I cannot see any basis for equating moral outrage as being alligned with either homophobia or racism.

One is based on an indignation over an alleged wrong, and the other is based purely on a nasty out-dated prejudice. They are in no way related.

I will await to see what Mona says before I say anymore about her, but some things are just unacceptable under any contexts or circumstances. And indefensible. And this is one of them. Hence the premature reaction we are seeing.

Just been reading through this thread - gratifyingly a bit more rational than the last one on this. Although that is not saying much.

I had one consideration to voice however, which is I feel a bit apprehensive over the notion of degrees of homophobia. Sure, I can understand that acting on that prejudice in a violent way is for instance far more harmful to the victim, than the sort of comment Mona is alleged to have made. But is the problem with homophobia, or any prejudice, less to do with how people act on it, and more that it exists at all?

I guess my concern is the uncomfortableness I feel about deeming the sort of behaviour Mona is alleged to have shown somehow less reproachable. In a way, it's that kind of subtle form of prejudice which is more dangerous to the aim of achieving equality than more obvious forms of what we might more freely want to call "bigoted" behaviour.

Though I just want to also add that I'm not saying a Mona witch-hunt is the right thing to do here either, especially as we have yet to hear what she said, if at all. But that if it is true, I can understand these feelings of anger and sadness, even though it might not be the most overtly homophobic thing to say.

so if it's in a context you like racism and homophobia is OK!!??

That is not what is being equated.

What is being equated is the tendency for certain people to, without any reliable evidence, ascribe negative attributes to a person or group of people.

People who are homophobic generally seem to state that homosexuals are in some way bad* without any reliable evidence that that is the case.

Some people believe that Mona is in some way bad* when there is no reliable evidence that that is the case.

* Bad or something a lot more unpleasant.


A few people here, the moment there was the slightest sniff of homophobis, immediately began ranting and raving and calling Mona an evil bigoted woman when there is no real evidence that she is anything of the kind.

She was tried by a tabloid newspaper and a group of people here just couldn't wait to carry out the execution.

I think that the problem with an approach that considers the entire gamut of homophobic behaviour to be reprehensible to the same degree is that you will dilute the distaste that people are coming to have for the condition.

Whereas I would hope most people would now castigate anyone who was rude to or discriminated against the homosexual community, if you start crucifying people for relatively minor remarks made on the spur of the moment the term will begin to lose its power.

What Mona is alledged to have said doesn't even make any sense so calling her an evil, bigoted, woman on that basis seems a grotesque overreaction.

Fred Phelps is an evil bigoted moron.

Trying to equate Mona with the likes of him is counterproductive.

it's not a condition

it is a sexual orientation

Try reading what you are objecting to again.

Then try and understand it.

When you realise your mistake come back and apologise.

(stuffs better judgment down hard into its jar)

What I'm not really getting is that you see homphobia and a rush to judgment of somebody as being on the same level of bad behaviour yes?

And yet, your stated response to somebody being homophobic is to be friendly with them, and to sit down and have a reasoned discussion with them (which is laudable). It's to try to understand where they're coming from, to factor in their background, and not to insult them and try to alienate them, in an effort to bring them around to a "right way of thinking".

And yet you've done all of that for the people in this thread who've condemned Mona. You've called them disgusting, a "lynch mob", told them that they've got a chip on their shoulder, goaded them, insulted them, and given them no consideration for why they might have reacted irrationally.


The only person to have compared Mona to Fred Phelps in this discussion is you. Calling somebody a bigot is not equating them with Fred Phelps. If you had to be as flamboyantly offensive as Fred Phelps to be a homophobic bigot, there'd be about three homophobic bigots in the entire world, and unfortunately that's not the case.

