quote:

---

If any thread should be removed, it should be this one. The title of this thread is false and misleading. There is nothing offensive about the thread itself, your disagreement is with my choice of a TITLE. If you're going to change anything (though I sincerely hope, for the sake of reason, that you don't), change the title. But if you do, please keep it accurately portraying what is being discussed within the thread.

---

Semeia: I agree with you Matt. I definitely should have referred to the thread TITLE and not the thread. I have no problem with the thread. I think it's a good discussion.

I'm sorry I overreacted and referred to the THREAD and not the TITLE!!!

I'M REALLY SORRY! I'M NOT A BAD PERSON! HATE THE SIN AND LOVE THE SINNER!

But Matt, and Mephi, and everyone else-- is it really censorship to consider the impact of our words and desire to not cause UNNECESSARY pain? I'm not asking Matt to alter a single word of his POST. The post itself is great. I should have said that first, obviously, but I wasn't thinking about it because I was thinking about the very pejorative term "fag", and wishing it could be removed.

How about we title the thread "HATE THOSE F*CKERS"?. Now we will see the censorship, because it offends a big enough group.

Mephi and Matt, what's the difference in those two titles? Both have shock value. Both will turn away the oversensitive, and invite the curious.

One last thing. I have two sisters who are gay, as well as friends who are gay. I imagine them coming on this board and scrolling through the threads and coming across this title. Certainly it will be no surprise to them-- in fact it is what they have come to expect from "loving" Christians. It is nothing new. When they see it I think they would CARE LESS what any Christian had to say about it after reading the title. I think it would get thrown in the garbage bin where the rest of a lifetime's worth of those slogans are stored.

When a person has been attacked by these kinds of labels (which are designed, after all, to hurt)the human brain is unable to avoid associating into the negative connotation. The unconscious does this whether you want it to or not. It's a little like the request, "Don't think of the color blue." How did you do? Did you think of the color blue? OK, "especially don't think of sky blue." How'd you do? The brain does not comply. It does what it is going to do, whether we want it to or not. So, sensitive or insensitive, anyone who has been attacked with this word, is going to have a difficult time avoiding a powerful negative association. Don't you think gay people have enough negative connotations surrounding Christianity? Do we really need to start a discussion SUPPORTING gays against the attacks of HATE-FILLED CHRISTIANS by employing the very same attacking language as the hate-filled Christians?

It's a different story if a black person uses the word "nigger" or a gay person uses the word "fag". Sometimes a word is "reclaimed" by a group as a way of empowerment. That's fine. But if a white person uses the word "nigger" or a straight person uses the word "fag", unless there is a close personal relationship and the context is understood (playful banter, for example) it's going to be experienced as an attack. Mephi, if a white stranger uses the word "nigger" in your vicinity, do you assume the best-- and are you open and receptive to hearing what that person has to say? Or do you immediately take a defensive stance until you understand what's going on? What's your attitude while you are assessing the situation? If they have a "redneck" look about them, does that affect your interpretation? Do you think it is possible that gays are wary of Christians, in the same way blacks are wary of angry young white boys? Is it possible that experience has taught them to expect the worst?

If you don't like a post, you can get out of it and not return. But the titles of threads sit out there for weeks, and you can't really avoid them if you want to participate. Is this loving? Or clever? Or informational? Or funny? Or educational?

Who would let it stand if it said GodHatesNiggers?

Who would be defending it? Mephi, I don't believe you would--but I could be wrong.

You know, I'm all for free speech. I use quite a bit of it myself. But with freedom comes responsibility, and I haven't heard a single word explaining why this title is necessary to have the discussion within. And maybe the answer is simply that this is America and you don't have to explain, because we're all free. But if that's true, then why should the college kids dressing up in blackface be restricted? Because clearly, some people are not offended by that. So what determines what is too far?

I would like to suggest that context and common sense should play a role. Homosexuals have been attacked, shamed, and condemned by Christians for eons. It seems to me that to repair the damage we may need a little extra sensitivity, rather than a little less.

