Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Nov 13, 11:12 pm, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <bb65dd9e-5792-49b3-a79d-7c43ec56b...@a14g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> > Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 13, 9:19 pm, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > > How is saying Maddow is ugly homophobic?
> > > > It may not be nice, but it's not indicative that Macke fears
> > > > gay people.
> > > Where, in the provided article, is the Fox affiliate reporter quoted
> > > as saying Dr. Maddow is ugly?
> > Calling a woman man-like in appearance is synonymous with calling her
> > ugly.
> It's also synonymous with calling her a bull dyke.
If you say so. I don't know much about them. But even accepting your claim as true, all you've done is establish there are multiple meanings and interpretations possible here. You have no basis for declaring yours to be fact.
> >Even if you don't agree, it's certainly not synonymous with being
> > afraid of gay people.
> Yes it is. People use insults to deflect their irrational fears every
> second of every day... just ask your therapist.
Ah, the ad hom. I knew you'd get around to that sooner rather than later.
>>>> It doesn't usually refer to actual "fear" in this case. Few
>>>> people fear gays in the same way that they might fear spiders,
>>>> snakes, or heights. They just don't like them or their
>>>> lifestyle, or don't like allowing them to have more rights in
>>>> society.
>>> Which, while arguably unfair and narrow-minded, is neither
>>> extreme nor irrational, which removes them from even your
>>> dictionary's definition of 'homophobic'.
>> OK, then please give examples of homophobia that meet your definition?
> I'm not allowed to. Only gay people can use gay slurs in today's
> America. Just as blacks are the only ones allowed to use the
> 'n-word'. Everyone else is forbidden, even in the context of
> analysis of the words themselves, even when devoid of any bigoted
> intent, from even mentioning those words.
> In article
> <9e794432-a9e9-407a-8bba-8bcfcfb39...@o8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 13, 11:12 pm, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <bb65dd9e-5792-49b3-a79d-7c43ec56b...@a14g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Tom <drso...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 13, 9:19 pm, BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > > > How is saying Maddow is ugly homophobic?
> > > > > It may not be nice, but it's not indicative that Macke fears
> > > > > gay people.
> > > > Where, in the provided article, is the Fox affiliate reporter quoted
> > > > as saying Dr. Maddow is ugly?
> > > Calling a woman man-like in appearance is synonymous with calling her
> > > ugly.
> > It's also synonymous with calling her a bull dyke.
> If you say so. I don't know much about them. But even accepting your
> claim as true, all you've done is establish there are multiple meanings
> and interpretations possible here. You have no basis for declaring yours
> to be fact.
Just as you have no basis for declaring yours as fact.
> > >Even if you don't agree, it's certainly not synonymous with being
> > > afraid of gay people.
> > Yes it is. People use insults to deflect their irrational fears every
> > second of every day... just ask your therapist.
> Ah, the ad hom. I knew you'd get around to that sooner rather than later.
Ah, the passive-aggressive bullshit... always a can't miss with you.
> >>> The word "homophobia" is generally used incorrectly to refer to
> >>> any bigotry against homosexuals.
> >> Words mean what people generally use them to mean.
> > I can call a horse 'zebra' all day long. Doesn't mean it has
> > stripes.
> Words mean what people generally use them to mean.
> >>>> It doesn't usually refer to actual "fear" in this case. Few
> >>>> people fear gays in the same way that they might fear spiders,
> >>>> snakes, or heights. They just don't like them or their
> >>>> lifestyle, or don't like allowing them to have more rights in
> >>>> society.
> >>> Which, while arguably unfair and narrow-minded, is neither
> >>> extreme nor irrational, which removes them from even your
> >>> dictionary's definition of 'homophobic'.
> >> OK, then please give examples of homophobia that meet your definition?
> > I'm not allowed to. Only gay people can use gay slurs in today's
> > America. Just as blacks are the only ones allowed to use the
> > 'n-word'. Everyone else is forbidden, even in the context of
> > analysis of the words themselves, even when devoid of any bigoted
> > intent, from even mentioning those words.
