Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
Assumptions and Homophobia
horsefish:
--- Quote from: Odin on 23 Feb 2011, 03:02 ---Guys, guys, what about all the good things Hitler did? :mrgreen:
--- End quote ---
I was wondering when someone would invoke Godwin's law (albeit ironically)
--- Quote from: cabbagehut on 23 Feb 2011, 11:32 ---What I meant was that sometimes, when you call someone on homophobia (or racism, or other -isms, etc.), they cite all the good things about themselves or that person in order to invalidate the accusation, and to "prove" that they can't be this bad thing you've said - they're a good person, and homophobia/racism/etc. is only practiced by bad people. Generally, they think of violence or hateful bigotry, like lynching or slurs. But that's not the only way it's practiced, you know? It's calling someone on their privilege (often, not always), and them getting defensive. But if we change the view, like Fenris suggested, from homophobe = entirely bad person into homophobia = bad beliefs that can change, it makes it easier for people to accept criticism of their own behavior.
...
changing your behavior is the key, not changing the definition of your behavior.
--- End quote ---
Have you ever read or studied Critical Theory (Critical Queer Theory, Critical Race Theory, etc.)? If not, I think you might find it interesting, since your comments about calling people on their privilege and owning up to one's own prejudices and trying to change them rather than hiding behind a wall of denial both reflect some of the central themes of Critical Theory. Google "unpacking the invisible knapsack" for a good start. (Even if you don't want to delve into the subject, this is an article I think everyone should read.)
cabbagehut:
--- Quote from: horsefish on 23 Feb 2011, 20:36 ---
--- Quote from: Odin on 23 Feb 2011, 03:02 ---Guys, guys, what about all the good things Hitler did? :mrgreen:
--- End quote ---
I was wondering when someone would invoke Godwin's law (albeit ironically)
--- Quote from: cabbagehut on 23 Feb 2011, 11:32 ---What I meant was that sometimes, when you call someone on homophobia (or racism, or other -isms, etc.), they cite all the good things about themselves or that person in order to invalidate the accusation, and to "prove" that they can't be this bad thing you've said - they're a good person, and homophobia/racism/etc. is only practiced by bad people. Generally, they think of violence or hateful bigotry, like lynching or slurs. But that's not the only way it's practiced, you know? It's calling someone on their privilege (often, not always), and them getting defensive. But if we change the view, like Fenris suggested, from homophobe = entirely bad person into homophobia = bad beliefs that can change, it makes it easier for people to accept criticism of their own behavior.
...
changing your behavior is the key, not changing the definition of your behavior.
--- End quote ---
Have you ever read or studied Critical Theory (Critical Queer Theory, Critical Race Theory, etc.)? If not, I think you might find it interesting, since your comments about calling people on their privilege and owning up to one's own prejudices and trying to change them rather than hiding behind a wall of denial both reflect some of the central themes of Critical Theory. Google "unpacking the invisible knapsack" for a good start. (Even if you don't want to delve into the subject, this is an article I think everyone should read.)
--- End quote ---
I have, actually. I think "Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" is a pretty good way to look at it, and enjoyed it. Alas, I am not anywhere nearly as eloquent as the author, so I kind of mess it up when I try to explain. Thanks for the suggestion!
westrim:
http://notalwaysright.com/separates-the-men-from-the-boys/10358
Well that's timely. It's Australians, though.
Akima:
--- Quote from: westrim on 24 Feb 2011, 12:08 ---http://notalwaysright.com/separates-the-men-from-the-boys/10358
Well that's timely. It's Australians, though.
--- End quote ---
LOL! And not just Australians. Queenslanders!
muffin_of_chaos:
I personally don't like people assuming things about me. While I feel more strongly negative about them assuming false things about me, any assumption made will be either far too simplistic to be relevant to anything or completely out of context.
Should I be offended by someone doing so? No. In theory, no one should be offended by anything. To be offended is to combine a signal of distaste or disagreement with anger towards the originator, and anger pretty much never works as a better motivator for friendly diplomacy than not-anger as a general rule. (There are arguments against this claim, especially over the terminology, but when you get to their bones they are tough and short-sighted.) And friendly diplomacy leads to mediation, gains from trade and lowered transaction costs of interpersonal interaction, and eventually "better" (more cooperation = more production, more division of labor) society, which most people want.
Here's a common counterargument -- "Oh, but we need to be able to get offended in order to be motivated to counteract flaws in the system!"
I disagree. After a long life of arguing with people who desire to offend as a tactic in their oratory, I feel I almost cannot be offended. But I'm still extremely interested in acting to promote and work out problems between people, peoples and societies. Probably moreso than most people who get caught up in how they feel about the subject such that they cannot think straight or relate to the "offender."
Anyway, the error Padma made was the automatic nature of the assumption, not the fact that the assumption had to do with homosexuality. I would think slightly less of her (i.e. lower my opinion of her ability to make and follow through with good choices) for the assumption, because she was speaking and acting based on an unconfirmed assumption, except that she seems merely dense. The kind of dense with the capacity to learn from mistakes, which is almost better than...non-dense.
As opposed to her assumption being the spawn of some sort of personality trait derived from self-centeredness. Even if it was, I would be extremely hard-pressed to criticize someone for basing their harmless actions on unconfirmed assumptions.
--- Quote from: cabbagehut on 23 Feb 2011, 12:38 ---If I'm understanding your first quote (I've never seen Star Wars, and not sure if I fully understand the reference), yes, I think so? Very rarely are people entirely good or entirely bad. I like to think I'm a good person, but sometimes, I totally fuck that up and need to be called on it. And lots of people are probably don't mean harm, but that doesn't mean that they don't cause it.
I think they are subtly different. I have a friend who is deeply Christian, and I know she thinks that gay people are just "wrong". But I also know that she thinks it's wrong to treat gay people differently than straight people. Jesus loved us all, she says, and we all sin, so let God judge. She's homophobic, but doesn't necessarily discriminate. She's still wrong to be homophobic, no matter what her reasoning, but I can appreciate that she makes a conscious effort (in her mind) to live up to the ideals of loving your neighbor, etc. But at the same time, I can also understand a gay person not wanting to be friends with her.
--- End quote ---
I guess most people here aren't moral relativists? Most people, including myself, think that homophobia is imprinted, awkward, backwards, reactionary, delusional, unfair, exclusionary, bad for society as a whole and terrible for the safety or peace of mind for individuals affected. I'm not sure that makes homophobia wrong, and I think that terminology is...unhelpful. "Right" and "wrong" are absolutist claims, and thus extremely easy to tear down (or slip down the slope into tunnel vision), especially by people who think of everything in terms of absolutes.
TL; DR!
Carpe diem!
:psyduck:
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version