Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Rain

The label "TBM"

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think some say they find it offensive because it does not support the political narrative they hope prevails in society. Hence it’s a matter of political correctness, a thing  I detest. 

And I don’t believe it’s so much a matter of what they individually prefer to be called. Rather they want everyone to stop using the term no matter whom or what they refer to. 

Like I said to Calm....you have your own choice to make regarding that term.  I simply don't understand why you'd continue to use it when it's very easy to avoid its usage and there are other terms that are not offensive which you can use instead.

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Like I said to Calm....you have your own choice to make regarding that term.  I simply don't understand why you'd continue to use it when it's very easy to avoid its usage and there are other terms that are not offensive which you can use instead.

Because our rich and versatile language is rendered less rich and less versatile when political pressure groups succeed in outlawing harmless words and expressions for purely political motives. It goes to the broader issue of political correctness and why I and many others detest political correctness. 

In general, I don’t have any objection to referring to an individual by his term of preference. What I have a problem with is outlawing a particular term or expression in any usage <at all> simply because said usage does not serve some group’s political narrative. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As I said, I’ve never felt strongly enough about “TBM” to raise a fuss over it. As it  happens, someone here started a thread about it, so I decided I would weigh in, the first time I have ever expressed an opinion on it. 

On the other hand, it does raise my hackles when I perceive there is an attempt to ram political correctness down my throat, which is what I see happening when there are efforts to abjure a perfectly good and neutral and serviceable (and, yes, clinical) term like same-sex attraction. 

The difference between SSA and homosexual is not one of political correctness.  It is has to do with how the individuals themselves want to be identified.  I respect the wishes of those here (and elsewhere) who don't like the term TBM... for whatever reasons are important to them.  Likewise, I respect those in the LGBT community who don't wish to be identified as someone "with SSA" and so I don't use that term either.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Because our rich and versatile language is rendered less rich and less versatile when political pressure groups succeed in outlawing harmless words and expressions for purely political motives. It goes to the broader issue of political correctness and why I and many others detest political correctness. 

Ok...like I said, it's your choice to continue to offend.  I don't understand doing that and I try hard never to use language that offends someone (most especially once I am made aware of that fact).

I most likely offend enough without doing it on purpose ;) :) 

 

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The difference between SSA and homosexual is not one of political correctness.  It is has to do with how the individuals themselves want to be identified.  I respect the wishes of those here (and elsewhere) who don't like the term TBM... for whatever reasons are important to them.  Likewise, I respect those in the LGBT community who don't wish to be identified as someone "with SSA" and so I don't use that term either.

What about those with same-sex attraction who don’t mind the term or who might actually prefer it? Do they have some claim on your consideration as well? 

What about those who don’t want to be identified as, say, lgbtq because of the cultural, political and social connotations of that term? If you succeed in banning or stigmatizing a neutral term like same-sex attraction, haven’t you, in effect robbed them of a preferred term for self-identification? 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Ok...like I said, it's your choice to continue to offend.  I don't understand doing that and I try hard never to use language that offends someone (most especially once I am made aware of that fact).

I most likely offend enough without doing it on purpose ;) :) 

 

I don’t accept your accusation that I am making a “choice to continue to offend.” I find it insulting, and it strikes me as intentionally offensive in its own right. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What about those with same-sex attraction who don’t mind the term or who might actually prefer it?

I know many gays and none of them like that term.  Look at how you use it above.  It's like you are describing an illness or condition instead of an identity (like saying "those with cancer").  That's how they feel when you insist on using it, IMO.

How difficult is it to just state that they are homosexual or gay?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t accept your accusation that I am making a “choice to continue to offend.”

Ok.  But I think that very accurately describes what you are doing.

When many have explained to you that the usage of certain terms to describe them is offensive and you choose to continue to use those exact certain terms.....you're making a conscious choice to continue to offend.

You could choose to stop using those terms, but you don't.

 

 

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, ALarson said:

I know many gays and none of them like that term.  Look at how you use it above.  It's like you are describing an illness or condition instead of an identity (like saying "those with cancer").  That's how they feel when you insist on using it, IMO.

How difficult is it to just state that they are homosexual or gay?

So because you don’t know anyone with same sex attraction who doesn’t mind the term or who actually prefers it, you presume to ban or stigmatize it for everybody? I find that attitude myopic at best and it even strikes me as a tad oppressive. 

Share this post


Link to post

When I first started posting on this forum many years ago, I did not feel TBM had a negative connotation.  I understood it to mean 'true blue mormon' or 'true believing mormon' and didn't have a problem with being called one and even called myself a TBM.  But that was a long time ago before I had experience with other forums.  After spending several years on another forum which unfortunately fell to the dark side (which is why I'm back here), my reaction to TBM now is negative, because it evolved over time on that forum and other forums to become an insult..  While it once was positive, it came to be used to describe members don't think for themselves; mind-numbed zealots aka;  'sheeple' --which is also meant to insult.  I think if one spends time on forums where posters have freedom to be more critical and attacking of the Church and it's members, It's more obvious that it now has a negative connotation.  It's nice that it did not develop that here.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, ALarson said:

Ok.  But I think that very accurately describes what you are doing.

When many have explained to you that the usage of certain terms to describe them is offensive and you choose to continue to use those exact certain terms.....you're making a conscious choice to continue to offend.

You could choose to stop using those terms, but you don't.