> Now you're just either deluded or lying.
Really? Try using that word in public if you're not black and see what happens. And it'll happen no matter the context in which you use it.
> > > >>> Local Fox Anchor Suspended For Homophobic Comment About Rachel Maddow
> > > >>> by Jordan Zakarin
> > > >>> An anchor on WXIX-TV in Cincinnati was absent from the air on Sunday,
> > > >>> following outrage over Facebook remarks she made about the MSNBC > > > >>> host.
> > > >>> Tricia Macke was conspicuous in her absence from the anchor's desk
> > > >>> during the Sunday broadcast of the Fox 19 10 p.m. news, with reports
> > > >>> in Cincinnati indicating that she was taken off the air as punishment
> > > >>> for a comment she made about MSNBC's Rachel Maddow.
> > > >>> In October, Macke wrote on her Facebook page that Maddow, who is
> > > >>> openly gay, is "such an angry young man." When she received an angry
> > > >>> response, she doubled down, writing in another update, "I am sorry. I
> > > >>> should have said antagonistic."
> > > >> Hahahahahahahahahaha. That's awesome.
> > > >>> The controversy raged in the southern Ohio city, with GLAAD demanding
> > > >>> an apology, leading Macke to post a more formal statement online, > > > >>> with
> > > >>> a note from her network's management attached.
> > > >>> "I recently posted comments on my personal Facebook page regarding
> > > >>> cable news anchor Rachel Maddow which were insensitive and
> > > >>> inappropriate," she wrote. "I apologize to Ms. Maddow and any others
> > > >>> who may have been offended by my comments, as they do not reflect my
> > > >>> firm beliefs in individual and equal rights, and they certainly do > > > >>> not
> > > >>> represent the opinions or position of my employer WXIX-TV."
> > > >>> The network would not say whether she is suspended -- it does not
> > > >>> comment on personnel matters, the station manager said -- but John
> > > >>> Kiesewetter of the Cincinnati Enquirer indicated that she had indeed
> > > >>> been suspended, and will be back in the anchor's chair on Tuesday.
> > > >>> So he wasn't suspended for "insulting" Maddow. He was suspended for > > > >>> making > > > >>> homophobic comments.
> > > >> Looks like you and Jordan need to take another look at the definition > > > >> of
> > > >> phobia. Good luck finding a legitimate one that doesn't include a fear
> > > >> component as a primary factor.
> > > > The word "homophobia" is generally used to refer to any bigotry against > > > > homosexuals.
> > > The word "homophobia" is generally used incorrectly to refer to any
> > > bigotry against homosexuals.
> > Words mean what people generally use them to mean.
> I can call a horse 'zebra' all day long. Doesn't mean it has stripes.
True. Because you're just one person, not "people generally". But if most people start calling horses zebras, it means the definition of the word has changed.
There was a time when the word "head" just referred to the thing above people's necks. Now it can also refer to the person who runs a corporation, the place where a river begins, and many other things.
This happened because someone "incorrectly" used the word to refer to these things, and other people copied him, and so on and so on.
Eventually, what once was an error becomes commonplace, and the language evolves as a result.
Meanings can also differ depending on context. A few years ago, astronomers decided that Pluto wasn't a planet. They use a very precise, technical definition of "planet" among themselves. Laymen are not bound to this definition -- if the rest of us want to continue calling Pluto a planet, then that's what it is.
So it's quite possible that the common meaning of "phobia" may not precisely match the use of that term by a psychiatrist (similarly, you wouldn't expect laymen to know the clinical meanings of terms like "insane", "psychotic", or "schizophrenic" -- we use their informal meanings).
> > > > It doesn't usually refer to actual "fear" in this case. Few people > > > > fear > > > > gays in the same way that they might fear spiders, snakes, or heights.
> > > > They just don't like them or their lifestyle, or don't like allowing > > > > them to have more rights in society.
> > > Which, while arguably unfair and narrow-minded, is neither extreme nor
> > > irrational, which removes them from even your dictionary's definition of
> > > 'homophobic'.
> > OK, then please give examples of homophobia that meet your definition?
