Linux Dev's threaten to pull killswitch over CoC (somewhat clickbaity title)

[spartaman64]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Do you think I am only worried about this because it is about homosexuality?  It really sounds like it.  Which is a shame because I am a big proponent of same sex equality, I just don't like seeing the seesaw go backwards because some people don't like where the true level is.

 

This bit in bold tells me you understand the legitimacy of my fears and are now trying to character assassinate me and deflect from the problem by accusing me of not crying foul when this happens in other sciences (insinuating it is only about homosexuality).  This really means you have not been reading my posts. 

 

I'll lay it out in black and white:

Any professional that preferences idiosyncratic social justice over unbiased rational scientific discourse or tries to implement a social justice law using a bodged scientific foundation annoys me and in some cases down right scares the pants of me.  Even some of the most well regarded psychologists end up in trouble with the establishment because they refuse to curtail to such idiosyncrasies, like Jordan Peterson.  And when someone with his experience, education and standing gets dismissed as a bigot for telling the truth you know I have little hope.

 

 

 

 

 

You misinterpret what I'm saying. I'm not using hydrophobic to suggest you are against it because of homosexuality. I'm using hydrophobic as an example of a word irreplaceable for it's function. There hydrophilic so natually there's hydrophobic. The suffixes phobic phobia and phobe shouldn't be reserved for only in mental conditions. And psychologists must have other reasons why they want homophobia to be a mental condition other than the word looks like it can be one. I don't see doctor's lobbying for senioritis to be a condition. That debate is separate from the language one.

[mr moose]

19 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

You misinterpret what I'm saying.

You keep saying the same thing, that does not change what I said nor does it negate the issues surrounding what I have outlined.  There really is nothing to misinterpret.

 

19 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

I'm not using hydrophobic to suggest you are against it because of homosexuality. I'm using hydrophobic as an example of a word irreplaceable for it's function. There hydrophilic so natually there's hydrophobic. The suffixes phobic phobia and phobe shouldn't be reserved for only in mental conditions.

You misinterpret,  No one is saying those words should be reserved for mental conditions, I am saying names for mental conditions are chosen to describe the condition.  Choosing to use phobia to describe a narcissistic trait is as silly as using GPU to describe a CPU function.  Phobia has a meaning in psychology, using it to describe a trait that is not a phobia is just backwards, especially when the convention is to move away names that carry a stigma.

 

19 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

And psychologists must have other reasons why they want homophobia to be a mental condition other than the word looks like it can be one.

Well I have yet to see any real evidence put forward for that.  Physiologists had homosexuality listed as a mental dysfunction for centuries, it seems they asr trying to right some wrongs by going in the opposite direction. 

 

19 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

I don't see doctor's lobbying for senioritis to be a condition. That debate is separate from the language one.

I don't see lots of people say or doing lots of things,  That's why I only speak to the things I do see and can evidence.  Regardless of whether people not doing things you can't see is separate from a language debate is moot.  We know what a phobia is, we know how it has been used and we know the ramifications of that usage, you can call it natural evolution of language, words or whatever you want, it does not make that usage correct, nor does it diminish the ramifications of such narrative.

 

[spartaman64]

34 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You keep saying the same thing, that does not change what I said nor does it negate the issues surrounding what I have outlined.  There really is nothing to misinterpret.

 

You misinterpret,  No one is saying those words should be reserved for mental conditions, I am saying names for mental conditions are chosen to describe the condition.  Choosing to use phobia to describe a narcissistic trait is as silly as using GPU to describe a CPU function.  Phobia has a meaning in psychology, using it to describe a trait that is not a phobia is just backwards, especially when the convention is to move away names that carry a stigma.

 

Well I have yet to see any real evidence put forward for that.  Physiologists had homosexuality listed as a mental dysfunction for centuries, it seems they asr trying to right some wrongs by going in the opposite direction. 

 

I don't see lots of people say or doing lots of things,  That's why I only speak to the things I do see and can evidence.  Regardless of whether people not doing things you can't see is separate from a language debate is moot.  We know what a phobia is, we know how it has been used and we know the ramifications of that usage, you can call it natural evolution of language, words or whatever you want, it does not make that usage correct, nor does it diminish the ramifications of such narrative.

