That is literally one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
There is absolutely homophobia. There are people who very specifically go out of their way to harass primarily LGBTQ individuals. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US experienced this even in school as a child.
Exactly. And since we already have words for that, I don’t understand why people have to make up new terminology. If the article called him a bigot, I would still know what the shooting was about.
Except “phobia” doesn’t solely mean “irrational fear”. As @pizza@kbin.social pointed out, “hydrophilia” and “hydrophobia” do not refer to chemicals that are literally in love with or afraid of water.
As I said in another comment, Native American has been the terminology for quite some time as well, regardless of the fact that it’s wrong.
My point, so you don’t think I’m trying a straw man argument, just because something is used for a long time, by the majority of people, doesn’t make it inherently correct.
I don’t understand why people have to make up new terminology
I used google trends to show you they’re not; the term has been in common use for literally decades.
Further, you’ve been stating repeatedly in this thread that “homophobia” is incorrect semantically because it’s not a literal fear of gay people. But the literal dictionary definition of “phobia” proves you wrong on this.
Repeating the same alternative facts over and over in this thread doesn’t make them true.
The same point comes across if you call them a bigot instead of attaching new definitions to a word so that it fits the description of someone who is prejudiced.
Bigotry is the overall term, homophobia is a subset of bigotry. You are the one attempting to redefine language in ways noone but yourself agrees with.
Absolutely. This is the same reason I am against the use of sunrise and sunset. The sun isn’t actually doing anything!
Peanuts are not actually nuts, we must fix this as well.
I heard someone say they were head over heels in love with their boyfriend the other day, imagine my outrage that they were standing normal on their feet!
We should also get rid of the word hemophobia, they’re not actually afraid of blood, they’re just having a neurological reaction.
It is just all so infuriating
Oh, and don’t even get me started on “sleeping like a baby”! I’ve never seen a baby sleep through the night without waking up multiple times.
Or when people claim they’re “freezing” when it’s just a bit chilly. To my knowledge, they’re not turning into ice!
Ever heard someone say they’re “starving”? Unless they’ve been stranded on a deserted island recently, I doubt it.
And the term “caught red-handed”? Unless their hands are actually painted red, I think we might be exaggerating.
It’s all so perplexing; words just aren’t what they used to be!
Absolutely, words do matter! That’s precisely my point. If we’re to take every word and phrase at its literal, original meaning, we’d have quite the linguistic overhaul on our hands. It’d be a monumental task (and not literally involving monuments). But let’s remember, language is dynamic and ever-evolving. It’s as much about communication and shared understanding as it is about individual words. Let’s focus on the bigger picture and not get bogged down in the weeds—or should I say, not literally stuck in marshy grounds!
No. The entire time they have been trolling for responses.
Think about where they chose to post all this. In a specific thread where it would definitely get seen and get responses. As long as people respond, they get entertainment value out of it.
It’s not suspicious, I t’s more about the lack of enforcement in regards to how easy it is to get purchase a gun legally.
It’s actually harder to get a driver’s license than something specifically made to kill, and that’s a big problem.
The issue is, if the government tries to implement protocols, then they start crying about infringing on their right, as if it’s the only amendment that can’t be, wait for it….amended.
Regardless of what kind of weapon you want, you should have to take a psychological evaluation beforehand. And depending on what type of firearm you purchase, you should be required to have a certain amount of hours for gun safety as well, for that specific type of firearm, i.e. handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc.
And, in addition to that, I gather from your replies that you are a straight person. If you consider yourself an ally, or just not a shitty person, then please refrain from reducing a homophobic murder to a semantic game. It's real life for gay people, not a thought experiment for you to exercise your contrarian rhetorical skills. You are not helping.
"A defendant may allege to have found the same-sex sexual advances so offensive or frightening that they were provoked into reacting, were acting in self-defense, were of diminished capacity, or were temporarily insane, and that this circumstance is exculpatory or mitigating."
So, even if you're junvenile semantic games were valid (they aren't), you're wrong. So, again, please take a seat.
Also I’d argue that none of this really matters because language doesn’t follow an absolute set of rules. Language is how people use it. If people start using a word to mean so thing it take son that meaning, it doesn’t matter if the word makes sense in relation to other words.
A word for something isn’t a 100% accurate description of that thing and it never has been. It doesn’t matter that a peanut isn’t technically a nut, we call it a peanut. Everyone understands that it’s a peanut. If you walk up to someone on the street and say “do you know where I can buy some peanuts” they will understand what you are saying with no problems at all.
We spend way too much time arguing over the “right” and “wrong” uses of words. There is no such thing really. Words don’t determine their own meaning, people determine that meaning, and if enough people can regocnize a words meaning immediately when they hear it then it is a word with a valid definition. It doesn’t matter if the word is contradictory to the way other similar words work, because language isn’t defined like that.
Ironically this whole stupid “homophobic peoe aren’t scared of gay people” actually proves that the person making that claim does acknoedge that the word homophobia is linguistically valid, because they are acknowledging that it’s understood definition differs from what you would expect if you strictly read the word literally
Further, even their efforts to portray it as “silly SJWs constantly inventing new terms for things” falls flat on its face because “homophobia” has been a widely used and accepted term for literally decades. It’s a pointless (and incorrect!) diversion in pedantry. Plus, it ignores the fact that there is value in actually having specific terms for common things, actually. The reason we have a specific term for anti-gay bigotry is because it’s a concept we as a society talk a lot about, so it’s simply useful to have a specific term we can use to specifically address that phenomenon. No single person gets to play pedantic petulant child and dictate how the rest of us use language. Language is perhaps the single most democratic thing humanity has, as the meaning of words (and what words there are!) is solely determined by everyday participatory democracy.
