Homophobes?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 16, 2007 5:28 AM GMT
    Are the deleted members truly deleted when their posts appear? Poses a curious question, I think, about the right to reflect a dissenting view? Certainly, the gay community can manage dissenting views, when our process of heteronormative socialization is premised upon dissent, too. Personally, I think their views should go, as well as their membership. Similarly, I encounter the same, non-stop homophobic behavior in the workplace, everyday; and, I'm not "out" publicly. I do not hide my identity when asked, but I do not broadcast it either, no more than a str8 guy would be inclined to broadcast his heterosexual identification reflected in the handshake, etc.

    What do you think? Yes, I'm certain that these issues have been discussed; I'll review those postings, too.

  • Laurence

    Posts: 942

    Jul 16, 2007 8:01 AM GMT
    Interesting point daedalus. Like youself I don't think anyone should have to suffer homophobic abuse.

    However I think it's ok in most cases to leave the things deleted members say on the foum boards after they've gone as a reminder of what is not acceptable behaviour. Sometimes what the deleted members say anyway prompts interesting discussion from other members.

    From what I gather the members who are removed have generally made a nuisance of themselves over time and have got progressively worse.

    I'm sure though that if any remaining member complained about a specific post, then that would be removed too.

    Loz
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 16, 2007 10:12 PM GMT
    I know what homophobia is ... I got 2 neighbours that won't even look at me. One of them goes to the same gym as me. What a nice pair of assholes ! It makes me mad !
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2007 4:08 AM GMT
    Sadly, I don't find that the gay "community" can handle dissenting opinions. "We" prefer Thought Police. It is a requirement that absolutely everyone we encounter has to like "us", and "we" believe "we" possess an inalienable right to call such people any number of names if they don't. Standing on higher ground, and going out of our way to be better, more polite, more responsible neighbors and citizens has no value within our "community."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2007 4:21 AM GMT
    A-men, italmusclebtm. Gay men have a tendency to be as insistent upon homogenous thinking as we claim the religious right is about moral living. This, of course, is a gross generalization, but aren't we supposed the ones crying "celebrate diversity" the loudest?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2007 4:26 AM GMT
    "Gay men have a tendency to be as insistent upon homogenous thinking as we claim the religious right is about moral living."

    That's not a gross generalization. I find it completely consistent with my entire range of experience, not to mention accurate enough that I'd almost consider it an axiom.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2007 4:52 AM GMT
    I don't want to paint with too broad a brush. Squeaky wheel syndrome, most likely.

    Also, it irritates the caca out of me that I can't edit posts to fix typos. ;)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2007 7:04 AM GMT
    Are you assuming that the deleted profile is deleted by RJ? Maybe they get tired of being jerks and not fitting in with the circle of friends here. So they go of their own accord.

    Not being able to edit posts for typos yanks my chain as well.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2007 9:54 AM GMT
    It's a slippery slope, I admit. Can we discriminate between healthy dissent and disruptive attack? I think we can.

    When the dissent is an argument, whether flawed or not, and addresses an issue, it seems to me it should remain online. There are plenty of logically flawed arguments out there - in the news - in press releases - coming from pulpits, etc. and we need to learn to look at those arguments critically rather than emotionally. Leaving those arguments to be debated and examined here can be instructional.

    But when a dissenter departs from the issue to personally attack one of the forum contributors, that crosses a line. To me, that's the difference between someone picketing a Pride parade with a "Jesus Hates Fags" sign and a right-wing redneck attacking someone leaving a bar at night. One states a belief, however abhorrent it may be, the other does real physical damage. You could argue that the other causes psychological scarring - but you can also argue that if the message is too distressing you can simply look the other way. You can't look the other way when a fist is breaking your nose.

    I would argue to leave the issue-focused comments online, but to remove the personal attacks. What do you guys think?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2007 10:34 AM GMT
    I think the issue of free speech versus hate speech is an enormously problematic one. It seems to me that the continuous anti-gay speech that comes out of otherwise mostly nice Christian folk has done a great deal of harm to gay people for hundreds of years. It is similar, in my view, to anti-semitism, the treatment of woman and ethnic groupings.

