Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 166 of 1484 (802315)
03-14-2017 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by jar
03-14-2017 6:47 PM


Re: when to keep quiet
jar responds to me:
quote:
This thread is a great example to support Tangle's position. There are times when the more effective tactic is to simply stop responding then to continue making a point but in a manner that causes even those who agree with you to simply turn off anything you say.
I know.
So why is Tangle still responding? Surely he would realize that he's turning off people to what he's saying?
It's cute how you think you get to be the arbiter of what is "effective."
quote:
The issue is when to make use of such laws and when to simply ignore the bigotry. Where is effort best spent?
And who the hell are you to tell somebody else that they should just put up with the bigotry?
If you cannot accept people as full-fledged members of society in every area, full-throatedly, without hesitation or question, then you're a bigot.
For you to dare tell someone else that they should just put up with bigotry because it might "turn off those who agree with you" to fight it shows that you have some work to do regarding your own bigotry.
Nobody's expecting you to take up arms.
You are expected to not substitute your opinion about what is "worthy" for someone else's. You're not living their lives. They are the ones who have to make the decision about what they are willing to shrug off and what they need to fight.
What's the point of having anti-discrimination laws if you aren't allowed to avail yourself of them when you encounter bigotry? Why even bother saying you're going to protect gay people from discrimination if you're just going to whine about them "turning off those who might agree" if they dare demand to actually be protected?
Surely you aren't saying that it's only important if somebody might die? It's only important if blood is shed, are you? Is that the only line? So long as I don't send you to the hospital, I'm free to make your life miserable?
Edited by Rrhain, : No reason given.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by jar, posted 03-14-2017 6:47 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 167 of 1484 (802316)
03-14-2017 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Rrhain
03-14-2017 6:09 PM


Re: related issues
Rrhain writes:
You know, when Faith tries that tactic, we all know it's because she's running away.
Sorry Chuck, I haven't read beyond this.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Rrhain, posted 03-14-2017 6:09 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Rrhain, posted 03-14-2017 7:26 PM Tangle has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 168 of 1484 (802317)
03-14-2017 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by jar
03-14-2017 6:47 PM


Re: when to keep quiet
This thread is a great example to support Tangle's position.
No it isn't.
There are times when the more effective tactic is to simply stop responding then to continue making a point but in a manner that causes even those who agree with you to simply turn off anything you say.
So we should stop being so uppity because people that claimed to agree with us might think we are being untimely? Sorry, those people clearly don't agree with us, and never have. If suing someone for being prejudicial turns them off, they were never truly onside. So we must continue to educate people, even those that claim they are allies - because sometimes allies can do the most harm through passive aggression. And this is why this thread is a great example of why there is clearly much work yet to be done.
Bigots will always be with us.
The laws are in place.
And so they should be enforced. There have been laws in place for all sorts of things. Heck - the law that allowed gay marriage has been with us since 1868. Bigots just refused to acknowledge this, causing pain and suffering.
Sometimes you have to fight to make sure people understand the consequences for breaking the rules. That way other businesses will consider not only the bad publicity, if it exists (and lets not forget that some prejudicial acts will actually draw customers in - the aforementioned bigots), but the financial costs and the possibility of losing their permission to trade.
The issue is when to make use of such laws and when to simply ignore the bigotry.
When to make use of the laws? Whenever you are harmed and have the strength and resources to make use of them.
When to ignore bigotry? Never.
Where is effort best spent?
There isn't a singular 'effort pool' here, jar. Only the person harmed can sue. It's not like when I sue someone, that inhibits someone else from writing to their representative to write better laws, from campaigning for new elected officials, from investigating hate crimes, from holding up a sign, from writing to a newspaper, from writing a book from composing a song - or anything else. The effort is spent in parallel, by those that have the power and strength. Only those that have been harmed have the power to sue, and only some have the strength.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by jar, posted 03-14-2017 6:47 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 169 of 1484 (802318)
03-14-2017 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by NoNukes
03-14-2017 6:50 PM


