Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bobboau on June 26, 2015, 12:02:12 pm
-
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/26/us-usa-court-gaymarriage-idUSKBN0P61SW20150626
-
And it's about time too.
-
I was expecting it to be another 3-5 years myself.
-
About time. Another success for separation of church and state, and for equality.
-
This is not a success for separation of church and state. It is the opposite.
Marriage is a religious institution, and by ruling on it the Supreme Court has ****ed the first amendment. What they should have done was said that priests and pastors are free to refuse to marry same-sex couples, but same-sex couples have a right to a civil union with all the benefits of a marriage.
-
What they should have done was said that priests and pastors are free to refuse to marry same-sex couples, but same-sex couples have a right to a civil union with all the benefits of a marriage.
Except that is exactly what they did. As far as I figured out, religions are still fully entitled to refuse same-sex marriage. Civil union is often called marriage ("civil marriage" in Poland, as opposed to "church marriage"), which is what I guess they've been referring to. It's just a matter of terminology. You still can't force a church to carry out a marriage it disagrees with.
-
(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/11541902_10153506270007722_5501919531168425384_n.jpg?oh=630c12728e68acd5002bfe81fbc72964&oe=5622B8C2)
Also, the twitter feeds about people wanting to move to Canada because of it...
Man, the stupidity of some people. Wait, sorry, ignorance. Naw, stupidity.
-
That article was very confusing. Language is everything.
-
I will agree that I would have preferred that we ended up with no legal thing called marriage, but because that was a thing and it had been separated from religion this was the right call. no one is going to force maraiges that go against a given church to be performed by that church.
also:
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-ne4P9MzGwp4/VY2S3afCNFI/AAAAAAABCSo/K_tr3RrQ5nU/w638-h600-no/0jpgH3d.gif)
-
^ Well...that escalated quickly.
*looks outside* Huh...no fire and brimstone raining from the heavens, no earthquakes or tidal waves or Godzilla invasions. Who knew?
-
Typical americans, always getting the cool toys last... :D
-
Marriage is a religious institution, and by ruling on it the Supreme Court has ****ed the first amendment. What they should have done was said that priests and pastors are free to refuse to marry same-sex couples, but same-sex couples have a right to a civil union with all the benefits of a marriage.
Bull****. Marriage ceased to be a religious institution the moment two non-religious people could get married, or someone could legally marry by getting a mail-in certificate or fifteen minutes on the internet. I have seen exactly zero metaphorical torches and pitchforks condemning the union of two athiests.
And FYI, priests and pastros are free to refuse to marry whoever the **** they don't want to. The problem here is that it was not possible to obtain marriage licenses for same-sex couples from the government offices.
tl;dr **** right the hell off religion had nothing to do with this decision.
-
^ Well...that escalated quickly.
*looks outside* Huh...no fire and brimstone raining from the heavens, no earthquakes or tidal waves or Godzilla invasions. Who knew?
Remark reminds me of the Onion
http://www.theonion.com/articleslideshow/gay-marriage-in-america-the-march-to-destroy-tradi-37126
-
Thing is, even the idea that marriage is a 'religious' act is fraught with confusion in the first place. It is, for the main part, a social act, it roughly translates to 'this man/woman belong me!', and has grown outward into a ceremony from there, like so many other rites that probably date back as far as civilization.
Yes, religion is almost inevitably involved, but more as a vessel to come up with a show, whether it is the blessings of Hapi as you sail down a Golden Barge in the Nile, waiting to become the partner of an Egyptian Pharaoh (and because all etchings depicted all Pharaohs as male, there's very little guide about the marriage principles of ancient Egypt) or a Mayan farmworker at the local shrine being cut in sensitive places by a lower priest as a symbol of wedlock to the woodcutters' daughter, religion just does the pomp and circumstance (or -cize in the case of the Mayans).
To say that marriage is the property of a specific set of religious values suggests there is only one kind of 'real' marriage, which is, oddly enough, also a violation of Freedom of Speech.
In this case, the Goverment takes the place of a religion in 'sanctifying' the wedding with it's own holy sacrament... paperwork. All the law really does is instate that in law so that the institution of 'being married' has to be respected, just as if it were performed in a Church, a Mosque or a Gurdwara.
-
Being a Californian I can't even make new jokes about this. They've been done before. Do you know how many times I've watched a friend's brain hard-reboot when they made a "we should get married!"/"why don't you marry them!" joke since 2013 and pointing out that's actually possible?
-
You still can't force a church to carry out a marriage it disagrees with.
no one is going to force maraiges that go against a given church to be performed by that church.
And FYI, priests and pastros are free to refuse to marry whoever the **** they don't want to.
Who wants to bet this will no longer be the case in five years?
*looks outside* Huh...no fire and brimstone raining from the heavens, no earthquakes or tidal waves or Godzilla invasions. Who knew?
Ah, you're too impatient. Wait one generation and look outside again.
Marriage ceased to be a religious institution the moment two non-religious people could get married, or someone could legally marry by getting a mail-in certificate or fifteen minutes on the internet. I have seen exactly zero metaphorical torches and pitchforks condemning the union of two athiests. [...] The problem here is that it was not possible to obtain marriage licenses for same-sex couples from the government offices.
In this case, the Goverment takes the place of a religion in 'sanctifying' the wedding with it's own holy sacrament... paperwork. All the law really does is instate that in law so that the institution of 'being married' has to be respected, just as if it were performed in a Church, a Mosque or a Gurdwara.
Quoting both of these for truth. This is correct and needs to be more widely understood. Marriage licenses are a fairly recent development, civilizationally speaking.
-
You still can't force a church to carry out a marriage it disagrees with.
no one is going to force maraiges that go against a given church to be performed by that church.
And FYI, priests and pastros are free to refuse to marry whoever the **** they don't want to.
Who wants to bet this will no longer be the case in five years?
Is there any jurisdiction in the world where Priests are legally required to marry anyone?
-
Is there any jurisdiction in the world where Priests are legally required to marry anyone?
You cannot refuse services based on gender or race, even if it is a private business. So something like that is not unthinkable. There is a big slippery slope. I am all for gay marriage, but I think Id rather have it by honest voting and not this judicial activism. Anyway, what about affirmative action, so the government cannot discriminate when it comes to marriage but it can discriminate when it comes to employment or schools? The hypocrisy is still palpable.
-
Is there any jurisdiction in the world where Priests are legally required to marry anyone?
You cannot refuse services based on gender or race, even if it is a private business. So something like that is not unthinkable. There is a big slippery slope. I am all for gay marriage, but I think Id rather have it by honest voting and not this judicial activism. Anyway, what about affirmative action, so the government cannot discriminate when it comes to marriage but it can discriminate when it comes to employment or schools? The hypocrisy is still palpable.
Name A SINGLE JURISDICTION ON THIS PLANET where, after gay marriage was introduced, a law forcing priests to marry everyone regardless of the requirements of their religion was later introduced.
A. SINGLE. ****ING. ONE.
This slippery slope argument is bull****.
-
There are, in fairness, some wrinkles that need ironing out, I've heard people talking about the 'Gay Cake' issue (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32913283), which is a bit of a two-edged sword in my eyes, I would not, for example, go into a Muslim cake-shop and ask for Baklavas with little icing suicide bombers on them, but then, I wonder how 'often' the store defines its Christianity, if it had been called something like 'Gods Christian Cakeshop', would the customers have looked elsewhere for service? Sometimes keeping your religion under the counter like a shotgun can lead to confusion if you are going to use it as a part of the terms and conditions of service.
That said, Churches and Priests are different, they are the very epitome of those religious beliefs and you wouldn't be able to force them to conduct gay marriage, it would be illogical to the point where it's like saying a jobless, penniless person could sue a bank manager for refusing to give them a loan because it's 'discrimination' against the poor...
-
You still can't force a church to carry out a marriage it disagrees with.
no one is going to force maraiges that go against a given church to be performed by that church.
And FYI, priests and pastros are free to refuse to marry whoever the **** they don't want to.
Who wants to bet this will no longer be the case in five years?
I'll bet you two month's exclusive coding time on a feature the winner wants right now.
-
There are, in fairness, some wrinkles that need ironing out, I've heard people talking about the 'Gay Cake' issue (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-32913283), which is a bit of a two-edged sword in my eyes, I would not, for example, go into a Muslim cake-shop and ask for Baklavas with little icing suicide bombers on them, but then, I wonder how 'often' the store defines its Christianity, if it had been called something like 'Gods Christian Cakeshop', would the customers have looked elsewhere for service? Sometimes keeping your religion under the counter like a shotgun can lead to confusion if you are going to use it as a part of the terms and conditions of service.
That said, Churches and Priests are different, they are the very epitome of those religious beliefs and you wouldn't be able to force them to conduct gay marriage, it would be illogical to the point where it's like saying a jobless, penniless person could sue a bank manager for refusing to give them a loan because it's 'discrimination' against the poor...
If you only marry people of your community, like a Jewish synagogue, obviously you wouldn't be affected by this. But many churches let themselves be open wedding venues that anyone can use for a wedding. If they're going to do that but turn down a gay or lesbian wedding, sorry, we've caught you with your hand in the cookie jar.
-
I constantly feel the need to remind people pulling religion into this topic, as a means to say that marriage should be this or that based on religion, that marriage predates religion.
-
*looks outside* Huh...no fire and brimstone raining from the heavens, no earthquakes or tidal waves or Godzilla invasions. Who knew?
Ah, you're too impatient. Wait one generation and look outside again.
I'm not exactly going to hold my breath over it.
-
Name A SINGLE JURISDICTION ON THIS PLANET where, after gay marriage was introduced, a law forcing priests to marry everyone regardless of the requirements of their religion was later introduced.
A. SINGLE. ****ING. ONE.
This slippery slope argument is bull****.
Y'see, I said "five years from now", not "at the present time". If five years have elapsed and this hasn't come true, feel free to start ranting.
I'll bet you two month's exclusive coding time on a feature the winner wants right now.
Considering that both of us are rather starved for coding time, that may not be a very valuable bet. :)
But sure, and I'll make it a little more specific. Within five years of the Supreme Court decision (provided the decision has not been overturned by another decision or a constitutional amendment), there will have been at least one court order in the USA for a priest, minister, or pastor to marry a gay couple against his will, or for a gay wedding to take place in a church building against the wishes of the church custodians.
-
Name A SINGLE JURISDICTION ON THIS PLANET where, after gay marriage was introduced, a law forcing priests to marry everyone regardless of the requirements of their religion was later introduced.
A. SINGLE. ****ING. ONE.
This slippery slope argument is bull****.
Y'see, I said "five years from now", not "at the present time". If five years have elapsed and this hasn't come true, feel free to start ranting.
There are a few countries out there that have successfully established gay marriage rights. None of them have taken any steps in the direction you say is inevitable for the US. As a result, I am extremely skeptical that your fears are in any way founded in reality.
So, I am asking you for indicators or precedents for this happening. If there are any, I will gladly stop ranting. If there aren't, I definitely want to know the reasoning behind your very firm sounding statements.
-
There are a few countries out there that have successfully established gay marriage rights. None of them have taken any steps in the direction you say is inevitable for the US.
It's not inevitable. I would be very happy to lose this bet. I just don't expect that I will.
As a result, I am extremely skeptical that your fears are in any way founded in reality.
So, I am asking you for indicators or precedents for this happening. If there are any, I will gladly stop ranting. If there aren't, I definitely want to know the reasoning behind your very firm sounding statements.
Here's one I found:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/20/idaho-citys-ordinance-tells-pastors-to-marry-gays-/
Coeur d‘Alene, Idaho, city officials have laid down the law to Christian pastors within their community, telling them bluntly via an ordinance that if they refuse to marry homosexuals, they will face jail time and fines.
“On Friday, a same-sex couple asked to be married by the Knapps, and the Knapps politely declined,” The Daily Signal reported. “The Knapps now face a 180-day jail term and a $1,000 fine for each day they decline to celebrate the same-sex wedding.”
This was eight months ago. I'm actually surprised that it happened this early; I didn't expect it for another two years or so.
-
Right. Followup question: Was that statute upheld in court?
Edit: Surprise, it didn't even get that far. Who would have thought. http://boisestatepublicradio.org/post/coeur-dalene-says-hitching-post-exempt-gay-rights-law
Edit 2: Also, it's interesting how the article you quoted and the article linked to above have differing perspectives. In your source, it sounds as if a gay couple was threatening to sue the owners of that wedding chapel; the one I found says "The city has been embroiled in controversy ever since the owners of the Hitching Post sued the city. They say a city anti-discrimination law threatened to force them to marry same-sex couples now that gay marriage is legal in Idaho."
Then the city looked at the ordinance in question, checked with the people who passed the ordinance, and determined that as a religious organization, that wedding chapel was exempt from the ordinance.
Now, to rephrase my previous question, can you find an example of something like this happening and being upheld in court?
-
Who wants to bet this will no longer be the case in five years?
Christian Identity is a recognized religion in some places; at least enough it manages to get tax-exempt status as such. Their pastors refuse to perform interracial marriages because they're, well, Christian Identity, of white racist fame. Identity goes back to the '70s at the least, which is after Loving v. Virginia struck down laws against the subject.
Their right to do this has never been seriously challenged. People like the Southern Poverty Law Center have come at various Identity ministers and figures with every civil rights violation under the sun. They have never attempted to attack them on these grounds because it's a nonstarter. It's been thirty years and more, and even at the height of the fight against Identity when Aryan Nations was running around murdering people in the early '90s nobody considered that approach.
This comment of yours is ridiculous. Your arguments for it have been not only ridiculous but disingenuous.
-
Now, to rephrase my previous question, can you find an example of something like this happening and being upheld in court?
Well now that's just moving the goalposts. Originally you asked for "indicators or precedents". The example I cited is a precedent. The example Flipside cited is a precedent. They are not instances of the thing happening at the current time, but they are indicators that it may happen in the future.
This comment of yours is ridiculous. Your arguments for it have been not only ridiculous but disingenuous.
So it's ridiculous to wait five years to see whether something will happen within five years?
K. We'll just save time by declaring that we know exactly what will happen.
-
The ridiculous part is your baseless fearmongering over something that does not actually affect you in any way, shape, or form.
-
The SCOTUS decision does not affect First Amendment rights. Regular readers of Popehat will know that means that, while this forces the states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, officiants who refuse their services to same-sex couples, particularly on religious grounds, are still protected by the First Amendment.
Also, Canada - your northern neighbour, for the geographically challenged - has had nationwide same-sex marriage for a DECADE and no one here has been thrown in jail for refusing to marry a same-sex couple (or anyone else, for that matter). The sky is not falling.
And no, marriage is not even remotely a religious institution. Religions embrace all kinds of marriages, but the concept of marriage pre-dates all modern religions.
-
Actually, I take it back, someone is definitely going to try. They will fail.
-
Now, to rephrase my previous question, can you find an example of something like this happening and being upheld in court?
Well now that's just moving the goalposts. Originally you asked for "indicators or precedents". The example I cited is a precedent. The example Flipside cited is a precedent. They are not instances of the thing happening at the current time, but they are indicators that it may happen in the future.
That's fair. But now that you have found a precedent, it's necessary to look at that incident to determine what it was actually a precedent for, and as it turns out, it was a precedent for religious rights being upheld. The scenario you were conjuring up didn't come to pass and there seems to be a clear line for judicial argument that is evolving here, which states that if you are a religious organization, you are not bound by equality laws.
-
The ridiculous part is your baseless fearmongering over something that does not actually affect you in any way, shape, or form.
So, is it necessary for someone to be personally affected by an issue in order to have an opinion on it? I shall be interested to hear you inform your straight allies that their assistance in the court of public opinion is not welcome.
That's fair. But now that you have found a precedent, it's necessary to look at that incident to determine what it was actually a precedent for, and as it turns out, it was a precedent for religious rights being upheld. The scenario you were conjuring up didn't come to pass and there seems to be a clear line for judicial argument that is evolving here, which states that if you are a religious organization, you are not bound by equality laws.
I hope so. But I'm not optimistic. We shall see. I've been wrong before.
I found another article on the subject, this time regarding marriage ceremonies in Denmark:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/9317447/Gay-Danish-couples-win-right-to-marry-in-church.html
The country's parliament voted through the new law on same-sex marriage by a large majority, making it mandatory for all churches to conduct gay marriages.
