Gungeonites - Heads up on the word Hoplophobic

[Wickerman]

hoplophobia, etc. It should go without saying, but apparently it doesn't, that usage of the word IS a personal attack. When we have personal attacks we have have to award alert deletions. Those go down on your permanent record.

Remember that when you refer to an individual poster with a derogatory term that is a Personal Attack. Hoplophobia can only be deemed a negative or derogatory term.

I'll leave this open briefly for comment, then lock it and we can direct our attention back to the center ring of the circus.

[Superfly]

1. So...

how do we characterize the responses that somebody makes that are hoplophobic, homophobic, or triskadekaphobic?

[Wickerman]

6. When you show me your MD in Psychiatry

I'll assert you are qualified to make medical diagnosis - on a poster or a post. Until you receive your degree, the pseudo-psychology should be confined to your personal cogitations.

When you are a qualified shrink, it is my hope that you follow the Hippocratic oath and not diagnosis someone over a message board strictly by their responses, nor assign such value to their responses. And then, of course, no such diagnosis should be made in PUBLIC.

[Superfly]

9. OK...psych assesments aside...

what if I just call a person's response "stupid", etc?

[Wickerman]

12. that would be a personal attack

it focuses on the messenger, not the message

[Superfly]

14. Not to put to fine a point on it....

but if I said: "Your response that compares the capabilites of King Kong to Godzilla is stupid", that would be considered a personal attack?

[Wickerman]

18. No, Bob, that would be a waste of time

and I would ding it for being off topic. :P

No, the rule is meant for egregious cases. If someone showed me in an alert how it truly offended them that King Kong was getting dissed I would take it to the mod cabana to see if the consensus was that it was, indeed, a PA.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[waylon]

3. what does it mean? nt

[Superfly]

4. Fear of guns

[waylon]

8. thankya

[Redneck Socialist]

10. From Wikipedia

Hoplophobia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Hoplophobia (pronounced HOP-li-fobia), from the Greek hoplon, or weapon, is an invented phobia coined by firearms instructor Jeff Cooper in 1962. His intent was to suggest that those who view the unusual widespread possession of guns in the US as harmful to society and cannot be persuaded otherwise are mentally ill, so their arguments should be ignored. He suggested that "the most common manifestation of hoplophobia is the idea that instruments possess a will of their own, apart from that of their user'".

[Dolomite]

22. here ya go

http://www.changethatsrightnow.com/problem_detail.asp?PhobiaID=1603&SDID=1434

edited to add: It truly is a sad condition to see someone languishing in – worthy of anyone’s utmost sincere empathy. In short - it's not fair to pick on people suffering from it. I mean you wouldn't celebrate the accidental death of a hunter as "a good start" unless you were neck-deep in this particular disorder, right? It wouldn't hurt anybody if a little pity was thrown the way of these folks really.

[Qutzupalotl]

5. that would be *unnatural* fear of guns.

It's quite normal to be afraid of a gun when someone's angry and pointing it at you.

[RoeBear]

27. It's perfectly acceptable to be...

...afraid of what a person threatening you might do with a weapon. Any weapon. What is over the edge in my book is just being afraid of the weapon itself.

Case in point: I forget where I read this but someone related a story of his mother in law refusing to sleep in the spare bedroom because there was a gun safe in it. Now I only wish that my MIL were that easy to get rid of , but that seems to describe someone with Hoplophobia.

[waylon]

7. Its not in the dictionary yet.....maybe you should suggest it Luna n/t

[Wickerman]

20. not for me

I've got a background in psychology - it doesn't meet my critieria for an accurate definition.

[Liberal Classic]

11. If this is considered a personal attack, then

Suggesting that gun owners have a 'fetish' or some other vague Freudian analysis relating to alledged insufficient genetalia likewise should be construed as a personal attack.


:)

[-..__...]

15. That was my next question.

Only I hadn't planned on posting it quite so eloquently. :)

[Wickerman]

16. And it is

when it is directed to an indiviudal poster.

[Liberal Classic]

21. So, referring to hoplophobes or gun fetishites is okay

But calling an individual poster a hoplophobe or gun fetishist is not. Though you've not asked for my opinion, the distinction between attacking groups versus attacking individuals is artificial at best and at worst is used to violate the spirit of the rules. Take a hypothetical example, if someone were to say something along the general lines that gun owners don't like uppity women and blacks, such a comment is clearly against the group. However, when painting with such a broad brush it is impossible to not pigment individuals in the process. It is too easy for any poster to skirt the posting rules launch insults disguised as criticism I believe a policy of "attack groups not individuals" is inferior to one that requires criticism of ideas.

That having been said, I have thick skin and not run to the moderators on a regular basis. I can take a certian amount of needling, and everybody here expects an amount of brusing. That's part of online political fora. I just think the "attacks against groups" needs to be refactored as "attacks against ideas."

[Wickerman]

23. you make strong points

And ones that Admin argues for and against when the bi-weekly discussion of group attacks is raised. For now, group attacks tend to stay.

