If you are heterosexual, you don't get to decide what is homophobic.

[racaulk]

And to tell a gay or lesbian person what language and images they have a right to be bothered and upset by is the utter height of arrogance.

Most gays and lesbians have lived our lives long enough that we can easily spot homophobia when we see it, even if it is cloaked under the guise of "humor." So if a gay or lesbian person tells you that the language, imagery, and/or humor you are using is inappropriate, please pause for a moment and consider that perhaps they know a little more about the subject of homophobia than you do.

[rockymountaindem]

1. I understand. I hate it when people try to tell me what's anti-Semitic

That's definitely frustrating.

[Behind the Aegis]

74. Amen!

I feel ya on that!

[crim son]

2. I don't disagree in principle.

Yet, when people are exposed to scrutiny and prejudice, it isn't impossible to imagine that they become extra-sensitized to the cues sent by straights. I've been on the other side of the argument and the assumption by some people that I'm somehow homophobic hasn't changed my view of homosexuality, but it did damage to my view of the person making the assumption.

Just my two cents'.

[Zuiderelle]

4. I'd be curious to know the circumstances of someone considering you homophobic.

[crim son]

7. I've certainly encountered them.

I quit college to go to "beauty school" way back then, and ran into it a lot, before people came to know me. I've had a lesbian girlfriend tell me upon first or second encounter (we were coworkers at the time) that she would rather the human race expire than partner with me, were we the last two human beings on earth. She's a musician, and very creative! Especially in the latter instance I had done nothing but be a bleached blonde straight female to warrent the slander. We became good friends in time. But my point stands.

[Zuiderelle]

10. Excuse my denseness, but I don't understand.

How was that accusing you of being homophobic to say that she wouldn't partner with you?

[LostinVA]

14. I'm confused, too

[crim son]

54. Yes, I guess the bare story doesn't make it clear.

The best way I can explain it, is that she made the comment unsolicited and angry. We talked about it later, and she admitted making a judgement based purely on my appearance. She had issues with straight women, period. I have my theories about how she became that way and if you think it's important to know, PM me.

It's interesting, because this exchange itself illustrates how misunderstandings, or even mistrust, can arise in any conversation or any encounter, and those feelings might be amplified by preconceived notions, LostinVA. We can be highly sensitized to the point of it actually being a fault, like the Christians who feel that agnostics like me are trying to steal their Christmas. It's laughable, but they genuinely feel a prejudice against them for whatever reason.

[Zuiderelle]

57. Sorry, crim son, but it still doesn't mean that she accused YOU of homophobia.

Sounds like SHE is heterophobic instead.

There are lots of gay people who have issues with straight people, just as there are lots of black people who have issues with white people, and women who have issues with men, etc.

Doesn't sound like anyone was accusing YOU of homophobia at all though.

I think maybe you just misinterpreted the OP.

[crim son]

58. Interesting. Not that I misinterpreted the OP,

but I may have misinterpreted my friend. Point taken, PelosiFan.

[crim son]

55. Please see my response to LostinVA.

My apologies for being unclear.

[cboy4]

106. Word.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[racaulk]

9. I can understand that.

I understand that everyone has a different sense of what is appropriate and what isn't. I'm sure you have your ideas of what is homophobic (or sexist, racist, etc.) and what isn't, and I completely respect that. We're all different.

The difference for me comes when you tell me what I should find homophobic and that I'm too "whiny" or "PC" or "need a reality check" if I don't agree with what your notions of homophobia are. That's an important distinction. I'm not saying that you personally have done this, crim son, but we have seen quite a bit of that from others in the GLBT forum as of late. That was what I wanted to address.

I appreciate your thoughts and input. :hi:

[screembloodymurder]

3. I don't think people are homophobic by choice.

They're born that way.

[Zuiderelle]

5. They are nurtured that way.

[The Doctor.]

70. Well, PF is closer to the truth...

People are born the way they're born.

It wasn't until just a few years ago that I came to the realization that people really are born in a vast range of sexual orientations. I hadn't realized that even a majority of people are neither 100% straight or gay until then.

Herein lies the problem; millions and millions of people born, essentially, bisexual with leanings one way or the other, in a society that says only one way is acceptable. This creates quite a problem. People develop under the impression that a certain orientation is 'bad'... yet they can't quash certain feelings within themselves. Unfortunately, most people deal with those feelings in themselves by taking it out on those they've been taught by society are 'wrong'.

Now, if straight people were born entirely straight, even though homophobia would still exist and there would still be assholes, the personal detachment from the perceived 'malady' would allow for more objective consideration.

So, to some small extent, being born a certain way will enhance some homophobic tendencies... but really it's the fault of parents and society that such a conflict can exist in the first place.

[Dawgs]

6. Are you serious?

So, as a heterosexual, I'm not allowed to defend homosexuals or other minorities because I wouldn't understand if what offends me is bigotry?

And claiming that we are too stupid to understand homophobia like you do is a little arrogant, no?

We're all pretty much on the same side here, okay.

[gristy]

12. The OP is ceratinly not stating or even implying what you are saying here

sheesh

[LostinVA]

15. The OP said NOTHING like that

Oh boy.

[Dawgs]

80. "If you are heterosexual, you don't get to decide what is homophobic."

That's what I was stating.

Sheesh, oh boy, etc...

[LostinVA]

81. Right -- you misinterperted it

[Dawgs]

83. Okay. That is your opinion.

I just don't think this is best approach to changing people's minds about homosexuality.

[racaulk]

84. If I could edit my OP, I would change "decide" in the title to "dictate."

I think that would more accurately convey the point I was trying to make.

It just gets very old trying to respond to homophobia here on DU, just to be countered by people who have never experienced homophobia a day in their lives telling me that I'm overreacting, being too sensitive or politically correct, etc. Basically, heterosexuals dictating what is and is not homophobic to people who spend much of their lives battling homophobia. It can be really easy to dismiss if it doesn't affect you personally.

And I don't mean you have done this, by the way, I'm just commenting on behavior that I have seen in others.

[bluedawg12]

23. The OP is stating that gays have a right to their opinions of what is oppressive

it say's nothing about straight allies not understanding homophobia, or defending against homophobia if they feel inclined to do so.

If you understand homophobia then you understand that it is expressed in many ways, some so accepted and sneaky or subtle that it might pass under the radar for some straight people, while as gay or lesbian we will feel it in our gut and know it for what it is. Hopefully our straight allies will support us when we call it out.

[racaulk]

24. I think you misunderstand what I said.

1. You are allowed to defend whomever you choose.

2. You can understand homophobia, but no, you can't understand it like I do. I've seen it and lived it for 33 years. The homophobia that exists in our world has effects on me, and others like me, that you can't possibly begin to truly understand. Can you empathize? Of course you can. But can you really understand, to the extent that I do? No. That's not arrogance, that's fact.