[...]
Under the law, individual priests can refuse to carry out the ceremony, but the local bishop must arrange a replacement for their church.
So there is an individual exception, but not a church exception. I wonder what would happen if the entire local bishopric refused the ceremony.
-
yeah, they don't have the first amendment. Those countries are also having a rash of blasphemy laws, the same mechanism that makes that sort of thing hard to implement here will also protect religious organizations rights to do whatever they want. keep in mind before this religious organizations in the US which supported gay marriage could not perform them. this only strengthens the first amendment and the protection it instills upon all religions/lack-there-of.
-
So it's ridiculous to wait five years to see whether something will happen within five years?
If I tell you the world will end due to the bunnies gaining sentience and overthrowing mankind in five years, should you be required to accord that statement some kind of respect or weight until five years are passed?
Statements that go against the fundamental governing principles as we understand them, whether it be the First Amendment exercise of religion as enhanced by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or the idea that you can teach rabbits intelligence and the overthrow of mankind in a relatively short timescale, are not meaningful statements. They should not be taken seriously unless extraordinary evidence has been presented.
Not only did you fail to present such evidence, what you actually did was disingenuously present a case where the exact opposite of what you were arguing for happened.
-
to be fair, he only said someone would try.
-
to be fair, he only said someone would try.
Yes, and there's nothing wrong with that. The point isn't whether or not someone would try to do this, it's whether or not they succeed. And it seems highly unlikely that that would happen.
-
Religious communities / peoples in the US are actually being frightened that this scenario will play out. And it's no good to say that they are just scared of some weird slipping rope argumentation that is stupid and will bear no fruit, when all these changes that seemed impossible just a few years ago just turned out true.
The future is fought and built for every single day, and this achievement only makes that point even truer than ever before. I can indeed see how some fringes will eventually try to sue churches who do not marry gays for discrimination. It's not as if people were not up in arms a month ago about some bakers who refused to bake a gay wedding cake, and sued them for that exact same thing IIRC (or at least that was the argument). I do not believe most gays will even think of trying to do that, because of the simple fact that it is an assholeish thing to do. If a church has a definition of marriage that is heterossexual only, why would you force a priest doing something he really believes to be a farce?
Nevertheless, I can totally see a case or two propping up, due to very specific circumstances of some curious backstory or something to that effect. It's bound to happen. And the Christians are totally expecting it to happen and they are also expecting all sorts of media campaigns against their "bigotry" when it happens. It will be ugly to watch. Reasonable people won't do this, of course, but these campaigns are not leveled by reasonable people. And if some random judge happens to rule against one church or two, mayhem will occur. "Culture Wars" will rise to a whole new meaning.
It's a scenario that I for one have no desire to watch being played out, so I really hope reasonableness and common sense may prevail in the future, and all incidents of this sort may defuse and be treated eloquently and sensibly without stepping into these christian's throats.
-
Nevertheless, I can totally see a case or two propping up, due to very specific circumstances of some curious backstory or something to that effect. It's bound to happen. And the Christians are totally expecting it to happen and they are also expecting all sorts of media campaigns against their "bigotry" when it happens. It will be ugly to watch. Reasonable people won't do this, of course, but these campaigns are not leveled by reasonable people. And if some random judge happens to rule against one church or two, mayhem will occur. "Culture Wars" will rise to a whole new meaning.
In the particular case Goober was citing, the problem was that the Wedding Chapel in question was not openly affiliated with any church, but actually available for rent for anyone; Only after the city passed the ordinance that said that businesses may not discriminate against customers did the owners get worried that someday a gay couple would come and insist on renting their place (they had refused a gay couple before). So the simple solution was to get that business reclassified as a religious business, and all was well again.
What that tells me is that there are clear routes available for those who want to continue to discriminate against teh gays, and since those routes are founded on some clear principles laid out in the US Constitution, it's going to take some major doing to change them.
he Knapps' attorney said the city is about to be tested on its approach. He said the Knapps have been contacted by the police about a complaint filed on Thursday by a same-sex couple who were turned away at the Old West themed chapel.
Leo Morales of the ACLU of Idaho said the exemption makes sense as long as the Hitching Post primarily performs religious ceremonies.
“However, if they do non-religious ceremonies as well, they would be violating the anti-discrimination ordinance,” Morales said. “It's the religious activity that's being protected."
Filings with the Idaho Secretary of State show the Hitching Post became a limited liability company on September 12. Court documents in the Knapps’ federal lawsuit show they signed a business operating agreement on October 6 that lists the following as the purpose of their LLC:
“The Hitching Post is a religious corporation owned solely by ordained ministers of the Christian religion who operate this entity as an extension of their sincerely held religious beliefs and in accordance with their vows taken as Christian ministers. The purpose of the Hitching Post is to help people create, celebrate, and build lifetime, monogamous, one-man-one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible.”
-
The Onion's take is as always hilarious, but also amusingly plausible. (http://www.theonion.com/article/scalia-thomas-roberts-alito-suddenly-realize-they--32972)
I'd watch that movie. Probably end up critiquing the hell out of it, but my favorite gay marriage decision remains a federal district judge one anyways. Kennedy has an appropriate gravitas to his decision considering his position, but the Supreme Court's scope for flair is sorely restricted compared to lower-level federal judges.
-
If I tell you the world will end due to the bunnies gaining sentience and overthrowing mankind in five years, should you be required to accord that statement some kind of respect or weight until five years are passed?
Statements that go against the fundamental governing principles as we understand them, whether it be the First Amendment exercise of religion as enhanced by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or the idea that you can teach rabbits intelligence and the overthrow of mankind in a relatively short timescale, are not meaningful statements. They should not be taken seriously unless extraordinary evidence has been presented.
The scenario you describe is a paradigm shift. The scenario I describe is merely an extrapolation of trends.
Not only did you fail to present such evidence, what you actually did was disingenuously present a case where the exact opposite of what you were arguing for happened.
That's a lie. "A potential for X to happen where X did not occur" is not at all the same thing as "the exact opposite of X happened".
What that tells me is that there are clear routes available for those who want to continue to discriminate against teh gays, and since those routes are founded on some clear principles laid out in the US Constitution, it's going to take some major doing to change them.
"Those who want to discriminate" is a mischaracterization of the situation. The principle here is whether or not people can be legally compelled to endorse an action that they object to on a religious basis. To take the bakery as an example, the bakers would have no problem baking a birthday cake for a gay person, but they draw the line at a wedding cake. Or recall Memories Pizza (http://www.abc57.com/story/28681598/rfra-first-business-to-publicly-deny-same-sex-service): "The O'Connor family told ABC 57 news that if a gay couple or a couple belonging to another religion came in to the restaurant to eat, they would never deny them service," but "'If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no,' says Crystal O'Connor of Memories Pizza."
-
That's a lie. "A potential for X to happen where X did not occur" is not at all the same thing as "the exact opposite of X happened".
"someone tried to X and failed, and that failure is now an on the books precedent making X far less likely in the future" is pretty close to the opposite of "X happened". Close enough that I would consider calling it a lie, somewhat hyperbolic.
"Those who want to discriminate" is a mischaracterization of the situation. The principle here is whether or not people can be legally compelled to endorse an action that they object to on a religious basis. To take the bakery as an example, the bakers would have no problem baking a birthday cake for a gay person, but they draw the line at a wedding cake. Or recall Memories Pizza (http://www.abc57.com/story/28681598/rfra-first-business-to-publicly-deny-same-sex-service): "The O'Connor family told ABC 57 news that if a gay couple or a couple belonging to another religion came in to the restaurant to eat, they would never deny them service," but "'If a gay couple came in and wanted us to provide pizzas for their wedding, we would have to say no,' says Crystal O'Connor of Memories Pizza."
How is that not discrimination? But I suppose it's irrelevant, the distinction in question here centered around businesses vs establishments of religion.
-
To add some info to this: The Netherlands, which was one of the first countries to allow gay couples to marry (or removed the men-women restrictions on the law to save on printing costs and administrative overhead) also have a policy that states that any government official in charge of the marrying process is allowed to walk away from it and let somebody else step in if they feel the marriage violates their own beliefs.
There's currently a bit of a discussion going on whether or not the "refusal officials" should let their personal beliefs sway them that much or that they should just enact the government's laws (as that is what they're being paid for), but as it stands currently, no one is forced to marry people they don't want to marry, let alone the churches, and this is coming from a country where the first article of the constitution forbids discrimination.
By Dutch law the marriage ceremony in church is simply a ceremony and is not legally binding. If you want to marry via church you esentially marry twice: First in front of God and then in front of the law, or vice versa, but you *have* to marry in front of the law whilst the religious institution is, and always has been, optional. As such, the dutch simply don't care about who or who doesn't marry there. It's a private institution and they can do what they want.
Obviously NL is rather different to the US, but I think this an important footnote.
-
Obviously NL is rather different to the US, but I think this an important footnote.
Actually it's not. That church/state thing is very much present here as well, though as a practical matter you don't have to have a civil ceremony, merely acquire a license. (And the issue of an otherwise valid license cannot be refused without being both cause to terminate your employment and at the very least a civil court matter.)
That's a lie. "A potential for X to happen where X did not occur" is not at all the same thing as "the exact opposite of X happened".
Of course, you're lying about what happened and how it works when accusing me of lying, which is both inevitable and hilarious.
It was not a potential for X to happen, for starters, considering the statements of the officials who passed and would have enforced the law.
What was it? It was a preemptive attack by a religious institution on a law that wouldn't effect them anyways resulting in a court decision that stated exactly the opposite of what you are proposing, and thanks to the concept of stare decisis that court decision has legal weight for the future. It is harder to overturn law then it is to interpret or create law.
You'll doubtless make some kind of argument about how stare decisis doesn't count because of what just happened in the Supreme Court, but the problem with that argument is that it does. Previous legal decisions inform new ones; every Circuit Court but one in the US and dozens of District Courts made decisions that mirror that of the Supreme Court, long before we arrived to Obergefell v. Hodges. If not for the Sixth Circuit we would never have been here at all; gay marriage would have swept the Circuit Courts and become the law of the land without the nine supposedly wise souls in Washington.
Was the Supreme Court going to reverse the decisions of a half-dozen Circuit Courts and dozens of District Court judges? It can, of course, and this has been done before. However, all that decisionmaking is not automatically invalidated by the existence of a review by the Supreme Court; it still has weight and still remains law until the Supreme Court decides otherwise, and it has weight in how the Supreme Court considers the questions before them. Even a contrary opinion does not necessarily wipe away all those decisions, depending on how narrowly it's construed; parts of them can survive.
When we turn to the rights of religious institutions to turn away those who do not believe or are not living what they consider sufficiently pure lives, these have been challenged in court thousands of times. People have tried to arrest their Mormon excommunications via the courts, tried to force a Catholic annulment through the actions of the courts, challenged changes in doctrine or eschatology through the courts.
They don't get farther than the front door. They never get farther than the front door. There are hundreds of years of American jurisprudence that make it clear that is, was, and forever shall be their fate. (As opposed to basically twenty-five years of American jurisprudence regarding same-sex marriage, if that much. The argument that hundreds or thousands of years of marriage logic has been overturned here is an obvious lie; same-sex marriage as an idea hasn't existed for that period of time, and nobody's arguing legally about regular marriage here.)
-
Texas seems to be trying to go the Netherlands route, apparently the attorney general there is saying clerks do not have to issue a license if they don't want to. That's probably not going to stand long.
-
"someone tried to X and failed, and that failure is now an on the books precedent making X far less likely in the future" is pretty close to the opposite of "X happened". Close enough that I would consider calling it a lie, somewhat hyperbolic.
Not at all. The occurrence in question is "someone tried to X and failed". "The opposite of X" would mean that either X "unhappened" or Not-X happened. Events which occurred after "someone tried to X" are irrelevant to this point.
How is that not discrimination? But I suppose it's irrelevant, the distinction in question here centered around businesses vs establishments of religion.
It's not discrimination because it's not a blanket refusal to serve gays whatsoever the circumstance.
By Dutch law the marriage ceremony in church is simply a ceremony and is not legally binding. If you want to marry via church you esentially marry twice: First in front of God and then in front of the law, or vice versa, but you *have* to marry in front of the law whilst the religious institution is, and always has been, optional. As such, the dutch simply don't care about who or who doesn't marry there. It's a private institution and they can do what they want.
Are churches exempt from taxes under Dutch law? I suspect the legal lever that will be used in the US is that churches will have to perform same-sex marriages to retain their tax-exempt status.
Of course, you're lying about what happened and how it works when accusing me of lying, which is both inevitable and hilarious.
It was not a potential for X to happen, for starters, considering the statements of the officials who passed and would have enforced the law.
What was it? It was a preemptive attack by a religious institution on a law that wouldn't effect them anyways resulting in a court decision that stated exactly the opposite of what you are proposing, and thanks to the concept of stare decisis that court decision has legal weight for the future. It is harder to overturn law then it is to interpret or create law.
[...]
Expounding at length about stare decisis is quite irrelevant to the point I made, which was the threat that Hitching Post would be compelled to perform the cerermony. It is not the case that Hitching Post was compelled not to perform the ceremony. It is not the case that Hitching Post was not threatened. Therefore, your statement "the exact opposite of what you were arguing for happened" was a lie.
And considering the statements of the officials, as you say, this is what you find prior to the court decision:
“Those have all been addressed in various states and run afoul of state prohibitions similar to this,” he said. “I would think that the Hitching Post would probably be considered a place of public accommodation that would be subject to the ordinance.”
“The Hitching Post might still have an obligation to figure out a way to officiate at that ceremony,” he said.
"He" refers to Coeur d’Alene city attorney Warren Wilson. Source: http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/may/15/ministers-diverge-in-opinion-on-lifting-of-idahos/
EDIT: And from here (http://dailysignal.com/2014/10/25/qa-couple-look-pauls-example-resisting-order-perform-gay-marriages/), this quote: "The city of Coeur d’Alene made it clear at least three times this past year — both publicly and twice privately to me — that we would be breaking the law if we declined to conduct a same-sex ceremony. I was told we could face criminal prosecution, with a jail sentence of up to six months and/or a fine of up to $1,000 each time and each day we declined to perform a same-sex wedding ceremony."
-
Ok, if you really want we can be super legalistic and pedantic, but your actual and legitimate concern is that houses of worship will be forced to act against their principals. You called me and others out when we said no one was going to try to do that. Our intention was to say that's never going to happen, but you focused on the attempt, and you showed that someone attempted it. As soon as you called me on my wording I realized what I said was technically incorrect, as it is obvious that someone would try. But the important point, and the point it feels you are trying to lawyer your way around, is that is that the legitimately troubling prospect of religious establishments being forced to act against their principals has no conceivable path to fruition. The first amendment is quite potent, and has quite a few people who support it. Many of the people who are your enemies on gay marriage are your allies when it comes to the first amendment and the shielding effect it has for religions. This isn't the end of the world (I'm sorry I know you are looking forward to that) this is simply a reaffirmation that it is not the government's job to compel people to follow a particular religion, this is a good thing for you and your decedents, please try to think about the long game.
-
Ok, if you really want we can be super legalistic and pedantic, but your actual and legitimate concern is that houses of worship will be forced to act against their principals. You called me and others out when we said no one was going to try to do that. Our intention was to say that's never going to happen, but you focused on the attempt, and you showed that someone attempted it. As soon as you called me on my wording I realized what I said was technically incorrect, as it is obvious that someone would try. But the important point, and the point it feels you are trying to lawyer your way around, is that is that the legitimately troubling prospect of religious establishments being forced to act against their principals has no conceivable path to fruition. The first amendment is quite potent, and has quite a few people who support it. Many of the people who are your enemies on gay marriage are your allies when it comes to the first amendment and the shielding effect it has for religions. This isn't the end of the world (I'm sorry I know you are looking forward to that) this is simply a reaffirmation that it is not the government's job to compel people to follow a particular religion, this is a good thing for you and your decedents, please try to think about the long game.
That's a good summary. The only "lawyering" I was doing was correcting people who said the attempt wasn't actually an attempt. But yes, the important point here is first amendment protection. For now it remains intact, and has even been reaffirmed. I hope it stays that way.