Ok, I see there might be a point about diluting stigma attached to calling someone a homophobe. But what is the qualification for homophobic behaviour? Surely it is simply adverse discrimination against another person by virtue of their sexual orientation. So in essence, as long as that exists, it doesn't really matter how major or minor (how ever we conceive of those concepts) the action based on that attitude is. If we want to eradicate homophobia, we have to pull someone up on their homophobic behaviour, whatever that behaviour is. Incidentally I think the comment Mona is alleged to have made is rather offensive, and not really "minor". I'm not sure how we can categorise degrees of homophobia as I said. Plus I'm not sure a comment that's spur of the moment is anymore excusable or deserves any less reproach, but we don't really know yet what happened here so it's difficult to say either way. The point is someone should not be prejudiced so that the comment arises at all.

I agree once homophobic behaviour has been identified, then there is the difficulty of how to deal with it, and like I said, I don't think a witch-hunt or crucification is always (if ever) going to be the best response. And whilst I'm not one to, or to want to, have terms like "evil" and "bigot" bandied around, there is still room for reproach and a degree of anger.

My feeling is though that we can't lose sight of how prejudice operates, particularly in today's society. It isn't often through violence or aggression or obstinate refusal to interact with members of a particular group, but through far more subtle means. And if we lose our sense of indignation (different from calling someone a "bigot" or "evil" which are different things, the latter entirely!) at those incidences of discrimination, then we fail to properly fight homophobia, or any prejudice.

So this is why I feel it doesn't really matter how the homophobe acts. It is that they are homophobic in the first place. Now our reaction to that can't be ridiculous, but it must not also run the risk of treating these as "soft" cases or minor infractions.

How could that be?

There are vast ranges of egregiousness in both behaviours.



Can you not spot the difference?

Mona: Third hand hearsay evidence involving a tabloid newspaper.

People ranting and raving and labeling here: Ample, incontravertible, evidence that can be easily accessed by anyone who simply clicks on a few of the threads.


Mona has been called evil, bigoted and homophobic. And this has been stated as a fact.

Most people would agree that Fred Phelps is thoroughly deserving of those descriptors.

If you start applying similar descriptors to someone on the basis of a single off the cuff remark allegedly made but with no evidece other than hearsay from an unreliable source, then you will devalue the power of the words when used in that context. You cannot fail to do so.

If you reserve 'evil and bigoted' for those whose homophobia causes them to do evil things then it retains some meaning.

If people know that anti-homophobes will use those words to describe the smallest degree of homophobia despite not having any adequate evidence that even that degree seriously exists, then they will simply ignore them as noise, in the same way as marketing noise words such as 'new and improved' are almost universally ignored.

I re-read it
it still says condition and not sexual orientation
a second reading makes it no less unpleasant

You said specifically that you were equating them a few posts ago.



I wasn't comparing your stated raction to Mona and to people here. I was comparing your stated reaction to homophobes and people here, who you have equated.


You brought Fred Phelps into the discussion, nobody else mentioned him, and then you admonished people for equating Mona to Fred Phelps when nobody else did it. That reads like a prima facia straw man argument.

I don't disagree that nobody should be calling Mona a bigot or evil based on comments we haven't seen yet. It's got nothing to with Fred Phelps.

I think we're basically on the same wavelength.

I wasn't suggesting that there had to be some threshold of homophobic behaviour before you could call someone a homophobe. Just that there should be such a threshold before you start bandying around words such as 'evil' and 'bigoted'. You seem to agree.

As for catogorising degrees of homophobic behavior, I think you have to.

It's not that any degree is acceptable but it is a matter of proportionate response.

There is a great deal of difference between:

----
A: Let's try rebranding Margate as a homosexual resort.
B: That's a stupid idea, I wouldn't want my six year old meeting a homosexual man.
C: What an absurd and offensive thing to say.
B: Yes, it was. I'm sorry. I'm sure he's met several already. I just don't think that's a good idea for rebranding.
---

and

----
A: Let's try rebranding Margate as a homosexual resort.
B: That's a stupid idea, I wouldn't want my six year old meeting a homosexual man.
C: What an absurd and offensive thing to say.
B: Well, I wouldn't. It's disgusting and depraved and I don't want my children exposed to it.
---

Try again.

If you keep reading it you may eventually spot your mistake.