Re: related issues
NoNukes responds to me:
quote:
It appears that you are looking for a fight.
Incorrect.
It appears that I am looking for someone to justify why they get to tell someone else what is "important" in their lives. Why they get to determine that the reason they are suing someone for discrimination is because they are "activists" who are "artificially targeting" someone.
quote:
Even filing a law suit can result in negative PR.
I see...so nobody should actually file a lawsuit unless nobody's feathers get ruffled.
Of course, that leads to the question of why bother? After all, the reason to file a lawsuit is because somebody's feathers got ruffled and at the end of the case, somebody is going to be upset. There wouldn't be a lawsuit if everybody agreed that the action being sued over was wrong. But if everybody agreed with that, it never would have happened.
Why do you think we should coddle the bigots? Bigots are going to be upset over being called out on their bigotry.
And those who seek to coddle them have their own bigotry to handle.
You don't get to tell another person to just put up with it. You aren't living their lives. Just because you don't think much of what happened doesn't mean nobody else should, either. How many times does a person get to be discriminated against before it's finally legitimate for them to fight back? Of course, that raises the question of why the last person who discriminated is being made to pay for the crimes of all the others. You're going to find businesses to help you through your wedding. You start with the baker and they tell you no. So you shrug it off and go to another and they tell you no. So you shrug it off and go to another and they finally agree. So you find a florist and do this song and dance with four of them. And then you try to find a photographer and you have to go through five of them.
At what point do you get to say that enough is enough? Three? Five? Twelve?
That only makes sense if you claim that certain acts of discrimination are not worthy of being corrected. Yeah, we have an anti-discrimination law that protects you, but you aren't allowed to use it.
quote:
As for what tactic Tangle thinks you should use instead, well you'd have to ask him.
I have.
Repeatedly.
But since you're taking up the cause, exactly what do you think the tactic should be for someone who was discriminated against? What's the point of having laws to protect against discrimination if you aren't allowed to use them lest it be seen as "bad PR"?
Yeah, if you decide to sue, you need to determine if you're willing to put up with the potentiality that everybody around you is going to hate you for it.
Of course, that means that they are bigots, too, and isn't it nice to know who your actual friends are? After all, supporters don't call you "activist" for standing up for your rights. Supporters don't whine about "bad PR" when you insist on equal treatment. Supporters don't claim you're "artificially targetting" people.
quote:
All I have stated is that I understand what Tangle is saying. I don't agree with him. I'm perfectly fine with a noisy law suit or boycott, but I don't think his suggestion makes him an idiot.
And yet, it does.
And your defense of it (note...not your "understanding" of it...I "understand" it, too) leaves you wandering in the same direction.
Yes, someone's going to get upset when you sue someone. When you draw a line in the sand and force people to take sides, there will always be somebody on the other side.
That doesn't justify claiming you should never draw a line in the sand.
And it *certainly* doesn't justify the ascribing of nefarious ulterior motives to those who are as Tangle did over and over again.
quote:
We're on the same side.
Then why are you having such a hard time putting your money where your mouth is?
Tangle called the people who sued the baker in Oregon and the florist in Washington and the photographer in New Mexico "activists" who were "looking for a fight" and thus "artificially targeted" them.
Do you agree with that assessment?
Do you think that's even likely in the general case? Do the people who sue businesses for discrimination tend to be those who do so for fun?
Or did they actually try to engage the business, got discriminated against, and decided to do something about it?
Why are you having such a hard time calling out the stupid on it?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by NoNukes, posted 03-14-2017 6:50 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by NoNukes, posted 03-14-2017 9:25 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 170 of 1484 (802319)
03-14-2017 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Tangle
03-14-2017 7:21 PM


Re: related issues
Tangle runs away:
quote:
Sorry Chuck, I haven't read beyond this.
So when you said you were looking for "reasoned and reasonable discussion," you were lying?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Tangle, posted 03-14-2017 7:21 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Tangle, posted 03-15-2017 3:27 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 171 of 1484 (802320)
03-14-2017 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Tangle
03-14-2017 4:23 AM


