How do you argue that you're not homophobic/racist/etc?
- Thread starter Headsprouter
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Either ignore it or attack the word itself. Its a stupid loaded word based on some half baked research that was debunked a long time ago. Its still used today by people who refuse to acknowledge any nuance in this discussion because they know it plays better in sound bites if you came frame it as a either/or proposition.
Thats my problem with the movement as it stands today, either you love gay people a big huggy bunch or you hate them and fear them, and nothing in between. If you're a public figure, your opinion has to be on record, its mandatory. You can't express any opinion of being against it and you aren't even allowed to be quiet about it. And once its on record, the press will rant about you.
Thats my problem with the movement as it stands today, either you love gay people a big huggy bunch or you hate them and fear them, and nothing in between. If you're a public figure, your opinion has to be on record, its mandatory. You can't express any opinion of being against it and you aren't even allowed to be quiet about it. And once its on record, the press will rant about you.
Though one could argue that contemporary modern Christianity - going as far as The Advocate's Person of the Year 2013, Pope Francis - doesn't cause that pain or suffering. For instance, here a Lutheran priest may bless a gay couple's civil union and I don't see that changing (the blessings) when same-sex marriage eventually becomes law (probably soon after the governmental election next year). Of course, this would mean one has to categorize Christians a bit [more], which could seem disingenuous.Vault101 said:
The funny thing is that arguments against it are always really thin. If one holds a heterosexual couple having kids as the highest ideal, acceptance of gay acts is bad because it could encourage bisexuals to waste their heterosexual potential. And gays should remain celibate. The best counter-argument is a simple one: we'll get over it. We'll manage. Society can deal with childless couples just like it deals with... childless couples... and singles! Those lazy, unmarried single people! In the end it's mostly meaningless quibble, because for some people the argument (or at least what everything boils down to) is sin - an illogical argument with vague rhetoric.Nyaliva said:
Yeah, off-topic, but my two cents were attracted to the non-debate going about in this thread.
My reply would be, "I'm sorry, but I don't give a damn about your artificially engineered labels that aim to redefine my values as prejudices".
Also I might point out that I married a chinese agnostic woman and have half-blood children.
But I usually don't. I don't feel like I have to prove anything to anyone.
Also I might point out that I married a chinese agnostic woman and have half-blood children.
But I usually don't. I don't feel like I have to prove anything to anyone.
Not to sound flippant, but to be completely honest with you, its not something I concern myself with, waste any time on, or stress over. *I* know what I am, and what my values are, and that is good enough for me. I know what my wife and kids think of me, as well as my parents, and my friends, and beyond that I dont really give a damn what someone thinks about me.Headsprouter said:
Take that approach, and you will sleep just fine at night.
I have a hard time taking anyone seriously when they casually use labels like racist or sexist or sjw if I disagree with them or do something of which they don't approve, so I don't really worry much about it. If I think what they're saying is influencing a third party's opinion of me then I'll let my true nature prove my worth, and if the third party can't see that through the second party's stupidity then fuck them, too.
Actions are more important than words in the real world, and while I may tell racist jokes or use homophobic slurs, that has nothing to do with my valuation and treatment of individuals or groups. Where one sticks what doesn't have an effect on how I would treat one in person. I would not hire a man over a woman for simply having a penis. If I saw two black and white men hanging off a cliff and could only save one, skin color wouldn't influence my decision. I would offer assistance to a woman being abused by her husband because she didn't do the dishes even though I crack jokes about black eyes. I just need excitement to feel excited, and following the rules of polite society simply isn't exciting.
If you're insulting someone there's also something to be said for breaking polite society's rules. No one's going to take you seriously if restraint and respect are showing through your anger because they betray your excessive rule-conscientiousness, and rule-conscientiousness means you're not willing to go very far to defeat your opponent. If you don't care that much then you don't have the drive to go after them and you can safely be dismissed. GG, nerd. GG.