[quote=Tern;32326335]


Ok, but first, not everyone is applying those terms to Mona, so let's move away from that here for a second. I'm not calling her a bigot or evil, but I do feel offended if she said what is alleged and I feel Mona should be reproached for saying something like that (if she did indeed say it). So why does it matter that it was said somehow "off the cuff"? I could very well saying terribly hurtful things to people off the cuff. It doesn't seem to be a valid excuse for me to say, "well, I just wasn't thinking when I said that". Those kind of comments reveal an underlying prejudice.

As for the point about anti-homphobic reactions becoming white noise somehow, my feeling is here that it's really a problem for those people who think homophobia as a label is being bandied around too readily. If indeed, someone has behaved in a discriminatory way against gay people (as - if the story is true - I believe Mona has done) then how is that not the right time to say there has been homophobic behaviour and treat it with reproach accordingly? How serious does an act have to be before we can feel offended? My concern is that the people who you are suggesting might develop such an attitude are part and parcel of the problem.

Please remember I'm not talking about using words "bigot" and "evil" here. But isn't there a bit of problem if social attitudes are such that I have to feel reluctant about feeling reproach of someone's prejudiced behaviour and labelling it as such?

I think the point Tern was making about re-reading was to work out what was being described as a condition. It was referring to homophobia, not homosexuality.

However I have to say I agree with Monkseal here. You can't really say that just because people like Fred Phelps exist and are homophobic to such a degree, that you can't use the same descriptors for people who aren't quite as vehemently homophobic, but still very much homophobic nevertheless. His views and actions are certainly extremely distasteful to (I hope) most people, but there are others out there who actually murder people for being gay - and in certain countries they hang you for it! If you want to reserve evil and bigoted for Fred Phelps then what are you going to use for them? I guess that is the quintessential problem with pidgeon-holing - something which can certainly be a contributory factor to alienating certain sexual preferences!

Now I'm going to go out on a limb here and presume that Mona isn't in the same league as the above, but if the report is in anyway accurate then her comment is certainly rather alarming, and that sort of "mild homophobia" can be just as dangerous (if not moreso) than the ludicrously over the top nonsense of the likes of Phelps. With Phelps it is far easier to deride him for having unacceptable views when he is picketing funerals and proclaiming how evil being gay is. Views like those that Mona (apparently) holds can be much more difficult to challenge as it can be difficult to discover someone holds them and that they could be passing them on to the next generation - so when they are revealed it is important to point out that they are no less harmful.

Of course I am willing to wait for the program to air to see what it shows (though given the editing of these shows I'm not sure we will necessarily be given a better picture of what "really happened"), so for now that is all I plan to say on the matter.

No I didn't.

I equated two groups of people:

a) The group (identified as homophobes) who would label someone with various unpleasant attributes when there is no credible evidence that these apply

and

b) The group (identified by their actions here) who would label someone with various unpleasant attributes when there is no credible evidence that these apply.

I said they are in the same camp.

I.e. the camp of people who assign unpleasant attributes to people based on no credible evidence.


Only those and only in as much as those, have exibhited equateable behaviour.


Fred Phelps was brought into the argument because he is at the most extreme end of the homophobic spectrum

He most certainly deserves the epithets 'evil' and 'bigoted' (and a lot more besides). There are others with less extreme views who still deserve the same tags.

When you start labeling Mona with extreme words such as evil, you start to equate her with people who really deserve that description. And that, particularly in the absence of any seriously credible evidence, is a hysterical overreaction.

It will do nothing whatever to promote tolerance and understanding.


Good. Then we are agreed.

Yes I agree there is a difference between someone being "evil" or a "bigot" and being homophobic.

But I don't see how homophobia itself can be quantified. In the example you've given, situation one is just as homophobic. If, and unfortunately with Mona we only have hypotheticals, she just doesn't think Margate's going to work as a gay resort (which is not the sort of thing that happens overnight, &c &c), then why not just say that and give the business reasons for her argument. Why bring in the notion of not wanting her child to encounter gay people? Ok, so in example two, Mona is stubborn, but it does not make her initial comment any less homophobic. What if, in example three, she says, "I dunno; I'm not against gay people, it just makes me feel uncomfortable". Which is a reaction far more likely (in my experience anyhow), and I don't see how this is any less homophobic.

