| |
|
Might be worth reading the rest of the post, Kay. In the context, I think that your post above counts as "just-another-shot-in-a-fight".
Anyway, I've nipped back to Barbelith because it struck me that I'd left .trampetunia hanging, which was impolite - the dinner plates left unwashed at a hurried leaving, sort of thing. So, first to Our Lady's comment:
As things stand I think it's a bit ridiculous that trampetunia gets accused of homophobia for her post but if she was accused then sure, I should be too. And I guess it does come down to most people involved knowing me and knowing what I'm like while possibly not being so sure about trampetunia. Which is a big vat of suck really.
Well, Lady, I think that's it - that is your guess. I think the point was that your comment was a precise reduplication of the "people who are arguing should just have sex instead" position, and as such banal per Mordant Carnival's description, and thus nobody really bothered to address it, here or elsewhere. Trampetunia's post was far longer, and was apparently seeking to do something more complex. That is, while Falconator sees trampetunia's having made more of an effort as a reason why your post should be more open to question than trampetunia's, others disagreed. Broadly, I think that's correct. The greater attention paid to gendering and sexualising the narrative through the bear simile makes it a meatier post to discuss, I think.
I stated what I thought about trampetunia's comment in Barbequotes:
I'm a bit dodgier about the idea that if you see two men doing something you don't like, it must be like gay sex, because... well, does there have to be a reason?
On t'other hand, the main problem with the metaphor there for me was that it a) presented what was going on as pointless - I'm finding it quite instructive and b) presented the participants as doing the same thing, which is substantially incorrect. That is, it's not a useful metaphor. Also, on reflection ferrets have scent glands around rather than in their anuses.
As it turns out, the first paragraph of that was made without knowledge of a belief that .trampetunia holds, that the desire in anger and the desire in sexual arousal are very closely linked. Personally, I believe this to be incorrect, or at best highly personal, but that doesn't really matter. Once one has the datum that the statement was informed by .trampetunia's belief that the discussion was a) angry and thus b) a cause/result of sexual arousal, then the statement is not suggestive of homophobia but rather what I would see as a misunderstanding of social interaction.
Speaking of which. .trampetunia, I'm sorry if I misgendered you, or ascribed a gender identification where none was desired. I was under the impression that you had male-identified at some point in the past - in a Late Shift? - but may well be mistaken. I shall endeavour to remember my epicene pronouns in future.
Anyway, I think we're down here to the difference between saying that your post had been "remarkably open to being read as informed by homophobia" and saying that your post was "what could easily have been read as a homophobic post". You believe, if I understand correctly, there to be a difference between 'remarkably open to being read as...' and 'could easily be read as..', yes? And that the latter was more forceful than the former:
There a stronger degree of force in your assertion, which i objected to. I realise I may be being overly sensitive, but I found the comment you made to hold certain elements of ad hominem attack.
No such elements were intended, but I assume that you felt that my wording intended to reach past the post and suggest that you yourself were a homophobe, right? And therefore, through the argumentum ad hominem, that your broader argument was not convincing. Since I subsequently and immediately afterwards added:
(Which is not to say that the intent was homophobic, obvs - only that I didn't realise that you would take issue with the statement or find it unfair, because I kind of thought that you had already _said_ it.)
I don't quite understand how that line of argument works.
As such, I am glad that having said:
So I suppose your post was, if not ad hominem in intent certainly remarkably open to being read as informed by ad hominem desires.
You subsequently apologised on the grounds that it was cheap, since I was doing my best there not to make you feel that your personal qualities were being attacked (that is, that I was making an argumentum ad hominem).
I'm also not sure how the breakdown of the comparative force of the phrases works. At first I assumed that it was about the difference between the idea of "a homophobic post" and "a post informed by homophobia", but I think you state that there is no difference between person and post on Barbelith, perfectly reasonably:
As the popular catchphrase goes, 'on barbelith, you are your posts'. Unless I provide any particular information on myself in RL (which would still end up being 'my posts'...), all you have to go on is what I say in my posts.
Therefore, if one of my posts can be read as homophobic, it stands to reason that .trampetunia (i.e. 'barbelith me') could possibly be homophobic. I find this distressing. (footnote 1)
As such, I am deducing that you identify the point at which I am being unfair to you is by describing as remarkably open to being read as x that which you describe as able easily to be read as as x, where in this case x = homophobic (which has the same value as "informed by homophobia", both of which have the same value as "a post made by a homophobe").
If that is correct, then, while I do not entirely understand the reason, I acknowledge that the substitution of "remarkably" for "easily" made you feel that it was somehow being implied that your post, and by extension you, were being accused of homophobia. Such was not my intention, as I made immediately clear as soon as I realised that such an interpretation was possible, by posting directly underneath:
Which is not to say that the intent was homophobic, obvs
I understand that this feeling is not a nice feeling for somebody to have, and I apologise for having given you cause to feel it. In turn, I would suggest that you might want to apologise for suggesting that accusing another member of Barbelith of homophobia is for me something to be used as (I quote) a debating tactic, which is not something it feels nice to have your posts read as instantiating, nor I think something that should be done lightly. Hopefully this will conclude the matter with good feeling on both sides.
(Footnote 1: Incidentally, there's another possible point of confusion here. You then add
You chose to make note of the fact that I had made such a post in another thread. You could have chosen to say 'as recent discussion on another thread shows, you are well aware of the potential for different readings...'
Italics mine. You made a post that can (in your opinion) be read as homophobic in this thread - it's right there, on page 13 . As such, referencing that post does not seem to me out of step with your statement I think that it is important in a discussion to refer to the points made in that discussion and not resort to bringing in outside measures, and believe that when you say I do wonder why you chose to bring my potentially homophobic comments in the middle of a different thread , you wonder based on a mistaken impression. I was referencing something you said in this thread. It is possible that I misunderstand what you are saying here, but I think that you may have been confused there by the replication of the words you posted in this thread in the "Barbequotes" thread.) |
|
|
