|
Kudos for TL, please keep being awesome!
|
I love this and everything it stands for :D
<3
|
This thread makes me sad.
Are there any other reasons people don't want equal rights for the LGBT community other than their own religious indoctrination?
People in this thread are searching for any excuse to criticize this simple banner from advertising through to hidden agendas blah blah blah. At least have the decency to speak the truth about your own bigotry and stop hiding behind other criticisms.
Congrats to the people running TL for their stance on this issue and their responses in this thread, such a level headed way of replying to some of these people.
|
TL doesn't love LoL equally. Otherwise they'd have a LoL team!
|
On June 25 2013 12:08 iamho wrote:
They are NOT supporting human rights, they are NOT advancing the LGBT movement. They changed the color of their freaking logo. If you actually want to do something about gay rights than fucking do it, don't pretend like you're changing anything when you're nothing more than a keyboard warrior. This bs is nothing more than an attempt to grab some good PR, and it saddens me that people fall for this. Really disgusting that TL out of all places would do this, but apparently their number one priority these days is their profit margin.
User was temp banned for this post.
TL is "fucking do[ing]" something about gay rights. They have always run their forums with a strict zero-tolerance policy about homophobia, consistently banning anyone who decides to spout their homophobic views. This not only creates an accepting place for everyone to hang out, it also sends a strong message to TL's huge userbase, which helps promote LGBT acceptance outside of TL.
|
On June 25 2013 13:08 Infinite Loop wrote:
This thread makes me sad.
Are there any other reasons people don't want equal rights for the LGBT community other than their own religious indoctrination?
Religion is at the core of most reasons. Then we have excuses... either it's disgusting or somehow unnatural (despite the fact that it happens in nature).
So no, no legitimate reasons to limit their rights.
|
On June 25 2013 12:58 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 12:37 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 12:35 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 12:15 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 12:01 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 11:54 Ghostcom wrote:
2) Every time the topic of homosexuality comes up I am saddened to see the bastardization that the term "homophobia" has undergone. To be quite honest it irks me that anti-homosexuals are given the benefit of a label which infers an underlying pathology which they are not responsible for themselves. The reason it's appended with "phobia" is more to indicate that it's irrational. Any argumentation in favor of it is going to be necessarily flawed because there's no rational argument in favor of discrimination based on a characteristic that does no harm to society and the individual doesn't control. That however is not what a phobia is. Sure a phobia is irrational, but for it to be a phobia it is required that the subject is self-aware of said irrationality. Now please point out which of the anti-homosexuals in this thread that has been aware of the irrationality. A phobia is further defined by it being a fear - I have yet to see anyone have a panic attack because said person saw a gay couple. The fact that it is irrational should be clear enough without misusing terms. On June 25 2013 12:01 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 11:54 Ghostcom wrote:
3) Bastardizing the word "privileged" to describe the majority and writing lists of stuff said majority supposedly do not experience (I have personally as a straight white male experienced plenty of stuff on those lists, though obviously not all) are bullshit and really deserves as much ridicule for denying those who face adversity their right to complain as those who claim homosexuality being a choice and opposing basic human rights for ALL humans. List the stuff you have experienced and explain why that experience was based on your sexual orientation not being normal and how that made you feel threatened. Do it. I'll wait. Why would I? First of all I consider homosexuality to be normal - apparently unlike you? Secondly I never claimed that it was based on my sexual orientation not being normal - you were the one to impose that. My point was exactly that despite having a normal sexual orientation one could experience quite a few things on those lists that were supposedly exclusive to "non-normal" sexuality. Thirdly, I fail to see why I have to give personal examples - it really should be self-evident that the list is far from exclusive to "non-normal" sexuality. However, since you are quite obviously going to insist: I was "dating" a muslim girl, being a Caucasian white agnostic guy I do not think it would be hard for you to figure out what I have experienced - stepping into a world where killing for the honor of the family is not unheard of and where you are by definition a spot on the family honor simply due to who you are, through no choice of your own. EDIT: Fixed the quotes - only took 3 tries! Yeah that has absolutely nothing to do with your sexual orientation. You haven't experienced anything on that list. But I'll be damned if you aren't gonna pretend like you have just to make yourself feel like you have something to contribute to your side of the discussion. So your strawman failed and this is what you come back with? Let me guess, you feel like you have actually written anything of relevance in response to what I wrote? EDIT: For clarification as you seemed to miss it the first 2 times around. I never claimed that it would have anything to do with my sexuality - in fact I claimed the opposite. That regardless of sexuality one could have said experiences. I know you think you can. But that's exactly why you're missing the point. You don't understand why sexual orientation matters in those situations. Because as a heterosexual male, you can't understand how your orientation would ever be relevant. But for those in the minority, it is relevant. Not only do you lack sympathy, you even lack the desire to have sympathy which is pretty gross. You're part of the problem and you're the reason TeamLiquid can do something as simple as change the banner and have it be meaningful. Because it exposes people like you who have never been confronted with the fact that they can't understand why this is an issue, because they're trapped in a bubble and won't even admit that there are things they might not know.
Would you stop with the ad hominems and actual bring something to the table in your next post? I suggest you go back and read my posts, you are accusing me of something which you really have zero foundation for doing. I have no idea why you are so insistent of putting words into my mouth, I shall spell it out for you one last time before I give up:
The lists that have been posted so far have all claimed that e.g. "not being able to hold you loved ones hand out of fear" was exclusive to homosexuals and that a heterosexual white person could never possibly experience this and consequently he was privileged. I EXPERIENCED THIS. I was fearful for her life and it let ultimately to us never actually dating. And you have the audacity to tell me that I have never had to fear for the life of my loved ones due to a factor over which neither of us had control? That I am not sympathetic when I have done nothing but express my support for the cause - a cause I personally had hoped by now was no longer needed to fight for, but it sadly still is?
Sure my experiences might not have root in my sexuality, it was rooted in my attraction to a girl and the person I am, but I am hardly any more in control of my feelings for her or who I am, than a homosexual is of his/her sexuality and who he/she is.
