I personally take offense at the term, but the Herald-Mail and their appointed Moderators and webmaster are now on record as feeling that my offense is not worthy of any respect and they therefore refuse to admonish someone who used the term to attack me aftert being told that I find it offensive. They actually modified the Guidelines for these forums in order to avoid having to do anything about the injury done to me by PHISH's personal attack.

So I think it's worthwhile to consider: could one reasonably expect someone to take offense to being called a "homophobe", or am I totally off in left field somewhere and thus deserve to have my sensibilities violated and my feelings totally discounted?

Let's start by being clear: the question is not whether YOU find it offensive, it is a matter of whether you think somebody to whom it was applied could reasonably be expected to be offended by it.

I have explained WHY I feel that it's offensive and why I feel I am reasonable to take offense at the use of the term. But my feelings and opinions have been summarily dismissed by the management of this forum, so let's see what others have to say about it.

Check out for example, the Urban Dictionary website, which attempts to hammer out definitions for a variety of newer and slang terms and I personally would expect to have a somewhat young, hip and progressive readership.

At http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?...hobe&page=1 you will see that 51 separate definitions have been proposed, and they tend to support either the notion that it's an unoffensive or even approraite term for those who have negative opinions of homosexuality or that it is an offensive and insulting term used to attack them. If you take the time to go through them all, you will find that the votes for and against the various proposed definitions paint a picture that tells you quite clearly that, while they are somewhat in the minority, there are a significant percentage of visitors to that page who have taken the time to register their vote who find the term to be offensive.

To highlight a few:

The common thread here is that these people all feel that the word is used to attack those who feel homosexuality is morally wrong. Some of the other definitions proposed there are themselves attacking toward those who feel that homosexuality is wrong (which really just further proves the point that the word indeed attacks those who are labeled "homophobe"), while some others do paint a more neutral picture. But the fact is that while this politically correct term is widely used, and on that web site even the majority of voters would seem to support the opinions of those who use it to denigrate those who hold opposing views, the balance of it shows unequivocally that it is NOT just a neutral term. It is one that most people do seem to realize, and even many of those who use it will grant, insults, denigrates, and attacks those who hold a certain moral viewpoint.

Further, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobe) notes:



If we critics of the term (who feel it's a pejorative used to intimidate) are so few and far between that the H-M web site forums' management feels it can just dismiss us out of hand, then why does Wikipedia give us any mention? I dare say it's becuase we represent a significant demographic that this web site's management itself wishes to discredit, demonize and discriminate against.

Again, the question is not what you think about the term, but whether I am so far off base in taking offense myself that the managers of this web site can justify dismissing my feelings and say that I have no right to be offended and that the use of the term against me by someone who had just been told that I find it offensive was not inappropriate.

I dare say that the record is clear that many others feel the same way that I do - that the term is an offensive insult - and thus its use against me was unquestionably an inappropriate personal attack. I could search further and find plenty more web sites that support my point, but I can't see why such should be necessary. I dare say that anyone who fails to see how someone against whom the term is used could be offended is willfully blind.

just documenting the original question before it's edited yet again. that way we can all address the original question/post.

I'm only going to make one statement about this, and then I'm moving on.

While I understand that you see "homophobe" as derogatory, and therefore feel the mods/admin should consider labeling you in that manner as a personal attack, my question would be: But where do you draw the line?

Certainly there are many, many words that can be considered insults. Words that people throw about freely. For example:

Hippie (from Wikipedia): Today the term hippie is often been used in a more personal derogatory sense to describe long-haired, unwashed, unkempt drug users. In more conservative settings, and especially in political discourse, the term hippie alludes to slacker attitudes, irresponsibility, participation in recreational drug use, and leftist political leanings.

Tree Hugger (from Urban Dictionary): An environmentalist who attempts to save a tree by wrapping their body around it. Most are completely idiotic or completely brain washed.