 

Words don't have a meaning. Words have meanings. When I first heard the words bull and bear being used to describe stock market trends I thought the guy on tv was crazy. And the k in knife and know used to be pronounced in old English. Also everyone heard of I before e except after c but then there's science. There is no point in insisting on certain rules in English when clearly they are only made to be broken

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

Words don't have a meaning. Words have meanings. When I first heard the words bull and bear being used to describe stock market trends I thought the guy on tv was crazy. And the k in knife and know used to be pronounced in old English. Also everyone heard of I before e except after c but then there's science. There is no point in insisting on certain rules in English when clearly they are only made to be broken

 

I don't think your likely to get this, It's not about rules in English.

[spartaman64]

9 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

I don't think your likely to get this, It's not about rules in English.

You thinking there's some negative effect from a word is not valid grounds to disqualify it from being a word anymore than me thinking that bear and bull in stock markets is riddiculous being valid ground to disqualify those two words from taking that meaning

[mr moose]

Just now, spartaman64 said:

You thinking there's some negative effect from a word is not valid grounds to disqualify it from being a word anymore than me thinking that bear and bull in stock markets is riddiculous being valid ground to disqualify those two words from taking that meaning

who said anything about disqualifying words?   what are you talking about?

[spartaman64]

Just now, mr moose said:

who said anything about disqualifying words?   what are you talking about?

Unless I am mistaken you are making the claim that homophobia is not a word if that is not the case then we are in agreement that it is a word

[mr moose]

Just now, spartaman64 said:

Unless I am mistaken you are making the claim that homophobia is not a word if that is not the case then we are in agreement that it is a word

please read my posts again.  I never said anything like that.

[leadeater]

4 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

You thinking there's some negative effect from a word is not valid grounds to disqualify it from being a word anymore than me thinking that bear and bull is riddiculous being valid ground to disqualify those two words from taking that meaning

A word's meaning, or more importantly it's intent, does not change across languages so you could be having this debate in French or Spanish and the points being raised would not change. Pointing to issues in the actual English language as far as I can see serves no purpose towards the debate.

[spartaman64]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

please read my posts again.  I never said anything like that.

Quote

You know that a social narrative is being unfairly pushed in the direction of law making when you have perfectly rational people accepting that a phobia is no longer a condition people suffer,  but an intentional and controllable  mindset hell bent on being physically discriminatory.

You seem to think phobia can only be used for conditions and you obviously believe that homophobia is not a condition. But I am of the opinion that you can't impose that limitation and words change meaning or have additional meanings all the time like how the word awful went to meaning awe inspiring to something more negative. So homophobic can indeed just mean people who are against homosexuality

[mr moose]

14 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

You seem to think phobia can only be used for conditions and you obviously believe that homophobia is not a condition. But I am of the opinion that you can't impose that limitation and words change meaning or have additional meanings all the time like how the word awful went to meaning awe inspiring to something more negative. So homophobic can indeed just mean people who are against homosexuality

You can use words to say whatever you want,  but in psychology I can assure you they do not (EDIT: I should say the should not).  When you start talking about health professionals (or any professional for that matter) you cannot just use any word you want.  Colloquial usage is not interchangeable with legal or medical.  There is a reason why there is a nomenclature standard in most realms of science and health. 

[spartaman64]

13 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You can use words to say whatever you want,  but in psychology I can assure you they do not.  When you start talking about health professionals (or any professional for that matter) you cannot just use any word you want.  Colloquial usage is not interchangeable with legal or medical.  There is a reason why there is a nomenclature standard in most realms of science and health. 

Well I respect your valiant efforts to preserve the nomenclature standards of psychology but you are already too late and that barrier has long been breached by words like oleophobic and audiophile.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

Well I respect your valiant efforts to preserve the nomenclature standards of psychology but you are already too late and that barrier has long been breached by words like oleophobic and audiophile.

Hahaha, I didn't know you could be diagnosed as oleophobic.

 

Can you please link to where audiophile is listed in the DSM, or even just mentioned as a mental condition by a psychologist.

[spartaman64]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Hahaha, I didn't know you could be diagnosed as oleophobic.

 

Can you please link to where audiophile is listed in the DSM, or even just mentioned as a mental condition by a psychologist.

Exactly those words are separate from the realm of psychology and the word homophobia can be separate also

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

Exactly those words are separate from the realm of psychology and the word homophobia can be separate also

Except when its not separate.

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

Quote

“However, homophobia, a phobic, psychopathologic trait, possibly should be present within the forthcoming edition of DSM [the diagnostic manual used by psychiatrists],”

It is clear that some consider it a genuine mental condition that should be in the DSM,  this is above most of the practice who refer to it as colloquially understood.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/is-homophobia-a-disease-2015-9?r=US&IR=T

 

 

This is not about having a monopoly on a word or it's roots, In fact I never said anything like that.  If you read my posts I am making a very specific observation about language usage and how in this case it is being used to manipulate society.   Just because something is happening doesn't mean it is natural or normal or should be accepted.  Some people just don't like homosexuality, and with current trends, this goes from a disliking (which isn't abnormal) to a diagnosable mental condition.

