LGBT News Actor Matt Damon: Gay Actors Should Stay in the Closet

Nope. Becoming defensive is defensiveness and it is very much incorrect to equate it with hypersensitivity. Defensiveness is a normal reaction that people have when they feel that they are under attack or when their character is called into question. A defensive reaction could be hypersensitive under certain conditions. For example, if the attack is not real and is only perceived to be a threat in the mind of the defensive person; or if the person's defensive reaction is way over the top in proportion to the initial criticism that was lodged against him. This is an example of a person being defensive in a hypersensitive manner:

Person A: I kind of liked your hair better when it was longer
Person B: . What, I can't have short hair just because I'm a girl? You're a sexist pig. Go to hell!
Person A: Ouch.​

Another possibility would be that the attack on the person's character is both real and substantiated. A defensive reaction, in this case, would simply be called denial or deception (not hypersensitivity).

Person A: Did you take money out of my wallet yesterday?
Person B: No, I didn't. Why would you even think that?​

This is an example of a person being defensive, but not in a hypersensitive manner. If the accusation is substantiated, then it's just plain old denial. If the accusation is unsubstantiated, then Person B's defensiveness is justified, because theft is a serious accusation. And that brings us to the matter at hand. A homophobic statement was attributed to Mat Damon. That is a serious accusation and, as it turns out, an unsubstantiated one. The headlines imply that he's a homophobe, thus amounting to an ad hominem attack on his character. When the attack is both real and unsubstantiated, as it is here, then a defensive reaction is the normal response and a justified one at that.

Please see my previous examples for where your line of reasoning errs. You've already conflated the concept of hypersensitivity with defensiveness. People have defensive reactions instinctively in response to real dangers that exist in the environment. These dangers can be the threat of physical harm or the threat emotional harm. When these threats are real, the defensive behavior is justified. That's why we have it. But for some people, the threat of emotional harm is perceived to be much greater than what it is in reality. That's called hypersensitivity.

I love this part. This is pretty much the statement that I was waiting for. Because there are two sides to this debate - pro-Damon and anti-Damon. You took up the anti-Damon side of the argument, but you're not willing to stand behind anything that they have to say. Aren't you supposed to be arguing that their reactions are not hypersensitive? Yet you can't even say that. And in the next sentence, you distance yourself from them.

You're exaggerating here. There's no pedestal. I read the title of this thread and the associated stories on the web. The claim is that Matt Damon said something homophobic. And I considered that claim based on the facts - those facts being what I already know about Matt Damon's character, and also what I read in his interview. Any rational person should do that. I'm not an avid follower of Matt Damon by any means. And maybe I stand alone on this, but I think it's important to know a little something about a person's character before I condemn that person's character. Actually, now that I think of it, don't courts of law use things like character witnesses and references when considering likelihood of guilt? Yes ... yes, I think they do. In light of that fact, I'd like to amend my previous statement. Maybe I'm not the one who stands alone in thinking that a person's character should be taken into account. Maybe you're the one that stands alone in thinking that it shouldn't.

I don't understand this paragraph. Re-word if possible.

This part is unclear to me as well. What does the "It" reference? Are you speaking as Matt Damon here?

Here we go. I present the double standard in all its glory.

[fanfare, applause]​

So what happened here is that I wrote down Gen's name, followed by a colon, followed by a sentence that deliberately summarized his first post in this thread in such a way that it came off as reprehensible. I then supported this sentence with a verbatim quotation that was taken out of context. Does this ring any bells?

Shut Up, Matt Damon: The Actor Argues Gay Actors Should Stay in the Closet - The Daily Beast
Matt Damon says gay actors should stay in the closet: Sexuality is “one of the mysteries that you should be able to play” - Salon.com​

Of course, when this sort of thing is done to Matt Damon, it's fair game. After all, it's not illegal. There would be a million dollar lawsuit. And that's how we should be deciding whether something is morally objectionable - on the basis of whether or not it's legal. Wait a second. Does anyone agree with that? I will say that it sets the bar kind of low. But, Gen apparently found a way around this. When the same thing is done to him that was done to Damon, he simply moves the bar. Suddenly we care about special rules that were never even mentioned before.

What Gen is presenting as his argument is textbook double standard, and it's right there plain as day. I realize that he chose to double-down on the anti-Damon side of the argument and now he's sort of entrenched in his position. However, he's already distanced himself from the language of the anti-Damon voices (the very thing he's supposed to be defending). Furthermore, he's backed himself into a corner by making the absurd claim that "quotes are not twisted by publications". And now, his response becomes the very model of a double standard, in which the rules prevent his own words from being twisted and misrepresented, but these rules do not apply to Damon's words.

