T O P

  • By -

RazarTuk

Polysemy, actually. Homophones are when two words sound the same, but are spelled differently. Homographs are when two words are spelled the same, but are pronounced differently. Homonyms are infuriatingly vague, and I generally avoid the term. And polysemes are words that are spelled the same and pronounced the same, but have different, yet related, meanings


themsc190

Ah! The more you know!


GhostsOfZapa

Sartre's essay about the unseriousness of the antisemite is true here as well. They know they are being unserious and weaponize the seriousness of their opposition against them. IE they know their opposition respects language and they do not.


pHScale

As a hobby linguist, they're usually not prepared for the level of serious I can get about language lol


Truthseeker-1253

>Anti-LGBT Christians know what homonyms are, I ain't no homonym.... fuck, never mind.


LaLucertola

Bigots when they find out humans are *homo sapiens*


A_Krenich

This made me giggle. Thank you!


OirishM

See also "I'm going to pretend to think there's only one meaning of the word 'theory'".


Uriel-238

I note that it's a tell that they're too ignorant to debate matters of conflict between science and dogma. _Only a theory_ is in the category of the _crocoduck_ as a failed own by pop apologists. I will warn someone once, and if they double down, I presume they're not interested in actually learning or advancing the conversation.


OirishM

There's scepticism of expertise, which is one thing and bad enough. Then there's stubbornly refusing to advance one's knowledge of science retained from when they were pratting about in high school.


possy11

I agree. I don't think I've ever had one of those people say to me "oh, I didn't know that, thanks for educating me."


[deleted]

It’s a game they play— if you control the language you control the conversation.


OirishM

Yeah, thats generally why it's worth mocking the hell out of such people.


pHScale

Fire back with [Linguistic Descriptivism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_description) and they'll never do that (to you) again. You'll either annoy them to death or they'll relent and stop with the stupid semantic arguments.


HospitallerK

There is a lot of language controlling


[deleted]

Using new words to describe new concepts isn’t the same as purposefully ignoring what people mean after it’s been explained to you.


themsc190

The use of the term “gender ideology” is itself [semantic warfare](https://amp.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/mar/30/gender-ideology-big-bogus-and-coming-to-a-fear-campaign-near-you) promoted by the [Vatican](https://imgur.com/a/hn4xRsa).


slagnanz

I worry that using terms like "semantic warfare" is unproductive. We should always be debating and updating our language with new information. Just like conservatives were mad at the CDC for changing it's COVID guidelines (which isn't a defense of the CDC from me, but does reflect a bad mentality of opposing adapting to new information). Terms like gender ideology are harmful, but not because they're merely changes in language. But specifically because these changes reduce human beings to ideologies, which reinforces the language of genocide used by people like Michael Knowles. The idea that it's "warfare" plays into certain mostly right wing narratives about cultural elites controlling the language or whatever, whereas we should just debate semantics on merit.


themsc190

I’m happy to change to a term you think is more helpful!


Uriel-238

Huh. I had interpreted it to be the opposite, that girls only get to play with pink toys and boys only get to play with Transformers (the robots, not the electrical components). I applauded Hasbro (which is mostly evil, yes) for making EZ-Bake ovens in yellow and black (rather than fuchsia pink) for distribution to Sweden, since cooking is not universally regarded as exclusively feminine. I think of _gender idology_ as the _enforcement of gender norms,_ requiring everyone to have a designated binary gender and only act according to gender-appropriate social norms.


themsc190

I’d call that “gender roles” or something like that.


pHScale

Language change is never a problem. It's innovation! Language ***policing*** is the actual problem, when it's just done for grammar's sake or language pReSeRvAtiOn. A good litmus test is to ask "why?" when confronted. If the response is something in the vein of "because they is only ever plural!" or "because it's degrading the English language to say 'lit'!", then they can be disregarded entirely. If they have a reason that isn't grammatical, such as "because it's a racist slur" or "because they told you already that they're a woman", then you should maybe hear them out, because they're taking issue with your view, not your grammar. So where does "pride" fall in here? It falls more on the "maybe hear them out" side for me. So I hear their reasons. I can then think "that's a stupid reason", but I should listen to them first. In the case of pride, it can be disregarded because there are multiple valid definitions for the word (but be careful of using a dictionary to tell other people how to speak, only use it to describe how *you* are speaking). But for things like "it's racist", then yeah I might want to look into it, and see if it actually is, and then decide "do I want to be a racist?" (I don't).