Sure, our reaction to 1, 2, and 3 might vary. In 2, I'm probably not going to bother trying to reason with that person. But my initial reaction to the comment made is going to be the same in all three cases. And that's the danger - to suppose that cases like 1 and 3 are somehow less worthy of reproach.

I'm sorry, we are in agreement but somehow you seem to keep seeing disagreements that aren't there.

If Mona said what she is alleged to have said then it was a homophobic comment.

If I had been present I would have admonished her for it.

My view of her would then be informed by her reaction.

If she immediately apologised and admitted that it was a stupid and offensive thing to say and didn't relect her true feelings (and I believed she was sincere), I'd have just let the matter drop, possibly saying that she should be careful of saying such things in future.

If she stood by her comment and started giving detailed, spurious, reasons I would agree that she did have a serious problem.

To be honest I wouldn't label anybody with the epithet "evil". It's an hysterical illogical hoodoo tabloid folk-psychology word, with connotations that the behaviour of people is determined by an unchangable core moral orientation. I don't think it's helpful at all in this sort of discussion no matter who it's ascribed to. But I understand that other people might use it, because the meaning of words is a thing that changes from person to person and not everybody uses them in a rote, uniform way.

All I'm saying is that I think you should give the same sort of patience, tolerance and understanding towards people who react irrationally and hysterically in attacking perceived homophobia as you have to Hypothetical Mona here and in other threads (she may feel she's acting to protect her children, she might be speaking without thinking, etc).

Well, there I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree.

There is a world of difference between the homophobia of, for example, a hetrosexual 18 year old who is still not confident in his own sexuality and find himself slightly uncomfortable around his gay friends and a sixty year old who has had decades to come to understand his own sexuality and still harbours an extreme and irrational fear for which there is no basis.

I think you are abslutely correct here.


Well, I would.

The difference is that here, on this forum, we have actual evidence of people reacting in an extreme manner to something for which there is little credible evidence.

Nontheless, if I was having a quiet chat with them I'd be just as understanding of the fact of their reaction whilst trying to persuade them that going over the top is probably counter-productive.

Yes I think we do agree on a number of points but I think there is a distinction in the way we are looking at things.

In a way - I think - it comes down to how we are looking at the "off the cuff" type comment, which was perhaps the nature of Mona's comment. I think for you it's her reaction to being admonished which is important, whereas for me, the more important thing is the very fact she said that in the first place. So, materially, at the moment the comment is made it affects me just the same, whether she later realises and apologises or whether she tries to stubbornly defend her position. And in that sense her homophobia in not quantifiable. If she relents and genuinely realises she was wrong, then she has dispelled her homophobic attitudes. It's an either-or situation for me.

I guess the real problem for me is that she would think in such a way to make a comment like that at all. Perhaps it's that I feel offence because of the thought (that the thought is even possible in someone's mind) rather than what that person actually says or does. Tackling homophobia, or any form of discrimination, ideally is less about people saying and doing the objectively right thing to do or apologising for mistakes, but changing attitdues. And for me attitudes aren't quantifiable. Sure, Hypo Mona's attitudes might be easier to change than the true bigot, but that doesn't mean the attitude she holds is any less homophobic or significant at the time.

I think maybe you might agree with this? Or else, yes, maybe it's an agree to disagree thing! Interesting, though.

Just generally sometimes I feel that society guns down the bigots and we use it to show how progressive we've become, when actually I think discrimination has just become a lot more subtle and underground, which makes it far more dangerous.

laters

You are just demonstrating your complete stupidity here.

That and a sad failure of any English language comprehension abilities you may have had.

Of course, it's even more laughable when you've actually been given the answer.

Edit: Does the fact that you've now edited your post mean that you've actaully twigged at last?