Can we quit with automatic labels of "homophobic", "racist", "sexist" et cetera

[HardWorkingDem]

Let me state this upfront:

I believe two of the same sex should be allowed "marriage" and all benefits that heterosexual couples receive. I am all for people loving any other people of any other different type as long as it is consensual and no one is getting hurt and all are adults.

But what is really growing tiresome is the automatically labeling of people as homophobic, racist, sexist or whatever if they don't feel the same way or make critical comments.

The reason I bring this up is because a couple of issues ago The Progressive had a cover illustration of Obama and McCain kissing. Those who complained about it (most because The Progressive kind of failed to explain the point of their cover) were most commonly referred to as "homophobic" in the letters section.

Frankly, seeing two men in a sexual manner does nothing for me and for it to do nothing for me does not make me "homophobic" but instead heterosexual. Labeling people homophobic under circumstances like this and when they have minor criticisms does not make people automatically homophobic and to label them as such only harms the larger picture.


Lets save these labels for the asses that really deserve them.

[jeff30997]

1. Well...

You're not only a homophobic,racist,sexist but you are also an et cetera !1!!! :P

[JuniperLea]

2. We won't all be truly perceived as equals until...

All labels are dropped. I'm finding myself increasingly anti-label.

[Vickers]

4. "I'm finding myself increasingly anti-label."

Now THAT'S humor, folks!

:P

[polmaven]

17. So you are

a labelphobe? or is that a labelist?

[patrice]

3. Amen! "...tiresome" and BORING! in addition to being Invalid.

There is a small minority of genuine Homophobes. By FAR, most people may be uncomfortable or, more likely, CONFUSED, and very AFRAID (for a variety of reasons), but MOST people do not HATE Homosexuals.

Substitute any of the other labels for "Homophobe" in the above. This, of course, does not mean that we should not talk, as often as earthly possible, about these labels and try to decide what is happening in any given social setting.

[yardwork]

31. "Homophobia" means fear of gay people.

[Bjorn Against]

35. And there are unfortunately many people who are afraid of gays.

Whenever a movie shows a scene with two men kissing it causes a huge stir, this shows just how uncomfortable and fearful the public really still is of gays. It is a huge problem, and pretending it doesn't exist will not make it go away. I know I will probably be jumped on for this, but I believe that a large majority of Americans are homophobic. It is not something most people would be willing to admit, but anyone who cringes when they see two men or two women kissing but does not have the same reaction to heterosexual couples is homophobic. There are different degrees of homophobia of course, and most people who are homophobic are not intentionally doing anything to harm gays. It is not that all homophobes are bad people, they are people who have been taken in by a culture that has been historically not so tolerant of gays. I think part of the problem we have confronting homophobia (as well as racism, sexism, xenophobia, and other forms of discrimination)is that people only want to look at the extreme cases and not recognize the much more common but less extreme cases.

[HardWorkingDem]

37. So let me paraphrase to see if I have your view right...

Since I and many like me, are not excited or interested to watch two men have sexual relations, it means we are homophobic?

If this is correct, I would agree with you if people automatically cringed when a father and son kissed and remarked about that sort of thing, but for the sexual aspect of it, I strongly disagree.

With the advent of the internet, all sorts of things can now be seen. So let's look at a few examples of this - under the argument of one is a homophobe if he or she is not interested in sexual interaction between those of the same sex, then if a person who doesn't enjoy two anorexic people having sex dislikes skinny people and the same for obese people. Or what about men who prefer a blond to a brunette?

My point is, just because a person prefers one thing to another does not make that person phobic about the thing he prefers less.

And that goes back to my original point - let's discuss the real issues and quit shutting down the discussion by automatically throwing out labels to demonize thought and people.

[Bjorn Against]

44. No, you do not have my view right.

I am not saying anyone who is not turned on by or is interested in seeing two men kiss are homophobic, I am saying that those who are disturbed by such a sight are homophobic. This isn't about your own preferences, this is about your comfort level in seeing other people's preferences. I would imagine most people aren't turned on by many of the heterosexual couples they see kissing either, but they don't get disturbed by the sight of it. Everyone has their own preferences and there is nothing wrong about that, the problem comes with the fear of seeing other people's preferences.

[TrogL]

80. The roots of the word may mean that

...but the current meaning of the word has expanded well beyond that.