As an added example, our country has a history of bigotry towards all minorities, but especially African Americans. Being Caucasian, I can't truly understand the level of bigotry and racism they face on a day-to-day basis. I can empathize, and I can support and defend that minority to the best of my abilities, but I can never truly understand. Therefore, my judgment on what is anti-AA racism and what isn't must be in deference to theirs. And I wouldn't dare tell any of them what they should find racist.

3. You're right, we're mostly all on the same side. But not all of us are. My OP was addressed to those that aren't.

[The Doctor.]

65. This is more than fair;

"Can you empathize? Of course you can. But can you really understand, to the extent that I do? No. That's not arrogance, that's fact."

Absolutely. Even though I'll never fully understand, I have some idea from being treated as though I were gay by homophobic assholes. I was a very 'pretty' kid. I was lithe and athletic (still not doing too bad), and in my late teens discovered that girls couldn't resist me. Too bad I wasn't much of a pig then... but I digress.

I always had problem with assholes basically picking on me and trying to start fights with me for no apparent reason. They called me 'faggot' quite a bit... and some of them actually thought I was gay. I spent half of high school even convincing some of my friends that I wasn't queer (I was always a bit dramatic and effervescent). What I figured out then was that some of those assholes were picking on me because I invoked feelings in them that really screwed with their psyche. I didn't realize it for a while, but basically they were feeling attraction and couldn't deal with it... so they had to act on it with aggression.

Once I realized why these idiots were always calling me 'fag' and such, I started to have fun with them.

"You little faggot."

"Look buddy, just because you're attracted to me doesn't make me gay."

"Fuck you."

"No, I'm not gay, I will not have sex with you."

Suffice it to say, I wound up a hell of a fighter.



Now, obviously that sort of experience is nothing like living, every day, in a society that loathes you, but having just a taste of being assailed, and yes, even attacked because someone merely thought I was gay gives me some small idea of the insanity that gay people deal with daily.


Right now, out culture is at the developmental equivalent of a depressed teenager. One that's finally learning about all the icky things inside of them that they can't reconcile with their Catholic upbringing. We, as a society, are seeing what we really are. Some of it is scary, and some of it is confusing... which is scary. Many people have not yet figured out how to measure for harm outside of their own cognitive paradigm. When their paradigm is challenged, they believe it will somehow cause them harm. Just like the idiots that claim that gay marriage will harm marriage because the definition of marriage will change. I've gone in circles with these fools asking them how that hurts anyone if their concept of marriage changed.... nothing.

Never.

Not one reason at all.

Basically, people are comfortable with their perceptions and believe that they will somehow be 'diminished' if they must adjust... so instead they fight... and never actually understand why they're really fighting.

We've made great strides at eliminating the fears just in the last decade. Only the most irrational and violent yet remain... so I fear larger fights ahead.

I'm just glad I learned to fight. How ironic that it was misdirected homophobia that has me fighting for equal rights.

[keischin]

78. As a gay male, I had sort of an opposite experience growing up

I was rather tall and masculine, so no one really ever picked on me much. Because of some early experiences, though, certain teachers and students came to the conclusion that I was "different", probably before I even realized what it meant to be gay. In gradeschool, there was one very religious teacher in particular who stood out. I had a close friend who was effiminate, though I don't know if he was gay or not and our friendship had nothing to do with sex. Even so, this teacher would always try to work with us to get us to play more sports, and would ridicule my friend openly in class. One time he even slapped him for talking back.

There were two girls in my 5th grade class who were also particularly close friends, they were rather tough, but people would always gossip about them and this teacher also may have had a problem with them. One day, at lunch, these 2 found a bra in the teacher's desk and they began parading it around the school grounds with a lot of other students joining in. Needless to say, the teachers were besides themselves with anger and didn't know how to deal with it.

This is probably when I discovered the power of creating alliances and acting up against authority.

[Dawgs]

82. I understand what you're saying, but I don't think it's helpful.

It really bothers me when people use the "you wouldn't understand" approach of trying to change people's minds.

I find it somewhat offensive, and I'm sure others do as well.

[Vanje]

62. sorry

edited. My original response was mean

[sui generis]

107. I don't believe this was aimed at our friends

so don't choose to take offense where none was offered.

[gristy]

8. I agree 100%

[soleft]

11. Homophobia isn't limited to heterosexuals

[racaulk]

13. You're absolutely right.

A lot of gay people suffer from internalized homophobia, and that suffering is completely needless.

[bluedawg12]

25. Yeah, it's amazing how hate language and bigotry affects the targeted group.

Another reason to fight it.

[hlthe2b]

16. a lot of similar analogies... sexism, racism, anti-semitism

Yet, many here can attest that sensitivity is not all-encompassing and that for many, their concerns end when their ox ceases to be gored.

In, but one large example, we have had an entire two years of primaries and election season when the women of DU were repeatedly told "what is and what is not sexist," largely by the male populace of DU. I won't even go into the low level of awareness that exists in terms of women's rights--most people don't realize that the ERA was never ratified and thus women can still legally be discriminated against in many respects, not to mention abortion rights....

It is time we looked beyond our own issues to recognize there are many groups with continuing struggles for the respect and rights they truly deserve and we need to take on the struggles of others as our own and UNITE.

[TechBear_Seattle]

17. Yes they do

We don't matter. Our feelings don't matter. Our opinions are irrelevant. By way of example: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7896988&mesg_id=7897054

[Deep13]

19. Unfortunately, a lot of slang expressions mean both weak and gay.

"Pansy" means a feminine (i.e. weak), homosexual male, so it is pretty hard to deny it is a homophobic term. It really doesn't take a lot of reflection to see that and denying it is disingenuous.

[Deep13]

18. Well I do my best to avoid offending people...

...but ultimately, I cannot control another person's offense. I certainly never set out to offend gay people, ethnic minorites, women or members of religions I disagree with (pretty much all of them). Nevertheless, I'm not going to walk on egg shells or pretend something that is true or seems to be so is not because it has offensive implications. However something is being heard, I know I'm not trying to denigrate anyone. So in that sense, I do know what is and is not homophobic.

Also, as a former religious zealot and gay-hater myself, I think I am in a pretty good position to know homophobia when I see it. (In case you are wondering, I thought it was my duty to hate gays because of what the Bible says.)

And I'm not going to pretend a joke is not funny because it uses stereotypes. It is often the ridiculous or offensive material that makes it funny. You are, of course, free to put whatever moral judgment you want on that. On the other hand, I know I have no malice towards gay people, wish them the best and was among the quarter or so of voters who opposed the anti-gay marriage question on the Ohio ballot in 2004. I am not going to tell others or myself what we should or should not feel or think. There is no fence around my mind.

[bluedawg12]

39. As a self admitted "former religious zealot and gay-hater"

You are probably in a good position to identify code words, slurs, the rw party line standard talking points.

