Calling Someone a “Phobe” is Not a Winning Argument
Do Better.
If you’ve ever been on social media and seen a comment you got really excited about responding to like, “OH BOY! I’ve got him now!” And the next thing you write is, “that’s transphobic!”, and hit send like you just hit a walk off home run, I’m talking about you.
The “phobe” style of argument is used as if it’s somehow different than just sticking your thumbs in your ears and saying nanabooboo. It’s not. It’s as sophisticated as kindergarten name calling but with less thought put into the insult.
“Oh someone said something unapproved. My programming says to call them [insert -ist or -phobe].” Ok powering down. Done thinking for the day.
It didn’t make sense to call people who think marriage should be between a man and a woman homophobic either, but that never stopped you did it?
You think these terms are imbued with some sort of moral weight. They aren’t. They don’t even make sense. Which of course isn’t the point. It’s just me and my stubborn notion that words have meanings and should be used appropriately.
Phobe, or phobia, means fear of. Nobody is afraid of gays or trans people. I don’t care how many times you’ve seen it in movies, not everyone is secretly a repressed homosexual. Arguing by name calling is lame, and because these names are inaccurate, they don’t hold any weight with their target either.
So if the power of your insults is less formidable than a butterfly landing on a flower, what should you do instead?
Maybe take a step back and realize that screaming at people that men can get pregnant makes you the radical. Maybe you have no problem believing men have periods. OK cool. But you can’t expect 350 million people to just suddenly say, “oh yeah of course.” If you want to upend 50,000 years of human history, and frankly logic, then maybe be a bit more humble about it.
Because to be honest you come across as a crazy zealot. Like you imagine you’re the righteous defender for this poor beleaguered group of victims. When in reality you’re exploiting marginalized people to fulfill your white knight fantasy. As if you’re trying to give meaning to your unchallenging life by searching desperately for some cause to champion. But rather than go do something real like join the military, police, go to Ukraine, or even go personally do something to help the homeless, you call people names online.
That’s how it comes across at least.
Also, try crediting other people with motives other than hate or being afraid to discover their repressed desire to bang someone of the same sex. That doesn’t do anything but piss people off because, like calling someone a phobe, it’s not true. People who oppose this sudden redefinition of everything don’t hate anyone. Most of them couldn’t care less what someone chooses to do with their body or who they have sex with.
The problem comes when you try to force people to believe things they don’t agree with. To make them affirm things they don’t believe.
Imagine taking seriously someone who said, “If you don’t say the Lord’s prayer before dinner, you are being an insensitive bigot. Just do it so the Christians aren’t uncomfortable.”
You can do what you want. You can believe what you want. You become the evil totalitarian when you demand I also believe it, or else.
So vital and fundamental is this cause you just started caring about last week, you demand anyone who doesn’t agree be deplatformed, silenced and shunned from society for daring to say no. You have the backing of big tech and the government to try and make that happen. I think there’s a word for that sort of thing. Where government and business work together to enforce uniform messaging and bar dissent. I can’t quite place my finger on it but I think it starts with “f” and ends with “acism”. I swear I’ve heard it a lot lately