> I'm not allowed to. Only gay people can use gay slurs in today's > America. Just as blacks are the only ones allowed to use the 'n-word'. > Everyone else is forbidden, even in the context of analysis of the words > themselves, even when devoid of any bigoted intent, from even mentioning > those words.
You can talk about these things without using taboo words, can't you?
We can talk about the struggle of African-Americans without using the n-word.
> > >>> The word "homophobia" is generally used incorrectly to refer to
> > >>> any bigotry against homosexuals.
> > >> Words mean what people generally use them to mean.
> > > I can call a horse 'zebra' all day long. Doesn't mean it has
> > > stripes.
> > Words mean what people generally use them to mean.
> > >>>> It doesn't usually refer to actual "fear" in this case. Few
> > >>>> people fear gays in the same way that they might fear spiders,
> > >>>> snakes, or heights. They just don't like them or their
> > >>>> lifestyle, or don't like allowing them to have more rights in
> > >>>> society.
> > >>> Which, while arguably unfair and narrow-minded, is neither
> > >>> extreme nor irrational, which removes them from even your
> > >>> dictionary's definition of 'homophobic'.
> > >> OK, then please give examples of homophobia that meet your definition?
> > > I'm not allowed to. Only gay people can use gay slurs in today's
> > > America. Just as blacks are the only ones allowed to use the
> > > 'n-word'. Everyone else is forbidden, even in the context of
> > > analysis of the words themselves, even when devoid of any bigoted
> > > intent, from even mentioning those words.
> > Now you're just either deluded or lying.
> Really? Try using that word in public if you're not black and see what > happens. And it'll happen no matter the context in which you use it.
> wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>> BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> said:
>>> Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>>> OK, then please give examples of homophobia that meet your definition?
>>> I'm not allowed to. Only gay people can use gay slurs in today's
>>> America. Just as blacks are the only ones allowed to use the
>>> 'n-word'. Everyone else is forbidden, even in the context of
>>> analysis of the words themselves, even when devoid of any bigoted
>>> intent, from even mentioning those words.
>> Now you're just either deluded or lying.
> Really? Try using that word in public if you're not black and see
> what happens. And it'll happen no matter the context in which you
> use it.
Is last July recent enough?
| From wdstarr Sun Jul 1 10:02:32 EDT 2012
| Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,rec.arts.sf.fandom
| From: wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr)
| Subject: Re: Google Groups becomes even less useful.
| References: <jrdkev$f0...@dont-email.me> <slrnjul6f7.r8e....@gatekeeper.vic.com> <proto-2E4312.07573427062...@news.panix.com> <PsCdnWWjBb_ds3PSnZ2dnUVZ_uSdn...@earthlink.com>
| In-reply-to: b...@example.invalid
|
| In article <PsCdnWWjBb_ds3PSnZ2dnUVZ_uSdn...@earthlink.com>,
| David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> said:
|
| > A business with a "No Coloreds" sign cuts themselves out of a
| > segment of their natural market. Potentially a large enough
| > segment to make them unprofitable in the face of competition that
| > doesn't do that. Or not, as the case may be. It should be
| > obvious that "Jim Crow" laws wouldn't have passed unless somebody
| > thought
|
| that there was political profit to be found in nigger-beating.
|
| -- wds
> > Local Fox Anchor Suspended For Homophobic Comment About Rachel Maddow
> > by Jordan Zakarin
> > An anchor on WXIX-TV in Cincinnati was absent from the air on Sunday,
> > following outrage over Facebook remarks she made about the MSNBC host.
> > Tricia Macke was conspicuous in her absence from the anchor's desk
> > during the Sunday broadcast of the Fox 19 10 p.m. news, with reports
> > in Cincinnati indicating that she was taken off the air as punishment
> > for a comment she made about MSNBC's Rachel Maddow.
> > In October, Macke wrote on her Facebook page that Maddow, who is
> > openly gay, is "such an angry young man." When she received an angry
> > response, she doubled down, writing in another update, "I am sorry. I
> > should have said antagonistic."