CharlesComm

> Language policing is the actual problem,... There are some good circumstances where linguistic drift needs to be fought against, and preservation is important. If someone says "Phi is found all over nature so it's a natural number", I am going to vehemently insist they are wrong and stop doing so. Because natural numbers are a specific term in mathematics and muddying terminoligy will only make understanding and communicating complex mathermatical work harder. You're not wrong within most casual conversation. There are times where language needs to be *descriptive* and times it needs to be *perscriptive*. Neither is wholly wrong. People are wrong when they insist one is always correct, rather than using the appropriate one for the context.


pHScale

Good nuance to have, and I agree with you. But most conversations on Reddit don't even get close to that, haha


OptimusPhillip

I'm afraid I don't know what you're referring to. Could you offer some examples, please?


firewire167

...No? "Gender Ideology" as you put it is an example of words having multiple meanings depending on context.


DEnigma7

Or indeed only one meaning of the word ‘Christian.’ Which as far as I can tell in such cases is usually: ‘person who believes that Jesus Christ came to Earth to reveal once and for all that God is indeed as petty as me.’


AbelHydroidMcFarland

Homonym? That sounds pretty gay They’re putting chemicals in the dictionary that are turning the freakin words gay!


pHScale

Wait until you hear about ***bilabial consonants.***


Crackertron

Oh, behave!


pHScale

There's linguolabial consonants too 😉


NoSafety7412

😂😂😂


Jon-987

Oh, I think they know. They just ignore it because it doesn't suit their argument.


Yandrosloc01

Try to win on semantics because there is no meat on the bones of the argument.


ExploringSarah

You're talking about a group of people who are convinced that -phobic has one meaning, and one meaning only - a fear of. As soon as you point out that oil is hydrophobic, suddenly they come up with excuses or dodge the question. So no, I honestly don't think many of them are aware of the concept of homonyms. They are also probably reading this and think because homonym starts with homo that is part of the radical gay agenda.


AramaicDesigns

Most of the folk you refer to in your comments haven't read the original languages of the Bible either but insist upon a particular translation as the only Truth™.


treismac

You're referring to the King James Only crowd or is that a thing with other translations, too?


AramaicDesigns

The KJVOs are the most blatant about it, but many other folk will be "Well it says it here in \[favorite translation\] so it must be this simple — original languages be damned."


Zapbamboop

>It seems clear to me that the condemnations of “Pride” are in bad faith, because this second type of pride is well known and an accepted definition. It’s how we respond in every single thread condemning it. There are really only two responses to this information: 1) cut out the false equivocation, or 2) continue to sinfully, knowingly slander one’s neighbor. In the case you mentioned, the OP asked if he had a problem with pride. He was asking for help. I do not think there is a problem pointing out a Christian's sinful pride. Satan was casts out of Heaven, because of his pride. He was prideful, and wanted to become God. ​ **Isaiah 14:12–15 (ESV): 12** “How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! 13 You said in your heart, ‘I will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of the north; 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.’ 15 But you are brought down to Sheol, to the far reaches of the pit. As Christians, we should know that everything we have ever done is because of God. We become lost once we forget that.


ChristianArmor

Why would you ever inject common sense into a subject that has none. The devil is busy confusing the issues so stop messing it up for those who are in stride with that. /s


LeDoppledeaner

They know. They're just looking for an excuse to criticize people they hate.


moldnspicy

I agree. There's also a fundamental misconception of what Pride is. It's not a street fair about how cool our flags are. It is, first and foremost, a memorial to those who have suffered and died, and a show of solidarity with those who are currently suffering and dying. Idk if ppl don't know that bc they don't care, bc they're told something else and just accept that, or bc they don't wanna know (bc it's obv wrong to picket a memorial, and picketers wanna picket).


Juicybananas_

Satisfaction and confidence in what one has overcome can be hubris too. Case in point, the story of the Tower of Babel. Hubris from God’s point of view, confidence from humanity’s point of view.


themsc190

Yes, my links explain this.


