is in danger of becoming lost. It's someone with a closed mind, who won't listen to anyone else's views. What their own views are are unimportant, it's their unwillingless to consider anyone else's which makes them a bigot.
Hence, anyone who tends to use words such as 'bigot' and 'homophobe' as synonyms should realise there are just as many homosexual bigots. They may even form a higher percentage.
Which is why swear words have lost their value through overuse.
If you are referring to a certain twit-storm (and related DS thread) involving a Soho pub and an (allegedly) over-enthusiastic couple being asked to take their passion somewhere more private then that was the point when "homophobe" jumped the shark for me.
"Bigot/Racist" became overused in the naughties when Labour drones used it to shout down any opposition to their reckless immigration policies, which is a shame because all they managed to achieve was to gift a veneer of credibility to those on the far right who were able to cash in on the dis-satisfaction of those in the working class who had the most to lose from uncontrolled immigration, even Labour accepted this was wrong in the end though I suspect this was more to do with the fact they were hemorrhaging voters than any sense that they were out of line.
The fact that it has been suggested on here that only "bigots" "racists" & "homophobes" would consider the premise in the OP to have any validity says all that needs to be said.
"I think that gay people are an abomination!"
"Oh really? Why do you think that?"
"God says so!"
"And where is your proof that this God you claim said something, even exists?"
"Oh I don't have any and don't need any and now I'm off to vote to try and force my stupidity of everyone else and force them to do as my God says"
That's not debate and not worth having if one side point blank refuses to back up what they claim. We can all sit here dreaming up nonsense, posting it like fact and then complain that people are not debating it.
All complainers against calling people exactly what they are and exactly what they are guilty of are just letting these people get away with it and validating that they should be listened to and have a valid point to debate instead of getting the message across to then that they are talking nonsense and that that is where the problem lies.
All this weak, fluffy, wooly-headed thinking on DS just allows stupidity to fester.
If someone discriminates against someone based on race then they are a racist. Fact! Why pussyfoot around the issue and let them get away with that and not call them what they are as it might upset them? :rolleye: (Wooly-headed thinking at its worst!)
Well this "homosexual bigot" claim is largely nonsense. What kind of person would ask a homosexual to listen to and accept an argument that they are inferior or less worthy of rights than a straight person? You aren't a bigot for not taking that kind of rubbish.
I found the thread about the "bigot of the year award" by Stonewall pretty silly with all those claiming that homosexuals should "tolerate" being called deviants (and far worse) and respect their views or else they are bigots themselves, pull the other one.
Please join my club to get my invisible pink giraffe elected Prime Minister.
Now you simply have to take me seriously and waste your time debating this and you must not expect me to back anything I say with evidence as it's what I believe to be true or else you with by your own definition be nothing but a bigot!
So is everyone who refuses to take this seriously and debate with me a bigot?
Yes because slaughtering millions is the same as disagreeing with someone on DS. :rolleyes:
The problem is on DS is that the people who claim they are not bigots or homophobes say things that clearly are then take offense.
It doesn't matter if your Christian beliefs mean that Gay people shouldn't be married or shouldn't be equal. In essence your religion is preaching intolerance. Also not everyone is religious so why should religious views trump all others and infringe on their rights? Thats the problem. People are so adamant that they are entitled to free speech (which to an extent they are) but when it's outright telling someone that the way they live their life is wrong then it's not fair.
(I hope that makes sense)
But instead they whine on about how unfair it is that a bigot can be labelled a bigot