And language changes with time and culture. A great example of this is the word ‘literally’. At this point it’s become a synonym of ‘figuratively’ with younger generations, just about the exact opposite of what it once meant. Some might argue that’s just using the word wrong, but if people are able to understand each other when using the word in that way, it’s clearly a working definition, no matter how odd.
So even if homophobia meant actually being afraid of gay people at some point, even that would be irrelevant. At the end of the day, the meaning it holds today is the only thing that’s important.
Ah yes, “fear”, the notorious antonym for “attraction.”
Phobia is the opposite of philia; they’re Greek suffixes, and they meant, and still mean, “fleeing from” and “seeking out”; the connotation of “fear” arrived considerably more recently, because of psychiatric conditions being named … in Greek.
If you’re going to a pedantic dummy about etymology, at least take the time to learn a little before you dive in my dude.
For instance, you could object that “homophobia” originally referred to someone who irrationally avoided other humans, and then demand that words never change their meaning and immediately begin proudly speaking fluent proto Indo European.
It’s easier to understand homophobia not from the perspective of being afraid of gay people but being afraid of what would happen to society if being gay were not considered a failure state lesser to being hetero and treated as such.
Hence why they keep talking about “cultural Marxism”. It’s supposed to seem like a threat posed to “Western Civilization” they are VERY afraid of what happens when being gay is considered normal. “Cultural Marxism” actually doesn’t have any clear definable meaning aside from a vague implication that any form of socially accepted equality is dangerous to society, and cause for dissolution of the “traditional family” and so on. They absolutely DO frame these subjects in the context of fear. That’s why they keep evoking communist wording ( the Nazis used the term “Cultural Bolshevism” for the same purpose) You are already conditioned to be afraid of Communists so you are supposed to draw an emotional parallel. There really is no other purpose for using that term as while Marx himself did have some vague stuff about women’s role in society and that they were equally human as men but his works really were more gender blind and focused on how capitalism effects people’s lives. Calling him feminist is a bit of a stretch. But the point is to make you scared so you really stop thinking about it in any terms other than “Very bad society destroying thingy”.
If they said “Gay people will kill you because they are all great at jujitsu and you should run!” people would think you’re a complete moron but “Their existence will erode the nuclear family and cause us to be weak as a society so that our enemies will take us down!” is a more nebulous fear that doesn’t stem from any specific completely harmless individual. It makes the existence of them at all as a whole a threat. Or they cam be treated as a threat to one’s personal perception of being masculine if ones entire premise of masculinity operates on the nessesity of being perceived as not being desired or desiring men. Hence homophobia - a fear of being perceived as gay.
I blocked the troll and like 90% of the comment section disappeared. That’s how much damage that shitbag did by getting people to respond to contrarian trash.
I mean… isn’t that what just happened? Until we see a body, he could have faked his death, or he could be in the basement of the gulag with everyone thinking he’s dead.
Answer: it’s all to do with innocent until proven guilty laws.
Basically, in the UK, you can’t push a view in the media that someone committed the crime until they are found guilty. You can say blah happened and it is suspected that blah happened but if you say they did it before they are ruled guilty you open yourself up to legal issues.
This continues over to use of photos etc where if you use photos that make them look “bad” then that entity may be accused of pushing the view before the suspect is found guilty.
But, once found guilty, you can do it. If you go look at the BBC News site today you’ll find that they don’t really use this image and now use mugshots and other images where she doesn’t look happy/smiling.
As for why this specific picture is still sometimes used - it’s really just to do with what users will recognise, because this case has been going on for years now and that’s the picture they always showed. Sky News (the site in the link) does also have other non-happy pictures of her now.
Because she’s white, young and hot, which automatically earns her sympathy points from everyone else. Look at all the people calling her mentally ill when if she was a dude, they’d be calling for his blood too.
I hate this mentality, how dare they post a picture of her looking normal when she should be drooling blood and screaming about how she loves to kill babies in every picture
She did look normal, that’s a huge part of what let her get away with it for so long - everyone has this idea that only ugly people with mean faces do crime but that’s not how reality works - people aren’t all typecast and coded for their role, we need to get used to the reality that a normal and nice seeming person could be awfull on the inside.
I think their point is that this should be the case, a normal photo, but it only seems to be the case for certain demographics. A black person wouldn’t have gotten a nice, normal photo.
He was still shooting while doing that half skip move like he just saw a spider or a bee. He’s lucky he didn’t kill more innocent people firing like that.
Working 4 days (30h) a week for years now. There is no way for me going back into a 5 day week. It means less wage but for me it’s worth it. I have more time for my personal interests and family. I know that this is not an option for everyone but I am always a bit surprised how few colleagues in comparable circumstances are choosing this option.
You can ask the company if you’d be allowed to work 4 days a week. Some will say yes if they have coverage. Some will say no. It depends on the company.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.