Why are many Americans still homophobic? - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14919461
Godstud wrote:Yes, because when they call each other names, they aren't being racist. The same would apply to two white people calling each other names. Racism isn't going to be a factor. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

If you consider being called gay an insult, then you are the one with the problem. I'd don't get all twisted up and angry inside, because it really doesn't affect me . You do, because you are homophobic, @Hong Wu.

The idea here is that if you use something as an insult, you must think there is something wrong with it. To just crassly try to hurt someone's feelings without thinking about the implications of what you are saying suggests that you aren't following a coherent philosophy.
#14919463
Hong Wu wrote:The idea here is that if you use something as an insult, you must think there is something wrong with it.
That's illogical. If you hated being called Hung Fu, I'd call you it because it got a rise out of you, and an emotional response. Taking a piss. Look it up. :D

Hong Wu wrote:To just crassly try to hurt someone's feelings without thinking about the implications of what you are saying suggests that you aren't following a coherent philosophy.
This only further supports my previous statement. You are getting hurt and insulted because you are homophobic.

Of course, the things you say, aren't really that considerate to any homosexual, are they? You really don't care if you hurt THEIR feelings by saying crass things, without thinking of the implications, right?
#14919478
I read earlier in this thread that African-Americans are more homophobic that non-African-Americans.
I didn't know that.
And then I thought about it.
Why could this be?
And then I got one idea why that is.
But I decided not to share it here.
#14919484
Godstud to Hong Wu wrote:If you did understand homosexuality, you wouldn't say such stupid things about it, or about homosexuals. Sorry, but your comments are ignorant, and spiteful. There's a lot of hate you have for homosexuals and it comes out in what you say. Don't hate yourself.

Yeah, Hong Wu! And you shouldn't hate Muslims who throw homosexuals off of buildings either! That's bigoted and racist. Try to keep an open mind!

Hong Wu wrote:So, blacks can call other black people whatever they want because they're both black. If liberals can call people gay as an insult because they're liberals, does this mean that liberals are gay?

Perhaps. I wonder what would happen if Roseanne Barr wrote a song like this:



Godstud wrote:Yes, because when they call each other names, they aren't being racist.

Why is that? They are generally referencing people of a certain race, as in the song above.

Generally, I don't understand the term homophobia, because I don't think most people are afraid of homosexuals, but rather disgusted by them.
#14919486
blackjack21 wrote:Generally, I don't understand the term homophobia, because I don't think most people are afraid of homosexuals, but rather disgusted by them.
That is because you don't understand the definition of homophobia, or don't care to learn it.

I hope this helps educate you a little...

Homophobia: dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.
#14919495
Godstud wrote:I hope this helps educate you a little...

Homophobia: dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.

Generally, leftist terminology is often misinformation and/or mis-education. "Homo" is Greek and generally refers to "the same." "Phobia" is derived from Phobos, or the personification of fear. So "homophobia" generally refers to "fear of the same." Consequently, it really doesn't make sense, since people who dislike homosexuals are often heterosexuals and dislike homosexuals because they are not the same. Homosexuals also tend to suffer from depression. So the term "gay" is also a bit of an antonym.

I think antipathy for homosexuals really comes from disgust, so it's not unlike the desire to kill a spider. That is why I don't think "openly homosexual" is a very good idea, just like leaving your car unlocked with valuables in it isn't a very good idea. You can call an attacker a criminal, like you can call a thief a criminal. Yet, people seem wise to the idea of locking their doors, but not wise to the idea of refraining from public displays of affection while homosexual.

Sivad wrote:Image

That's the peculiar thing. If we're supposed to be tolerant of extremist views in other cultures, why shouldn't we tolerate them in our own? I'm guessing that since the attacker was a "man," the attacker was probably a racial minority. I saw a story about two men who stole money from strippers and shot a security guard as they fled a strip club. The reader comments were hilarious as the news tries to omit the race when it was rather obvious that it was more than likely blacks who did it. anarchist23 seems to omit the racial dimension too and makes it a post about all Americans, as though all Americans have antipathy for homosexuals and as though far worse things weren't happening in other countries.

