|
Post by goonerboy on Jul 15, 2009 11:25:16 GMT -5
I've noticed that half the submissions to FSTDT are homophobic, but don't actually cite any religious beliefs as the reason for their homophobia. Sorry if this has been done before, long time reader, first time poster, but I thought I'd add some input.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Jul 15, 2009 14:21:26 GMT -5
I've noticed that half the submissions to FSTDT are homophobic, but don't actually cite any religious beliefs as the reason for their homophobia. Sorry if this has been done before, long time reader, first time poster, but I thought I'd add some input. But the homophobia is derived from religious dogma 99.9% of the time. The other .01% usually stems from idiot jocks and Neo-Nazis who hate gays because they can't breed and create more "Aryan warriors." (They also confuse homosexuals with pedophiles.) Since the vast majority of it is religiously based, I tend to think it would be a bad idea to create yet another section for homophobes or misogynists.
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Jul 15, 2009 15:19:10 GMT -5
It has been suggested to expand RSTDT into Bigots Say The Darnedest Things, which would cover both misogyny and homophobia.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Jul 15, 2009 17:33:50 GMT -5
It has been suggested to expand RSTDT into Bigots Say The Darnedest Things, which would cover both misogyny and homophobia. But you can be a religious bigot too, which means that fundamentalists, racists, homophobes and misogynists would be merged. That could work, but I'd still want the photo of Jesus with the machine gun.
|
|
|
Post by Sandafluffoid on Jul 15, 2009 18:01:49 GMT -5
Well, surely you could still keep it separate? I mean so much of bigotry is made by fundies, that they would need their own subsection at least
|
|
|
Post by Caitshidhe on Jul 15, 2009 18:26:40 GMT -5
Yeah, very few people are homophobic without having SOME religious reason for thinking that way behind it. Same with anti-choice people--hardly anyone objects to a woman's right to her own bodily autonomy without there being some religious excuse behind it. Really, the same is true for a lot of misogyny and homophobia and general bigotry--at the root, it all goes back to religion, in the end.
Still, I'm in favour of turning RSTDT into BSTDT, for the quotes that are racist, sexist, homophobic, or bigoted in general without having religion being expressly mentioned. If nothing else, it might cut down on the clutter in the FSTDT section, you know? And there's always those quotes that get comments like, "This is racist/sexist/asshole, not fundie!" It'd give us a place to put all of those quotes.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Jul 15, 2009 19:09:17 GMT -5
Yeah, very few people are homophobic without having SOME religious reason for thinking that way behind it. Same with anti-choice people--hardly anyone objects to a woman's right to her own bodily autonomy without there being some religious excuse behind it. Really, the same is true for a lot of misogyny and homophobia and general bigotry--at the root, it all goes back to religion, in the end. Still, I'm in favour of turning RSTDT into BSTDT, for the quotes that are racist, sexist, homophobic, or bigoted in general without having religion being expressly mentioned. If nothing else, it might cut down on the clutter in the FSTDT section, you know? And there's always those quotes that get comments like, "This is racist/sexist/asshole, not fundie!" It'd give us a place to put all of those quotes. I think the biggest problem is how we define fundamentalists to include political ideologies. Perhaps a separate section for rabid conseratives, Stalinists, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Jul 15, 2009 19:55:45 GMT -5
Yeah, very few people are homophobic without having SOME religious reason for thinking that way behind it. Same with anti-choice people--hardly anyone objects to a woman's right to her own bodily autonomy without there being some religious excuse behind it. Really, the same is true for a lot of misogyny and homophobia and general bigotry--at the root, it all goes back to religion, in the end. Still, I'm in favour of turning RSTDT into BSTDT, for the quotes that are racist, sexist, homophobic, or bigoted in general without having religion being expressly mentioned. If nothing else, it might cut down on the clutter in the FSTDT section, you know? And there's always those quotes that get comments like, "This is racist/sexist/asshole, not fundie!" It'd give us a place to put all of those quotes. I think the biggest problem is how we define fundamentalists to include political ideologies. Perhaps a separate section for rabid conseratives, Stalinists, etc. Wingnuts STDT.
|
|
|
Post by The Watcher on Jul 15, 2009 22:30:10 GMT -5
I think the biggest problem is how we define fundamentalists to include political ideologies. Perhaps a separate section for rabid conseratives, Stalinists, etc. Wingnuts STDT. I actually like this one. Put everything into one section. There are so many fewer quotes than there used to be (back in the good ol' days, when I was younger, and wore my pants BELOW my stomach...)
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Jul 16, 2009 1:51:12 GMT -5
While I usually assume that the homophobia has an element of religious motivation to it, I agree with OP. When homophobic statements that don't contain any reference to religion are made, it seems out of place to see them in FSTDT. I wouldn't mind a general catch-all section for the things that didn't quite fall into fundies, racists, or conspiracy theorists but still have the same general spirit.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Jul 16, 2009 2:01:53 GMT -5
Yeah, actually, suggestions like this are made all the time. Not really a problem, but the thing I see is this:
1) Fundie=/=religious.
2) Why separate it out into half a million sections, anyway?
Sure, it's more accurate, but there are so many crossovers, & I already don't visit RSTDT or CSTDT, because I never found them very comparable to the shit that ends up in FSTDT.
|
|
leo
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by leo on Jul 16, 2009 12:49:28 GMT -5
I think many of the homophobic statements are probably said by their preachers on sunday morning, on thr TV, or on their websites. Look at James Dobson, Fred Phelps, and other evangelicals that have commented on this issue over the last several years or decades.
|
|
|
Post by Ian1732 on Aug 11, 2009 15:47:34 GMT -5
Why not divide FSTDT into seperate sections, like fundie-homophobes, fundie-misogynists, etc...
|
|
|
Post by Lady Renae on Aug 11, 2009 15:56:21 GMT -5
I just want to say two things.
First, that would be stupid and catastrophic beyond belief, Ian1732. Seriously. Who the hell would want to navigate through all that, who would want to maintain it, and who would want to go through the complicated submissions process? That would be worse than me creating a thread poll!
Second, I have been doing my best to eliminate non-fundie quotes from PubAd when I'm around, but the homophobe bit is a tad controversial. Some people say homophobia itself is a fundamentalist belief. Some people say it has to be displayed as being based in some other fundamental side of a belief spectrum in order to count.
|
|
|
Post by Old Viking on Aug 11, 2009 18:35:19 GMT -5
We could really refine the site's organization by having very well defined targets. I'm thinking here of "Left-handed, Red-headed Former Presbyterians Say the Darndest Things."
|
|