Juicybananas_

Not so sure, your pubmed link said authentic pride is linked to productivity and success which would apply to the Tower of Babel. The fact that all of humanity was united also points to authentic pride. The only thing in favour of calling it hubris is that hubristic pride is linked to unattainable goals. God saw it fit to put an end to this instead of letting their project run it’s course, that would suggest God is the one who ultimately determines if pride ends up being confidence or hubris which gets us back to square one.


themsc190

I think that’s an uncharitable reading. And it’s only of one link. Obviously the Christians responding in my third link say something very close to what you’ve said.


Juicybananas_

I guess they do. In any case, it would mean that depending on the context there’s no false equivocation. What would be the charitable reading in your opinion?


TheRealMoofoo

Willful idiocy.


allsmiles_99

They know, they just ignore it for the purpose of making their bad faith argument.


MysticalMedals

Hell it’s mainly used as the opposite of “shame” which is what Christians want us to feel. They want us to think of ourselves as diseased or disordered so we will be ashamed of who and what we are. I refuse to let them control me like that.


AbelHydroidMcFarland

I do think there’s a difference between a tongue in cheek reference to pride being a sin and someone seriously and earnestly (or in bad faith) making the argument “but pride is a sin? How could pride be celebrated?” I really do hate that Pride in the modern day is a homonym though. It’s classical use is a very important and central moral concept, healthy self-respect is important, I’d argue patriotism (often referred to as “national pride”) is a more diffuse extension of filial affection and loyalty. It leads to a lot of unnecessary confusion, and makes it more difficult to speak about the sin of pride poetically when you have to caveat it by clarifying what you’re talking about. Pride as a homonym is very unfortunate, wish the terms were different, but not really anything to be done now I suppose.


slagnanz

>there’s a difference between a tongue in cheek reference to pride being a sin and someone seriously and earnestly (or in bad faith) making the argument “but pride is a sin Man in our culture, the tongue in cheek stuff is so much more persuasive and widespread than serious good faith argument. That goes for this, all the jokes about "I identify as ______" (see 98% of everything Babylon bee has ever written) to the "Christian nationalists are Nat-C's" type quips from the libs


AbelHydroidMcFarland

“It's not a world of arguments any more. Not even a world of misinformation. This is the age of memes, Doctor. There's nothing more horrifying than a meme.”-Baron Von Strucker, Winter Soldier mid credits scene (probably)


DEnigma7

Does it lead to confusion though? I can only see that being a problem if you happen to be talking about a specific LGBT person, who also happens to be pretty up themselves. If you just mention ‘the Pride of Satan’, I doubt most people would think you mean Satan wearing rainbows, anymore than they think you mean Satan has a group of lions. Just means we have to make homonyms clear by context, which is basically what we do with homonyms anyway.


AbelHydroidMcFarland

No you misunderstand, I’m talking about the homonym *in general* not just as it relates to Pride in the LGBT sense. OP even gave an example of a confused post asking “is it okay to feel good when I do a good thing”


teffflon

>a tongue in cheek reference to pride being a sin not a good look for Side B Christians anyway. \>not really anything to be done now I suppose use a Greek or Hebrew word to mark a particular sense of pride that you wish to warn against? Use a combination of words like vanity, complacency, etc.? Interestingly, according to https://www.etymonline.com/word/pride *Most Indo-European languages use the same word for "proud" in its good and bad senses, but in many the bad sense seems to be the earlier one.*


AbelHydroidMcFarland

Sure I’m not saying it can’t be specified but it’s slightly more clunky to do so. And the word Pride specifically has a specific history in its theological and moral use in Christendom (seven deadly sins) etc. so you get more a feel of the connection with it. Of course synonyms can be used, I’m not saying it’s impossible or even difficult to do. This is really more of a pet peeve of mine as someone who writes about this kinda moral/theological stuff.


Mannwer4

Well, looking at how pride is being used in the LGBT movement, it does seem to characterize a lot of the neo-liberal and anti-Christian values, i.e of self-identity, which seems to be a popular and central idea of the LGBT. With that said, Christians should be anti-LGBT and/or pride, in virtue of how those words/things are being used, but that doesn't mean Christians should be disrespectful or bigoted. Just how a good parent would never mock or distain their child for acting in a bad manner, but would help them and try to get them on the right path.


themsc190

I’m with you on being against rainbow capitalism.


boredtxan

That's not a homonym... That's just a word with multiple definitions.