    In an ideal world, i think we should suffer things like the "God Hates Fags" crap because it demonstrates a strong acceptance of diversity. Oddly, i think that tolerance for people's viewpoints and lifestyles, no matter how much a person may be in disagreement with them, is far more important than the issue of gay intolerance itself.

    I think the forums should have a place where such angry dialogue can go. Perhaps a "Fighting Words" section or "Flames Forum" rather than deleting such things. This way, if a conversation gets out of control, it can be moved without deleting it or polluting every thread. I may not be expressing my thought very well on this but when i see the horrible speech of people like the Westboro Baptist Church, i feel bad for them, especially the children, but i wouldn't want to stop them being able to express themselves. I feel that their freedom to express their views (although i find those view hideous) is the same freedom i want for me to live my life as a gay person.

    After all, the only way we are ever going to address intolerance is via reasoned discourse. Pretending it does not exist by censoring it out of our lives, will just push it underground.

    Please note that this is just my opinion, inelegantly stated, off the cuff and all that. It is not meant to wind anyone up :)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2007 5:01 PM GMT
    Are these forums actively moderated by RJ? What about some community moderators to help manage any flame wars?

    Otherwise, I do think we need to broadly allow for dissenting speech. However, my take on italmusclebtm's post was that he was referring to in-fighting within the gay community, not attacks from the outside. How do we address our own cannibalistic nature?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2007 5:03 PM GMT
    dagnabbit, RJ cut off the last line of my post, which said:

    "(gratuitous hyperbole alert. no pun intended.)"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2007 6:29 PM GMT
    I think that in-fighting should be treated the same way. Our tolerance should be the same regardless of who is saying what. One of the most amazing things about being gay is that you are almost forced to re-evaluate your surroundings and not accept everything at face value. This should lead to a general tolerance for other people's ideas.
  • Lincsbear

    Posts: 2605

    Jul 17, 2007 6:48 PM GMT
    Interesting topic...I`ve suffered as much prejudice/abuse in my time from gay men as straight people because I don`t fulfill a stereotype they regard as acceptable.I`ve been told I`m too straight,too accepting of straight society,not "gay" enough!All minorities face this issue of diversity/tolerance/free speech versus solidarity,etc.It always seems to rumble on,maybe because there is no definite answer!For me,I think we should practice what we preach,and welcome dissent and a forgiving tolerance.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2007 7:16 PM GMT
    s_daedalus2008, ruck_us and italmusclebtm....

    "...Poses a curious question, I think, about the right to reflect a dissenting view?..."

    Just to make sure that you understand this...no one has been dropped from RJ because of a "dissenting" or controversial view. At least since I have been on..since January.

    However, three people, since I have been on, have been dropped (one of them three times, I believe, as he keeps on popping up with different handles), for diatribes that were filled with "fuck", "faggot", other obscenities and violence-threatening language, or expressions that have no place in a Forum setting designed for rationale dialog.

    The person who has popped back occasionally complains about being erased because of dissent, failing, purposefully, to recognize that his opinion wasn't the issue, but his language was.

    I'm not sure, but I think RJ deletes posts of "deleted" members that contain such language, but not their posts that do not contain that language, no matter what their opinion.

    I agree with their policy. Leave their posts up, as long as the ones with obscenity and hate-filled diatribes are deleted.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2007 7:52 PM GMT
    I agree that blatant profanity doesn't count... In that case, it's no different from a radio DJ beeping out the swear words... This is a similar public forum, so maybe the electronic equivalent can be practiced. The part where I start having contentions is where things get censored because a remark might "damage someone's self esteem" or cause "psychological issues." Anyone whose self esteem or psychology is that fragile probably has issues that should concern them much more than some random homophobe.

    "I think that in-fighting should be treated the same way. Our tolerance should be the same regardless of who is saying what. One of the most amazing things about being gay is that you are almost forced to re-evaluate your surroundings and not accept everything at face value. This should lead to a general tolerance for other people's ideas."

