CreativeDominant
Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Politesub53
quote:
ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
In your mind. Not too worried about that.
I dont give a fuck what you are worried about. Read the following, try and understand it, then tell me who posted it. 
quote:
Q: Whenever there’s an insensitive, insulting, inhumane, or vulgar comment about homosexuals, the press describes it as homophobia. However, “homophobia” would seem to be the irrational fear of homosexuals, not the hatred of them.
A: It’s true that the noun “phobia” principally means an exaggerated or irrational fear. But when “-phobia” is a word element that’s part of another noun, it can also mean hatred of something, not just fear of it.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines “homophobia” in its usual contemporary sense as “fear or hatred of homosexuals and homosexuality.”
The adjective “homophobic” is defined by the OED as “pertaining to, characterized by, or exhibiting homophobia; hostile towards homosexuals.” And “homophobe” is “a homophobic person”—that is, someone hostile toward gay men or lesbians.
As I said, I do understand it. Nice of you to leave out what preceded the above:
The AP is going to stop using the word 'homophobia'. Seems that they have finally figured out...just as they did with Islam...that a dislike or even hatred of CERTAIN tenets of being gay does NOT equate to an all-encompassing fear or even bigotry as the terms 'homophobia' or 'homophobe' suggest.
And this, which followed the above:
Critics have observed that homophobia is problematic for at least two reasons.
First, empirical research does not indicate that heterosexuals' antigay attitudes can reasonably be considered a phobia in the clinical sense. Indeed, the limited data available suggest that many heterosexuals who express hostility toward gay men and lesbians do not manifest the physiological reactions to homosexuality that are associated with other phobias (see Shields & Harriman, 1984).
You might want to try and read all of what I posted, instead of what just works for you.
I'll finish with this. It seems the head of the gay journalists association gets it:
NLGJA president: ‘The AP is probably correct’ to discourage use of ‘homophobia’

by Andrew Beaujon
Published Nov. 28, 2012 11:50 am
Updated Nov. 28, 2012 12:40 pm
AP Stylebook | The Baltimore Sun | Voice of America | Slate | Guardian
In an email to Poynter, National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association president Michael Triplett says the Associated Press’ decision to discourage the use of the term “homophobia” has “set off some interesting conversations among NLGJA members.”
The general sense is that the AP is probably correct in terms of the literalism of the word “homophobia” and that it really is not the best way to describe anti-gay actions or motives. On the other hand, it leaves writers without a term — like racism or sexism — that describes anti-gay sentiment.
“At this point, I am not sure whether NLGJA will change its stylebook or not given the AP’s recent pronouncement,” Triplett writes. The group’s current guidance on the word advises writers to “Restrict to germane usage, such as in quotations or opinions. Use ‘LGBT right opponents’ or a similar phrase instead of ‘homophobes’ when describing people who disagree with LGBT rights activism.
|
RE: Indiania can now discriminant against anyone - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread