Maybe I'm Just Ignorant About the New "Anti-Gay" Video

by turtleturtle 146 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  slimboyfat

  It's not a democracy no, but you miss the point.

  Societal and even governmental pressure may come to bear on JWs and other religious groups to stop victimising gay people. You have said JWs won't change despite such pressure because it would destroy the organisation. My point is: that is only true if a majority of JWs still oppose accepting gay people. If that is no longer true, and a majority support gay people, there would no longer any reason to supposer the change will destroy the organisation. In fact at some point the pressure to change may exceed the pressure not to change. What they choose to do at that point will be intersting, if we get there.
• 

  cofty

  Societal and even governmental pressure may come to bear on JWs and other religious groups to stop victimising gay people.

  So they will relish the "persecution".

  I don't believe there is much move towards acceptance of gay rights based on a survey. I think that just shows how many nominal JWs only identify as such to maintain family relationships.
• 

  cofty

  I think the Bible's homophobic too - Scotsman

  And the pope is a catholic.
• 

  fulltimestudent

  Dont want to use the word 'homophobic' in connection with the slick, but silly JW video?

  Then try a word, Joe Kort (a behavioural therapist) suggests. What is that word? Its "microaggression". It was coined (apparently) by psychiatrist and Harvard University professor, Chester M. Pierce in 1970 to describe insults and dismissals he regularly witnessed non-black Americans inflict on African Americans. 

  The WT blurb writers (as I remember) were rather skilled in the use of 'microaggressive' words. From that perspective, just to say, "Jehovah does'nt like......." can be microaggressive.

  Kort gives some examples of what he sees as "microaggression against 'same sex attracted people.*'"

  *"Have you ever had real sex?"

  *"...I'm not being homophobic, you're being too sensitive..."

  *"Why don't you ever wear dresses?"

  *"So....who's the man in the relationship?"

  *"That's totally cool with me as long as I can watch"

  * "You are so Jack on "Will and Grace" or Cam on "Modern Family"

  ----------------------------

  BTW, somewhat lost in all this, though discussed a little, is the difference between 'attraction' and 'acts.' OR, as Kort sees it, as quoted in the NYT (March 20, 2014), the difference between 'behaviour' and 'identity'. Which was possibly a reference to his 2014 book, " Is My Husband Gay, Straight, or Bi?: A Guide for Women Concerned about their Men."

  On which topic, my same sex attracted friends often comment that, at the gay beats around Sydney, the number of cars that have baby seats fitted, is amazing.

  http://www.joekort.com/

  --------------------------------------------------------

  *I'd rather use same sex attracted, than to use the word 'gay' or the word 'homosexual.'

  http://www.joekort.com/
  
• 

  cofty

  Please not microaggressions!

  The weapon of whiny third wave campus feminists.
• 

  Simon

  You have said JWs won't change despite such pressure because it would destroy the organisation. My point is: that is only true if a majority of JWs still oppose accepting gay people. If that is no longer true, and a majority support gay people, there would no longer any reason to supposer the change will destroy the organisation.

  There is also no reason to suppose that the change will happen. I doubt very much that the majority of JWs actively support and call for shunning - in fact, I would bet that 90%+ (easily) are for allowing things to be more relaxed. As long as 12 guys at bethel think it's in their favour to keep it then it stays.

  It's not a democracy and even an overwhelming majority counts for nothing. They are sheep in more than one figurative sense.

  The weapon of whiny third wave campus feminists.

  I agree, they seem to be one of the weapons of choice in the politics of offence.

  If people ask a question, it's the wrong question and insulting. If people don't ask questions, they are being ignored and not included. If people ask the identical question they would ask anyone else then their specific unique needs are not being addressed.

  Reality is, people are awkward, especially with the unknown and say dumb shit all the time. It's not an attack unless people are determined to turn it into one.
• 

  steve2

  Microaggression? I first heard that egregious word decades ago and thought it had subsequently long dropped of the commonsense radar.

  Microaggression is a nifty retort adjective for people primed for being offended. It's a word that does itself out of a job by over-emphasizing "micro". Coined back in 1970, I'm not surprised it never caught on.

  As others long before me noted, the examples provided by Pierce seem adequately described by the adjective, "Insensitive" than any form of aggression, no matter how small or "micro".

  Now, back to the real world.