As gays and lesbians living in a world that is too often steeped in bashing fellow human beings and at the top of the list in these days of "cultural wars" gays are far too often the subject of hate language, bigotry and gay bashing, we have heard the rw zealots, the tepid liberals, the apathetic, the actual crazies and more.

The OP speaks of the right to express one's own opinion based on living with bigotry and does not seek to tell other to fence off their minds.

The more we speak out the more we will find people like you who come full circle excatly because we will no longer remain silent in the face of haters and homophobes.

BTW- just curious, what changed your mind about gays?

[Deep13]

41. That's all true.

And to answer your question, I realized the Bible was just plain wrong.

I went from not caring one way or the other to thinking them evil because the Bible says so. From there, I went to emphasizing different, more humane parts of the Bible and choosing not to judge gays for their supposed sin. Finally, I had to accept the evidence that the Bible is a load of crap.

[bluedawg12]

42. Thanks for the insight.

The Good Book is fascinating and has some good things to say, but, it is also a reflection of a long ago history and culture and when contemporary human beings pick and choose passages to prop their own opinions and politics that's when thumpers lose me.

Anyway, I am glad that you did open your heart to the humanity of others.

[Deep13]

71. You see, that's just it.

I always wanted to do the right thing. What tripped me up was buying into the idea that the god of the Bible was the benchmark of what is right.

[Mugweed]

20. What I really don't like is...

other people telling me what my opinion should be. That may work for Republicans or FOX News watchers, but I prefer to use objective critical thinking to reach my conclusions.

[bluedawg12]

34. That means you agree that gays should not be told what our opinion should be?

In that case we agree.

[Mugweed]

38. Yes

I try not to tell anyone what their opinion should be. It's annoying.

[racaulk]

35. You're absolutely right.

I don't disagree at all. :hi:

[bluedawg12]

36. I am done taking a back seat in the great social debate.

It seems to rattle some that gays are no longer content to take a back seat in society.

:fistbump:

[racaulk]

37. Exactly.

No More Mr. Nice Gay.

:pals:

[bluedawg12]

40. We will remember and we will not be silenced.

:hug:

[RedLetterRev]

86. And that's scaring the crap out of the RWers

Good.

[Jamastiene]

108. Our best chance is to never back down.

That is why the RWers are so afraid of us right now more than any other time. :grouphug:

[RedLetterRev]

128. That which scares the Oogedy-Boogedy wing

pleases me to no end. I'm to old, loud, and free to back down now ;-)

[amitten]

21. I agree. But it is also true, we all must admit, that in every

group in our culture there are hyper-sensitive types that take things the wrong way on a regular basis when no harm is meant. I see it all the time on DU (and I'm not referring to the gay community). There are just some out there who enjoy being chronically offended and want everyone to tiptoe around them.

But still, people need to try to be considerate of other's feelings. And genuine prejudice of any kind is a despicable thing.

[JonQ]

22. Out of curiosity

when Christians get in an uproar and claim something or other offends them, does that mean they are the only ones that can determine, objectively, if it was indeed offensive? And thus, all non-Christians have to remain quiet on the subject because they don't know enough about the subject to form an opinion?

I've seen a lot of people telling christian folks to shut the hell up and stop claiming to be offended over nothing, and certainly some of those people aren't Christians, by this logic they should stay out of it.

[bluedawg12]

27. By this logic any group being attacked knows when it is being attacked

that's all it says.

The OP say's nothing about being quiet on the subject of anything. It's an argument to realize that when you live in a society that actually considers putting anti-gay hate speech on the sides of buses as a serious possibility- then as a gay/lesbian you have a good chance of knowing when something stinks of bigotry.

[JonQ]

60. Actually

from what I read it kind of gives any group cart-blanche to decide when they are being offended, and what may be deemed offensive. I disagree with this. There has to be some objective standard. Otherwise a member of any group can claim they are being offended by just about anything and if you aren't in the group you have no right to give a retort. That doesn't seem right to me.

[noiretextatique]

79. how can there be an 'objective standard' when there is power imbalance?

rush limbaugh believes he can decide what is and isn't homophobia or racism. the problem is: he's a homophobe and a racist, fully supported in both isms by this culture. matthew shepard on the other hand was not fully supported by this culture...it killed him.

how can there be an objective standard about what is and is not homophobia if homophobes control the debate?

[JonQ]

88. I'd say if you promote

any stereotype that is demonstratively untrue then that would be on obvious form of bigotry. For instance, saying all homosexuals have AIDS, or something to that affect. Or making any sort of disparaging remark really that is all encompassing.

So the objective part: 1) is the statement disparaging against one group because of trivial physical characteristics, 2) is the statement false? 3) is intended to cause insult/injury? These are pretty easy things to identify.

[noiretextatique]

90. not when you don't "see" them

to put this bluntly, when it comes to race for example, as a black person i can tell you that some white people are vested in not seeing it. for example, my supervisor used the n word and for that she was written up. however, there is only one black manager in the entire company, and most of the lowest paid staff are minorities. i would argue that the situation is intentional, but i am sure others would disagree. i don't think it was planned, but it's the acceptance of it as the norm, perhaps unconscious (but i doubt that, honestly), that is a part of the problem, especially given that we are a social service agency whose clients are 80% minority.

[JonQ]

91. Your client base shouldn't matter

unless blacks can only serve other blacks. If that were the case would you see a problem if the neighbor were predominately white and your social service agency were predominately black? Somehow I think that if one of the white folks complained that he didn't feel he was being served properly because his social servant was black he wouldn't get much sympathy.

And I would hesitate to say that a racial imbalance is ipso facto proof of racism (overt or otherwise). It has alot to do with who applies, who is eligible, who stays with the company the longest, etc. Many factors other than race are at play.

For instance, the NBA has a higher than average number of minorities compared to the average population, but I wouldn't consider this as proof that they are discriminating against whites.

[noiretextatique]

98. the minority staffers (lowest paid) are serving the clients

because they provide direct services, and the managers are all white. that situation has been acknowledged as a problem here, and i have a solution: hire some managers who aren't white and some staffers who are. simple. we are located in a diverse area, so there is no excuse.

one of the reasons why we have this problem here is because different standards are used for some people. for example, my white female supervisor has no degree and i have two. she has some good experience, but i know for a fact that i would not have been hired in that position with no degree.

she is not the only example of a white person hired in management who has less education than the people they supervise. there is one standard for whites and another standard for people of color. as i said, the problem has been acknowledged and we are now taking steps to correct the problems. we got rid of two of the top three managers, and hopefully the other one will be leaving soon.

the nba is a poor example because there is clearly a tangible component (talent) that is a requirement to join that league. additionally, nba owners are more interested in making money than promoting racial equality...the talented players bring in the $$$.

[JonQ]

117. Perhaps in your company it is a problem

I'm not going to say racism doesn't exist in the business world, obviously it does. And since you are more familiar with this situation I won't argue with your assessment. I was merely making a general point that a racial imbalance is not definitive proof of racism.



"the nba is a poor example because there is clearly a tangible component (talent) that is a requirement to join that league. additionally, nba owners are more interested in making money than promoting racial equality...the talented players bring in the $$$."

Isn't that true of all companies? I can't imagine there were many businesses formed on the basis of keeping some racial/religious/ethnic, etc minority down, rather than making money. Seems then that most places would be out to hire the most talented workers to bring in the $$$, no?

[noiretextatique]

123. well obviously not

in my company, for example, i believe the top two were just used to working with white people, and used to black people in subordinate positions. that was the norm for them, two 70+ year old white men. they were perfectly nice people, btw, and committed to the organizations goals, but they were who they were.

if you think businesses operate by rational thinking, you are mistaken. the management models many companies use are completely outdated (military/family models, for example), and are actually detrimental to productivity and efficiency. i would agree however, that modern successful companies tend to operate more rationally. still, even huge corporations like coca cola are STILL being sued for racial and gender discrimination.

at least we are making progress. at my company, we would not have had the conversation we are having now even 2 years ago.

[JonQ]

124. The NBA is a business

and as you said they operate based on talent over race. Outsourcing is a major concern right? Doesn't that involve firing quite a few white workers here (IT for instance) and giving their jobs to people with a different skin color from management?

No I'd say greed trumps hate any day.

For instance, I doubt there are any country clubs (notoriously racist holdouts) that would deny Oprah entrance, regardless of how they feel about her personally.

Green seems to cover up any other color.

[noiretextatique]

125. i agree: green is colorblind

i think the NBA management and ownership would be a more valid comparison, because i doubt all those people are black.

[JonQ]

126. Probably not

But doesn't that sort of enforce the point? Predominately white owners are able to see past skin color and hire not people who look like them or come from the same background, but objectively the best players they can find, regardless of any other qualities. Unfortunately they do tend to overlook a bit of criminal activity, bad sportsmanship, etc. But at least they aren't using race as a factor.

[noiretextatique]

127. they are making millions of dollars off the talent of those atheletes

yes...pay everyone millions of dollars and their self-interest will trump their prejudices.

[Jamastiene]

109. We all have the right to disagree with each other, but

until we have walked a mile in another groups shoes, we really should not tell them what is and is not offensive to THEM. The OP is not about disagreeing. The OP is about dictating. There is a difference.

[JonQ]

120. I agree to an extent

you shouldn't tell someone to be offended over something if they aren't.

However there are some cases when a person takes offense when they really should be told to suck it up. Not all or even most of the time. I'm reminded of a case (I don't have the link, it was a while ago) when a black lady filed an official complaint against her towns policy department because she saw a policeman eating a banana while in uniform and she felt it was a racist slur. He wasn't looking at her, talking to her, and he was on his lunch break. Now I'm not black, but I would feel comfortable telling that woman to STFU; no harm was intended, she shouldn't be offended.

That being said if someone feels they were being offended I would certainly give them the benefit of the doubt and listen to what they have to say before making my own judgment. But saying that ones experience is so foreign to someone else that it would literally be impossible to put yourself in their shoes and make a fair assessment is unfair and inaccurate.

[bluedawg12]

28. Dupe- delete

[Zuiderelle]

29. Atheists also don't get to decide what is offensive to Christians either.

It doesn't mean that atheists aren't allowed to say things that offend Christians, it just means that they don't get to define what is offensive to a Christian. Clearly, people are allowed to say offensive things to gays that many of us consider homophobic. The point of this thread is that you don't get to decide for us what WE find offensive.

It would be pretty damn rude for an atheist to go into a Christian forum here and dictate to them what should or should not be offensive to them as Christians.

Same thing in this forum. A straight person is not welcome to come here and dictate to US what is homophobic. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.

Maybe you need to re-read the OP.

[racaulk]

32. Yes, that is exactly what I meant.

Thank you!

[mitchtv]

85. when I say something to offend Christians

It is because I mean to. 12 years of Catholic school gave me all the ammo I need. I am a retired Catholic

[JonQ]

89. Corollary to that:

Christians trot out some "cured" homosexuals to berate and attack all other homosexuals out there. As "former" members they have the right to say whatever they want, no matter how intentionally insulting or inaccurate, and no one else can refute what they say.

I mentioned in my first post, but I put it in parenthesis foolishly so it didn't show up, that I'm not a christian, nor am I defending what some of them do. I'm merely playing devils advocate here. I also don't think homosexuality is a disease to cure, again just playing devils advocate.

[Toasterlad]

102. I LOVE Debating Those Delusional, Self-Loathing Asshats.

Bring 'em on.

[Toasterlad]

101. Raised Catholic - 12 Years of Catholic School

I'm perfectly qualified to tell christians to shove it.

Any homophobes who've been openly gay at some point in their lives are welcome to discuss homophobia with me.

[mitchtv]

103. Birds of a feather

eh toasty?

[Toasterlad]

104. Indeed!

[Speck Tater]

26. And if you're human you don't get to decide what is animal cruelty. NT

[bluedawg12]

30. People that are cruel to animals are sick.

Identifying a malaise is the topic. Animals can't speak, as shocking as it is to some, gays and lesbians will not shut up and just go back to our corners.

[Zuiderelle]

31. Is there a point to your post?

Because it has literally no relation to the OP.

[racaulk]

43. And if you're green, you don't get to decide what is anti-purple.

That's about how much sense that reply made.

:eyes:

[Zuiderelle]

44. And if you are a spider you don't get to decide what time of day it is.

[uppityperson]

63. You arachnophobe! Or would it be Chronophobe?

:rofl:

[Speck Tater]

45. The point is simply this:

The OP seemed to imply that if I saw someone beating a gay person I'd have to say, "Well, gee, I'm not sure if that's homophobic behavior of not because I've been I've been told I don't have the right to decide what constitutes homophobic behavior."

I have a few gay friends and it pisses me off to see them disrespected, and it pisses me off to be told I don't have the right to be pissed off about that.

Or maybe I misunderstood the intent of the OP that ONLY gays get to make that call. If so, then I certainly apologize.

[Zuiderelle]

46. He meant that a straight person who thinks something is NOT homophobic that a gay person thinks IS

homophobic, doesn't get to dictate to the gay person what should or should not be offensive to gay people. He's saying that gay people know what is offensive to us, and we don't need straight people telling us that we shouldn't be offended by something that that straight person doesn't find homophobic.

[Speck Tater]

48. OK, Then I apologize. I misunderstood. NT

[Zuiderelle]

49. Cool, thanks.

:thumbsup:

[racaulk]

53. Thank you.

I'm sorry to have poked fun at your original reply. I misunderstood as well. :pals:

[bluedawg12]

50. The sentence was broken up between the title and body of the text

I read it as:

"..you don't get to decide what is homophobic... And to tell a gay or lesbian person what language and images they have a right to be bothered and upset by..."

If you see homophobic behavior and are offended by it, then please do speak up, we all agree on that.

[racaulk]

33. Strawman argument.

When you find another animal species that is intelligent and sentient and can accurately communicate what is cruelty to them and what isn't, then I will defer to their judgment on what animal cruelty is.

Until then, I will decide for myself what is cruelty to animals and what isn't.

[robinlynne]

47. works for me.

[Oeditpus Rex]

51. There's deciding, and then there's not understanding

I've seen those get confused, and it ain't pretty.

There was a Major Issue a couple of years ago, about which I posted, "I don't get it. Why is this offensive?" I really wanted to understand, but only two or three people realized that while many more flamed the shit out of me, labeled me "homophobic," etc. I'm pretty sure (or paranoid) that a few still think that, and it's affected how I post — which is a good thing in that it's made me more sensitive.

I just think people — and I mean all people — need to understand that asking and questioning aren't always the same.

[bluedawg12]

61. The problem with hot and emotionally charged topics on the internet

is that it is hard to convey subtlety of thought, or nuances and shades of meaning.

Things can be misunderstood just by choice of words or even the location of a period or comma.

Also, it's difficult to know when a topic is posted as a sincere question or just gay baiting.

Then, there is the issue of the replies, which can turn an innocent question into an open invitation for haters to come and blather and try to get agreement and take over the thread.

I didn't see the post you made that you reference but just some thoughts on the way you framed it:

"I don't get it. Why is this offensive to gays?"

My first thought would likely inform my attitude: "What's not to get?"

Or the second thought might be, that "I don't get it," means "I don't agree with you."

"I don't get it," may be read by some as different from, "I don't understand why?"

Perhaps the set up is the key.

I am not saying how you should think or speak, but, personally, if I were approaching a group that I am not a part of, and if I were asking for clarification of some touchy issue, I might say:

"I am not gay, and I understand this is ...name the issue... is offensive to gays, could someone please help me get a handle on this? I am looking for understading here."

The title might be: "Question for GLBT community."

Things need a set up, a context, an explanation in order to avoid friction and flame wars.

BTW- I put my paw in it more often than not, so I am not saying I am perfect, nor a linguist, just trying to think of answers as to how we all might miscommunicate when all we seek is to communucate.

[Oeditpus Rex]

64. You're absolutely right

I don't recall verbatim what I posted, and I ain't about to dig up the thread because I really don't want to re-live it, but I'd bet the mortgage that I could've phrased it better. In my mind, I couldn't see how it could be taken as an attack, but I've since come to understand that my mind isn't the only judge, much less the final one.

Also, I've posted this several times before, but it bears repeating: I'll always be grateful to those two or three DUers who understood my intent and took the time to explain to me what I was missing.

[bluedawg12]

66. Exactly.

Ya' know the stuff we could say in real life with a nice tone of voice and a smile and people would see it the way it was meant and be non threatened and talk and converse comes off as just words on a screen and it's lifeless.

Anyway, the thing is that you actually cared enough to think about it and had the humanity to be bothered about the mis-communication.

I hope people remember this when I next put my paw in it ! :rofl:

:fistbump:

[Zuiderelle]

67. You got me curious....so I had to search.

Is it this thread?

(deleted to protect the innocent)

Or was that thread just a carryover of whatever other thread you're referring to?

I don't recall that thread myself,, but I certainly remember other threads about the subject of those ads. Bottom line... I respect (very much) that you learned from it and have become more sensitive.

[Oeditpus Rex]

68. Yup, that's the one

Now make it go away. x(

[Zuiderelle]

73. Done.

:)

[tblue]

52. Like torture, the question isn't 'Is it torture to the torturer?'

[IndianaJones]

56. we determine just about everything else that affects the GLBT community..why not whats offensive. nt

[gaspee]

59. I agree 100%

And the same applies to women. I take great offense to posts that cast women in the role of property. Most people (read, men - but some women) don't even realize they are doing it.

Like the poster in a thread who said he demanded his trophy hooker. Well, isn't that nice that he thinks women exist to be his "trophy" and not as human beings in their own right.

And I know I'll be accused of being the PC police, but words matter - words define us - the very words people use can raise or lower our collective consciousness and also show the way they view the world. And what people (again, mostly men) say do show what they are thinking, even if they don't realize it themselves.

For instance - the use of the word "Pansy" - people who don't give a second thought to what words actually mean - who are not conscious of what they say probably won't get that in American culture, Pansy has been used as a slang to describe effeminate men. And not in a neutral way - it's always been an insult and hurled at someone as a means of making them "less than."

And of course, to be a weak man - to be "woman-like" is the worst sin of all - because to be a woman is to be automatically less than.

When we're talking homophobic words, I think what a lot of people forget is that homophobia is directly tied to misogyny. The worst insults hurled at gay men are usually insults that purport them to be weak and woman-like. First of all, why is that such a bad thing? In reality, it's not. But in our male dominated culture, the sin of gay men is to be like women.

So no, ignorant people who use words without thinking about what they are *really* saying do not get to tell us if we should be offended or not. They should shut their damn pie-holes and *listen* for a change. Actually *think* about what we are saying when we say certain words are hurtful.

Actually take the time to consider that when they use certain words or use our lives as a mockery to belittle people (like the picture of Bush and McCain in bed together,) they truly are hurting people - and their reflexive defensiveness only makes them look like moronic, cruel assholes. Which is what they are.

[bluedawg12]

69. Good point about homophobia and misogyny

Women perceived as "strong" or "masculine" are put in their place often with violence for daring to be presume strength.

Men perceived as "effeminate" are often hated and victims of violence because they dare to go against societies rule for males.

Like Olberman said, "What's it you?"

This whole rw thing about "PC" is just intimidation of minority groups, or in the case of women arguably an oppressed majority, viz a viz the "glass ceiling" for example, it's a conservapig strategy to delegitimize grievance.

Another example of patriarchal oppression was the notion that liberal women were "jealous" of saracuda because she was fertile, or beautiful (puke). So, by definition, women who thought she was an absolute imbecile, were then relegated to an attack on their womanhood.

Also, this whole notion of "trophy" human beings, ex. trophy wives, says that we have a hell of a long way to go in society.

[bliss_eternal]

129. ...................

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=221&topic_id=86175#86373

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=221&topic_id=86175#86633

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=7821193

http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/11/01/exit-polls-election-oped-cx_kb_1103bowman.html

[Ellen Forradalom]

72. Exactly. I've experienced the corollary

dudes telling me what is or is not sexist, more times than I can count :eyes:

[Karenina]

75. Would that some of colour weigh in here!

Long time ago when Phil Donahue did the talk show thing, I'd SCREAM at the screen, "PHIL, GO FOR THE CENTRAL QUESTION." More often than not, he did. There is a central question, the elephant in the room, that I do not feel in a position to raise, even as a staunch supporter.

I've done mostly what all can be done with men, of whatever orientation, as they are my orientation. Learned a lot! Had FUN!

GET YOUR MINDS OUT OF THE GUTTER, Kindchen!!! I mean being colleagues, neighbors, friends, roomies and whatever else. :evilgrin:

I am family with an invisible community...

[xchrom]

76. a simple -- but misunderstood point. nt

[Behind the Aegis]

77. Good point.

It is the same for a variety of things. Sympathy only goes so far. Same for empathy. However, this doesn't mean we are always correct, but we should always be given the benefit of the doubt. IF an African-American friend tells me something is racist and I don't agree, the first thing I do is ask why it is racist. Not having the experience of an African-American binds my experiences in many ways. In some ways, it is lending credence to an "expert."

[terrya]

87. It's sad when some straight person thinks they know what's homophobic instead of a gay or lesbian.

Especially around here.

[mondo joe]

92. I don't agree (except sort of).

I believe in reason, and so I believe anyone - gay or not - who uses reason can make a reasonable determination about homophobia.

I don't think the sexual orientation of the observer matters. And in fact GLBT people don't always agree among ourselves what constitutes homophobia.

But the way in which I do agree is that someone who speaks out of ignorance, or an absence of caring, or an absence of honesty, hasno business telling others what is homophobic or not.

There are a lot of hetero people who are rational, informed, care and are honest. And there are some who don't fit the bill.

GLBT people at a minimum are informed and care.

[HamdenRice]

93. Does that mean if you're not African American, you don't get to decide what is racist?

Because there were lots of posts in this forum a few weeks ago that disagreed with the statement in my subject line.

Can you explain why they are different?

[bluedawg12]

97. Anyone get's to decide what is bigotry towards them

and anyone being called a bigot also has a right to defend themselves.

[HamdenRice]

105. That's logically different from the statement in the OP. Specifically, if a DUer defends the KKK ..

and I call that racist, would you gainsay my judgment?

Now, with respect to the lack of logical parallelism between the OP and your statement:

1. "Everyone get's to decide what's bigotry toward them" is your statement -- a positive statement about who can decide what's bigotry.

2. "If you are heterosexual, you don't get to decide what is homophobic" is the statement in the OP, which is a negative statement about who can't decide what's bigotry.

Can you explain why (2) is true, but the following is also not true:

3. "If you are white, you don't get to decide what is racist."

Can you see how statement (3) is exactly analogous to statement (2)?

Why, in your view, is (2) true, but (3) not true?

And why do you think -- as you have consistently said -- that you can decide what is or is not racist?

Or for example, is it acceptable for me to make the judgment of racism about a DU member who defends people who burned a cross in front of the home of a black family and who defends people who join the Ku Klux Klan?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4475910&mesg_id=4476722

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=4470273#4470515

[Zuiderelle]

114. The op could have worded it better by saying "what is NOT homophobic"

because I think the point's a bit confused wording it as "what is homophobic." He MEANT that straight people cannot define for us what is NOT homophobic when we clearly regard something as homophobic.

As for your links, again, they were sarcastic and meant to make a point. Please see my other post to you below.

[bluedawg12]

130. When you encounter homophobia, the topic at hand, I hope you speak out against it

As I plan to do.

[HamdenRice]

132. This is logically puzzling

Because you are a self identified gay person, I would expect you to "speak out against" homophobia. As a progressive, I would also.

But you seem to be also saying that it's not your responsibility to "speak out against" racism.

Why do you think it is the duty of a progressive African American to speak out against homophobia, but do not think it is the duty of a progressive gay or lesbian to speak out against racism? Why do you think so many have had difficulty doing so with respect to the "blacks are my enemy," "let's vote to bring back slavery," and "joining the KKK isn't racist" threads -- but instead defends them?

Why do you think the situations are so different?

[bluedawg12]

133. This is a thread about homophobia in a gay forum

If you have questions about racism it belong under a topic about racism.

[HamdenRice]

134. Except that the two are now related

There were lots of categorical accusations in this forum that African Americans are homophobic; and as a result of the "let's vote to bring back slavery," "blacks are the enemy", "joining the KKK isn't racist" and similar posts by GLBT DUers, there are accusations of racism in the GLBT community.

Why do you feel it's appropriate to discuss these problems together at some times here, but not at other times?

If there were homophobic posts in the AA forum or homophobic behavior in DU's (very, very small) AA community, do you think it would not be appropriate to discuss it in that forum or anywhere else?

Also please note that this is a forum and the AA board is a group.

[bluedawg12]

135. Start your own thread about racism here or anywhere else.

"There were lots of categorical accusations in this forum that African Americans are homophobic...HamdenRice"

If you feel strongly that you want to discuss racism and homophobia, then start your own thread and do it honsetly and openly and put it up for discussion.

[HamdenRice]

136. All my posts in this thread are directly on point with the OP

The OP is about non-group members deferring to perceptions of in-group members about discrimination.

My posts simply ask: is this insight transferable to other groups? Some have answered yes; some haven't. It would be silly to start a separate thread because I want to know the opinion of people who support the notion expressed in the OP.

[bluedawg12]

137. Start your own thread, make your case, argue it, defend

it and put it to the community at large for discussion, as you have questions about the GLBT community at large.

[Zuiderelle]

111. NO, It means you don't get to decide FOR African Americans what is NOT racist to THEM.

Why don't people read all the responses in a thread (especially a short one like this) before posting the same questions that have already been asked and answered?

[HamdenRice]

112. OK, so if a GLBT DUer starts defending Ku Klux Klan membership

and cross burning as probably not racist, and I as an African American say it is racist, then my opinion should be given some credibility? Isn't that consistent with what you are saying? So if I say these posts are racist, you would not gainsay my opinion:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4475910&mesg_id=4476722

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=4470273#4470515

Similarly, with respect to all the posts about "voting to bring back slavery" by non-African American DUers, if AA DUers thought they were racist posts, does that mean our opinions should be deferred to?

And would this deference hold even if we all acknowledge that the posters in question were trying to be provocative and might not actually in their heart of hearts support Klan membership, cross burning or slavery -- ie even if this was just a use of the rhetorical device of hyperbole, if African American gays, lesbians, bi's and straights thought these were very offensive and racist posts, are you saying the opinions of AA gays, lesbians, bi's and straights should be given deference?

In other words, is it fair to say that non AA DUers don't get "to decide for us" what is racist?

Because if you agree, that would be a big change from the consensus that has prevailed here over the last few weeks.

