Vajayjay is the kid who lives downstairs. I assume you're talking about vaginas. I don't know why, exactly. I also don't know why "meh" wasn't an option.

Parkers_Tan Wrote:I think you're taking the etymology of the word too literally, rather than focusing on usage, which is, of course, the crux of language.

^ this, absolutely. As I said, Rocketsurgon was correct etymologically but language is a lot more complicated than just defining things etymologically.

It's ironic that he said I seemed 'so angry' he has lost his shit far more than I ever did

(October 7, 2015 at 4:06 am)robvalue Wrote: I'm away for one day, and this is what happens!

I know!  I missed you!

hey rob, I thought you might like this cute animal rescue story:

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-bu...37140.html

Robvalue is awesome.

Aww, you did? Thank you! I missed you guys too. And thank you Evie! Wow you've both put a big smile on my face You're both awesome.

I appreciate the link, I'll check out the cuteness!

Yes, I become angry when my argument is repeatedly straw-manned even after I have explained what I am and am not saying numerous times, and I see the strawman version gaining momentum. Even now, people are claiming I called you a homophobe (and thus a bigot) simply because I said that there may be unexamined elements of homophobia in your thought processes (and mine, and theirs).

My illustrative analogous example, about the difference between the traditional use of the term "racist" and the actuality of having a culture-shaped thought process that may include some elements of racism, even though the person is not "a racist", was ignored.

The usual time when I have this kind of wall-of-misunderstanding type of argument is when trying to talk about racial bias issues and the culture behind racism, when people will repeatedly say "how dare you call me a racist!!" and assert that I am misusing the term, etc, all as is going on here. It's infuriating, and it's a way of refusing to really look at the issue being raised. Perhaps reading the article "I, Racist" will help to understand why I consider the two issues to be parallel, and why I get so angry at my words being twisted because people are butt-hurt about the suggestion that they might harbor some feelings they have not examined, and which they would expunge from their thought processes if they did examine them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-metta...70652.html

I never called anyone immature. I never called anyone bigot. I never said that anyone should be ashamed of their sexual tastes, nor that they are bad people for not having a particular taste. And yet this keeps being said as if I said it. None of these things are in any way related to what I said.

If you wish to ignore my suggestions/ideas, fine. But please don't turn them into arguments I did not make, and then use the strawman to attack me, and then suggest that I have some kind of problem when I reacted to that attack.

I'm on to you Robvalue.
You can't pretend to be nice forever.
(evil laughter) Hahahahahaaaa.

Yes, valuable rob is correctly named. 

Rocket you may not be angry but your presentation is vigorous. 

(October 7, 2015 at 3:27 am)Losty Wrote:

(October 7, 2015 at 3:11 am)MTL Wrote: I can't argue with that;

however I don't think it hurts to encourage people to challenge THEMSELVES on their initial, knee-jerk reactions to things.

For instance, I would never say to a pair of gay men who decided that they didn't want to have anal sex,
"Oh, but you're gay, you SHOULDN'T have any problem with that! "

but part of the reason I wouldn't say that to them is because a pair of openly gay men have probably already tried or discussed this issue, in some detail, by that point in their lives.

Whereas, if I encountered some rednecky straight guy who couldn't even stand to be in the same room as a gay man (even if the straight guy didn't disagree with LGBT rights), I would encourage, given the opportunity, the straight man to question himself as to WHY simply being in the same room as a gay man was such a repulsive idea?

I'm just saying that people should be willing to ask THEMSELVES why they react with revulsion to things that might not be any threat to them....whether it's something sexual, or something mundane and banal.

I also agree with this completely. There's nothing wrong with asking or encouraging people to question or challenge themselves.

I just think it's wrong to label a person as a homophobe or a bigot (because let's face it a homophobe is a bigot) just because the personally are disgusted for themselves.

Well, I see where you're coming from, but homophobia, by its true definition, simply means a fear of something.

But it is a bad word in our culture, because....true....it usually goes hand-in-hand with bigotry.

But I do think it's possible for someone, at least in theory, to be "homophobic" without being a bigot;

that is, having the fear, but acknowledging it, taking responsibility and ownership of it,
and endeavoring to overcome it.

I have a little anecdote that kind of illustrates this:

when I was 18, I attended my first International Women's Day event.

