3 ms·
I don't think it matters particularly. But there is a tendancy for people to treat their negative attitude towards homosexually as an intellectual or moral pos
by 7952 7y ago
I don't think it matters particularly. But there is a tendancy for people to treat their negative attitude towards homosexually as an intellectual or moral position. This completey side steps their own behaviour which could be rude, bullying, abusive, invasive etc. There is simply no moral or intellectual justification for that behaviour regardless of what you feel or think. And using words like phobia reinforces that impression. It's a position that should be incomprehensible like being hostile to people with particular hair colour.
- anongraddebt 7y agoI agree that irrational fear, extreme aversion, discrimination not rooted in sincere religious/moral beliefs, and dislike simply for the sake of dislike should be incomprehensible. This, however, is compatible with the uncontroversially true belief that disagreement outside of the conditions stated above exists. Obviously, there is absolutely no sense in revising definitions such that they fail to account for the actual use of the terms. So, I get your point.
- 7952 7y agoMy point was rather that discrimination should be incomprehensible regardless of the moral or religious sincerity. To borrow from Christianity we should love and forgive our neighbor. Or from a secular point of view we should respect the rights and dignity of individuals. Of course that is a somewhat contraversial political opinion. And the way we speak and the words we us is also political motivated. But then why should our use of words or their definitions need to be politically neutral? The uncharitable nature of words can be a feature. And really it is amazing how forgiving society has been of homophobes.