I'm using a working definition of "a belief that those attracted to the same sex are somewhat less than fully human"

[Creideiki]

76. I can agree that there's a small minority of genuine homophobes, but

I think there's a larger group that's heterosexist.

[Pithlet]

5. The fact that it does nothing for you

doesn't make you homophobic. But, I do think writing in to complain about it with the view it should never have been published does indeed make one a homophobe. I think that is a label that is earned with such an action. So, no, you aren't a homophobe. But the people who wrote letters who complained are, and I see no good in pretending otherwise, particularly here on a progressive message board, where I'd hope we'd have no one who would write such letters.

[TechBear_Seattle]

6. Legal marriage does not have scare quotes

You raise good points, but your first sentence makes it very difficult to take you seriously.

[HardWorkingDem]

12. Why is it so many here...

attribute nefarious intent to almost every thing here before asking?

The quotes were simply put in place because so many people apparently have "their" definition of "marriage" and that is it. So, no grand conspiracy or dastardly intent meant.

[TechBear_Seattle]

27. The only definition of marriage that matters is the one defined by law

The joining ceremonies of Roman Catholics or Pentecostals or Wiccans or Buddhists or Muslims or Orthodox Jews or any other group is entirely irrelevant to any and all discussion of marriage rights. Civil, legal marriage is defined by state and federal law. That is the only definition that is germaine to the discussion.

[yardwork]

32. What's your definition of "marriage?"

Something tells me that you are not in favor of legal marriages for gay folks, and this thread is an effort to tell anyone who disagrees to be quiet.

[Maven]

49. The RW often denotes same-sex marriage as gay "marriage" in quotation marks as a condescending way

to convey the supposed falsity or illegitimacy of the concept.

That is why.

[xchrom]

7. i feel like these threads are an attempt to make lgbtiq people to stop

identifying as such.

if we are not lgbtiq -- maybe we'll just go away.

and if not go away -- at least we'll look like the wall paper -- invisible.

[HardWorkingDem]

10. Absolutely not....the intent is...

the real discussion needs to be had and the focus away from the issues that detract from the most serious issues.

All the automatic labeling does is drive debate underground, instead of bringing it forward. Debate and discussion needs to be had, but labeling someone in a knew jerk manner only stifles discussion.

And that is part of my point. Let's identify the real homophobia, racism, sexism and all other isms and quit labeling those that may not be so.

[yardwork]

34. Ok. One example of "real homophobia" is opposition to legal marriage for gay people.

I'm identifying it.

[Two Americas]

42. according to you

Why do you get to decide what "the most serious issues" are?

No is doing any "automatic labeling." You are protesting a little too much here. If someone called you a name, confront that person at the time over that instance.

What is motivating you to say "hey everyone, look over there at the real bigots. It isn't me - my 'progressive' credentials are intact - the bigots are over there. Label them."

No one is trying to drive what you want to say underground. Express your true feelings. Bring it forward, whatever it might be. People may disagree with you, though. People may not like what you have to say. You will have to deal with that.

[HardWorkingDem]

51. Okay, here is a real issue...

while people are stupidly, automatically labeling good progressives as homophobes because the wonder what the intent of a cover illustration is, our entire popular media characterizes others than heterosexual as deviant.

Pay attention to how those different from the mainstream are repeatedly portrayed in the media (both news and entertainment).

Ask people what their mental pictures are of those different: often times a gay man will be seen as feminine, less than masculine, not a real man, a deviant.

To me, these stereotypes and prejudices are much more important than the knee jerk labeling of people simply because they ask a question or make a point of criticism.

Don't you think more important issues exist when we live in a country that has instances of killing a gay man and putting him on a fence or gang raping a lesbian?

But to top it off, pushing discussion underground is no help either and if you think this is bullshit, try this little experiment: pay attention to the conversation that goes on when a group of like people are together. (A group of men, group of women, whites, blacks, Hispanics, whatever) Whatever your main group identifier is and pay attention to the content of the discussion and see how often the content will be different for your particular group but different if someone of a different gender, race or religion walked up.

For example, a group of men would talk much differently than if it was a group of men and a woman.

My point is, the automatic labeling puts a chilling on much needed discussion.

Hell, anymore it's like coming here - you can't ask a controversial question, make a criticism or things like that without people taking your words out of context and labeling you as things you aren't.

