Afraid of being seen as gay, are you?

[matriarch]

This is the same impression I get. I wish I had your resolve to just 'stay out of it.'

Personally, I find the 'ignore' button very useful. Particularly in this case. It prevents me enduring levels of intense irritation so high as to be bad for my blood pressure.

Try it SP, it makes evenings on AH much more enjoyable.

Mat

 

[gauchecritic]

So now we have to start putting IMO on any and all socio/psychological thoughts that we want to communicate.

In the past (on the boards and still in RL) it was generally taken that an opinion, unless opposed, was taken as "common knowledge". If anyone did oppose it (Hendrix didn't play his guitar upside down) they would say they did and all would be well or argued about.

At the moment I am really tired of seeing arguement about conditional statements (conditional being what someone believes to be true and/or common knowledge) and bending pun intended) threads from general discussion on specific topics into arguements about whether "perhaps" should be added at the end of all possibly contentious sentences. (allegedly)

If anyone would like to take umbrage at this or feels miffed about not being singled out, then please feel free.

Gauche

 

[sweetnpetite]

So now we have to start putting IMO on any and all socio/psychological thoughts that we want to communicate.

In the past (on the boards and still in RL) it was generally taken that an opinion, unless opposed, was taken as "common knowledge". If anyone did oppose it (Hendrix didn't play his guitar upside down) they would say they did and all would be well or argued about.

At the moment I am really tired of seeing arguement about conditional statements (conditional being what someone believes to be true and/or common knowledge) and bending pun intended) threads from general discussion on specific topics into arguements about whether "perhaps" should be added at the end of all possibly contentious sentences. (allegedly)

If anyone would like to take umbrage at this or feels miffed about not being singled out, then please feel free.

Gauche

Allegedly, I think you are quite possibly right, perhaps and IMO. This should in no way be taken as a statement of fact.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

It is remarkable how many things are o.k. to say, without debate or contention or conflict, because they are "common knowledge" or "just someone's opinion"...

...and yet so many other things are not o.k., despite being justified by the exact same reason.

It is likely because "common knowledge" isn't necessarily common, nor is it necessarily knowledge, and "someone's opinion" can still be flat-out wrong--we just don't want to think our common knowledge or opinions are that way.

"Straight guys who are antigay are covering up for some flaw in their own psychology" is not necessarily true. Being able to point things like that out might save one person from thinking "Oh, because I have a friend who is antigay, they must be psychologically flawed" or "their hatred comes from fear"... when those aren't the case at all. By them knowing that just because someone says it on a message board and calls it "common knowledge" doesn't make anything true, they might just have a greater grasp of how the world works than they did before.

How a greater and more full understanding (even if part of that has to come from clarifying the erroneous and generalized) of how ideas relate, how people think, and what's true and not is a bad thing is quite beyond me.

Of course, that's all just my opinion and is just common knowledge. Don't insult the world by arguing against it because its all subjective anyway and in MY experience everyone I know thinks its true, so obviously you're just trying to be a nuisance by arguing with things that /you/ think aren't true just to prove yourself smarter, and if that doesn't work then my words mean whatever I want to invent them to mean so as to be right.

:rolls eyes:

 

[CharleyH]

Took a few courses in it. There are a lot of theories as to homophobia.

Ya, I took a big one too. It's called experience.

"Philosophy students always have a tendency to argue correctness, and it isn't til they work on their Phd's when they start to realize that its all a bunch of bull shit."

Who said that?

Anyhow, have only breezed through the posts, but will eventually add my own dollar twenty-five.

 

[gauchecritic]

"Straight guys who are antigay are covering up for some flaw in their own psychology" is not necessarily true. Being able to point things like that out might save one person from thinking "Oh, because I have a friend who is antigay, they must be psychologically flawed" or "their hatred comes from fear"... when those aren't the case at all. By them knowing that just because someone says it on a message board and calls it "common knowledge" doesn't make anything true, they might just have a greater grasp of how the world works than they did before.

How a greater and more full understanding (even if part of that has to come from clarifying the erroneous and generalized) of how ideas relate, how people think, and what's true and not is a bad thing is quite beyond me.

Why can you not admit that anti-gay is a psychological flaw?

