My Run- In With Homophobia from a (Former) DC/Marvel Inker

[Matt.S99]

^ I also think that's better.

 

[Kaleb]

I'll trace an outline over your dead effing body.

 

[Silvermoth]

I would be fascinated to find out what marvel and dc's diversity agreements actually say. They might be a lot like the ones in australia where people sign them but nothing really bad happens to them if they say something sexist, racist or homophobic.

That said they might also be really good which is why I want to read them. I honestly don't know what they're like so it would be interesting.

Anyway, I'm sorry to hear about your experience OP

 

[DeadPresident]

I’m sure I’ll get ripped to shreds for this, but here we go:

I think what Destructus86 was alluding to is the notion that this idea that demanding consequences for someone’s actions is a fine line, what that in this day and age is steadily beginning to encroach on freedom of speech. We live in a society where people are LOOKING to be offended so they can rip someone else apart, and where the “consequence” quite often is far more severe than the actual offense deserves. This thread is a perfect example: a troll on facebook – one of millions on a daily basis – makes a few hateful comments at batboy99 during an internet fight. Now, several people here are calling for this guy to lose his job, kill his career, etc. How in the world does his words in such an idiotic fight justify ruining the dude’s life/career? That isn’t valid consequence – that’s vindictiveness, nothing more. When we get to the point where fear of/the act of revenge is synonymous with consequence, then YES, freedom of speech is in danger.

I don't understand what you're getting at precisely? "Fear of revenge"? You mean the same way certain people have a "Fear of being themselves" because they may get insulted or ridiculed in some way. You're also giving people far too much slack to say whatever offensive or hurtful thing they want while they hide behind freedom of speech. Beliefs are propagated through language, for as long as it's socially acceptable not to fear consequences and to address somebody this way (As you're saying) you can't complain about any kind of prejudice existing. Language starts and maintains all discourse.

Furthermore, I’m going say that I don’t think it’s smart, nor helpful to throw around labels such as “homophobic”, “racist”, “sexist”, etc. Terms like this are becoming gross ways to sabotage someone’s life/character/opinion in ways that really don’t justify the weight of the term. These labels are being used inaccurately and disingenuously so often these days it’s disgusting. We have a major problem when people are so quick and happy to defame someone’s character in such a way just to invalidate their opinions/comments and/or elevate your own.

Calling somebody homophobic, sexist or racist is different from labeling their language use as homophobic, sexist or racist. I agree the terms shouldn't be thrown around easily, but you're advocating for only throwing them around when the transgression is "bad enough" - who decides that?

Second, I agree with you somebody's "life shouldn't be ruined" for doing this, but by that same token why is another individual's sexual orientation fair game in an argument then? Are we really still at the point where having a contentious debate is degraded into calling somebody that's black/female/white/gay/fat a n*****/b****/honkey/f*****/fatass? Come on, surely it's not asking too much of the human race to attempt to transcend school yard habits when you're well into your 20's?

For the record, what the OP has provided I don’t think is worthy of calling the guy a homophobe. He very well could be (as the average person doesn’t speak that way) but that simple facebook spat is hardly enough to accurately label a person with such a major accusation. Was the guy being a jerk? ABSOLUTELY. Was his choice of vocabulary wrong/disgusting? Without doubt. But angry words during a fight are not enough to justify crucifying one’s character. Let’s not ignore the fact that the OP started the fight with insults, followed by the dude trying to explain himself and apologizing, only for the OP to keep at it. To ME, it looks as if batboy simply wanted to fight, provoked the guy into anger and then ran here when he had the ammo he wanted to get back at the guy for what he said about the other artist...it's basically entrapment. Of course, there could be more to the story that solidifies things one way or the other – I’m just going off of what has been provided here.

I’m not defending the guy’s comments, nor am I justifying them. What I AM saying is that we really need to be careful how we decide to react to others, and how we choose the “consequences”. When consequences far outweigh the actual offense, we have a major problem. Speaking generally, when people chose to be petty and “offended” at the slightest infraction instead of pragmatically looking at the situation, we have a problem. When we mistake deferring views as criminality, we have a problem. When we choose to take the easy path of disproportionally damning someone instead of the harder (and more fruitful) road of rational thought, reflection, and seeking of real solutions, we have a major problem.

I repeat again, it's not what we can "categorize" this guy as, I'm 100% sure he isn't actually a homophobe. But what you're advocating is that we don't need to be that concerned with how we address people in conversation. Like it's frowned upon to call a gay dude a f***** in conversation, but you shouldn't make too big a deal about it, right? That logic gives way too much slack for all kinds of hate speech to be seen as the receiver's problem, not the speaker.

Same old bully bull**** about turning the other cheek or just ignoring it - you're playing into the hands of the intolerant and bigoted.

Your logic boils down to a elaborate version of "sticks and stones". It's all fine and well for observers sitting on the sidelines to have impartial discussions about this. That whole notion disappears as soon as you consider something you identify with being used as a derogatory statement. The whole thing becomes telling the receiver how to deal with a transgression, instead of stopping the problem at the route - which is the initiators behaviour. They could have concluded their argument without having to resort to intolerant insults, why does it become the problem of the person who was insulted? Sounds a bit like victim blaming.