How do you argue that you're not homophobic/racist/etc?

[KingDragonlord]

Either ignore it or attack the word itself. Its a stupid loaded word based on some half baked research that was debunked a long time ago. Its still used today by people who refuse to acknowledge any nuance in this discussion because they know it plays better in sound bites if you came frame it as a either/or proposition.

Thats my problem with the movement as it stands today, either you love gay people a big huggy bunch or you hate them and fear them, and nothing in between. If you're a public figure, your opinion has to be on record, its mandatory. You can't express any opinion of being against it and you aren't even allowed to be quiet about it. And once its on record, the press will rant about you.

 

[McElroy]

Well, fair enough. An unfortunate reality. I understand that some people may feel offended/pissed off, but that's that, I suppose.

No - I answered it previously. It's because of my faith (Christianity).

I just hope your aware of how much pain/suffering those views have caused for many people, even when they were under the guise of being well meaning

Though one could argue that contemporary modern Christianity - going as far as The Advocate's Person of the Year 2013, Pope Francis - doesn't cause that pain or suffering. For instance, here a Lutheran priest may bless a gay couple's civil union and I don't see that changing (the blessings) when same-sex marriage eventually becomes law (probably soon after the governmental election next year). Of course, this would mean one has to categorize Christians a bit [more], which could seem disingenuous.

The main argument I can see is that it's done for pleasure rather than procreation (because every heterosexual person has sex solely for the purpose of procreation, right?), but what they don't realise is that homosexual love is the same as heterosexual love, and sex is done for the same reason in both situations. Because they don't feel love towards people of the same sex, they believe there can never be love there, so the love which sanctifies their marriage can't sanctify marriage between two people of the same sex. This is simply people who can't understand something outside themselves, finding a book which agrees with their logic and using that as a defense.

The funny thing is that arguments against it are always really thin. If one holds a heterosexual couple having kids as the highest ideal, acceptance of gay acts is bad because it could encourage bisexuals to waste their heterosexual potential. And gays should remain celibate. The best counter-argument is a simple one: we'll get over it. We'll manage. Society can deal with childless couples just like it deals with... childless couples... and singles! Those lazy, unmarried single people! In the end it's mostly meaningless quibble, because for some people the argument (or at least what everything boils down to) is sin - an illogical argument with vague rhetoric.

Yeah, off-topic, but my two cents were attracted to the non-debate going about in this thread.

 

[Emanuele Ciriachi]

My reply would be, "I'm sorry, but I don't give a damn about your artificially engineered labels that aim to redefine my values as prejudices".

Also I might point out that I married a chinese agnostic woman and have half-blood children.
But I usually don't. I don't feel like I have to prove anything to anyone.

 

[Riff Moonraker]

Can you, even? This might be really simple to do, but I can't find any way to guard against being accused of being either of these things unless you're an ethnic minority or gay.

We've all heard that argument "My best friends are gay...", and we've all laughed at it, I've even tried using it after admitting it was cliche to a person who decided I was homophobic, but they obviously laughed it off, as they'd already made their mind up. Even though it was true, back then and still today, of the people I spend most of my time around that are not related by blood, friends, that is, literally people in my closest (only) friendship group, two of which are gay. That was a few years ago, now.

Needless to say, I was really hurt, and every so often I remember that time and get really angry/upset. But I've always wondered if there's anything better I could have said.

So, any ideas? If it's not painfully obvious that you aren't of that ideology, once you're hit with the homophobia/racism card, can you refute the claim on your own?

God, this thread is dumb.

EDIT: Just making sure you all know, no need to help me with this situation as if it was "current". This happened a while ago, and it annoyed me at the time and still annoys me, today. My only connection to this person is a facebook friendship, and we know how much those mean...

And this isn't a consistent issue for me, either! Tch...I should've made a topic about bunnies or cats or Timesplitters (however, that would receive next to no replies) or our main age-range for our greatest times as gamers.

