hope_for_things Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: It’s about demands as opposed to reasoned and polite request. Sometimes when people have experienced intentional discrimination for so long its hard to have a polite tone. Either way, I generally hear polite requests coming from them.
smac97 Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I have not asked you never to use that phrase again. Not even once. I have asked you not to use it to describe me. Oi. Quite a misunderstanding, then. 13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I would ask GLAAD and the New York Times and federal judges not to describe me that way, too, but I recognize there are contexts in which that descriptor is appropriate. Such as? 13 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I don't find it helpful to refer to people that way, and I have explained why (obviously you think my reasoning is absurd, Orwellian, etc.). I did say that it's obvious that I'm not alone on this board in finding that phrase wrongheaded, and it certainly makes sense from a rhetorical perspective not to use such a phrase to describe the rest of the folks here who dislike being labeled that way. So, personally, yes, it's disrespectful to me, and rhetorically, it's a bad strategy. Do what you must. I will refrain from applying the term to you. Not sure that I ever have. Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I would imagine we'll disagree with when it is used in a clinical way and when it is not. Indeed. 9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Today, a request for minimal courtesy, tomorrow the world. Again, incremental tyranny works this way. Ridicule it all you like, but Orwell's thesis about the manipulation of language, particularly through the force of law, holds a lot of sway. Thanks, -Smac 1
jkwilliams Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 Just now, smac97 said: Oi. Quite a misunderstanding, then. Such as? "Same-sex attraction" is one aspect of sexual orientation. Do you seriously not understand why describing someone as having "a condition" (as Scott put it) is disrespectful? I'm bisexual. No, you have same-sex attraction. That's part of it, but that's not the whole thing. Yes, it is. You have same-sex attraction. I don't like being reduced to that. Why? You have a condition, and it's perfectly clinical and value-neutral to describe that condition. I'm sorry, but it's not right to reduce me to a condition. Please stop doing that. How dare you silence me? What's next? Thought police? Help! I'm being repressed! 1
Gray Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, smac97 said: I disagree. I see no meaningful difference, other than grammatical categories, between "same-sex attracted" (an adjective) and "same-sex attraction" (a noun). One describes people, the other describes behaviors or feelings. It's the difference between "Latter-day Saint" and "someone experiencing an attraction to Mormonism" Quote I disagree. I think you are just making this up whole cloth. Disagree all you like. You're the one misrepresenting sources. Quote "Admitting" being the key word there. Thank you for pointing out, I think, a substantial problem. The argument over vocabulary is an attempt to force an admission of a contested premise. Which is now your admission that you're using SAA not at all in any neutral or clinical or academic way. Quote I can affirm that a person is sexually attracted to members of the same sex. I don't have to use coercively-prescribed vocabulary to do it. Like I said, bad faith use of language. Quote I disagree. There are plenty of people who are sexually attracted to people of the same gender, but who believe it is a transitory condition (in this life or the next). For those people, I'd suggest calling them whatever they prefer. But thanks again for admitting that you are not using SAA in any way that is remotely clinical, academic, unbiased, or in good faith. Quote Moreover, I don't "same-sex attraction" carries any connotation of duration. Thanks, -Smac More confirmation that you are intentionally choosing your terms for dogmatic reasons. Edited August 21, 2018 by Gray
jkwilliams Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 29 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Sometimes when people have experienced intentional discrimination for so long its hard to have a polite tone. Either way, I generally hear polite requests coming from them. If I have made demands instead of polite requests, I'd appreciate someone pointing them out.