> Hahahahahahahahahaha. That's awesome.
> > The controversy raged in the southern Ohio city, with GLAAD demanding
> > an apology, leading Macke to post a more formal statement online, with
> > a note from her network's management attached.
> > "I recently posted comments on my personal Facebook page regarding
> > cable news anchor Rachel Maddow which were insensitive and
> > inappropriate," she wrote. "I apologize to Ms. Maddow and any others
> > who may have been offended by my comments, as they do not reflect my
> > firm beliefs in individual and equal rights, and they certainly do not
> > represent the opinions or position of my employer WXIX-TV."
> > The network would not say whether she is suspended -- it does not
> > comment on personnel matters, the station manager said -- but John
> > Kiesewetter of the Cincinnati Enquirer indicated that she had indeed
> > been suspended, and will be back in the anchor's chair on Tuesday.
> > ==========================================
> > So he wasn't suspended for "insulting" Maddow. He was suspended for > > making
> > homophobic comments.
> Looks like you and Jordan need to take another look at the definition of
> phobia. Good luck finding a legitimate one that doesn't include a fear
> component as a primary factor.
The word "homophobia" is generally used to refer to any bigotry against
homosexuals. My dictionary says that homophobia is "an extreme and
irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people".
It doesn't usually refer to actual "fear" in this case. Few people fear
gays in the same way that they might fear spiders, snakes, or heights.
They just don't like them or their lifestyle, or don't like allowing
them to have more rights in society.
========================================
The "fear" in most of these people is the fear of either others finding out about their own confused sexuality...or their fear OF that confusion. I think more folks that have suppressed their own feelings act out irrationally against gay folks who ARE comfortable with who they are. But that's just my guess. I don't care that much...probably because I simply have no use for such ignorant jackasses.
> In article <k81jas$81...@panix2.panix.com>,
> wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>> In article <atropos-173C14.18133014112...@news-europe.giganews.com>,
>> BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> said:
>>> Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>>> BTR1701 <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>> The word "homophobia" is generally used incorrectly to refer to
>>>>> any bigotry against homosexuals.
>>>> Words mean what people generally use them to mean.
>>> I can call a horse 'zebra' all day long. Doesn't mean it has
>>> stripes.
>> Words mean what people generally use them to mean.
>>>>>> It doesn't usually refer to actual "fear" in this case. Few
>>>>>> people fear gays in the same way that they might fear spiders,
>>>>>> snakes, or heights. They just don't like them or their
>>>>>> lifestyle, or don't like allowing them to have more rights in
>>>>>> society.
>>>>> Which, while arguably unfair and narrow-minded, is neither
>>>>> extreme nor irrational, which removes them from even your
>>>>> dictionary's definition of 'homophobic'.
>>>> OK, then please give examples of homophobia that meet your definition?
>>> I'm not allowed to. Only gay people can use gay slurs in today's
>>> America. Just as blacks are the only ones allowed to use the
>>> 'n-word'. Everyone else is forbidden, even in the context of
>>> analysis of the words themselves, even when devoid of any bigoted
>>> intent, from even mentioning those words.
>> Now you're just either deluded or lying.
> Really? Try using that word in public if you're not black and see what
> happens. And it'll happen no matter the context in which you use it.
Yes, that is heinous. As is not being able to draw depictions of Mohammed. Or use Native American culture as if it was a marketing concept. I get it, Thanny--you're just one of several anonyshit white guys that think it makes sense to them to disrespect other people's culture. Then you're up in arms when women, blacks, and Hispanics don't vote for your candidate. You're a fucking dinosaur--try seceding from the fucking world and go live on the fucking moon. You certainly don't fit in on planet Earth.
You constantly say racist things ("Why can they use the n-word and I can't?") and then bitch when you're told you're a racist. You remind me of Kevin Kline's character, Otto, in "A Fish Called Wanda": "Don't call me stupid!"
>> > OK, then please give examples of homophobia that meet your definition?
>> I'm not allowed to. Only gay people can use gay slurs in today's
>> America. Just as blacks are the only ones allowed to use the 'n-word'.