Not to sound flippant, but to be completely honest with you, its not something I concern myself with, waste any time on, or stress over. *I* know what I am, and what my values are, and that is good enough for me. I know what my wife and kids think of me, as well as my parents, and my friends, and beyond that I dont really give a damn what someone thinks about me.

Take that approach, and you will sleep just fine at night.

 

[PeterMerkin69]

I have a hard time taking anyone seriously when they casually use labels like racist or sexist or sjw if I disagree with them or do something of which they don't approve, so I don't really worry much about it. If I think what they're saying is influencing a third party's opinion of me then I'll let my true nature prove my worth, and if the third party can't see that through the second party's stupidity then fuck them, too.

Actions are more important than words in the real world, and while I may tell racist jokes or use homophobic slurs, that has nothing to do with my valuation and treatment of individuals or groups. Where one sticks what doesn't have an effect on how I would treat one in person. I would not hire a man over a woman for simply having a penis. If I saw two black and white men hanging off a cliff and could only save one, skin color wouldn't influence my decision. I would offer assistance to a woman being abused by her husband because she didn't do the dishes even though I crack jokes about black eyes. I just need excitement to feel excited, and following the rules of polite society simply isn't exciting.

If you're insulting someone there's also something to be said for breaking polite society's rules. No one's going to take you seriously if restraint and respect are showing through your anger because they betray your excessive rule-conscientiousness, and rule-conscientiousness means you're not willing to go very far to defeat your opponent. If you don't care that much then you don't have the drive to go after them and you can safely be dismissed. GG, nerd. GG.

I refuse to be blamed for the alleged societal affects of my speech vis a vis devaluation of minorities and I feel I have significant cause to doubt the relevance of these things. While I was raised by a racist, homophobic, sexist father and I get a kick out of being a petty contrarian, multicultural integration is nevertheless tantamount to normalcy as far as I'm concerned, so jokes and environment are obviously not the foundation of discrimination and equality. Even if stupidity of others might be, I'm not going to sacrifice a modicum of entertainment because they're too lazy, or complacent, or poorly developed to think for themselves. Life's just too goddamn short and pointless for that.

I don't have to justify myself to others and these are sufficient to justify my behavior to myself. ymmv.

 

[Rastrelly]

I usually nod in eager agreement. If it's OK to be gay, it's as OK to dislike them.

 

[Vault101]

I usually nod in eager agreement. If it's OK to be gay, it's as OK to dislike them.

what the hell kind of logic is that? and why the hell dislike somone for something so trivial?

 

[Robot Number V]

I usually nod in eager agreement. If it's OK to be gay, it's as OK to dislike them.

Yeah, like it's OK to be black, so it's just as OK to be racist!


...You're joking, right? I'm actually asking, I'm not sure.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

As far as I'm concerned, as long as someone doesn't take direct and intentional action that either inhibits or damages a specific group of people, they are not meaningfully racist. They can still be racist, but not enough for me to care in the slightest. Sure, they may still harbor negative thoughts, but thought crimes aren't a thing (yet).

The point is, everyone has a different definition of what racist/phobic really means. Trying to appeal to all of them is fruitless.

 

[Eddie the head]

I usually nod in eager agreement. If it's OK to be gay, it's as OK to dislike them.

what the hell kind of logic is that? and why the hell dislike somone for something so trivial?

For some people it's not trivial.

 

[Vault101]

For some people it's not trivial.

yes, I forget this sometimes

these days it makes about as much sense to me as hating sex in general

 

[Fetzenfisch]

I usually nod in eager agreement. If it's OK to be gay, it's as OK to dislike them.

what the hell kind of logic is that? and why the hell dislike somone for something so trivial?

For some people it's not trivial.

some people are idiots.

 

[itsthesheppy]

The solution to this one seems simple to me. You avoid being accused of it by not being homophobic, or racist, or sexist, etc. If you find yourself coming under fire for these things, examine why that may be.