Vegan (from Urban Dictionary): Someone who looks terribly emmaciated, most likely because of malnutrition, but also because of stressing out about animals being eaten and from protesting against carnivorism. These protests are typically caused by the psychological need for attention and/or as a form of rebellion against society.

Female (from Urban Dictionary): The evil side of the human species, who often view the word in a much different manner to the male species. (And that's the #1 definition on Urban Dictionary!)


I'm sure we must draw the "personal insult" line somewhere. My point is simply that it's gray and fuzzy. If I started saying that "tree hugger" was derogatory, and asked that someone be banned for insulting me that way, I doubt any of the mods would agree to that.

So what word do you want us to use instead? Gayhater? Gaybasher?

It's easier just to call it what it is: homophobic.

Oh boy... I fear you opened a can o' worms with that one, Feather!

If we instantly banned everyone who insulted anyone here, there'd be no more boards.

To anyone who has a problem with the decisions on this board:

We learn as we go along. We may change the rules back and forth until we find something that works better.

If you don't like the way the boards are run, go start your own somewhere else. Please.

So if I called PHISH a "hippie" or a "tree-hugger" after she had just posted a description of how and why she took strong offense to either of those terms, I would rightly expect to be called to task for it.

Sorry, no excuses accepted - You are just plain wrong. This place has fallen to new lows.

I won;t say you were wrong to bck off from the totally asbsurd "zero tolerance" stance, but what you have now is just institutionalized BIAS and favoritism. Nobody should be happy with that!

documenting once again

If you weren't a homophobe, then I could see your point but since you are on the record as one... I don't see how your complaint holds any value. If you are offended at being called a homophobe, then maybe you should take another look at your belief system.

B, you called her worse than that and we let it go.

Please just try to think about something else. The intent of the guideline is to try and keep this place enjoyable for EVERYONE.

Give it a rest already.

anyone know where theres a adult forum?

check with heather...

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=liberal



I find the term "liberal" to be personally offensive and I dare say that you've called me a liberal much more often than I've called you a homophobe. I'll make a deal with you B, if you don't refer to me as a liberal I won't refer to you as a homophobe.

If there are any other words that you would like me to refrain from calling you just give me a list. Some I could add to my list are:

Jew-hater, Anti-Christian, Paranoid (that one could make both lists) , Semi-retarded, Moron, Ignorant and ugly.

That last one is negotiable.

I feel that BMIC, you bring some of these things on yourself. You have often be little people here. You do your fair share of names calling and insults.

If you expect to be treated with respect, You must give respect too. It's a two way street.

There's nothing wrong with responding to a opinion. Minus the name calling. We are not school age children anymore.

Just like the time, when a topic was bought up. How Do You Really Know Who Your True Friends Are? It never asked, If you are a true friend? To me I don't have any true friends.

You chew me up and spilt me out. Just because I wouldn't bail a friend out of jail. That made me mad as heck. And assuming the worse of me. My words got twisted around and misread. And of all things saying I could be like your ex wife. But I got over it. No big deal. Because I don't know you personally and you don't know me personally.

Just need to lighten up a bit, You do have some good insights to some topic's on here.

As the world turns B style. The drama yo mama warned you about.

I owe you one!

oh my , it just hit me what i said , no i didnt mean that kind of adult forum , not at all, i just ment some of the people in here acted like children , i didnt mean a bad site , do you kknow what i mean? it was taken wrong.

I know tagout, I knew exactly what you meant. My apologies if I embarrassed you. I just couldn't pass up the opportunity to razz a little on our Heather.

The Baltimore Sun runs a nice forum. They have a zero tolerance policy. You can get it here:

http://www.baltimoresun2.com/talk/

B. has to be the master-baiter he sucks you all in with his nonsense.

I doubt very seriously that he cares one way or the other about being called a homophobe.

I’ll give him one thing though he keeps it lively around here.

Master-baiter........ he sucks.......... hmmm........ You may be on to something there Ud. Maybe he's so offended by being called a homophobe because he's actually a.........well, you know.

Not that there's anything wrong with it.