Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (10619)	4/24/2002 8:31:01 PM
From: Poet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

I so disagree. On top of that,your fascination with and disapproval of the accepted usage of this word is interesting. Why so much discomfort with calling a spade a spade in this regard?

To: TimF who wrote (10619)	4/24/2002 8:45:53 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

I won't argue with any of your reasoning- as I said I did understand it, just didn't agree with it-- and I sincerely thank you for understanding what I was saying. I do wonder if most phobias don't have their roots in a rational fear or belief that through some association of events and obsessive thinking, just got out of control. So out with homophobia! Do we need a new word for someone who is disgusted and sickened and morally outraged by homosexuality, but does not hate them or have an irrational fear of them? Or is there one out there already?

To: TimF who wrote (10619)	4/24/2002 9:18:58 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

IF it is ok to bash homosexuality, surely it is ok to bash people who bash homosexuality. At the very least when you bash people who bash homosexuality, you aren't bashing an already persecuted minority (which is rather dirty dog dealing, imo)

To: TimF who wrote (10619)	4/24/2002 9:45:41 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Normally words with the word phobia in them mean a strong irrational even self damaging fear of something. Words grow to reflect their usefulness in furthering accurate social communication. "Homophobia" is an excellent example of that. Its meaning is standard and it is clear. It is capricious and feckless to argue about that. What is important is that you use it accurately as to its meaning. I really don't follow the huge problem you seem to be having with such a simple idea. Homophobia refers to "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals" I guess you understand what fear is; and I suppose that the word "aversion" is not entirely abstruse; and "discrimination" is hardly a challenge to an educated man. So we are only left with the word, "OR". In general, the context or the commentary makes clear in what way a person is self describing their feelings toward homosexuality. Homophobia is a word to describe the way some people feel about or judge homosexuals. There is nothing forcing you to be ashamed of the word. If you think that discriminating against, or fearing, or feeling repugnance for homosexuals is something to be proud of, then you have every right to consider that the description reflects positively on your moral character. So what is the problem? The word has evolved to cover a larger area than merely fear. Words do evolve. What is the problem, Tim. If you don't fear homosexuals, or discriminate against then, or feel a repugnance toward them, then you are not homophobic. If you do discriminate against them or feel a repugnance for them, or an irrational fear...then you are. Whether or not you are homophobic, does not prevent you from an opinion as to whether or not being homophobic is something which one may rightfully be proud of. So what is the problem? Would you like to call people who are merely scared s-itless of homosexuals something like "classic" homophobes? How many of those are around?

To: TimF who wrote (10619)	4/24/2002 9:54:50 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

I think there is some logic to what you say, but from the point of view of a person who has a live-and-let-live attitude where what other people do with their private parts in private is concerned, the sheer cathectedness of gayness to some people (a cathectedness so great that ordinarily civilized people would, if they had their way, doom some of their fellow citizens to loveless lives) it sure looks like some sort of deep fear. My mother and grandmother were homophobes, though they had no idea that fear was involved in their persecution of my aunt. Their conscious thought went something like that what they wanted in bed and in a mate was so much better than what she wanted that they should be able to have love and passion and sex and she should be able to have a dog.