 

Do you understand what I was saying about the adoption of new names for mental conditions when current names gain some type of stigma?

And do you understand how the use and existence of homophobia as a descriptive for a condition of being is exactly opposite to that practice and the reasoning behind it?

 

This is not about who has rights to the definition of a word, this is about the usages and ramifications of said usage. This is about social justice issues being leveraged to the point where general society is now accepting a character assassination as a mental illness.  Imagine  if psychologists decided to enter all other forms of character assassination into the DSM.   Shill would become a diagnosable mental disorder that required no more evidence to prove than you supporting a company online. 

 

 

Please read this post in particular.  It highlights the ramifications of pushing certain agendas too far.

[spartaman64]

9 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Except when its not separate.

Please read this post in particular.  It highlights the ramifications of pushing certain agendas too far.

The definition of homophobia as it stands rn is separate from any mental conditions. If someone went up to you and said homosexuals poisoned our water supply, burned our crops and delivered a plague upon our houses would you describe that person as homophobic?

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

The definition of homophobia as it stands rn is separate from any mental conditions. If someone went up to you and said homosexuals poisoned our water supply, burned our crops and delivered a plague upon our houses would you describe that person as homophobic?

why aren't you reading my posts?

[spartaman64]

8 minutes ago, mr moose said:

why aren't you reading my posts?

I don't have any opinion on whether or not it should be a mental condition. If psychologists elect it to be then I trust them and vice versa. And there is probably less than a percent of people that actually use it as a mental condition

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, spartaman64 said:

I don't have any opinion on whether or not it should be a mental condition. If psychologists elect it to be then I trust them and vice versa.

that's nice, but why aren't you reading my posts?

[spartaman64]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

that's nice, but why aren't you reading my posts?

I am reading them but you are being confusing. I never made any statement supporting it being added to the dsm nor supporting it being used to mean a mental condition in fact I think I made it clear that im talking about the opposite

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

I am reading them but you are being confusing. I never made any statement supporting it being added to the dsm nor supporting it being used to mean a mental condition in fact I think I made it clear that im talking about the opposite

No, your just trying to defend the most superficial side of an issue.  I really don't know how else too explain this.  It really appears you can't move past the idea that words have specific meanings in science and health.  If you can't see how using such terms in a manipulative and prolonged manor is dangerous (I gave you the evidence) then I am not sure anyone can.  

 

This really isn't just about language, it's about social discourse and the effects it has on society.   Do I need to link you to articles explaining why psychologists change the names of mental disorders too or do you understand that side of it?

[spartaman64]

12 hours ago, mr moose said:

No, your just trying to defend the most superficial side of an issue.  I really don't know how else too explain this.  It really appears you can't move past the idea that words have specific meanings in science and health.  If you can't see how using such terms in a manipulative and prolonged manor is dangerous (I gave you the evidence) then I am not sure anyone can.  

 

This really isn't just about language, it's about social discourse and the effects it has on society.   Do I need to link you to articles explaining why psychologists change the names of mental disorders too or do you understand that side of it?

So you are saying that because homophobia looks like a word for a mental condition people are going to think it is one and the social pressure will force psychologists to add it to the dsm? I just can't see that happening

[mr moose]

26 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

So you are saying that because homophobia looks like a word for a mental condition people are going to think it is one and the social pressure will force psychologists to add it to the dsm? I just can't see that happening

 

Phobia doesn't "look like a word" for a mental condition, phobia is a word for a mental condition.  And I have already linked you to evidence that it is happening.

 

 

[Trik'Stari]

I think I can settle this.

 

@spartaman64, @mr moose,

 

Do either you do define Islam as homophobic? How about Catholicism? Judaism?

[spartaman64]

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

Phobia doesn't "look like a word" for a mental condition, phobia is a word for a mental condition.  And I have already linked you to evidence that it is happening.

I showed you examples of words that already break that like oleophobic. And a few psychologists thinking that it should isn't signs of it already happening it's like people who claim scientists don't believe that climate change is real and then cite a few outlier scientists

3 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

I think I can settle this.

 

@spartaman64, @mr moose,

 

Do either you do define Islam as homophobic? How about Catholicism? Judaism?

Yes but not all followers of the religions are homophobic