the word homophobia is used incorrectly all the time

[rider]

it's homophobia not misohomy

that means it's supposed to be a paralyzing fear of homosexuals not a hatred towards them

fear is not always the same as hatred

[Smugass Braixen-Chan]

English language is stupid

/thread

[tmwfte]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia

[rider]

Originally posted by tmwfte:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia

yes exactly homophobia should be clear cut to irrational fear not general hatred in the same way that gynophobia(being paralyzed out of fear around women) is not the same as misogyny(thinking women are worse than men) yes they can intersect but they are not the same

[C4Warr10r]

No, dummies, it has to be homophobia so you can't argue against gays, as it shows you're really just afraid of them. That's what all these PC phobias are.

[tmwfte]

Originally posted by Rider450:

yes exactly homophobia should be clear cut to irrational fear not general hatred in the same way that gynophobia(being paralyzed out of fear around women) is not the same as misogyny(thinking women are worse than men) yes they can intersect but they are not the same

Words and meanings change with usage. Homophobia broadened from just a "fear of sameness" (as would be the etymological root), there's no putting that back in the box. Arguing for it to be "fear of homosexuals" only belies a lack of understanding of what the problem of the line of thinking has become.

[Adachi]

This is the internet correct grammar and use of words doesn't apply as much.
Edit: at all.

[Dirty Dan]

Originally posted by Fusion:

Do you people know why homophobia is used instead of misohomy?

To straw man another political group?

[Eat3n]

Originally posted by Rider450:

it's homophobia not misohomy

that means it's supposed to be a paralyzing fear of homosexuals not a hatred towards them

fear is not always the same as hatred

Originally posted by Insanity Wolf-Chan:

English language is stupid

/thread

English isn't the problem, people are r*tarded is the problem. Saying "homophobe" is arrogant and pretentious and condescending...which is part of the reason why smug liberals use it. Comments with daggers in them are far more effective than proper english.

[C4Warr10r]

Originally posted by Fusion:

No. Because the hatred of homosexuals stems from the fear of homosexuals back in the WW1 days.
It was a sexual panic that still has reverbances to this day.

Considering that the oldest known legal code in the world bans men from sleeping with men, I'd say alignment against homosexuals started a little before that. Makes perfect sense, too. You need men to fight and help rear good offspring. Even if they're gay, they have better things to be doing for the than pursuing romantic relationships.

I don't have any hate or fear of gays, (unless they're common and violent liberal social activists) I know their condition is a biological and likely very natural one. That said, how about a little tolerance for the biological and natural reaction parents of any species have when they find out that their offspring will not reproduce?

PC culture tends to forget about things like that. Disobey the biological imperative? Sure! No big ****in' deal, right? I'll take the word of such proponents the day they prove me wrong by killing themselves en masse.

Until then, the word is wrong, and culture does not make it right. It's being deliberately misued.

[Młody Sarmata]

HAHAHAH BARDZO ŚMIESZNY KOMENTARZ XDDDDDDDDDDDDD LOL MLG WOWOWOWOW WOW HAHAH HIHIHIHI HEHEHEH HLULZ LOLZY LOLEK MLG OMG WTF XDDDD LOLEK HIHIHI HUE HUE HUE HIHIHIHIH

[Młody Sarmata]

Originally posted by Fusion:

Originally posted by Dirty Dan:

To straw man another political group?

No. Because the hatred of homosexuals stems from the fear of homosexuals back in the WW1 days.
It was a sexual panic that still has reverbances to this day.

[shoopy]

Just because it's used wrong doesn't mean that nobody fits the correct definition.

Also I can't even find a definition for misohomy. Wtf is that word?

[Smugass Braixen-Chan]

Originally posted by -EAT3N-:

English isn't the problem, people are r*tarded is the problem. Saying "homophobe" is arrogant and pretentious and condescending...which is part of the reason why smug liberals use it. Comments with daggers in them are far more effective than proper english.

I don't see how calling out Australia's Laws against same sex marriage, and the people who stubbornly support this law as being homophobic is "arrogant, pretentious and condescending."

It's just calling it out for what it is. Gay Marriage is against the law in Australia because the people in power hate and are intimidated by gay people. The idea that gay people getting married and having sex will destabilize the marriages of heterosexual couples is not-ironically used as a real argument against gay marriage over here.

Also the smug liberals are the ones who demand that gay people aren't allowed to get married. So there's also that.

---

I mean, I'm getting off topic here, but that's an example of where "Homophobic" could legitimately be used.

[shoopy]

Originally posted by Fusion:

Originally posted by C4Warr10r:

Considering that the oldest known legal code in the world bans men from sleeping with men, I'd say alignment against homosexuals started a little before that. Makes perfect sense, too. You need men to fight and help rear good offspring. Even if they're gay, they have better things to be doing for the than pursuing romantic relationships.

I don't have any hate or fear of gays, (unless they're common and violent liberal social activists) I know their condition is a biological and likely very natural one. That said, how about a little tolerance for the biological and natural reaction parents of any species have when they find out that their offspring will not reproduce?

PC culture tends to forget about things like that. Disobey the biological imperative? Sure! No big ****in' deal, right? I'll take the word of such proponents the day they prove me wrong by killing themselves en masse.

Until then, the word is wrong, and culture does not make it right. It's being deliberately misued.

Culture constructs definitions therefore it can't be wrong. Every word is left up to interpretation and many many words mean different things in different cultures.
You have an illusion of objectivity that there is a "right" way to define a word, when there isn't. Culture creates words and their meanings and then changes those words over time.

Yeah, like "decimate". Used wrong all the time and nobody gives a ♥♥♥♥.

[tmwfte]

Or "let" of which its meaning was literally decimated as it flipped from meaning "prevent" to meaning "allow". (Different etymological roots, though, for the two different meanings. The "prevent" root is still used and led to our idea of "late").