Thanks,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

Edited by - Semeia on 11/27/2001 11:58:02 PM

quote:

---

Who would let it stand if it said GodHatesNiggers?

Who would be defending it? Mephi, I don't believe you would--but I could be wrong.

---

Honestly, you WOULD be wrong.

She also said:

quote:

---

Homosexuals have been attacked, shamed, and condemned by Christians for eons. It seems to me that to repair the damage we may need a little extra sensitivity, rather than a little less.

---

That doesn't lend itself at ALL to being "pc", now does it? All I'm saying is that we have to be careful with this type of thinking.

Still disagreeing in love,



PS: Selah asks a DARN good question. One that my statement wished to elicit.

"Do you believe that (living and practicing) homosexuality is equal to living as a divorced and remarried person?" or better said: "Do you believe that the verses you posted (and all verses on divorce) are equal to the verses on homosexuality in the Bible?"

Your move, queenie!

quote:

---

I find Semeia's comparing race and sexual choice offensive and think this thread should be deleted. It is an insult to black people to say that a term like "homo", "fomo" or "fag" is the same as "nigger". Sexual behavior can change, race can't.

---

quote:

---

You don't have any right to decide what is offensive if you don't belong to the group that is on the receiving end of the insult.

---

quote:

---

She also said:

quote:

---

Homosexuals have been attacked, shamed, and condemned by Christians for eons. It seems to me that to repair the damage we may need a little extra sensitivity, rather than a little less.

---

That doesn't lend itself at ALL to being "pc", now does it? All I'm saying is that we have to be careful with this type of thinking.

---

quote:

---

Icon,

Just being honest. I don't find this argumentation all that compelling. I think it's just being brought out to absurd venues for a number of reasons. HOWEVER, that's just my opinion. You and Semeia (and whoever else) have your perspective on it and that's cool. AGAIN, I'm willing to disagree agreably (as probably are the people that side with Triskal and myself) SO, for the sake of unity and getting on with things, I reiterate my suggestion to Triskal that I made 2 days ago:

I say we just change the friggin title name and be done with it. As long as the subject matter and thread itself is kept. For the sake of getting to the meat of the GodHatesFags issue. Be appeased, sensitive ones! (teehee) And let's get raw as all get out in the actual posts. Whaddaya say?

Sheesh...

---

Semeia: Mephi, I love you, but I want to point out something here. This is a very un-Mephi-like response above. You are generally very logical and extremely attuned to the details of an argument. On this issue, however, you have repeatedly made the accusation that my response to this title is to be dismissed by virtue of its "political correctness", and the only evidence you give is that this is your OPINION. I think you would laugh if someone dismissed your argument on that basis alone.

Iconoclast laid out my view beautifully, point by point. If you have reasons for disagreeing other than pure feeling, conjecture, and opinion, why not share your evidence? Do you refute the NLP? That is easily addressed by the facts. Do you refute the interpretation of the Christian values? That is easily discussed.

I believe this issue gets at the heart of hamartia-- missing the mark -- sin. I think when you ignore the impact because the intent was good you miss the mark. I think this issue is one of the core issues of Christianity, and this is as good a place as any to discover what it means.

Do you refute that this word is an anchor for gays? Do you refute that we should care when our impact is other than our intent?

Out of respect for my willingness to engage deeply with you on this board on many topics of great interest to you, please tell me something other than "I think it's just being brought out to absurd venues for a number of reasons. HOWEVER, that's just my opinion."

Since when do you counter a detailed argument with accusation, innuendo, and opinion? Why is this such a hot button for you? With Iconoclast's help I have laid out why it is so important to me. I would appreciate it if you would engage with the argument, instead of dismissing it with the untestable attribution that we are being "oversensitive". I'm sure that there were many people who thought that of you concerning the racism thread, but that is hardly an argument.