(I'm not especially looking forward to the end of the world per se. The Bible calls it "terrible", as in "causing terror". I'm looking forward to what comes next.)
-
Well, the tribulation isn't 'The End' it's the pregame show. God's way of showing man that he can't work without God. So it's all just part of the plan, and if you're right you'll be raptured before that anyway. You'll get to watch the fireworks form a nice air conditioned luxury box in the sky, right?
...maybe this isn't the best thread for this line of conversation...
-
I for one welcome our secular overlords.
For what its worth, i think that most of europe has a similar to NL separation of "church marriage" and "state marriage", as in, church officials dont get to declare the marriage legal for all matters worldly, the poor schmuck clerk who ended up on the other side of the table when you waltzed in to his office does. Personally i know its like this in Croatia, Slovenia and i'm fairly certain its also like this in Austria as well.
As a side note, we had a referendum recently in Croatia, about this retarded notion that the term "Marriage" should be interred in our constitution as "union of a man and a woman". Guess who pushed that through and basically ****ed our constitution over sideways to the point its utterly contradictory?
Also, guess who got the rights granted to them by "marriage" but under a different name (something akin to "civil union", if memory serves) a month later after the constitution was raped?
(gay marriage rights "fights" here in croatia were more to allow all the same rights, inheritance, tax and medical-care wise, than for the actual term of "marriage")
-
Dont worry, there is still one way left to legally prevent gays from marrying: get rid of marriage altogether!
http://wgntv.com/2015/06/27/utah-lawmaker-drafts-bill-to-do-away-with-marriage/
Now I am not sure how realistic this is to pass, however legal marriage abolition is something I can get behind. In a way, this makes Utah the most progressive state, lol :lol:
-
yeah, I'll agree this would have been the optimal solution, though it's funny how now that gay marriage is a thing some want to go all scorched earth thermonuclear over it.
-
You can't just get rid of marriage without overhauling, inheritance, child and taxing laws. Possibly others as well. Getting rid of non-religious marriage may also remove an incentive for people to get together and have children (a costly endeavor even with tax breaks), unless there is some replacement policy.
I'd be in favor of it if it came with additional laws that provide similar "pro-family" benefits. The Western society is growing old, and this puts a huge strain on the retirement system. It's not too bad in the US right now, but it's going that way, just slower than Europe.
-
Are churches exempt from taxes under Dutch law? I suspect the legal lever that will be used in the US is that churches will have to perform same-sex marriages to retain their tax-exempt status.
Religious institutions in the Netherlands are subjected to special tax laws just as charities and worker's unions. This has also not changed.
Another way of thinking, perhaps: Are marriages conducted *solely* by the church legally binding in your state?
-
...incentive for people to get together and have children...
we barely have enough jobs for the people we have now and the future is automating away most of those, do we really need that many people?
-
^ Somebody told me once that the incentive states puts on producing more children was more about increasing the chances of having the next Einstein scientist or Bill Gates businessman or something, than producing workers, for which there aren't enough jobs for, or can be brought in from abroad.
Not sure how true that is, but it was notable and interesting enough for me to remember it.
-
...incentive for people to get together and have children...
we barely have enough jobs for the people we have now and the future is automating away most of those, do we really need that many people?
Yes. Who else is gonna support us when we grow old? The next generation, of course. The entire retirement system in most European countries (dunno about the US) depends on there being a lot more young people than old. The country can gain money on young people and spend it on the old ones. If that assumption is violated, things go downhill, fast. It doesn't seem that bad in the US, but that's because it's not getting as old as Europe, there are still plenty of young people to go around. Breaking this is a very bad idea because of huge inertia inherent in the issue. Break it once and by the time you notice the effects, the problem is very hard to fix and effects will again take a long time to show.
Even if not state-based, private retirement fund companies would face the same problems. If there are more people to be paid than paying, they'll go bankrupt. Retirement systems I know about are very vulnerable to distortions in the age pyramid.
Also, automation isn't going to happen if human workers are cheaper. Jobs are already taken away by outsourcing, with the effects inside the country being the same. It's not that there isn't enough work for humans in the US. It's that using humans from other places is more economical.
-
Getting rid of non-religious marriage may also remove an incentive for people to get together and have children (a costly endeavor even with tax breaks), unless there is some replacement policy.
You could tie the benefits to actual parenthood and pregnancy instead of marriage. So there is no need for marriage just to incentivize children.
we barely have enough jobs for the people we have now and the future is automating away most of those, do we really need that many people?
I do not believe absolute number of people matters much for employment. Because if you have more people, then there will be more to employ but also more to create demand. Similarly, with less people there is less to employ but less to create demand. It cancels out in the end.
But what is important is demographic trends (rate of change), because of troubles with retirement and such. Stabilised population would be ideal. However most first world nations are well below that number, therefore we should incentivize children.
-
You could tie the benefits to actual parenthood and pregnancy instead of marriage. So there is no need for marriage just to incentivize children.
Yes, but this might be more complex than it seems. Marriage simplifies a great many things, it's essentially a formal declaration of two people forming a family. That means, in most cases, that they share a place to live, their money and children. It's not easy to go back on this, but it has a number of benefits as well. The system is somewhat flawed (for example, it prohibits polygamy, which is allowed in many religions), but it does what it's supposed to in most cases. It not only incentives people to have children, it incentives them to raise them together. You could keep all those functions through other means, but it'd be a massive legal undertaking. Also, it might increase paperwork overhead associated with having a child, since now instead of a single declaration of marriage you'll have at least two formal declarations of parenthood (which might not be as clear, as well).
Removing civil marriage would have a large impact on society. No doubt it'd cause new pathologies to spring up, but it might also remove some old ones. And the amount of paperwork will almost certainly increase. Marriage, as a union of two people, is something we're used to, we know how it works and it seems to work fine in great majority of cases. It can be gotten rid of, but it would be an enormous change that would have to be handled very carefully. A botched transition could really mess things up, as well.
-
Within the "it will never come up, stop with your slippery slope conservatard nonsense" news section, here's something that actually surprised me given how little time period we had before this was even raised as an issue. You'd hope that given this victory against the religious conservatives, a small modicum of discreetness and patience would be advised, but hey, Utopia is calling and life's short, so why not give reason to every single conservative that was fearmongering about how "polygamy would be next!" by precisely starting to write Op'eds in defense of Polygamy?
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/gay-marriage-decision-polygamy-119469.html
While important legal and practical questions remain unresolved, with the Supreme Court’s ruling and broad public support, marriage equality is here to stay. Soon, it will be time to turn the attention of social liberalism to the next horizon. Given that many of us have argued, to great effect, that deference to tradition is not a legitimate reason to restrict marriage rights to groups that want them, the next step seems clear. We should turn our efforts towards the legal recognition of marriages between more than two partners. It’s time to legalize polygamy.
-
To be honest, I was wondering when that shoe would drop.
Frankly, I don't have a problem with consensual polygamy, but the problem is that Polygamy seems entirely centred on the man having multiple wives, and is often powered by pressure rather than an agreement between both the parties made outside of duress or free of social or cultural pressure.
Edit : Kind of odd if you consider that social and cultural pressure was a lot of the reasons behind Gays not being allowed the rights of marriage for so long.
-
I am also waiting to see (actually no but hey) the civil war in the far left between the polygamists and the third wave feminists who will precisely raise your point about polygamous relationships being usually patriarchal, male dominated and thus antithetical to their ideas. Contrarians will point out that this stereotype is bigotry at its finest, that just like gays were bashed as being pedophiles, now polygamists are being bashed for creating harems, etc.
Meanwhile the right will be baffled by all of this civil war, raise their arms in desperation and call this the end times. It will be dreadful.
-
Or you could just stay off twitter :p
-
And miss all the fun?
-
Nah, we're having too much fun gawking at Richard Dawkins claim the Civil War wasn't really neccessary to free the slaves and that it corrupts children to teach them fairy tales. We'll cross the polygamy issue bridge when we come to it.
Seriously though, the Charleston massacre and police killings of black men and women are going to suck up the left's attention for a while. Hopefully there'll be some attention given to the fact that you can still be fired for marrying your same sex partner in ~30 states. And then there's the ongoing attacks on trans individuals in state legislatures. It will be a very long time before anyone cares about polygamy.
-
That kind of misreading + trollposting ability really is absolutely astounding Vega, even for you. Slow clap.
e: regarding " It will be a very long time before anyone cares about polygamy.", that was my calculation as well, but apparently, I was already wrong. I wasn't expecting an op'ed about it so soon. So perhaps I was too optimistic in that vector, I'm probably as optimistic regarding how soon people will care about this. Ten years? 15?
-
My apologies, I don't want to interrupt your imaginings of civil wars between groups you often intensely dislike for your own amusement. Carry on.
Anyways, back on subject, Canadian LGBT advocacy groups lost most of their funding when marriage was legalised. That just can't happen in America, not with the want for comprehensive anti-discrimination laws, and I don't think it will, but like, I can't exactly convince myself why that scenario can't happen.
I've also heard a lot of transfolk terrified that the right will focus their attacks on them now that gays are politically untouchable. I'm less worried about that. It's become its own discussion point very rapidly now. Caitlyn Jenner, John Oliver's newest episode, Leelah's Law. Political resistance to anti-trans laws should develop much more rapidly than anti-gay laws, since the path has been so recently walked on.
The American right has been built on the culture wars idea. Is abortion really going to win elections for them? Or anti-trans legislation? Gun control won't work for much longer either. This may be the end of the RR's influence simply because they're going to run out of social issues they can pick up votes for.
-
Le sigh.
People still think republicans are about nothing but the polarized social issues. I suppose it's easier that way though, so we're just the crazy racist/homophobic/anti-whatever else fringe and can be written off without a second thought. Surely no good person could be conservative.
-
Le sigh.
People still think republicans are about nothing but the polarized social issues. I suppose it's easier that way though, so we're just the crazy racist/homophobic/anti-whatever else fringe and can be written off without a second thought. Surely no good person could be conservative.
I said religious right. The Republican mainstream discourse will be dominated by economic and racial issues from here on out. Which should be good for them, at least in the short run.
-
Le sigh.
People still think republicans are about nothing but the polarized social issues. I suppose it's easier that way though, so we're just the crazy racist/homophobic/anti-whatever else fringe and can be written off without a second thought. Surely no good person could be conservative.
Republican != conservative.
Conservative != Republican.
-
Le sigh.
People still think republicans are about nothing but the polarized social issues. I suppose it's easier that way though, so we're just the crazy racist/homophobic/anti-whatever else fringe and can be written off without a second thought. Surely no good person could be conservative.
Republican != conservative.
Conservative != Republican.
That's less and less true now. Even if you let the meaning of the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' drift so as not to confuse the ever-confused mainstream media conversation.
-
And miss all the fun?
There won't be any fun, there will just be manufactured outrage by people who have a vested interest in making people believe in 'culture wars'.
-
The Republican party is pretty much a bizarre coalition between theocrats, libertarians, and pro-big-business. Held together mainly by nationalism. It's amazing it works as cohesive as it does, but I suppose that's only because it's being compared to the Democratic party, which is an even looser coalition that will splinter into a dozen parties as soon as the Republicans collapse.
-
I always find it funny that the very people who will fight for liberal ideas in our culture, a few of them will even call themselves "social justice warriors" will then veemently (and with a straight face, no less) deny any culture war whatsoever as a conservative "conspiracy theory" or whatever. Just a second later or before, we see these people pointing fingers at Dawkins or Tim Hunt because they said an "offensive joke", why not hammer the point home till their jobs are taken away, I mean, what's lost really, it was a bigot anyway.
-
Nobody calls himself a "Social Justice Werebear" with a straight face though, the term is invented entirely by people who believe in culture wars :p - I think you might just be confusing "not liking a joke" with a full on war there.
-
Tell that to Tim Hunt or Matt Taylor, I'm pretty sure that's the takeaway of many non-battles of these non-warriors of all of this non-war going on here. Move along, it's just crazy talk.
e: Look, forget about all of the twitter / buzzfeed / mary sue - breitbart wars. When I mention something on the lines of "Culture Wars" I am being a lot more general than all of those social web dramas here, I'm talking about the struggle to change the status quo to a different state that is more in line with a lot of leftist ideas, like the redefinition of marriage, the end of racism (and how to go about it), the relationship between societies and their culture, how do we deal with education and what sorts of ideas and practices should we instill in the next generations, etc. These struggles are political but they are also cultural. There are *sides* to these ideas, why would anyone deny these battles and struggles is beyond me.
The gay achievement in the US this past week could not have been achieved *without* a cultural shift that would support it. And this meant a lot of discussion, a lot of disagreement and a lot of struggle. By all means, do what the extreme left always does and deny words when they are uncomfortable, and thus deny the notion of "Culture Wars", use a different word if you so please. But bear in mind that while you do that sleazy semantical dribble, you are losing my respect.
-
Nobody calls himself a "Social Justice Werebear" with a straight face though, the term is invented entirely by people who believe in culture wars :p - I think you might just be confusing "not liking a joke" with a full on war there.
no the term was used unironically for quite a few years, only recently has it become associated with insane witch hunters on the teaparty of the left.
-
I always find it funny that the very people who will fight for liberal ideas in our culture, a few of them will even call themselves "social justice warriors" will then veemently (and with a straight face, no less) deny any culture war whatsoever as a conservative "conspiracy theory" or whatever.
Your argument is disreputable and your respect meaningless because you're trying to frame it as some kind of battle with victories and losses for both sides. Look around you. It doesn't work that way. If this is a war, then it's one being played out against some alien, incomprehensible juggernaut that overruns defense after defense, with never a meaningful counterstrike. The calls go out and the time, treasure, and energy is poured into the next line of defense for a few years, until it buckles too.
The culture war narrative of battle and boldness is a lie. There is determination, certainly; more than one organization has made same-sex marriage the hill they'd die defending, and are suffering for that decision. But there is nothing bold, no battle being waged, no real effort to do more than hold the current line. You can see it in action now. The only people talking about pushing back the clock on the Supreme Court decision are the ones even people on their own side will deride as the cranks. The hill has been lost and they will rally on another, ceding this one forevermore. The do-nothing Congress we enjoyed manifests the same problem: rather hold it where it stands by doing nothing, than attempt to actually advance an agenda. There is no victory in this sort of defense, however; the will and the ability of your opponents to strike again remains untouched, and so long as that is true no victory is possible.
Cthulhu swims slowly. But Cthulhu only swims left. The culture war narrative was manufactured by the right because it lets people feel they are brave and their lives are exciting; that they are engaged in some grand and meaningful struggle. (You see similar narratives of a grand struggle in which they are participating in many religious sects.) They can role-play brave soldiers in heroic resistance. It's a lie, told cynically; the struggle may be real, but their bravery is false and their efforts, their hopes, always in vain. The line will never hold eternally.
-
Wow, this thread filled up with rhetoric again fast. I'm not going to step in, yet, but please take a moment before you post to make sure it's not too inflammatory going on.
-
I'd never argue that the left hasn't been winning many fights in the culture front in the past 60 years, to say that therefore there isn't a "war" is ludicrous, ridiculous. Of course there's a war, and it's being won by the left. However, this idea that the right hasn't been winning anything whatsoever in cultural terms is... just wrong. Bringing Cthulhu to the analysis as if the shift has been overwhelming is just cherry on cake (albeit a tasteful one).
Only by positing some sort of tautological idea wherein all the modifications = leftism and all that is no more = rightism can one arrive at such patently absurd conclusions, but so is the illusion of the sort of mentality that has been bred in many places: "The only way is forward, the only positive movement is progressivism, the word advanced is just a qualititative analysis on how much to the left a certain society is". It's tautology of the highest degree. All these are truths, anyone who disagrees is a bigot and should be dismissed (how easy it is to fight like this, by declaring victory by fiat).
I could give you plenty of examples, wherein leftism has been defeated, namely the rise of individualism, the rise of "self-made-men" mentality, the "greed is good" culture that is bred in many work places, the complete dismantlement of the unions, the defeat of socialism against privatization and commoditization of every aspect of our lives - and don't even think of bringing the complaint that these are just "economic" issues, for they are first and foremost cultural ones - but I could also bring about the huge defeat of the sexual liberation movement, wherein in every aspect of modern culture, sex is still regarded as forbidden and taboo, while violence, war and murder are regarded as cool and exciting (movies, games, books, whatever). The defeat of leftist ideals both in the middle east and the feedback this has on America itself (the skyrocketing rise of the military complex, the privatization of armies, etc., etc.)...