|
On June 25 2013 13:18 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 12:58 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 12:37 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 12:35 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 12:15 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 12:01 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 11:54 Ghostcom wrote:
2) Every time the topic of homosexuality comes up I am saddened to see the bastardization that the term "homophobia" has undergone. To be quite honest it irks me that anti-homosexuals are given the benefit of a label which infers an underlying pathology which they are not responsible for themselves. The reason it's appended with "phobia" is more to indicate that it's irrational. Any argumentation in favor of it is going to be necessarily flawed because there's no rational argument in favor of discrimination based on a characteristic that does no harm to society and the individual doesn't control. That however is not what a phobia is. Sure a phobia is irrational, but for it to be a phobia it is required that the subject is self-aware of said irrationality. Now please point out which of the anti-homosexuals in this thread that has been aware of the irrationality. A phobia is further defined by it being a fear - I have yet to see anyone have a panic attack because said person saw a gay couple. The fact that it is irrational should be clear enough without misusing terms. On June 25 2013 12:01 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 11:54 Ghostcom wrote:
3) Bastardizing the word "privileged" to describe the majority and writing lists of stuff said majority supposedly do not experience (I have personally as a straight white male experienced plenty of stuff on those lists, though obviously not all) are bullshit and really deserves as much ridicule for denying those who face adversity their right to complain as those who claim homosexuality being a choice and opposing basic human rights for ALL humans. List the stuff you have experienced and explain why that experience was based on your sexual orientation not being normal and how that made you feel threatened. Do it. I'll wait. Why would I? First of all I consider homosexuality to be normal - apparently unlike you? Secondly I never claimed that it was based on my sexual orientation not being normal - you were the one to impose that. My point was exactly that despite having a normal sexual orientation one could experience quite a few things on those lists that were supposedly exclusive to "non-normal" sexuality. Thirdly, I fail to see why I have to give personal examples - it really should be self-evident that the list is far from exclusive to "non-normal" sexuality. However, since you are quite obviously going to insist: I was "dating" a muslim girl, being a Caucasian white agnostic guy I do not think it would be hard for you to figure out what I have experienced - stepping into a world where killing for the honor of the family is not unheard of and where you are by definition a spot on the family honor simply due to who you are, through no choice of your own. EDIT: Fixed the quotes - only took 3 tries! Yeah that has absolutely nothing to do with your sexual orientation. You haven't experienced anything on that list. But I'll be damned if you aren't gonna pretend like you have just to make yourself feel like you have something to contribute to your side of the discussion. So your strawman failed and this is what you come back with? Let me guess, you feel like you have actually written anything of relevance in response to what I wrote? EDIT: For clarification as you seemed to miss it the first 2 times around. I never claimed that it would have anything to do with my sexuality - in fact I claimed the opposite. That regardless of sexuality one could have said experiences. I know you think you can. But that's exactly why you're missing the point. You don't understand why sexual orientation matters in those situations. Because as a heterosexual male, you can't understand how your orientation would ever be relevant. But for those in the minority, it is relevant. Not only do you lack sympathy, you even lack the desire to have sympathy which is pretty gross. You're part of the problem and you're the reason TeamLiquid can do something as simple as change the banner and have it be meaningful. Because it exposes people like you who have never been confronted with the fact that they can't understand why this is an issue, because they're trapped in a bubble and won't even admit that there are things they might not know. The lists that have been posted so far have all claimed that e.g. "not being able to hold you loved ones hand out of fear" was exclusive to homosexuals and that a heterosexual white person could never possibly experience this and consequently he was privileged. I EXPERIENCED THIS. I was fearful for her life and it let ultimately to us never actually dating. And you have the audacity to tell me that I have never had to fear for the life of my loved ones due to a factor over which neither of us had control? That I am not sympathetic when I have done nothing but express my support for the cause - a cause I personally had hoped by now was no longer needed to fight for, but it sadly still is? Sure my experiences might not have root in my sexuality, it was rooted in my attraction to a girl and the person I am, but I am hardly any more in control of my feelings for her or who I am, than a homosexual is of his/her sexuality and who he/she is.
You've experienced adversity and therefor you've had it rough just like any person from any oppressed minority. White dude living in rich first world country complains about toaster.
|
On June 25 2013 13:23 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 13:18 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 12:58 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 12:37 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 12:35 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 12:15 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 12:01 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 11:54 Ghostcom wrote:
2) Every time the topic of homosexuality comes up I am saddened to see the bastardization that the term "homophobia" has undergone. To be quite honest it irks me that anti-homosexuals are given the benefit of a label which infers an underlying pathology which they are not responsible for themselves. The reason it's appended with "phobia" is more to indicate that it's irrational. Any argumentation in favor of it is going to be necessarily flawed because there's no rational argument in favor of discrimination based on a characteristic that does no harm to society and the individual doesn't control. That however is not what a phobia is. Sure a phobia is irrational, but for it to be a phobia it is required that the subject is self-aware of said irrationality. Now please point out which of the anti-homosexuals in this thread that has been aware of the irrationality. A phobia is further defined by it being a fear - I have yet to see anyone have a panic attack because said person saw a gay couple. The fact that it is irrational should be clear enough without misusing terms. On June 25 2013 12:01 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 11:54 Ghostcom wrote:
3) Bastardizing the word "privileged" to describe the majority and writing lists of stuff said majority supposedly do not experience (I have personally as a straight white male experienced plenty of stuff on those lists, though obviously not all) are bullshit and really deserves as much ridicule for denying those who face adversity their right to complain as those who claim homosexuality being a choice and opposing basic human rights for ALL humans. List the stuff you have experienced and explain why that experience was based on your sexual orientation not being normal and how that made you feel threatened. Do it. I'll wait. Why would I? First of all I consider homosexuality to be normal - apparently unlike you? Secondly I never claimed that it was based on my sexual orientation not being normal - you were the one to impose that. My point was exactly that despite having a normal sexual orientation one could experience quite a few things on those lists that were supposedly exclusive to "non-normal" sexuality. Thirdly, I fail to see why I have to give personal examples - it really should be self-evident that the list is far from exclusive to "non-normal" sexuality. However, since you are quite obviously going to insist: I was "dating" a muslim girl, being a Caucasian white agnostic guy I do not think it would be hard for you to figure out what I have experienced - stepping into a world where killing for the honor of the family is not unheard of and where you are by definition a spot on the family honor simply due to who you are, through no choice of your own. EDIT: Fixed the quotes - only took 3 tries! Yeah that has absolutely nothing to do with your sexual orientation. You haven't experienced anything on that list. But I'll be damned if you aren't gonna pretend like you have just to make yourself feel like you have something to contribute to your side of the discussion. So your strawman failed and this is what you come back with? Let me guess, you feel like you have actually written anything of relevance in response to what I wrote? EDIT: For clarification as you seemed to miss it the first 2 times around. I never claimed that it would have anything to do with my sexuality - in fact I claimed the opposite. That regardless of sexuality one could have said experiences. I know you think you can. But that's exactly why you're missing the point. You don't understand why sexual orientation matters in those situations. Because as a heterosexual male, you can't understand how your orientation would ever be relevant. But for those in the minority, it is relevant. Not only do you lack sympathy, you even lack the desire to have sympathy which is pretty gross. You're part of the problem and you're the reason TeamLiquid can do something as simple as change the banner and have it be meaningful. Because it exposes people like you who have never been confronted with the fact that they can't understand why this is an issue, because they're trapped in a bubble and won't even admit that there are things they might not know. The lists that have been posted so far have all claimed that e.g. "not being able to hold you loved ones hand out of fear" was exclusive to homosexuals and that a heterosexual white person could never possibly experience this and consequently he was privileged. I EXPERIENCED THIS. I was fearful for her life and it let ultimately to us never actually dating. And you have the audacity to tell me that I have never had to fear for the life of my loved ones due to a factor over which neither of us had control? That I am not sympathetic when I have done nothing but express my support for the cause - a cause I personally had hoped by now was no longer needed to fight for, but it sadly still is? Sure my experiences might not have root in my sexuality, it was rooted in my attraction to a girl and the person I am, but I am hardly any more in control of my feelings for her or who I am, than a homosexual is of his/her sexuality and who he/she is. You've experienced adversity and therefor you've had it rough just like any minority. White dude living in rich first world country complains about toaster.
You might want to reread that post. And preferably do so without trying to put words into my mouth. I have never claimed to be oppressed to the same degree as homosexuals (heck I have not even claimed to be oppressed). I have stated that I have been in situations which according to a silly list heterosexuals could not possible end up in.
Also I fail to see why it somehow diminishes the issues that everyone in the world are faced with them. If anything it should magnify the importance of tolerance.
|
I guess empathy isn't something taught in school and church no mo... not that church was ever fantastic at it, but it baffles me to see the amount of ignorance and intolerance in this community.
Great effort by TeamLiquid, World's far away for being a fair place for everyone but marriage equality's a good place to start and LGBTs are probably the most segregated group in the western world, raising awareness especially in the Americas is so important, seems like we're always one step behind in evolution.
TL isn't playing favorites, they are raising awareness, "pro-gay" shouldn't even be a term used, ever, there should be no position on the matter aside from equality, we're all humans and deserve to be treated equally, I don't even understand how this becomes a discussion, ever. "yeah im not a bigot but I think political stances should be left out of an e-sports website" absolutely not, raising awareness everywhere and people talking about this sort of thing is what will help the world take a step forward, the gay community already knows they are gay and want equal rights.