When you say, "SO, for the sake of unity and getting on with things,...For the sake of getting to the meat of the GodHatesFags issue..." -- I say this is the meat. This issue of hamartia and judgment and everything else in Iconoclast's post applies to the issue of the Christian attitude and treatment of gays. To make the same mistake on the board that we are trying to address in the post seems hypocritical to me.

So what is your issue, Mephi? Can you describe it without relying on the accusation of Political Correctness? Do you have evidence, or facts, or logical argumentation? You've never been short on any of those things before!

Mad Love (with slight emphasis on the mad ),
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

quote:

---

I say we just change the friggin title name and be done with it. As long as the subject matter and thread itself is kept. For the sake of getting to the meat of the GodHatesFags issue. Be appeased, sensitive ones! (teehee) And let's get raw as all get out in the actual posts. Whaddaya say?

Sheesh...

---

I say I agree with ya. So, seeing as the Bible views homosexuality negatively ANY-waaaay...as most would agree, how would those who consider themselves to be homosexual Christians or who are sympathetic/sensitive to homosexuals such as Semeia and company **READ THE NEGATIVITY IN THE BIBLE?** I mean, how can you stand it? Aren't you offended? Doesn't it shock you? At least it ought to bother you? Or do you read it in context to soften the blow? Opps...sorry Meph.

Brandon

quote:

---

When you say, "SO, for the sake of unity and getting on with things,...For the sake of getting to the meat of the GodHatesFags issue..." -- I say this is the meat. This issue of hamartia and judgment and everything else in Iconoclast's post applies to the issue of the Christian attitude and treatment of gays. To make the same mistake on the board that we are trying to address in the post seems hypocritical to me.

---

Really, honey, I didn't see it that way. And I wonder how many other people did, too. The way that I saw it is that this issue became a burning one in and of itself because of the conversation. As people chipped in on the issue of the topic staying or leaving, THEN ideas of Christian attitude and such became apparent. But we could have JUST AS EASILY dealt with these issues (perhaps more centrally) if we'd just focused on the GodHatesFags idea itself.


Semeia, you ask me what my issue is...but I don't think it's ME that has the issue. It was YOU that assumed that I relegated you to political correctness land without making sure of that. It was YOU who has, at a couple turns, continued to press the issue (at least with me) even BEFORE Icon formulated your argumentation...and even when others conceded that changing the title would, indeed, be best for all concerned. So, how do I have the issue?

Look, if you WANT me to go ahead and delve into this deeply, we can do that. If you want me to give you my evaluation of your argument, fine. We can do that. But please understand WHY my former posts have sounded slightly dismissive to you. Ease up, lady. It's still all love.

Hoping this clears the air (cough!),

quote:

---

1. Cognitive Science has conclusively proven that at least 95% of thought is unconscious.

2. Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) research has shown conclusively that all learning is “paired” learning which when fully integrated becomes mostly unconscious. “Paired” learning mean that two experiences are linked. One being an “anchor” for the other. This can be understood by an example: we have all had the experience of smelling something that brings back past positive feelings. This happens against our volition. The “anchor” fires and voila – we actually re-experience the paired past experience. When we are re-experiencing it – it is completely real. This is also the mechanism for phobias of all sorts. A general fear of heights comes from a past negative (now unconscious) experience that we generalized into a rule. Interestingly enough experienced NLP practitioners can usually heal these types of phobias in minutes by a process of “re-anchoring”. The key point here is that when the anchor fires it is completely real, unconscious and very powerful.

3. Gay people have had a very powerful negative anchor installed into them by Pharisaical Christians: God hates them.

4. “God Hates Fags?” as a standalone title (no leading context) on a Christian web site “fires” that anchor in a very powerful way.

5. The anchor fires – unconscious intensely negative experiences are realized most powerfully in a Gay person, a little less powerful in someone who is empathetic with a Gay person (someone who has shared their negative anchor experiences).

