Physics Guy wrote:I've been wondering what y'all are talking about with this new round of Smokey. Apparently I have him on Ignore. It works great.
Too bad visitors can’t do that. They get the full white-supremacist slap in the face.Sic et Non wrote:[M]y objection to the word homophobia isn’t really about homosexuality as such. ... To the extent that there really are anti-gay bigots — and I accept that they still exist — the proper term for them isn’t homophobe. It’s bigot. And to the extent that a person really hates gay people, his attitude should be termed hatred, not homophobia.
Michael Hoggan wrote:The impression I get from the APA (American Psychological Association) is that if you have a teenage son who plays video games an average of three hours a day, that your son is an addict and is in desparate need of therapy.
However, if your teenage daughter wants to have sex with the girls on the cheerleading squad, that you have a responsibility as a parent to encourage her.
Smokey wrote:A few questions:
Why do certain posters here have their names in Blue font. For instance, Doctor Scratch’s username is in blue font. Is this because of white supremacy?
SeN wrote:Incidentally, has it not occurred to folks over at your message board that the person currently spewing anti-Semitic bilge there is simply having you on, to get a rise out of you? I have no idea at all who he or she is -- I hope s/he's not one of mine --
SeN wrote: but the signature line "All posts are satire" surely seems a clue. I suspect that those assuming that he or she is actually pro-LDS are falling for a ruse.
moksha wrote:Smokey obviously has an ability to ruin threads. What can be done to limit that disruption?
Physics Guy wrote:Sic et Non wrote:[M]y objection to the word homophobia isn’t really about homosexuality as such. ... To the extent that there really are anti-gay bigots — and I accept that they still exist — the proper term for them isn’t homophobe. It’s bigot. And to the extent that a person really hates gay people, his attitude should be termed hatred, not homophobia.
At least to some, this may sound reasonable. When Peterson objects to the word "homophobia", he isn't saying that anti-gay bigotry isn't bigotry. No, apparently he's perfectly willing to call that spade a spade.
He just doesn't think people should refer to this particular kind of bigotry specifically. Homophobia is a special case of bigotry, and he doesn't want to distinguish that special case from the larger set. In other words he's not actually willing to call this spade a spade after all. He thinks we should only call it an agricultural implement.
I mean, why not take this reasonable principle further? Let's not use the nonsense word "anti-semitism". This attitude should be termed "racism". Let's not use the nonsense words "murder" or "arson" or "assault". These acts should all be termed "crime".
To declare it as an objective fact that homophobia does not exist as a category of its own, but can only be an example of the larger category of bigotry, is absurd. We can always picture the world in higher or lower resolution. There are always larger categories and narrower ones.
For some purposes it can be reasonable to lump lots of different things into one larger category. It can even be a way of properly acknowledging their importance. Authors in less-respected genres, for example, like science-fiction or young adult fiction, may prefer to be known as authors of fiction, period. On the other hand sometimes we really need to be more specific. Painters use dozens of different words for color tones (I think they're called "tones") that I can't even see. Peterson's seemingly reasonable insistence on always replacing "homophobia" with "bigotry" makes no more sense than insisting that "scarlet" be abolished as a word and replaced in every use with plain "red".
Whether we use broader or narrower categories isn't just random. We generally select our level of resolution for a reason. Whatever the reason may be, it makes the distinctions we draw significant and the details we ignore irrelevant. So Peterson's declarations about homophobia versus bigotry are really only saying something about his own reasons for distinguishing things.
What Peterson is saying is that the distinction between homophobia and other forms of bigotry is not significant to him. That may well be true, but I don't think it should be true. There are good reasons to focus on this one particular form of bigotry, especially for professors at BYU right now.
Doctor Scratch wrote:It would seem that Dr. Peterson is a fan of Smokey's particular brand of "satire":SeN wrote:Incidentally, has it not occurred to folks over at your message board that the person currently spewing anti-Semitic bilge there is simply having you on, to get a rise out of you? I have no idea at all who he or she is -- I hope s/he's not one of mine -- but the signature line "All posts are satire" surely seems a clue. I suspect that those assuming that he or she is actually pro-LDS are falling for a ruse.
Anything to score a point against the "dupes," right? Either it's horrible behavior, or it's not. You can't exactly say, "Oh, wow--that's awful," and then turn around and say, "But I like that it's being used to make you look dumb!"
Lemmie wrote:From an opinion piece, a description of the bigot currently fouling our forums.”The LDS Church has a White Nationalist Problem.”
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints... has always had fringe white nationalists within its membership...
The internet has allowed communities of Latter-day Saint white supremacism to flourish, often anonymously hiding behind profile photos of past prophets and tagging their alt-right faction as DezNat, a hashtag short for “Deseret Nation.”
...Members of DezNat argue that they do not have an ideology and are only motivated by a desire to “follow the prophet,” as written by one member, Tanner Guzy. In what seems to be some sort of overcompensation, Guzy has based his Twitter in painful efforts to portray himself as a strong, traditional, masculine man. He does a good job of normalizing white nationalism, making it look compatible with the lifestyle and beliefs of the average Latter-day Saint guy, and he is just one of the many pushing a hateful, racist and vile ideology...
The church should be highly aware of the hateful rhetoric its members spew using the names and images of prophets and church doctrine online. This is especially needed as national violence rises and the church wishes to be an open, safe environment for all members....
The church has a moral responsibility to address the growing white nationalism within its membership. It would be wise to excommunicate members who spew such vile hatred and declare that their actions represent the faith and the word of God. If this is not nipped in the bud, other members may become vulnerable to white nationalism. While they may hide their identity online, many DezNat members are active members, parents, neighbors and local leaders in Utah communities.The church must do everything in its power — and its power is great— to use education and advocacy to eradicate the white nationalism in the psyche of some members.
The church has an alt-right problem and they must be the ones to end it.
https://dailyutahchronicle.com/2019/09/ ... t-problem/
OP describes himself as a former ex-Mormon. I doubt the vile racist is welcome in either group.