[Zuiderelle]

113. Yes. That is what I am saying.

As for your links. I am pretty certain (well, make that 100% certain) that IndianaJones was making a point and being sarcastic. He was answering that way because we are ALWAYS being told that things are not homophobic. So, he is making a point by claiming that something blatantly racist is not racist.


You absolutely get to define what is racist for yourself. Same as we get to define what is homophobic.

And a white person going to the AA forum should be driven away if they go there to lecture you on things you consider racist claiming that they are not.

That's the whole point.

[HamdenRice]

116. Can sarcasm be racist, if the victims of racism feel that it is?

Because that really was the central issue from election day until now. The poster in question may have been sarcastic, but a point I've tried to make several times is that sarcasm about the holocaust, the Native American genocide, slavery and the slave trade, the Ku Klux Klan, etc., is racist, despite the "secret" beliefs of the poster, because of the monumental level of insensitivity displayed by such poster is very offensive.

Is that something you agree with?

And if so, why do you think so few people on this forum have supported that idea (and in fact defended such "sarcasm"), when sarcastic "slavery jokes" were in such abundance and gay, lesbian, bi, trans and straight AA DUers were calling it out?

Is it possible that such "sarcasm" might not be the best way to build alliances? Do you thing that GLBT and straight African Americans might have some insight into what are, and are not, helpful rhetorical styles (if the goal is building alliances) and what are, and are not, offensive rhetorical styles? And if so, what made you change your opinion (if you did indeed change your opinion)?

[Zuiderelle]

118. The posts that you linked are CLEARLY meant to highlight how people are dismissing homophobia.

I don't see how you could find it racist to point out the similarities of racism and homophobia, when someone makes a post dismissing racism in a way we see people all the time post dismissing homophobia. That was his INTENT to show how ridiculous it is to dismiss racism (just as it's ridiculous to dismiss homophobia).

But, yes, if you feel it is racist, then we should recognize your right to define it as such. Which apparently you do. The point CONTINUES to remain, that no white person has a right to go into YOUR forum and tell you that you should not take such sarcasm as racist. You have every right to consider it racist, and you don't need people to go onto YOUR turf to lecture you about why you shouldn't. And if IndianaJones had actually meant those posts sincerely and not as an example (and clearly a very good example), then you absolutely have every right to object to him saying that something is not racist when it clearly is.

I personally do not agree that the sarcasm you pointed out is ANYTHING CLOSE to being racist. He was making a point that answering in such a way IS racist, just as answering in a similar way denying that something is homophobic IS homophobic.

Can you give me some better example of how people have "joked" about the holocaust or slavery here? It was not "joking."

[HamdenRice]

119. "I personally do not agree that the sarcasm you pointed out is ANYTHING CLOSE to being racist"

This seems to be a contradiction. In the AA forum, gays, lesbians, bis, straights all thought that these examples of sarcasm were offensive and racist.

Now you are saying that you don't believe that these posts are "ANYTHING CLOSE" to being racist. That seems to contradict your claim up thread that African Americans can define what is racist to them.

Please explain.

If, for example, I used homophobic language in a post -- let's say defending prop 8 or worse, defending something as violent toward the GLBT community as the KKK and slavery -- and then claimed it was "sarcasm" and that I was trying to "make a point" about racism, do you think you would defend such a post, on the basis of your perception of my ultimate motives? Or would you call it homophobic?

I'm confused by your responses so far.

[Zuiderelle]

121. You obviously didn't read my post where I said you have EVERY RIGHT to consider it racist.

I explained to you what his point was. You are intentionally avoiding the explanation. You're welcome to go back and read all the explanations I already made, as well as the statement I made that says that a white person does not have the right to go into your forum and tell you what you should or should not consider racist.

As for your example here:

If, for example, I used homophobic language in a post -- let's say defending prop 8 or worse, defending something as violent toward the GLBT community as the KKK and slavery -- and then claimed it was "sarcasm" and that I was trying to "make a point" about racism, do you think you would defend such a post, on the basis of your perception of my ultimate motives? Or would you call it homophobic?

I would consider it sarcasm and NOT consider it homophobic if I understood the context of comparing it to racism, or if someone explained to me that intention, if I did miss the point.

[Zuiderelle]

122. You make it sound like SEVERAL People "gays, lesbians, bis and straights" thought what you think

about those posts in the AA forum, but this is the only thread I can find there about it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=258&topic_id=4882&mesg_id=4882

In that thread there are only four people responding (aside from the post I just made there). One of them agrees with me that those posts were being sarcastic, though that poster does seem to have some other issue with IJ that has nothing to do with those posts.

I think you're being misleading when you claim that "In the AA forum, gays, lesbians, bis, straights all thought that these examples of sarcasm were offensive and racist."

I myself have made posts to point how how ridiculous some homophobic posts here have been when you change a few words to make them racist instead of homophobic. Maybe IJ should have gone back to explain what he meant, but it was pretty clear to me.

[bluedawg12]

131. I am guessing HamdenRice agrees with us that gays know homophobia

as AA know racism, when they encounter it, generally speaking.

Now about specific posts, over many days, by various people, in various forums, those are specifics and need to be addressed individually.

[Mike 03]

94. I respect and understand what you are saying, but it sort of leaves some of us

who want to defend GLBT rights out on a limb.

How do we know what to say to people who attack these civil rights, and can we depend upon anyone to back us up when we do.

Over these past two weeks I have begun to speak out, in a couple cases here on DU. It is a lonely business.

It gives me a lot of appreciation for what you are fighting, but it makes me feel very alone if I can't even count on the GLBT community to support what I say.

Oh well.. I need to grow up and get a tougher skin. Nobody ever said these fights would be easy.

Peace brothers and sisters.

[bluedawg12]

99. Mike 03- The OP is just saying when someone feels bigotry toward themselves

then those who are not in the same shoes may want to reconsider telling that person they don't what bigotry is about.

This thread came in response to something earlier today that many found offensive , as gays and lesbians, and were told "hey that's not homophobia" by those who supported the ...shall we say, "idea," in question. That thread is gone and water under the bridge. But that's the context of this OP.

I know you have been very supportive of the GLBTQ community, you shared a very touching story weeks ago about how you saw things differently and it is appreciated, and yes, part of talking to others is about raising their awareness, as well as ours, of how homophobia can seep into language, humor, culture and hopefully good people will speak out, whether gay or straight.

[Jamastiene]

110. It all depends on the circumstances at the time.

I have had instances where no one was really around and I was trying to ward off about 12 attackers at once in a thread too. In those cases, it's best to walk away after stating your case the best you can.

You have every right to defend us. What the OP is talking about is the situation where someone tries to dictate to another person what they are or are not feeling or should or should not be feeling.

