The Associated Press bans the terms "homophobia" and "Islamophobia."

Monkey said:

"It's not normal" is not a rational reason for hating something.

Click to expand...

As I said, it is rational, just not wholly rational. There is much rationalisation going on in that person's head. Therefore it is not irrational.

Irrational is someone at the mere sight and inexplicably thrown into panic or fury. They cannot explain to themselves why they do it. For example, I have a phobia of driving. Once I step behind a wheel, I cannot bring myself to press the gas pedal. I break out into shaking and I black out. That is irrational.

Making a decision to hate something because you have sexist beliefs and think that humans should be simple like cattle is a rationalised belief. That he gets angry and violent is rational in a way in a way that he uses his rationalisations to drive himself to that fury.

Monkey said:

I guess our point of disagreement, then, is that I don't believe something is rational simply because it can be rationalized.

Click to expand...

I think it is an important distinction in psychology. Never taken a full-on course on it, but I think that is what is happening.

Monkey said:

How in the hell is a hatred of gays a "rational decision?"

Click to expand...

It's not. That's why I think "homophobia" is a better word and the decision to ban it is a bad one, as far as the social effect. That's my whole point. I don't understand why Niiicola thought banning it was a great step in the right direction.

Niiicola said:

I don't see how using the term "anti-gay" gives any more respect to somebody. To me, "phobic" makes them sound weaker, like it's something they can't help.

Click to expand...

Exactly. People don't like being told their opinions are symptoms of a disability which would go away if the disability were cured and they became "normal." Even if it's true.

Imagine a doctor who insists on better sterilization procedures, to the annoyance of those who think the current procedures are good enough.

Saying he's "anti-germ" is a relatively neutral and accurate description of his crusade. It respects his viewpoint. Saying he's a "germophobe" implies he's behaving irrationally and it's an insult that his opponents might use.

I can understand that that's why the AP made the decision, because they want reporting to be neutral, but since I'm not neutral, I'd rather see the continued use of language that promotes my side.

But I'm not getting the leap to saying that the wording makes it sound normal and rational. There's nothing normal or rational about a person who commits hate crimes.

ETA: Maybe what we really need is a word with the same weight as "racist" or "sexist" or "misogynist."

Click to expand...

To clarify my point: I don't think it's normal, rational decision, but "anti-gay" allows for the possibility that it is. "Homophobia" does not. A word that clearly implies it's abnormal is better than a word which leaves open the possibility that it's normal.

Fortunately, any word will eventual take on negative connotations, as long as society in general continues to disapprove of homophobes/anti-gay-people.

Xelebes said:

I think it is an important distinction in psychology. Never taken a full-on course on it, but I think that is what is happening.

Click to expand...

It is an important distinction, unfortunately you're getting it wrong by confusing the quality of a belief being "rational" with the process of "rationalization." Though based on the same root, they do not mean the same thing.

A belief is "rational" when it is based on "reason" (the well-thought-out, based on sound logic and facts kind). "Rationalizing" is a cognitive process in which a person superficially attempts to attribute a belief or action to reason but does not necessarily engage in deeper, true critical analysis of the facts/logic involved in that belief or action. As contrary as it sounds, it's usually an attempt by the person to make something illogical or untrue (i.e. irrational) seem valid or plausible (rational).

More easily stated, "Rationalization" is the process people employ to diminish the discomfort of cognitive dissonance by making something irrational falsely "seem" rational.

So, while a bigot may have rationalized his/her beliefs or actions to a point where he/she feels psychologically comfortable with them, that does not in any way mean that those beliefs or actions are rational. In fact, they are most likely irrational.

this thread is gay.


(and muslim).

weighing on this, I think it's about time personally. Most anti gay people I know don't actually fear gay people. They may dislike the act, or think it's wrong or whatever, but they aren't afraid of gay people, in fact (and sadly) most don't even know any gay people (this is to their detriment in my opinion)

and pup in your first post you said it was a piece of propaganda. That's what I've always viewed the word as too, but not in the same positive light you apparently do. Propaganda is effective, but not necessarily truthful. I think Using homophobia in a medical context (toward people who are generally afraid of gay people) is fine, but labeling someone who is against gay rights, isn't the same thing nor should it be classified as such.

blast from the past...

bbc guidelines on reporting on terrorism:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/page/guidance-reporting-terrorism-full

Bloo said:

and pup in your first post you said it was a piece of propaganda. That's what I've always viewed the word as too, but not in the same positive light you apparently do. Propaganda is effective, but not necessarily truthful. I think Using homophobia in a medical context (toward people who are generally afraid of gay people) is fine, but labeling someone who is against gay rights, isn't the same thing nor should it be classified as such.

Click to expand...

IMO, it was more a marketing tactic than propaganda. George Weinberg (a psychologist) coined the term in a book he published in the early '70s. His basic reasoning for coming up with the term (as near as I can remember) was that he knew many people in the psych field who disliked homosexuals and that hatred/dislike "seemed" to him to be based on fear. No actual research or therapy-based data involved in him coming up with that definition. He pretty much just ascribed a cause/motive (fear) by his own anecdotal assumptions. In other words, he just kind of made it up.

Around the time of his book being published, he then contacted several GLBT publications and urged them to start using the term in their stories (and to make sure they mentioned him and his book when they did). So, they did. And his book sales took off and he then gained the notoriety he was apparently seeking.

He's been quoted as saying something along the lines of feeling extremely proud to have coined the term. Dude, the only reason people use it is because you spammed and begged them to use it and give you credit so you could sell more books!

Ugh.

I don't like 'anti' so much, either. I'm 'anti' a lot of things, and I'm no bigot. I like the inherent bigotry highlighted in the word, if possible.

Going on 'heteronormative' and 'sexist', how about 'homosexist'? I'd love to see an '-ist' or 'mis-' in there.

backslashbaby said:

I don't like 'anti' so much, either. I'm 'anti' a lot of things, and I'm no bigot. I like the inherent bigotry highlighted in the word, if possible.

Going on 'heteronormative' and 'sexist', how about 'homosexist'? I'd love to see an '-ist' or 'mis-' in there.

Click to expand...

I say heterosexist because I've always felt homophobia doesn't quite get what I mean.