hope_for_things Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: If I have made demands instead of polite requests, I'd appreciate someone pointing them out. Not at all, I don't think you've made any demands from what I've read. I was just trying to illustrate that people who are frequently discriminated against by society should be cut a little slack on the whole, you need to be polite, critique in general. Edited August 21, 2018 by hope_for_things 1
smac97 Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 14 minutes ago, Gray said: One describes people, the other describes behaviors or feelings. It's the difference between "Latter-day Saint" and "someone experiencing an attraction to Mormonism" I disagree. 14 minutes ago, Gray said: Disagree all you like. You're the one misrepresenting sources. And you're personalizing the thread. Repeatedly. 14 minutes ago, Gray said: Which is now your admission that you're using SAA not at all in any neutral or clinical or academic way. Nope. I am not admitting that. 14 minutes ago, Gray said: Like I said, bad faith use of language. Sigh. Thanks, -Smac
Scott Lloyd Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 3 hours ago, Calm said: Then you can hardly protest if someone else finds your reasoning faulty and determines for them you are not respectful, etc and states publicly you are not and they believe you are a bigot or whatever they have determined. If someone brands me a bigot because I have refused to accede to his demands for political correctness, I can and will protest as I see fit. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 2 hours ago, jkwilliams said: I'm sorry for assuming you were offended. I am not offended that you have accused me of all that Orwellian, tyrannical stuff, but I will simply have to disagree with your assessment. For the record, I believe it was I, not Smac, who used the term “Orwellian” (though perhaps he did as well and I didn’t see it) and I stand by my appplication of the term. Arbitrarily redefining a value-neutral term as a slur or epithet strikes me as the essence of Orwellian Newspeak. I don’t recall that I was referring directly to you when I said “Orwellian.”
Scott Lloyd Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: Sometimes when people have experienced intentional discrimination for so long its hard to have a polite tone. Either way, I generally hear polite requests coming from them. Comparing me to one who uses vile racial epithets is hardly polite.
smac97 Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, jkwilliams said: "Same-sex attraction" is one aspect of sexual orientation. The former seems to be a subcategory of the latter. Quote Do you seriously not understand why describing someone as having "a condition" (as Scott put it) is disrespectful? Not inherently disrespectful, no. There are people who think that characterizing same-sex sexual orientation as fixed and immutable and eternal is "disrespectful." We're all in the same boat, with divergent ideas which, in the end, are not fully compatible. So we work with the terminology at hand. Quote I'm bisexual. No, you have same-sex attraction. Meh. I've never suggested that "same-sex attraction" is a mandatory thing. Quote That's part of it, but that's not the whole thing. Yes, it is. You have same-sex attraction. Meh. I've never said that, either. Quote I don't like being reduced to that. Why? You have a condition, and it's perfectly clinical and value-neutral to describe that condition. Well, yes. That is true. If someone were to say "You are a heterosexual," I would say "Yep!" That is not the sum total of who I am, but to the extent it described my sexual orientation, it is correct. Quote I'm sorry, but it's not right to reduce me to a condition. Please stop doing that. How dare you silence me? What's next? Thought police? Help! I'm being repressed! Nobody's reducing anyone "to a condition." And you can ridicule all you want, but Jordan Peterson's warning remains relevant. -Smac Edited August 21, 2018 by smac97 1
jkwilliams Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: For the record, I believe it was I, not Smac, who used the term “Orwellian” (though perhaps he did as well and I didn’t see it) and I stand by my appplication of the term. Arbitrarily redefining a value-neutral term as a slur or epithet strikes me as the essence of Orwellian Newspeak. I don’t recall that I was referring directly to you when I said “Orwellian.” There’s nothing arbitrary about it. You have acknowledged how and why the phrase is used by people of a certain ideological position. I don’t think anyone here has called it a slur or epithet, though.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 1 hour ago, jkwilliams said: "Same-sex attraction" is one aspect of sexual orientation. Do you seriously not understand why describing someone as having "a condition" (as Scott put it) is disrespectful? I'm bisexual. No, you have same-sex attraction. That's part of it, but that's not the whole thing. Yes, it is. You have same-sex attraction. I don't like being reduced to that. Why? You have a condition, and it's perfectly clinical and value-neutral to describe that condition. I'm sorry, but it's not right to reduce me to a condition. Please stop doing that. How dare you silence me? What's next? Thought police? Help! I'm being repressed! When did “condition” become an epithet? You can refer to my heterosexuality as a condition if you like. I won’t mind. Or the state of my health.