Our generation is far more progressive than the ones before us, we are free thinkers, far more tolerant than generations before us where the law and church were all stacked up against anyone different, and I am not talking about just sexual preference. Now we've come to understand over time, pretty much all of us: how ridiculously moronic and scum-baggy our ancestors were for segregating people for their skin color and gender... and yet we still do the same to gay people, we segregate them for their sexual preference, which they have as much control over as the place you're born or the color of your skin...
I can't understand people arguing against equality... and if it is for religious reasons that you're against it tell/pray to god to stop making gay people cause he keeps pumping out homosexuals in all species across the globe.
Anyways, point im trying to make is, if you're against it, well you have your bad reasons for it, and gl with that. But if you aren't and you're still bitching about this not being an issue a website like TL should get involved in, well fuck you, you likely already got all the human rights you need, there's plenty of LGBTs in this community and all over the world who don't and now is the time to discuss it and make it happen, and every little bit helps.
|
On June 25 2013 13:25 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 13:23 Djzapz wrote:On June 25 2013 13:18 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 12:58 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 12:37 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 12:35 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 12:15 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 12:01 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 11:54 Ghostcom wrote:
2) Every time the topic of homosexuality comes up I am saddened to see the bastardization that the term "homophobia" has undergone. To be quite honest it irks me that anti-homosexuals are given the benefit of a label which infers an underlying pathology which they are not responsible for themselves. The reason it's appended with "phobia" is more to indicate that it's irrational. Any argumentation in favor of it is going to be necessarily flawed because there's no rational argument in favor of discrimination based on a characteristic that does no harm to society and the individual doesn't control. That however is not what a phobia is. Sure a phobia is irrational, but for it to be a phobia it is required that the subject is self-aware of said irrationality. Now please point out which of the anti-homosexuals in this thread that has been aware of the irrationality. A phobia is further defined by it being a fear - I have yet to see anyone have a panic attack because said person saw a gay couple. The fact that it is irrational should be clear enough without misusing terms. On June 25 2013 12:01 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 11:54 Ghostcom wrote:
3) Bastardizing the word "privileged" to describe the majority and writing lists of stuff said majority supposedly do not experience (I have personally as a straight white male experienced plenty of stuff on those lists, though obviously not all) are bullshit and really deserves as much ridicule for denying those who face adversity their right to complain as those who claim homosexuality being a choice and opposing basic human rights for ALL humans. List the stuff you have experienced and explain why that experience was based on your sexual orientation not being normal and how that made you feel threatened. Do it. I'll wait. Why would I? First of all I consider homosexuality to be normal - apparently unlike you? Secondly I never claimed that it was based on my sexual orientation not being normal - you were the one to impose that. My point was exactly that despite having a normal sexual orientation one could experience quite a few things on those lists that were supposedly exclusive to "non-normal" sexuality. Thirdly, I fail to see why I have to give personal examples - it really should be self-evident that the list is far from exclusive to "non-normal" sexuality. However, since you are quite obviously going to insist: I was "dating" a muslim girl, being a Caucasian white agnostic guy I do not think it would be hard for you to figure out what I have experienced - stepping into a world where killing for the honor of the family is not unheard of and where you are by definition a spot on the family honor simply due to who you are, through no choice of your own. EDIT: Fixed the quotes - only took 3 tries! Yeah that has absolutely nothing to do with your sexual orientation. You haven't experienced anything on that list. But I'll be damned if you aren't gonna pretend like you have just to make yourself feel like you have something to contribute to your side of the discussion. So your strawman failed and this is what you come back with? Let me guess, you feel like you have actually written anything of relevance in response to what I wrote? EDIT: For clarification as you seemed to miss it the first 2 times around. I never claimed that it would have anything to do with my sexuality - in fact I claimed the opposite. That regardless of sexuality one could have said experiences. I know you think you can. But that's exactly why you're missing the point. You don't understand why sexual orientation matters in those situations. Because as a heterosexual male, you can't understand how your orientation would ever be relevant. But for those in the minority, it is relevant. Not only do you lack sympathy, you even lack the desire to have sympathy which is pretty gross. You're part of the problem and you're the reason TeamLiquid can do something as simple as change the banner and have it be meaningful. Because it exposes people like you who have never been confronted with the fact that they can't understand why this is an issue, because they're trapped in a bubble and won't even admit that there are things they might not know. The lists that have been posted so far have all claimed that e.g. "not being able to hold you loved ones hand out of fear" was exclusive to homosexuals and that a heterosexual white person could never possibly experience this and consequently he was privileged. I EXPERIENCED THIS. I was fearful for her life and it let ultimately to us never actually dating. And you have the audacity to tell me that I have never had to fear for the life of my loved ones due to a factor over which neither of us had control? That I am not sympathetic when I have done nothing but express my support for the cause - a cause I personally had hoped by now was no longer needed to fight for, but it sadly still is? Sure my experiences might not have root in my sexuality, it was rooted in my attraction to a girl and the person I am, but I am hardly any more in control of my feelings for her or who I am, than a homosexual is of his/her sexuality and who he/she is. You've experienced adversity and therefor you've had it rough just like any minority. White dude living in rich first world country complains about toaster. You might want to reread that post. Also I fail to see why it somehow diminishes the issues that everyone in the world are faced with them. If anything it should magnify the importance of tolerance.
I've read your posts in this thread and it seems like if you're not talking about various logical fallacies, you're rambling about semantics in a semi-coherent fashion...
What I picked up from your last post is that you're annoyed that people say you're privileged because you're a straight white dude... and your argument is that you've experienced "not being able to hold your loved one's hand out of fear" and therefore you're no more privileged than them... The glaringly obvious problem with this little story of yours is that you're not representative of the population by yourself. Obviously, homosexuals don't happen to have the monopoly on that issue, but they have it happen to them quite a lot.
The fact that you suggested that this situation of fear is argued to be exclusive to homosexuals is absolutely ridiculous, especially from someone like yourself. You probably used the term strawman somewhere in this thread, so come on.
|
Guys, I have an idea!
What if we judge people based on how they treat others rather than their sexuality, gender, race, ethnicity, or any of that?