I can go on like this forever, but I think you get the point: All of these issues are always being changed, are always part of the political and cultural struggles we face in the present and that will define the future. In light of all that is historic, to present the case that the Left is some kind of invincible Cthuluh still blows my mind. Yes, if you look at the really focal issue of gay liberation, yes, it was a complete leftist victory (one that I applaud), but that's just a very small sample of reality.
-
Okay, honestly. What. What is it with war rhetoric in cultural debates.
-
My problem with calling this whole thing a War (and using War-themed rhetoric, "battle against the SJWs!", "Fight the evil white males!" etc etc) is that Wars are generally assumed to have winners and defined ends.
Culture shifts are not a zero-sum game and they're certainly never ending, therefore calling them wars and acting as if they are indeed wars is not a healthy way of dealing with them.
-
It's because it mobalises your people, that's why it gets used.
-
@The_E
I disagree, they *are* indeed a zero-sum game, in cultural terms. Multiculturalism is incompatible with monoculturalism, one has to die in order for the other to prevail and flourish. What you can say is perhaps that we, as human beings, are all better if we shift from one paradigm to another, but if the paradigm has changed, that means that one of them died out, i.e., has lost.
Where I *do* agree is how the debates usually foster around personalities instead of "ideas" and that this has been perhaps poisonous. I totally get the "drop the war rethoric, this is getting us nowhere" (but where are you going with such a hurry?), but making euphemistic words for it is just something I'm not fond of doing.
One is reminded of the quote that said that great minds discuss ideas, etc., etc. But recently I'm not so sure of this. We are not, as libertarians or objectivists would say, "individual beings". We are social beings, and the people "outside" of us are somewhat like an extension of our own beings. It *does* matter what people say (hell, if it didn't, all these "SJWs" that are always concerned about shirts and jokes wouldn't even raise an eyebrow anywhere in the world), it does matter how people behave and how we deal with each other.
-
I disagree, they *are* indeed a zero-sum game, in cultural terms. Multiculturalism is incompatible with monoculturalism, one has to die in order for the other to prevail and flourish. What you can say is perhaps that we, as human beings, are all better if we shift from one paradigm to another, but if the paradigm has changed, that means that one of them died out, i.e., has lost.
Yeah, but none of them ever does actually die, right? No matter how complete a victory may seem, there's always enough people of the losing side left over to restart the flames a couple years (or, in internet times, a couple months) later. That isn't war, it's sea tides; and just like you can't fight the tide and claim victory when the water level sinks, you can't fight these cultural battles and declare victory when noone on the internet disagrees with you.
-
It's because it mobalises your people, that's why it gets used.
Yes
-
It's because it mobalises your people, that's why it gets used.
But then you get this notion that mobilisation is even neccesary . It's this whole notion that debates are to be destructive that rubs me.
-
No, it's because people operate from a position of them being right. If you are right and another group disagrees with you then they are wrong. If that group is making changes then they are destroying the world, working against making the world better. if you don't do something those horrible wrong people are going to ruin everything. We need to do something to stop them. This is a war.
This is one of the reasons I particularly dislike the term "Progressive". The people who you are opposed to are trying to make the world a better place too, They just have a different definition of 'better', from their perspective the "Progressives" are the ones throwing the world into darkness. Labeling yourself as The Good Guys only serves to exacerbate humanity's already strong predilection for tribalism.
-
For better or worse, these tactics get results. Politics and public discourse aren't about mutually respectful exchange of ideas. They're about manipulating mechanisms of status, fear, and emotional violence.
-
yeah, the methods that work are the methods used by the groups that win.
-
I disagree, they *are* indeed a zero-sum game, in cultural terms. Multiculturalism is incompatible with monoculturalism, one has to die in order for the other to prevail and flourish. What you can say is perhaps that we, as human beings, are all better if we shift from one paradigm to another, but if the paradigm has changed, that means that one of them died out, i.e., has lost.
Yeah, but none of them ever does actually die, right? No matter how complete a victory may seem, there's always enough people of the losing side left over to restart the flames a couple years (or, in internet times, a couple months) later. That isn't war, it's sea tides; and just like you can't fight the tide and claim victory when the water level sinks, you can't fight these cultural battles and declare victory when noone on the internet disagrees with you.
In wars rarely any side completely dies out (it's called genocide if they do), and keeping with that metaphor, it's also true that given time, the losing side might want to "get back" at the victors. So even here the word is not failing us. I get it that you don't like the wording, but the fight is real, it's just a lot less bloody. It's a war of ideas. Some ideas were indeed veemently defeated. Some are still up surviving in the memetic air despite all the beatings they got. Some adapted to survive, others have not. It is in this darwinian sense that I word it as a "war".
But then you get this notion that mobilisation is even neccesary . It's this whole notion that debates are to be destructive that rubs me.
The idea that it is done to just mobilize is nonsense. Labeling something or someone is merely a tactic, a psychopathic memetic weapon to be used? Perhaps it is, but then you should apply this logic to everything and realise that *all sides* (and all people) do this all the time. Hell, language itself is labels followed by labels. The idea of Ridicule is deeply connected with labeling. Are we saying that Ridicule has no place now? Fire Jon Stewart now! (Wait, he has done that already).
This idea that "if everyone just behaved nicely and stopped using rethorical weapons, it would be so nicer" drives me up the wall. Yes, of course this is true, but it doesn't cut to the throat of the communication problems, which is more an issue of how language is so limited at providing a clear exposition of one's own subjectivity regarding any issue, and how we are just trying to get things accross in such crude manners (it's all we are allowed to do given the tools we have), it's no wonder people will be offended anyway *despite* any different means of conversation. People do try again and again, they plough through. If someone is too worried about niceties and politically correct manners, they will eventually just shut up and let the conversation to those who don't. I see those people too, and I respect their decision to do so. I choose the mud, I choose the trenches. They are limited in scope, but at least it's a lot more commited to the real.
-
if everyone else would act nice, I could win by not acting nice.
-
I mean it seems perfectly plausible that everything would get better if everyone were determinedly compassionate and kind (although 'nice' often extends to silencing anger and outrage at angry, outrageous things).
The problem is that this is like asking everyone to cooperate in the prisoner's dilemma. It's very vulnerable to defectors!
I think grappling in the trenches is mostly a waste of energy, but that's just my personal call after a few years down there.
if everyone else would act nice, I could win by not acting nice.
wow, beaten and more succinct
-
My issue with it is not the niceness. **** niceness! It's rather that, in order to divulge in such a rhetoric, there needs to be a lot of self-delusion and dishonesty. Heck, it shows in your post. The whole "I choose the trenches!" thing which is dishonest. Because you're not fighting a war at all. You're airing your opinion on the internet.
Likewise, the mobilization implies that there is some bogeyman to rally against, the "civil war" implies that the "SJWs" or "Anti-GG" or "Feminazis" form some sort of unified front. But as it happens, they are just groups defined by other people so that they have something to rally against, there's no actual unison there - But there has to be for the rhetoric to succeed, yet the only thing it achieves is that people now tilt at straw windmills. Like GB says, it's a complete waste of energy.
-
Of course Bobboau, that's the true analysis, I do hold that this "niceness" is something of an illusion, perhaps something that merely exists in the intersticial places of non-power. Whenever a reign of niceness is enacted, psychopaths within such reign just invent new methods of gathering power while still pretensiously "playing nice". Their reign will be far worse (orders of mag) than those who are patently "assholes", for at least everyone can recognize the latter for what they are.
I think grappling in the trenches is mostly a waste of energy, but that's just my personal call after a few years down there.
That is probably true.
e: Likewise, the mobilization implies that there is some bogeyman to rally against, the "civil war" implies that the "SJWs" or "Anti-GG" or "Feminazis" form some sort of unified front. But as it happens, they are just groups defined by other people so that they have something to rally against, there's no actual unison there - But there has to be for the rhetoric to succeed, yet the only thing it achieves is that people now tilt at straw windmills. Like GB says, it's a complete waste of energy.
Ok, here's my two problems with this paragraph. First, the notion that there's no "actual unison there". Well, I'm sorry but there is. It's an "unified front" of ideas. Of memetic paradigms. Of certain attitudes and preferences. Of a, ahem, culture.
My other problem is a lack of self-awareness. Are you really going to say you never do this kind of thing? Are you really going to testify here that you don't ever label people according to a perception of similar ideas that you recognize in them? Not even in your head or something? I mean, I totally get the danger of over-labeling. People are not determined by labels one impugns at them (and many people do commit that mistake of reducing people to labels), but will you go to the far end and declare you never did this? You know, I have little patience for this kind of pretense righteous sainthood naiveté.
-
The culture war as a concept has existed a million times throughtout history, but its modern incarnation was a creation of the Reagan-era Republican Party. After Carter was elected they realized that if you made a direct religious appeal to white evangelical voters you could pick up quite a bit of the vote right away. I think it was with Bush Sr.'s 1992 election campaign - the one where Pat Buchanan coined the term "Culture War" - that it progressed to being an explicit conflict against all liberal values. Its real purpose, of course, was that it made for an excellent distraction from economic issues - every minute you talk about the wicked liberal academia and abortion activists is one you aren't talking about tax cuts to the wealthy and deregulation. It also suited well a party that believed that the really important decisions in a society - ie, the economic ones - should be made by private elites acting according to the rules of the market, rather than the ignorant public. Let them concern themselves with social issues.
Well, that did work. Even if they lost, they won. We got gay marriage but we watched our unions be cut up.
Now you guys have decided to revive a term foistered upon you by conservatives that you should never have taken very seriously, all because some once invisible people are starting to say things that are hurting your feelings. You claimed that you were all for saying women, gays, African Americans, transgender folk, and other minorities a voice in the name of equality, but now that's actually starting to happen some of them are saying things that are making you very uncomfortable, so uncomfortable that you're reaching for the same arms the right so recently threw down. "Oh, it's not the real liberals, it's those wicked academics, trying to manipulate society to fit their own twisted ideas!" "It's those goddamn feminazis!" It was bull**** when Pat Buchanan said it, and it's bull**** when you say it. It's gotten to the point where conspiracy theories worthy of a John Birch pamphlet are being repeated seriously, all because some marginalized voices trying to point out some things that you didn't want to see are finally being listened to to a very limited extent. Let their voice be heard - just not yet.
Too much has been learned from the religious right. You enjoyed having an enemy - and now that the RR isn't what they used to be, you decided the parts of the left saying things that hurt your feelings because they dared to point out the enormous problems with even the supposedly liberal elements of culture that are not, in fact, welcoming to them at all could be your new ones. So you've made a new culture war even more rediculous than the old one. Cause you want your ****ing enemy, dammit.
-
Who are you talking to, specifically
-
Who are you talking to, specifically
Anyone in this thread who is taking seriously the idea of a culture war involving SJWs - excuse me - "the insane Tea Party of the left". Anyone who uses the term Feminazi and isn't being ironic, because I can't believe that's still a thing.
-
Okay, I hear you.
We're opening a whole new can of worms about Reagan but I do think the 80s demonstrated very ably that history is not purely directional, at least not in the ~short run, and that the consequences of backlash can be socially and economically disastrous.
-
Okay, I hear you.
We're opening a whole new can of worms about Reagan but I do think the 80s demonstrated very ably that history is not purely directional, at least not in the ~short run, and that the consequences of backlash can be socially and economically disastrous.
I'm not a Marxist. Nothing is inevitable. It all depends on what institutions you can build and the ideas you can foster.
-
Not you specifically — the rhetoric in the air about 'the right side of history'. Yeah, the great trend is extraordinarily and hopefully liberal in both the left-wing and liberal humanist senses, but there have been disastrous reversals as well as failures of liberal ideals along the way (like microloans).
I'm just wary of the idea that this ****'s gonna keep improving on its own and we're along for the ride. The gay marriage victory was the result of very specific tactical choices by a smart group of activists. The income inequality disaster of the past few decades is the result of economic policy instituted by Reagan (if I'm remembering my macro history right). It's great to be able to say 'this decision will seem as inevitable and necessary as emancipation or giving women the vote', as long as we don't forget those victories were achieved through hard work, not invisible momentum.
-
Its not like the Right is alone, or even first, in framing this as a war. Marxist concept of class struggle, conflict between the opressors and the opressed, sounds like a war to me. And if you apply the same Marxist philosophy to areas outside economy (to culture), the term "culture war" fits well, just like the term "class war" fits well the economic application.
-
The culture war as a concept has existed a million times throughtout history, but its modern incarnation was a creation of the Reagan-era Republican Party. After Carter was elected they realized that if you made a direct religious appeal to white evangelical voters you could pick up quite a bit of the vote right away. I think it was with Bush Sr.'s 1992 election campaign - the one where Pat Buchanan coined the term "Culture War" - that it progressed to being an explicit conflict against all liberal values. Its real purpose, of course, was that it made for an excellent distraction from economic issues - every minute you talk about the wicked liberal academia and abortion activists is one you aren't talking about tax cuts to the wealthy and deregulation. It also suited well a party that believed that the really important decisions in a society - ie, the economic ones - should be made by private elites acting according to the rules of the market, rather than the ignorant public. Let them concern themselves with social issues.
Well, that did work. Even if they lost, they won. We got gay marriage but we watched our unions be cut up.
Exactly, almost verbatim as I stated. My only fault line with this is where I disagree with the idea that it was the RR that invented the concept. Perhaps the wording? That I am open to concede, although I haven't researched its etymology. But the concept? Let's be real here, Marx himself devoted his life to bring about a revolution not merely of an economy but of a whole society. Marx is still regarded by many social scientists as one of the fathers of the field himself. To state that these ideas were not brought up as challenging the status quo, and were not fought and quarreled until at least many of them were accepted not only by law but also by society is silly; to state that there wasn't any reaction or defense against this push is silly. Call it whatever you want, to deny this war has been waged between "progressives" and "conservatives" throughout the decades is something I'm not going to bother engaging in again. Feel free to dismiss the very notion of a battle of cultural ideas as a "conservative conspiracy theory" all you want, I will just facepalm at your cognitive dissonance.
Now you guys have decided to revive a term foistered upon you by conservatives that you should never have taken very seriously, all because some once invisible people are starting to say things that are hurting your feelings. You claimed that you were all for saying women, gays, African Americans, transgender folk, and other minorities a voice in the name of equality, but now that's actually starting to happen some of them are saying things that are making you very uncomfortable, so uncomfortable that you're reaching for the same arms the right so recently threw down.
Except this is false, and there's nothing that fuels rage more than false narratives. 90% of the people doing this so-called "saying things" are actually white wealthy affluent hipsters, and even those who are not whites, they are usually way more affluent than most people reading it. In fact, all of this identity politics usually hides a real wealth barrier between those who are "saying things" and those who should just "listen and believe". Marx could look at this and recognize as something he detected in his lifetime: an economic class struggle, but I digress.
People disagree not with who says it but what is being said. And they disagree with the notion that they can't disagree based on the gender or color of the person saying it. And they disagree with the notion that they are disagreeing because they are racists, mysoginists, etc.
Now, you will dismiss everything I said as a "false narrative" itself, etc. and so on, that the "true causes" of this disagreements come from "true racism", "true mysoginy", etc. It's an unfalsifiable paradigm. I have great problems in how the discussion works, because of the very nature of how it is framed. Agree with us and you are a true progressive. Disagree and you're a racist or a mysoginist because how dare you disagree with a black woman! There is no sensible way out for a simple "I disagree". Such a person will be demanded to ask apologies for the acts of others less civil, and then proceed to be dismissed because those less civil people said similar things.
Talk about memetic strategies, this one is so malicious, so pernicious, so out of any intellectual honor, that it does indeed catch my imagination and fascination.
"Oh, it's not the real liberals, it's those wicked academics, trying to manipulate society to fit their own twisted ideas!" "It's those goddamn feminazis!" It was bull**** when Pat Buchanan said it, and it's bull**** when you say it. It's gotten to the point where conspiracy theories worthy of a John Birch pamphlet are being repeated seriously, all because some marginalized voices trying to point out some things that you didn't want to see are finally being listened to to a very limited extent. Let their voice be heard - just not yet.
