>It comes across as an attack on individuals.

^ this was not my agenda w/this post.

i posted this article b/c i agreed w/the attack on 'HOMOPHOBIA' as a concept. i didn't post this as a dig on any individual here.

As much shit as
>y'all give Case of his agenda it's clear that you're on a
>similar track but go about it a different way.

sure, but see above.

>It's an attack on these individuals whether or blatant or not.

no. it's not. i didn't read the article that way and i didn't post it for that reason. i posted it b/c i like what it had to say about 'HOMOPHOBIA' - the concept. i also related to the article where it talked about the way homophobia operates to rob men of platonic touch and leave us relatively isolated. but i didn't post this b/c i wanted to attack anyone who posts here. if anything i thought ppl would find it interesting and might reflect on what the article had to say. that's it.

>Just because someone doesn't like other men touching them then
>they're homophobic according to the article. That's not the
>case at all.

that's not what the article says, IMO.

and now that i know that's how some of you read it i understand all of this rah-rah. which is completely unnecessary as directed at me b/c i didn't mean to attack anyone and, again, i disagree that the article says men who don't engage in platonic touch are bad ppl. it says that homophobia - the concept - has robbed men of touch. it says that men avoid platonic touch b/c we're afraid of being labeled as gay and it doesn't seem to place blame for that on the individual men who avoid the touching. instead it seems to blame the concept itself - it blames the ppl's conditioning but not the ppl themselves for having been conditioned. <-- that's how i read the article.