hope_for_things Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Comparing me to one who uses vile racial epithets is hardly polite. I don’t know what you’re referring to exactly, however there are plenty of epithets used towards the LGBTQ community that are just as vile as racist ones. I don’t know if you have or haven’t used any of the above, I certainly would hope not. Edited August 21, 2018 by hope_for_things
jkwilliams Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: When did “condition” become an epithet? You can refer to my heterosexuality as a condition if you like. I won’t mind. Or the state of my health. If you did mind, I would respect your wishes about how you want to be treated, even if I didn’t agree with them. That’s just common courtesy.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: There’s nothing arbitrary about it. You have acknowledged how and why the phrase is used by people of a certain ideological position. I don’t think anyone here has called it a slur or epithet, though. Value-neutral terms are used by people of various ideologies (including, as Smac has pointed out, “same-sex attraction). That doesn’t make them any the less value-neutral.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 (edited) 18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I don’t know what you’re referring to exactly, however there are plenty of epithets used towards the LGBTQ community that are just as vile as racist ones. I don’t know if you have or haven’t used any of the above, I certainly would hope not. I’ve already recounted in this thread what I refer to here. Someone, who still contributes frequently to this board, compared me unfavorably to those who use such vile terms. Then, he said to me, “Yes, you are one of those.” He said this only because I justified the use of the term same-sex attraction. This occurred a number of years ago now, but he has never apologized, so I can only assume his attitude has not changed. Edited August 21, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: If you did mind, I would respect your wishes about how you want to be treated, even if I didn’t agree with them. That’s just common courtesy. When have I ever referred to you personally as having a condition? I never knew until this day that you are bisexual, and I only know now because you chose to bring it up. Edited August 21, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
smac97 Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Value-neutral terms are used by people of various ideologies (including, as Smac has pointed out, “same-sex attraction). That doesn’t make them any the less value-neutral. Use by people of varying ideologies is pretty much the point of value-neutral terms. There's a measure of subjectivity in all this, which is why I keep pointing to GLAAD and the New York Times and federal judges. None of these groups has an anti-gay ax to grind. All of these groups use "same-sex attraction" (as one of a few different descriptors). And yet only religious people are being dinged for using this term. Why? Thanks, -Smac 1
jkwilliams Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: When have I ever referred to you personally as having a condition? I never knew until this day that you are bisexual, and I only know now because you chose to bring it up. Did I say you did? Not that I recall.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 5 minutes ago, smac97 said: Use by people of varying ideologies is pretty much the point of value-neutral terms. There's a measure of subjectivity in all this, which is why I keep pointing to GLAAD and the New York Times and federal judges. None of these groups has an anti-gay ax to grind. All of these groups use "same-sex attraction" (as one of a few different descriptors). And yet only religious people are being dinged for using this term. Why? Thanks, -Smac I think the claim is bizarre that it is exclusively or almost exclusively Latter-day Saints who use the term. 1
smac97 Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I think the claim is bizarre that it is exclusively or almost exclusively Latter-day Saints who use the term. Yes. I tried to track down who it was that coined the term, and I struck out. I feel reasonably confident it was not the Church. GLAAD isn't exactly in the habit of using terminology coined by religious groups.
jkwilliams Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 4 minutes ago, smac97 said: Use by people of varying ideologies is pretty much the point of value-neutral terms. There's a measure of subjectivity in all this, which is why I keep pointing to GLAAD and the New York Times and federal judges. None of these groups has an anti-gay ax to grind. All of these groups use "same-sex attraction" (as one of a few different descriptors). And yet only religious people are being dinged for using this term. Why? Why do you keep trying to turn this into an example of anti-religious bigotry? I’ve explained why the phrase has become fraught and have given examples. You don’t agree. I’m just not sure how I’m suddenly on the vanguard of those who want to silence people of conscience. If I’ve ridiculed this hyperventilation, it’s because it is ridiculous. 1
jkwilliams Posted August 21, 2018 Posted August 21, 2018 8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I think the claim is bizarre that it is exclusively or almost exclusively Latter-day Saints who use the term. I’ve said it was mostly people of a certain ideological position, not necessarily members of the church.
Recommended Posts