Now, where the term "homophobia" might make sense is in a case like this:

Condemned Ohio Man Blames Killing on 'Homosexual Panic'
Although, it seems the state wants to limit the nature of the victim as a defense for the crime while also using it as the cause for a crime. It's sort of a strange thing. You can be accused of being motivated by something, but you cannot use that same thing as a defense. That doesn't make sense to me either.
#14919496
This thread is not about the definition of homophobia.

The Oxford Dictionary defines homophobia as: Dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people. As that is the English definition, that's how it is being used within this thread. It's got nothing to do with a liberal or conservative agenda.

That said, this thread about the prevalence of discrimination and antipathy towards homosexuals that exists in the USA, not Saudi Arabia, or other countries. This discrimination and antipathy is based upon 'feelings' and 'emotions', and not reason or logic.
#14919498
Some people just feel the need to attack homosexuals. Those people are different from society at large, just like homosexuals themselves. Some people like to be tolerant of differences, and even find some enjoyment in novelty. They seem to want to extend their worldview to everyone--even criminalizing those who do not find the same enjoyment. Others seem to have the opposite response to differences, and find novelty threatening.

Some of these types of people live in the United States. Some of the people they dislike also live in the United States. That is why there are "homophobic" people in America.

Were you under the impression that if you saturated the nation with pro-homosexual propaganda that this would dissipate?
#14919502
blackjack21 wrote:Some people just feel the need to attack homosexuals.
Yes, because they based their hatred on feelings and emotions, and not reason nor logic. They are violent asses who make society worse for EVERYONE. Violence is not acceptable in modern society, even against someone you don't "like".

blackjack21 wrote: Those people are different from society at large, just like homosexuals themselves.
Except the homosexuals aren't harming the homophobes.

Tolerance of other people's differences has nothing to do with "enjoyment", or "novelty", but freedom of people to live their life as they wish, especially when no harm is being done to others.

blackjack21 wrote:Were you under the impression that if you saturated the nation with pro-homosexual propaganda that this would dissipate?
It is less prevalent than it used to be, but it's still a problem. Were you aware that prevailing opinion changes over time and what was acceptable 100 years ago, is not longer acceptable now? Your argument is simply a typical conservative argument about hating change.
#14919509
At the end of the sixties I had long hair which was still not common..
On two occasions, at night, I was beaten up walking down the road. On the first occasion a car just stopped next to me, 3 guys jumped out, I legged it, the cunts caught up with me, pushed me to the ground and gave me a good kicking as they called me a poof. The second time a group of skin heads surrounded me and landed a few punches in my face, luckily I was recognised and a girl told her skinhead mates to leave me alone.
50 years down the line things have definitely got better in Britain. Without a doubt.
#14919512
The uk ranks in the top three places in Europe for homosexuals. I believe one study focusing on LGBT rights put is no 1.

If black people are more homophobic than other groups in the US, it may be because black people n the US tend to be more religious than other groups in the US.


Do you think poverty and lack of education could be factors too? I couldn’t find any data but it seems likely on the face of it. There also appears to be a macho culture associated with black Americans that may not lend it self so well to LGBT people. Some rap music has homophobic language though that seems to be getting better.

Incidentally, I read yesterday in the guardian that black American gay people have a 50 percent chance of being hiv positive in their lifetime. A shocking statistic.
#14919608
layman wrote:Do you think poverty and lack of education could be factors too? I couldn’t find any data but it seems likely on the face of it. There also appears to be a macho culture associated with black Americans that may not lend it self so well to LGBT people. Some rap music has homophobic language though that seems to be getting better.

Incidentally, I read yesterday in the guardian that black American gay people have a 50 percent chance of being hiv positive in their lifetime. A shocking statistic.


I am not sure if poverty and lack of education are causes of homophobia. They seem more like correlated factors. But this would still explain why homophobia is more prevalent among blacks in the US.

Homophobic attitudes can also be caused by growing up in intolerant conservative households or communities.
#14919632
the reason homophobia is the first socialization when you enter in the society, religions and education are also important factors, open-mindedness by the call to reason and nonconformist are perhaps the answer to homophobia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece Today , i think if you forgot your current life (domination, virility, look of others, competition) and all influences of porn and media. You can conclude we are all bisexual.
It's certainly against nature but today what is not against natural ? Church ? :lol:
#14919649
Godstud wrote:Yes, because they based their hatred on feelings and emotions, and not reason nor logic.