6. The question mark at the end is interpreted by this person when totally associated into the negative experience and they thus answer the question affirmatively (unconsciously) and then go into “masked” behavior – an “externalizer” personality type will reject the message and lash out at others and an “internalizer” personality type will beat themselves up some more for being so horribly unlovable by God.

Semeia’s position is that the above is a factual argument that can be easily proven. She then goes on to an argument based on Christian values:


1. We should not consciously allow that Impact to happen to another person if we can avoid it.

2. The Intent of the statement has absolutely no relevance to the Impact.

3. A mis-match between Intent and Impact is “harmartia” – it is a mistake that once understood should be corrected – no big deal.

4. Biblical evidence for not allowing this negative Impact is articulated by Paul when he says we should choose not to eat meat sacrificed at a pagan temple if it offends our brother. Nothing wrong with eating it – no problem with Intent – but if the Impact is a stumbling block to our brother and we know it then it is “hamartia” and should be corrected – no big deal.

---

Iconoclast also said:

quote:

---

In this context her argument is quite simply:


1. The title is not making this issue safe to discuss for Gay people or others with a similar anchor.

2. The title via the mechanism of the unconscious anchor erases that person’s dignity.

3. The title can be easily adjusted to prevent this and a productive safe discussion based on facts can then ensue.

Further arguments she is making are:


1. The board by allowing the pejorative term to stand in isolation (no clear context) implicitly affirms that the term is OK to use.

2. A house that is vandalized (broken window) and not immediately repaired has been shown to be vandalized at a much higher rate - because clearly nobody really cares about that house.

3. If we don’t take a strong stand on this now the above effect will take place.

---

Semeia: Mephi, how could we have "JUST AS EASILY dealt with these issues (perhaps more centrally) if we'd just focused on the GodHatesFags idea itself"?

All of the issues that Iconoclast is going after have to do with the effect of the thread title on different visitors to the board, before they ever get to the discussion. I repeat what I said before: To make the same mistake on the board that we are trying to address in the post seems hypocritical to me.

I absolutely would like you to address the issues as Iconoclast has laid them out. But I'm going to take a little break from this because I am so strongly associated in to the ongoing attack that my sisters and my friends have experienced in the name of Christian love, that I am afraid if I don't take a little time out I will lose my objectivity. (And Iconoclast doesn't have all day to be my interpreter .) But I have to tell you it hurts. I think of the impact on them and it's just not OK with me.

Let me give you an analogy, Meph. I believe you that you would not have a problem with the title God Hates Niggers? on a Christian website. But what if you came across that heading on a KKK website? What would that do to your response and feelings about it? I argue that that is the EXACT analogy for the response of most gays to this. Because most gays see Christians and Christian organizations as hating them. Would this title be a confirmation or a denial of that perception? I know what you thought of the pictures of whites in blackface on a college website: you were seriously offended and in favor of the kids being expelled, whether they said they meant any harm or not-- because it was the impact that mattered, at least as much as the intent. I agreed with your assessment of the harm of those pictures for the same reason I think the thread title should be changed-- because sometimes the impact is so negative it doesn't really matter what the intent is.

I do still love you, of course... but I don't have a big smilie in me right now.
Love ya,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

quote:

---

Your questions are a non sequitor, if they are addressed to me and Iconoclast-- because they are in no way responsive to the issues discussed in Iconoclast's post

---

Well, actually, I think it does respond. I was drawing a point of comparison. It fits very nicely with Iconoclast's spiel on the NLP thingy.

I mean, think about it. If the anchor is fired up just by the so-called negative title, how much more would it be fired up by the negative connotations associated with homosexuality in the Bible which are more extensive? Take the association of the Bible with so many fundamentalists with their holier-than-thou attitude and interpretation that speaks in opposition to your view (a.k.a Fred Phelps) and BAM! You've got major internal and external "masked" behavior justa fly'n. Then, any legit argumentation gets associated in with the bad stuff and BOOM! Those who **ARE** legit are soon repulsed by those who hold such sensitivities as yourself. See what I'm saying?

Brandon