Homophobia - Examples, Discussion, Comments

purplerose said:
example of specific user and homophobia:

For reasons, I shall not provide proof, but it was brought to light that a certain user had gone to court IN REAL LIFE, over a few items. I'm not sure what the actual charges are as it differs from my country so I will use terms im familiar with. 1. drunk in public 2. disturbing the peace 3. hate speech. a news article/police blotter was relayed to the forum, in it stated the forum user had been arrested for yelling homophobic slurs in their neighborhood, at their neighbors who they knew were gay. the result was the forum user was allowed to bail/bond out and await the judges orders at home. when recalled back to court, the judge and the forum user chatted and it was advised that the forum user keep their space from the neighbors as well as continue/start taking medications on a regular basis.

Historically partially in the instance of Ped0 behavior, as a safety issue/precaution/rule if a site user (either chat or forums) is found out to be one, they are banned. It would then stand to reason that if a forum user had real life history of homophobia (with r/l proof) and had a wanting to also be that way in forums . then action should be taken. when the um staff reject taking action, even with proof either from historic/posts actions on forums or real life, then it is clear that um staff is accepting of users ( either the same or others) being homophobic.



(in my opinion)

+s/s for post in additional threads as needed.
Click to expand...
I also happen to know that the certain user you mention has multiple voice clips being outrageously homophobic. Which proof can be provided of to UMs.

But also, I have previously posted HR being disrespectful to the LGBTQ community here (the top portion): https://forum.chat-avenue.com/threads/the-worrying-behaviour-of-h-r-pufnstuf.949473/

The images in that post also show him being educated by many others on what is hate speech, so it is not ignorance, but choice that makes him overlook his behaviour. The screenshots included on the post above show it is not a new behaviour of HR. I will happily post each picture as a separate post in this thread should I need to.

Worth the zoom in just for this one alone to see it is not a new behaviour from HR at all:
 
Louize said:
I also happen to know that the certain user you mention has multiple voice clips being outrageously homophobic. Which proof can be provided of to UMs.

But also, I have previously posted HR being disrespectful to the LGBTQ community here (the top portion): https://forum.chat-avenue.com/threads/the-worrying-behaviour-of-h-r-pufnstuf.949473/

The images in that post also show him being educated by many others on what is hate speech, so it is not ignorance, but choice that makes him overlook his behaviour. The screenshots included on the post above show it is not a new behaviour of HR. I will happily post each picture as a separate post in this thread should I need to.

Worth the zoom in just for this one alone to see it is not a new behaviour from HR at all:
Click to expand...
This particular quote ""we limit only extreme vilification etc Offensive material is considered part of a free and open Society." is interesting. That and similar phrases have been used to justify allowing homophobic and transphobic speech to be allowed to stay on forums.

However, posts were removed a couple of days ago for "mocking disability" one of which was "this is like watching a special ed class" and was referring (at least in part) to me and Luka. It may have been offensive to some but it wasn't "extreme vilification" yet it was deleted.

Picking and choosing how rules are interpreted/enforced depending on your own personal beliefs and biases (particularly when there's such pushback against deleting homophobic/transphobic content) is in itself arguably a show of homophobia. Personally I'm not sure I see it as that - personally I'd describe that type of behaviour as "being a twat" (IN MY OPNION) but it's definitely arguably homophobic in the sense that content "against" gay people is permitted to stay when content seen as being "against" disabled people is deleted.
 
Inkandtatts said:
This particular quote ""we limit only extreme vilification etc Offensive material is considered part of a free and open Society." is interesting. That and similar phrases have been used to justify allowing homophobic and transphobic speech to be allowed to stay on forums.

However, posts were removed a couple of days ago for "mocking disability" one of which was "this is like watching a special ed class" and was referring (at least in part) to me and Luka. It may have been offensive to some but it wasn't "extreme vilification" yet it was deleted.

Picking and choosing how rules are interpreted/enforced depending on your own personal beliefs and biases (particularly when there's such pushback against deleting homophobic/transphobic content) is in itself arguably a show of homophobia. Personally I'm not sure I see it as that - personally I'd describe that type of behaviour as "being a twat" (IN MY OPNION) but it's definitely arguably homophobic in the sense that content "against" gay people is permitted to stay when content seen as being "against" disabled people is deleted.
Click to expand...
a whole thread is needed to come up with a definition of homophobia we can all agree on. but saying special ed is mocking a disability. the imagination of stephen king couldn't come up with something like this.
 
Inkandtatts said:
This particular quote ""we limit only extreme vilification etc Offensive material is considered part of a free and open Society." is interesting. That and similar phrases have been used to justify allowing homophobic and transphobic speech to be allowed to stay on forums.

However, posts were removed a couple of days ago for "mocking disability" one of which was "this is like watching a special ed class" and was referring (at least in part) to me and Luka. It may have been offensive to some but it wasn't "extreme vilification" yet it was deleted.

