Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Rain

The label "TBM"

Recommended Posts

TBM is a nonexistent LDS version of a Chupacabra. TBM is also misleading and should be dismissed.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, rockpond said:

I was referring to how it was used in the paragraph that Calm quoted.  

And I’ve said before on this thread... I see a difference between saying someone is attracted to the same sex and referring to lesbian and gay people as “having SSA”. 

It’s not really a tough concept to wrap your head around. 

Um, what does SSA stand for? Same-sex attraction, no? And that’s not the same thing as attraction to the same sex? 

Is this conversation for real? What’s going on? Am I on Candid Camera? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Um, what does SSA stand for? Same-sex attraction, no? And that’s not the same thing as attraction to the same sex? 

Is this conversation for real? What’s going on? Am I on Candid Camera? 

Oh... so funny, Scott. 

Re-read my post, I’m not going to keep pointing out the distinction if you are going to ignore it.  This is not beyond your understanding.  Unless you just choose to not understand.  

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Oh... so funny, Scott. 

Re-read my post, I’m not going to keep pointing out the distinction if you are going to ignore it.  This is not beyond your understanding.  Unless you just choose to not understand.  

I’ve re-read it several times, thinking I’ve missed some nuance or other, expecting it will become more intelligible with the re-reading. It hasn’t. 

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’ve re-read it several times, thinking I’ve missed some nuance or other, expecting it will become more intelligible with the re-reading. It hasn’t. 

Yes, you missed the nuance... it’s about being considerate of your fellow men, your brothers and sisters.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes, you missed the nuance... it’s about being considerate of your fellow men, your brothers and sisters.

And that’s supposed to explain how same-sex attraction is not the same thing as being attracted to the same sex? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And that’s supposed to explain how same-sex attraction is not the same thing as being attracted to the same sex? 

If you’ve ever gotten dirt on you within the last year, maybe we should all call you a “dirty old man.”  All three words are factually correct, right?

Or, would you be uncomfortable with the connotation it carries, and prefer no one call you that?

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

And that’s supposed to explain how same-sex attraction is not the same thing as being attracted to the same sex? 

No.  And is this seriously still where you are with this topic?  Nobody is saying that same-sex attraction and being attracted to the same sex are different.  

I really don’t think that you want to understand this.  And that’s fine... as has also been said over and over:  you are welcome to continue to choose to offend. 

Edited by rockpond
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So “homosexual attraction” is fine, but “same-sex attraction” is not? 

Curiouser and curiouser. 

So "Black" is fine, but the "N" word which comes from black is not?

Curiouser and curiouser.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, california boy said:

So "Black" is fine, but the "N" word which comes from black is not?

Curiouser and curiouser.

So are you agreeing that it is strictly the emotional baggage attached to the word and not its actual definition that is the problem?  (I think that is more than enough, I just want to be clear on what the problem is; baggage makes more sense to me than some inherent meaning given the way "same sex" is used with everything else).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Calm said:

So are you agreeing that it is strictly the emotional baggage attached to the word and not its actual definition that is the problem?  (I think that is more than enough, I just want to be clear on what the problem is; baggage makes more sense to me than some inherent meaning given the way "same sex" is used with everything else).

The baggage is that someone who is SSA is not "gay" through and through, or maybe in denial.

I listened to this Radiowest interview with Greg Prince. https://radiowest.kuer.org/post/gay-rights-and-mormon-church He speaks about the Prop 8 ordeal and how it affected this gay gentleman that he interviewed. I guess he didn't understand extensively until he interviewed him how deep this goes. The man mentioned to him that it was revealed to him spiritually on top of already knowing that he was born that way, my words not theirs. So there can definitely be a huge difference or connotation. 

One example, if lame I'm sorry, is to compare it to someone that is attracted to a dress or suit in the store window, but they aren't that dress/suit. 

Edited by Tacenda

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, california boy said:

So "Black" is fine, but the "N" word which comes from black is not?

Curiouser and curiouser.

?????

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, rockpond said:

No.  And is this seriously still where you are with this topic?  Nobody is saying that same-sex attraction and being attracted to the same sex are different.  

I really don’t think that you want to understand this.  And that’s fine... as has also been said over and over:  you are welcome to continue to choose to offend. 

So instead of explaining clearly and understandably, you choose to hector and scold. Not much potential for persuasion with that.