The original word was homophobia. PHOBIA. Fear. Are you saying phobias aren't flaws?

I'll bet you've never had a really really good arguement, the kind where you change position just to be in opposition. The kind of arguement that's about how you feel about something and the only reason your argueing is to make someone look silly, without a shred of evidence to back up your ideas and when you finally get them to admit you're right you then start arguing back from their original point of view.

clarifying erroneous and generalised views takes the meat out of argueing. Argueing is about ideas not about how we think about ideas. That's just an exchange, it's not an arguement.

Knowing what's true and what isn't would lead to no arguements at all, then where would you be?

Where would be your aeroplanes, your trains, your quantum computers? They would all be impossible because no one would question "the truth".

Gauche

edited to add: I've forgotten, if they had no questions for "the truth" they could always question veracity instead.

edited again to add:

Originally posted by Joe
Of course, that's all just my opinion and is just common knowledge. Don't insult the world by arguing against it because its all subjective anyway and in MY experience everyone I know thinks its true, so obviously you're just trying to be a nuisance by arguing with things that /you/ think aren't true just to prove yourself smarter, and if that doesn't work then my words mean whatever I want to invent them to mean so as to be right.

:rolls eyes:

That was funny up to the last half of the last sentence. (Drier is funnier) But you still haven't answered the main question Joe: Have you stopped shagging blokes?

 

[sweetnpetite]

Knowing what's true and what isn't would lead to no arguements at all, then where would you be?

Gauche

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by gauchecritic
Why can you not admit that anti-gay is a psychological flaw?

The original word was homophobia. PHOBIA. Fear. Are you saying phobias aren't flaws?

I'll bet you've never had a really really good arguement, the kind where you change position just to be in opposition. The kind of arguement that's about how you feel about something and the only reason your argueing is to make someone look silly, without a shred of evidence to back up your ideas and when you finally get them to admit you're right you then start arguing back from their original point of view.

Do you really want me to answer your questions, or do you want to assume the answers?

clarifying erroneous and generalised views takes the meat out of argueing. Argueing is about ideas not about how we think about ideas. That's just an exchange, it's not an arguement.

Arguing is about ideas and the relations of those ideas. Its about premises and conclusions and their relations.

Knowing what's true and what isn't would lead to no arguements at all, then where would you be?.

Someone who knew the truth? Not sure your point here. If everyone knew the real truth about everything? I think that's a fantastic vision. A great thing. A noble goal.

Where would be your aeroplanes, your trains, your quantum computers? They would all be impossible because no one would question "the truth".

I think we'd have them pretty quickly, because everyone would know "the truth" about how they work. Lift, wing design, steam power engines, electricity, quantum-stuff... if everyone knew the truth, there wouldn't be questions, but imagine all the stuff we could do because we'd know how to do it!

Cure cancer, because we know the truth about cancer--how, why, what causes, how to kill it, etc. Make a better mousetrap. A superior alternative to the internal combustion engine. Relativity? Gravity?

 

[Guest]

... If everyone knew the real truth about everything? I think that's a fantastic vision. A great thing. A noble goal.

Jeezus, Joe, I can't believe you used the word 'noble'. But I do have a better idea about your definition for 'truth', which unfortunately strikes me as utterly boring.

I do not ever mean to disparage you, but you give me (us) so little to work with.

Perdita

 

[Guest]

Why can you not admit that anti-gay is a psychological flaw?

I really would like to read a straight (pun intended), and hopefully brief, answer to this from Joe (who I hope appreciates or might even enjoy Gauche's wit and humour).

Perdita

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by perdita
Jeezus, Joe, I can't believe you used the word 'noble'. But I do have a better idea about your definition for 'truth', which unfortunately strikes me as utterly boring.

I do not ever mean to disparage you, but you give me (us) so little to work with.

Perdita

I wouldn't worry about me feeling disparaged. Don't sweat it.

But, yeah, "truth" ain't gotta be "interesting".

 

[Guest]

But, yeah, "truth" ain't gotta be "interesting".

Ok, now that is an intriguing statement. Will you explain it? P.

 

[Liar]

Why can you not admit that anti-gay is a psychological flaw?