|
On June 25 2013 13:18 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 12:58 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 12:37 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 12:35 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 12:15 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 12:01 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 11:54 Ghostcom wrote:
2) Every time the topic of homosexuality comes up I am saddened to see the bastardization that the term "homophobia" has undergone. To be quite honest it irks me that anti-homosexuals are given the benefit of a label which infers an underlying pathology which they are not responsible for themselves. The reason it's appended with "phobia" is more to indicate that it's irrational. Any argumentation in favor of it is going to be necessarily flawed because there's no rational argument in favor of discrimination based on a characteristic that does no harm to society and the individual doesn't control. That however is not what a phobia is. Sure a phobia is irrational, but for it to be a phobia it is required that the subject is self-aware of said irrationality. Now please point out which of the anti-homosexuals in this thread that has been aware of the irrationality. A phobia is further defined by it being a fear - I have yet to see anyone have a panic attack because said person saw a gay couple. The fact that it is irrational should be clear enough without misusing terms. On June 25 2013 12:01 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 11:54 Ghostcom wrote:
3) Bastardizing the word "privileged" to describe the majority and writing lists of stuff said majority supposedly do not experience (I have personally as a straight white male experienced plenty of stuff on those lists, though obviously not all) are bullshit and really deserves as much ridicule for denying those who face adversity their right to complain as those who claim homosexuality being a choice and opposing basic human rights for ALL humans. List the stuff you have experienced and explain why that experience was based on your sexual orientation not being normal and how that made you feel threatened. Do it. I'll wait. Why would I? First of all I consider homosexuality to be normal - apparently unlike you? Secondly I never claimed that it was based on my sexual orientation not being normal - you were the one to impose that. My point was exactly that despite having a normal sexual orientation one could experience quite a few things on those lists that were supposedly exclusive to "non-normal" sexuality. Thirdly, I fail to see why I have to give personal examples - it really should be self-evident that the list is far from exclusive to "non-normal" sexuality. However, since you are quite obviously going to insist: I was "dating" a muslim girl, being a Caucasian white agnostic guy I do not think it would be hard for you to figure out what I have experienced - stepping into a world where killing for the honor of the family is not unheard of and where you are by definition a spot on the family honor simply due to who you are, through no choice of your own. EDIT: Fixed the quotes - only took 3 tries! Yeah that has absolutely nothing to do with your sexual orientation. You haven't experienced anything on that list. But I'll be damned if you aren't gonna pretend like you have just to make yourself feel like you have something to contribute to your side of the discussion. So your strawman failed and this is what you come back with? Let me guess, you feel like you have actually written anything of relevance in response to what I wrote? EDIT: For clarification as you seemed to miss it the first 2 times around. I never claimed that it would have anything to do with my sexuality - in fact I claimed the opposite. That regardless of sexuality one could have said experiences. I know you think you can. But that's exactly why you're missing the point. You don't understand why sexual orientation matters in those situations. Because as a heterosexual male, you can't understand how your orientation would ever be relevant. But for those in the minority, it is relevant. Not only do you lack sympathy, you even lack the desire to have sympathy which is pretty gross. You're part of the problem and you're the reason TeamLiquid can do something as simple as change the banner and have it be meaningful. Because it exposes people like you who have never been confronted with the fact that they can't understand why this is an issue, because they're trapped in a bubble and won't even admit that there are things they might not know. Would you stop with the ad hominems and actual bring something to the table in your next post? I suggest you go back and read my posts, you are accusing me of something which you really have zero foundation for doing. I have no idea why you are so insistent of putting words into my mouth, I shall spell it out for you one last time before I give up: The lists that have been posted so far have all claimed that e.g. "not being able to hold you loved ones hand out of fear" was exclusive to homosexuals and that a heterosexual white person could never possibly experience this and consequently he was privileged. I EXPERIENCED THIS. I was fearful for her life and it let ultimately to us never actually dating. And you have the audacity to tell me that I have never had to fear for the life of my loved ones due to a factor over which neither of us had control? That I am not sympathetic when I have done nothing but express my support for the cause - a cause I personally had hoped by now was no longer needed to fight for, but it sadly still is? Sure my experiences might not have root in my sexuality, it was rooted in my attraction to a girl and the person I am, but I am hardly any more in control of my feelings for her or who I am, than a homosexual is of his/her sexuality and who he/she is.
Yeah, I have the audacity to tell you that. I'll point out one big old distinction. You could go find another girl. A gay man is afraid to hold his boyfriend's hand in public and he will never be able to date a boy where that is not the case. Do you understand the sense of hopelessness that comes with that? No. You don't. Your prospects for normalcy aren't zero. If a fear is too great for you, you can end the relationship and fine another girl. The fears that haunt homosexuals don't go away simply by finding a different boyfriend. They're always there, no matter who we try to date. When the list claimed "not being able to hold your loved ones hand out of fear" it meant any loved one. Not just one loved one where it was awkward.
Don't get all huffy cause you're convinced that having it hard once is the same thing as having it hard all the time.
|
On June 25 2013 13:30 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 13:25 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 13:23 Djzapz wrote:On June 25 2013 13:18 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 12:58 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 12:37 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 12:35 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 12:15 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 12:01 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 11:54 Ghostcom wrote:
2) Every time the topic of homosexuality comes up I am saddened to see the bastardization that the term "homophobia" has undergone. To be quite honest it irks me that anti-homosexuals are given the benefit of a label which infers an underlying pathology which they are not responsible for themselves. The reason it's appended with "phobia" is more to indicate that it's irrational. Any argumentation in favor of it is going to be necessarily flawed because there's no rational argument in favor of discrimination based on a characteristic that does no harm to society and the individual doesn't control. That however is not what a phobia is. Sure a phobia is irrational, but for it to be a phobia it is required that the subject is self-aware of said irrationality. Now please point out which of the anti-homosexuals in this thread that has been aware of the irrationality. A phobia is further defined by it being a fear - I have yet to see anyone have a panic attack because said person saw a gay couple. The fact that it is irrational should be clear enough without misusing terms. On June 25 2013 12:01 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 11:54 Ghostcom wrote:
3) Bastardizing the word "privileged" to describe the majority and writing lists of stuff said majority supposedly do not experience (I have personally as a straight white male experienced plenty of stuff on those lists, though obviously not all) are bullshit and really deserves as much ridicule for denying those who face adversity their right to complain as those who claim homosexuality being a choice and opposing basic human rights for ALL humans. List the stuff you have experienced and explain why that experience was based on your sexual orientation not being normal and how that made you feel threatened. Do it. I'll wait. Why would I? First of all I consider homosexuality to be normal - apparently unlike you? Secondly I never claimed that it was based on my sexual orientation not being normal - you were the one to impose that. My point was exactly that despite having a normal sexual orientation one could experience quite a few things on those lists that were supposedly exclusive to "non-normal" sexuality. Thirdly, I fail to see why I have to give personal examples - it really should be self-evident that the list is far from exclusive to "non-normal" sexuality. However, since you are quite obviously going to insist: I was "dating" a muslim girl, being a Caucasian white agnostic guy I do not think it would be hard for you to figure out what I have experienced - stepping into a world where killing for the honor of the family is not unheard of and where you are by definition a spot on the family honor simply due to who you are, through no choice of your own. EDIT: Fixed the quotes - only took 3 tries! Yeah that has absolutely nothing to do with your sexual orientation. You haven't experienced anything on that list. But I'll be damned if you aren't gonna pretend like you have just to make yourself feel like you have something to contribute to your side of the discussion. So your strawman failed and this is what you come back with? Let me guess, you feel like you have actually written anything of relevance in response to what I wrote? EDIT: For clarification as you seemed to miss it the first 2 times around. I never claimed that it would have anything to do with my sexuality - in fact I claimed the opposite. That regardless of sexuality one could have said experiences. I know you think you can. But that's exactly why you're missing the point. You don't understand why sexual orientation matters in those situations. Because as a heterosexual male, you can't understand how your orientation would ever be relevant. But for those in the minority, it is relevant. Not only do you lack sympathy, you even lack the desire to have sympathy which is pretty gross. You're part of the problem and you're the reason TeamLiquid can do something as simple as change the banner and have it be meaningful. Because it exposes people like you who have never been confronted with the fact that they can't understand why this is an issue, because they're trapped in a bubble and won't even admit that there are things they might not know. The lists that have been posted so far have all claimed that e.g. "not being able to hold you loved ones hand out of fear" was exclusive to homosexuals and that a heterosexual white person could never possibly experience this and consequently he was privileged. I EXPERIENCED THIS. I was fearful for her life and it let ultimately to us never actually dating. And you have the audacity to tell me that I have never had to fear for the life of my loved ones due to a factor over which neither of us had control? That I am not sympathetic when I have done nothing but express my support for the cause - a cause I personally had hoped by now was no longer needed to fight for, but it sadly still is? Sure my experiences might not have root in my sexuality, it was rooted in my attraction to a girl and the person I am, but I am hardly any more in control of my feelings for her or who I am, than a homosexual is of his/her sexuality and who he/she is. You've experienced adversity and therefor you've had it rough just like any minority. White dude living in rich first world country complains about toaster. You might want to reread that post. Also I fail to see why it somehow diminishes the issues that everyone in the world are faced with them. If anything it should magnify the importance of tolerance. I've read your posts in this thread and it seems like if you're not talking about various logical fallacies, you're rambling about semantics in a semi-coherent fashion... What I picked up from your last post is that you're annoyed that people say you're privileged because you're a straight white dude... and your argument is that you've experienced "not being able to hold your loved one's hand out of fear" and therefore you're no more privileged than them... The fact that you suggested that this situation of fear is argued to be exclusive to homosexuals is absolutely ridiculous, especially from someone like yourself. You probably used the term strawman somewhere in this thread, so come on.