Re: related issues
Campaign hard until you win the main battle, then calm down dear.
Suing someone is a pretty calm thing to do. It's literally the civilized way to deal with disputes. Reporting someone to a regulatory agency for breaching regulations likewise.
The real bigots won't change, you need the hearts and minds of the average guy to change to actually make the difference.
The 'average guy' will only change their minds if they know there is an alternative mind to have, if they hear the story. Making it part of the public record is the calm and reasonable way of doing this.
You only way to do that is to become the norm - nice, ordinary and everyday.
Gay people are normal, nice ordinary and everyday. Most people already think this. Women are also normal, nice, ordinary and everyday. Sometimes they are discriminated against, and normal, nice ordinary and everyday average guys agree that people who discriminate should be penalized.
While there are still battles to be won, it seems a better tactic to me to fight those specific battles not bugger about with cakes and bakers.
If you hadn't noticed, equal access to public accommodations is and has been a specific battle we've been fighting for decades. Hopefully we're in the final stages of that battle, but in the USA particularly - but also the UK - the counterstrike of 'religious freedom' has been used to avoid legal ramifications: deny people healthcare, deny them housing, and public accommodation (ie., equal access to goods and services). Not fighting that fight has proven to strengthen the other weapon bigots use all the time 'history' and 'tradition'. The whole 'this is what we've always done and nobody has complained before' routine.
If businesses don't realize that there is a risk of a serious financial liability for their actions, there is no motivation for any bigots that run them to change their business model to be lawful.
The battle against racism is being won but it takes time and perseverance to change the majority mind.
That's what's happening: perseverance. You seem to advocating we don't bother because some big battle is won.
It's a matter of tactics what approach you take to do that but misplaced activism may do more harm than good.
Suing someone is not activism. I see no evidence of any misplaced activism in any case here. I've been reading your responses to this thread and you haven't given any examples. You are right, misplaced activism can do more harm than good. But it's irrelevant on the grounds that reporting people for breaking regulations is not activism, it's good citizenship. Suing someone for causing you harm is not activism. For instance, you say:
I'm saying that I believe that it's likely to be counter-productive to complain about bigots not baking cakes - to go actively looking for them to make examples.
Who is actively looking for them? 400,000 people have gotten married to a same sex partner in the USA as an estimate. There are like a dozen cases I've heard about that went as far as legal action being taken.
Pick more strategic targets
This makes no sense. This isn't a strategy. The gay community isn't getting together at our weekly meetings and putting 'find bigoted providers' on the gay agenda.
make a point of standing above the bigots not simply against them and impress reasoned and reasonable people with your cause and demeaner
In what way is the demeanour of people suing problematic? How is 'standing above' them going to work? Did you hear about the time when I let bigotry slide past me? No? You didn't applaud me and give me a slap on my back for being a reasonable person then? Is that because you never heard about it?
Now I apparently have to say also that any LGBT with a genuine grieveance and evidence of hurt needs to shout about it.
That's literally exactly what is happening. You can't win a lawsuit if you don't have a genuine grievance and evidence of harm. That's how they work.
What do you think is happening that implies gay couples are 'deliberately targeting baking bigots'? Do you have any evidence of this or any other misplaced activism?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Tangle, posted 03-14-2017 4:23 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Tangle, posted 03-15-2017 1:38 PM Modulous has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 172 of 1484 (802321)
03-14-2017 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Rrhain
03-14-2017 7:25 PM


Re: related issues
But since you're taking up the cause, exactly what do you think the tactic should be for someone who was discriminated against? What's the point of having laws to protect against discrimination if you aren't allowed to use them lest it be seen as "bad PR"?
Didn't I already say that i was perfectly okay with suing and/or boycotting?
But I can understand that such a tactic might not achieve all that much if I tried it in Northwest Arkansas.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith
Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Rrhain, posted 03-14-2017 7:25 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Rrhain, posted 03-15-2017 5:15 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 173 of 1484 (802322)
03-15-2017 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Rrhain
03-14-2017 5:18 PM


Re: No case at all
quote:
You seem to have not noticed that I dealt with that, too
That's because you didn't.
quote:
However, you didn't start off with that. Remember, we can see your posts
I certainly do.
quote:
You will note that Faith isn't mentioned. That comes later. So I responded to that one point first.
You should also notice that my post is in a thread started by Faith to make the claim that "Gay Marriage is an assault in Christianity" and the first sentence describes her argument in the OP.
quote:
Now, I'l admit that I was leaving it ambiguous that I was responding to this point because I didn't directly quote it. But for you to say that I "have not noticed that you were discussing Faith's attempts to argue for her position" is trivially proven false.
Which simply demonstrates another failure to read in context on your part.
As should be clear from my earlier posts the assertion that "...it is not considered..." applies to Faith's argument. You clearly have not noticed this despite being corrected.
So your assertion that you DID notice is trivially false - because you did not, even after I pointed it out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Rrhain, posted 03-14-2017 5:18 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Rrhain, posted 03-15-2017 5:31 PM PaulK has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 174 of 1484 (802328)
03-15-2017 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Rrhain
03-14-2017 7:26 PM