I don't think it is crazy whatsoever to postulate that academia on social science are trying to influence the culture towards their ideas and findings. It's not a "conspiracy theory" (in its craziest sense), it's just ... obvious. Of course, you can go from sensible reasonable proportionate speculations (everyone is indeed trying to change the world, after all) to full blown neo-reactionary Mencius Moldbug levels.
Too much has been learned from the religious right. You enjoyed having an enemy - and now that the RR isn't what they used to be, you decided the parts of the left saying things that hurt your feelings because they dared to point out the enormous problems with even the supposedly liberal elements of culture that are not, in fact, welcoming to them at all could be your new ones. So you've made a new culture war even more rediculous than the old one. Cause you want your ****ing enemy, dammit.
I don't think this is the case. I think it's way more of a case of the extreme left having gone from victory to victory and is now just overstretching themselves, as if they, as NGTM says, think they are some form of unstoppable Cthuluh. Taking The_E's analogy of tides, or taking another like a pendulum watch, the pendulum was just swaying way out to the left in forms and ways that many people just thought were just getting out of hand. You don't see the poison in this extreme left side, and perhaps just revel within it and just be disgusted at the reaction it got from many people even from the Left, in a way that is exactly analogous to how a Tea Party sympathizer would regard other conservatives and all their reactions to their movement in a baffled manner. "Why are they so against freedom? Why are they so against Religion?" And so on.
-
"SJWs" or "Anti-GG" or "Feminazis"
"regressive reactionaries" or "GG" or "MRAs"
:)
let slip the dogs. the progressives have their own war machine, even if they don't use that exact language, because the language is part of what identifies you are part of the right or wrong tribe.
I mean do you guys honestly think you are imute to the same tactics that the right has been using this whole time? the tactics that have worked. tactics that those who oppose the right would need to either employ or find equivalents to in order to be able to survive? keep in mind you are by and large winning the 'culture war'
-
Ok, here's my two problems with this paragraph. First, the notion that there's no "actual unison there". Well, I'm sorry but there is. It's an "unified front" of ideas. Of memetic paradigms. Of certain attitudes and preferences. Of a, ahem, culture.
My other problem is a lack of self-awareness. Are you really going to say you never do this kind of thing? Are you really going to testify here that you don't ever label people according to a perception of similar ideas that you recognize in them? Not even in your head or something? I mean, I totally get the danger of over-labeling. People are not determined by labels one impugns at them (and many people do commit that mistake of reducing people to labels), but will you go to the far end and declare you never did this? You know, I have little patience for this kind of pretense righteous sainthood naiveté.
I am not going to say that I never do such a thing, but I do try to avoid it! My concern is to the people who know what it is, what it means, and still willingly subscribe to it.
"regressive reactionaries" or "GG" or "MRAs"
I see your issue with regressive reactonaries, but GG and MRA's are labels that those specific groups *use to identify themselves*. One of the reasons why people I've talked to stuck with GG is because they felt they needed to present themselves as an unified front. People will call themselves GG or a Men's Right Activists without any irony because those terms are supposed to indicate a group wherein the members stand for a unified direction (even if that direction is extremely muddled). You will never see someone say "I support feminazism" , you will see someone say "I support Men's Right Activism" (just as people will say "I am a feminist" - that's a self-identifying label, not a slur). Same with Gamergate and Anti-Gamergate, the only people who readily use the term "Anti-Gamergate" are gamergaters or people who want to stay away from the whole mess, yet supporters of the group will say "I support Gamergate" and use the 4chan daily dose in their avatars somehow, that sorta thing.
-
Well at least you know where GGs or MRAs stand, the others seem to be sleazy about the whole thing, as if they are part of the Great Majority of Good Humans.
I want to say that I agree with the "Feminazi" thing, it's such a bad word. I do appreciate Social Justice Warrior a lot more for it is friendlier, and more precise. These will be people who are "keyboard warrioring"for their "Social Justice" beliefs. It is not an inherently bad term (it was assumed by many not a long time ago), it has become a term of ridicule, but merely because of - I will say - the very outrageous silly things that come from these people's keyboards.
-
...
feminazi is based on feminist, sort of like "goobergobber" is based on "gamergater". If you would like I can try to lookup an exhaustive list of derogatory terms "progressives"/feminists use to describe their boogiemen, which the targets would never use for themselves unironically.
You are correct in that anti-gamergate does not typically self identify as "anti-gamergate" (and they make a point of it because their line is "everyone is against gamergate" despite the vast majority of people not even being aware of it), but it's less a slur and more just a sterile description of what they do. If you want GG pejoratives for aGG you would be thinking more along the lines of aGGro, Ghazi/Ghazzelle, or something less situationally specific.
But your bigger point here seems to be that progressives don't name call against there cisscum ableist white male oppressors, or something to that effect.
Well at least you know where GGs or MRAs stand
don't be so sure, if you are heavily involved in these circles you are more likely to know what your side's totem of the other side is, than to actually know what the other side thinks.
-
Oh rest assured I am well aware of the danger of bubble groupthink phenomenas, and twitter's architecture is incredibly well suited for it (for example). It is one of the reasons why I am so intellectually against tools like Randi Harper's blockbot, which assures, among many other things, that her opponents become even *more* entrenched in their own views than otherwise. Such tools enforce balkanization along these social landscapes, but even without them, twitter is inherently balkanizing. There was a great video by CGP grey about this recently:
-
Did you ever play that game, as a kid, where you said 'punch me in the arm, and then I will punch you back exactly as hard?' You know how that turns out.
Disagreements tend to become fights. Fighting with people is aversive. When you find something aversive, you rationalize why it cannot be true (because this is the minimum energy path, and people are cognitive misers). If it keeps being aversive, you put it away.
Persuasion is clearly possible, but I think it has to happen through very specific channels. I'm deeply curious about the best tactics.
-
Perhaps that's just a short-term analysis of the conversations at hand. Personally I find that some things I've changed my mind in my life went through both shocking confrontations and longer-term study of the issue at hand. Short term reactions are never the point, they are mostly reactive and do not reflect longer term processes in your brain, they are just reflections of your current reasonings. This is why, incidently, I am never bothered that I cannot convince people of what I am saying at the moment.
The only things I crave is that I am able to posit my thoughts in a coherent, organized and clear manner (which is hard and I keep failing at), that I feel free (socially, contextually) to do so, and that I am exposed to other thoughts and feedbacks to what I formulated. True change (either in myself or in others) will come later, slowly and without warning, and it is neither my business (if it's in other people's minds) or it is (if it's in my mind). That is all.
-
mysoginists
[...]
mysoginy
[...]
mysoginist
The word is still misogyny. :wtf:
-
Can we use "People who can't spell misogyny" as a mass label? :p (or at the very least, a smiley like we use alot with simple spelling mistakes?)
But your bigger point here seems to be that progressives don't name call against there cisscum ableist white male oppressors, or something to that effect.
Nah, nothing like that (although I must say that the only person I have seen use the cisscum ableist white male opressor line is Luis). More that, if you start using rhetoric like that, you are automatically unconvincing for me. It automatically assumes hostility (or, in a lot of cases, is used to justify actual hostility) whilst the goal should be to convince people.
-
I honestly didn't try very hard to come-up with stereotypical SJW insults, but you do agree with me then, that even though the words might be different the same tactics are being employed.
-
I honestly didn't try very hard to come-up with stereotypical SJW insults, but you do agree with me then, that even though the words might be different the same tactics are being employed.
Well, no. Like I said, the only time I have seen the Ciswhitemaleopressor line used was when reading something luis posted, and I don't think Luis would call himself an SJW by any stretch of the imagination.
-
ok, but you fully agreed that I described boogiemen of the far left.
The only thing you seemed to have an issue on was that the specific labels I chose for 2 of my examples were not insults in and of themselves so that the targets would not self-identify with those labels. I mean it's a rabithole of semantics to try and quantify the difference between what I gave as examples and what you gave. especially when things like MRA and GG are used as insults within the progresive circles I was referring to, and there do exist worse synonyms used for those groups that those groups would not use to self-identify by. I mean people who are opposed to modern day feminism DO refer to feminists as feminists, not only as feminazis. I really do not see a difference.
-
ok, but you fully agreed that I described boogiemen of the far left.
I... don't really see how you got from there based on what I said, sorry.
-
I honestly didn't try very hard to come-up with stereotypical SJW insults, but you do agree with me then, that even though the words might be different the same tactics are being employed.
Mansplainers, white supremacists, cis-scum, ****lords, mysoginerds, ****slingers, native american-exotifying cisgender-normative ableists!
I mean, there are no limits to these people's insults. But most precisely, they usually lack imagination to come up with new terms, so they appropriate other terms and use them far beyond the scope of what they originally meant. A mysoginist is not just someone who hates women, but someone who merely disagrees with them on a marginal point. A racist ****lord is not someone who believes in racism or engages in racist acts or whatever, it's just someone who doesn't agree with identity politics.
Things start to get ugly when rape-apologists is used to describe people who might, say, have found the occurrences around the Rolling Stone rape fubar situation not credible (or the Michael Shermer case, or Ben Radford's case, or, or, or, etc.). The thought process is clear: you, by your "hyper-skepticist behavior" are enabling rape by dismissing cases as they are being presented. Listen and believe, or else you are a rape enabler, thus someone who is working with the system in order to defend the practice of rape. Therefore, you're not just some skeptical guy, you're a rape apologist.
It's even scarier when you realise these people actually went throughout this entire reasoning.
-
Accidental double post
-
It is one of the reasons why I am so intellectually against tools like Randi Harper's blockbot, which assures, among many other things, that her opponents become even *more* entrenched in their own views than otherwise.
Let's just pretend it hasn't made twitter useable for a lot of people, that it instantly killed 95% of the worst harrassment when I started using it. We could also pretend you didn't actually think you should be able to sue these bots for slandering you.
Block bots are blunt instruments, but they are effective, as for some people there's simply no alternative available.
90% of the people doing this so-called "saying things" are actually white wealthy affluent hipsters, and even those who are not whites, they are usually way more affluent than most people reading it.
I didn't know Taurip Moosa was a white affluent hipster. Or Alexander. Or Katherine Cross. Do you actually believe journalism is that lucrative an endeavor for these people? Many of the posts that draw so much attention have been written for literally no money. You will not make very much doing what they do. It's not something you do for creature comforts.
Do you actually believe 3000 dollars a month on patreon is a lot of money? As much as a third of it never gets collected. Can you multiply numbers times 12? And we haven't even mentioned the different cost of living. The only person who has actually gotten a nice hunk of cash off patreon while expressing any sort of sympathy to representational issues in our areas of interest has been Jim ****ing Sterling, son.
By contrast, how much does Paul Elam make a year to rant about feminists?
-
I honestly didn't try very hard to come-up with stereotypical SJW insults, but you do agree with me then, that even though the words might be different the same tactics are being employed.
Mansplainers, white supremacists, cis-scum, ****lords, mysoginerds, ****slingers, native american-exotifying cisgender-normative ableists!
I mean, there are no limits to these people's insults. But most precisely, they usually lack imagination to come up with new terms, so they appropriate other terms and use them far beyond the scope of what they originally meant. A mysoginist is not just someone who hates women, but someone who merely disagrees with them on a marginal point. A racist ****lord is not someone who believes in racism or engages in racist acts or whatever, it's just someone who doesn't agree with identity politics.
Things start to get ugly when rape-apologists is used to describe people who might, say, have found the occurrences around the Rolling Stone rape fubar situation not credible (or the Michael Shermer case, or Ben Radford's case, or, or, or, etc.). The thought process is clear: you, by your "hyper-skepticist behavior" are enabling rape by dismissing cases as they are being presented. Listen and believe, or else you are a rape enabler, thus someone who is working with the system in order to defend the practice of rape. Therefore, you're not just some skeptical guy, you're a rape apologist.
It's even scarier when you realise these people actually went throughout this entire reasoning.
Okay, that's always where I lose you. Who the actual **** are 'these people'?
-
He means the stuffed strawmen he keeps in his yard. I think you can guess which names he gives them.
-
Who the actual **** are 'these people'?
Damnit Luis, couldn't you have held on to your ****ing spaghetti for just a while longer, I felt like I was starting to have a civil discussion for once.
-
Time for the thoughts of an agnostic supporter of gay marriage:
This overall Supreme Court decision involved a horrible maiming of the 14th Amendment, which is a proud tradition started by Roe v. Wade, which made the right to privacy appear out of thin air, then established that as a woman's right to choose out of thin air. Even as someone who is all for abortion rights its a bad decision. Now, back to the gay marriage thing after that little tangent. I'm not celebrating since I think this was more properly a matter for the states to decide under the 10th Amendment. Now, before you jump on me, I think there is an excellent case under the 14th Amendment for states to be forced to recognize gay marriages performed out of state. However, that is not what happened here, and this decision has laid a precedent for any sort of marriage to be deemed a protected civil right, not just gay marriages. From a purely legal standpoint, there is a massive can of worms in here from the wording of the majority decision, and I think we're going to see it quoted as supporting precedent by just about anyone who thinks their civil rights are being denied. I see this case as ushering in an age of legal relativism, where anything is a civil right the government must mandate protection for, no matter what it is.
I hope I am wrong about all of that, and that we don't see a massive societal decay as anything becomes accepted and legally protected, but as Goober said, we're only going to find out in a few year's time exactly what the repercussions are.
-
This overall Supreme Court decision involved a horrible maiming of the 14th Amendment, which is a proud tradition started by Roe v. Wade, which made the right to privacy appear out of thin air, then established that as a woman's right to choose out of thin air. Even as someone who is all for abortion rights its a bad decision. Now, back to the gay marriage thing after that little tangent.
One of the arguments advanced against the Bill of Rights by the Federalists was that if you wrote down a set of rights to be explicitly maintained then people would believe that those were the only rights that the government was obliged to honor. Well they were right about that. And if you're going to take the idea of being an Originalist seriously, then you need to acknowledge that there are fundamental rights other than those explicitly stated in the Constitution. And the right to privacy is absolutely ****ing one of them. If you have to use the penumbra argument to get it in there, so be it.
The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This 'liberty' is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints.
**** yeah.
-
Congratulations on misrepresenting my argument, which is not about rights so much as it is the legal arguments in which court decisions have added them. You're also cherry picking that one part of my argument and implying that I am somehow against privacy rights as well as all other rights not explicitly enshrined in the Constitution. Intentionally or not, you have my views completely backwards, in which I believe that unless the Constitution says the federal government has the right to do something, it does not. Don't forget that the Constitution was authored by men who believed that their civil rights were a natural part of human existence rather than something the government granted them.
-
On a related subject, will someone please explain why even liberal publications are praising Scalia's dissent? Like most of his famous dissents it's an unprofessional muddle, light on actual legal analysis, and occasionally descends into outright ranting. Scalia isn't a Worthy OpponentTM, he's just awful. If I want to read the cause of Pure Evil advanced through careful, well argued legal analysis, I'll read Clarence Thomas. He's actually a pretty smart dude, even if he is Pure Evil.
Congratulations on misrepresenting my argument, which is not about rights so much as it is the legal arguments in which court decisions have added them. You're also cherry picking that one part of my argument and implying that I am somehow against privacy rights as well as all other rights not explicitly enshrined in the Constitution. Intentionally or not, you have my views completely backwards, in which I believe that unless the Constitution says the federal government has the right to do something, it does not. Don't forget that the Constitution was authored by men who believed that their civil rights were a natural part of human existence rather than something the government granted them.
And you misunderstood my point. Your take on the Court's decisions was a reasonable one, even if I don't agree with it. I was arguing why that shouldn't matter.
-
If legal opinions happened in a vacuum, it wouldn't matter. However, legal arguments and judicial opinions are based very nearly entirely on preceding law and the arguments and judgments presented therein. This article (http://www.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/marriage-same-sex-gay-supreme-court-dissent-20150626) has a few highlights of the various dissents, dealing heavily with that specific manner, especially involving the dissents of Roberts and Thomas.
-
...
I interpreted what you said the same way, what with the 'invented new rights out of thin air' rhetoric. Gay people have had a right to marry this whole time and it's only due to the government misapplying the law that they have been denied for as long as they have. they are people and part of The People and so they are part of where the government derives it's power from. They have a right to equal treatment under the law.
will someone please explain why even liberal publications are praising Scalia's dissent?
