Quote:
Originally Posted by Toy Soldier
It's not out of context though, the tent pole of your entire argument is "starving children in africa" logic.
That is,
Person A: "*rumble* ooohhh I'm hungry, it doesn't feel good to be hungry."
Person B: "Hungry? You're HUNGRY?? You, privileged westerner with money in your pocket and a cupboard full of food, are hungry? There are starving children in Africa whose stomachs are swolen and whose bones are brittle because of malnourishment. And you think you know what it's like to be hungry? You're not hungry, lmao, it's ridiculous."
In truth, person A is in fact still hungry, and it still doesn't feel good to be hungry. Is it something that causes them pain every day? Does it have a major impact on their life like it does the starving child? No of course not. But that's irrelevant to the word and to the fact that it doesn't feel good.
Like person A can experience hunger without lessening the plight of starving child B, heterosexual A can experience the mild hurt of directed heterophobic comments without lessening the plight of homosexual B.
THAT is where false equivalency comes into this; the assumption that because "heterophobia" and "homophobia" are similar terms, there is an implication that they are similar in severity and consequence, and therefore that the very existence of the word heterophobia is offensive and somehow weakens the word homophobia. ... In reality there is no such implication and the imagined equivalency is reactionary.
|
How can ANYONE not understand the point you have made here?