Re: related issues
Rrhain writes:
So when you said you were looking for "reasoned and reasonable discussion," you were lying?
You just can't help yourself can you? If you want to discuss this with me you're going to have to turn down the aggression and stop calling me - among other things - a liar. Try it, you might make more progress.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Rrhain, posted 03-14-2017 7:26 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Rrhain, posted 03-15-2017 5:34 PM Tangle has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 175 of 1484 (802338)
03-15-2017 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Rrhain
03-14-2017 3:28 PM


Re: related issues
you think anti-discrimination laws are the problem.
Wrong again; I don't think that at all.
Its obvious that you're more interested in a strawman version of what you'd prefer me thinking than what I actually think, so I'm done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Rrhain, posted 03-14-2017 3:28 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Rrhain, posted 03-15-2017 5:05 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 176 of 1484 (802346)
03-15-2017 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Modulous
03-14-2017 7:52 PM


Re: related issues
Modulous writes:
Suing someone is a pretty calm thing to do. It's literally the civilized way to deal with disputes. Reporting someone to a regulatory agency for breaching regulations likewise.
Personally suing somebody is never, ever, a calm thing to do. It's extreemly stressful, expensive and it hangs over people for months and years. If it can be avoided it absolutely should be.
But of course it's a fantastic strategic weapon for an activist campaign to use or for an individual that has suffered real harm. Cakes and bakers? Not really. Maybe once, to make the point.
Gay people are normal, nice ordinary and everyday. Most people already think this. Women are also normal, nice, ordinary and everyday. Sometimes they are discriminated against, and normal, nice ordinary and everyday average guys agree that people who discriminate should be penalized
Couldn't agree more. Just pick your fights shrewdly otherwise you risk being seen not being normal, nice etc.
If businesses don't realize that there is a risk of a serious financial liability for their actions, there is no motivation for any bigots that run them to change their business model to be lawful.
And, of course, I'm not disagreeing. There is a difference between saying 'never do this' and 'do this more strategically'.
That's what's happening: perseverance. You seem to advocating we don't bother because some big battle is won.
Ditto above.
Look, if the public hears constantly about seemingly trivial complaints from a particular section of society it will turn them against that sector. Consciousness raising is good but you have to be careful if it's not to backfire.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Modulous, posted 03-14-2017 7:52 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by ringo, posted 03-15-2017 3:19 PM Tangle has not replied
 Message 179 by Modulous, posted 03-15-2017 5:00 PM Tangle has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 177 of 1484 (802347)
03-15-2017 1:58 PM