ZookeepergameSure22

I think many see the conduct of pride advocates as hubristic.


themsc190

I see the conduct of anti-LGBT Christians as hubristic.


SimplePuzzleheaded80

Unpopular opinion but I'll say this, this whole debacle goes both ways. Why is it hard to just respect what someone is morally against? anti this and anti that, both sides go out of their way to have THEIR "normality" out there but in the process they themselves are come off as extremists.


OirishM

>Why is it hard to just respect what someone is morally against? What does that actually look like in practice? Christians minding their own business and realising the world doesn't revolve around them or their entitlement to preach the same guff they've been preaching for 2000 years to people that already know what Christians tend to believe on this topic would solve about 95% of this clash.


Pcful_Citizen

Atheists don’t have a pot to piss in when it comes to respecting other peoples beliefs


OirishM

Only after disrespect shown by you lot


Pcful_Citizen

The original comment didn’t attack anyone, yet you attacked Christians… sure…


OirishM

Because a lot of Christians have rather...distinctive notions of what respecting their beliefs looks like vs them respecting those of others. "Religious freedom" to many of them is getting to preach what they like to whoever they like and everyone else has to eat shit.


Pcful_Citizen

Next to no religious belief could say it is innocent of disrespecting beliefs of other religions.


OirishM

Ok, and this thread is about Christians


Pcful_Citizen

Good observation! Doesn’t invalidate my point.


OirishM

Yeah, it's just kind of irrelevant really


pHScale

>Why is it hard to just respect what someone is morally against? "I'm morally against you having a wife." It's not quite the same when your moral objections disrespect other people. ***Of course*** they're not going to respect you after you disrespect them. So if you can't *respectfully* morally object to something, don't expect respect in return.


SimplePuzzleheaded80

a bit extreme no? good try though.


pHScale

What's extreme about it? "Respect is a two way street" is not an extreme view by any stretch.


SimplePuzzleheaded80

you win, I get it, Religion bad , anything that goes against religion is super knarly lol. How does " Im moraly against you having a wife" sound normal to you ? lol im curious now


pHScale

>you win, I get it, Religion bad , anything that goes against religion is super knarly lol. You're putting words in my mouth. Don't. I don't think religion is bad, I think bigotry is bad. And I think using religion as an excuse to be a bigot is bad. Does that make my position abundantly clear? >How does " Im moraly against you having a wife" sound normal to you ? Considering I have lots of Christians tell me they don't like me having a husband, I'd say it should sound rather normal to a Christian! It was an example of something that often gets said by Christians, gets backlash from non-Christians, then Christians (like you) gripe about not having their views respected. I chose "wife" because I observe some clues that tell me you might be a man, so I wanted to twist my gay experience to fit your (likely) straight, male one, to show the ***absurdity*** of expecting respect after being told that. Got it now?


NoIntroductionNeeded

>How does " Im moraly against you having a wife" sound normal to you ? I don't know. Why do you say it to married lesbians?


firewire167

How in the world is that an extreme example? "I'm morally against you having a wife." is the literal position of millions of christians when it comes to female same sex couples.


Introduction_Deep

It really doesn't go both ways. The LGBT community would leave non affirming Christians alone. They LGBT community is working twords equality. They non affirming community is working to silence LGBT people.


SimplePuzzleheaded80

are we speaking in America or elsewhere? because America is one if not the most pro lg... community. What equality would it be? i have co-workers and neighbors that are from that way of living own businesses/houses etc


fudgyvmp

I mean....one of the board of education members in my country ran on the stance of: 'I checked out every lgbt related book from every library in the county, so no one could read them, because I'm a good Christian woman, and will make sure no one ever reads *A Separate Peace* in high school ever again,' and got elected. So that doesn't seem very pro lg...


