Skip Navigation

you are antisemitic if you don't think the National Guard should be called up to murder peaceful student protestors

84

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context
84 comments
  • You're right. These words don't describe fear, they describe persecution. Framing it as fear absolves people of their active and purposeful involvement and makes them sound like victims. As if transphobia or homophobia or whatever is akin to agoraphobia. And as if targeted harm can only be done by the mentally ill.

    It also leads us to falsely conclude that the solution to bigotry is individual - reaching out and educating bigots one by one. It totally ignores the systemic causes that motivate such bigotry and how oftentimes, it's not even bigotry! It's just people rationally working within the ghoulish constraints that capitalism imposes which is honestly worse.

    • See my comment, it’s a phrase that is scientific and comes from the social sciences. It’s not about “absolving people” of sins, that’s moralism and unscientific and Liberal idealism. It’s a scientific description of a relationship between forces. You will never defeat the forces of reaction if you believe they stem from inherent evil in the souls of people instead of a materialist framework describing and addressing the root causes of the reactionary ideology

      • What's different about the academic term from the colloquial word? I don't see the distinction that you're referring to.

        And yeah we're in agreement: reactionary ideology is rooted in material reality. And oftentimes what we call bigotry isn't bigotry per se, but rather people making calculated decisions, intentionally and purposefully.

        • Read my comment below, the correct original use is akin to hydrophobic. IE, Y can be described as X-phobic if it shows an adverse reaction or rejection of X. It has nothing to do with fear in the psychological sense, which is the colloquial definition that you are attacking.

          Describing reactionaries who don’t like gay rights as “homophobic” is 100% correct and accurate and has nothing to do with baggage you are bringing in about fear or morals

          • I see. "Aversion to gay people" and "fear of gay people" is a distinction without a difference imo but whatever. I still don't like the parallel this jargon implies between panic disorders and persecution. They are nothing alike so our language should reflect that.

            (also who cares what the original use is if people don't mean it like that. Also also I'm not talking about morality? Kinda feels like you're reading things into my comments that I did not say)

            • Your original comment was talking about morality when your issue with the term is that it ‘absolves homophobes’. Absolution is a moral term related to sin.

              Framing it as fear absolves people of their active and purposeful involvement

              You take issue with their term because of a moral stance. You don’t like the term homophobia because it is amoral when you want it to be moralized and loaded with moral sentiment.

              You should care about the original definition, because the original definition derived from Marxist analysis of societal factions. That’s like saying “who cares what MLK or Lenin or Marx actually said and meant, what matters of how modern pop-culture understands their theories” which is obviously stupid and wrong

              • I meant absolve as in excuses/removes culpability. The same way you wouldn't be too hard on a claustrophobic person for panicking in a small room.

                It makes it sound like homophobes have a mental illness and it's that illness which is the cause of their actions. But bigotry phobias aren't at all comparable to fear phobias so we should use different words to describe them. That's what I'm saying and that's what the OP was saying too, I'm pretty sure.

                • I meant absolve as in excuses/removes culpability

                  Culpability in what? An immoral act or sin. Again you are upset that the term isn’t moralistically loaded. You want it to aggressively impose guilt, this is a moral position and not a descriptive one.

                  The same way you wouldn't be too hard on a claustrophobic person for panicking in a small room.

                  Claustrophobia relates to psychological fears. Homophobia comes from a different source, from sociology and scientific descriptions of reactions between two parties. You are again using the incorrect definition, again in relation to how much moral blame to assign.

                  This is a fundamentally flawed way of analyzing society

                  • What? I don't know what to say to you anymore. Goodnight dude

                    • You know the scientific terms hydrophobic and hydrophilic used to describe various kinds of mechanical and chemical interactions? That is how sociology used the term “homophobic” when it created the term, describing that a certain group is anti-homosexuality.

                      What you are doing is akin to going up to a chemist and saying “I don’t like how the term hydrophobic lets phospholipids off the hook for their bigotry”. It’s adding morality into what should be a cold mechanical description of forces

You've viewed 84 comments.