Sorry about posting something of this length, but I thought it was just a fabulous thing.
On May 18, 1970, Jack Baker and Michael McConnell walked into a courthouse in Minneapolis, paid $10, and applied for a marriage license. The county clerk, Gerald Nelson, refused to give it to them. Obviously, he told them, marriage was for people of the opposite sex; it was silly to think otherwise.
Baker, a law student, didn’t agree. He and McConnell, a librarian, had met at a Halloween party in Oklahoma in 1966, shortly after Baker was pushed out of the Air Force for his sexuality. From the beginning, the men were committed to one another. In 1967, Baker proposed that they move in together. McConnell replied that he wanted to get marriedreally, legally married. The idea struck even Baker as odd at first, but he promised to find a way and decided to go to law school to figure it out.
When the clerk rejected Baker and McConnell’s application, they sued in state court. Nothing in the Minnesota marriage statute, Baker noted, mentioned gender. And even if it did, he argued, limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples would constitute unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of sex, violating both the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. He likened the situation to that of interracial marriage, which the Supreme Court had found unconstitutional in 1967, in Loving v. Virginia.
The trial court dismissed Baker’s claim. The Minnesota Supreme Court upheld that dismissal, in an opinion that cited the dictionary definition of marriage and contended, The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman...is as old as the book of Genesis. Finally, in 1972, Baker appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. It refused to hear the case, rejecting it with a single sentence: The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. The idea that people of the same sex might have a constitutional right to get married, the dismissal suggested, was too absurd even to consider.
Last week, the high court reversed itself and declared that gays could marry nationwide. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his sweeping decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.
The plaintiffs’ arguments in Obergefell were strikingly similar to those Baker made back in the 1970s. And the Constitution has not changed since Baker made his challenge (save for the ratification of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, on congressional salaries). But the high court’s view of the legitimacy and constitutionality of same-sex marriage changed radically: In the span of 43 years, the notion had gone from ridiculous to constitutionally mandated. How did that happen?
I put the question to Mary Bonauto, who argued Obergefell before the Supreme Court in April. A Boston-based staff lawyer for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, Bonauto won the Massachusetts case that made the state the first to allow gay couples to wed in 2004. In 1971, she noted, sodomy was a crime in nearly every state, gays were routinely persecuted and barred from public and private employment, and homosexuality was classified as a mental illness. We were just as right then as we are now, she said. But there was a complete lack of understanding of the existence and common humanity of gay people.
What changed, in other words, wasn’t the Constitutionit was the country. And what changed the country was a movement.
Friday’s decision wasn’t solely or even primarily the work of the lawyers and plaintiffs who brought the case. It was the product of the decades of activism that made the idea of gay marriage seem plausible, desirable, and right. By now, it has become a political clich to wonder at how quickly public opinion has changed on gay marriage in recent yearssupport for marriages between homosexuals, measured at 60 percent this year, was just 27 percent when Gallup first asked the question in 1996. But that didn’t happen organically.
Supporters of gay marriage rally in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in the days before the Obergefell v. Hodges decision. (Joshua Roberts / Reuters)
The fight for gay marriage was, above all, a political campaigna decades-long effort to win over the American public and, in turn, the court. It was a campaign with no fixed election day, focused on an electorate of nine people. But what it achieved was remarkable: not just a Supreme Court decision but a revolution in the way America sees its gay citizens. It’s a virtuous cycle, Andrew Sullivan, the author and blogger whose 1989 essay on gay marriage for The New Republic gave the idea political currency, told me. The more we get married, the more normal we seem. And the more normal we seem, the more human we seem, the more our equality seems obviously important.
Some gay activists harbor a certain amount of nostalgia for the days when their movement was seen as radical, deviant, extreme. Today, when many Americans think of gay people, they may think of that nice couple in the next apartment, or the family in the next pew at church, or their fellow parents in the PTA. (Baker and McConnell are still together, living a quiet life as retirees in Minneapolis.) This normalization will continue to reverberate as gays and lesbians push for more rightsthe right not to be discriminated against, for example. The gay-marriage revolution didn’t end when the Supreme Court ruled.
It goes a lot longer. Good strategic stuff.
How Gay Marriage Won in the U.S. Supreme Court - The Atlantic

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(2)
Message 178 of 1484 (802348)
03-15-2017 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Tangle
03-15-2017 1:38 PM


Re: related issues
Tangle writes:
Just pick your fights shrewdly otherwise you risk being seen not being normal, nice etc.
That's what they used to tell the uppity niggers: "Be more like the good niggers."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Tangle, posted 03-15-2017 1:38 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 179 of 1484 (802350)
03-15-2017 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Tangle
03-15-2017 1:38 PM


