SheafCohomology
Iron
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2025
- Posts
- 3
- Reputation
- 1
If there exists a discourse that governed and highly influenced politics, more over our society, for last almost 10 years, it may be the idea of phobia. Some may agree with this, while some do not. Usually, we could expect that people who do not agree with this may question with displeasure what are the things that can be regarded as phobia. How do we not have phobia against other human beings? But can we not claim that anything is phobia as we want? Is seeing something as phobia simply a restriction of our freedom? What should be considered as phobia and what should not be? Why is it -phobic to say something against a certain group of people but against some other groups of people is not? The short term of phobia has ruled past times, but it is not yet a socially well-defined word. People often hate (which also shall be seen as phobia) each other depending on how they treat this idea of phobia. Here, we explore what phobia really means, and how it’s used as a political vehicle.
We can easily see that phobia is indeed a passive feeling. This is what not only distinguish phobia from other feelings that look alike to phobia- such as anger but also makes phobia noteworthy. These two feelings are both about disliking certain human beings, yet anger is when one is willing to express that directly on the person or people, while phobia is when one wants to avoid such people. Now, we shall assume that when we discuss about phobia, hate, etc. We are talking about this phobia that we have defined unless otherwise specified. Consequently, if one wonders how come someone is -phobic while the person doesn’t necessarily fear the certain thing that he/she is -phobic, we are declaring it under the context of phobia that we’ve defined, which is a similar feeling when we see ugly insects. One may easily get rid of such insects, though we hope such insects simply not to appear in our places at all. Now that we defined our key term, we can continue with our discussion.
The way of interpreting the idea of phobia can be roughly divided into two ways: Consultatively or broadly. For an instance, when someone says he’ll kill everyone of certain race group, we could readily recognize this as racism, which could be for sure part of phobia we are interested in. But, when someone claims certain race group tend to be more hardworking than other, some may still see this as racism, while some could not. It shall be positive to be hardworking, so consultatively it can possibly not be a racism, though- broadly speaking, prejudices are a path to phobia. This is because even if a given prejudice is positive, it still can limit how people behave, think, and believe. When a “positive” prejudices against certain groups are socially well-accepted that it almost had became an identity of such group of people, a person who belongs to those groups but does not fit the prejudices on his/her group could end up restricting him/herself. Ultimately, this act as a phobia.
So, how is phobia manipulated in politics? To understand this, we introduce an interesting example. We know that Donald Trump is accentuating t illegal immigrants often commit crimes that we should put up walls in order to prevent people sneaking into their country. Regardless of if it is true that illegal immigrants commit horrible crimes as much as Trump says (or thinks), we tell that Trump does discriminate such people, moreover the Mexicans in general. The point is that Trump is speaking as if he determined to do so solely for the good of the country. Here, we see why this essay was titled as “politics of phobia”. Essentially, politics is defined as a process of distributing what people want, and phobia reacts sensitive to it. Quotes such as “Immigrants are taking our jobs” demonstrate this well. Phobia is in close touch to what group of people wants. Phobia often arises as part of selfishness among communities.
On the other hand, the term of phobia is indeed political, yet we now and then observe it being used for a different reason from what we have mentioned. It is also used to accuse someone of being -phobic. For example, when a politician says that “Illegal immigrants commit crimes more than legal citizens.”, what if a politician of an opposite party points out that the politician is making a racist remark? Yes, we’ve met such arguments a lot over the last 10 years, especially in the 2016 U.S Presidential election as expanded above. Trump declared that illegal immigrants often commit crimes that we should put up walls in order to prevent people sneaking into the country, and Hillary basically accused this as a racism. This way of accusing can have a powerful political influence as racism is a stimulating term, ending up the person who was accused for the “racist” remark being portraited as a bad human being. Ironically, phrase of “He is spelling words of atrocities” can turn out to derive people to hate the person who is believed to have spelled a racist remark. Is it okay to hate someone if he has hated other beings first? This is the point where we come up with the question initially introduced in the abstract. “What should be considered as phobia and what should not be?” In fact, we’ve already dealt with it when we talked about broad aspect of phobia. But the real problem is following.
What if a “prejudice” we put on certain groups or individuals is true? We state two examples to account for this. First, we know that most relevant contributions in mathematics, sciences, arts, philosophy, and engineering were done by white people, meaning other people have done relatively unsignificant small amount of works in such area of research. Second, we can think of conflict of gays and aids. It turns out to be false that most gay people live with aids, yet it is rather close to true that aids are easily transmitted among gay men. About 75% of Canadians who live with aids are men, while half of Canadian who live with aids were either man or bisexual. Thus, can we say that a person who reference to this homophobic? Not necessarily. This person has not claimed a false prejudice indicated above, but he/she has simply and drily delivered an information on a certain group, not even targeting specific individuals. Should we not say facts that are against a minor group even if they’re true? This is a controversial issue. Those who believe it should not be regarded as phobia may claim that we can manage to solve the problem by remarking the facts even if given information is negative against minor groups, while those who criticize such thoughts as phobia would insist that these facts can be negatively utilized, shaping phobia. Furthermore, constantly movement of referencing to negative facts that certain groups of people have will force individuals to separate themselves from such groups, thus not an approach to solving the problem.
One could have different opinions on the issues stated in the essay. Some of readers may agree that mentioning negative facts especially against a minor group is a phobia, while some others do not. Try to develop your own judgement. There is no inevitably right way to think about something or do things (as far as we know of now). Standards differ, and this is not meant to suppress yours. It is meant to present relevant topics to readers, so they could check what their tastes are like, according to my taste. By now, if I was successful, readers will agree with my taste (whatever my taste may be), or one will have developed one’s own.
We can easily see that phobia is indeed a passive feeling. This is what not only distinguish phobia from other feelings that look alike to phobia- such as anger but also makes phobia noteworthy. These two feelings are both about disliking certain human beings, yet anger is when one is willing to express that directly on the person or people, while phobia is when one wants to avoid such people. Now, we shall assume that when we discuss about phobia, hate, etc. We are talking about this phobia that we have defined unless otherwise specified. Consequently, if one wonders how come someone is -phobic while the person doesn’t necessarily fear the certain thing that he/she is -phobic, we are declaring it under the context of phobia that we’ve defined, which is a similar feeling when we see ugly insects. One may easily get rid of such insects, though we hope such insects simply not to appear in our places at all. Now that we defined our key term, we can continue with our discussion.
The way of interpreting the idea of phobia can be roughly divided into two ways: Consultatively or broadly. For an instance, when someone says he’ll kill everyone of certain race group, we could readily recognize this as racism, which could be for sure part of phobia we are interested in. But, when someone claims certain race group tend to be more hardworking than other, some may still see this as racism, while some could not. It shall be positive to be hardworking, so consultatively it can possibly not be a racism, though- broadly speaking, prejudices are a path to phobia. This is because even if a given prejudice is positive, it still can limit how people behave, think, and believe. When a “positive” prejudices against certain groups are socially well-accepted that it almost had became an identity of such group of people, a person who belongs to those groups but does not fit the prejudices on his/her group could end up restricting him/herself. Ultimately, this act as a phobia.
So, how is phobia manipulated in politics? To understand this, we introduce an interesting example. We know that Donald Trump is accentuating t illegal immigrants often commit crimes that we should put up walls in order to prevent people sneaking into their country. Regardless of if it is true that illegal immigrants commit horrible crimes as much as Trump says (or thinks), we tell that Trump does discriminate such people, moreover the Mexicans in general. The point is that Trump is speaking as if he determined to do so solely for the good of the country. Here, we see why this essay was titled as “politics of phobia”. Essentially, politics is defined as a process of distributing what people want, and phobia reacts sensitive to it. Quotes such as “Immigrants are taking our jobs” demonstrate this well. Phobia is in close touch to what group of people wants. Phobia often arises as part of selfishness among communities.
On the other hand, the term of phobia is indeed political, yet we now and then observe it being used for a different reason from what we have mentioned. It is also used to accuse someone of being -phobic. For example, when a politician says that “Illegal immigrants commit crimes more than legal citizens.”, what if a politician of an opposite party points out that the politician is making a racist remark? Yes, we’ve met such arguments a lot over the last 10 years, especially in the 2016 U.S Presidential election as expanded above. Trump declared that illegal immigrants often commit crimes that we should put up walls in order to prevent people sneaking into the country, and Hillary basically accused this as a racism. This way of accusing can have a powerful political influence as racism is a stimulating term, ending up the person who was accused for the “racist” remark being portraited as a bad human being. Ironically, phrase of “He is spelling words of atrocities” can turn out to derive people to hate the person who is believed to have spelled a racist remark. Is it okay to hate someone if he has hated other beings first? This is the point where we come up with the question initially introduced in the abstract. “What should be considered as phobia and what should not be?” In fact, we’ve already dealt with it when we talked about broad aspect of phobia. But the real problem is following.
What if a “prejudice” we put on certain groups or individuals is true? We state two examples to account for this. First, we know that most relevant contributions in mathematics, sciences, arts, philosophy, and engineering were done by white people, meaning other people have done relatively unsignificant small amount of works in such area of research. Second, we can think of conflict of gays and aids. It turns out to be false that most gay people live with aids, yet it is rather close to true that aids are easily transmitted among gay men. About 75% of Canadians who live with aids are men, while half of Canadian who live with aids were either man or bisexual. Thus, can we say that a person who reference to this homophobic? Not necessarily. This person has not claimed a false prejudice indicated above, but he/she has simply and drily delivered an information on a certain group, not even targeting specific individuals. Should we not say facts that are against a minor group even if they’re true? This is a controversial issue. Those who believe it should not be regarded as phobia may claim that we can manage to solve the problem by remarking the facts even if given information is negative against minor groups, while those who criticize such thoughts as phobia would insist that these facts can be negatively utilized, shaping phobia. Furthermore, constantly movement of referencing to negative facts that certain groups of people have will force individuals to separate themselves from such groups, thus not an approach to solving the problem.
One could have different opinions on the issues stated in the essay. Some of readers may agree that mentioning negative facts especially against a minor group is a phobia, while some others do not. Try to develop your own judgement. There is no inevitably right way to think about something or do things (as far as we know of now). Standards differ, and this is not meant to suppress yours. It is meant to present relevant topics to readers, so they could check what their tastes are like, according to my taste. By now, if I was successful, readers will agree with my taste (whatever my taste may be), or one will have developed one’s own.
