[Magness]

YIKES!!!

There's a lot to respond to here. I'm sorry if I don't go into extensive replies to each and every point.

Originally posted by Aerich: [QB] Well, Magness, if I've made a wrong assumption, I apologize. I was sure I'd seen something you said about hatred of gays, but perhaps I took your meaning the wrong way. Part of the problem is that you have not fully explained your opinion of why gay marriage is wrong, but have so far restricted yourself to a line or two on the subject. That makes it very easy to assume that you have no logical basis for your opposition, although I recognize that there are valid and well-reasoned arguments that do support your position. You just haven't shared them, but put "wrong" in caps and made reference to evilness (in the gay marriage thread).

I'm gonna take a pass on this. Let's stick to the rest of the reply.

Another part of the problem is that you have given the impression that the "gay lobby" is some kind of exceptional thing.

Exceptional? How so? They're just another leftist lobby that is not particularly different than many of the other leftist lobbies.

First off, I support the idea of gay marriage/union because our countries have made the verbal commitment to full functional equality; the real commitment has often been something less. I also don't buy the argument that "gay marriage" challenges traditional marriage in any way, or pollutes the nature of the word marriage. That argument was much stronger in the context of divorce. As certain people would say, it's just semantics. The point is that I and many others support it (fairly quietly, not in a "rah-rah" way) because we think it is just, not because we have bought into the sometimes radical and illogical views of the "gay lobby."

Skipping...

Second, such lobby as there is, is no more offensive than all the other lobbies; industry, environmental, human rights, etc. They all have their own views and their own pet issues. The fact is, lobbies are unfortunately an integral part of how our respective countries are run.

But when they make up, and I do mean make up, words for the purpose of them being used as insults they are becoming rather offensive.

Third, the "right" is also equally guilty of demonization and categorization. Pinko, socialist, liberal, etc. You use "liberal" as if it's a dirty word, but in the historical sense, it means a very different thing than the context you put on it. I personally don't label myself, as I occupy a more-or-less centrist position on the spectrum, although I swing left on some things (environment) and right on others (importance of self-support, crime prevention). But if I had to label myself, it would be as "liberal."

And I see a considerable difference between using the term Liberal to insult someone and making up a term to use as an insult. You are just as free to use "conservative" in a sneering manner when talking to me, at least as long as I'm a self-described conservative (which I am).

However, I am NOT a self-described "racist" or "sexist". IMHO, the problem is that many of these "-ist" words are only used when you don't agree with the views of that person on an issue.

I see your point about the word homophobia (which you will note I have not used until now). I agree that some members of the gay and non-gay communities are too quick to throw that word around and use it as a pressure tactic. But I would point something else out. From what I've observed, spiteful, petty, and inflammatory are words that are well-suited to describe the attitude of some members of our society toward gays. There have been some high-profile beatings and killings of gays over the last number of years, so the term does have a legitimate application. If a word is used that you have had enough of, go right ahead and argue about it. But do so in a manner that is less antagonistic and personal.

Frankly, being called a racist or a sexist or a homophobe is a VERY personal thing. When a black person is called a N word, do you ask them to respond "in a manner that is less antagonistic and personal"? Why should I be put in any different position? I take the insult every bit as personally (even if I do not have a history of discrimination to fuel the anger).

If you wish to call me "Yoda" to illustrate my way of thought, analysis and questioning, that's fine by me, and I'd rather be called that than many other things. I take it as a compliment, and it's been said before.

I'm not thinking that you got the joke. (could be wrong.) You wrote about fear and anger. Don't you remember Yoda's like from The Phantom Menace?

I would also suggest that the threat of banishment hanging over your head is not because of your "right-wing" opinions and refusal to play the word games, but because your posts are baiting (see your recent challenge to the mods) and you seem intent on ramming some of your views down everyone's throat. Additionally, your choice of words leaves a lot to be desired and is against forum rules. You can call it directness if you wish, but it is also rude. If you ease off on the cusses and the personal tone of your posts, I'm sure it'll be fine.

I disagree. I do think that my politics has EVERYTHING to do with it. Sure, my language can get coarse from time to time. Sometimes it's intentional. Sometimes it's simply an accident. Not all boards have the same standards and switching back and forth can make it easy to forget the differing standards.

(Aerich, this reply is going to end up seeming a bit disjointed and confusing at this point. I'm not writing it entirely in sequence. Sorry.)

Below, I discuss how people from different places interact differently. People from New England have a reputation for being very direct and up front, which is often taken by people from regions know for being more laid back, as being "aggressive" and "in your face". And in return, up front New Englanders often end up finding overly laid back people terribly annoying for not being able to get to the point, etc, etc.

What I see as directness truly IS directness. You see it as rude, perhaps because that's what your environment tells you. But my environment is the reverse. We see a lack of directness as a negative, as a lack of assertiveness.

Simply speaking ... You see me as rude. I see you as a wuss. (No insults meant here. Really, really, really.) I don't see myself as really being rude. And you probably don't see yourself as being a wuss. Our environments make us who we are. It's just rather annoying being put down for simply being exactly who I am, an up front, direct, and to the point New Englander.

I agree that a few people may veil hatred with subtlety, but just because a person is subtle doesn't mean that they also hide hatred beneath it. And "compassion" is often truly felt; how do you distinguish between hypocrites and those who honestly feel that way?

"just because a person is subtle doesn't mean that they also hide hatred beneath it" But it does mean that I will trust them a little less. I see subtley as a form of mild deceit. I ask myself, "What are you hiding? Why aren't you being more open, direct, and up front?" (See below for more on this.)

With regard to diplomacy and passion, I am trying to be respectful and to get my point across at the same time. Does the fact that I'm not cussing and using caps mean that I don't care? Maybe, but I'm pretty laid back anyway, so I wouldn't do it often. In reality, this discussion isn't all that important to me, except in the manner in which it has been conducted; the issues itself don't noticeably affect me. I couldn't care less about how American taxes are assessed, and I'm not gay or anti-gay, so that issue isn't personal either. I have a few gay friends and acquaintances, and I think they should have the same rights and opportunities as I have, but that's about it. Now am I untrustworthy and subtly dishonest because I'm not as passionate as some people are about these things? While I would like other people to come around to my way of thinking, it's not a goal of my existence.

Aerich, I see that you're from BC. I've never been there, but I've been to a few different places around the US. My experience is that people are different in different parts of the country. (Duh, you may say.) What I mean is that people around the US have different ways of dealing, interracting, and acssociating with other people. I've seen this first hand. I've also discussed this with people from around the country who agree on this.

I'm actually a fairly laid back person myself. But that said, I'm from New England. Our reputation is that we tend to be very up front and direct and can seem very abrasive to people in other parts of the country. OTOH, my experience and the experience of others is that people from the West often tend to be much more laid back. And when New Englanders talk with laid back westerners, you can end up with both finding themselves annoyed at the others. The New Englanders will find the laid back, standoffishness of the westerners to be annoying wimpish. The Westerners will find the up front directness of the New Englanders to be annoyingly aggressive. I actually have seen this first hand in business dealings.

It doesn't mean that either group are bad people. It's just that many people have built in ways of seeing people, often based on the environment they grew up in. I've lived my entire life in the New England and New York area. Aside from being a bit of an introvert, I am very much a typical New Englander. I am very up front and direct. We're not interested in 20 minutes of chit-chat about this or that. We want to get right to the point. Times a' wasting. This may seem like "aggressiveness" to some. Not to us. It's just how we are.