Well, he made a good point, about the court overstepping it's bounds but it was misapplied.
-
If legal opinions happened in a vacuum, it wouldn't matter.
The legal system does not exist in a vacuum either. Precedent is not the only thing that matters, as well you should know.
-
It is one of the reasons why I am so intellectually against tools like Randi Harper's blockbot, which assures, among many other things, that her opponents become even *more* entrenched in their own views than otherwise.
Let's just pretend it hasn't made twitter useable for a lot of people, that it instantly killed 95% of the worst harrassment when I started using it. We could also pretend you didn't actually think you should be able to sue these bots for slandering you.
Block bots are blunt instruments, but they are effective, as for some people there's simply no alternative available.
We don't need to pretend I thought we should be able to sue bots for slander, because that's both silly and I never stated it. Not only sueing bots is ridiculous, I never advocated sueing either the Atheism plus blockbot nor Randi's nor, as it were, their creators. I did watch the kerfuffle with attention because it would affect twitter's usage future. I am also guilty of enjoying a schadenfreude moment with the closing shop of Troloon's bot.
Yes, blockbots are blunt instruments that curtail the experience of many people (according to Randi, more than 95% are false positives), because a few can't be bothered to use the block button themselves. They are also bully tools that these people have in their arsenal to intimidate them, isolate them. But that's not even my major point or gripe. Randi's tool was inevitable in a sense, given how Twitter and their APIs work. I've never agreed with the idea that a block should force an unfollow and punish those blocked by turning your account invisible to them. It should merely be a block of contact (if they block you, you can't retweet them, you can't contact them, they won't see your tweets even if RTd by others).
I didn't know Taurip Moosa was a white affluent hipster. Or Alexander. Or Katherine Cross. Do you actually believe journalism is that lucrative an endeavor for these people? Many of the posts that draw so much attention have been written for literally no money. You will not make very much doing what they do. It's not something you do for creature comforts.
Do you actually believe 3000 dollars a month on patreon is a lot of money? As much as a third of it never gets collected. Can you multiply numbers times 12? And we haven't even mentioned the different cost of living. The only person who has actually gotten a nice hunk of cash off patreon while expressing any sort of sympathy to representational issues in our areas of interest has been Jim ****ing Sterling, son.
By contrast, how much does Paul Elam make a year to rant about feminists?
I never said journalism is a lucrative endeavour. I made a remark on the kind of culture and affluence of the *people* involved. Curiously, we do know that the current state of journalism also comes from the fact that it is so poorly paid. Game journalism is an entire joke, "professionalism" is just a luxury these sites cannot apparently afford. They have shown themselves to merely be glorified blogs.
Regarding 3000 dollars a month for doing nothing not being "a lot of money", I could only say "See, I rest my case", for I do live in a world where people with families to feed are lucky to earn a thousand dollars for working hard 8, 10, 12 hours a day. But I guess when you live in a world where people go to twitter to complain that at some point of their lives they were so broke they even "had to work", this affluence thing just flies over your face.
Regarding Paul Elam, do I look like Paul Elam? Why are you asking me this? Have I ever defended Paul Elam's work anywhere? Have I ever defended him anywhere at all? You could contrast with anyone else in the world for all I care.
-
Okay, that's always where I lose you. Who the actual **** are 'these people'?
I'm sorry Bobboau, but this is a clear question and deserves an answer. Social Justice Warriors. I thought I made it clear. To even be more clear, since I can see that there's some confusion here, I do not regard you as one. Not even Vega qualifies (to me at least), you appear to just share some ideological ideas with them, but that's not a problem in my book at all. This does not constitute "warriorism", what constitutes it is when certain people go out of their way to attack, troll, manipulate and intimidate other people into submission if they do not bow down to the ideology at hand.
All I ever got from either you or Vega (or any other member of this community) is vehement disagreement. And this is perfectly legitimate, respectful and even desirable.
"There are no bad tactics only bad targets" is the mentality to watch out for. Bringing a scientist to tears for a *shirt*, firing a nobel laureate because of a *joke*, getting two programmers fired from their jobs because they told a joke *to each other*, bullying people out of their jobs for the "Cause" despite being outed as attached to prominent racist trolls themselves, engaging in doxxing and dogpiling while pretending to expose this behavior in others.
This is a set of behaviors that has been witnessed on and on and on, to handwave like you do and pretend "these people" are a figment of my imagination, is silly. Vega can blind himself all he wants, he shouldn't be dragging people down to his cave of dumbstruckness.
-
Do you actually believe 3000 dollars a month on patreon is a lot of money?
Oh yes, it is certainly a lot of money for merely writing some blogs on the net.
-
$3000 per month is just over double what I currently make doing actual work, so **** yes that's a lot.
-
it's also base income, it doesn't include money made speaking or consulting.
-
Just a note to say that this thread has generated a couple of post reports. Nothing warranting sanctions yet, but it's worth reiterating Scotty's earlier precaution.
Wow, this thread filled up with rhetoric again fast. I'm not going to step in, yet, but please take a moment before you post to make sure it's not too inflammatory going on.
Also, if you do report a post, take the time to point out what is deserving of moderation. Saying things like "Why have we not banned this guy yet" is just sniping and doesn't back up your case.
-
why haven't we banned the people asking why we haven't banned that guy yet?
ban the banites!
...but wait no not the metabanites! :shaking:
-
To be clear, nobody has actually asked for anyone to be banned.
Well, nobody except you just now. Maybe we should ban the meta-banites? :snipe:
-
Well I do agree the thread has gone a tad off topic.
To shut up about what's going on on the left, I'll speak a bit about what I've been seeing in the Right. I've noticed that some people that were usually soft-spoken are becoming a bit more feisty. These people are starting to talk like Vox Day in strategic military jargon style, or like Mark Steyn in terms of the challenges they face. They feel besieged in many fronts and see threats to their worldview everywhere.
It's overwhelmingly possible that this is just the fallout to the supreme court's decision, and everyone is still heated up. Small mistakes like Takei's "blackface" comment become a "Let them eat cake"-type mob indignation. Nevertheless, a resentment is brewing up on the Rigth, I have little doubts about it. I only ignore its size and duration.
-
They've been doing that for 20 years. the problems on the extreme right and left is that they see themselves as the normal guy, the far right claims that they speek for the silent majority, the far left refuses to accept that most liberals find them repugnant. both of them have a habit of seeking out positions of power to try and force their warped sense of justice upon everyone else.
-
Indeed. All this rethoric of how posting a rainbow in support of gay rights is being an "Anti-Christian hater" drives me up the wall.
-
C0nc0rdance posted this video about what he thinks about the Confederate flag issue that spawned from this ruling.
I think his take is the best I've seen so far. Highly recommended!
-
/*haven't watched yet*/
he usually has really good, levelheaded takes on emotionally charged issues.
[edit]yup, that was pretty good[/edit]
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33393860
[attachment deleted by nobody]
-
yeah, that is an actual artifact of TV history. that might be going to far.
-
Shouldn't they rename the car as well?
-
Well, if they're getting rid of the Lee's battle flag, what would make it distinct form any old Charger? What was kind of the point of calling it "General Lee", wasn't it? (though admittedly, they way it's painted means it resembles the Confederate naval jack more than Lee's flag)
Actually, I think that more distinction should be made between those flags. The flag on General Lee's roof (and similar ones) was not the flag of the confederacy, but merely a flag of a particularly badass general (or somewhat less badass, but inventive, Confederate navy). This flag and all similar ones represented the fighting forces, the soldiers, sailors, etc. Those who fought and died in the civil war. Regardless of who or what they fought for, I think they deserve respect.
Now, if you're looking for a flag to represent racism and slavery of Confederacy as a whole, the (nearly forgotten) "stars and bars" would be the way to go. It was the actual Confederate flag, and stood for the entirety of the Confederacy, not just the fighters. This one doesn't deserve as much respect, though not everything was bad about the Confederacy, it was rather proudly racist.
-
Well, if they're getting rid of the Lee's battle flag, what would make it distinct form any old Charger? What was kind of the point of calling it "General Lee", wasn't it? (though admittedly, they way it's painted means it resembles the Confederate naval jack more than Lee's flag)
Actually, I think that more distinction should be made between those flags. The flag on General Lee's roof (and similar ones) was not the flag of the confederacy, but merely a flag of a particularly badass general (or somewhat less badass, but inventive, Confederate navy). This flag and all similar ones represented the fighting forces, the soldiers, sailors, etc. Those who fought and died in the civil war. Regardless of who or what they fought for, I think they deserve respect.
Now, if you're looking for a flag to represent racism and slavery of Confederacy as a whole, the (nearly forgotten) "stars and bars" would be the way to go. It was the actual Confederate flag, and stood for the entirety of the Confederacy, not just the fighters. This one doesn't deserve as much respect, though not everything was bad about the Confederacy, it was rather proudly racist.
Spoken as someone uneducated on the history and unconnected to the pulse of the issue.
The Confederate "battle flag" exists as in the the South primarily because it was employed during the '60s as a direct reaction to and rejection of the Civil Rights Movement. It is not a flag any particular army fought for; the closest, the flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, was square, and the next closest relative, the second naval jack, has differently arranged stars and a slightly different shape.
Nobody recognizes the Stars and Bars, and actually it's the preferred flag of reenactors precisely because it doesn't carry the racist tones that the Southern Cross or things like it does to most people.
The "Confederate flag" of the modern era is not a forgery, not quite, but only because a similar design was rejected for the Confederate national flag. This saved it to play an ignominious role for a second pack of nullification states-rights yahoos to rally around about a hundred years after the war was over, because having incorporated an actual flag of what were ultimately seditionists and traitors would have been a little much even for them. It was never flown by any nation on this planet, nor any American military force. It was first adopted on a wide scale specifically as a symbol of racist resistance.
Removing this anachronistically added flag from the historical record would be a mercy and a sign of respect to the dead of the Civil War. Regardless of your position on whether the Confederate dead are owed respect and sympathy (personally, I think they are as Americans if nothing else), it's not their flag.
-
I have a feeling there are one or two southerners who would disagree with you as to what the flag represents. but I guess what the actual people who are actually flying that flag right now and for decades think is irrelevant to what it means, we have to teach those savages civility.
-
I have a feeling there are one or two southerners who would disagree with you as to what the flag represents. but I guess what the actual people who are actually flying that flag right now and for decades think is irrelevant to what it means, we have to teach those savages civility.
There are people who disagree as to what the swastika represents, too. Should we fly a swastika flag on government buildings?
-
Personally, I think the problem was that this flag, of them all, was unable of be lowered to half-mast. There probably wouldn't have even been an issue on this if the flagpole had just been adjustable, maybe some grumbling, but certainly not this response.It was that which was the insult more than its mere existence to my eyes.
At the end of the day, you aren't going to end racism by destroying an arrangement of primary colours, regardless of what they may or may not represent, flags have a habit of becoming a rallying point.
-
Spoken as someone uneducated on the history and unconnected to the pulse of the issue.
(...)
Nobody recognizes the Stars and Bars, and actually it's the preferred flag of reenactors precisely because it doesn't carry the racist tones that the Southern Cross or things like it does to most people.
The "Confederate flag" of the modern era is not a forgery, not quite, but only because a similar design was rejected for the Confederate national flag. This saved it to play an ignominious role for a second pack of nullification states-rights yahoos to rally around about a hundred years after the war was over, because having incorporated an actual flag of what were ultimately seditionists and traitors would have been a little much even for them. It was never flown by any nation on this planet, nor any American military force. It was first adopted on a wide scale specifically as a symbol of racist resistance.
Just putting this out here:
(http://www.cristyli.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Jimmy-Carter-Confederate-Flag.jpg)
Clearly, Jimmy Carter was a plain racist and you're not completely overblowing your case one bit. Not one bit at all.
-
Just putting this out here:
What, your blatant ignorance when it comes to matters of the Confederate flag?
That's an authentic battle flag for the 45th Georgia Regiment, Anderson's Brigade, A.P. Hill's Division, Army of Northern Virginia. Look at the angling of the cross arms; it's a square flag, not elongated one. Maybe Carter had relatives in that unit; maybe whoever owned the building that picture was taken in did.
Regardless, you're making an argument from a premise that clearly does not withstand scrutiny.
I have a feeling there are one or two southerners who would disagree with you as to what the flag represents. but I guess what the actual people who are actually flying that flag right now and for decades think is irrelevant to what it means, we have to teach those savages civility.
Speaking as a Southerner by birth, someone whose Civil War-era relatives exclusively fought for the Confederacy and a number of whom owned slaves, **** 'em if they can't tell the flags apart.
-
Just putting this out here:
What, your blatant ignorance when it comes to matters of the Confederate flag?
That's an authentic battle flag for the 45th Georgia Regiment, Anderson's Brigade, A.P. Hill's Division, Army of Northern Virginia. Look at the angling of the cross arms; it's a square flag, not elongated one. Maybe Carter had relatives in that unit; maybe whoever owned the building that picture was taken in did.
I do indeed admit general ignorance on these matters, for it is not my history, it is yours so I defer to you. I just find it unbelievable that the story is so one sided. Controversies are never one sided. Also, when you say "it's an authentic battle flag ...", "it's a square flag, not an elongated one", well, I defer to your deep knowledge of these things, but according to Wikipedia, this square flag was also used within the bigger second official flag of the confederacy, drawn by William Thompson, who had this to say about its design:
As a people we are fighting maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race; a white flag would thus be emblematical of our cause.
The flag was mostly white with the battle flag embeded in it. Isn't this one the real racist flag? (the white one) Correct me if I am wrong here, but the so-called "Confederate flag" that is in the center of all this controversy is just a navy jack used by battle ships, in an analogous fashion to the Northern Virginia army flag. Why is one a "nazi flag" while the other is just homage to the dead people who fought in a senseless war?
Nevertheless, I admit all of it. Let's just say that I'm disturbed by all of this war on symbols that the far left is so keen to initiate these days. To compare the 2nd navy jack flag of the confederacy to the "Nazi Flag" just clinches in my head that nuance and tolerance is an art that has been completely lost to the new generations of people. It's all or nothing these days.
-
When was the golden age in which this wasn't the case? You know full well it never existed.
-
You're right, there was never a golden age, but there are dark ages, and we are in the middle of one.
-
I don't know if I'd agree that it was a dark age. This stupidity is certainly preferable to what came before it. At least it's well-meaning stupidity rather than the nasty bigoted kind it has replaced.
That said, I'll agree that some people are very quick to take umbrage over nothing at all. I came across a great example today when someone made the mistake of getting poetic (http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/jul/06/england-women-twitter-world-cup-mothers-partners-daughters) when watching the England Woman's football team return to Heathrow.
-
Examples like that are dime a dozen every single day. Had they tweeted something to the men's team in the same vein, no one would have batted an eye, it would have looked amazingly normal and even, gasp, heart warming. But apparently, you can't say anything at women, if it slightly might be interpreted in a weird way, it will be, and you shall apologize, repent, commit hara kiri, whatever. /rant
-
And when someone actually posts such a message about the men's team, you may have a point.
But noone does. Noone would even think of doing that under similar circumstances.
-
That might have something to do with them being not similar circumstances. The amount of pay football women get is extremely low. It's almost like amateur players having an international party, more than anything else. I'm not saying this is a good thing! They definitely should be paid *a lot* more (like, orders of mag more), they actually played well and gave a good spectacle.
I'm just not seeing the huge sexism here. Just as I didn't see it in the latest tennis shenanigan.
-
And when someone actually posts such a message about the men's team, you may have a point.
But noone does. Noone would even think of doing that under similar circumstances.
I saw numerous posts about WAGs whenever the mens team were abroad. Those comments were far worse than this fairly harmless tweet which would have passed completely unnoticed had it not been posted without the context.
-
Look at how much we focused on Paul Gascoines' tears that year (don't remember which, not a footie fan). If Laura Bassett had been subject to that level of attention for her tears, there would have been an outcry that it was 'sexism'.
Sometimes the shapes in the clouds are just your imagination...
-
Why is one a "nazi flag" while the other is just homage to the dead people who fought in a senseless war?
A fascinating, and irrelevant, straw man.