There were multiple "workshops" posted for attendees to choose from.

I chose to attend a workshop entitled:  "Homophobia - Healing Ourselves"

Now, in my youth and naïveté, I foolishly assumed that this was a workshop
for straight people who were admittedly homophobic,
who were interested in overcoming their homophobia

...when, in fact, it was no such thing.

I was disappointed, I was all set to offer my arguments against homophobia;

But it was actually a workshop for LGBT people who had suffered as a result of the homophobia of others, of course.

Anyway, I think it's theoretically possible that someone could feel homophobia,
and be admittedly ashamed of it,

which to me is not really bigotry.

Bigotry is more like when someone thinks that their prejudice is well-founded
and unapologetically oppose anyone who fits into that category.

To prove this point, I've also argued with unapologetic, flagrant bigots,
who OBJECTED to being called "homophobic" for the same reason:
they opined that it was a phobia, and they asserted that they did not suffer from a phobia, per se,
or a fear, of gay people.

They simply asserted that it was gross or whatever; an insult to nature or to god;
whatever their idiotic reason was.

But the point is, they also maintained that a phobia was a fear of something,
and that fear, specifically, was not their issue.

(I'm not saying I agree with that, but it underlines the etymology of the term).

In other words, someone may not be able to help feeling fear or aversion to something,
but in a way, if they own their phobia and endeavor to overcome it,

in a way, that is even more meritorious than someone who never had the phobia in the first place.

It reminds me of the old illustration between fearlessness, and true bravery:

Someone who has no fear of something is not brave.  They are simply fearless.

But someone who is terrified of something, and does it anyway,

has overcome their fear.....that is bravery.

Likewise, it could be argued that it is possible to be an anti-LGBT bigot, and NOT be phobic of gay people (I guess)

and it is also possible to be admittedly repulsed or fearful of gay people,
but know that it is unreasonable and unfounded,
and believe that the LGBT have as many rights as anyone else,
and own your phobia and try to overcome it.

(October 7, 2015 at 9:41 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Yes, I become angry when my argument is repeatedly straw-manned even after I have explained what I am and am not saying numerous times, and I see the strawman version gaining momentum. Even now, people are claiming I called you a homophobe (and thus a bigot) simply because I said that there may be unexamined elements of homophobia in your thought processes (and mine, and theirs).

---

My illustrative analogous example, about the difference between the traditional use of the term "racist" and the actuality of having a culture-shaped thought process that may include some elements of racism, even though the person is not "a racist", was ignored.

The usual time when I have this kind of wall-of-misunderstanding type of argument is when trying to talk about racial bias issues and the culture behind racism, when people will repeatedly say "how dare you call me a racist!!" and assert that I am misusing the term, etc, all as is going on here. It's infuriating, and it's a way of refusing to really look at the issue being raised. Perhaps reading the article "I, Racist" will help to understand why I consider the two issues to be parallel, and why I get so angry at my words being twisted because people are butt-hurt about the suggestion that they might harbor some feelings they have not examined, and which they would expunge from their thought processes if they did examine them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-metta...70652.html

I never called anyone immature. I never called anyone bigot. I never said that anyone should be ashamed of their sexual tastes, nor that they are bad people for not having a particular taste. And yet this keeps being said as if I said it. None of these things are in any way related to what I said.

If you wish to ignore my suggestions/ideas, fine. But please don't turn them into arguments I did not make, and then use the strawman to attack me, and then suggest that I have some kind of problem when I reacted to that attack.

---

But you didn't say that at first. At first you said, "If you are repulsed, rather than simply disinterested, at the thought of sexual activity with a man, then you have some homophobia."

It's so easy to ask people to reevaluate how they feel without saying this. It comes off as accusatory. I'm sure you can understand how someone could react negatively to you saying they have "some homophobia".

Come on, I get your point now and I think MTL illustrated it wonderfully without saying anything that reads as an insult.

A lot of people think they weren't raised to be homophobic but they fail to realize that people aren't raised only by their parents. Subtle messages in media and from our community and peers teach us to be homophobic. People should certainly always reevaluate their thoughts. Over and over and even over again.

You just...if you word things a certain way like starting of by telling a person that they have some homophobia, you can expect people will have a negative reaction to that accusation, whether you meant it to be an accusation or not.