I am largely talking semantics - I thought I had made so much clear from the beginning when I asked that we started to use the correct phrases and not bastardizing words?
I am annoyed that people misuse the term privileged to cover the majority - it does not mean "people who has it easier than others", rather it means "a special right". "Privileged" is thus a terrible choice of words because of not only the negative associations alienating would-be supporters, but it at the same time alludes to basic human rights as "a special right" rather than what should not be special in any way.
I was contesting the lists, not purely based on semantics, but rather the fact that they were listed as reasons why a heterosexual person could never understand, or even sympathize with a homosexual. This is a logical fallacy. Especially when those reasons are, unlike their portrayal in this thread, NOT exclusive to homosexuals. It might not be due to sexuality, but due to other circumstances of which a person has equally no control over as this persons sexuality.
I think it is reasonable to mention strawman when someone portrays this to mean that you are against homosexual rights, but if you got "White dude living in rich first world country complains about toaster." I guess we should really just stop here.
EDIT:
And there we have it: Klondikebar apperantly feels that a heterosexual man can just find another girl because they are in control of their attractions whilst a homosexual isn't. Glad we got that established. I am at a loss for words.
|
The main problem with this issue, to me, is that just as "pro-gay rights" people are unwilling to accept the reasoning behind "anti-gay rights" people's arguments, those against gay rights are usually a little bit too closed minded or portray their opinions as too closed minded, while actually being technically "correct" a lot of the time depending on the context of the situation. It boils down to this, for the US at least: Since there is no definitive proof on whether being gay or not is a choice, gay people are not being discriminated against, at least legally, in the United States just because somebody doesn't believe in being gay or gay marriage. What is happening is a societal "agreement" or coming to conclusion, where we as a society decide what we deem morally correct. At this current moment, multiple states have voted for gay rights to be advanced, and that is every bit their right, just as it is another person or state's right to not support homosexuality and vote against it.
I'll finish it off with this thought though. Just as the argument, "Who are you to tell them what they can and can't do in the sanctity of their home, they're free people," is thrown around incorrectly (I don't remember the last time I was allowed to do Heroin in my house or murder someone just because I thought it was okay), one must remember to keep their mind open to an ever changing societal climate, allowing themselves the opportunity to evolve in thought process and keep with the times. It was acceptable back in time to make black people slaves. Now it isn't. There wasn't just a whistle blown for when this change happened, eventually our society deemed it unacceptable to discriminate, and that became the norm over time
|
On June 25 2013 13:45 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 13:30 Djzapz wrote:On June 25 2013 13:25 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 13:23 Djzapz wrote:On June 25 2013 13:18 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 12:58 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 12:37 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 12:35 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 12:15 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 12:01 Klondikebar wrote:
[quote]
The reason it's appended with "phobia" is more to indicate that it's irrational. Any argumentation in favor of it is going to be necessarily flawed because there's no rational argument in favor of discrimination based on a characteristic that does no harm to society and the individual doesn't control. That however is not what a phobia is. Sure a phobia is irrational, but for it to be a phobia it is required that the subject is self-aware of said irrationality. Now please point out which of the anti-homosexuals in this thread that has been aware of the irrationality. A phobia is further defined by it being a fear - I have yet to see anyone have a panic attack because said person saw a gay couple. The fact that it is irrational should be clear enough without misusing terms. On June 25 2013 12:01 Klondikebar wrote:
[quote]
List the stuff you have experienced and explain why that experience was based on your sexual orientation not being normal and how that made you feel threatened. Do it. I'll wait. Why would I? First of all I consider homosexuality to be normal - apparently unlike you? Secondly I never claimed that it was based on my sexual orientation not being normal - you were the one to impose that. My point was exactly that despite having a normal sexual orientation one could experience quite a few things on those lists that were supposedly exclusive to "non-normal" sexuality. Thirdly, I fail to see why I have to give personal examples - it really should be self-evident that the list is far from exclusive to "non-normal" sexuality. However, since you are quite obviously going to insist: I was "dating" a muslim girl, being a Caucasian white agnostic guy I do not think it would be hard for you to figure out what I have experienced - stepping into a world where killing for the honor of the family is not unheard of and where you are by definition a spot on the family honor simply due to who you are, through no choice of your own. EDIT: Fixed the quotes - only took 3 tries! Yeah that has absolutely nothing to do with your sexual orientation. You haven't experienced anything on that list. But I'll be damned if you aren't gonna pretend like you have just to make yourself feel like you have something to contribute to your side of the discussion. So your strawman failed and this is what you come back with? Let me guess, you feel like you have actually written anything of relevance in response to what I wrote? EDIT: For clarification as you seemed to miss it the first 2 times around. I never claimed that it would have anything to do with my sexuality - in fact I claimed the opposite. That regardless of sexuality one could have said experiences. I know you think you can. But that's exactly why you're missing the point. You don't understand why sexual orientation matters in those situations. Because as a heterosexual male, you can't understand how your orientation would ever be relevant. But for those in the minority, it is relevant. Not only do you lack sympathy, you even lack the desire to have sympathy which is pretty gross. You're part of the problem and you're the reason TeamLiquid can do something as simple as change the banner and have it be meaningful. Because it exposes people like you who have never been confronted with the fact that they can't understand why this is an issue, because they're trapped in a bubble and won't even admit that there are things they might not know. The lists that have been posted so far have all claimed that e.g. "not being able to hold you loved ones hand out of fear" was exclusive to homosexuals and that a heterosexual white person could never possibly experience this and consequently he was privileged. I EXPERIENCED THIS. I was fearful for her life and it let ultimately to us never actually dating. And you have the audacity to tell me that I have never had to fear for the life of my loved ones due to a factor over which neither of us had control? That I am not sympathetic when I have done nothing but express my support for the cause - a cause I personally had hoped by now was no longer needed to fight for, but it sadly still is? Sure my experiences might not have root in my sexuality, it was rooted in my attraction to a girl and the person I am, but I am hardly any more in control of my feelings for her or who I am, than a homosexual is of his/her sexuality and who he/she is. You've experienced adversity and therefor you've had it rough just like any minority. White dude living in rich first world country complains about toaster. You might want to reread that post. Also I fail to see why it somehow diminishes the issues that everyone in the world are faced with them. If anything it should magnify the importance of tolerance. I've read your posts in this thread and it seems like if you're not talking about various logical fallacies, you're rambling about semantics in a semi-coherent fashion... What I picked up from your last post is that you're annoyed that people say you're privileged because you're a straight white dude... and your argument is that you've experienced "not being able to hold your loved one's hand out of fear" and therefore you're no more privileged than them... The fact that you suggested that this situation of fear is argued to be exclusive to homosexuals is absolutely ridiculous, especially from someone like yourself. You probably used the term strawman somewhere in this thread, so come on. I am largely talking semantics - I thought I had made so much clear from the beginning when I asked that we started to use the correct phrases and not bastardizing words? I am annoyed that people misuse the term privileged to cover the majority - it does not mean "people who has it easier than others", rather it means "a special right". "Privileged" is thus a terrible choice of words because of not only the negative associations alienating would-be supporters, but it at the same time alludes to basic human rights as "a special right" rather than what should not be special in any way. I was contesting the lists, not purely based on semantics, but rather the fact that they were listed as reasons why a heterosexual person could never understand, or even sympathize with a homosexual. This is a logical fallacy. Especially when those reasons are, unlike their portrayal in this thread, NOT exclusive to homosexuals. It might not be due to sexuality, but due to other circumstances of which a person has equally no control over as this persons sexuality. I think it is reasonable to mention strawman when someone portrays this to mean that you are against homosexual rights, but if you got "White dude living in rich first world country complains about toaster." I guess we should really just stop here.
