Does the word phobia mean anything anymore?

[Elixir]

Just recently got censored by our national media page CBC, for pointing out the fact that phobias are a real mental disorder that affect the lives of those inflicted, often being debilitating. By making up words such as transphobic or Islamaphobia when what should be said is bigoted, fear mongering or discriminatory, are we not demeaning those that have phobias? (Contents were disabled)
To me this is just lazy journalism, society control, or PR for those involved. Am I missing something?

The word phobia is thrown around far too readily. It like called someone racist, sexist etc. When you call them that that is supposed to end the conversation by displaying your alleged superiority. It's just lazy, controlling and disrespectful.

I agree with all of that. However the reality is that it's accepted vernacular - like calling the idea of George Soros illuminati baby pizza cannibals a conspiracy "theory".
That's a real insult to actual theories.

 

[OLDMAN]

Yeah, theory...now there's a misused word. Maybe I have to accept the changes.....my other option was to conquer the earth and rule things my way...

So get ready for Naziphobic, Trumpphobic, peoplephobic bullshit to take over the world.

 

[Rhea]

As my son would say, “MOM! Why are you willing to stand in the way of evolution!!?!”

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Yeah, theory...now there's a misused word. Maybe I have to accept the changes.....my other option was to conquer the earth and rule things my way...

So get ready for Naziphobic, Trumpphobic, peoplephobic bullshit to take over the world.

It would probably be magaphobic.

It's hard to understand what naziphobia would entail exactly.
"They told me they absolutely will not sell Mein Kampf at their bookstore, naziphobic fucks."
"You think you know discrimination? They refused to serve me at Red Lobster just because I was wearing a Swastika armband. Blatant naziphobia."

 

[OLDMAN]

Yeah, theory...now there's a misused word. Maybe I have to accept the changes.....my other option was to conquer the earth and rule things my way...

So get ready for Naziphobic, Trumpphobic, peoplephobic bullshit to take over the world.

It would probably be magaphobic.

It's hard to understand what naziphobia would entail exactly.
"They told me they absolutely will not sell Mein Kampf at their bookstore, naziphobic fucks."
"You think you know discrimination? They refused to serve me at Red Lobster just because I was wearing a Swastika armband. Blatant naziphobia."

Facebook wouldn't publish a joke because it contained a pic of Hitler, even though the joke was about him.

 

[Elixir]

It would probably be magaphobic.

Is that the same thing as antifaphilic?


View attachment 29314

 

[Politesse]

I definitely do not like it when people use the language of mental health to characterize and pathologize their political opponents. It's dishonest, and it contributes to the stigmatization of true mental health disorders. The only person qualified to comment on what mental disorders you may or may not have are you and your care network, and you should never be obliged to disclose that information against your will.

It also does no good. If some leftist hellion is out on the street calling people homophobic, that doesn't make me or my partner any safer. It's more likely to actively endanger us.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I definitely do not like it when people use the language of mental health to characterize and pathologize their political opponents. It's dishonest, and it contributes to the stigmatization of true mental health disorders. The only person qualified to comment on what mental disorders you may or may not have are you and your care network, and you should never be obliged to disclose that information against your will.

It also does no good. If some leftist hellion is out on the street calling people homophobic, that doesn't make me or my partner any safer. It's more likely to actively endanger us.

But they're not using the language of mental health. They're using non-medical terms which are in the common parlance. The fact that it used to be a mental health term is irrelevant to its current usage. It's like if you call someone an idiot. You're saying that they're stupid and the fact that the word used to be a distinct professional diagnosis of specifically measured range of IQ has no bearing on anything that you're saying.

 

[Politesse]

I definitely do not like it when people use the language of mental health to characterize and pathologize their political opponents. It's dishonest, and it contributes to the stigmatization of true mental health disorders. The only person qualified to comment on what mental disorders you may or may not have are you and your care network, and you should never be obliged to disclose that information against your will.

It also does no good. If some leftist hellion is out on the street calling people homophobic, that doesn't make me or my partner any safer. It's more likely to actively endanger us.

But they're not using the language of mental health. They're using non-medical terms which are in the common parlance. The fact that it used to be a mental health term is irrelevant to its current usage. It's like if you call someone an idiot. You're saying that they're stupid and the fact that the word used to be a distinct professional diagnosis of specifically measured range of IQ has no bearing on anything that you're saying.

Phobias are not obsolete language.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I definitely do not like it when people use the language of mental health to characterize and pathologize their political opponents. It's dishonest, and it contributes to the stigmatization of true mental health disorders. The only person qualified to comment on what mental disorders you may or may not have are you and your care network, and you should never be obliged to disclose that information against your will.