[Two Americas]

52. I utterly reject your premise

You keep repeating your assertion, and demand that we all accept it - that "people are stupidly, automatically labeling good progressives as homophobes" and that this is the main problem we need to address, and also that this is what you are actually talking about. I am not convinced.

As far as the mainstream media goes, my suggestion is that you turn it off and stop listening to it.

As for your example, I have no doubt that racist talk by whites ceases when a person of color enters the room. Are you saying that it is a bad thing if a "chilling effect" happens to those discussions? Do you actually think that the racist talk is "much needed discussion" and that we should all be worried about driving it underground or suppressing it?

I am going to label you now, after reading this latest post - you are a person given to defending and apologizing for racist, misogynist and homophobic themes.

It is not the labeling you fear, it is the truth. It is not suppression of freedom of speech you are worried about, rather it is the rejection and invalidation of this secret talk you are protecting - racist and misogynist and homophobic - and your desire to give that secret hate talk legitimacy and a wider hearing and not have it be challenged or countered.

[HardWorkingDem]

55. You are doing exactly what I am criticizing...

Your reply is the type of crap that I'm talking about.

I use an illustration to make a point and you jump all the way to calling me all sorts of vile names, while completely missing my point to mischaracterizing my statements.

Show me where I used in my illustration any type of defense of racist, homophobic or other disgusting behavior? Show me...you can't.


My use of the example was to illustrate how things impact dialog and discussion and how automatic labeling does just that.

And then you come along and call me all those names.

And to me, it is god damned stupid and ignorant for someone to label a person a homophobe because he or she wants to know the context or intent of a cover illustration. And that is just what hypersensitive readers of the Progressive did when people asked nothing more than what their cover illustration meant.

The chilling aspect I'm talking about is when otherwise good people completely keep their ideas shut down out the fear of being labeled something by those that over react.

Frankly, you owe me an apology, otherwise, kiss my ass and in the future, ignore my goddamned posts.

[Two Americas]

56. see...

You haven't been called names. I characterized your argument. I called you a "person."

What is the big deal about having someone say that your argument defends bigotry? That is true for all of us at one time or another.

[HardWorkingDem]

57. This is what you typed....it's clear....

"I am going to label you now, after reading this latest post - you are a person given to defending and apologizing for racist, misogynist and homophobic themes."

It goes from using an example to show how content of discussions (and content that I did not characterize as racist - I actually was thinking of bawdy, macho male talk when I was writing it) changes when another factor is present to that of being accused of protecting racist, misogynistic and other vile discussion.

Your point was clear and uncalled for and inaccurate.

[Two Americas]

58. your logic here

So no matter what you said, a person could never respond by saying "you are defending a homophobic theme" without you accusing them of mistreating you and labeling you? In other words, bigoted comments should be able to be made without them ever being challenged. Should you be challenged for making a homophobic comment, we are then to see you as the victim. You should be free to express bigotry, but others should not be free to challenge you.

Your example of straight white males saying certain things when they are together and then going silent when a person of color or a woman or a gay person enters the room is very revealing. You say that the problem there is that those white males do not feel free to express their opinions, as though they are the persecuted or suppressed group. You go on to say that the discussion would be improved should those straight white males be permitted to express those opinions more openly, and imply that they do not for fear of being labeled.

I think that everyone here is well aware of those sorts of whispered conversations about "them." Those conversations are people expressing hatred and bigotry, malicious stereotypes. They go silent when someone enters the room who is a member of the group they are attacking and maligning, so they can keep that hidden - for their own advantage - and so they don't get exposed and challenged on what they are saying. You want to protect them, their "right" to express hatred and bigotry, rather than the targets of the hatred and bigotry.

[HardWorkingDem]

59. You should have the courtesy of not putting words in the mouths of others...

Again, you are misstating my point...I will try one last time to explain it to you and then I'm done.

My illustration was to point out, that ANY group of similarly seen people, when in the same group, will have the dynamics of that group changed when a perceived different person enters that group. I did not make this illustration to defend bigots, only as an illustration of how influences change group dynamics.

To make it more clear to you, imagine if five young grandsons were chatting and their grandmother walked up and asked what they were doing. The complete dynamic of the group changes. Just as if five workers were talking on the shop floor and a supervisor walked up. Or five males and a female walked up.

No where did I state a desire to protect bigoted speech or acts. No where. You completely pulled that out of the air.