I think this is more of a political assertion than a scientific one, just as the OP's assertion seems somehow to be conflating the phenomenon to Americans as though citizenship in a nation-state had something to do with it. In effect, you are asserting that people are making a reasoned and logical choice to base their hatred on feelings and emotions. Personally, I think that is not a conscious choice. Rather, it is an involuntary reaction from the pre-frontal cortext and limbic system, in parts of the brain such as the amygdala.

By contrast, I don't think homosexuals have a choice in their feelings. However, they do have a choice in their behavior. The attempts to change social attitudes may have given them hope that they have achieved some 'progress', however, it does not change brain chemistry or brain structure. Homosexuals do have a choice about holding hands walking down the street, and seem to push societal boundaries demanding acceptance from others. This poses some considerable risks for homosexuals.

Godstud wrote:They are violent asses who make society worse for EVERYONE.

Well, I think they certainly make it worse for homosexuals. Insisting that they make society worse for everyone is probably an overstatement.

Godstud wrote:Violence is not acceptable in modern society, even against someone you don't "like".

Violence is natural behavior. Whether it is deemed acceptable or not will not eliminate violence. Many of the people on this board who would more or less agree with your sentiments were perfectly fine with initiating violence against neo-Nazis.

Godstud wrote:Except the homosexuals aren't harming the homophobes.

Well that is a matter of opinion. Homosexuals have certainly waged a concerted attack on traditional morals and those who practice them. So naturally some people who choose to live according to traditional morals may view homosexuals as a harm to society and a threat to public morality. After all, homosexuality was considered criminal until around 1960 in most places.

Godstud wrote:Tolerance of other people's differences has nothing to do with "enjoyment", or "novelty", but freedom of people to live their life as they wish, especially when no harm is being done to others.

For all your attacks on America, I do find your embrace of American ideology a bit strange. In America, the notion of "freedom" generally meant freedom from government trying to order your behavior. In the instant case, the attack was not perpetrated by the government.

Godstud wrote:Your argument is simply a typical conservative argument about hating change.

I did not say I hated change. I work in the sort of business that promotes change. Prevailing opinions do not change how brains are wired.

anarchist23 wrote:At the end of the sixties I had long hair which was still not common..
On two occasions, at night, I was beaten up walking down the road. On the first occasion a car just stopped next to me, 3 guys jumped out, I legged it, the cunts caught up with me, pushed me to the ground and gave me a good kicking as they called me a poof. The second time a group of skin heads surrounded me and landed a few punches in my face, luckily I was recognised and a girl told her skinhead mates to leave me alone.
50 years down the line things have definitely got better in Britain. Without a doubt.

These things are much better understood by anthropologists than modern social justice warriors.

layman wrote:The uk ranks in the top three places in Europe for homosexuals. I believe one study focusing on LGBT rights put is no 1.

Considering population flows, do you think that esteemed position for homosexuals will persist given the United Kingdom's affinity for importing people with religious views they would consider "extreme," "intolerant," or "hateful" if they were held by the native population?

layman wrote:Do you think poverty and lack of education could be factors too? I couldn’t find any data but it seems likely on the face of it. There also appears to be a macho culture associated with black Americans that may not lend it self so well to LGBT people. Some rap music has homophobic language though that seems to be getting better.

Well the political left in the United States tolerates views and language from black people that it does not tolerate from other populations. For example, using the n-word is no problem for blacks, but causes the media to go into an uproar if other populations use it, particularly white people. Witness the recent ABC cancellation of Roseanne Barr's show. Set aside your personal opinions for a moment and ask yourself if the reaction would be different if Roseanne Barr were black? One of Roseanne Barr's writers, Wanda Sykes, quit even before ABC cancelled the show; yet, Wanda Sykes, who is black, compared Donald Trump to an orangutan.

For example, if I white person wrote this song and sung it, for some reason the mainstream media and political class would condemn it.



Yet, if black people write this sort of thing, it generates little or no mention. Yet, this represents the latest in black hip-hop culture.