 

 

I’ve explained why I choose not to stop using it and it has nothing to do with “choosing to be offensive.” 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So because you don’t know anyone with same sex attraction who doesn’t mind the term or who actually prefers it, you presume to ban or stigmatize it for everybody? I find that attitude myopic at best and it even strikes me as a tad oppressive. 

No, not because of only those who I personally know.....there are many more (and you have heard from some on here).  If it does not offend every single gay person, does that make it ok to continue offending only some of them?

I'm not going to continue with this back and forth.  Do as you please....

It's just a bit ironic that you are the one making this argument, IMO 😉

 

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Your point is well taken, but will be missed by most, so it doesn't really matter.  The more important question is whether TBM rings will replace CTR rings.

I couldn't find any TBM rings.  But I did  find this:

https://www.zazzle.com/tbm_true_blue_mormon_shirt-235703205417661414

Image result for lds apparel "tbm"

 

If I buy that for twenty bucks, will I look as good as that guy?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, alter idem said:

When I first started posting on this forum many years ago, I did not feel TBM had a negative connotation.  I understood it to mean 'true blue mormon' or 'true believing mormon' and didn't have a problem with being called one and even called myself a TBM.  But that was a long time ago before I had experience with other forums.  After spending several years on another forum which unfortunately fell to the dark side (which is why I'm back here), my reaction to TBM now is negative, because it evolved over time on that forum and other forums to become an insult..  While it once was positive, it came to be used to describe members don't think for themselves; mind-numbed zealots aka;  'sheeple' --which is also meant to insult.  I think if one spends time on forums where posters have freedom to be more critical and attacking of the Church and it's members, It's more obvious that it now has a negative connotation.  It's nice that it did not develop that here.

It may not have developed here, but I think some people do bring that insulting connotation with them when they come here and use the term. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, ALarson said:

No, not because of only those who I personally know.....there are many more (and you have heard from some on here).  If it does not offend every single gay person, does that make it ok to continue offending only some of them?

 

That some people decide they don’t like it because they don’t find it consistent with their own political or social narrative, is it fair to ban or stigmatize it for everybody?

Some in this day and age are opposing the use of gender-specific pronouns such as he and she. Will you jump on that bandwagon as well? Where does the madness stop?

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What about those with same-sex attraction who don’t mind the term or who might actually prefer it? Do they have some claim on your consideration as well? 

What about those who don’t want to be identified as, say, lgbtq because of the cultural, political and social connotations of that term? If you succeed in banning or stigmatizing a neutral term like same-sex attraction, haven’t you, in effect robbed them of a preferred term for self-identification? 

I gotta agree here. I think another way of defining political correctness (with regards to names & labels) might be a wide pressure to use or not use words for entire groups based on one or a few individuals opinions.

Treat individuals as individuals.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, SouthernMo said:

This is hypocrisy. He can’t be a TBM and have a beard.

TBM=the bearded Mormon 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Calm said:

TBM=the bearded Mormon 

That’s offensive. He might not self-identify as bearded.

😊

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I know many gays and none of them like that term. 

No true Scotsman.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I know many gays and none of them like that term.  Look at how you use it above.  It's like you are describing an illness or condition instead of an identity (like saying "those with cancer").  That's how they feel when you insist on using it, IMO.

If one personally does not view same-sex attraction as “an illness or condition instead of an identity,” what logical reason would there be to take offense at it?

Quote: “How difficult is it to just state that they are homosexual or gay?“ 

To some people, that might imply not merely an orientation, but acting on that orientation as well. Not so much with a more clinical term like same-sex attraction. Shouldn’t people be free to use the term they feel best conveys their intended meaning?

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I know many gays and none of them like that term.  Look at how you use it above.  It's like you are describing an illness or condition instead of an identity (like saying "those with cancer").  That's how they feel when you insist on using it, IMO.

How difficult is it to just state that they are homosexual or gay?

Yup. Those I know just prefer gay or homosexual and really hate ever hearing that they “have” same-sex attraction.  I get why it can offend them and I respect them enough to never use it as an identity.  Sometimes it’s really hard to know what might hurt someone, but it’s easy to avoid if we do know.

I’ll do the same now with TBM.  If it only offends even some, I won’t take the chance and won’t use it.  I had no idea, but I get it now that I hear some explain why and I read some experiences or examples where it is used in a derogatory manner.  

Edited by JulieM
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I know many gays and none of them like that term.  Look at how you use it above.  It's like you are describing an illness or condition instead of an identity (like saying "those with cancer").  That's how they feel when you insist on using it, IMO.

How difficult is it to just state that they are homosexual or gay?

Well, I'm old enough that 'gay' once had a negative context.  The same with 'queer', but now it's embraced.  It's hard to keep up with what's okay and what's not with the LGBTQ??? community.

Personally, I don't think 'same sex attraction' should be offensive--it's a description and it's not slang--like some of the others which were offensive at one time.....  Probably best to just not reference their sexual preferences at all, unless they bring it up and want to discuss it.  Then maybe follow their lead and use the terms they use, since those would be the ones they are comfortable with.

Edited by alter idem

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If one personally does not view same-sex attraction as “an illness or condition instead of an identity,” what logical reason would there be to take offense at it?

Writes the person who''s called it a "malady" :P

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67141-elder-bednar-there-are-no-homosexual-members-of-the-church/?do=findComment&comment=1209597931

 

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...