You do have a "special right." That's what we've been trying to explain. Mainstream society exclusively caters to your orientation. So much so that you don't even notice when they are catering to you. That's a privilege. You're not entitled to have your orientation coddled, so it's not a right. It's something extra given to you for being straight. It's a privilege. And I get that you didn't ask for it and you may not even want it, but you have it. And refusing to acknowledge it makes you sound extremely spoiled.
|
On June 25 2013 13:45 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 13:30 Djzapz wrote:On June 25 2013 13:25 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 13:23 Djzapz wrote:On June 25 2013 13:18 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 12:58 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 12:37 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 12:35 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 12:15 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 12:01 Klondikebar wrote:
[quote]
The reason it's appended with "phobia" is more to indicate that it's irrational. Any argumentation in favor of it is going to be necessarily flawed because there's no rational argument in favor of discrimination based on a characteristic that does no harm to society and the individual doesn't control. That however is not what a phobia is. Sure a phobia is irrational, but for it to be a phobia it is required that the subject is self-aware of said irrationality. Now please point out which of the anti-homosexuals in this thread that has been aware of the irrationality. A phobia is further defined by it being a fear - I have yet to see anyone have a panic attack because said person saw a gay couple. The fact that it is irrational should be clear enough without misusing terms. On June 25 2013 12:01 Klondikebar wrote:
[quote]
List the stuff you have experienced and explain why that experience was based on your sexual orientation not being normal and how that made you feel threatened. Do it. I'll wait. Why would I? First of all I consider homosexuality to be normal - apparently unlike you? Secondly I never claimed that it was based on my sexual orientation not being normal - you were the one to impose that. My point was exactly that despite having a normal sexual orientation one could experience quite a few things on those lists that were supposedly exclusive to "non-normal" sexuality. Thirdly, I fail to see why I have to give personal examples - it really should be self-evident that the list is far from exclusive to "non-normal" sexuality. However, since you are quite obviously going to insist: I was "dating" a muslim girl, being a Caucasian white agnostic guy I do not think it would be hard for you to figure out what I have experienced - stepping into a world where killing for the honor of the family is not unheard of and where you are by definition a spot on the family honor simply due to who you are, through no choice of your own. EDIT: Fixed the quotes - only took 3 tries! Yeah that has absolutely nothing to do with your sexual orientation. You haven't experienced anything on that list. But I'll be damned if you aren't gonna pretend like you have just to make yourself feel like you have something to contribute to your side of the discussion. So your strawman failed and this is what you come back with? Let me guess, you feel like you have actually written anything of relevance in response to what I wrote? EDIT: For clarification as you seemed to miss it the first 2 times around. I never claimed that it would have anything to do with my sexuality - in fact I claimed the opposite. That regardless of sexuality one could have said experiences. I know you think you can. But that's exactly why you're missing the point. You don't understand why sexual orientation matters in those situations. Because as a heterosexual male, you can't understand how your orientation would ever be relevant. But for those in the minority, it is relevant. Not only do you lack sympathy, you even lack the desire to have sympathy which is pretty gross. You're part of the problem and you're the reason TeamLiquid can do something as simple as change the banner and have it be meaningful. Because it exposes people like you who have never been confronted with the fact that they can't understand why this is an issue, because they're trapped in a bubble and won't even admit that there are things they might not know. The lists that have been posted so far have all claimed that e.g. "not being able to hold you loved ones hand out of fear" was exclusive to homosexuals and that a heterosexual white person could never possibly experience this and consequently he was privileged. I EXPERIENCED THIS. I was fearful for her life and it let ultimately to us never actually dating. And you have the audacity to tell me that I have never had to fear for the life of my loved ones due to a factor over which neither of us had control? That I am not sympathetic when I have done nothing but express my support for the cause - a cause I personally had hoped by now was no longer needed to fight for, but it sadly still is? Sure my experiences might not have root in my sexuality, it was rooted in my attraction to a girl and the person I am, but I am hardly any more in control of my feelings for her or who I am, than a homosexual is of his/her sexuality and who he/she is. You've experienced adversity and therefor you've had it rough just like any minority. White dude living in rich first world country complains about toaster. You might want to reread that post. Also I fail to see why it somehow diminishes the issues that everyone in the world are faced with them. If anything it should magnify the importance of tolerance. I've read your posts in this thread and it seems like if you're not talking about various logical fallacies, you're rambling about semantics in a semi-coherent fashion... What I picked up from your last post is that you're annoyed that people say you're privileged because you're a straight white dude... and your argument is that you've experienced "not being able to hold your loved one's hand out of fear" and therefore you're no more privileged than them... The fact that you suggested that this situation of fear is argued to be exclusive to homosexuals is absolutely ridiculous, especially from someone like yourself. You probably used the term strawman somewhere in this thread, so come on. I am largely talking semantics - I thought I had made so much clear from the beginning when I asked that we started to use the correct phrases and not bastardizing words? I am annoyed that people misuse the term privileged to cover the majority - it does not mean "people who has it easier than others", rather it means "a special right". "Privileged" is thus a terrible choice of words because of not only the negative associations alienating would-be supporters, but it at the same time alludes to basic human rights as "a special right" rather than what should not be special in any way. I was contesting the lists, not purely based on semantics, but rather the fact that they were listed as reasons why a heterosexual person could never understand, or even sympathize with a homosexual. This is a logical fallacy. Especially when those reasons are, unlike their portrayal in this thread, NOT exclusive to homosexuals. It might not be due to sexuality, but due to other circumstances of which a person has equally no control over as this persons sexuality. I think it is reasonable to mention strawman when someone portrays this to mean that you are against homosexual rights, but if you got "White dude living in rich first world country complains about toaster." I guess we should really just stop here.
As a social sciences person, I've been taught pretty fast and early that when you're going to argue, you want to set your bases straight, get your concepts straight first before you get going. This is good when writing a research paper... however, this is a discussion board and when people say stuff that doesn't sound right, unless it's really confusing, you roll with it.
In this case, the word "privilege" is clearly used to say "advantage". It's obvious and so you should just run with it instead of muddying the water. As for your suggestion that you can never understand what it's like to be a homosexual and can never truly sympathize, I don't know who said that - was it someone on this thread or your mind? Either way, it's a dumb idea.
The entire point of what was being said is, being a homosexual means you'll have extra obstacles* to deal with for your entire life. Is this FALSE? If not, why are you picking a fight with the language that was used to describe this very simple fact? Go play with something else!
IMPORTANT NOTE:
*The word "obstacle" here is used figuratively, in case you'd choose to harp on that too.