>> Everyone else is forbidden, even in the context of analysis of the words
>> themselves, even when devoid of any bigoted intent, from even mentioning
>> those words.
> You can talk about these things without using taboo words, can't you?
I'd say that his avoidance of offering an answer was pretty much an example of his running away in fear of the subject.
>>> The word "homophobia" is generally used to refer to any bigotry
>>> against homosexuals.
>> The word "homophobia" is generally used incorrectly to refer to
>> any bigotry against homosexuals.
>> Fixed that for you.
> Since we're talking about humans and not Vulcans, the meaning of
> a word is not welded to the logical sum of its root parts.
Some of these Usenet posters want to define every word their own way, rather than how 'the public', 'the experts', or even 'the dictionary' define the words. I ran up against the same issue a day or two ago when they refused to acknowledge that 'embedded journalist' can and is used to define journalists that are embedded in a political campaign, not just a war unit.
> > Really? Try using that word in public if you're not black and
> > see what happens. And it'll happen no matter the context in
> > which you use it.
> Yes, that is heinous. As is not being able to draw depictions
> of Mohammed. Or use Native American culture as if it was
> a marketing concept.
It's good to see you agree that freedom of speech trumps the
"feelings" of some amorphous group, be they race-hustling
Blacks, fundi Muslims, self-segregating Indians, or fabulously
enraged homosexuals.
> >>> The word "homophobia" is generally used to refer to any bigotry
> >>> against homosexuals.
> >> The word "homophobia" is generally used incorrectly to refer to
> >> any bigotry against homosexuals.
> >> Fixed that for you.
> > Since we're talking about humans and not Vulcans, the meaning of
> > a word is not welded to the logical sum of its root parts.
> Some of these Usenet posters want to define every word their own way, rather > than how 'the public', 'the experts', or even 'the dictionary' define the > words. I ran up against the same issue a day or two ago when they refused > to acknowledge that 'embedded journalist' can and is used to define > journalists that are embedded in a political campaign, not just a war unit.
Or like when you define 'crime' to be 'not crime'?
The idea of you criticizing others for making up their own word definitions is quite amusing.
In article <k81umi$1b...@dont-email.me>, "Dano" <janeandd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The "fear" in most of these people is the fear of either others finding out > about their own confused sexuality...or their fear OF that confusion. I > think more folks that have suppressed their own feelings act out > irrationally against gay folks who ARE comfortable with who they are. But > that's just my guess. I don't care that much...probably because I simply > have no use for such ignorant jackasses.
Yes, you're absolutely right. Macke obviously only said Maddow looked like a guy because she's terrified of her own sexuality. You nailed it.
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:04:55 -0500, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu>
wrote:
>In article <val7a81r6vouocj1l3m7pntjhj27ekg...@4ax.com>,
> Jim G. <jimgy...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> > So he wasn't suspended for "insulting" Maddow. He was suspended for making >> > homophobic comments.
>> Looks like you and Jordan need to take another look at the definition of
>> phobia. Good luck finding a legitimate one that doesn't include a fear
>> component as a primary factor.
>The word "homophobia" is generally used to refer to any bigotry against >homosexuals. My dictionary says that homophobia is "an extreme and >irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people".
Yeah, but a lot of people dislike the intellectual dishonesty of this
carefully fashioned term. It reminds me of how they name bills in
Congress, like, a major tax hike might be the "Fiscal Responsibility Act
of 2012".
It was crafted to imply that anyone who has any opposition to what gay
advocates claim to be "rights" is motivated by some psychologically warped
fear of homosexuality.
Mason Barge <masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:04:55 -0500, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu>
> wrote:
>> In article <val7a81r6vouocj1l3m7pntjhj27ekg...@4ax.com>,
>> Jim G. <jimgy...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>> So he wasn't suspended for "insulting" Maddow. He was suspended for making >>>> homophobic comments.
>>> Looks like you and Jordan need to take another look at the definition of
>>> phobia. Good luck finding a legitimate one that doesn't include a fear
>>> component as a primary factor.
