I admitted my admiration of the “latent homosexual” tactic that liberals use to silence all oppositiont to Gay Lib.
The beauty of this tactic is that you can’t argue with it.
If someone is a “latent” homosexual” it means he doesn’t KNOW he is a homosexual. By definition, he is hte last person on earth who can defend himself from the chrage.
You can’t argue that you aren’t a LATENT anything.
Another neat and similar gambit is hte “DUHH!” tactic. This is a product of the inbred intellectual hothouse antis live in. The anti simply says “DUHH!” or, in the standard anti language, which is synonymous iwth “DUHH!” they say, “I don’t understand what you are talking about.”
Now if you are a New York City provincial or any other kind of provincial who thinks that his is the Only Truly Sophisticated World, anyone you don’t understand is a rube. In fact, anybody who doesn’t repeat what you are used to hearing is, by definition, a rube.
And, like “latent,” there is no way to answer this argument.
How can you argue with someone about whether THEY understand what you are talking about? If you accept the assumption that if they don’t understand, then YOU are doing something wrong, it all falls into place.
You cannot argue that you are not a “latent” anything. You cannot argue that someone else understands what you are saying, no matter how simple it is.
Which means antis never have to absorb new ideas.
People who are comfortable with new ideas don’t develop tactics like that.
#1 by Steve on 06/05/2006 - 3:02 pm
The argument is “If you oppose homosexuality you’re a latent homosexual”.
They call this logic? Use it against them. For example:
Bob: “Are you opposed to people sodomizing their own pets?”
Anti: “Yes.”
Bob: “Well that makes you a latent dog molester!”
#2 by Pain on 06/05/2006 - 5:51 pm
They don’t seem to care when you say call them dumb but the audience sees it, so keep calling them dumb.
#3 by joe rorke on 06/05/2006 - 7:21 pm
No Spam. I’ve heard this one and I’m prepared to take it on. You take a stand of any kind against homosexuality and you’re a latent homosexual. Baloney. It’s always been baloney. It’s not an argument. It’s an accusation. It’s a psychoanalytic explanation. I say to Freud and all his relatives and co-workers that this explanation is baloney. Freud is baloney. Because your homosexuality is “latent” you are not aware of it. Right. Unconscious. Subconscious. Blah, blah, blah. It turns out that Nathaniel Branden, once a co-worker with Ayn Rand, says that all this nonsense about psychological goodies lodged in the so-called subconscious mind are really much closer to the conscious mind than the pack of Freudian hotshots thought. Real brave guy, Freud. Not willing to try to cure the real nuts like you and me, Bob, Freud wants to play with the neurotics who can grease his palm and then he wants to bill himself as the cat who knows all about the human mind. This “latent” homosexual accusation against those who think there’s something wrong with it can fool only people who can’t see through the pseudoargument that it is.
As for the “Duhh!” tactic, that’s easy to wipe out. “I don’t understand what you’re talking about!” OK, what is this supposed to represent? A brilliant mind? A great tactician? Not at all. If you don’t understand what I’m talking about that just means that you don’t understand what I’m talking about. It doesn’t mean that I didn’t explain it. It only means that you don’t have enough on the cap to understand me. I can’t help your inability to absorb what I’m saying. Oh, you mean you don’t want to hear what I’m saying? Hey, that’s more like it. You don’t want to hear it. OK. See ya.