I refuse to be blamed for the alleged societal affects of my speech vis a vis devaluation of minorities and I feel I have significant cause to doubt the relevance of these things. While I was raised by a racist, homophobic, sexist father and I get a kick out of being a petty contrarian, multicultural integration is nevertheless tantamount to normalcy as far as I'm concerned, so jokes and environment are obviously not the foundation of discrimination and equality. Even if stupidity of others might be, I'm not going to sacrifice a modicum of entertainment because they're too lazy, or complacent, or poorly developed to think for themselves. Life's just too goddamn short and pointless for that.
I don't have to justify myself to others and these are sufficient to justify my behavior to myself. ymmv.
Actions are more important than words in the real world, and while I may tell racist jokes or use homophobic slurs, that has nothing to do with my valuation and treatment of individuals or groups. Where one sticks what doesn't have an effect on how I would treat one in person. I would not hire a man over a woman for simply having a penis. If I saw two black and white men hanging off a cliff and could only save one, skin color wouldn't influence my decision. I would offer assistance to a woman being abused by her husband because she didn't do the dishes even though I crack jokes about black eyes. I just need excitement to feel excited, and following the rules of polite society simply isn't exciting.
If you're insulting someone there's also something to be said for breaking polite society's rules. No one's going to take you seriously if restraint and respect are showing through your anger because they betray your excessive rule-conscientiousness, and rule-conscientiousness means you're not willing to go very far to defeat your opponent. If you don't care that much then you don't have the drive to go after them and you can safely be dismissed. GG, nerd. GG.
I refuse to be blamed for the alleged societal affects of my speech vis a vis devaluation of minorities and I feel I have significant cause to doubt the relevance of these things. While I was raised by a racist, homophobic, sexist father and I get a kick out of being a petty contrarian, multicultural integration is nevertheless tantamount to normalcy as far as I'm concerned, so jokes and environment are obviously not the foundation of discrimination and equality. Even if stupidity of others might be, I'm not going to sacrifice a modicum of entertainment because they're too lazy, or complacent, or poorly developed to think for themselves. Life's just too goddamn short and pointless for that.
I don't have to justify myself to others and these are sufficient to justify my behavior to myself. ymmv.
Yeah, like it's OK to be black, so it's just as OK to be racist!Rastrelly said:
...You're joking, right? I'm actually asking, I'm not sure.
As far as I'm concerned, as long as someone doesn't take direct and intentional action that either inhibits or damages a specific group of people, they are not meaningfully racist. They can still be racist, but not enough for me to care in the slightest. Sure, they may still harbor negative thoughts, but thought crimes aren't a thing (yet).
The point is, everyone has a different definition of what racist/phobic really means. Trying to appeal to all of them is fruitless.
The point is, everyone has a different definition of what racist/phobic really means. Trying to appeal to all of them is fruitless.
The solution to this one seems simple to me. You avoid being accused of it by not being homophobic, or racist, or sexist, etc. If you find yourself coming under fire for these things, examine why that may be.
You don't, you shut up and listen to the reasons someone said you were homophobic/racist/etc. and change your behavior or language accordingly.
So when somebody calls you names, the thing to do is to take their insults to heart and let abusive people define who you are as a person? Got it.DibsOnPyro said:
Just something to put out there. I got called a racist a few months ago because I would not let someone use an employees only bathroom. I've been called a racist many times by people who were just angry or who just didn't get their way. There is really no way to argue against that. You just kind of laugh it off because that person is obviously miserable if they feel the need to throw around those accusations when its clearly not applicable. Something to consider for all the people saying "just shut up and think about what you did wrong". Its just a tool to shut people down and keep them quiet in my experience. Actual racists probably don't give a damn if they get called racist.
I don't know I mean in the end they fall for the same biases that you and I fall for on a day to day bases. They just come to different conclusion. I can't say with any certainty that if I was brought up like most homophobes I wouldn't also be a homophobe.Fetzenfisch said:
You might want to think about editing that. It goes against the Code of Conduct to call people "trolls."KingDragonlord said: