Homophobia Literally Kills: Yankees Game

[FreeState]

Run time: 01:40 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gpq4RKYd4wQ   Posted on YouTube: October 12, 2010 By YouTube Member: SeanChapin1 Views on YouTube: 7199   Posted on DU: October 13, 2010 By DU Member: FreeState Views on DU: 3980

 
Seriously disgusting behavior.

[Behind the Aegis]

1. That was BEYOND foul!

But maybe there are those who think that was "just a fucking song!" :grr:

[virgogal]

2. Disgusting! Were those actual Yankee fans?

Imagine sitting near those animals.

[HuckleB]

4. It appears so. -eom-

[iandhr]

3. I am appalled

Please do not think I am like them

[HuckleB]

5. I don't think most Yankees fans are like them.

I haven't been since 2007, but, even though I'm not a Yankees fan, I love going to games when I'm in town. I've been lucky enough to be there for a couple Yankees-Red Sox games (not a Red Sox fan, either -- I'm a Brewers fan), and, while there were more than a few drunks who got into it during the game, most fans had a great time, with some fun chanting and singing back and forth, but nothing like this at all. And I've not seen anything like this at games against other teams.

Anyway, this could happen anywhere, IMO. It's got nothing to do with the Yankees.

[virgogal]

14. Some of my best friends are Yankees fans----these were just

ignorant jerks.

Go Sox ! ( Oops,I forgot----it's over for us.)

[iandhr]

17. like wise some of my best friends are Sox fans

[HuckleB]

25. Awwww. Come on you two: FIGHT ALREADY! -eom-

[joeybee12]

42. I joke a lot about Satan...ie, the Yankees,

but seriously, no one would lable all fans like these twits.

[hendo]

6. Damn! What a bunch of ignorant fools!

Well, yet another reason to not like Yankees fans.

[iandhr]

7. What did I do to make you hate me

[hendo]

9. Aww, I don't hate you, I hate the faceless masses

that allow BS like this to stand. Everyone around those guys should have alerted security.

Then again, as a Packers fan I get to watch my football in a stadium where a**hats like these would not only be booted out of the stadium, but the season ticket holder of those seats would lose them as well.

Sorry for allowing my hatred of the Yankees to taint their fans ;)

[iandhr]

11. I was messing with you

[hendo]

12. :-p

Never can tell anymore. I have been added to 10 ignore lists today ;)

[KansDem]

8. Were they directing their insults to someone they thought was gay?

Looked like they had surrounded someone, and that someone was the target...

[hendo]

It seems as though the poor kid was a fan of the visiting team. NT

Run time: 01:40 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gpq4RKYd4wQ   Posted on YouTube: October 12, 2010 By YouTube Member: SeanChapin1 Views on YouTube: 7199   Posted on DU: October 13, 2010 By DU Member: hendo Views on DU: 3980

 
edit: I don't know how I accidentally linked the video, but I cannot figure out how to unlink it because I don't see it in my post.

[HuckleB]

10. It was supposedly aimed at opposing fans. -eom-

[alp227]

13. The fans regularly sing that song? SELFISH

Seems that these uber-macho losers who lack security with their own lives and have very little brains just freaking enjoy bashing others.

[Glorfindel]

15. Unbelievable - they seem to have practiced singing it together

Nothing spontaneous about that little display of hatred. :puke:

[foxfeet]

16. I wish them upon themselves.

Disease and all.

[nolabear]

18. It doesn't matter who they were singing to;

the idea that this kind of treatment in person or in effigy is at all acceptable is absurd. How many gay people can watch that abhorrent act without dying a little inside? Hell, how many straight people can? The singers are, I fear, already somewhat dead in the soul department or they'd never dream of doing such a thing.

[iandhr]

19. Or they are gay themselves

The super-anti gay people who publicly flaunt their homophobia are gay.

[Behind the Aegis]

20. That is a myth.

[iandhr]

21. Ted Haggard, Larry Crairg

Eddie Long the guy from Atlanta. All anti gay publicly ALL GAY themselfs.


It does seem to happen

[Behind the Aegis]

23. Those happened of course, but it is not a rule.

Of course it happens, but don't stereotype.

[jhrobbins]

26. Can you direct me to the source of your statement? I assume there is research.

[Behind the Aegis]

28. What are you talking about? Research for what?

[RZM]

34. I agree with the Aegis. This is a common meme that just doesn't hold up

Yes, these three guys are gay and in public life they certainly didn't support gay rights, but you're talking about three people in a world population of 6 + billion. Even if we just restrict it to the United States, with 300 million, using three people to talk about any larger trend is beyond ridiculous. I'm sure there are plenty more similar public cases besides these three, but you would have to cite hundreds of thousands if not millions of examples to get any traction with that argument.

A good historical parallel would be the idea of the 'zhidokommuna' in Central/Eastern Europe in the last century, which was the idea that Communist = Jew and vice-versa. This was also a commonly held stereotype, but the numbers never really supported it. Not a whole lot of people were Communists, so even if Jews seemed to be overrepresented in party circles, that didn't mean that a whole lot of Jews were Communists. In some towns in Poland with large Jewish populations, for example, up to 100 percent of the local Communist party was Jewish. But if the party was 120 people and there were 10,000 Jews in the town, that would meant that 98.8 percent of the local Jewish population was not Communist.

Same thing here. There are millions of people who don't support gay rights, but they are people just like everyone else and since sexual preferences are determined by our genes, some of them are inevitably gay as well (my guess would be just about the same as the rest of the population). The media and public love a good hypocrisy story, so when a high-profile person like Ted Haggard or Eddie Long gets busted for having a secret life, it gets a lot of play, but don't confuse that with any larger trend. You're going to have to come with a lot more than three examples to actually have anything significant.

[Alcibiades]

35. People who are down on gays in public

are down on them in private.

[RZM]

37. Do you have studies you can point to that show this?

I just don't see it. I think using the few high profile examples that we've seen in the news over the last few years as indicative of a broader trend represents a gross misunderstanding of statistics. There are thousands of people in public life who do not support gay rights and in any sample of thousands of people, some will inevitably be gay. We just hear about these types so much because it makes a good story.

[Alcibiades]

45. I was making a post on a discussion board, not

a submission to a peer-reviewed academic journal. But since you asked, here's a link to a PDF:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u47/Henry_et_al.pdf

The plethysmograph doesn't lie: men who report homophobic attitudes undergo sexual arousal when exposed to pictures of attractive men. Specifically:

No significant tumescence in response to gay porn
Non homophobes: 66%
Homophobes: 20%

Definite tumescence in response to gay porn
Non homophobes: 24%
Homophobes: 54%


There's a lot more on this if you're actually interested. The article's bibliography is a good place to start. You can use google if you really want more recent research.

[Behind the Aegis]

50. I said this before when this was it's own topic....

Discussion
The results of this study indicate that individuals who score in the homophobic range and admit negative affect toward homosexuality demonstrate significant sexual arousal to male homosexual erotic stimuli. These individuals were selected on the basis of their report of having only heterosexual arousal and experiences. Furthermore, their ratings of erection and arousal to homosexual stimuli were low and not significantly different from nonhomophobic men who demonstrated no significant increase in penile response to homosexual stimuli. These data are consistent with response discordance where verbal judgments are not consistent with physiological reactivity, as in the case of homophobic individuals viewing homosexual stimuli. Lang (1994) has noted that the most dramatic response discordance occurs with reports of feeling and physiologic responses. Another possible explanation is found in various psychoanalytic theories, which have generally explained homophobia as a threat to an individual's own homosexual impulses causing repression, denial, or reaction formation (or all three; West, 1977). Generally, these varied explanations conceive of homophobia as one type of latent homosexuality where persons either are unaware of or deny their homosexual urges. These data are consistent with these notions.

Another explanation of these data is found in Barlow, Sakheim, and Beck's (1983) theory of the role of anxiety and attention in sexual responding. It is possible that viewing homosexual stimuli causes negative emotions such as anxiety in homophobic men but not in nonhomophobic men. Because anxiety has been shown to enhance arousal and erection, this theory would predict increases in erection in homophobic men. Furthermore, it would indicate that a response to homosexual stimuli is a function of the threat condition rather than sexual arousal per se. Whereas difficulties of objectively evaluating psychoanalytic hypotheses are well-documented, these approaches would predict that sexual arousal is an intrinsic response to homosexual stimuli, whereas Barlow's (1986) theory would predict that sexual arousal to homosexual stimuli by homophobic individuals is a function of anxiety. These competing notions can and should be evaluated by future research.

The hypothesis that homophobic men are merely aggressive individuals is not supported by the present data. There were no differences in aggression scores between groups as measured by the Aggression Questionnaire. However, this questionnaire is a general measure of aggression and does not address the possibility of situational aggression or hostility where the situation involves homosexuality or interacting with a homosexual person. It is possible that aggressiveness in homophobic individuals is specific to homosexual cues.

These data also indicate that subjective estimates of arousal and erection are largely consistent with physiological indices of penile erections, with correlation coefficients ranging from .53 to .66. Because the relationships between subjective measures of erection and arousal were quite high, ranging from .78 to .95, it is likely that these two estimates are measures of similar or identical events. Most of these latter correlations were in the .90 range with the exception of nonhomophobic individuals' ratings of arousal and erection to homosexual stimuli, which was .78. As noted before, these results were probably due to the small penile responses to this stimulus, making subjective estimates more difficult and less consistent.

A major difficulty in this area of research is in defining and measuring homophobia. For example, with the scale used in the present study, we found it difficult to find heterosexual men who scored in the high-grade nonhomophobic range (0-25). Similarly, Hudson and Ricketts (1980) found that 56% of their sample scored in the homophobic range (i.e., > 51 ). This problem may be due not to a high prevalence of homophobia; rather, it may be the result of the nature of this and similar scales. As O'Donahue and Caselles (1993) suggested, scales that assess homophobia measure only cognitive and affective components. The IHP and similar scales would be greatly strengthened by inclusion of a behavioral component that measures "fight or flight" reactions commonly found in phobia scales, such as the Fear Questionnaire (Marks & Mathews, 1978). Modification of these scales is needed and should include items that specifically assess actual or potentially aggressive or avoidant acts toward homosexual individuals or homosexual activities, as suggested by O'Donahue and Caselles (1993). In our opinion, negative attitudes and cognitions toward homosexuality are probably not sufficient to warrant the label of homophobia.

Future research should focus on several issues. First, more reliable scales for measuring homophobia should be devised that incorporate cognitive, affective, and behavioral components. Second, the issue of whether homophobic individuals meet the definitional criteria for simple phobia should be investigated by determining whether these individuals experience anxiety or avoidance when confronted with homosexual cues. Third, the issue of whether homophobia is specific to men or may also occur in women has not been addressed systematically, nor is it clear whether homophobic women may show sexual arousal to erotic lesbian stimuli. Fourth, it has been claimed that homophobic individuals have poor heterosexual adjustment, and this issue should be documented. With answers to these and similar issues, a clearer understanding of the nature of homophobia will be possible.

My conclusion: Whereas some homophobes may be closet cases, it doesn't mean that all or even most homophobes are simply "afraid of being gay themselves." Religion and societal mores are responsible for the vast majority of homophobia and the closet cases who are homophobes are actually a small percentage of anti-gay persons, IMO.

source

Edit: left out a word in subject line...sorry.

[Alcibiades]

53. Not entirely inconsistent with what you're saying:

"Fourth, it has been claimed that homophobic individuals have poor heterosexual adjustment, and this issue should be documented."

If religion and societal mores are also responsible for poor heterosexual adjustment, then this could be a case of spuriousness.

[Alcibiades]

46. Crickets.

:eyes:

[RZM]

47. Sheesh, how about a little time to read the thing?

I certainly think it's interesting data, but a study with only 64 participants (mean age, 20.3) is no smoking gun and no, I'm not saying you necessarily think it is either. I've never seen gay porn so I don't know what effect it would have on me, but I'm not so sure that tumescence in such situations has to be indicative of anything other than, well, tumescence. Arousal from exposure to male sexuality occurs all of the time among heterosexual men in prisons and I'm assuming in a variety of other circumstances as well, which leads me to my next point -- that everyone in this study was (according to the abstract) heterosexual. So what does that really tell us about the prevalence of actual homosexual behavior among homophobes? Nothing, since nobody in the study was gay. It maybe tells us something about blood flow to the penis among 64 heterosexual people who were exposed to gay porn, but nothing about actual behavior.

I'm not saying it's not valuable or interesting, but it's a hell of a long way from saying anything at all about my armchair hypothesis -- that rates of homosexuality are probably roughly equal among most broad segments of the population, including among high-profile people who take stands against gay rights in public, and that all of the hullabaloo about homophobes being gay themselves stems more from media and public fascination with stories about hypocrisy and sexuality than any hard statistical evidence.

However, I do appreciate you pointing me towards that study :)

[Alcibiades]

49. Small-N research is not uncommon in psychology

This isn't a public opinion poll: you can achieve statistically significant results with a fairly small number of subjects, particularly when the observed effect is this large. p=.001! The only statistically significant difference was between the penile engorgement of homophobes versus non-homophobes viewing gay porn, but the other results are also interesting: these same homophobic men also recorded slightly less engorgement watching the straight porn, but slightly more engorgement watching the lesbian porn. 80% of the homophobic men showed either moderate or definite tumescence in response to the gay porn, versus 34% for the non-homophobic men. This is a large effect. As far as none of the homophobes being gay, we don't know that: the article did cite other literature that points out the differences between self reported behavior and empirically observable phenomena in this area of research.

This article appeared in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, which has been published continually by the APA and one of the leading psych journals in the country. It was subjected to peer review, and, like all social science, is subject to refutation by academic standards: if you disagree with it, conduct your own research. Guess what? It's not been refuted. It's been cited 161 times, and included in at least one collection.

I'm a political scientist, not a psychologist, but my wife is, and I remembered this particular finding from when I was helping her to study from her comprehensives. You don't get to go around multiple times on a thread and make the case that "Your point is worthless because you don't have a study to back you up," and then, once someone produces a study that does back them up, make the case that "That's interesting, but it does not conform with what I already believe, so I'll go with my gut and choose to disregard it." If the standard of proof you want is an article in a peer-reviewed academic journal in support, it would imply you have some sort of scientific mindset, which is wonderful, because that means you're curious about the world. But when you've made the point that someone has "a gross misunderstanding of statistics," and you're then confronted with a statistical analysis, you ought to demonstrate you have something substantive to add by addressing the statistical methodology, rather than relying upon intuition, or mere opinion.

[RZM]

51. Why on earth would you think this study backs up your earlier statement

If I may quote, you said: 'people who are down on gays in public are down on them in private.' This study does not come close to lending credence to your rather odd statement. Your statement concerns homosexual behavior, not blood flow to the penises of heterosexual men who are viewing gay pornography in a research setting. You seem to know your business with statistics, so of course you are aware that using the example of three publicly-outed figures to indicate some sort of broader trend absolutely represents a gross misunderstanding of statistics and nothing in this study changes that fact. I don't doubt the findings in this study, what I doubt is its applicability to your own statement about behavior. I'm confused as to why you would respond to me with such nuance when this whole debate began with your broad-brush statement that was anything but nuanced. If you believe that this study backs up your point, more power to you. But forgive me if I think it's a stretch to apply the findings here to actual behavior.

And yes, I do 'get to go around multiple times on a thread' saying what I wish, as long as I'm not violating DU rules.

[Alcibiades]

52. It's not an odd statement at all

It's an aphorism, and obviously intended as such. You were the one who changed the tone to "I bet he doesn't have any empirical support for his statement," which is an odd way to come at an aphorism, which is not intended as something subject to the same standard of proof as something publishable. It's meant to show a truth in a concise way. I didn't invent this particular aphorism, BTW, so I don't deserve the credit: it's Weissman's Law. It uses a double meaning in order to to make its point, which is not a literal one about behavior, but simply that the most homophobic men are either in the closet, or latent homosexuals whose outward rage against gays is a defense mechanism against their own repression and self-loathing. There's also good reason to believe that male sexual response in a laboratory setting is probably consistent with male sexual response elsewhere: I cannot imagine that a straight man would find gay porn arousing in a lab while attached to a penile plethysmograph if he didn't find it to be arousing elsewhere. Maybe it's a reach to assume that folks who experience higher levels of sexual arousal in response to homosexual stimuli will act on these impulses, but I don't think it's a big one. Adams et. al. is as close to what you're looking for as we can get. There simply isn't data available on closeted or latently homosexual homophobes, because we have to rely on self-identification for these things. These subjects simply are not going to do that.

The reason why I responded to you in the manner that I did was that you clearly didn't understand the sort of language I was using, but gave some indication that you are rather literally minded, and also empirically oriented. You also indicated that you were uninterested in the various high profile cases of homophobes being outed, so I didn't even go in that direction, but there have been many, many more than three at this point.

The physiological evidence is compelling, and there are sound theoretical reasons for believing it to be true. Maybe you don't find it compelling, but the reviewers did. Plus, Henry Adams literally wrote (OK, edited) the book on psychopathology: his Comprehensive Handbook of Psychopathology is in its third edition. Maybe you find his findings don't comport with what you know about human psychology, and that's fine: at the aphoristic level, the one at which I was initially operating, we're all entitled to our opinions. But at the social-scientific level, which was the level to which you made an appeal, you should know that counterintuitive results are actually more interesting: the findings of Adams et. al. are subject to a more rigorous standard of falsification, and, as far as I know, they still stand.

[sarchasm]

22. Disgusting

Just like Repulicans, they're unsure of their own sexuality. They put on these displays as if to say, "See I'm not gay" as if there was doubt.

[Scuba]

24. A-holes, of the highest order.

[donheld]

27. +1 sorry I couldn't watch it all

[The Wizard]

29. How did these losers

get the money for Yankee playoff tickets? Dumb as posts with extra cash. Either they're born rich or have great jobs. Somehow the thought of someone paying these drunken dirt bags good money escapes me.
My guess is they have wealthy sperm donors or recipients.

[indimuse]

30. KNR! n/t

[whathehell]

48. Great 'toon! n/t

[indimuse]

31. KNR! n/t

[barbtries]

32. and nobody said anything

when was this? my consciousness is so high right now, i just want to do something. purple on the 20th, yes, but what else can i do? there is not a GSA in this state, and besides i'm 55 years old. i don't even know any gay people. at least not out gay people. but my heart is just breaking by this cruelty, and everybody just sits there!?

[happygoluckytoyou]

33. though i don't understand the part about LITERALLY KILLS ?

[RZM]

36. I didn't really understand it either

There's no evidence in this video that the people heckled by the moron brigade were gay -- apparently they were fans of the opposing team. I guess the point is that making light of gay sex and using homosexuality as way of insulting someone contributes to (or better perhaps, reflects) a general climate of homophobia that contributed to the death of the young people whose pictures were flashed at the end. I guess you can make that case, though I remain skeptical that bullying someone because of their sexuality causes suicides any more or less than bullying for other reasons does. My guess is that suicides often result from a combination of many factors, some external (like bullying, or financial loss, or heartbreak, or whatever) but others internal, having more to do with a specific person's personality and probably requiring complicated neuroscience to figure out.

[Uncle Joe]

40. I believe the OP is referring to the suicides which were provoked by homophobia and these drunks

at a Yankees Game used blatant homophobic slurs in public and it didn't matter whether their intended target was homosexual or not, their projection was that of hate.

Those kind of actions make it easier for others to demonize someone based on their homosexuality.

The same dynamic would hold true if that group of "men" had been yelling racial or gender slurs at an opposing fan.

Even if their target wasn't a homosexual, there may have been one sitting nearby.

[gtar100]

41. In two ways - some have been brutally beaten to death and others have committed suicide

Those were the pictures of the people flashed on the screen near the end. Homophobia literally kills.

[TheMadMonk]

38. FREE SPEECH? MY FUCKING ARSE. That is assault pure and simple.

Any 1A appologists want to make an issue of that, or defend these aresewipes CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED right to spout that rubbish are no better than those arswipes, and a big part of the problem.

NO ONE has the right to force others to listen to that shit.

People may be free to say as they please. However, there is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees them a right to say it anywhere they please.

[axollot]

39. With rubbish behaviour like this is it any wonder my son suffers knowing

his sexuality makes him different?

What went through my mind wasnt the non Yankee fans they were screaming at, but kids hearing these fools. Life if hard enough on our kids, especially a teenager and even with all the support in the world from family and friends it doesnt make a LGBT teen feel normal. They struggle with their identity. Kids just want acceptance, how could any kid that may be questioning themselves hear this and feel comfortable talking to an adult?

Cheers
Sandy
My son and I will wear purple on the 20th.

[Pab Sungenis]

43. What is everyone so worked up about?

After all, supporting the opposing team is a lifestyle choice.

:sarcasm:

[Ganja Ninja]

44. No wonder attendance is down league wide and in all major sports.

They expect people to pay money to rub shoulders with idiots like these people.

[repdemalliance]

54. Very sad