Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandwagon Surfer
Wait, so now the dictionary is part of the conspiracy out to get you?
Those are not name calling, they are words that in the English language have meaning.
homophobe - noun
a person characterized by homophobia
irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or gay people
To tie it back to this thread topic: Reimer though his actions demonstrated such an extreme aversion to gay people that he refused to participate is saying that everyone is welcome in hockey. So to call him a homophobe is in no way name calling, it is using the proper word in the English language to describe his actions.
This is no different than calling someone who jogs a jogger. If I did not want to be called a jogger, I would stop jogging. If I instead went on tirades about how it is name calling to say that I am a jogger and demand that people and the English language change, then I would also fit the definition of ignorant (lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified).
|
Analogies are often a poor way to make a point. Yours is a good example of that.
At any rate, I was talking about people in this thread calling other posters names. It indicates that one has a weak position if they can't make a compelling point and resort to name calling. Nobody online ever admits to losing a debate - the closest someone comes is resorting to the racist/bigot/homophobe name calling.
On the Reimer issue, we have Reimer on the record making a very clear statement that he welcomes everyone. That's hardly the words of a homophobe. Instead, people come to that conclusion by inferring an insidious and malicious motivation because of...not wearing a sweater? Let's take a moment to absorb how silly that sounds. (Putting on the sweater can't be both "no big deal" and also a "massive statement".)
The proper interpretation of Reimer's position is that he feels he cannot endorse how LGBTQ+ live, genetics or not. However, he can still welcome LGBTQ+ people as equals in society. THAT is the most useful and generous interpretation of his position and statements.
Instead people start calling him names, and making preposterous claims that being "welcoming" also requires endorsement. The sweater idea appears to be a very bad one because it seems to be inherently regarding what it represents. If it's a statement about being welcoming, then Reimer did that, and did it without ambiguity. It is illiberal and frankly disingenuous to try to interpret his other actions as being contrary to his explicit statements.