In a one on one instance, you can point out that you did not mean something in a wrong way and diffuse any misunderstanding. That would be entirely different than dictating to someone what is or is not homophobic or sexist or racist or any other offensive statement or action. I don't think you are one of the ones who has that problem. It is the ones who are attacking us who have that problem. You haven't attacked us. :pals: :hug:

[mondo joe]

95. I think it's more *If you are uninformed and uncarring, you don't get to decide.*

That's my new position that I figured out after I posted a more sketchy version a little while ago.

I don't think heterosexuality means you don't get to decide. But I do think not caring, and not being informed, means you don't get to decide.

[bluedawg12]

96. I read this thread as Not telling GLBT what to be offended by

I think there should have been a comma and not a period between the word "homophobic" and "and to tell..."

This is the sens of the OP as I read it:

"If you are heterosexual, you don't get to decide what is homophobic ... to tell a gay or lesbian what is homophobic for them."

I don't read this as heterosexuals don't have a rigt to decide for themselves, or be supportive.

In it's full context, the OP was because some had said that when gays objected to something they were wrong and it was not homophobic.

[Orsino]

100. And yet...

...nor does one's orientation entitle one to speak for all.

I can applaud the victims of discrimination who choose to try to "take back" hurtful language, while at the same time recognizing that others aren't so inclined. Words matter, and they matter in different ways to different people.

No one gets to tell anyone else what s/he should find offensive.

[Zuiderelle]

115. Clarification: OP should have been "you don't get to decide what is NOT homophobic"

I think people are getting confused and thinking that we don't value straight people pointing out homophobia. We absolutely DO!

The point the OP was making is that we don't want straight people telling us that something we feel IS homophobic is NOT homophobic.

[Karenina]

138. This post is a classic!

It contains a diamond of solidarity that is there for the taking. ;-)

[racaulk]

139. Funny that you should mention solidarity.

It seems to me that if a little solidarity had been shown by the people to whom this OP is addressed, I wouldn't have found it necessary to post this OP at all. Ironic, huh?

:toast:

[bluedawg12]

140. No expects

The Lesbian Cat Brigade of the WASOTSI

[Karenina]

141. Solidarity is something that is BUILT, not assumed.

And relying on M$M to provide a scapegoat or "enemy," swallowing their take WHOLE is :crazy: I still read "blame mode" in your post and offer whatever I can in such an imperfect medium to take you by the crook of the arm and walk around all 4 corners of the intersection.

[racaulk]

152. I agree with you.

Solidarity, like respect, is something that must be earned through mutual cooperation and empathy. However, my OP was not an attempt to demand or assume solidarity on the part of our heterosexual members. Rather, my OP was more of an attempt to speak to the lack of solidarity that I've seen coming from a small, but vocal group here at DU. As I'm sure you gathered, I was a little annoyed when I made the OP, so I definitely didn't speak as clearly as I could have.

Please see my reply to Lerkfish downthread. I think I summarized the point I was attempting to make a little more clearly there. :hi:

[Iggo]

143. Then there's the solidarity with...

...a number of non-gay people who believe that gay rights are civil rights...a certain solidarity you just decided to shit on. But really, who gives a fuck about us, huh? We're not gay. We just don't understand.

You're practicing the politics of division, and you're doing the enemy's job for them. And doing it quite nicely.

I'll still march and fight and die in the streets if a have to for CIVIL RIGHTS FOR ALL PEOPLE RIGHT NOW.

But you keep on trying to cut us from the herd. See where that gets ya.

[Karenina]

144. You're barking up the wrong tree.

Might wanna reprogram your GPS.

[racaulk]

153. I assume that your reply was meant for me (the writer of the OP), not Karenina.

If so, please let me say that my OP was not meant as a blanket admonishment of all heterosexuals. My comment was directed more to a small subset of straight DUers, those that seem to think that they can dismiss us as whiny, petulant children when we try to speak out against homophobia...whether it is deliberate or not. Please see my reply #151 downthread, I think my point is made a little more clearly there.

My OP was not meant for people like you, and I am not trying to "cut you from the herd." I fully recognize that the GLBT community has many straight allies, and we are fortunate to have you on our side. We want and NEED you.

:pals:

[Iggo]

142. Unfuckingbelieveable.

That's it. I quit.

[Lerkfish]

145. I agree, you get to decide what is homophobic

But be open enough to realize that not everyone in every situation realizes they are saying homophobic (or whateverphobic things).

Sometimes there is benign ignorance.

but now that I have that caveat out of the way, I completely agree.

[Karenina]

146. This is SO FUNNY!!!!

I tell ya, there's a DIAMOND of understanding hidden in all this!!! HALLELUJAH for anyone who sees it!!! :rofl::rofl::rofl:

Sometimes I jes' gotta laugh to keep my head from exploding!!! ;-)

[Lerkfish]

147. um...I guess I'm not getting the joke

it sounds like you're saying *I'm* the joke, which if so, I'm not in on it still.


No harm was meant by what I posted.

[Karenina]

148. Naaaa, DU! Dearest Lerkfish!!!

Here we all are doing our best to support what we see as right and just while tiptoeing through tulips, dodging bullets, and endeavoring to disable the landmines before they blow us up!!!

First, the joke: The OP is a CARBON COPY, with substitutions, of what we 2% AA have been saying on DU since its inception.

Second: It's ridiculous to think that a majority of a minority (all included in the stupidity of ALL PEOPLE) will not hold THEIR struggles up like a bloody shirt and bond with those facing similar struggles without serious bridge-building intervention. TPTB have perfected their tactics to ensure that DOES NOT OCCUR. Otherwise THEY would find their heads on pikes! One need only venture into I/P for say, FIVE MINUTES to get that! :rofl:

Frankly, I don't recall you ever posting ANYTHING that meant harm to ANYONE. :loveya:

[Lerkfish]

149. ah, good, then.

:)

[Karenina]

150. You'll enjoy this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A_ma2h0idk

[racaulk]

151. I couldn't agree more.

I completely agree that sometimes people say things without realizing they are stepping on the toes of others. I certainly have been guilty of doing that myself.

However, if Person A innocently says something out of line to Person B, and Person B speaks up and says why they were hurt by Person A's comments, it would behoove Person A to be empathetic, cease their hurtful rhetoric, and make amends. If Person A continues, insists he has done nothing wrong, and dismisses Person B's concerns as being "too PC" or "whiny," then Person A is wrong. I've seen a little too much of that behavior on DU as of late, and my OP was an attempt to speak to that.

Thanks for the comment. :hi:

[marimour]

154. I agree to an extent, but it would have to apply across the board.

EX: For blacks who thought Bill Clinton's SC comments were racist, then Hillary supporting white people on DU that told us that we were overreacting and it was not racist, or that Obama was playing the race card don't get to decide what is racist. Same for sexism, religion or any other ism. I doubt anyone truly puts this into practice with all groups. We have no problem with this when someone offends out group but when it doesn't apply to us a lot of DUers have no problem deciding that they are overreacting.