Gen, at what point should a person throw in the towel? Because, at the very least, you're not convincing me. If anything, the more you write, the less convinced I become. I'm not closed off to the idea that Matt Damon is secretly homophobic. It's certainly possible that one day he might say something like "all gay people should die in a fire". And when he says that, and his intentions are unambiguous, I will change my mind. But until then, I will judge him based on what he says. I won't judge him based on a statement that he never actually said.

Point of order. The tone of this thread was set by "spoiled white asshole" and "closet case alert". If you had an objection to the tone of this thread, perhaps you should have raised it then. But you didn't. And my tone is not even close to that level of hostility.

Nowhere in this thread have I "ranted". And I have no power to stop people from voicing their opinions. When I debate, I do so vigorously, but I always attack the person's argument, not the person himself. I enjoy a good debate and none of this was personal for me or mean-spirited in the least. If it was personal for you, I didn't know it until now. I assumed that when you wrote "there is nothing that I want more than for people to call me out" that you actually meant it. If you are uninterested in continuing the debate, then I have no problem with shaking hands and ending it right here. I never did have that problem. But if it is your intention to turn the focus of the debate onto my personal character - that I do have a problem with.

Maybe you should take time to reflect on what you just wrote. The important thing to consider is that Damon is a real person. We know what his face looks like and we refer to him by his real life name. What are we? Faceless, nameless, anonymous forum members who hide behind a computer screen. We get to judge others, and we can do so with impunity. Do you truly believe it's right for us to do that? Please take the time to think about that.

 

I'm not even going to bother responding to this thread. Anyone who thinks what he said is fine should watch the following video, and consider that my response. Because, frankly, why bother? There is no debate. What he said is just an example of his blindness to what it means to be gay, and is an example of the privilege he has as a heterosexual man. ...as clearly evidenced by the clips in the video.

[YOUTUBE]_C6UyrT7bt0[/YOUTUBE]

P.S. I love the look on Ellen's face as Matt is speaking. Pay extra attention to that because that look is worth a thousand words.

 

I don't disagree with your stance but this notion that the headline grabbing "Matt Damon says gay actors should stay in the closet" isn't stretching what his actual words were is hard to swallow.

Had he stopped his quote at "I believe it's best for all actors for their personal lives to remain a mystery" would the headline still be acceptable?

Be allowing the narrative of his words to be changed to the headline "Matt Damon says all gay actors should stay in the closet" it misses his point and takes away an opportunity to educate on the points that you are trying to make and to educate those of the like mind to how they don't understand From the same perspective.

Instead it basically shouts "he's a homophobe" without pointing out the nuances in why his wording may have been inappropriate and off base.

 

I don't have the time to respond to all of that and I honestly don't even see how we have gotten here, but none of these things are comments that I have made. I have repeatedly said that I don't believe this man is homophobic, bigoted, scum or whatever else that people have elsewhere has allegedly been said in this thread. I said that I found what he said to be ignorant, which most have also agreed. I, however, has always made clear to point out that people say ignorant things. People don't always voice the most well-thought out, educated thoughts. The issue is not the fact that these things are said. The issue is with those who cannot acknowledge that fact. Who inherently turn to defensiveness rather than reflection.

Now if you feel that people have been unnecessarily rude towards Damon in a way that violates site policy then that is something that you bring up to the staff. The argument that we are going to speak to one another however we please because we feel that other people are being harsh on a celebrity will not fly here. This is a support community. There is a certain way that we will not address one another on this forums. That is a policy that is followed regardless of how any of us feel about the opinions that are shared on celebrities that we are fond of.

I don't disagree with a single thing that you've said here.

I am not siding with the media. Of course, the media thrives on being shady and sensationalizing everything. What I am saying is that this is not the first time that he has tried to push the blame entirely on the media or the public when he has said something that was ignorant, stupid, poorly worded, or whatever we want to call it.

If we give someone poor directions, we apologize. If share information and later discover that we were completely wrong, we own up it. But if someone tells us that we have used an offensive slur that we did know was offensive, if someone tells us that they found a comment that we made to be ignorant, biased, or unfair, certain people act as though you have labeled them Satan. We as a society need to be more self-reflective.

I am not perfect. I am flawed. I am biased in some ways. I am ignorant in others. But that doesn't mean that I use those things as excuses when people say that I made ignorant, stupid statements. That means that when these things happen I can acknowledge what I wasn't aware of before. I can be open about my ignorances. I can acknowledge my mistakes, make amends, and move on

I have not thrown a single insult at Damon through this entire thread. I have claimed that his statement was ignorant as have a few others been in the past and wished that he would display more accountability when addressing these controversies. Nothing more.

 

I shall judge this with my feelings.
Nope, not even remotely offended. Moving on.
Jeez, guys, I'm guessing you are having are lot of fun debating? It's not sarcasm btw

 

Locked pending review.