The original word was homophobia. PHOBIA. Fear. Are you saying phobias aren't flaws?

Was about to pop in and ask the same thing. Aren't phobias by definition a pcychological flaw, an unproportional and/or unjustified fear of something particular. Arachnophobes are afraid of spiders. Knowledge of harmless little eight legged thingamajigs close by makes them feel genuine fear. Are homophobes different?

Hit me wif ya dictionaries, folx.

#L

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by gauchecritic
Why can you not admit that anti-gay is a psychological flaw?

As per request...

*drum roll*

Because it may not be, and we cannot say for certain whether it is or isn't until such a time as we can substantiante the claim (likely, in a scientific way more substantial than "oh, but everyone just knows its true"). Until then, its only a mere possibility.

*snare*

Thank you.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Liar
Was about to pop in and ask the same thing. Aren't phobias by definition a pcychological flaw, an unproportional and/or unjustified fear of something particular. Arachnophobes are afraid of spiders. Knowledge of harmless little eight legged thingamajigs close by makes them feel genuine fear. Are homophobes different?

Hit me wif ya dictionaries, folx.

#L

There's the rub. Most of the stuff I've dealt with in Gender Studies stuff freely admit that "homophobia" is not really a scientific or clinical term. Any more than "Beatle-mania" is. Its a buzzword.

Phobias /are/ psychological conditions.

"Homophobia" is the term used to describe violent or aversive behavior or persons toward homosexuals. Those individuals don't really fit a lot of clinical limitations. They're not really "afraid", they aren't subject to the same physiological responses that people with arachnophobia have when they're exposed to spiders.

Its a buzzword... not a medical term.

 

[sweetnpetite]

this may be the single best post to the thread thusfar. And makes the whole darn thing worthwile.

I only wish that the post had shown up on *my* thread. (the one about religion, which has naturally turned into one about logic.)

Why can you not admit that anti-gay is a psychological flaw?

The original word was homophobia. PHOBIA. Fear. Are you saying phobias aren't flaws?

I'll bet you've never had a really really good arguement, the kind where you change position just to be in opposition. The kind of arguement that's about how you feel about something and the only reason your argueing is to make someone look silly, without a shred of evidence to back up your ideas and when you finally get them to admit you're right you then start arguing back from their original point of view.

clarifying erroneous and generalised views takes the meat out of argueing. Argueing is about ideas not about how we think about ideas. That's just an exchange, it's not an arguement.

Knowing what's true and what isn't would lead to no arguements at all, then where would you be?

Where would be your aeroplanes, your trains, your quantum computers? They would all be impossible because no one would question "the truth".

Gauche

edited to add: I've forgotten, if they had no questions for "the truth" they could always question veracity instead.

edited again to add:

 

[sweetnpetite]

As per request...

*drum roll*

Because it may not be, and we cannot say for certain whether it is or isn't until such a time as we can substantiante the claim (likely, in a scientific way more substantial than "oh, but everyone just knows its true"). Until then, its only a mere possibility.

*snare*

Thank you.

>>>>>>>>>Joe, perhaps expecting applause, or maybe even a standing ovations, gets booed off stage.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

 

[Liar]

There's the rub. Most of the stuff I've dealt with in Gender Studies stuff freely admit that "homophobia" is not really a scientific or clinical term. Any more than "Beatle-mania" is. Its a buzzword.

Right. Exactly what I was thinking. If we are happily flogging argumentation logic to a painful death, I'd like to start with argumentation semantics. If we don't have a common ground as to what the words we use when debating means, then what are we debating about?

Whoop, this could go on like forever.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by sweetnpetite
>>>>>>>>>Joe, perhaps expecting applause, or maybe even a standing ovations, gets booed off stage.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Joe expects nothing.

But when someone pays for a show, they shouldn't complain when the performer does his thang.

 

[Guest]

Of course I have no irrefutable proof, but 'homophobia' is not a buzzword and not comparable to 'Beatlemania'.

from here: (a UC psych dept site)

"Society's rethinking of sexual orientation was crystallized in the term homophobia, which heterosexual psychologist George Weinberg coined in the late 1960s. Weinberg used homophobia to label heterosexuals' dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals as well as homosexuals' self loathing. The word first appeared in print in 1969 and was subsequently discussed at length in Weinberg's 1972 book, Society and the Healthy Homosexual.