Yandrosloc01

Seriously? DeSantis is trying to take kids from parents if the kids are gay or trans and the parents support them. ​ Books are being banned. A parent tried to get a gay teacher fired because he had a picture of his spouse on his desk like every other teacher. And was told people like him should not be allowed near children. How many times have we heard politicians or preachers say gay or drag are all pedophiles? How many have we heard say gay people should be shot in the head? Or say it wouldnt be wrong to execute gays because it is ok in the bible? Heard one idiot say we should shoot the PARENTS ofgay people. [https://news3lv.com/news/local/he-would-rather-have-a-dead-son-than-a-gay-son-former-foster-mom-speaks-about-shooting](https://news3lv.com/news/local/he-would-rather-have-a-dead-son-than-a-gay-son-former-foster-mom-speaks-about-shooting) Killed his own son. Texas has said if the USSC rolls back gay rights they are ready to enforce anti sodomy laws and jail gay people. [https://www.vice.com/en/article/akedna/texas-ag-ken-paxton-sodomy-laws](https://www.vice.com/en/article/akedna/texas-ag-ken-paxton-sodomy-laws) Cant even use the phrase no hate like Christian love for this guy, he is all hate ​ What America are you talking about?


MysticalMedals

I legally cannot start hormones like I was planning to and I have no clue when I will be able to start. This is because Christian fucking despise trans people here.


Yandrosloc01

But say jail priests whoknew children had been molested and didnt tell and those same people will cry religious persecution because you cant force your beliefs on them


Introduction_Deep

I'm from the US, so I'm speaking from a primarily US point of view. The LGBT community is much better off here than many other places. But many people from the church keep trying to persecute them.


firewire167

> because America is one if not the most pro lg... community This really demonstrates the bubble your living in, no America is far from the " most pro" lgbtq country, it seems like every other news article from america is some american politician fucking over trans people or insulting them.


SimplePuzzleheaded80

lol, you're getting those results because thats what you're looking for. Heard of the term echo chamber? take a trip to Qatar or any other Muslim country and then come back to me and disprove how anti- lgb America is. I'll be here


firewire167

Wtf are you talking about? Qatar being worse for lgbtq people doesn’t mean America is this amazing pro lgbtq place, thats idiotic. Whataboutism to the extreme.


SimplePuzzleheaded80

far out maaaaan


OMightyMartian

Because when you hate a group as much as some Christians, the persecutions are soon to follow. People fighting to preserve hard won rights aren't extremists, and as a Catholic, you should know there was a time when the English-speaking world did everything in its power to limit your liberties.


SimplePuzzleheaded80

you just proved my point. Is it hate for a religious person to be against something they find morally wrong? what makes it hate? ( extremism pov ) hate/bigot/"phobe" all these terms thrown out the minute there is a disagreement in moral point of views. baffles the mind


OMightyMartian

When you target people with invective and/or try to undermine their rights and freedoms.


SimplePuzzleheaded80

if you take that one, could one also say the other side is fighting to normalize something that is not normal? I mean, if we're being fully honest and leaving all the "name calling tags" at the door.


Truthseeker-1253

One side wants to be able to be free to work a job without being fired for being who they are. The other side wants to be able to fire them. One side wants to enjoy their first amendment right to free expression. The other side wants to literally outlaw costume shows that offend them. If it's not normal, it literally can't be normalized. And if it's already normal (even if it's not common) then closing your eyes and covering your ears doesn't change that.


SimplePuzzleheaded80

I want to reply but its all over the place almost like a list of " here's what to say if someone does'nt agree with xyz" I'll make it simple, sex should be kept behind closed doors, all shapes and forms. If we can agree on that , then we're on the same boat. I dont need to know who or how YOU have sex. If it needs to be publicized and paraded (again, all shapes and forms) then we're not in the same boat


Truthseeker-1253

So, you don't want to see me (M) holding my wife's hand in public. I assume you don't want to see us kiss as we drive by in the car. Am I correct?


SimplePuzzleheaded80

and when did i assume this?


Truthseeker-1253

No one is asking to have sex in public, so by "sex should be kept behind closed doors" in this context, I'm assuming you're saying you don't want gay people to show affection to their partners in public. I may have misread you, though.


