NationStates Jolt Archive

I so dearly love my country. A direly homophobic man (http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Bell_Rick/2007/12/02/4701681-sun.php) was prevented by the Tories from becoming a candidate. It's worth noting that the Tories are traditionally a fairly conservative group, and that they're willing to separate themselves from the kind of bile Chandler supported makes me proud to be a Canadian. I can only hope that our southern neighbors take up this kind of universal condemnation of anti-gay hatred.

There are a variety of news reports on this, but my criteria for endorsing an article is that it makes me smile:

The man with the Tory boot on his backside figures some Tory higher-ups are "Christophobic" and compares their questioning of him to the communist-hunting hearings of Sen. Joe McCarthy in the U.S. of the '50s.

Because thinking a man who endorsed the opinion that gay activists are "perverse, morally deprived individuals who are spreading their psychological disease" shouldn't be running a province is so very, very "Christophobic."

So props to you, oh benevolent Tories! Knowing that basic human rights are supported by even our right-wing makes me very happy.

I just love the title :fluffle:

I don't really think your southern neighbors care at all about what you think about...

Shame really, but then again there are a lot of things we Americans think about Canada that you guys seem impervious to... So it kinda evens out.

That's it. I'm moving to Canada eh.

OMFG!! Someone please shoot all of those people. Homphobic, Christophobic, Homophobowned.... please stop. The English language deserves better.

phobia is a fear. None of these terms entail or describe fear. They are only designed to intimidate and offend. It is pathetic.

OMFG!! Someone please shoot all of those people. Homphobic, Christophobic, Homophobowned.... please stop. The English language deserves better.

phobia is a fear. None of these terms entail or describe fear. They are only designed to intimidate and offend. It is pathetic.

Phobia can also be an extreme loathing of something. "Homophobowned" however is arguable.

Words get added to the English language everyday anyway.

TY for defending anarchy in the lexicon!
@ Mystic Skeptic: you have been Pancaked :)

TY for defending anarchy in the lexicon!
@ Mystic Skeptic: you have been Pancaked :)

I'm a verb now!? AWESOME! :D

phobia is a fear.

Not as a suffix. The suffix "-phobia" also means "intolerance or aversion for". Look for yourself (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/-phobia) - just click "-phobia" in the list.

So, before you start bitching about what the English language does or does not deserve, you should have sufficient a grasp of it to know what you're talking about. Otherwise it's just "pathetic".

So props to you, oh benevolent Tories! Knowing that basic human rights are supported by even our right-wing makes me very happy.

While you may be correct to praise the leadership of the party, I might have to piss on your parade......

Though he wins a vote at a nomination meeting, Chandler is not approved to run for the Tories in Calgary-Egmont in the provincial election. Chandler as a Tory candidate is not judged to be in the best interests of the party and a new vote for a new person will take place in the new year.


Doesnt that imply that the local party selected him but 'upstairs' vetoed it?

OMFG!! Someone please shoot all of those people. Homphobic, Christophobic, Homophobowned.... please stop. The English language deserves better.

phobia is a fear. None of these terms entail or describe fear. They are only designed to intimidate and offend. It is pathetic.
Yeah, hydrophobic lipids is an invention of the water lover conspiracy to discriminate against segregationalist fats.

I'm a verb now!? AWESOME! :D

power right to her head

While you may be correct to praise the leadership of the party, I might have to piss on your parade......




Doesnt that imply that the local party selected him but 'upstairs' vetoed it?

Yes. The "upstairs" doesn't want to be represented by some on who promotes hatred based on sexuality. The problem is... what?

Yes. The "upstairs" doesn't want to be represented by some on who promotes hatred based on sexuality. The problem is... what?

That the upstairs may not be representative of a much more numerous downstairs.

That the upstairs may not be representative of a much more numerous downstairs.

Then people can not vote for that party, they chose what candidates to support. If it doesn't represent us, we will (theoreticallly) vote for another party.

Then people can not vote for that party, they chose what candidates to support. If it doesn't represent us, we will (theoreticallly) vote for another party.

The OP is trying to tout the lack of bigotry of people who adhere to this party (its downstairs) and not just its upstairs (its leadership). If the downstairs of the party support Chandler, then the touting is disingenuous and flawed.

Even amongst homophobic politicians, there comes someone who is so vocally acidically hatemongeringly homophobic that even the other homophobes squirm and go, 'jeez, dude. Shut up!'

And when he doesn't, even his fellow homophobes start wandering off searching for less stinky air. In the United STates, we call such super homophobes, 'Rick Santorum'. *nod*

I agree with him. Shame that all opinions cannot be heard.

I so dearly love my country. A direly homophobic man (http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Bell_Rick/2007/12/02/4701681-sun.php) was prevented by the Tories from becoming a candidate. It's worth noting that the Tories are traditionally a fairly conservative group, and that they're willing to separate themselves from the kind of bile Chandler supported makes me proud to be a Canadian. I can only hope that our southern neighbors take up this kind of universal condemnation of anti-gay hatred.


As an American who has lived in Canada several times, and dearly loves Canada, and as a gay man, I have to disagree. It's certainly up to the Tories to offer support to whomever they care to support, and I think it speaks well of them that they refused to endorse that particular individual because of his views. I applaud them.

Taking this a step further, however, I disagree that people should be prevented from running for any public office based upon their personal viewpoints. As much as I respect and admire Canada's desire to build a hate-free society, I've always been dubious of Canada's hate-speech laws.
This is where I become very American. I firmly believe people should have the right to say whatever they want - no matter how barbaric or hateful it might be. What concerns me is the ability of any given government to make determinations about what is hateful and what is not.

Canada is a beacon for other nations, including my own, and my love for Canada is profound. But I believe, in this particular matter, Americans have a stronger guarantee to the right of free speech than our northern neighbo(u)rs.

The OP is trying to tout the lack of bigotry of people who adhere to this party (its downstairs) and not just its upstairs (its leadership). If the downstairs of the party support Chandler, then the touting is disingenuous and flawed.
I thought that the OP was in gneral trying to point out that in Canada homosexuality in general is looked upon, I don't think that this was attempting to say that the Conservative Party was not bigoted, just that they are an improvement from what we had even three years ago. Generally the more bigoted from this party are weeded out at any level. Although I agree that the fact that he won the nomination meeting is worrisome in and of itself.

Not as a suffix. The suffix "-phobia" also means "intolerance or aversion for". Look for yourself (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/-phobia) - just click "-phobia" in the list.

So, before you start bitching about what the English language does or does not deserve, you should have sufficient a grasp of it to know what you're talking about. Otherwise it's just "pathetic".


So you are trying to compare photophobia to homophobia. Gimme a break - you are stretching the term far beyond its acceptable use and now stretcing the definition just as far. Would you also like to describe Superdude as lactosephobic instead of lactose intolerant?

Sounds like you have a bad case of Enosiophobia... which is not intolerance of Enosios....

OMFG!! Someone please shoot all of those people. Homphobic, Christophobic, Homophobowned.... please stop. The English language deserves better.

phobia is a fear. None of these terms entail or describe fear. They are only designed to intimidate and offend. It is pathetic.

I think "Homophobowned" is funny. We need to take things less seriously.

"There is nothing new under the sun." -Ecclesiastes

I think "Homophobowned" is funny. We need to take things less seriously.

"There is nothing new under the sun." -Ecclesiastes

What about over the sun? Or next to it? Or behind it?

Taking this a step further, however, I disagree that people should be prevented from running for any public office based upon their personal viewpoints. As much as I respect and admire Canada's desire to build a hate-free society, I've always been dubious of Canada's hate-speech laws.
This is where I become very American. I firmly believe people should have the right to say whatever they want - no matter how barbaric or hateful it might be. What concerns me is the ability of any given government to make determinations about what is hateful and what is not.
He can still run for public office, as an independant. He had only be refused by the Tories, not from democracy itself.