>> The word "homophobia" is generally used to refer to any bigotry against >> homosexuals. My dictionary says that homophobia is "an extreme and >> irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people".
> Yeah, but a lot of people dislike the intellectual dishonesty of this
> carefully fashioned term. It reminds me of how they name bills in
> Congress, like, a major tax hike might be the "Fiscal Responsibility Act
> of 2012".
> It was crafted to imply that anyone who has any opposition to what gay
> advocates claim to be "rights" is motivated by some psychologically warped
> fear of homosexuality.
The word 'Islamophobia' has been used in a similarly dishonest manner.
>>> Really? Try using that word in public if you're not black and
>>> see what happens. And it'll happen no matter the context in
>>> which you use it.
>> Yes, that is heinous. As is not being able to draw depictions
>> of Mohammed. Or use Native American culture as if it was
>> a marketing concept.
> It's good to see you agree that freedom of speech trumps the
> "feelings" of some amorphous group, be they race-hustling
> Blacks, fundi Muslims, self-segregating Indians, or fabulously
> enraged homosexuals.
It's bad to see that you represent a contingent that consistently thinks "freedom of speech" translates to "freedom to be an asshole". And then you complain when we call a spade a spade. Is whining your only game plan?
> > > > > > Local Fox Anchor Suspended For Homophobic Comment About Rachel Maddow
> > > > > > by Jordan Zakarin
> > > > > > An anchor on WXIX-TV in Cincinnati was absent from the air on Sunday,
> > > > > > following outrage over Facebook remarks she made about the MSNBC host.
> > > > > > Tricia Macke was conspicuous in her absence from the anchor's desk
> > > > > > during the Sunday broadcast of the Fox 19 10 p.m. news, with reports
> > > > > > in Cincinnati indicating that she was taken off the air as punishment
> > > > > > for a comment she made about MSNBC's Rachel Maddow.
> > > > > > In October, Macke wrote on her Facebook page that Maddow, who is
> > > > > > openly gay, is "such an angry young man." When she received an angry
> > > > > > response, she doubled down, writing in another update, "I am sorry. I
> > > > > > should have said antagonistic."
> > > > > > The controversy raged in the southern Ohio city, with GLAAD demanding
> > > > > > an apology, leading Macke to post a more formal statement online, with
> > > > > > a note from her network's management attached.
> > > > > > "I recently posted comments on my personal Facebook page regarding
> > > > > > cable news anchor Rachel Maddow which were insensitive and
> > > > > > inappropriate," she wrote. "I apologize to Ms. Maddow and any others
> > > > > > who may have been offended by my comments, as they do not reflect my
> > > > > > firm beliefs in individual and equal rights, and they certainly do not
> > > > > > represent the opinions or position of my employer WXIX-TV."
> > > > > > The network would not say whether she is suspended -- it does not
> > > > > > comment on personnel matters, the station manager said -- but John
> > > > > > Kiesewetter of the Cincinnati Enquirer indicated that she had indeed
> > > > > > been suspended, and will be back in the anchor's chair on Tuesday.
> > > > > > So he wasn't suspended for "insulting" Maddow. He was suspended for
> > > > > > making homophobic comments. She's lucky to still have her job.
> > > > > How is saying Maddow is ugly homophobic?
> > > > > It may not be nice, but it's not indicative that Macke fears
> > > > > gay people.
> > > > Where, in the provided article, is the Fox affiliate reporter quoted
> > > > as saying Dr. Maddow is ugly?
> > > Calling a woman man-like in appearance is synonymous with calling her
> > > ugly.
> > It's also synonymous with calling her a bull dyke.
> > >Even if you don't agree, it's certainly not synonymous with being
> > > afraid of gay people.
> >Yes it is. People use insults to deflect their irrational fears
> every
> > second of every day... just ask your therapist.
> Hate-radio shock-jock Michael Savage seemingly and insultingly says
> PMSNBC to refer to MSNBC using female reporters from time-to-time.
> Does that mean that he has an irrational fear of women?