When attacking a group instead of ideas the line gets pretty fine. Each instance is different and requires a judgment call that gets finer and finer as the distinction gets less and less notable. I would view it differently than, say Dwickham. All the mods together would not come to consensus. And, ultimately, discussion would suffer more than it does. If someone uses the broad brush against your liking, the ignore feature is only a click away.

BTW - I appreciate your thick skin! :)

[Liberal Classic]

29. Well, there's some grist for the mill

I get kind of sick of all the gun control flames anyhow. Personally I believe the prohibition is a more important issue and I'd rather see topics on it, but I guess it's no fun if we all agree. :)

[-..__...]

13. Calling someone a "holopobe" is a personal attack...

what about calling someone a "gun nut"?

Holophobe = An unnatural fear of firearms.

Gun Nut = An unnatural obsession with firearms.

Both are (can be) used in a derogatory manner.

Both are subject the poster being able to make a qualified determination.
(Medical terminology aside, a label/diagnosis, is being applied based on a persons fear or fondness of firearms).

I take the use of either terms applies only to personal attacks?

Pluralizing them is acceptable as in holphobes or gun nuts?

[Wickerman]

17. Regretfully so

Group attacks are allowed - but that has been discussed many times here.

[-..__...]

19. Put another way...

It's a collective .vs individual reading or interpretation
(likewise discussed many times here). :)

[DoNotRefill]

25. So...

it's okay to call anti-gunners as a class hoplophobic, but just not specific anti-gunners?

For example, "what bothers me about anti-gunners who put forth drivel-ridden arguments like yours is their general hoplophobia" should be acceptable, while "your hoplophobic argument is drivel" would not be acceptable?

Is this correct?

[Wickerman]

24. And, to add/clarify, Gun Nut has lost its meaning

as a negative.

http://www.madville.com/link.php?id=51325&t=20

WEAPONS OF CHOICE
Ted Nugent endorses 'Gun Nut' ice cream
Firearm-rights advocate hooks up with company battling Ben & Jerry's

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 7, 2003

[Dolomite]

26. Let’s not

go referring to people, or groups of people, as “ice cream” too lightly here:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/food/132838_tf230.html

[-..__...]

30. Poor example.

You're using one persons word usage to make a point.
That's hardly compelling justification to say that the term has magically
become acceptable.

It's no more convincing or justified than pointing out that same individual and citing him as an example that gun owners and members of the NRA are racist.

Not that I have a problem with being refereed to as a "gun nut", it just seems like this whole thread opens up grey areas of what's acceptable
by definition and what's not.

[Wickerman]

32. Correction

I am using one person's endorsement of a product produced by an entire company, supported by several other gun orgs:

"According to the statement, the company has partnered with Nugent and Gun Owners of America in the promotion of Gun Nut. The firm plans to donate $1 from the sale of each quart of Gun Nut to the educational work of the Gun Owners Foundation Gun Safety Project. Nugent, who heads United Sportsmen of America, works closely with GOA.

Star Spangled Ice Cream Company sells its product via its website. Besides Gun Nut, flavors include I Hate the French Vanilla, Nutty Environmentalist, Iraqi Road and Smaller Govern-mint. Star Spangled donates 10 percent of the profits from the sale of its original four flavors to charities supporting the U.S. Armed Forces."

Reason number 3,467 that we should be banning the use of RW sources, huh?

[-..__...]

35. So, then it becomes who uses a "negative" term and in what manner...

it is used, whom it is used by and whom it is directed towards. My impression of the above is that it's meant in parody and/or mockery. As I posted, I'm not the least bit insulted by being called a "gun nut". However, I do know a number of gun owners who would be pissed or insulted
by being called that.

[Wickerman]

36. Please see post 34

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=40764&mesg_id=40800&page=

[DoNotRefill]

33. Not true....

"gun nut" has been adopted by some pro-gun people, but it still has a very negative connotation in most circumstances. This often happens...just look at the prevalence of the N word in hip-hop culture. In certain circumstances, said by certain people, the N word isn't seen as being particularly offensive. Under other circumstances, it's use is sure to start a brawl. Same deal with gun nut. If one "gun nut" calls another "gun nut" a "gun nut" in a friendly manner, it's not offensive. If somebody else uses it as a term of derision, "them's fighting words."

[Wickerman]

34. Right you are, of course

and forgive me for pre-supposing that I could try to keep things light with what I intended as humor among fellow posters.

My apologies.

And now, fair warning, I am going to close this thread before I get myself in further trouble.

Thank you for your discussion of this issue, one and all.

:hi:

[RoeBear]

28. My turn...

...I can be called 'obssesive' for posting frequently on the JPS forum
and that's ok; but if I suggest someone should visit

http://www.changethatsrightnow.com/problem_detail.asp?PhobiaID=1603&SDID=1434

that is wrong, right?

[Wickerman]

31. Edited

no, you shouldn't be called obsessive - and posting that link in reference to a specific poster will get a ding.

I'm not interested in washing all the laundry here. If you have a specific issue, PM me.