Information icon.svg Voting is completed for the RationalWiki 2021 Moderator Election and the results are now posted.
Congratulations to the winners!

Talk:Haggard's Law

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sex.svg

This Sexuality related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.png
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)



Adkins[edit]

Sorry, still somewhat new to the wiki. Sources: http://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/local/controversial-georiga-pastor-political-activist-arrested-on-child-molestation/430266524, http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/crime/controversial-local-pastor-ken-adkins-arrested-for-child-molestation/309254066, http://www.thebrunswicknews.com/news/local_news/activist-pastor-arrested-for-child-molestation/article_59bbba8d-cea7-5ffe-bd69-5ee05fa76550.html Is that enough? Arawn Emrys (talk)

MMPI-based tests?[edit]

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory is a collection of several hundred multiple choice questions. It is a fairly common (though debatable) research tactic to administer the test to two groups of interest, such as admitted homosexual males & reportedly straight guys, look for the few dozen questions on which the groups differ greatly, and construct a test consisting only of those questions which purports to measure 'homosexual tendencies'. This has been done repeatedly; Google search for "MMPI homosexuality" turns up dozens of hits, mostly scholarly articles by social psychologists. Lots of other tests were developed in a similar way; e.g. a lot of the work on 'authoritarian personalities' used them.

Back in my undergraduate days (late 60s) I saw a study that used one of those tests, reported that gay bashers generally scored quite high on the 'tendencies' measure, and speculated that one motive for hostility to gays was repressed tendencies of one's own. I do not currently have time to track it down, but if someone could it might make a good addition to this article. Pashley (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

A problem with Haggard's Law[edit]

Whatever about it being a real scientific relation or a common psychological trait among homophobes (or other bigots), as mentioned in the article, Haggard's Law has the unfortunate implication that homosexuality is a bad thing. That is, that these bigots who are clearly such horrible people are themselves gay, not only makes being gay seem horrible by association as one of their horrible traits, but it makes being the butt of this law's joke. There are plenty of real gay people out there who don't like the association with homophobes, and don't like homophobes being assumed to be gay because they're horrible bigots, due to this law.

Someone who has actually experienced this could put it much more eloquently than me. But perhaps this commentary should be noted in the article? --Cycloneblaze (talk) 03:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

That's not true at all. It's simply making the observation that militant homophobes tend to be themselves homosexual. Even when we aknowledge that there's nothing wrong with being gay, that trend is still an undeniable fact. Haggard's Law is simply a way of formally recognizing that trend. Merely openly acknowledging that two things are correlated is not at all the same as claiming a reason for why they are correlated. If anything, the joke is the other way around: the implication is not that being gay makes one a bigot, it's that being a bigot makes one gay.Skadooshbag (talk) 06:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I kind of get where User:Cycloneblaze is coming from. Haggards Law kind of makes the claim that homophobia is really just the fault of homosexuals themselves. It allows the blame to be shifted away from heterosexuals who hate homosexuals, and put on self hating homosexuals instead. A lot of gay people have expressed dislike of this kind of thinking for this reason. For example, you can find extreme homophobia relatively commonplace in Russia, and it's statistically impossible for half of Russia to be "secretly gay". I think this point could deserve a mention. Debunky (talk) 11:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Why is this phenomenon not seen in other forms of bigotry?[edit]

You'd think, for example, that'd there'd also be a trend of militant Islamophobes getting caught face-deep in a prayer rug.Skadooshbag (talk) 06:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I can't give any specific examples, but one of my friends who engages with reactionaries/neo-Nazis has noted that many of them show signs of AMAB gender dysphoria, and likely got caught in the hyper-masculine, transphobic Alt-Right pipeline as a substitution for actual gender therapy. SonOfStranger (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Another one[edit]

Can someone who's better at editing wikis add this to the article? https://www.businessinsider.com.au/hungarian-mep-resigns-breaking-covid-rules-gay-orgy-brussels-2020-12?r=US&IR=T

list of examples[edit]

Stop. adding. examples. there is enough already. way too many. and many of dubious merit, many of which barely hint at the supposed homophobia and supposed gay activities not actually gay (autoerotic asphyxiation for example), or jumps to concluding homosexuality on the flimsiest of evidence (eg. a man briefly appeared on a politicians zoom meeting beside them and appeared to not be wearing a shirt!!!), i do not think politicians known to be gay getting caught being gay counts as harbouring secret desires (they caught fleeing a gay party), neither does ex gays relapsing, or loudly proclaiming themselves their past homosexuality. if we must have a list like this, the homophobia should be more than 'meh' and their fall from grace should be more than slight. voting against a particular law or laws does not on its own qualify. preaching against sin and then getting caught sinning doesnt qualify on its own

aside from anything else, while a couple of relevent examples might have been fine in illustrating a dumb internet law, not an unending list of example after example of gleefully gloating over closeted men struggling with their sexuality. we can highlight hypocrisy without mocking their struggles or reveling in the salacious details

Also, child molestation is not the same as homosexuality. paedahilia is not the same as homosexuality. please stop conflating themAMassiveGay (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

We can do better than that and annihilate the entire list. I hate these "cases I think are cool and you should know about them too!" listicles so much... GeeJayK (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Like those maligned trivia sections, these lists, when intended to be selective, always seem to invite low effort drive-bys to constantly tack on miscellaneous information. I'd still keep a few examples. Overalll though, this law always seemed to me to be confirmation bias and invites people to scrutinize homophobes' sex lives. We have better things to do than that, geez. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png πŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!πŸŽ„(Mod) 14:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
You're right. Removing the entire list is an overkill. I think we can do like we did on the fictional examples list on the Totalitarianism article (although I should mention that the list is already growing only a few months we've purged most of the titles from it). GeeJayK (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Again something about lists always seem to get people wanting to list every single thing they know, especially from media they enjoy. I guess it's because the effort involved is soooo low. Buuut that doesn't mean we should remove all lists, just monitor them more. Like trivia sections. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png πŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!πŸŽ„(Mod) 01:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
i was gonna suggest some kind of limit to how many items we can have in a list for these articles or something to make someone consider why an item needs including, but i dunno. i shouldnt be stressing over this stuff. i dont like this article for a lot of reasons, the list just the easier fix and outlet for venting. it baffles me that folk can still keeping adding and adding stuff and never think 'holy shit balls thats a long list, maybe i should stop now.' is it like meth when you keep hitting the pipe even when patently obvious that maybe you should've called it a night 2 days ago? if you have a list addiction stay well awayfrom meth, you'd go fucking mad for it. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Yeah. I removed the list. Basically removed the shaky ones, the sexual abuse, and will likely remove the "he was browsing gay porn" bit as that's not necessarily an indicator of gayness. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png πŸŽ„LeftyGreenMario!πŸŽ„(Mod) 18:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)