Neither flag, particularly, is enthralling in its history. However, the authentic battle flags at least have an excuse that you are memorializing those of your state or your relation who did what they perceived to be their duty. The flag is still distasteful as ultimately the symbol of the bizarre idea of a republic founded on preserving slavery, but it is also on some level defensible as a banner under which the future of mankind was expressed at Hampton Roads and Petersburg, great deeds were performed, and many died in what they thought was the defense of hearth and home. If someone chooses to fly an authentic flag over a memorial to Confederate dead or display it out of respect for ancestors who fell, this is something about which I think reasonable people can disagree. I am myself of two minds on the subject as this probably makes clear. (While I personally find it too distasteful to want to ever make a personal display, despite a family history that is mildly distinguished in its service to the Confederacy, I do not necessarily have objection to others doing so. There are of course ways to quickly cause such objection to develop.)
The elongated version, as I commented before and which you have conveniently forgotten by the time of this post, does not actually match the naval ensign (stars and layout of them, also general shape of the rectangle) or anything save a prototype considered for the national flag of the Confederacy that was not selected, and was introduced to widespread use only in the late '50s and early '60s to provide a symbol for resistance to civil rights and the federal government. (Before that point only a single example existed.) The only people who died as result of that flag were black; the only way in which they died was at best "civil unrest" rather than "active combat". Its history includes no great acts of bravery or world-altering moments. The flag, as I have now pointed out twice, is not really a flag of the Confederate States of America. It has been imbued with that meaning as a defense, but it is not a meaning it has any legitimate title to.
And on the other hand, there is also the fact that even if it was accepted to be "a Confederate flag" it is not the flag those being memorialized supposedly would recognize or have fought under. While it is a dangerous thing to argue emotional attachment should necessarily make sense, I think that in general we can all agree that if we are attempting to be respectful it behooves us to do so with an eye towards performing respectful acts with the correct implements and behavior. It would be perceived as a grave insult by most veterans to fly the flag of the wrong nation or even the wrong service over war dead, yet that is in effect what is being done. A great deal of my contempt for the argument to preserve the elongated flag stems from this.
-
so, what exactly is the argument at this point?
-
That it's disingenuous to say the 'Confederate flag' has ever been a symbol of state's rights or respect for soldiers in the Civil War. That it's always been a coded symbol of anti-black violence, created for that purpose in the post-Reconstruction era, and that while many people didn't understand that when they flew it, that understanding is spreading now.
-
ok, so if many people flew it with it with the understanding that it was symbolic of something else, then how is it not a symbol of that something else?
-
Because symbolism is not a property of the individual. Symbols exist in popular consciousness and their effect is measured by their ability to communicate.
-
I was sorely tempted to post this as an img, but decided it was in poor taste. Have a link instead, re: symbolism as it relates to popular consciousness (http://cdn.society6.com/cdn/0015/p/5358304_6208673-cnv01_lz.jpg)
-
Yeah, and there seems to be two populations with two different meanings for the symbol. Which is not surprising when one of those groups was the loser of a very bloody civil war and the other group was the victor and the symbol is related to that war for both sides. I think the message that this symbol communicates varies depending on the region of the population.
Though I do seem to be in the awkward position of defending people who I neither agree with nor who are present and trying to defend themselves (is there anyone reading this who actually sports the confederate flag as a symbol of the south?). but this does feel an awful lot like one group of people trying to force their meaning of a symbol onto another group to whom that symbol is somewhat important.
-
The elongated version, as I commented before and which you have conveniently forgotten by the time of this post, does not actually match the naval ensign (stars and layout of them, also general shape of the rectangle) or anything save a prototype considered for the national flag of the Confederacy that was not selected, and was introduced to widespread use only in the late '50s and early '60s to provide a symbol for resistance to civil rights and the federal government. (Before that point only a single example existed.) The only people who died as result of that flag were black; the only way in which they died was at best "civil unrest" rather than "active combat". Its history includes no great acts of bravery or world-altering moments. The flag, as I have now pointed out twice, is not really a flag of the Confederate States of America. It has been imbued with that meaning as a defense, but it is not a meaning it has any legitimate title to.
I want to point out again (thank you NGTM-1R) that the current flag under debate was literally conceived as a symbol of racial oppression. That does matter, you know, and somebody ignorant of its origins 50 years later does not excuse how it is a deliberate symbol of hate and inequality.
-
Yeah, and there seems to be two populations with two different meanings for the symbol. Which is not surprising when one of those groups was the loser of a very bloody civil war and the other group was the victor and the symbol is related to that war for both sides. I think the message that this symbol communicates varies depending on the region of the population.
No, that's exactly what we've been saying isn't true, or at least what NGTM1R has been presenting quite convincingly. The gap is not between north and south. It's between southerners who created the symbol to say Hurt Black People, and people who replicated that symbol without knowing what it meant.
How did you get from that to what you just said, which is nearly the opposite?
-
Basically the point needs to be made to people that flying that flag is actually disrespectful to the people who died in the civil war.
-
people who replicated that symbol without knowing what it meant.
Those people seem to have a different meaning for the flag than 'symbol of oppression' (or supremacy depending on perspective), and that meaning seems to be communicated amongst themselves well. I would like to think they are a much much larger group of people than your first group. Assuming discussions about it's racist origin are correct, then it seems this symbol had been quite thoroughly reappropriated to mean something other than what it used to/was constructed to represent. At least in the south. And it feels like this larger group is having a meaning which is foreign to them being forced upon them (mainly by third parties if we want to shift the focus to just the south). It's origin seems irreverent to me, because if it was concocted to act as a symbol of white supremacy but you have a lot of people in the south who have been raised being taught that that symbol had a meaning different than that, then to all of these people it's legitimately not a symbol of hate. Understanding this history can explain why there exists this dichotomy of meaning, but I don't think it legitimizes one meaning over the other.
-
I mean this as a genuine question, not some kind of smarmy put-down: have you ever read about the modern rhetoric of Neo-Nazi groups and the KKK? It's really fascinating. It involves extremely savvy manipulation of what the group stands for to create claims about 'pride', 'heritage', and 'memory.'
If a large number of people can be taught to believe a symbol has a new meaning, but none of those people are the people the symbol was originally designed to harm, who gets to choose what it means?
-
I mean this as a genuine question, not some kind of smarmy put-down: have you ever read about the modern rhetoric of Neo-Nazi groups and the KKK? It's really fascinating. It involves extremely savvy manipulation of what the group stands for to create claims about 'pride', 'heritage', and 'memory.'
I am familiar with it, and I can see how that could be the nucleus for southerner's current understanding of the flag's meaning. If you take that manipulated language out of the context of the groups that started it, the racist component could end up completely lost. Or the entire south could be a bunch of blatant racists, wall to wall, without exception, and I'm naively giving them the benefit of the doubt. I know it's certainly a much worse problem there, but I would like to believe that the problem is overstated and an inaccurate stereotype.
If a large number of people can be taught to believe a symbol has a new meaning, but none of those people are the people the symbol was originally designed to harm, who gets to choose what it means?
I do not see why a symbol cannot mean different things to different people. The modern American flag certainly has that effect globally. I don't think anyone gets the choose what other people think or believe, and to that effect southerners can't tell blacks*/northerners it's not a symbol of slavery, hence the current conflict.
*it is my understanding that there are a great many blacks in the south who have been educated in the 'southern' meaning of the flag and so who would not be applicable here
-
But we do choose what we think and believe, all the time! We make collective choices about what's acceptable. I cannot greet your mother by leering at her and telling her we should ****. The American flag is another great example. If the capital of Zambia flew the American flag, that would (rightly) draw a lot of protest from people who see it as a sign that Zambia is expressing submission to America.
-
'we' don't always agree. The fact that we do sometimes, even most of the time, does not mean we will always be able to, this might be an example of a time when we cannot.
-
But somehow we ended up at pretty universal meetin' your mom etiquette, and pretty universal agreement on what it would mean to fly another country's flag.
-
In Japan you bow as a sign of respect, in European culture it is a sign of submission, remember this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/6580190/Barack-Obama-criticised-for-treasonous-bow-to-Japanese-emperor.html)?
different cultures, different groups of people have different meanings for things.
This is cultural relativism 101. I know you know this.
-
That's orthogonal to your argument, though. Everyone's agreed on what bows mean in different place - even the critics there! Go back here:
'we' don't always agree. The fact that we do sometimes, even most of the time, does not mean we will always be able to, this might be an example of a time when we cannot.
We haven't agreed on the Confederate flag, but right now, the evidence is pointing to this flag falling into the same class of symbols as the swastika and the KKK getup - a symbol which has an undeniable semantic connection, in our country, to violence against a specific group. If the flag is a fabrication, if it is not an effective communicator of either I support state's rights or I respect the heritage of Civil War veterans, if it is to many people an effective communicator of Black People Get Hurt, what reason is there to retain it as a publicly acceptable symbol, rather than treating it like mom leers?
-
Cultural relativism actually means the opposite of 'all things are interchangeable and meaningless.' It says that symbols are given meaning by the actions and history around them!
-
For large potions of people in the south this symbol has had a different history than in the north. You are acting as though the country is culturally homogeneous.
-
I refer you back to NGTM1R's posts. Why do you keep bringing the north into this? It hasn't been necessary yet.
-
because I don't see most of the criticism of this symbol coming from the south.
-
Bobboau, you seem to be stuck in Strawman Mode. I suggest confronting the actual arguments instead!
-
because I don't see most of the criticism of this symbol coming from the south.
Well, that's a factual statement, and in theory we could arbitrate it with research. We're probably not going to, but here's my half-assed effort.
Bree Newsome did her thing in North Carolina. Governor Nikki Haley is in charge of South Carolina. I googled those names and got this (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/24/nationwide-petitions-conf_n_7646820.html) which makes the action seem very Southern.
-
Bobboau, you seem to be stuck in Strawman Mode. I suggest confronting the actual arguments instead!
I'm sorry, who's argument have I misrepresented? and what "actual argument" would you like me to get back to? I was under the delusion that I was having a discussion and expressing my opinions, sorry about that.
-
because I don't see most of the criticism of this symbol coming from the south.
Well, that's a factual statement, and in theory we could arbitrate it with research. We're probably not going to, but here's my half-assed effort.
Bree Newsome did her thing in North Carolina. Governor Nikki Haley is in charge of South Carolina. I googled those names and got this (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/24/nationwide-petitions-conf_n_7646820.html) which makes the action seem very Southern.
well, it's a statement about what I've seen, but I accept your implied premise that I could be mistaken about this. I'll see if I can find anything to back my hunch up.
-
Neither flag, particularly, is enthralling in its history. However, the authentic battle flags at least have an excuse that you are memorializing those of your state or your relation who did what they perceived to be their duty. The flag is still distasteful as ultimately the symbol of the bizarre idea of a republic founded on preserving slavery, but it is also on some level defensible as a banner under which the future of mankind was expressed at Hampton Roads and Petersburg, great deeds were performed, and many died in what they thought was the defense of hearth and home. If someone chooses to fly an authentic flag over a memorial to Confederate dead or display it out of respect for ancestors who fell, this is something about which I think reasonable people can disagree. I am myself of two minds on the subject as this probably makes clear. (While I personally find it too distasteful to want to ever make a personal display, despite a family history that is mildly distinguished in its service to the Confederacy, I do not necessarily have objection to others doing so. There are of course ways to quickly cause such objection to develop.)
The elongated version, as I commented before and which you have conveniently forgotten by the time of this post, does not actually match the naval ensign (stars and layout of them, also general shape of the rectangle) or anything save a prototype considered for the national flag of the Confederacy that was not selected, and was introduced to widespread use only in the late '50s and early '60s to provide a symbol for resistance to civil rights and the federal government. (Before that point only a single example existed.) The only people who died as result of that flag were black; the only way in which they died was at best "civil unrest" rather than "active combat". Its history includes no great acts of bravery or world-altering moments. The flag, as I have now pointed out twice, is not really a flag of the Confederate States of America. It has been imbued with that meaning as a defense, but it is not a meaning it has any legitimate title to.
And on the other hand, there is also the fact that even if it was accepted to be "a Confederate flag" it is not the flag those being memorialized supposedly would recognize or have fought under. While it is a dangerous thing to argue emotional attachment should necessarily make sense, I think that in general we can all agree that if we are attempting to be respectful it behooves us to do so with an eye towards performing respectful acts with the correct implements and behavior. It would be perceived as a grave insult by most veterans to fly the flag of the wrong nation or even the wrong service over war dead, yet that is in effect what is being done. A great deal of my contempt for the argument to preserve the elongated flag stems from this.
This post, one of several. Your crusade on cultural relativism and criticism of the geographic location of people who have a problem with the flag is utterly, totally pointless. It is a deliberate, calculated tool of racial oppression and has been since its inception. It is not a historical symbol of anything any of its apologists claim it represents.
When you tackle that part, perhaps we can discuss the relative importance of geography when it comes to decrying racism.
-
I'll see if I can find anything to back my hunch up.
this is interesting (http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/1pi31nugly/tabs_OPI_confederate_flag_20131016.pdf). Apparently I grew up in the one place that considered it to mean 'southern pride' more than the south did. and it looks like you are right, the north south divide seems a lot weaker than I expected and it's not very strong in the south. Interestingly the south seems to be the most confused as to what it means. maybe I did have a skewed view of this.
ok, though I maintain my point hypothetically, I concede on the facts.
-
...
I'm not following any of that, but given I just conceded I guess it's not important.
-
We did it, we had a civil discussion, I'm buying shots
-
if it is to many people an effective communicator of Black People Get Hurt, what reason is there to retain it as a publicly acceptable symbol, rather than treating it like mom leers?
Because to even more people, it is a symbol of Southern pride and not racism. It is not a symbol like swastika, where the meaning is clear and pretty unambiguous.
-
This is one of those times I just want to post a link to an earlier post in the thread and create a (hopefully useful) loop. Your point has been shot down more than a Brewster Buffalo.
To whom, exactly, is a flag fabricated as part of a systematic anti-Black movement, a flag designed to recall a traitor movement created to ensure the perpetuation of slavery, unambiguously not racist? Where are these 'more people' who outnumber American Blacks? Even if there were a great many of them, even if we accepted a claim to the validity of remembrance, why would they prefer this created flag to a genuine Confederate flag? Read the evidence presented above. The meaning is clear and unambiguous.
-
I'm pretty much convinced, especially by NGTM's last post about the subject. Very substantial and complete. Thanks! I guess I was taken by the feeling of "something's not entirely right" in this whole story, by how certain issues change in such a rapid way that seem to catch everyone off guard, and I'm always weary (perhaps too much?) of some kind of We have always been at war with Oceania" effect.
-
Which is why the point needs to be made in a different way. Instead of going on about slavery just point out that the flag is disrespectful to those who died fighting for the south in the civil war. Cause really it makes as much sense using this flag as waving Nazi flags at the Dali Lama cause they have a swastika on them.
-
Interestingly, according to the data, it seems that, while this is largely a black/white issue, political party affiliation seems to be an even stronger predictor than race. Make of that what you will.
-
Interestingly, according to the data, it seems that, while this is largely a black/white issue, political party affiliation seems to be an even stronger predictor than race. Make of that what you will.
That's true of a lot of issues. The alignment is so strong that some researchers have argued people are actually answering questions tactically as a sign of party solidarity, rather than expressing their true beliefs. (not on this issue in particular - on a whole range of stuff)
-
that would make a lot of.. depressing sense...
-
This is one of those times I just want to post a link to an earlier post in the thread and create a (hopefully useful) loop. Your point has been shot down more than a Brewster Buffalo.
To whom, exactly, is a flag fabricated as part of a systematic anti-Black movement, a flag designed to recall a traitor movement created to ensure the perpetuation of slavery, unambiguously not racist? Where are these 'more people' who outnumber American Blacks?
Here it is:
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/1pi31nugly/tabs_OPI_confederate_flag_20131016.pdf
Most people do not see it a symbol of racism, although a substantial minority does. And as with any symbol, this current perception of what it stands for is more important than its history, IMHO. Thats cultural relativism, too. So while I understand why there is an opposition towards this flag, I dont really care unless someone is displaying it with an intent to be racist. If its just a southern pride thing then its pretty harmless. Thats the difference from swastika, where it is hard to imagine a harmless instance of displaying it. But even for swastika, if someone is displaying it as Hindu symbol then IDGAF.
