Reply #57: Using your example...

[Behind the Aegis]

"Matters of interest to a person do not necessarily reflect on his attitude toward certain issues. For instance, I like college football a lot, but have absolutely no interest in professional football. So I don't watch it.

In the college football realm, I don't watch the smaller schools as I have absolutely no interest in them. I don't watch Texas or Notre Dame because I really hate those teams.

So I guess you could say I was Texasphobic, but you could not say I was professional-phobic, or small school phobic. I neither hate, nor dislike, the pros and small schools, I just have no interest."

However, if you were asked to speak on Sports Center (that is a real show, isn't it?) you could not be 'objective' in discussing small-schools or professional teams. Your prejudice against those two groups would not allow for an objective discussion, or a truly knowledgeable one. However, if you used influence to prevent Sports Center from showing or discussing pro and small school teams, then you have crossed into 'bigotry,' as it were.

What some of us are saying, actually, I will only speak for me...it has been reported, perhaps just a rumor, that some of the voting members of the Academy did not even view "Brokeback Mountain" because it "made them uncomfortable." They allowed their prejudice to (possibly) influence the vote. They only viewed 4 films and declared one the best. The problem is there were five films! I am not completely discounting that, on a personal level, some chose not to see the movie because it was a "love story." Personally, I don't like war movies, but it would be remiss to come on here and discuss something I hadn't seen, as if I had. Also, there is a difference in not seeing a movie because of theme and not seeing it because of a prejudice against seeing "two men get it on." :)

Did I make any sense?