,
19 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
Let's talk about the word "afraid" in this context.
How did disapproval become rhetorically conflated with "fear" or "hate"?
How did disapproval become rhetorically conflated with "fear" or "hate"?
Immediately, one encounters the "experts say" social-science response.
Here's an idea: Despite all the gender-theory obfuscation and the current trendiness of bisexual (or "queer") identity, heterosexual behavior -- i.e., the normal life of the vast majority of humans -- requires a binary selection pattern.
Heterosexuality is inherently binary, an either/or selection, a yes or no question. Most people understand this at an instinctive level, but lack the verbal skill necessary to articulate it when confronted with "social justice" criticism.
The pro-LGBT crowd has, for decades, succeeded in enlisting support within academia and prestige media, with many thousands of people skilled in advanced modes of verbal communication.
If one side of an argument succeeds in attracting the most articulate members of society, the public may be convinced that this is the "smart" opinion, and thus, over the course of time, a sort of intellectual snowball forms.
Once upon a time -- indeed, within the past century -- "race science" proponents like Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard were considered to have "won" the argument about race. Intellectuals are not immune to the bandwagon effect.
It's the phenomenon of "everybody knows." Certain beliefs become popular, and their popularity discourages criticism, since the person who disputes a popular idea is apt to damage his own reputation.
An idea that can be expressed as a clever slogan is more likely to gain widespread acceptance, and antagonists in public-policy disputes know this. The cleverness of slogans, however, is no measure of a policy's merits.
For decades, LGBT activists employed a rhetoric that characterized their positions as synonymous with "love" and labeled opponents as advocates of "hate." This propaganda strategy has yielded a demonization of heterosexuality, per se.
The impression conveyed by pro-LGBT rhetoric is that homosexuals have a monopoly on "love," and that heterosexuality is an expression of "hate." To be heterosexual, this rhetoric implies, is to be prejudiced against others.
Pro-LGBT sloganeering ("Love is love!") has the effect of enlisting a bandwagon effect and discouraging critical dissent, because who wants to be anti-love? Rational discussion of public policy becomes impossible in such a climate.
The "love is love" appeal to emotionalism has had remarkable consequences. We now see radical feminists (many of them lesbians) demonized for their principled criticism of transgender activism.
cc @womandefy @LilyLilyMaynard @4th_WaveNow
cc @womandefy @LilyLilyMaynard @4th_WaveNow
We know that public-policy disputes may be decided by a superiority of persuasive rhetoric, rather than by a rational consideration of consequences (cf., the Athenian expedition to Sicily, 415 B.C.).
cc @womandefy @LilyLilyMaynard @4th_WaveNow
cc @womandefy @LilyLilyMaynard @4th_WaveNow
I began this thread by calling attention to a remarkable assertion by @cwenga09: "People who are afraid of homosexuality are most often projecting their self hate." Really? What does this imply? Am I being insulted?
If you accuse someone of irrational fear rooted in "self-hatred," merely for disagreeing with you on a matter of public policy, you are substituting insults for arguments. You're really just name-calling.
Likewise, you are engaged in a rhetoric of insult when you think you can win the argument by accusing your opponent of "ignorance." To do so implies that you possess a superiority of knowledge. OK -- you should be able to demonstrate your superiority without insulting me.
{{ Sigh }} There's no point engaging with ideologues, I guess.
Basic human rights are life, liberty and property. What are the "homophobic laws" that threaten these rights?