YOU are the one throwing that crap in with your out of context bullshit.

And this gets back to my larger point and importance of not creating a chilling atmosphere by incorrectly labeling people with terrible labels (like you did).

Your jump from what I've typed to your labels is ridiculous and insulting. And I'd like to see exactly where anywhere in this thread, or on this entire board, I have ever shown a desire to protect bigots from being challenged over their views or comments.

So either show me where I've done just that or move on.

[Two Americas]

60. right

"ANY group of similarly seen people, when in the same group, will have the dynamics of that group changed when a perceived different person enters that group."

When that is based on race, gender, or sexual orientation, it is bigotry.

If this now has nothing to do with race, gender, or sexual orientation, and rather is about grandparents and grandchildren, then the basis for your OP collapses, since it all started with you complaining about being labeled a bigot. That certainly would never happen with grandchildren and grandparents, would it?

[HardWorkingDem]

64. You are starting to remind me of a couple of people I know and avoid..

See, it starts like this....you say something to them and it goes in their head and A, gets all twisted and then B, they don't appear to be able to follow the nuances and follow ups of the continuing conversation. So it ends up just being easier to move on.

Now here is the hard part - you seem like a very, very intelligent and thoughtful person who can add a great deal of worthwhile information to a conversation. Sadly, you also seem to put words and context into the thoughts of others without even having the courtesy to ask if that is what the person meant or not.

Now, my original OP went to the knee jerk and automatic labeling of something that is not there simply because a question was asked or a criticism made.

And just because a group of men are standing around talking about sports and change the subject when a woman walks up does not have to mean it is about sexism or bigotry. You keep throwing that in.

As for the group dynamic change, I brought that up because after many long discussions with women and blacks about gender and racial issues, I have learned that dialog really is important, but if the automatic labeling continues to pop up when it should not, then that does have a chilling affect on discussion and exchange of ideas. To be clearer, if someone who has a different opinion or angle on a subject is fearful of being labeled as something and does not add to the dialog, then how is there ever hope that the person might evolve in their thoughts or thinking?

Lastly, I have been in mixed company before when a black person immediately jumped on my use of the phrase "these people" without even letting me finish the complete sentence. The person played the Ross Perot game and if this person had let me finish my sentence, it would have been clear it was not one of those Ross Perot statements.

[Two Americas]

65. well, straight white males have it rough

I don't know what to tell you. Now it is about sports?

So, "a black person immediately jumped on your use of the phrase 'these people' without even letting you finish the complete sentence?"

Is that the problem? That is the "chilling affect on discussion and exchange of ideas" you are worried about?

I still don't understand why anyone would be "fearful of being labeled."

If there is some "knee jerk and automatic labeling" going on, that would not be the best thing. I don't think that is happening often enough to be a problem, and even if it is happening I don't think it is a big deal, and I can't see what the problem would be with simply taking it up with the specific person at the time.

You think I labeled you. I am still discussing it with you. Where is the problem?

[HardWorkingDem]

68. Man.....

Did you even read the OP? Jesus.

Are you one of those people that jump on everyone for anything? You sure seem like it.

I have tried to illustrate points with simple instances and experiences and you continue to misrepresent them completely.

I gave you ONE idiotic example of someone doing the knee jerk response I'm talking about. ONE. And you try to say that is the start of my OP?

Go back and re-read the OP. It's pretty clear what I meant, but you want to keep drawing incorrect conclusions and inferences.

Fear of being labeled? Do a little bit of history. There are many instances of people saying something that was misconstrued or taken out of context that has damaged their reputation. (And I'd give you an example of that but you'd turn that into some thing evil as well).

[Two Americas]

72. the OP

But what is really growing tiresome is the automatically labeling of people as homophobic, racist, sexist or whatever if they don't feel the same way or make critical comments.

I deny that this is happening here or is a problem. You have not convinced me that this is a problem. I understand that for you this is a problem.

The reason I bring this up is because a couple of issues ago The Progressive had a cover illustration of Obama and McCain kissing. Those who complained about it (most because The Progressive kind of failed to explain the point of their cover) were most commonly referred to as "homophobic" in the letters section.

I haven't seen that and can't comment.

Frankly, seeing two men in a sexual manner does nothing for me and for it to do nothing for me does not make me "homophobic" but instead heterosexual. Labeling people homophobic under circumstances like this and when they have minor criticisms does not make people automatically homophobic and to label them as such only harms the larger picture.