On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 16:04:55 -0500, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu>
wrote:
>In article <val7a81r6vouocj1l3m7pntjhj27ekg...@4ax.com>,
> Jim G. <jimgy...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> > So he wasn't suspended for "insulting" Maddow. He was suspended for >> > making
>> > homophobic comments.
>> Looks like you and Jordan need to take another look at the definition of
>> phobia. Good luck finding a legitimate one that doesn't include a fear
>> component as a primary factor.
>The word "homophobia" is generally used to refer to any bigotry against
>homosexuals. My dictionary says that homophobia is "an extreme and
>irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people".
Yeah, but a lot of people dislike the intellectual dishonesty of this
carefully fashioned term. It reminds me of how they name bills in
Congress, like, a major tax hike might be the "Fiscal Responsibility Act
of 2012".
It was crafted to imply that anyone who has any opposition to what gay
advocates claim to be "rights" is motivated by some psychologically warped
fear of homosexuality.
=========================================
Well then...what would YOU call it? Simply white bread variety bigotry? Or just blind, stupid hatred.
>> It's bad to see that you represent a contingent that consistently thinks
>> "freedom of speech" translates to "freedom to be an asshole".
> You say tomato, I say tomato. Which is exactly why the
> 1st Amendment exists.
No, I don't believe the purpose was for people to go out of their way to be disagreeable to others. Again, you're just being an asshole. I respect an informed, dissenting opinion. I've never heard that from Rush Limbaugh, for example.
>> And then you complain when we call a spade a spade.
> Good thing the 1st Amendment exists to protect you from
> what many would consider a racist comment.
Well, if you want to admit the First Amendment helped you lose an election, I'm all for that!!
>> The word "homophobia" is generally used to refer to any bigotry
>> against homosexuals. My dictionary says that homophobia is "an
>> extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual
>> people".
> Yeah, but a lot of people dislike the intellectual dishonesty of
> this carefully fashioned term. It reminds me of how they name
> bills in Congress, like, a major tax hike might be the "Fiscal
> Responsibility Act of 2012".
> It was crafted to imply that anyone who has any opposition to
> what gay advocates claim to be "rights" is motivated by some
> psychologically warped fear of homosexuality.
trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
> On 11/15/12 9:09 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
> >> trotsky
> >>> BTR1701
> >>> Really? Try using that word in public if you're not black and
> >>> see what happens. And it'll happen no matter the context in
> >>> which you use it.
> >> Yes, that is heinous. As is not being able to draw depictions
> >> of Mohammed. Or use Native American culture as if it was
> >> a marketing concept.
> > It's good to see you agree that freedom of speech trumps the
> > "feelings" of some amorphous group, be they race-hustling
> > Blacks, fundi Muslims, self-segregating Indians, or fabulously
> > enraged homosexuals.
> It's bad to see that you represent a contingent that consistently thinks > "freedom of speech" translates to "freedom to be an asshole".
It does, you Hot Pocket-engorged behemoth, as you amply demonstrate here every single day.
> In article <idydnSk_bbacrzjNnZ2dnUVZ_h6dn...@mchsi.com>,
> trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
>> On 11/15/12 9:09 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>> trotsky
>>>>> BTR1701
>>>>> Really? Try using that word in public if you're not black and
>>>>> see what happens. And it'll happen no matter the context in
>>>>> which you use it.
>>>> Yes, that is heinous. As is not being able to draw depictions
>>>> of Mohammed. Or use Native American culture as if it was
>>>> a marketing concept.
>>> It's good to see you agree that freedom of speech trumps the
>>> "feelings" of some amorphous group, be they race-hustling
>>> Blacks, fundi Muslims, self-segregating Indians, or fabulously
>>> enraged homosexuals.
>> It's bad to see that you represent a contingent that consistently thinks
>> "freedom of speech" translates to "freedom to be an asshole".
> It does, you Hot Pocket-engorged behemoth, as you amply demonstrate here
> every single day.
I can see why you complain, Thanny. 90% of my responses to you you are too afraid to answer. The only good thing I can say about you is that you're consistently a sore loser.