The American Heritage Dictionary (1992 edition) defines homophobia as "aversion to gay or homosexual people or their lifestyle or culture" and "behavior or an act based on this aversion." Other definitions identify homophobia as an irrational fear of homosexuality."

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by perdita
Of course I have no irrefutable proof, but 'homophobia' is not a buzzword and not comparable to 'Beatlemania'.

from here: (a UC psych dept site)

"Society's rethinking of sexual orientation was crystallized in the term homophobia, which heterosexual psychologist George Weinberg coined in the late 1960s. Weinberg used homophobia to label heterosexuals' dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals as well as homosexuals' self loathing. The word first appeared in print in 1969 and was subsequently discussed at length in Weinberg's 1972 book, Society and the Healthy Homosexual.

The American Heritage Dictionary (1992 edition) defines homophobia as "aversion to gay or homosexual people or their lifestyle or culture" and "behavior or an act based on this aversion." Other definitions identify homophobia as an irrational fear of homosexuality."

An excellent point. It /is/ more than just a buzzword. This best identifies the reasons I stand against it being considered the same thing as other phobias (and psychological disorders, in general)...

http://www.cwfa.org/articles/674/CFI/cfreport/

 

[Colleen Thomas]

After reading the all the Olympic stories, I have noticed that there are few references to gay males. I find this curious, since there are plenty of gay women in these stories.

I wondered why this is - if, in the fantasy of satire, humour etc. seemingly straight women can be gay, why the aversion to a gay male sex scene? Are people afraid of writing a scene in, afraid of offending tender male ego's? Why is it acceptable for lesbian scenes? Are we unconciously catering to the male reader?

I dunno, just a thought, and a conversation for a Saturday morning.

Some of the women who volunteered their persona's asked not to be used in a lesbian scene. I was used in a straight scene and the writer asked my permission, a very chivilrous gesture, in my opinion.

I think the main thing is we are all working off each other's persona. With the exception of Pops and maybe a few others, the guys don't play at being queens much, while most of the even very straight ladies don't mind flirting with another woman here and there. It's fun to write each other and in some cases, even pick on each other. I had a blast with Rumple & Raphy & Lou.

But it is all in fun and while Rumple might not get upset in the least at being portrayed in a gay scene, I wouldn't thrust him into one (pardon the pun) for fear of offending. I think one of the really neato things about the olympics is how we all abuse one another, but at the same time, show such respect and affection for one another.

-Colly

 

[Guest]

An excellent point. It /is/ more than just a buzzword. This best identifies the reasons I stand against it being considered the same thing as other phobias (and psychological disorders, in general)...

The study is interesting, and I somewhat understand your 'stand', Joe, but I think what we do not, or cannot thoroughly consider on such a forum as this (fleeting posts) is the range of prejudice or fear that a word like homophobia might encompass. The article compares it to racism, which also has a widespread authority. Homophobia and racism have both been expressed in criminal actions, but I know not all homophobes and racists feel that strongly. Anyway, that's all I want to say now, I'm not going to write an essay on it.

Perdita

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by perdita
The study is interesting, and I somewhat understand your 'stand', Joe, but I think what we do not, or cannot thoroughly consider on such a forum as this (fleeting posts) is the range of prejudice or fear that a word like homophobia might encompass. The article compares it to racism, which also has a widespread authority. Homophobia and racism have both been expressed in criminal actions, but I know not all homophobes and racists feel that strongly. Anyway, that's all I want to say now, I'm not going to write an essay on it.

Perdita

On a personal note. I am entirely disgusted and just reviled by the idea of extremes like racism and homophobia. Truly. One cannot be a good logician or philosopher or Catholic and tolerate those kinds of hatred. I think it an amazing cop-out to call people who are violently anti-gay or homophobic "just crazy".

"Its just their psychological framework out of whack", "It's just an inner self realization complex", "Its just confronting their own sexuality". Sometimes, people need to have the balls to say "There's nothing wrong with them... they're just being jerkoffs, they're being hate-mongers, they're being racists and homophobes because they choose to".

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Bump, this is good.