 

[DibsOnPyro]

You don't, you shut up and listen to the reasons someone said you were homophobic/racist/etc. and change your behavior or language accordingly.

 

[KingDragonlord]

You don't, you shut up and listen to the reasons someone said you were homophobic/racist/etc. and change your behavior or language accordingly.

So when somebody calls you names, the thing to do is to take their insults to heart and let abusive people define who you are as a person? Got it.

 

[Robert Marrs]

Just something to put out there. I got called a racist a few months ago because I would not let someone use an employees only bathroom. I've been called a racist many times by people who were just angry or who just didn't get their way. There is really no way to argue against that. You just kind of laugh it off because that person is obviously miserable if they feel the need to throw around those accusations when its clearly not applicable. Something to consider for all the people saying "just shut up and think about what you did wrong". Its just a tool to shut people down and keep them quiet in my experience. Actual racists probably don't give a damn if they get called racist.

 

[Eddie the head]

some people are idiots.

I don't know I mean in the end they fall for the same biases that you and I fall for on a day to day bases. They just come to different conclusion. I can't say with any certainty that if I was brought up like most homophobes I wouldn't also be a homophobe.

You don't, you shut up and listen to the reasons someone said you were homophobic/racist/etc. and change your behavior or language accordingly.

Gotta give you credit, this is some classy trolling.

It has to be that because if you aren't a troll, you're something even worse.

You might want to think about editing that. It goes against the Code of Conduct to call people "trolls."

 

[90sgamer]

The problem is, is that you are letting people put you on the defensive by using ad hominem, a fallacy in which a person making an argument is attacked, rather than his argument. The correct way to respond to an ad hominem is to call out the offending party, and command them to prove their claim. The burden of proof falls on them to prove that you are something.

Many people argue by aggressively attacking any who disagree. These are the most annoying of people. They are also very poor at turning people to their side, so they tend to stick within a group of like minded people where there will never be serious counter argument. Like Church. Or 4chan.

To put it plainly, the wrong response is to defend yourself. The proper response is to hold the other person to his burden of proof. If you walk him through it, politely, then he'll likely relent, or at the very least agree to disagree, once it becomes clear he can't prove you are a racist or whatever.

 

[Vegosiux]

The problem is, is that you are letting people put you on the defensive by using ad hominem, a fallacy in which a person making an argument is attacked, rather than his argument. The correct way to respond to an ad hominem is to call out the offending party, and command them to prove their claim. The burden of proof falls on them to prove that you are something.

To put it plainly, the wrong response is to defend yourself. The proper response is to hold the other person to his burden of proof. If you walk him through it, politely, then he'll likely relent, or at the very least agree to disagree, once it becomes clear he can't prove you are a racist or whatever.

That is, if you can reasonably expect they have the slightest inkling of a desire to maybe play "by the book", and that they entered a discussion willing to listen to new perspectives instead of just trying to preach their onw. Which, on the internet, isn't something I would rely on.

In real life, it's different. People tend to play "by the book" way more often when there's actual eye contact.

 

[KingDragonlord]

some people are idiots.

I don't know I mean in the end they fall for the same biases that you and I fall for on a day to day bases. They just come to different conclusion. I can't say with any certainty that if I was brought up like most homophobes I wouldn't also be a homophobe.

You don't, you shut up and listen to the reasons someone said you were homophobic/racist/etc. and change your behavior or language accordingly.

Gotta give you credit, this is some classy trolling.

It has to be that because if you aren't a troll, you're something even worse.

You might want to think about editing that. It goes against the Code of Conduct to call people "trolls."

Wouldn't be a big loss. If it meant I didn't see forum posts on the front page when I visit the site, I'd consider it a bonus. If it meant I can't visit the site anymore, I can get most of what I get here elsewhere. This place has gone to pot as the SJWs took over the forums and some of the actual site content.