It's not unlike the UK, where grooming young women for sex with older men would be forbidden to white people, but it is generally tolerated by the government if it is done by Muslims, to the point that if the white population finds it outrageous, they are willing to do things like throw Tommy Robinson in prison and demand that the media not report on the matter.

layman wrote:Incidentally, I read yesterday in the guardian that black American gay people have a 50 percent chance of being hiv positive in their lifetime. A shocking statistic.

Many years ago here, I showed that the Bell Curve's assertion of IQ and the fact that blacks scored a full standard deviation lower than whites was also correlated with other studies. In terms of IQ, Asians scored the highest with whites a very close second. Hispanics scored considerably lower, with African Americans scoring the lowest. This IQ distribution also seems pretty uniform throughout the world.

The IQ distribution correlates very closely with violent crime statistics. Violent crime among African-Americans is a full standard deviation higher on a per capita basis than it is for whites. If you factor violent crime in the United States, it is basically the same for whites in the US as it is for whites in Europe. Europeans used American violent crime statistics to champion their welfare state policies to America for decades. Now that they are importing MENA and sub-saharan African populations, the dynamics in Europe are changing rapidly. London recently overtook New York in murders, even though private ownership of firearms is highly restricted in the UK. Yet, the murders were conducted mostly with knives, leading to a "knife ban" in London.

The IQ distribution also correlates very closely to acquiring sexually transmitted diseases. Asians have the lowest instance, followed very closely by whites. Hispanics contract them considerably more frequently, while African Americans get them at rates a full standard deviation higher than the white population. You can transpose these figures pretty much anywhere in the world and the results are similar. The left reacts to this by denying it, trashing studies, and characterizing anyone who even makes such comparisons as "racist."

I have seen interesting anomalies. For example, native Americans have a similar violence problem to African Americans. Yet, when it comes to murder, the murder rate for native Americans drops off rapidly in juxtaposition to African Americans. In my experience, native Americans, when provoked into a rage, typically flee a scene in dramatic fashion; by contrast, African Americans will remain in a conflict until someone prevails. I don't know why these behaviors seem persistently attributable to population groups, but I suspect genes play a stronger role than environment.

Looking at these phenomena and their statistically significant correlations to IQ distribution is very unpopular view among the political left, as they envisage a single world government, a single currency, a single religion, and everybody living together in peace and harmony. I think it's a pretty dangerous delusion. It will likely give rise to a plurality of Hitler type figures in the coming decades, and we will ultimately end up living in highly fascist societies as a consequence of liberal delusions.
#14919658
Zamuel wrote:Then you are gay … straight people can't do that.


Yes they can, they just have different genitalia to do it with. Did anybody ever talk to you about the birds and the bees? :?:

Hong Wu wrote:To just crassly try to hurt someone's feelings without thinking about the implications of what you are saying suggests that you aren't following a coherent philosophy.


T'was amusing reading this sentence from a gross homophobe. You should talk to a doctor about your problem. Hating is learned behaviour but also something you can unlearn, good luck. :)

blackjack21 wrote:Yeah, Hong Wu! And you shouldn't hate Muslims who throw homosexuals off of buildings either! That's bigoted and racist. Try to keep an open mind!


What's bigoted and racist about saying stuff about Muslims who throw homosexuals off buildings is that, while it has happened in many places where people have been thrown off buildings - my most recent memory of it happening is in Syria at the beginning of the US/GCC/NATO war on that country, by people who were funded/armed/trained by the US/GCC/NATO coalition - when you guys refer to this happening, you do it because you're racists/bigots who dehumanize people in certain countries that you want to bomb to death and control. It's a racist trope, often off-topic and usually comes from people who are homophobes anyway. And since all of this is obvious, I thought I may as well point it out to you in this thread about American homophobia.
#14919686
skinster wrote:Yes they can, they just have different genitalia to do it with.

I'm going to guess this is a poorly worded concept ?

Did anybody ever talk to you about the birds and the bees? :?:

Sure, I got the regular fatherly talking to … I didn't really need it, a couple of the neighborhood girls had already "educated me." When a Sunday School teacher tried to explain to our class about what "queers" were and that being queer was Ok, several fathers cornered him and put him in the hospital after church. A lot of people thought it was contagious back then. It was, and remains, a complete mystery to me.

Zam 8)
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Are people on this thread actually trying to argu[…]

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]