Picking and choosing how rules are interpreted/enforced depending on your own personal beliefs and biases (particularly when there's such pushback against deleting homophobic/transphobic content) is in itself arguably a show of homophobia. Personally I'm not sure I see it as that - personally I'd describe that type of behaviour as "being a twat" (IN MY OPNION) but it's definitely arguably homophobic in the sense that content "against" gay people is permitted to stay when content seen as being "against" disabled people is deleted.
Click to expand...
the falling back on "extreme vilification" is quite interesting IN MY OPINION . as the term peg leg is neither vilifying nor extreme. yet it seems to disappear out of threads frequently. Also, I find it quite interesting that the word homosexual is a word that is edited and infracted for, yet threads entitled homophobia are posted as its common place. IN MY OPINION discussing one without ability to use proper terms is more degrading than allowing said homophobia to proceed.

I also think discussions be they health or non with the proper words of penis breast and vagina should be acceptable without edit

*IN MY OPINON
* s/s for placement in other threads as needed.
 
purplerose said:
the falling back on "extreme vilification" is quite interesting IN MY OPINION . as the term peg leg is neither vilifying nor extreme. yet it seems to disappear out of threads frequently. Also, I find it quite interesting that the word homosexual is a word that is edited and infracted for, yet threads entitled homophobia are posted as its common place. IN MY OPINION discussing one without ability to use proper terms is more degrading than allowing said homophobia to proceed.

I also think discussions be they health or non with the proper words of penis breast and vagina should be acceptable without edit

*IN MY OPINON
* s/s for placement in other threads as needed.
Click to expand...
it's so dumb you can't use the medical terms but can use slang meaning the same thing.
 
Apollo said that the P word is allowed in Adult Forums until CM says otherwise


DISCLAIMER

This isn't an opinion - it's fact

This is my thread

This isn't off topic. It's about homophobia, which is about homosexuality which in part is about the P word, so the P is on topic, and if anyone wants to be a **** and argue then the thread about it will be very entertaining​
 
rapinoes smirking revenge said:
it's so dumb you can't use the medical terms but can use slang meaning the same thing.
Click to expand...
I too believe its dumb. in many ( not all) public schools in America sexual health education classes start as young as 3rd grade. ( 8 &9 years old) they use medically accepted terms and both hetro and homosexual. it is very rare you run into a 3 year old who doesn't know what part they have.

@Inkandtatts then health forum should be a sub forum of adult forum. I've run into quite a few under 18 users who question where they want to stick their P word. and it makes it looks as c/a is not as welcoming as it should be.


*IN MY OPINION
*as this is a 13+ forum I've decided to use baby talk which sincerely diminishes the quality of discussion. for that I am sorry.
 
Inkandtatts said:
Apollo said that the P word is allowed in Adult Forums until CM says otherwise


DISCLAIMER

This isn't an opinion - it's fact

This is my thread

This isn't off topic. It's about homophobia, which is about homosexuality which in part is about the P word, so the P is on topic, and if anyone wants to be a **** and argue then the thread about it will be very entertaining​
Click to expand...
*DIS A FKN GREES* RAPORTED solely for the thread
 
I think I need to watch The West Wing. This is now going to be my standard reply to anyone that claims (incorrectly) that God is against homosexuality




"While you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the ignorant tightass club, in this building when the President stands nobody sits!"
 
Inkandtatts said:
I think I need to watch The West Wing. This is now going to be my standard reply to anyone that claims (incorrectly) that God is against homosexuality




"While you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the ignorant tightass club, in this building when the President stands nobody sits!"
Click to expand...
Great example of how Christians like to cherry-pick the bible to suit whatever agenda they’re pushing.

“Oh, no no! That doesn’t count!”

Oh? Why?

“Because it doesn’t suit my rhetoric!” 😭
 
Inkandtatts said:
I think I need to watch The West Wing. This is now going to be my standard reply to anyone that claims (incorrectly) that God is against homosexuality




"While you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the ignorant tightass club, in this building when the President stands nobody sits!"
Click to expand...

The west wing is great! Jed Bartlett is the president many wish for, Obama, Reagan, JFK, FDR and Lincoln came close to and the one that needs a permanent placement in that building. ( hold your pitchforks. Voting would still happen) in r/l Sheen ( the actor) has come to realize he played the part too well and many come close to idolizing him as a president, so he tends to stay out of the lime light especially during election years. The cast was recently invited to the white house by the 1st lady and it was a feeding frenzy. Every one went nuts.

I'm not sure how this relates into this subject other than the only time that show backed down from discussing or crossing hard topics was sept 11. A lot of it I think was because it was too raw shocking and new yet. And it didn't not discuss it, but the actors/show took a step back and allowed the REAL people discuss it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top