Re: related issues
Personally suing somebody is never, ever, a calm thing to do.
It's always calm. You generally sit quietly, most of the work is done in writing and the rest is using inside voices.
Compare with yelling and punching/knifing one another for an example of a extra-legal method of resolving irreconcilable differences.
It's extreemly stressful, expensive and it hangs over people for months and years.
It can be stressful. That said, every lawsuit I've initiated was entirely stress free. I spoke to a person wearing nice clothes about my problems, I sent them a list of evidences I had collected as to my harm, they gave me a price, I signed the relevant papers - then they went away and in one case, got results without a court case required, and in another, got a result in court in my favour.
I've also from a professional standpoint been involved in thousands of lawsuits, they are dry and boring affairs with not even the least bit emotion in 99% of them. The only stressful lawsuit I've ever been involved with was regarding the family of a man who had been decapitated after driving underneath a truck with inadequate guardings, and only because of the gory injuries I had to discuss with the family. The actual event was almost certainly a million times more stressful than the lawsuit that followed.
Cakes and bakers? Not really. Maybe once, to make the point.
To my knowledge each person involved has only sued a baker or other service provider once. Do you have any of that evidence I asked for to suggest otherwise?
Couldn't agree more. Just pick your fights shrewdly otherwise you risk being seen not being normal, nice etc.
Uh-huh. In the case of same sex marriage is this a risk that has ever manifested? Can you provide the case details?
Otherwise what you are saying seems to be 'Gay people should continue to sue bakers who discriminate against them unless at some point I think they shouldn't' Which seems kind of useless.
And, of course, I'm not disagreeing. There is a difference between saying 'never do this' and 'do this more strategically'.
But I only get married once. Or at least only once a decade or so. I can only reasonably expect to be discriminated against once. What's the correct strategy? Only sue when I'm discriminated against 1 in 10 times, to be decided upon rolling a D10? Or should I sue whenever I've been discriminated against AND I have sufficient evidence to prove this in the balance of probabilities in a court of law?
What is the strategy you are suggesting we should take if you think 'sue if you are harmed and can prove it' is not the correct strategy?
It sounds like empty nonsense: "Yes do good things, but try and do good things in an optimal way". I've heard better outcomes of management meetings.
Look, if the public hears constantly about seemingly trivial complaints from a particular section of society it will turn them against that sector.
Are you saying that being denied access to public accommodation at arbitrary points at your life for nonsensical reasons other than hatred of your kind is trivial?
I'm happy you have been so privileged to not have to live through that. Those that have, don't always find it so utterly trivial that they are comfortable turning a blind eye like you do. Most of the time they do let it pass, of course. Not worth the hassle, but apparently you want them to do this more often?
What's the optimal frequency Tangle?
Consciousness raising is good but you have to be careful if it's not to backfire.
More generic bullshit. What *specifically* has happened that you think has backfired? Has anything? Are you worried that the complains from uppity faggots might be 'untimely' or do you have something that isn't passively aggressively supporting the bigots that might actually contribute to the improvement of society on your mind?
What has been done that is outside of the optimal strategy?
What has been done that could have been done better?
I don't want to hear 'Do more good things in a better way'. Anyone can say that kind of crap. Likewise 'Don't do things that are bad, or at least mitigate the consequences when this does happen' is useless. Regurgitating nice sounding platitudes while telling someone who has been harmed to 'wait' can be just as harmful as misplaced activism. Be specific, provide actual evidence. Or shut the fuck up and let us live our own lives the way we see fit! It's our battle, our war, our fight. If you just want to yell from the sidelines 'Fight harder, fight smarter, be better' - you aren't helping.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Tangle, posted 03-15-2017 1:38 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Tangle, posted 03-15-2017 5:46 PM Modulous has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 180 of 1484 (802351)
03-15-2017 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by New Cat's Eye
03-15-2017 9:55 AM


