Friday, March 21, 2014

A Sensible Way to Deal with Homophobia

Salon reports:
Jason Collins, a center for the Brooklyn Nets and the first openly gay player active in the NBA, revealed Thursday that he’s encountered homophobia on the court, but says most players and coaches have been warm and accepting toward him.

“There’s no need to even engage in a conversation with him at that point,” Collins said of the incident, though he wouldn’t name the player or his team in an interview with ESPN New York. “In the flow of the game, you have emotions going. It goes back to controlling what I can control — having self control and having the discipline to recognize it for what it is and keep the focus on the game."

“We’re all human. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. You hope that if someone has a negative opinion, that they would keep it to themselves. But at the same time, I understand that in the NBA, we’re a bunch of individuals and this is America and everyone’s entitled to their opinion.”
Great stuff, no drama from Collins, just a recognition that there are all kinds of people in the world. People have all kinds of views, those views can be goofy, based on religion, culture or whatever. Live and let live.

Collins went on to tell the NY Daily News,"One player, one knucklehead from another team. He's a knucklehead. So I just let it go. Again, that goes back to controlling what you can control. That's how I conduct myself -- just being professional." And more from his comments with ESPN: "But again, the focus is on the games and our team and our next opponent."

Again, great stuff from Collins. From his perspective the guy is a knucklehead, beginning and end of story. He has work to do, i.e., get ready for the next game, not obsess about knuckleheads.

I wonder of the Tuckerians would consider Collins a gay brutalist.


  1. Unfortunately, using words like homophobia cedes half the game. If it's just a term for visceral dislike, aren't some feminists androphobic? And some gays heterophobic? If it's an actual psychotic state, shouldn't it be in the DSM somewhere, like any other mental illness?

  2. Good for him. He doesn't let identity politics hijack the conversation. His focus is on his task as a player and on the goals of the team. It would be nice if there could be a redefining of terms, though. Why use homophobia to insinuate that heterosexuals who prefer the company of other heterosexuals suffer from some mental condition? It's not a phobia or psychological condition. It's a preference. As is the preference to enjoy the company of anybody, gay or straight. For an interesting examination of the term homophobia, see Lila Rajiva's post here:

  3. This is the way I've dealt with homophobes all my life- ignore them.

    Lila, don't be didactic.

    1. Lila is right - you don't have to be afraid of something to be disgusted or repulsed by it, or judge it unhealthy.

    2. @Anonymous,

      I'm not even disgusted or repulsed, because being in the arts I've had many gay friends and human beings are human beings, regardless.
      I wouldn't even get into this topic, unless I thought it has a big role in the whole anti-life agenda of the NWO.
      I just don't think it's a good idea to rewrite history and texts to suit whatever we want them to mean. We lose our past that way. And people without a past can be manipulated.
      I also differentiate between homosexuals and gay activism. Just as I differentiate between immigrants and the immigration lobby.
      The lobbies are the tools of an agenda that has nothing to do with protecting people from injury and hatred. Who could be against that?
      If I hurt anyone's feelings by what I said or came across as judgmental, I apologize profoundly. It has nothing to do with judgment or repulsion or anything like that.
      It has to do with being accurate with texts and being fair-minded toward Christian belief, instead of demonizing it.

  4. Why do you care what the Tuckerians consider? What happened to the "Live and let live... Sensible way to deal with [the Tuckerians]" other than implying what they would think? As if Jeffery Tucker is such a horrible person that you feel the need to bash him? I see evidence that his efforts are peacful.

    Bored of attacking the violent State?

    1. Because Tucker is trying to redefine libertarianism. As Wenzel (and myself) wear that label proudly, we have skin in the game. We don't want him to get away with it. No one is saying Tucker is a horrible person. We simply disagree with him.

    2. Why don't you go tell Tucker to "live and let live".
      If Tucker feels the need to come up with BS distinctions, don't be surprised if people react to it.

  5. Rick,

    I'm really not being didactic. I think too many things are medicalized, which induces passivity in people. and makes them unaware of how much they can change what they are. They may not want to, but that's different.

    I disapprove of spend-thrifts; but am I phobic about them? Not at all.

    1. So, you think you could become a lesbian if you tried hard enough?

    2. Aren't the spend-thrifts the ones who use their savings to invest in capital equipment that help generate wealth? I hope you aren't suggesting spend-thrifts should change, Lila.

    3. And why SHOULD they change?
      Because conservatives have a problem with other people's lifestyles?

      I have a problem with the lifestyle of religious people. But they don't have to change on my accord.

    4. @Tony,

      I didn't say they should change. I don't believe in converting people. I just said that at the end.
      I was DEFENDING the right to express a traditional view, without being labeled a bigot.

      Rick asked me if I thought homosexuals could change (could someone become one by trying). So I said yes and explained why I believed it was different from skin-color.

      It was a reply to him.

      Misreading one.
      Misreading two.

      Yes, I know you have a problem. I don't call you a bigot, though, do I?
      That's my point.

    5. @Tony, you have to read the whole thread:

      The reference to change was part of my explanation that medicalizing anything leads to passivity.

      I wasn't talking about homosexuality as such. I was talking about the reason why the state keeps turning things into diseases and conditions - to induce passivity and encourage the therapeutic industry and dependence. Everything is a condition. No one can choose. It fits statist ideology.

      It was only when Rick specifically asked about whether someone could become a lesbian by trying, I suggested that indeed sexuality is fluid. I didn't say he should change. I don't care what he does. Honestly.

      Not to hurt his feelings, but he is no one to me. I care about my family and friends.

      I am not interested in making anyone do anything, OK? How many times and ways do I have to say it.

      I am asserting my right to restate what the gospel teaches, without being labeled a bigot for it and without having history falsified.

      I have interacted with Rick on this board before, I knew he was gay, and I don't ever recall telling him or anyone else to change.

      It's the TUCKERITES who are asking religious people to change.

      See? That's how this game is played. Demand change, demonize, attack.
      When people defend themselves, cry victim and blame the targets.
      I refuse to buy it, put up with it, or dignify it. It is odious. It is Cass Sunstein in action.

      Here's how the thread ended:

      "Well, I don't believe in converting anyone or fighting anyone."

    6. "I am asserting my right to restate what the gospel teaches, without being labeled a bigot for it and without having history falsified."

      Actually, you can't make that demand.
      You can state whatever you wish, including about homosexuals. But you cannot then insist people will not have their own opinions and judgments about you as well. Freedom of speech, or judgments about people and/or their lifestyles is not a one-way-street.

      Let's face it, Lila. There are plenty of conservatives who not only have their opinions but would indeed urge those "sinful" to change. They are full of judgments even if they reject force.
      You cannot expect the other side of the debate not to judge you in return, and urge you to change your views.

      By the way, i do not consider you to be a "perfect example" of the problem i have with conservatism within libertarianism. Even though i may disagree with you about a number of things you seem perfectly consistent in your libertarian views as far as i can tell.
      But just look at the commenter called "Godfrey" and you see the kind of guy i am talking about. To him it is "lunacy" to be homosexual. Why should he not be labeled a bigot in return?
      What makes him different from the Tuckerites?

    7. Lila, no offense intended. I just think you are making a false blanket statement.

  6. @Anonymous 9.55

    Er, it was Jeff Tucker who attacked (bashed, as you put it) religious fundamentalists and anyone supporting patriarchy or traditional values or homogeneous communities as horrible bigots.

    We defend ourselves, and now Tucker is the victim?

    Interesting how that goes, isn't it?

    Tucker overplayed his hand and found his targets had more support than he thought, from his highly paid, highly-networked perch.. Had there been a milder reaction, he would have probably tried to bury Wenzel's blog.

    He failed to do it, so now his buddies come over to ask the targets for sympathy, not realizing that the non-Christians/atheists among us are of course under no obligation to be nice, and those of us who are under obligation, have been ex-communicated.

    As for the violent state, isn't that a reificiation too?

    It's the violent people who make up the state that are the problem.

    And the people whose violent language creates the framework for the violence of the state.
    And the violence of the shadow state, which is accompanied by the violence of corporations friendly with the shadow state, about which many libertarians are rather silent.

    If Tucker doesn't want to pick fights with people, he shouldn't pick them. But he shouldn't pick them and then not expect a fight.

    Having said that, I'm all for kissing and making up, once he prints a nice, contrite apology to all Christian libertarians. I will dictate it.

    I, Jeff Tucker, am extremely sorry for unfairly singling out religious or traditional libertarians and suggesting that only they were brutalists.

    I regret the unfortunate choice of language, despite my advanced writing skills.

    I will write another article excoriating obnoxious lobbies and persons associated with left-libertarians, including but not limited to anti-white bigots, immigration warriors, Christophobes, feminazis, gay shock-troops, and Keynesians.

    I will then let the whole business of being "nice" slide until everyone learns "truthful."

    How's that?

  7. I'm sorry; I just cannot take this absurd irrational nonsense seriously anymore. Enough is enough. There is male and female. They come together and procreate and they perpetuate the species. That's reality.

    And another thing, besides the reproductive system, I also understand the digestive system. And I understand final step in the digestive system. I experience it at least once a day.

    Now if that's considered "brutalism". Then that’s tough shit. Deal with it. It's reality.

    1. "I'm sorry; I just cannot take this absurd irrational nonsense seriously anymore. Enough is enough. There is male and female. They come together and procreate and they perpetuate the species. That's reality. "

      So what? Reason has nothing to do with something as subjective as happiness.
      Last i checked individuals are under no obligation to "come together and procreate" for the purpose of "perpetuating the species". This insistence that this is what sex supposed to be for, to further the future of the human race, is a completely collectivist idea. People live for their own sakes, and for their own happiness, not for that of people that may be born some 300 years later and so could not possibly be disadvantaged by decisions made today. None-existent lifeforms have no rights.

      Furthermore, lots of things are unnatural to the body that people do in freedom. Because that is what libertarianism is all about: individual freedom and the pursuit of personal happiness.

      Once again i see that some religious and/or conservative viewpoint simply does not understand what libertarianism stands for. It is not to please "god". It is not to hold on to "traditions and institutions". It is not to perpetuate the idea of the nuclear family or to further the species.

      Libertarianism has nothing to say about any of these things, and more than it does about "diversity", political correctness, personal tolerance etc.. And that is why, while i detest the political correctness inherent in the "humanitarian" bullshit of Tuckerites i also detest the conservative wing for doing the exact same thing: trying to bend libertarianism to fit their own culturally COLLECTIVIST ideas.

      I see no difference between the Tuckerites and the religio-conservatives.


    My post about Nussbaum distorting the classical texts to support her position on gay rights and natural law. She claimed only Christians taught a negative opinion on homosexuality, but the texts actually showed the Stoic and other Pagan philosophers offering similar opinions.

    It doesn't mean that there might not be good arguments to treat the question differently today. It just means that traditionalists have solid intellectual backing for their claims and calling them bigots is a complete misuse of the word. Bigotry is uninformed, irrational, wicked prejudice. It is not rational objection to commonly proscribed conduct.

    The religious injunction against homosexuality, or any form of sexuality outside marriage, might be quaint to Americans circa 2014, but it is a bedrock of all civilizations. If someone wants to disagree with it, fine. But don't pretend the other side is suffering some kind of batty delusion.

    1. They also thought slavery was just fine as long as it was someone of a different tribe.

      With your line of justification, stoning women who were raped is justified.

      Don't use your bigotry to justify bullshit.

    2. @Rick

      "The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached and every man presseth into it." (Luke 16:16)

      People really need to stop setting up a straw man Christianity, and then proceeding to attack it. It's unbecoming of anyone who claims some sort of self-appointed righteousness. Then again, should we really expect the truth not to be persecuted in a fallen world? Christians are sojourners in this world, not of it. If those like Rick here want to call me a bigot because I choose to follow the word of God, then so be it. I pray that one day God will show him the truth, and I accept my persecution until then. And despite any attacks, I do this joyfully because I know in the end it's for the glory of God.

    3. I refuse applaud lunacy Fitz. Instead I choose to live in harmony with reality. You should try to be more tolerant of the sane.

    4. Once upon a time almost the entire planet believed the earth was flat.
      They had plenty of "intellectual backing" to believe that the sun revolved around the earth.
      We call this argumentum ad populum.
      In other words, it doesn't matter how many people believed or continue to believe something. The large majority believe the state is a moral and justified institution and they have plenty of "intellectual backing" from people around the world and at all times for this. Does it mean anything regarding whether the idea is right or wrong on the MORAL level?

      Freedom isn't biological, it is philosophical.
      Sure, conservatives or religious people can believe this crap, if they insist that their purpose in life is to perpetuate the species about personal happiness. But it has nothing to do with freedom for individuals. Which is what the entire debate has been about, if i recall.

    5. @Tony

      Before you start talking about religion and religious history, please show some sophistication in understanding it.

      Why don't you go and read the Upanishads, for instance....or the Kerala schools of mathematics, developed by Hindu monks, before the European renaissance.
      Don't just swallow public school propaganda about religion.

      Read the great scholars of religion. Study Ayurveda, the Kabbala, the origins of astronomy and astrology, Paracelsus, Jung, Eliade, the origins of modern medicine and chemistry and economics...the findings of the Carolingian monks..

      Religious societies in the East developed astronomy and calculus far before the enlightenment.

  9. You know what else would be nice if they kept it to themselves Jason... their sexuality. Nobody cares, people watch the NBA for the games, not what you do off the court. Nobody would be talking about Jason Collins if he didn't come out. Relative to other NBA players, he is a terrible player. I guess if anything it was a smart marketing tactic by Collins.

    1. I suspect you would change your mind if your son told you that he decided NOT to commit suicide because a pro athlete he liked "came out" and helped him see that being gay isn't so bad.

      Gay kids kill themselves at a far higher rate than straight kids. They need role models. Jason is the first openly gay pro sports player. His impact off the court will be far greater than any stats on the hardwood.

    2. It's NOT about acceptance. It's about promotion. The wealthy and powerful who run this planet want to reduce population levels, thus the reason it's promoted 24/7. The masses are being manipulated. We're being played for chumps.
      Fake or not, the Jaffe memo sure seems to be playing out just as outlined.

    3. I am not a parent, but if I had a son and the only reason that he did not commit suicide was because of some random NBA player not coming out, I will have unequivocally failed as a parent. I don't care what Collins sexuality is. I just hate that it's become a huge sideshow attraction. I hate tuning in to watch Nets highlights and instead of the key plays I get 2 minutes showing and breaking down the one or two insignificant plays that Collins made in his 20 minutes on the court (which likely consists of a stat sheet consisting of no shot attempts, and maybe 1 rebound).

  10. @Rick Fitz

    1. You're mistaken that the Gospel condones slavery. I've posted on that. (Set the captives free).

    2. I personally feel that gays should be allowed to do anything they want, include marry, adopt children and anything else; form their own churches, etc. I personally feel that even if one has the right to discriminate against gays, one shouldn't, unless one has some valid reason outside just their being gay.

    Even so, I'm a bigot just for holding traditional views on that matter? If "shaming" is coercive, as some Tuckerians just argued, why is calling names the other way alright? Bigot has a specific meaning. It cannot be altered just on someone's say so. My post shows that Camille Paglia took Nussbaum to task just on that point. Is Paglia a bigot?

    3. However, it is simply fallacious to say that Jesus would have approved of sexuality outside the confines of marriage. He disapproved of premarital sex, adultery, promiscuity, pornography and lustful thoughts. That means most of modern society, including me, have committed behaviors that he disapproved of. Do I discriminate against all these people? How could I? I would never survive. Am I bigoted toward them? Of course not. They include some of my closest friends.

    Sexual immorality was only one thing. Jesus also disapproved of all kinds of violence, lies, fraud, theft, bitterness (hmm, I have some of that!), self-righteous. Am I bigot if I state that Jesus disapproved of self-righteousness? Should the self-righteous band together and demand that people approve of them?

    You can say that Jesus was mad, outdated, or evil, if you like. But to say that anyone who doesn't alter what Jesus said - repeatedly and without any equivocation - to suit their inclinations is a bigot is mistaken.

    3. Finally, I never said we shouldn't treat homosexuality differently today than it was treated in earlier times. Read what I wrote.

    I said there may well be good reasons to do it. But those reasons should be articulated not simply asserted and there should be no use of the law to suppress information and opinions that reasonably offer differing opinions.

    Those who defend traditionalist interpretations for themselves, without imposing them on others, do no harm to you by holding them, do they?

    Was Jesus a bigot? If so, Jesus-ideology should be shunned publicly, as Tucker says. So also should the ideologies of Islam, traditional Hinduism, and orthodox Judaism. No religion should teach anything but that sexuality of any kind is fine and that is the only belief on the matter that is allowable.
    See how totalitarian that gets?

    Anyway, how come, if people think Jesus is bigot, that he is roped into every debate where the left thinks he supports their views?

    4. Sexuality is much more fluid than you are asserting and the statistics back me up. Cultures which forbid homosexuality have a far smaller manifestation of it and in some cultures it doesn't occur at all.
    People become ex-gays all the time. I've never heard of an ex-African or ex-European.

    5. I'm happy to have my mind changed on the subject. I just never hear valid arguments.

  11. @Rick

    I don't have children, for which I am profoundly thankful, as the true bigotry of this culture is directed against children, who have no powerful lobbies and cannot speak up. Let me describe the REAL acts of bigotry toward them:

    1. First, they are given a dehumanizing name - FOETUS

    2. Then they are murdered and dismembered, even after they are living, breathing creatures, who feel pain.
    One million of them are killed and this is not even called a killing. People are now calling for the acceptance of infanticide.

    3. They are murdered by the very person who should love them the most and this is cheered on as empowerment of women and the right to do whatever you want with your body, although the genetic material of the baby belongs to many people, beside the woman.

    4. When they are born, they are sexually, emotionally and physically abused at unprecedented rates.

    5. They are targeted throughout their childhood by advertisers, pornographers, kidnappers, and the abusive.

    6. They are seduced and damaged by divorce, all kinds of abuse within and without marriage, and used as pawns in games between the empowered, fully human adults who raised them. Or they are abandoned to the streets to become the prey of pimps and murderers, and this too is called empowerment.

    7. They are forced into public education, where they are brainwashed with junk ideologies that makes
    them fodder for advertisement and propaganda and destroys their spiritual life.

    8. They are forced into false religious beliefs, based on fear, which teach them that massacring people far away from you is self-defense and security, that lust is love, that God is vengeful, mean-spirited and out to persecute people, that atheism is rational and belief is insane, that celibacy is wicked and license is spiritual, and that restraint and discipline is repression.

    The objective truths about existence, verified by millions of humble, non-intellectual, good human beings, is bigotry.

    Well, I don't believe in converting anyone or fighting anyone.
    If you think what I said is bigotry, so be it.
    No hard feelings on my side, at least.

  12. @Tony,

    False equivalence. between Tuckerites (who are indeed trying to change others).

    I do not call myself a libertarian, as I don't agree with their theories about liberty and the state.... not because I disagree with the content of their personal philosophies of life.

    I cannot well be the same as Tucker, since he is trying to redefine libertarianism from within.
    I am trying to tell you that the libertarian definition of liberty is not the only one, and doing it from outside.

    He is INSIDE libertarianism, trying to change the meaning of what Mises said and what libertarianism should be.

    I disagreed with it and LEFT it, if I ever really joined it. I have always been a minarchist and I think obligations are as important as rights
    Secondly, the reason I left it is because most libertarians do not know anything at all about religion except in a superficial sense...and they don't seem to know much about science, but they are nonetheless actively anti-religious and actively scientististic.

    I engage here to defend my views and have them fairly represented in the public sphere, since they rarely are.