Be reasonable. I know it's fun to flaunt around with that big brain of yours, probably while smoking the pipe and speaking with a haughty accent, but we're not robots here.
|
On June 25 2013 13:45 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 13:30 Djzapz wrote:On June 25 2013 13:25 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 13:23 Djzapz wrote:On June 25 2013 13:18 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 12:58 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 12:37 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 12:35 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 12:15 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 12:01 Klondikebar wrote:
[quote]
The reason it's appended with "phobia" is more to indicate that it's irrational. Any argumentation in favor of it is going to be necessarily flawed because there's no rational argument in favor of discrimination based on a characteristic that does no harm to society and the individual doesn't control. That however is not what a phobia is. Sure a phobia is irrational, but for it to be a phobia it is required that the subject is self-aware of said irrationality. Now please point out which of the anti-homosexuals in this thread that has been aware of the irrationality. A phobia is further defined by it being a fear - I have yet to see anyone have a panic attack because said person saw a gay couple. The fact that it is irrational should be clear enough without misusing terms. On June 25 2013 12:01 Klondikebar wrote:
[quote]
List the stuff you have experienced and explain why that experience was based on your sexual orientation not being normal and how that made you feel threatened. Do it. I'll wait. Why would I? First of all I consider homosexuality to be normal - apparently unlike you? Secondly I never claimed that it was based on my sexual orientation not being normal - you were the one to impose that. My point was exactly that despite having a normal sexual orientation one could experience quite a few things on those lists that were supposedly exclusive to "non-normal" sexuality. Thirdly, I fail to see why I have to give personal examples - it really should be self-evident that the list is far from exclusive to "non-normal" sexuality. However, since you are quite obviously going to insist: I was "dating" a muslim girl, being a Caucasian white agnostic guy I do not think it would be hard for you to figure out what I have experienced - stepping into a world where killing for the honor of the family is not unheard of and where you are by definition a spot on the family honor simply due to who you are, through no choice of your own. EDIT: Fixed the quotes - only took 3 tries! Yeah that has absolutely nothing to do with your sexual orientation. You haven't experienced anything on that list. But I'll be damned if you aren't gonna pretend like you have just to make yourself feel like you have something to contribute to your side of the discussion. So your strawman failed and this is what you come back with? Let me guess, you feel like you have actually written anything of relevance in response to what I wrote? EDIT: For clarification as you seemed to miss it the first 2 times around. I never claimed that it would have anything to do with my sexuality - in fact I claimed the opposite. That regardless of sexuality one could have said experiences. I know you think you can. But that's exactly why you're missing the point. You don't understand why sexual orientation matters in those situations. Because as a heterosexual male, you can't understand how your orientation would ever be relevant. But for those in the minority, it is relevant. Not only do you lack sympathy, you even lack the desire to have sympathy which is pretty gross. You're part of the problem and you're the reason TeamLiquid can do something as simple as change the banner and have it be meaningful. Because it exposes people like you who have never been confronted with the fact that they can't understand why this is an issue, because they're trapped in a bubble and won't even admit that there are things they might not know. The lists that have been posted so far have all claimed that e.g. "not being able to hold you loved ones hand out of fear" was exclusive to homosexuals and that a heterosexual white person could never possibly experience this and consequently he was privileged. I EXPERIENCED THIS. I was fearful for her life and it let ultimately to us never actually dating. And you have the audacity to tell me that I have never had to fear for the life of my loved ones due to a factor over which neither of us had control? That I am not sympathetic when I have done nothing but express my support for the cause - a cause I personally had hoped by now was no longer needed to fight for, but it sadly still is? Sure my experiences might not have root in my sexuality, it was rooted in my attraction to a girl and the person I am, but I am hardly any more in control of my feelings for her or who I am, than a homosexual is of his/her sexuality and who he/she is. You've experienced adversity and therefor you've had it rough just like any minority. White dude living in rich first world country complains about toaster. You might want to reread that post. Also I fail to see why it somehow diminishes the issues that everyone in the world are faced with them. If anything it should magnify the importance of tolerance. I've read your posts in this thread and it seems like if you're not talking about various logical fallacies, you're rambling about semantics in a semi-coherent fashion... What I picked up from your last post is that you're annoyed that people say you're privileged because you're a straight white dude... and your argument is that you've experienced "not being able to hold your loved one's hand out of fear" and therefore you're no more privileged than them... The fact that you suggested that this situation of fear is argued to be exclusive to homosexuals is absolutely ridiculous, especially from someone like yourself. You probably used the term strawman somewhere in this thread, so come on. I am largely talking semantics - I thought I had made so much clear from the beginning when I asked that we started to use the correct phrases and not bastardizing words? I am annoyed that people misuse the term privileged to cover the majority - it does not mean "people who has it easier than others", rather it means "a special right". "Privileged" is thus a terrible choice of words because of not only the negative associations alienating would-be supporters, but it at the same time alludes to basic human rights as "a special right" rather than what should not be special in any way. I was contesting the lists, not purely based on semantics, but rather the fact that they were listed as reasons why a heterosexual person could never understand, or even sympathize with a homosexual. This is a logical fallacy. Especially when those reasons are, unlike their portrayal in this thread, NOT exclusive to homosexuals. It might not be due to sexuality, but due to other circumstances of which a person has equally no control over as this persons sexuality. I think it is reasonable to mention strawman when someone portrays this to mean that you are against homosexual rights, but if you got "White dude living in rich first world country complains about toaster." I guess we should really just stop here. EDIT: And there we have it: Klondikebar apperantly feels that a heterosexual man can just find another girl because they are in control of their attractions whilst a homosexual isn't. Glad we got that established. I am at a loss for words.
That would only be a valid comparison if that was&is the only girl you've ever been attracted to
Also that is not a misuse of the term privilege; it is the agreed upon term for this when discussing SJ
|
On June 25 2013 13:48 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 13:45 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 13:30 Djzapz wrote:On June 25 2013 13:25 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 13:23 Djzapz wrote:On June 25 2013 13:18 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 12:58 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 12:37 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 12:35 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 12:15 Ghostcom wrote:
[quote]
That however is not what a phobia is. Sure a phobia is irrational, but for it to be a phobia it is required that the subject is self-aware of said irrationality. Now please point out which of the anti-homosexuals in this thread that has been aware of the irrationality. A phobia is further defined by it being a fear - I have yet to see anyone have a panic attack because said person saw a gay couple. The fact that it is irrational should be clear enough without misusing terms.
[quote]
Why would I? First of all I consider homosexuality to be normal - apparently unlike you? Secondly I never claimed that it was based on my sexual orientation not being normal - you were the one to impose that. My point was exactly that despite having a normal sexual orientation one could experience quite a few things on those lists that were supposedly exclusive to "non-normal" sexuality. Thirdly, I fail to see why I have to give personal examples - it really should be self-evident that the list is far from exclusive to "non-normal" sexuality. However, since you are quite obviously going to insist: I was "dating" a muslim girl, being a Caucasian white agnostic guy I do not think it would be hard for you to figure out what I have experienced - stepping into a world where killing for the honor of the family is not unheard of and where you are by definition a spot on the family honor simply due to who you are, through no choice of your own.