I can't imagine that because "seeing two men in a sexual manner does nothing for you" that you are therefore being called "homophobic." You haven't made the case for that, and I do not believe that it is true.

I don't agree that people are being labeled homophobic when they have minor criticisms. You have not made that case to my satisfaction.

I don't agree that there is some "larger picture" that is being "harmed." You have not made a persuasive case for that, either.

[Malikshah]

79. Bingo. No more Mr. Nice Gay. Uppity mos are scary to folks.

Don't like it?-- fight Rick Warren and shame Obama.

Basic civil rights for all is essential. Don't like the labels? Tough. If folks are going to state rude things; are going to be willfully ignorant; are going to be willfully callous and lack compassion; are going to be willfully noncommittal about the basic rights of their fellow citizens, then they should be taken to task.

[Bluenorthwest]

8. Intent

Tell me, seriously. Do you really think that the intent of the Progressive cover was to 'do something' for anybody in a sexual manner? Honestly, you think the intent of that cover was to titalate?
Do you really think that was the intention?

[HardWorkingDem]

11. The problem I gathered was..

readers could not determine the intent, but I used the example only to point out how people who were critical of it, many simply because the intent was unclear, were labeled homophobic in the letters to the editor replies.

[Smarmie Doofus]

9. Point well taken but your example is bad.

>>>>The reason I bring this up is because a couple of issues ago The Progressive had a cover illustration of Obama and McCain kissing. Those who complained about it (most because The Progressive kind of failed to explain the point of their cover) were most commonly referred to as "homophobic" in the letters section.>>>

Hard to conceive that this would be perceived by anyone as anything but an implicit putdown of homosexual behavior. Understand : I didn't see it or read it so my context is minimal.

I'd like to see some of these various debates take place with new and improved vocabulary. Words lose their meaning over time esp. when they are used in political debate. "Homophobia" is overused by some to the point of meaninglessness. Bill Clinton's observation that Obama could be expected to do well North Carolina because Jackson had done well there and there was large AA population in the state was a statement of fact and thus no more "racist" than the observation that the western regions of NC tend to be more mountainous than coastal areas. To some people, anyone critical of Israeli foreign policy... even if the critics are Jews...are presumptively guilty of "anti-Semitism."

Point: indiscriminate use of these "isms" as epithets, 1. distorts the original meaning of the term; (Dare I say, *trivializes* them?). 2. obfuscates and discourages productive debate and analyisis.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

15. Clinton was being racist.

Remember that only a few weeks before he made that remark, Hillary was polling well ahead of Barack among A/A voters. When it appeared that Obama was going to do well in SC, Bill made that flippant comparison to Jackson (I mean really - why was it necessary to go back a full 20 years?) to trivialize Obama's anticipated win there. Edwards won the SC primary in 2004, so why couldn't Bill have compared Obama to him?

[polmaven]

21. Bill made no "flippant" comparison.

Are you aware that, the question(s) immediatly before his answer to that particular question were about Jackson...from the same questioner, I think...(I may be incorrect on that part).

The point is, he did not just pull Jackson out of thin air. The TOPIC of the questions had been ABOUT Jackson.

Nothing "flippant" or racist about it.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

23. It was a response to a question by ABC's David Wright

Who asked if it took 2 Clintons to beat Obama. He did not mention Jackson.

[polmaven]

24. As I said,

i wasn't sure who asked THAT question...but, none the less, the few questions immediately before that one were about Jackson....The QUESTIONS were about Jackson....He did not just "flippantly" pull jackson out of thin air.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

26. Do you have a link to back up your claims?

Because this is the very first time I've ever heard that Jackson had been mentioned in previous questions. And if he was, was it reporters who invoked Jackson first, or Bill?

[polmaven]

28. No, i don't have a link,

but I do know that it was discussed here a little. There is a CNN write up that quotes Bill saying something like "We were discussing South Carolina political history"....

[mrreowwr_kittty]

36. Gee what a surprise. You don't have a link.

And I'm sure Bill was discussing SC political history. Like how it wouldn't matter if Obama won the state because Jesse Jackson did 20 years before.

[polmaven]

46. Well, believe what you like...

I'm not able to prove it, so it is now much easier for you to believe the worst. Have at it.