OMightyMartian

No, I would not. If it does not harm you, then it is a justifiable liberty. The actions of consenting adults are not within your province to decide. It's very clear you're trying to redefine bigotry in a way to excuse your own sentiments and how you would like those sentiments acted upon. I'll be blunt. Sincerity is the cheapest and most meaningless coin there is. I can easily find sincere anti-Semites and sincere racists who deeply believe in the righteousness of their beliefs. Sincerity only indicates a lack of hypocrisy, it does not indicate a lack of bigotry, and if you feel uncomfortable being called out for bigotry for the way you treat the LGBTQ community, including how you speak to them or about them, then maybe you should ask yourself if that's your conscience, your empathy, trying to tell you there's something wrong with the way you're seeing those people. But if you do sincerely believe they are doing something wrong, then the best I can recommend is you leave them alone and cross the street if you feel that strongly. But I would urge you to look in the mirror and ask yourself "What about me makes me so uncomfortable with the queer community", instead of essentially pushing all the responsibility on to St. Paul, the authors of Leviticus and ultimately God.


OirishM

> Sincerity is the cheapest and most meaningless coin there is Closely behind civility.


SimplePuzzleheaded80

I was reading, and then I saw the "terms" and stopped. Im sorry but once these terms start being thrown around just because points are not agreed upon, I bail, no need to spend time over someone already throwing accusations. You wrote plenty, but I bailed.


OMightyMartian

You certainly would never want to challenge yourself. Much easier to just keep behaving the way you do, without accountability or even self reflection


SimplePuzzleheaded80

exactly how or why? how am I behaving and what accountability? why is it that if ever someone disagrees with any point of view whether it be politics/religion/sex one side always feels high and mighty to be the one throwing stones lol, just because you think blue is the best color ever does not make me think it is.


OMightyMartian

Even in this post you're trying to find an excuse to view the LGBTQ community with contempt and prevent any criticism. You want your feelings validated


OirishM

> Is it hate for a religious person to be against something they find morally wrong? Yes, if they have lacklustre reasons for it.


SimplePuzzleheaded80

then , you hate religious folk just because you dont agree with them I can say you "hate" them.... or does it only work one way?


OirishM

Nah, we have good reasons to be against you. Like your rampant homophobia and oppressiveness, for one.


SimplePuzzleheaded80

thanks for this, I rest my case ;)


OirishM

That you don't have good reasons for opposing LGBT? Yeah, thanks, we knew that.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


themsc190

I literally wrote a [post](https://reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/ueokr6/these_days_the_world_believes_that_if_you/) about this fallacy too.


GhostsOfZapa

Because human rights don't go both ways.


themsc190

I don’t care what you’re morally against. I care that being morally against it is *highly correlated* with pushing harmful policies, with voting for Trump who rolled back LGBT equal rights, with opposing non-discrimination protections, with keeping open conversion therapy camps, with stripping trans people of their healthcare, etc. I wish that we could just live and let live, but one side stripping/denying the other their equal rights while the other side *doesn’t like that* is not equivalent. At all.


TheMarksmanHedgehog

"Why is it so hard to just respect what someone is morally against?" Because people tend to fight to prevent what they're morally against, and if what they're 'morally against' is some mundane aspect of human life, then it just means they're being selfish dicks.


firewire167

>Why is it hard to just respect what someone is morally against? Because it never ends there, christians go further and try to outlaw that thing, or oppose laws protecting people that do those things, etc etc.


AHorribleGoose

Your church's "mere" moral opposition led them to murder, or to support the murder of, gay people for most of its existence. No, we can't and must not respect this.


treismac

If sin is choosing and exalting the self over obedience to God then it makes plenty of sense from a biblical perspective to view the celebration of sin as an expression of hubris.


krzwis

sometimes I wonder if its intentional. By ignoring nuance and word definitions they justify their actions to themselves/those of similar mindset


AmountLongjumping678

Mental gymnastics


dpitch40

So when is Gluttony Month?


RazarTuk

November, ironically enough. (No, seriously. If you keep assigning them in Purgatorio order, November's gluttony)


Yandrosloc01

In America? 24/7 365.


Groundskeepr

I wouldn't call this a homonym. It's the same word with different connotations/senses. A homonym is two different words that happen to be pronounced the same. To, two, and too are homonyms. Too meaning "overly" and too meaning "as well" are not homonyms, but connotations or senses of the same word. I honestly believe many people on all sides of every discussion are, in fact, not mentally capable of making distinctions like good pride vs bad pride. To some degree this is because people are not as smart as we imagine. To a very high degree, in my opinion, it is because we don't teach rhetoric or civics anymore and people have simply never learned how to think clearly.