Canada is a beacon for other nations, including my own, and my love for Canada is profound. But I believe, in this particular matter, Americans have a stronger guarantee to the right of free speech than our northern neighbo(u)rs.
He can say what he wants, no one is stopping him. However, if he spreads hate than the Conservatives do not want to support him. This is still giving him his right to free speech.

So you are trying to compare photophobia to homophobia. Gimme a break - you are stretching the term far beyond its acceptable use and now stretcing the definition just as far. Would you also like to describe Superdude as lactosephobic instead of lactose intolerant?

Sounds like you have a bad case of Enosiophobia... which is not intolerance of Enosios....
That is, in a word, ridiculous. As always Mystic Skeptic your knowledge of subjects you claim to know quite a lot about is extremely lacking.

So you are trying to compare photophobia to homophobia. Gimme a break - you are stretching the term far beyond its acceptable use and now stretcing the definition just as far. Would you also like to describe Superdude as lactosephobic instead of lactose intolerant?

Sounds like you have a bad case of Enosiophobia... which is not intolerance of Enosios....

What, the Merriam-Webster dictionary somehow isn't good enough for you? It's the fucking standard for American English.

-phobia (meaning as a suffix)
Function:
noun combining form
Etymology:
New Latin, from Late Latin, from Greek, from -phobos fearing, from phobos fear, flight, from phebesthai to flee; akin to Lithuanian bėgti to flee, Old Church Slavic běžati

1 : exaggerated fear of <acrophobia> 2 : intolerance or aversion for <photophobia>

Are you seriously arguing that Homophobia isn't an intolerance or aversion for homosexuals?
By the way, it is also in Webster's dictionary...

ho·mo·pho·bia Listen to the pronunciation of homophobia
Pronunciation:
\ˌhō-mə-ˈfō-bē-ə\
Function:
noun
Date:
1969

: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

Even amongst homophobic politicians, there comes someone who is so vocally acidically hatemongeringly homophobic that even the other homophobes squirm and go, 'jeez, dude. Shut up!'

And when he doesn't, even his fellow homophobes start wandering off searching for less stinky air. In the United STates, we call such super homophobes, 'Rick Santorum'. *nod*

I thought that was Pat Robertson, although I don't believe he's a politician.

I don't want to read the dictionary because it makes me look wrong. So here's a straw man

Translated from post #21

So you are trying to compare photophobia to homophobia. Gimme a break - you are stretching the term far beyond its acceptable use and now stretcing the definition just as far. Would you also like to describe Superdude as lactosephobic instead of lactose intolerant?

Sounds like you have a bad case of Enosiophobia... which is not intolerance of Enosios....
And hydrophobia is what, when refering to fats? Or when refering to rabies patients?
Thats like saying that, because of words like "pedophilic", a molecule can't be hydrophillic

I thought that was Pat Robertson, although I don't believe he's a politician.

Actually, he ran for president once. I believe the Oral Roberts' 900 foot Jesus was his running mate. Okay, I made that last part up. But Oral didn't. ;)

The yanks could learn a lot from the world. :)

Phobia can also be an extreme loathing of something. "Homophobowned" however is arguable.

Words get added to the English language everyday anyway.

We call them neologisms. And the development and introduction of them into a language are very interesting to follow.

We call them neologisms. And the development and introduction of them into a language are very interesting to follow.

Who the hell are 'we'? :confused:

Who the hell are 'we'? :confused:

People with an interest in neologisms of course. If we didn't have an interest in them, we wouldn't call them anything, now would we? :D

People with an interest in neologisms of course. If we didn't have an interest in them, we wouldn't call them anything, now would we? :D

*Goofballizes you*

*Goofballizes you*

I have no idea what that entails. *Squashes with Hand of Deus*

The wikipedia article is actually quite thorough on the subject, and it's interesting to see how many neologisms now in the mainstream came about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neologism

It lists homophobia as having been coined around 1969.

I read "Chandler is also in hot water for stating people moving here..." as "Chandler is also in hot water for eating people moving here..."
lol.

I read "Chandler is also in hot water for stating people moving here..." as "Chandler is also in hot water for eating people moving here..."
lol.

If you look at his picture, either one could work.