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The baggage is that someone who is SSA is not "gay" through and through, or maybe in denial.

 

What does it mean to be "'gay' through and through"?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What does it mean to be "'gay' through and through"?

You plainly miss the  magical connections through shared magical thinking, rendering you clueless.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So instead of explaining clearly and understandably, you choose to hector and scold. Not much potential for persuasion with that.

It's been explained clearly and understandably in this thread in which you've been an active participant.  By myself and others.

And again, I'm not the target population here so I'm not the best person to respond to these questions but since I brought it up with you, I'll repeat it again.

First and foremost is simply the expressed desire of many of our lesbian and gay brothers and sisters to not be identified as "having SSA".  That alone should be enough.  Much like those here who don't want to be identified as "TBM" or, as you indicated, feel that TBM implies contempt despite the fact that there should be absolutely nothing negative about calling a faithful member of the LDS church a true believing Mormon.

Second, describing someone as being attracted to the same sex or making a distinction between homosexual behavior and homosexual attraction (the article Calm cited) takes on a very different tone than describing someone as "having SSA".  The difference in tone and, I believe, some of that baggage that comes along with the "having SSA" or "he/she is SSA" descriptor is what matters.

I choose not to use TBM, even though I see it as a favorable identifier, because people have said that it comes across as negative to them.  I am working hard at not using "Mormon" simply because church members that I care about now feel strongly about not being labeled as such.  Likewise, my experience with gay and lesbian friends and loved ones is that they don't like SSA... it is off-putting to them.  So I do my best to identify them, and others, in the way that they want. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, USU78 said:

You plainly miss the  magical connections through shared magical thinking, rendering you clueless.

I suppose there is an element of esoterica here that will forever be unattainable to one such as I.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I suppose there is an element of esoterica here that will forever be unattainable to one such as I.

😎

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Guys.  Did you really think you could go to the redneck south and convince the good old boys to stop using the N word, because it hurts people? ;) 

I once sat at a dinner table, in the south,where the word got passed around with the okra. It was information at the time that MAYBE I had married down. But I didn’t bother trying to influence, just kept my thoughts to myself, and made mental notes never to allow my future children to be exposed to such things. 

I’m launching my last child next month, successfully achieving that goal, and indeed I am hated and seen as a snob by the family, from whom I live far far away  , but secretly I revel in my success. 

Let me be clear- TBM doesn’t touch the n word nor does SSM with regards to offense IMO.  But haters gonna hate. And no argument will change that. 

 

Edited by MustardSeed
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I don't much care about what is said or how it's said, but why it's said.  History addresses the what and, mostly, the how.  Context tells us why.

I myself refuse to use certain terms whose definitions have quite recently for sociopolitical purposes been wrested and perverted.

French "gai" is one such.  Il est toujours gai translates in English to 'He is always "cheerful," "lighthearted," "happy," or "merry."'  In its English language spelling and usage, it meant and means the same thing.  In popular culture, songs, poetry, movies, during the first 1/3 of my life and for all of history before my life, this was how the word was to be employed.  There was a tertiary meaning, an "in" or "woke" meaning, going back to the 1920s-40s at least, tying it to homosexuality.  Think of Cary Grant in Bringing Up Baby, where, in the middle of the madcap insanity, he explains his inexplicable behavior (wearing women's sleepwear, an especially funny sight gag), by shouting expansively, "I've gone suddenly gay!"  Only the "in" or "woke" viewer got the hidden meaning. 

My father was especially upset by this current wresting of meaning from its unambiguously positive.  

The sociopolitical reasons for insisting on its use rather than the more clinical SSA or whatever one might wish to use don't pass humanistic muster, in my opinion.  They come off as bullying, silencing, shouting down.  The justification for the bullying, silencing, shouting down, that one should always be kind, tolls out cynical manipulation and unfair argument.  The claimed appeal to the better nature of a sociopolitical opponent juxtaposed with bullying, silencing, shouting down, makes all conversation impossible. 

It demands as response either resentful silence, but silence nevertheless, or angry exasperation.  I for one am highly impressed with Scott's patience in this here thread at the swarming bullying, silencing, shouting down.  He makes conversation possible where it is impossible.  Would I shared his skill.

Edited by USU78
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I don't much care about what is said or how it's said, but why it's said. 

I know. 

I care about all three. 

  • Like 1

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...