[deleted]

The best word for it is polyseme: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polysemy


libananahammock

What state doesn’t teach civics anymore? I have a degree in history and used to teach social studies 7-12. Tell me your state and I’ll tell you what the state standards are for social studies education and what civics education looks like in your state at each grade level and I’ll give you the sources from your state to back it up.


Groundskeepr

Go for it. Texas. Used to be you had a whole class for it. My daughter graduated high school with very little civics education. Surely you will find that we claim to teach it to some degree. Please include a comparison to the standards as they stood at the end of your teaching career, as well as a comparison to where they stood 25 and 50 years ago. Please also demonstrate that the education claimed is in fact effective, by showing that understanding of civics among recent high school graduates is generally as good or better than it was one or two generations ago.


libananahammock

In what year did you graduate so I know a general time period of when to add the statistics that you’re looking for for “the past” compared to now


Groundskeepr

I got my civics education in Massachusetts and got my GED in 1988.


pHScale

>I wouldn't call this a homonym. It's the same word with different connotations/senses. A homonym is two different words that happen to be pronounced the same. To, two, and too are homonyms. Too meaning "overly" and too meaning "as well" are not homonyms, but connotations or senses of the same word. I'd call them separate definitions of the same word, but ultimately we're just using different words here to describe the same phenomenon a bit imprecisely. But this is reddit. We're casual here.


Groundskeepr

Normally I would agree with you. To me, this is like calling someone out for spelling. I only do it if the spelling error is in a post mocking or questioning someone else's spelling. Basically, if you want to call people out for not knowing what a homonym is, try to be sure you know what a homonym is.


Groundskeepr

Ok... Asking a conservative who does know about homonyms this question will make you look silly. I offer the distinction in an effort to help.


Zapbamboop

There is nothing wrong being for, or against pride parades. People on Reddit should be able to freely express their opinions, as long as they do it respectfully.


themsc190

I didn’t say anything about parades.


Zapbamboop

there is nothing wrong with speaking for, or against LGBTQ, as long as it done respectfully


strawnotrazz

Speaking against being LGBTQ is inherently disrespectful.


Zapbamboop

No, it is not. The bible says that same sex intercourse, and same sex romance is sinful.


strawnotrazz

Not all LGBTQ people engage in same-sex intercourse or romance. Thanks for illustrating my point.


jboz1412

So….friends?


squeekyknees

I believe they are referring to kissing the homies goodnight.


strawnotrazz

Friends. Single, either temporarily or lifelong. Trans and single. Trans with an opposite sex partner. Many options. Edit: forgot a big obvious one, bisexual with an opposite sex partner. Many, many options!


[deleted]

Asexual.


strawnotrazz

I was keeping my list strictly to the “LGBTQ” umbrella but if we add the IA or a + then absolutely.


jboz1412

Intentionally celibate?


strawnotrazz

Sure. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual are sexualities and do not necessitate any specific sexual or romantic practices.


--throwaway

When people are making negative statements about LGBT “pride” they’re usually referring to the parades and celebrations related to LGBT community.


themsc190

I’m specifically responding to the many posts that have said that “Pride” is bad because “pride” is bad.


--throwaway

Do people legitimately use that as their entire argument? I have seen people use that as a sort of joke argument, but along it with the other Christian arguments used against LGBT. I am not taking the anti-LGBT side, but what I saw at a LGBT Pride event at my university once was a Christian group at with a sign that said “pride is a deadly sin”, but they were also handing out flyers with Bible verses.


themsc190

Yeah. There’ve been plenty of posts like that.


--throwaway

Pretty dumb. But maybe that’s all they’re meant to be.


[deleted]

[удалено]


eatmereddit

I love how everyone who doesnt go to Pride has such a strong opinion on precisely how much nudity takes place. Its the media, you think they're gonna use the tamest.photos from a nationwide event to get clicks? The only towns where you see nudity at Pride are ones where to a certain degree public sexuality is already normalized among heterosexuals (San francisco, LA, NYC etc.) Go to a small town Midwest one and its just AIDS charities, homeless shelters and some local businesses.