It also does no good. If some leftist hellion is out on the street calling people homophobic, that doesn't make me or my partner any safer. It's more likely to actively endanger us.

But they're not using the language of mental health. They're using non-medical terms which are in the common parlance. The fact that it used to be a mental health term is irrelevant to its current usage. It's like if you call someone an idiot. You're saying that they're stupid and the fact that the word used to be a distinct professional diagnosis of specifically measured range of IQ has no bearing on anything that you're saying.

Phobias are not obsolete language.

Nor are they the common usage of language, at least in the cases being mentioned. You can't randomly decide that people are using words wrong when everyone listening to them has 100% understanding of what they're saying when they use that word because that's simply not how words work. They are terms used to convey meaning and there is zero doubt about the meaning being conveyed when the words are used and that's what using words properly means. It doesn't mean parsing out the the parts of the words, understanding the etymology of them or anything like that. It means that when somebody produces a sound, you have absolute clarity of what concept they are trying to convey with that sound.

When somebody calls someone homophobic, neither they, you or anyone else listening has any doubt whatsoever what they are trying to say. That's what language is all about and that's what they're doing properly. When you then come along and say that they are doing it wrong, you are actually the one who's incorrect because you're advancing a false notion that the meaning of words doesn't change over time.

Also, your contention that homophobes make an outward display of panic and run away when encountering homosexuals seems a bit spurious and I really can't see what you're basing that on. I'm sure that's what you're trying to say and you're not using an updated definition of the term phobia where it refers to an irrational fear, because it would be a bit odd to take the position that it could change to that but then not change to anything else afterwards, unless you have some kind of Amish view of linguistics where everything was perfect in 1856 and must never change after that.

 

[Jarhyn]

Phobias are not obsolete language.

Nor are they the common usage of language, at least in the cases being mentioned. You can't randomly decide that people are using words wrong when everyone listening to them has 100% understanding of what they're saying when they use that word because that's simply not how words work. They are terms used to convey meaning and there is zero doubt about the meaning being conveyed when the words are used and that's what using words properly means. It doesn't mean parsing out the the parts of the words, understanding the etymology of them or anything like that. It means that when somebody produces a sound, you have absolute clarity of what concept they are trying to convey with that sound.

When somebody calls someone homophobic, neither they, you or anyone else listening has any doubt whatsoever what they are trying to say. That's what language is all about and that's what they're doing properly. When you then come along and say that they are doing it wrong, you are actually the one who's incorrect because you're advancing a false notion that the meaning of words doesn't change over time.

Also, your contention that homophobes make an outward display of panic and run away when encountering homosexuals seems a bit spurious and I really can't see what you're basing that on. I'm sure that's what you're trying to say and you're not using an updated definition of the term phobia where it refers to an irrational fear, because it would be a bit odd to take the position that it could change to that but then not change to anything else afterwards, unless you have some kind of Amish view of linguistics where everything was perfect in 1856 and must never change after that.

I've tried for years to explain this to people who are too old or too stupid to get it.

I make sure to point out that the fundamental purpose of words is to transmit an idea, and if someone understands the idea given the context of a use, that is a correct use of language and words. None of the "rules" of grammer or denotation mean anything so long as you accomplish that aim, and continue accomplishing it. They also don't mean a thing even if you use them "properly" and don't manage to transmit your idea.

Communication always supercedes all other rules of language.

 

[Politesse]

Phobias are not obsolete language.

Nor are they the common usage of language, at least in the cases being mentioned. You can't randomly decide that people are using words wrong when everyone listening to them has 100% understanding of what they're saying when they use that word because that's simply not how words work. They are terms used to convey meaning and there is zero doubt about the meaning being conveyed when the words are used and that's what using words properly means. It doesn't mean parsing out the the parts of the words, understanding the etymology of them or anything like that. It means that when somebody produces a sound, you have absolute clarity of what concept they are trying to convey with that sound.

When somebody calls someone homophobic, neither they, you or anyone else listening has any doubt whatsoever what they are trying to say. That's what language is all about and that's what they're doing properly. When you then come along and say that they are doing it wrong, you are actually the one who's incorrect because you're advancing a false notion that the meaning of words doesn't change over time.

Also, your contention that homophobes make an outward display of panic and run away when encountering homosexuals seems a bit spurious and I really can't see what you're basing that on. I'm sure that's what you're trying to say and you're not using an updated definition of the term phobia where it refers to an irrational fear, because it would be a bit odd to take the position that it could change to that but then not change to anything else afterwards, unless you have some kind of Amish view of linguistics where everything was perfect in 1856 and must never change after that.

You are over-interpreting my post to a severe degree. I said almost none of those things, nor agree with them.