Re: related issues
New Cat's Eye responds to me:
quote:
quote:
you think anti-discrimination laws are the problem.
Wrong again; I don't think that at all.
Did you or did you not write the following:
Message 222
Title IX still exists as law and has not changed. The guidelines still exist, and didn't add anything to the law anyways.
What happened was the feds backed off from over-reaching. Minus one point from totalitarianism. Where's the problem?
Unless totalitarianism is a tactic of the Left?
Interesting use of the word "totalitarianism" in response to a government regulation mandating anti-discrimination. Oh, you'll probably say that you are in favor of Title IX, but notice that you're complaining about the guidelines explicitly protecting trans people...saying they "didn't add anything to the law;" something trivially disproven given the Gavin Grimm case.
But, let's go on:
Message 225
That's not really a fair comparison. Jim Crow Laws were just that; laws. They were put on by the state, not the capitalists. Businesses had to comply with them.
"Take your business elsewhere" is the only response we need to this perceived discrimination. We do not need a state involved. Capitalism would sort it out.
Capitalists don't care about your religion or skin color, they just want your money.
And the people don't want to give their money to bigots, so businesses will naturally not discriminate or they will go out of business.
There's that admonition of government interference. You first insinuate that it wasn't capitalists that instituted the segregation laws, even though it was. You then say that we didn't even need any governmental interference to manage it with the risible "take your business elsewhere" mantra and a direct statement, "We do not need a state involved." Strange how that didn't seem to solve the problem then, so why would it solve it now?
But, let's go on:
Message 293
I think looking to the feds to provide you with how to think about something is pretty totalitarian.
There's that word "totalitarian" again...and again in reference to anti-discrimination laws. You try to explain what you mean with:
It's the approach: "this is kinda hard to figure out, big brother please help me!"
So one again, you seem to be complaining about the effective use of government with regard to anti-discrimination.
Oh, and this will come up again, soon, so don't forget it.
But, let's go on:
Message 295, where you respond directly to me asking you about anti-discrimination law:
Are you saying we should do away with anti-discrimination law?
No, I'm saying we don't need it. Capitalists and a free market would sort it out.
So here we have a direct statement of yours saying that we don't need anti-discrimination law. Now, given your previous comments about government interference and totalitarianism and "how to think," it's hard not to get the impression that you're not impressed with anti-discrimination law.
Same message, in response to someone reporting a proprietor to the regulatory agency for violation of anti-discrimination law:
Yup, that's a totalitarian tactic. I'm just saying we don't need it.
And there we have it. Anti-discrimination law is "totalitarian." Are you about to say that when you use the word "totalitarian," you don't mean that it's a "problem"?
But, let's go on:
Message 299
We really don't need a state giving us laws in order to figure this out.
Also, racial segregation was mandated by the state by law. It wasn't just a bunch of mean ol' capitalists trying to limit their business opportunities.
And, we're back to your attempt to invoke "No True Capitalist" and say that it was the evil "totalitarians" who instituted segregation laws, even though that is trivially proven false. And again, you claim that "we don't need" anti-discrimination laws.
Now, here's a possible thought: You could try to weasel out of this by saying that when you repeatedly claim that "we don't need" anti-discrimination law, you mean that it's a tool that we might have in the box but it isn't something that has to be used...kinda like how you don't need a rice cooker to make rice so long as you have a pot.
But that doesn't exactly jibe with a follow-up comment that rice cookers are "totalitarian" and violate "capitalism."
But, let's go on:
Message 331, again with you responding directly to me regarding the lunch counter sit-ins:
So since we know that "capitalists and a free market" don't actually sort it out, what do we do then?
We know that it won't sort it out when the state is involved and preventing them.
Now, this is because you were completely ignorant of the lunch counter sit-ins. There was no mandated segregation at that location. In fact, the four students who started it had just bought some toothpaste at the integrated counter before going over to the lunch counter.
So for you to blame the state rather than the capitalists who didn't seem to have any trouble taking black people's money in one way but not another is very telling, don't you think?
Perhaps that governmental interference is the problem? I mean, let's take a look at the rest of that sentence, shall we:
Also, after the state couldn't do that anymore then the capitalists started serving people.
Because that is precisely the opposite of what happened. There was no law preventing them from serving black people, and yet they didn't. Where were the vaunted "capitalists" who would have immediately "sorted out" racism if not for the "totalitarian" state telling them not to?
You continue on, responding to my comment:
And considering that we're a democracy and these laws were enacted via the democratic process, exactly how is it "totalitarian"?
It's the tactic of looking to the feds to provide people's thoughts and behaviors through force of law.
Ignoring the "thoughts" part of that statement (but don't forget it...it'll come back up soon), it's quite telling that you are upset of the law regulating behaviour.
Do you even understand what the law is for? It's to regulate behaviour. That's all it can do. That's the entire point behind anti-discrimination law: To regulate racist behaviour.
And yet here you are, claiming that to do so is "totalitarian."
That your immediate response to 'we don't need this' is: "But how are we going to end racism?" shows your totalitarian nature.
And there it is again...anti-discrimination law is "totalitarian," that it isn't something we "need."
So, when you say that you "don't think that at all," it becomes quite apparent that you are...oh, how to describe it?...how about, "being less than honest." It's like you have forgotten that we have a record of your past arguments and can look them up. Are you pulling a Faith where a comment you make in another thread is somehow negated here because you didn't make it here?
Now, I'm hardly saying that because you think anti-discrimination laws are, oh, let's be kind and say, part of the problem that you are some sort of slathering racist who wants to establish a white state. I do not doubt that you don't like racism. You just don't like government, too. Arguably your distaste for government is more intense than for racism and thus, you are willing to tolerate racist acts in order to prevent the government from getting involved.
But at least be honest about it.
On top of that, despite your claim that the free market will sort it out, you then immediately contradict yourself and say that it won't, indeed, that it can't:
Message 335
If the society accepts racist behavior, capitalism itself will just go along.
So it seems you're trying to have it both ways. The "free market" can end racism, but it can't if the capitalists don't want to end it. If capitalism can't end racism if the society doesn't want to end it, then it's a useless tool.
You do understand that concept, yes? A difference that makes no difference is no difference. If you add a quantity to a situation and there is no change, then it didn't actually do anything. If adding capitalism to racism doesn't stop racism, then capitalism has no effect upon racism.
It's obvious that you're more interested in running away from your own argument than accept the consequences of having made them.
No wonder you're done.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-15-2017 9:55 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-16-2017 10:52 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024