    This would be really nice. It is, unfortunately, just not my experience. I really believe that there is far more serious heterophobia in the gay world than homophobia in the straight world. As far as I am concerned, anyone who uses the word "breeder" or "fish" (etc., etc., ad nauseaum) deserves whatever scorn they encounter. What is worse than ignorance in someone who SHOULD know better?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2007 8:08 PM GMT
    "...I agree that blatant profanity doesn't count... In that case, it's no different from a radio DJ beeping out the swear words... This is a similar public forum, so maybe the electronic equivalent can be practiced..."

    For one of the deleted members, three of his posts consisted of whole paragraphs of obscenities, and profanities.

    Another's had racist overtones, laced with borderline threatening violence-type language.

    I think it's asking too much...strike that...I think it is too much to ask the RealJock administrators to go in and strike out certain words and leeave others. They're not getting paid for this.

    There are lots of controversial opinions expressed here. And they do not get censored.

    By the way, I agree use of term "breeder" shouldn't be condoned on a site like this. However, implying that the word "breeder" is an equivalent derisive term to the word "faggot" is like saying the word "wimp" is equivalent in nastiness to the awful word "retard."

    It's easy, on the other hand, to just remove posts that have profanities, racist or violent language en masse.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2007 8:25 PM GMT
    Sorry, I need to defend my straight friends and family, because they don't come into this site and can't do it themselves. "Breeder" is a NASTY term. I take far more offense to someone insulting my sister or closest friends with such a word, than I do when hear the word "faggot." I can overlook "faggot" language from some uneducated person who doesn't realize that they actually do know gay people, or who simply hasn't yet realized that not all gay people are the same and some of us are actually respectable people.

    It is, however, a different ballgame on this side of the fence. I think "breeder" type language is even more offensive than the word "faggot" because it's used exclusively by a demographic that simply should know better than to use such language. And I find it absurd almost to the point of being funny that it's often these same people who are the first to cry "homophobia!" People really need to get off the school bus.

    Good point about the administrators not being paid, however.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2007 8:57 PM GMT
    "...Sorry, I need to defend my straight friends and family, because they don't come into this site and can't do it themselves. "Breeder" is a NASTY term..."

    Why do you need to defend your straight friends? I have many straight friends. A discussion of phobic terms doesn't demean your or my friends.

    "breeder" is a derogatory term and should not be used in civilized speech. There's no question about that.

    We can argue round and round about "derogatoriness"...but, I am sorry to say, "faggot" is much more derisive, acid, and hate filled. "breeder" is mocking, but you can't honestly tell me that you can't see that the venom in "faggot" is historically based, and deep set in society, whereas "breeder" is a silly mocking, derogatory term thought up in the 1990s.

    "die faggot" is something we have seen or written on, or shouted at or emblazoned on many gay people as they lie beaten or dead. That's not the case for "breeder". Please. All due respect to your love and defense of y our sister, since she is undoubtedly gorgeous being Italian, as am I... :-)

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2007 10:29 PM GMT
    How about RJ leaves them in the system, but replaces their profile pictures with shots of road-kill or steaming cow-patties? Or a close-up of a tick, one of those funky electron microscope negative image-looking shots, where you can see the spiky hairs on their jointed legs?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 19, 2007 9:37 PM GMT
    s_daedalus2008- I have also worked in some homophobic workplaces-wouldn't even think of saying anything. At first, I was friggin scared. Eventually, I knew who to watch out for. This to me was an advantage. In every instance the men that spewed the homophobic bs-we're alcoholic, brain dead drug users & losers bar none.

    There were also good men in these same environments (oil rigs and railroad)-who were family men, enjoyed the company of other men. These were the people I associated with and in remote work environments it was good to have a a friend and a hobby-like fishing or hunting.


    Yesterday, "Duggan88" (I think?) left a post. He states he was on RJ as a vote of support for one of his "faggot" friends and that if any of us were looking at his pics, you were, quote " a faggot and don't even think of hitting on me" unquote.

    RJ would best delete such memebers and their dumb contributions. It's this kind if disrespect that needs to be addressed without hesitation.

    "Duggan88's" so called support for his buddy can be shoved where the sun don't shine. Who wouldwant a friend like that.
    Thanks for the topic.