[FrenchieCat]

69. Here's the proof of what Bill Clinton said....

Said Bill Clinton today in Columbia, SC: "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here."

This was in response to a question from ABC News' David Wright about it taking "two Clintons to beat" Obama. Jackson had not been mentioned.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/01/bubba-obama-is.html

Here's the video. It is quite clear that the question asked by the reporter had nothing to do with Jesse Jackson.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qqd2dfjl2pw&eurl=http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/bills-spin-obam.html

[Orsino]

13. There are few non-homophobic reason s to oppose same-sex marriage...

...and they are easy to identify.

[HardWorkingDem]

16. In your opinion....

is it possible for a religious person to oppose gay marriage and not be homophobic? (I'm not particularly religious)

[Orsino]

20. Yes.

Though it will be hard to persuade anyone of this.

I was thinking mainly of people who oppose the nature of state-sanctioned marriage itself, and who don't advocate discrimination against anyone, as examples of non-homophobes.

[yardwork]

33. No. If you oppose gay marriage you are homophobic. Period.

Stop trying to wriggle out of it. Choosing a religion that agrees with one's bigoted stance doesn't make one any less of a bigot.

[Maven]

47. No.

There are not "few" reasons other than prejudice to oppose same-sex marriage--there are NO reasons outside of prejudice to oppose it. Your religion does not excuse what is ultimately a desire to discriminate based on bigotry.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. No.

If you're against gay marriage, you're automatically a homophobic bigot.

"The reason I bring this up is because a couple of issues ago The Progressive had a cover illustration of Obama and McCain kissing. Those who complained about it (most because The Progressive kind of failed to explain the point of their cover) were most commonly referred to as "homophobic" in the letters section.

Frankly, seeing two men in a sexual manner does nothing for me and for it to do nothing for me does not make me "homophobic" but instead heterosexual. Labeling people homophobic under circumstances like this and when they have minor criticisms does not make people automatically homophobic and to label them as such only harms the larger picture."

1. Nobody asked you to get off on it.

2. If you complained more about that cover, than a hypothetical cover of a man and woman kissing, then you're probably a homophobic bigot.

[Bluebear]

18. Why is "marriage" in quotation marks?

Just asking :)

[HardWorkingDem]

19. Thanks for asking....answered in #12....but to repeat...

just to indicate marriage has different meanings and criteria to different people....nothing nefarious about it or intended.

[Bluebear]

22. Thanks!

[leftofthedial]

25. you are the worst kind of istophobe!

or maybe you're just a run-of-the-mill phobeophobe.

Disgusting!








;-)

[madinmaryland]

29. heterophobic????

:shrug:

[IsItJustMe]

30. Simple minds revert to simple tactics.

[HardWorkingDem]

38. Huh?!?

?

[donheld]

39. Sorry but I'm with those who say

If you're against gay marriage you're a Homophobe. No exceptions.

[HardWorkingDem]

40. Will someone explain where this thread has grown into an "anti" gay marriage thread?!?!?

Is the OP that confusing?

[Two Americas]

41. that is not happening

I do not believe that we have some massive problem, or any problem at all, with people being labeled.

It is a right wing propaganda theme to try to make calling someone a racist or a bigot a danger or a perpetration that is equivalent to racism and bigotry. I wish people would not use that tactic here.

If someone somewhere has called someone a name, you can confront that individual in that specific instance at the time it happens.

[bridgit]

43. May as well toss in 'heterophobic'

[Toasterlad]

45. If The Sight of Two Men Kissing Bothers You Enough to Complain to a Magazine About It...

You are a homophobe.

[Maven]

48. If you complained about the picture, obviously it did more than "nothing" for you.

If your response was one of repulsion, or, "why do we have to look at that" sort of a thing, odds are there was some homophobia going on.

And there is a great deal of homophobia still on the left, and it should be labeled as such. Those who express it don't often like to be confronted with the truth, but we will not stop speaking the truth for their benefit.

[HardWorkingDem]

50. Can people at DU even read?!?!?

I swear, it appears people just pull stuff right out of the air around here.

No where in the OP did I state "I" complained about the picture. I described what the letter writers brought up and how bringing any sort of criticism up, they were automatically labeled "homophobes" when many were questioning the intent of the cover illustration.

[Bluebear]

71. So you're complaining at DU that letter writers to a magazine used those terms?

Well I see where someone could be confused. Why not write that magazine?

