Track and Cambridge

Haha, I know I'm not that hypersensitive really

*cackles* -- THAT wasn't even directed at you! Hypersensitive? (It was directed at LJoll -- I'd assumed you'd understood the joke...)

Yes, but if you flip the phrase over and say "I know someone who's gay, he's really annoying" does that make you a raging homophobe? Of course not, it just means you have a problem with that particular person. Hence, the argument doesn't stand up at all. I'm ashamed of myself

I think that's generally because that statement is usually followed by "I just don't like [insert homophobic comment on gay stereotypes]". It is possible to be a homophobe and have gay friends, it's just less noticeable than the kind of homophobe who thinks, for example, that all homosexuals are going to hell.

Am not attacking you, by the way -- just the phrase! (And anyway, it was only meant as a joke, intially!)

Sorry to pedantic, but that is simply not true at all. While the fact that you don't like a gay person hardly shows that you are prejudiced towards homosexuals, the fact that you DO like some gay people IS at least some indication that you don't hate all homosexuals.

It is possible to be homophobic and have gay friends, but I think that the fact that you have gay friends shows that you have at least some respect for them.

*snore* please take this English-fest to the appropriate place!!

Besides, the problem with the statement is that it is too often used in a very general sense - a lot of the time, the 'friend' turns out to be a friend of a cousin's stepbrother who they've spoken to once at a party. It's an argument that's overused and overly generalised.

Exactly. If your problem with the argument is that the friendship is often tenuous at best, you surely must admit that the argument carries weight if the friendship is genuine.

Hmm, not really. The problem, in many cases, seems to be that people "allow" themselves to be friends with this or that person (who happens to be gay/black/white/whatever group we're talking about) by basically ignoring that part of them. It does in no way imply a 'respect' for that whole group of people (or for that characteristic). It simply indicates an ability to ignore an aspect of a person, because they realise that person is actually pretty cool. The problem comes in when they don't realise that almost everyone in that group will have "pretty cool" features too, and that their gayness/black skin/whatever isn't necessarily their defining feature.

That is, whilst you might have respect for that one person, this does not translate to a more general respect (or, more importantly perhaps, an awareness of the probable-falsity of whatever generalisation is being made).

But why on earth would you respect a whole group of people? Of course they would not have a more general respect for gay people, but isn't the whole problem with prejudice the fact that people are judged as a whole group rather than individuals? If someone respects their gay friend but does not extrapolate the friends characteristics across the entire gay population they are not ignoring an aspect of them, they are judging them without prejudice and as an individual with their own qualities.

It is possible to be homophobic and have gay friends, but I think that the fact that you have gay friends shows that you have at least some respect for them.

But this has now gone waaaaaay off the point! (After a jokey remark...)

Hi, my track offer does not mention the university matriculation requirements, which is good because I don't satisfy them. My college head explained that I didn't take a language other than English at GCSE, but there has been no mention of it at all; however, I did get an offer so I assume its okay. I was just wondering whether they usually put that you need to satisfy those requirements on the track offer and I was okay, or whether I should contact them to make sure.

Apologies, JLoll, I misunderstood your post:


My bad.

Your argument makes good sense up to a point, but then I think a problem arises.
If we take it (for now) that the thing we object to follows this formula:

Massive generalisation about Group X [generalisation about Characteristic X]
+
But I'm not prejudiced against Group X [Defence X]
+
Evidence for lack of prejudice = Group X Friend [Friend X],

then the problem is not the lack of respect/liking/understanding for Friend X. The problem is the inability or unwillingness to concede that the thing that makes Friend X 'acceptable' (despite Characteristic X) might also apply to many other members of the group, therefore making Generalisation X entirely invalid. It's the generalisation, followed by a defence and an undermining, that is irritating.

Liking someone with Characteristic X is great. Continuing to make massive assumptions about the group of people with the same characteristic is not.

But this has now gone waaaaaay off the point! (After a jokey remark...)

Fair enough. I guess it just slightly irritates me when overly politically correct people (not that I'm accusing you of this at all) raise an enormous fuss about something that isn't even at all racist/classist and you have to take a step back and say "wait a minute you and all your friends are white middle-class people pontificating and I actually know and deeply respect many of the people you claim to be defending". While I'm totally against racism and most discrimination, it annoys me when people become completely detached from the reality of the situations and yet come up with more and more ludicrous things under their own increasing momentum, which seems to be what's happened with political correctness. It kind of makes me think of people who claim to be communists, yet spend their entire lives writing books that only other people with exactly the same views and beliefs read and no real progress occurs.

I agree, actually.
But you must have come across the "...but one of my best friends is gay [etc.]!" line, in a situation where that phrase is essentially used as a disclaimer for the homophobic

The worst thing about political correctness (and most politics incidentally) is that people seem to think that carefully chosen but fundamentally empty gestures are far more important than reality. I don't care if a politician is having numerous affairs, puts rocket fuel in his car and is a generally horrible person, as long as he can make the world a better place.