This one will not go down well with the hard core, left-wing abusers of anybody who disagrees with their views.

"Homophobic, xenophobic and Islamophobic should be seen in the same light, as ways of brushing aside opinions we dislike by invalidating the people who hold them.", and:

"Let's cure our language of them."

Not likely to happen on OLO!

Racist bigot Muslims are raping and burning Sweden.

Interesting article, and I tend to agree that 'phobia' can be mis-used. However, phobia is defined in the Oxford dictionary as an 'abnormal dislike'...the interpretation of which is reliant on the definition of 'abnormal'. So it is really open to intepretation as to whether the author is indeed correct in his opinions. A fear or dislike might be be considered normal in some groups and abnormal in others. A phobia does not, therefore, have to be a medical condition...it might be one if it is strong enough. The crux of the matter is what is abnormal or normal. This is definitely open to interpretation. The press will not worry about this when they 'coin' a new 'phobia' for the headlines.

I can see the authors point that phobia in a psychological terms is misused in the current debates. In effect ‘phobia’ has been appropriated by the common lexicon as shorthand for something that may concern the psychological industry.
I accept that this is the reasoning of the author but I have concerns with the limitation of his alternative depiction of the causes behind prejudices albeit that he left himself an out by saying that ‘it is a complex issue’.

I would point out he is a professor of psychology not a social worker, sociologist, ethicist or an anthropologist all of which would have a different take.
That doesn’t invalidate his view only that it should be seen in a context.

The professor didn’t say it was desirable for the harmonious running of a community/society. Although some prejudiced individuals will read it that way.
There are a number of weaknesses in his description:
• He denies emotions have any impact in the debate he leaving the impression that prejudice is reasonable (as in can be reasoned therefore ‘cured’).
• He glosses over man’s innate fear of the unknown and the difference/change. (From the part of society less able to reason an issue through.
• His description also assumes a national sense of morality etc. a highly contentious argument at best. Give that some of the most vociferous prejudices come from older immigrants. (Self preservation?)
• Conditioning and the need for control of its faithful which is apparent in some religious groups.
In essence his article avoids the core issue of the appropriateness of private personal biases being imposed in the wider Public arena let alone public policy. As a highly specific and semantical argument over (psychological industry) term abuse it has merit but a dead fish by any name still stinks. His piece adds little to resolving what a problem in society is.
BTW left wing labels to posts like thisis also definitionally inaccurate.

"Don’t like gays? Hate foreigners? Loathe Muslims? You may be suffering from a mental disorder. People who express these attitudes often find themselves diagnosed with homophobia, xenophobia and Islamophobia."

What a load of bigoted rot - the author could be describing his own intolerance of disagreement and labelling of those who appear to disagree with him.

It is perfectly normal for people to distrust and even dislike others who are different as one of the stages of eventual acceptance. It is about having one's comfort disturbed. Equally the target group have the same feelings and misapprehension, even hatred of new ways.

What we need are professionals who understand this process and are sensitive and restrained in social policy. There is much more to it than dumping a multicultural policy on the electorate, throwing some migrant families in and then abusing both sides for not being nut cases because they have normal, EXPECTED adjustment problems.

When all is said an done, it is a very big ask to import a million new people from a host of different cultures every three and a bit years and expect them and the resident population to have no teething problems at all.

Whoops, misread! Apologies to the author and no more multi-tasking while balancing the lappy.