[HardWorkingDem]

82. Because it happens here as well...

And it has happened in this thread.

[IndianaJones]

53. seeing Obama on that cover did nothing for me. that makes me proud of my heritage..not a racist. nt

[mitchtv]

54. First, I don't use .'homophobic ' much, if at all

Second I will not shut up. no matter what the Good Progressives tell me, for that matter good Xians, too. You try tto stop us you are not progressive. I have to watch Hets pawing each other all the time , give me a break.

[Two Americas]

61. kick

This is an interesting discussion.

I say that we need to quit with the homophobic, racist, sexist remarks and attitudes.

The OP thinks we should quit with "automatic" labels of homophobic, racist, sexist.

We have heard that charge often here lately - that there is a problem of people being labeled - but it is rare that the subject gets discussed in any depth.

[Chovexani]

62. Just as soon as privileged people

Stop being homophobic, racist and sexist.

[bertman]

63. Good try, HardWorkingDem. I think the topic is highly relevant and you stated your points

well and in a manner that should have left no room for controversy. That being said, this IS Democratic Underground so you surely knew that there would be some "wordsmiths" who just couldn't let your statement go unchallenged.

By the way, I would also like to add "freeper" to the list of labels that we should not be slinging at those with whom we disagree.

[HardWorkingDem]

84. And that is some thing I just don't get about some fellow Du'ers here...

No matter what you type, add or try to clarify, they try to muddle the context and then start with the use of labels to change the tone of the discussion.

Hell, I'll be the first to admit - I can give as good as I get, but growing up in a large Midwest family, I've learned courtesy and manners is the first way to go and if you are unsure of what a person means, then ask. Don't infer what you think it was, but ask.


Oh, well...time to move on.

[FrenchieCat]

66. McCain and Obama Kissing?

Why, on heavens name would there be such a pic?

I know about the one with Bush and McCain hugging.
McCain better not have had his filthy lips on Obama! :mad:

[HardWorkingDem]

83. And you know what.....that is exactly what people pointed out in letters and were...

then accused of being homophobic.

People asked what was the context of the cover illustration and what it meant and then new letters poured in accusing any who asked about the context or intent as being homophobic.

[Fearless]

67. Trust me, Obama could do better than McLimpy.

:wow:

[JeffR]

70. What are ya trying to do?

Strip this site of the knee-jerk idiocy that infests these forums?

[Bluebear]

74. See #73, whatcha think?

[JeffR]

85. If it's missing now, it must have been choice!

[Bluebear]

87. It was - - -

the ANTI-DUzy! lol

[Name removed]

73. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Skittles]

75. I call 'em as I see 'em

if you don't like it that is tough

[el_bryanto]

77. If you strongly disagree with what someone says, why not use the best weapon in your toolbag?

There are few attacks that sting as badly as saying or insinuating someone is homophobic or racist or sexist.

Bryant

[TahitiNut]

78. When it's clear that such a label will "sting," then it's also a perverse recognition ...

... that the person so-labeled has the conscience and values that cause them eschew such an attitude. :shrug:

[el_bryanto]

81. Exactly right - their shame will force them to accomadate themselves to the correct attitude.

Unless they are a total bastard of course.

[Two Americas]

86. not at all

I hope people do point it out if I make a bigoted statement. Who wouldn't? Why wouldn't they?

[el_bryanto]

90. Yep - exactly right. If someone says something bigoted you have the duty to slam them down

and force them to change their opinion. Calling them a bigot is just the first step.

Bryant

[treestar]

88. Because you can water it down too much

One who finds DUers to be "homophobic" or "racist" pretty much finds most of the US population to be "racist" and "homophobic." Most of the US is to the right of DU. If we're all homophobic, then the average person is homophobic, and what is average becomes acceptable. When you essentially equate KKK members with DUers who don't believe Warren is a big deal, you've watered the term down - what do you have left for the KKK members? You've made them no worse than many a DUer. You have no worse word for them.

[el_bryanto]

89. Yes but you have to look at the context

The truth is very few members of the Klan participate at DU (as far as I know I'm the only one). You're not talking to the Klan here or other bigots for the most part. You are talking to people who would be ashamed to be called a bigot or a homophobe. That's what makes it an effective tactic for convincing people to change their minds.

Bryant