EDIT: Fixed the quotes - only took 3 tries! Yeah that has absolutely nothing to do with your sexual orientation. You haven't experienced anything on that list. But I'll be damned if you aren't gonna pretend like you have just to make yourself feel like you have something to contribute to your side of the discussion. So your strawman failed and this is what you come back with? Let me guess, you feel like you have actually written anything of relevance in response to what I wrote? EDIT: For clarification as you seemed to miss it the first 2 times around. I never claimed that it would have anything to do with my sexuality - in fact I claimed the opposite. That regardless of sexuality one could have said experiences. I know you think you can. But that's exactly why you're missing the point. You don't understand why sexual orientation matters in those situations. Because as a heterosexual male, you can't understand how your orientation would ever be relevant. But for those in the minority, it is relevant. Not only do you lack sympathy, you even lack the desire to have sympathy which is pretty gross. You're part of the problem and you're the reason TeamLiquid can do something as simple as change the banner and have it be meaningful. Because it exposes people like you who have never been confronted with the fact that they can't understand why this is an issue, because they're trapped in a bubble and won't even admit that there are things they might not know. The lists that have been posted so far have all claimed that e.g. "not being able to hold you loved ones hand out of fear" was exclusive to homosexuals and that a heterosexual white person could never possibly experience this and consequently he was privileged. I EXPERIENCED THIS. I was fearful for her life and it let ultimately to us never actually dating. And you have the audacity to tell me that I have never had to fear for the life of my loved ones due to a factor over which neither of us had control? That I am not sympathetic when I have done nothing but express my support for the cause - a cause I personally had hoped by now was no longer needed to fight for, but it sadly still is? Sure my experiences might not have root in my sexuality, it was rooted in my attraction to a girl and the person I am, but I am hardly any more in control of my feelings for her or who I am, than a homosexual is of his/her sexuality and who he/she is. You've experienced adversity and therefor you've had it rough just like any minority. White dude living in rich first world country complains about toaster. You might want to reread that post. Also I fail to see why it somehow diminishes the issues that everyone in the world are faced with them. If anything it should magnify the importance of tolerance. I've read your posts in this thread and it seems like if you're not talking about various logical fallacies, you're rambling about semantics in a semi-coherent fashion... What I picked up from your last post is that you're annoyed that people say you're privileged because you're a straight white dude... and your argument is that you've experienced "not being able to hold your loved one's hand out of fear" and therefore you're no more privileged than them... The fact that you suggested that this situation of fear is argued to be exclusive to homosexuals is absolutely ridiculous, especially from someone like yourself. You probably used the term strawman somewhere in this thread, so come on. I am largely talking semantics - I thought I had made so much clear from the beginning when I asked that we started to use the correct phrases and not bastardizing words? I am annoyed that people misuse the term privileged to cover the majority - it does not mean "people who has it easier than others", rather it means "a special right". "Privileged" is thus a terrible choice of words because of not only the negative associations alienating would-be supporters, but it at the same time alludes to basic human rights as "a special right" rather than what should not be special in any way. I was contesting the lists, not purely based on semantics, but rather the fact that they were listed as reasons why a heterosexual person could never understand, or even sympathize with a homosexual. This is a logical fallacy. Especially when those reasons are, unlike their portrayal in this thread, NOT exclusive to homosexuals. It might not be due to sexuality, but due to other circumstances of which a person has equally no control over as this persons sexuality. I think it is reasonable to mention strawman when someone portrays this to mean that you are against homosexual rights, but if you got "White dude living in rich first world country complains about toaster." I guess we should really just stop here. You do have a "special right." That's what we've been trying to explain. Mainstream society exclusively caters to your orientation. So much so that you don't even notice when they are catering to you. That's a privilege. You're not entitled to have your orientation coddled, so it's not a right. It's something extra given to you for being straight. It's a privilege. And I get that you didn't ask for it and you may not even want it, but you have it. And refusing to acknowledge it makes you sound extremely spoiled.
Mainstream society exclusively caters to right-handed. Are all right-handed privileged? If you are going with yes here, then sure I will cave and admit to be privileged under that pretense. But following that definition you hopefully do realize that even if society was completely tolerant and open for homosexuals, heterosexuals would still be privileged, simply because they make up the majority and society will always cater primarily to the majority. That however still does not equate to not being able to sympathize nor understand the minority.
|
On June 25 2013 13:57 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2013 13:48 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 13:45 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 13:30 Djzapz wrote:On June 25 2013 13:25 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 13:23 Djzapz wrote:On June 25 2013 13:18 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 12:58 Klondikebar wrote:On June 25 2013 12:37 Ghostcom wrote:On June 25 2013 12:35 Klondikebar wrote:
[quote]
Yeah that has absolutely nothing to do with your sexual orientation. You haven't experienced anything on that list. But I'll be damned if you aren't gonna pretend like you have just to make yourself feel like you have something to contribute to your side of the discussion.
So your strawman failed and this is what you come back with? Let me guess, you feel like you have actually written anything of relevance in response to what I wrote? EDIT: For clarification as you seemed to miss it the first 2 times around. I never claimed that it would have anything to do with my sexuality - in fact I claimed the opposite. That regardless of sexuality one could have said experiences. I know you think you can. But that's exactly why you're missing the point. You don't understand why sexual orientation matters in those situations. Because as a heterosexual male, you can't understand how your orientation would ever be relevant. But for those in the minority, it is relevant. Not only do you lack sympathy, you even lack the desire to have sympathy which is pretty gross. You're part of the problem and you're the reason TeamLiquid can do something as simple as change the banner and have it be meaningful. Because it exposes people like you who have never been confronted with the fact that they can't understand why this is an issue, because they're trapped in a bubble and won't even admit that there are things they might not know. The lists that have been posted so far have all claimed that e.g. "not being able to hold you loved ones hand out of fear" was exclusive to homosexuals and that a heterosexual white person could never possibly experience this and consequently he was privileged. I EXPERIENCED THIS. I was fearful for her life and it let ultimately to us never actually dating. And you have the audacity to tell me that I have never had to fear for the life of my loved ones due to a factor over which neither of us had control? That I am not sympathetic when I have done nothing but express my support for the cause - a cause I personally had hoped by now was no longer needed to fight for, but it sadly still is? Sure my experiences might not have root in my sexuality, it was rooted in my attraction to a girl and the person I am, but I am hardly any more in control of my feelings for her or who I am, than a homosexual is of his/her sexuality and who he/she is. You've experienced adversity and therefor you've had it rough just like any minority. White dude living in rich first world country complains about toaster. You might want to reread that post. Also I fail to see why it somehow diminishes the issues that everyone in the world are faced with them. If anything it should magnify the importance of tolerance. I've read your posts in this thread and it seems like if you're not talking about various logical fallacies, you're rambling about semantics in a semi-coherent fashion... What I picked up from your last post is that you're annoyed that people say you're privileged because you're a straight white dude... and your argument is that you've experienced "not being able to hold your loved one's hand out of fear" and therefore you're no more privileged than them... The fact that you suggested that this situation of fear is argued to be exclusive to homosexuals is absolutely ridiculous, especially from someone like yourself. You probably used the term strawman somewhere in this thread, so come on. I am largely talking semantics - I thought I had made so much clear from the beginning when I asked that we started to use the correct phrases and not bastardizing words? I am annoyed that people misuse the term privileged to cover the majority - it does not mean "people who has it easier than others", rather it means "a special right". "Privileged" is thus a terrible choice of words because of not only the negative associations alienating would-be supporters, but it at the same time alludes to basic human rights as "a special right" rather than what should not be special in any way. I was contesting the lists, not purely based on semantics, but rather the fact that they were listed as reasons why a heterosexual person could never understand, or even sympathize with a homosexual. This is a logical fallacy. Especially when those reasons are, unlike their portrayal in this thread, NOT exclusive to homosexuals. It might not be due to sexuality, but due to other circumstances of which a person has equally no control over as this persons sexuality. I think it is reasonable to mention strawman when someone portrays this to mean that you are against homosexual rights, but if you got "White dude living in rich first world country complains about toaster." I guess we should really just stop here. You do have a "special right." That's what we've been trying to explain. Mainstream society exclusively caters to your orientation. So much so that you don't even notice when they are catering to you. That's a privilege. You're not entitled to have your orientation coddled, so it's not a right. It's something extra given to you for being straight. It's a privilege. And I get that you didn't ask for it and you may not even want it, but you have it. And refusing to acknowledge it makes you sound extremely spoiled. Mainstream society exclusively caters to right-handed. Are all right-handed privileged? If you are going with yes here, then sure I will cave and admit to be privileged under that pretense. But following that definition you hopefully do realize that even if society was completely tolerant and open for homosexuals, heterosexuals would still be privileged, simply because they make up the majority and society will always cater primarily to the majority. That however still does not equate to not being able to sympathize nor understand the minority.
Yes they still would be, and no one is saying being privileged means you can't sympathize. It is just something you need to be aware of the implications of when you're discussing issues such as these
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