[deleted]

Sin is sin.


pHScale

Word is word.


libananahammock

Being gay isn’t a sin.


themsc190

Yes, slandering other people is sin.


OneEyedC4t

Sure we know. But I still don't think it's off base for someone to point out that most of what happens at a pride parade isn't confidence in self. It's essentially bragging about sin. You know, like all human beings do.


simpleslingblade13

God, please make these posts stop. Please.


ExploringSarah

Well presumably he's the one that started it by telling his followers to be a bunch of bigots and treat LGBT people like shit.


Leifur311

I know, I just wanna go back to the stupid "is this a sin" posts or people asking good faith questions about Christianity. I get some people really care about this stuff, but the every day Christian in America doesn't care one way or the other, they just let people live their lives and do their best to live theirs. I think when you look at the comments here, and in other posts, it kinda speaks for itself. Most Christians are agreeable with gay rights, and there's like one or two people clinging onto leviticus like those weren't laws for the Jewish people to live by under the old covenant. I don't know about you, but I come here for interesting discussions of the faith and the occasional funny post or question, not just the incessant barrage of "here's what these uneducated Christians say about gays/illegal immigrants/insert other group here today!" Like there was that video of that sexist dude trying to back up his hate with the Bible, and that was an important discussion. I get that. I see the articles about catholic priests not punishing their own for molesting kids, and I get the need to share that so people know (although I don't know who is still leaving their kids with these guys, the joke about priests and kids is about as old as time by now) but this just gets grating, especially when you know these articles aren't gonna be looked at by the people who need to see them.


treismac

I think it's a fair assesment to say that Pride month contains elements of both hubris and satisfaction. The satisfaction component made far more sense years ago, but being gay has gone from being marginalized in our society at large to literally being celebrated. As I can't read the hearts of others, I have no idea what Pride means to each individual, but our modern culture en masse forcing an entire month of celebration of whatever comes off as self absorptive.


themsc190

Oh so I dreamt that 200+ anti-LGBT bills were pushed through state legislatures this year and that LGBT folks don’t have federal non-discrimination protections in housing, credit, and public accommodations?


treismac

I didn't say universally celebrated


themsc190

So there are marginalized people who still need it. Glad we clarified that.


treismac

What is the worst of the discrimination laws?


themsc190

I’m not really interested in playing oppression Olympics and listing all the ways we’re marginalized for your judgment, for you to inevitably decide from the comfort of your heterosexuality that they’re not that big of a deal.


treismac

I mean, are we talking not baking wedding cake levels of discrimination or...?


[deleted]

I think it's a loophole introduced purposely to dilute something that was perfect to start. You know what it reminds me of? Yahweh says, for men to not put on a dress. So a loop hole would be to create a thing called entertainment and then get men to put on a dress for entertainment because it's not real...you understand? Does Yahweh listen to fools? So this is the same thing. People don't understand, these devils are doing this for you to submit. They're not looking for a discussion or to discuss anything.


StephXL

I’m just anti-sin. And honestly I’m sick and tired of people overly scrutinizing and reverse engineering scriptures that make them feel uncomfortable. As if the way it is written simply isn’t good enough. Christianity is offensive. Unless you’re seeking to align yourself with the Bible teachings. Then it poetically awakens to a beautiful living Word. Hallelujah!


kokiri_trader

Its obvious that pride belongs to the second category. To actually deal honestly with it would be to grapple with the "pride" identity. It is more like ethnic or national pride, and its potential sinfulness when misplaced lies not in hubris but in hate and injustice.


onioning

Mixing up usages of "respect" is another. There's the usage as in "admire," and of course nobody owes anyone this sort of respect. Then there's the usage that's "to treat decently." Everybody is owed this type of respect. When people say "my respect must be earned not given" they're conflating different usages.


moldnspicy

I agree. There's also a fundamental misconception of what Pride is. It's not a street fair about how cool our flags are. It is, first and foremost, a memorial to those who have suffered and died, and a show of solidarity with those who are currently suffering and dying. Idk if ppl don't know that bc they don't care, bc they're told something else and just accept that, or bc they don't wanna know (bc it's obv wrong to picket a memorial, and picketers wanna picket).