-
hang on im dum too
-
Okay no, I'm not dumb, I stand by my remark, which is:
:lol:
Look at the chart you just posted. Tally up how many people believe the flag is a symbol of racism. Tally up how many people believe it is not.
I just do not understand why you'd post that without reading it.
-
Wait now I'm thinking myself in circles again. Let me see how stupid I am!
-
Also interesting to see the age spread there.
-
So you have 350 people who say, look, this flag is about Southern Pride, less racism.
You have 440 people who say, look, this flag is either more about racism than Southern Pride, or just as much.
110 people are like nah bro it's about the Dukes of Hazzard.
How does that possibly support the point you're trying to make? 'This flag is just as much about racism as it is about Southern Pride' is not a positive endorsement. You've got more people calling racism than otherwise.
How does having 20% of your poll favor flying the flag, and 38% disapprove, with another 34% in the (very complex and interesting, but we'll pass it over) middle support the point you're trying to make?
Is this even important to the discussion? I don't think so, but all those years in the polling lab make it impossible for me to resist a cheap shot.
-
The regional breakdown does show Southern Pride support in the South, tho. It still tips towards 'this is racist' but more narrowly.
-
I think it is worth noting that no majority of any group, not even blacks, not even Democrats (for whom this is oddly even higher than blacks by a thin margin), considers it a purely racist symbol (according to this one random poll, the source of which I haven't vetted)
-
A plurality does, though!
-
I think it is worth noting that no majority of any group, not even blacks, not even Democrats (for whom this is oddly even higher than blacks by a thin margin), considers it a purely racist symbol (according to this one random poll, the source of which I haven't vetted)
Yeah. Yet every group everywhere opposes flying it, in plurality. It's an interesting topic, which I think is why this discussion is still going. It touches on a few complicated issues:
Who defines the meaning of a symbol? If one group claims it symbolizes threat and harm, how do we prioritize their claim?
How do we decide if people have been tricked en masse? What does it mean if a symbol has been propagated through false claims?
Should we evaluate the entire historical trajectory that brought a symbol to its current power? How do we remember the Civil War? Are we remembering it accurately? Do we understand the ongoing repercussions of the war's aftermath?
If 99 people believe a symbol means one mild thing, and 1 person makes an argument that it is actually violent and harmful, how do we decide who to listen to?
-
You can apply those same questions to the swastika, as 666maslo666 alluded to.
-
I think Battuta's questions go to the heart of my intuitive concerns. Doesn't help that things seem to go in shocks and bumps through some social madness. Reminds me of that crazy party flying building in Douglas Adams' hitchhikers guide, where it ravages everything it passes through, and these sensible questions just don't matter, what matters is a kind of struggle between "good" and "evil", perceived quite dramatically different from either the left and the right.
From the left's point of view, this is unquestionably a symbol of hatred and every instance of it should be banned, censored, shamed. In the name of progress and end of racism, one issue at a time. Makes sense. From the right point of view, they see this as another anarchic attack on human culture and tradition from the "Joker" crazy left, that seemingly destroys everything in its passage like it doesn't give a damn if they have real facts on their hands or not (see Tim Hunt). The left regards this right wing resistance as further evidence of their innate racism.
Both sides entrenched in these worldviews seem to make a huge noise when these issues prop up. Stores close down selling or display of the flag, some applaud others cry. Eventually everything settles down and it sort of comes back to the previous status quo, except for the general perception of the issue.
So I do wonder at that: What is the net effect of this scandal and how did these polls deviate from before this event against after.
I don't know the net effect but I'm willing to predict that the larger group of people who both said it's "tradition" and "racism" at the same time will be a lot smaller, and that opinion on the matter has majorly polarised, and mostly on the ideological left-right vector.
-
do we have anyone who actually has a positive opinion of the confederate flag yet? or are we still operating from a position of hypotheticals
-
And as with any symbol, this current perception of what it stands for is more important than its history, IMHO. Thats cultural relativism, too.
Except that there are a bunch of people who perceive the flag as being a racist symbol of oppression And guess what, they are right. Both in their perception and factually. So why on Earth anyone who is aware of that would continue with the opinion "I'm wrong about the facts but I'm going to continue to believe that the flag means something else because I want it to" is beyond me. Choose a different symbol, one that actually means what you want to say.
If its just a southern pride thing then its pretty harmless. Thats the difference from swastika, where it is hard to imagine a harmless instance of displaying it. But even for swastika, if someone is displaying it as Hindu symbol then IDGAF.
You seem to have completely and utterly missed my point about the swastika. Waving Buddhist symbols at the Dali Lama is fine. Waving symbols that look like a Buddhist symbol but actually have a different meaning is not fine. Waving symbols that actually have a violent and racist meaning and no actual connection to Buddhism is plain and simple wrong.
-
So you have 350 people who say, look, this flag is about Southern Pride, less racism.
You have 440 people who say, look, this flag is either more about racism than Southern Pride, or just as much.
110 people are like nah bro it's about the Dukes of Hazzard.
I dont see where you got those numbers from, the first column titled "Total" says that 35% see it as a symbol of southern pride, 24% see it as a symbol of racism, 20% says both equally, 11% neither and 9% not sure. That can be interpreted as the flag being a bit more likely to be seen as southern pride rather than racist.
-
In the National Air and Space Museum, there is a left-facing swastika drawn on the nose cone of the Spirit of St. Louis, the plane Lindbergh flew across the Atlantic in 1927. There is a sign next to it which says something to the effect of "The marking in the center of the nose cone is a good-luck symbol".
It's also worth noting that both orientations of the swastika were widely used (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_use_of_the_swastika_in_the_early_20th_century) prior to Nazi association.
-
In the National Air and Space Museum, there is a left-facing swastika drawn on the nose cone of the Spirit of St. Louis, the plane Lindbergh flew across the Atlantic in 1927. There is a sign next to it which says something to the effect of "The marking in the center of the nose cone is a good-luck symbol".
It's also worth noting that both orientations of the swastika were widely used (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_use_of_the_swastika_in_the_early_20th_century) prior to Nazi association.
Flying a (fake. Thanks thread!) Confederate flag is basically telling every black person that sees it that you are glorifying a period in our history where they or their ancestors were kept as property. How dare they be offended! It's obviously about southern pride. Reminding an entire demographic of the country about how their heritage is slavery on a daily basis isn't racist at all. Especially not when that's why the flag was designed in the first place! Man, people are really sensitive.
Also thank you for pointing out how 90 years ago the swastika was different than it before it was turned into a symbol of genocide and tyranny. That matters a lot to today, where it is still a symbol of genocide and tyranny.
-
So why not reclaim the swastika (both versions) as a symbol for good luck, seeing as it was used that way for literally thousands of years before the Nazis came along?
-
So you have 350 people who say, look, this flag is about Southern Pride, less racism.
You have 440 people who say, look, this flag is either more about racism than Southern Pride, or just as much.
110 people are like nah bro it's about the Dukes of Hazzard.
I dont see where you got those numbers from, the first column titled "Total" says that 35% see it as a symbol of southern pride, 24% see it as a symbol of racism, 20% says both equally, 11% neither and 9% not sure. That can be interpreted as the flag being a bit more likely to be seen as southern pride rather than racist.
It actually cannot! Setting aside the two nonresponse categories, the number of people who say the flag represents racism is larger, by 90, than those who believe the flag does not represent racism (or at least does not do so more than it represents Southern Pride).
You didn't read the statistics closely enough to catch that before posting, and you apparently didn't look at the second page at all.
So why not reclaim the swastika (both versions) as a symbol for good luck, seeing as it was used that way for literally thousands of years before the Nazis came along?
This is actually a really great question, and I think the answer is morally trivial. The swastika can and should be reclaimed wherever possible. But part of that process is going to require destroying the association with violence. And that's hard, because organized political anti-Semitism is alive, thriving, and proud to claim this symbol.
-
I live in China where the swastika is still reasonably common. My point is that the swastika, a symbol of good luck for thousands of years is largely considered offensive in the west, but the confederate flag, a symbol which was invented in the 50s as a way of oppressing black people is ok.
Can't anyone see something wrong with that logic?
In the end it basically boils down to people thinking "I was affected by the bad stuff that happened to people under the swastika but not by the confederate flag. So **** those guys."
-
Flying a (fake. Thanks thread!) Confederate flag is basically telling every black person that sees it that you are glorifying a period in our history where they or their ancestors were kept as property.
To be fair, the same is true of any symbol of the pre-1865 US. That includes any imagery of the founding fathers.
-
I feel like there's a pretty big difference between "artifact of when slavery was still legal" and "this symbol is designed specifically to remind you that you're inferior and property".
-
I came in here way too late. I will summarize what my mechanic an ordained minister told me uncensored. I am not in any way trying to be offensive, his words had great wisdom. To put it straight, he doesn't like homosexuality as long as it doesn't bother him, what bothers him is the civil unrest and how much of a hot topic it is. He'd just rather deal with human society operating with homosexuality as norm as opposed to everyone being up in arms about what is otherwise bull**** (adults can consent to the responsibility of marriage after all, it doesn't have to do with sex).
"Faggots have been around since the beginning of humanity. A lot of countries around the world don't mind them; they're just a part of human life. Why does our country have a problem?".
Don't get me wrong, he obviously doesn't agree with homosexuality, and with that, he will never hold weddings for people of the same sex ever. That be his choice, he just doesn't understand why this is a problem in america (when it's not in other places) when everyone could just get along and mind their own business instead of political gain of conquer and divide the masses for votes and power.
-
There's a strange quirk in human nature that, when someone finds something offensive; they don't want to be alone, they want to be part of a crowd, even if they have to spend a considerable amount of time and resources telling that crowd what was so offensive in the first place.
Take computer games, I wish there was a way to calculate how many sales or downloads of 'offensive' computer games could be directly attributed to curiosity caused by people screaming about how 'disgusting' they were.
-
I can think of at least one game (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatred_(video_game)) in recent history where you can safely assume nearly every cent of it was from that.
-
The thing is, society changes a hell of a lot faster than people can, like the movie industry, those sort of games are already becoming relegated to 'Greenlight' or Newsgrounds, which is kind of the Computer Game version of 'Direct To DVD', you get the occasional good one, but you have to trawl a lot of crap to find it. The difference is, the Movie Industry has been around long enough for people over 50 to be comfortable with it.
This is the source of a great many of todays 'moral' dilemmas.
-
I can think of at least one game (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatred_(video_game)) in recent history where you can safely assume nearly every cent of it was from that.
I'd actually beg to differ. That game made it trough Steam Greenlight rather quickly and before the media caught wind of it. There already was a lot of interest in that sorta thing...
(But there's obviously still a lot of cents made from that 'controversy')
-
I was under the impression that that game was controversial way before it was launched, when they sent a "controversial" trailer about it last year and every media blew up on how eggregious violence is and "omg has anyone noticed how GTA and other games are also violent? OMG I had never thought of this before!!1one!!" An armaggedon in the making, the worst in "gaming culture" expressed in one single horrible satanic example, except the game came and went and it had mild bored "meh" reviews at the actual "game", and that was about it.
Outrage culture being comoditized by capitalism at its best. At least Mortal Kombat and Doom were actually good games.
-
Hmm, not on the media I have been following, but fair enough.
-
For reference
Kotaku: http://kotaku.com/the-kind-of-video-game-violence-that-disturbs-me-1647874540
Polygon: http://www.polygon.com/2014/10/16/6988687/the-worst-trailer-of-the-year-revels-in-slaughtering-innocents
Wikipedia on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatred_(video_game)#Reception
-
I'm... Very sure that I don't see your depiction of "outrage culture" into the Kotaku article. It's very self-reflective, there's no "BAN THIS SICK FILTH" at all in it. I'd see a bit of your point in the polygon article, but, well... It's Polygon. That's kind off what they do.
-
Yeah they nailed the outragebux. perfect timing, perfect presentation, getting that AO rating (or not). They knew what they were doing, and they played it flawlessly.
-
I'm... Very sure that I don't see your depiction of "outrage culture" into the Kotaku article. It's very self-reflective, there's no "BAN THIS SICK FILTH" at all in it. I'd see a bit of your point in the polygon article, but, well... It's Polygon. That's kind off what they do.
"More importantly, a lot of people have decided to draw their line in the sand and say this—not GTA, not Postal or what have you—is too far."
message: "This game is unacceptable". (insert Lemongrab soundbite here)
Honestly I think the Polygon article is less ban happy out of the two of them
-
Nah, you're misreading it, grabbing single out of context quotes to push it. I mean, if I would pull a quote from that article, it would be this:
Now the usual disclaimer: I DO NOT THINK GAMES CAUSE VIOLENCE. Nor, for that matter, do I think this game should not exist. It has every right to.
-
just re-read the Kotaku article, I definitely get a ~this game should not exsist~ vibe from it, whereas the Polygon one is more of a ~this game is disgusting~ vibe.
/*shrug*/ difference of opinion
-
It doesn't matter if writers thought that this was a bannable game or not (hint, of course anyone would write such a "caveat" especially if they are about to write a damning piece on the object), what matters is how they managed to get everyone "Shocked! SHOCKED that violence occurs in games" and everyone was talking about that game for several days merely due to a "gruesome" trailer. This played perfectly to the developers' hands, who flat out confessed that was the entire point of the trailer. The game went on to become a huge success in sales, despite it being lackluster in terms of actual gameplay.
These strategies are not new. GTA and even Carmaggedon made similar publicity stunts back in the day.
-
It doesn't matter if writers thought that this was a bannable game or not (hint, of course anyone would write such a "caveat" especially if they are about to write a damning piece on the object), what matters is how they managed to get everyone "Shocked! SHOCKED that violence occurs in games" and everyone was talking about that game for several days merely due to a "gruesome" trailer. This played perfectly to the developers' hands, who flat out confessed that was the entire point of the trailer. The game went on to become a huge success in sales, despite it being lackluster in terms of actual gameplay.
These strategies are not new. GTA and even Carmaggedon made similar publicity stunts back in the day.
And of course it is impossible for anyone to actually mean such a caveat, because they're all evil censorious SJW douchebags who want nothing more than to take your games away and chastise you for having bad wrong fun that makes the little kittens cry.
Because that is totally a real position and not just a strawman that exists in your mind.
Also, "huge success" is, perhaps, a bit overstating it. There was a peak of 3000 users playing it, and as of this moment, there are .... 30 people. According to the various DB trawlers, it has about 40k owners.
-
just re-read the Kotaku article, I definitely get a ~this game should not exsist~ vibe from it, whereas the Polygon one is more of a ~this game is disgusting~ vibe.
/*shrug*/ difference of opinion
Okay, I get where you are coming from with the polygon thing, but I found it weird that you get a ~this game should not exist~ vibe from an article where the author literally says that he does not feel that way. I wouldn't take an issue with your stance at all if that piece wasn't there, but now I simply don't get where you are coming from.
It doesn't matter if writers thought that this was a bannable game or not (hint, of course anyone would write such a "caveat" especially if they are about to write a damning piece on the object), what matters is how they managed to get everyone "Shocked! SHOCKED that violence occurs in games"
But, again, the article you linked literally stated that this is nothing new. Again, to quote from the article itself:
It has, of course, also gotten a crazy amount of attention, which makes sense given that its entire announcement campaign smacked of a thinly veiled grab at publicity. "Bring [the trailer] everywhere and let the haters hate! (And they will, oh they will...)," the developers wrote. They proudly trumpeted their alleged lack of "political correctness" or affiliation to art/any kind of message—despite, in doing so, making a very pointed political statement—and generally leaned on how different they thought they were being.
Thing is, they really weren't. This is just a footnote in a book with many, many chapters.
-
I don't really care about their "real intentions", what matters is that they were obviously baited into doing these "op-eds" bashing violence in games and "questioning" the role of games and so on, and they took the bait. And this, in turn, boosted their sales. That is my sole point. If the writers themselves were self-aware of this phenomena and still fell for it, then what can one say about their utter lack of dignity and self-worth? Alternatively, the articles themselves, riddled with this faux-poignancy about righteous babble, were as click-baity as the game itself, and both were just tools that fed each other to success in a capitalist game of fake outrage culture.
. "This is how we are being manipulated into being outraged so all of you buy this game, isn't that outrageous? Think of that, and don't forget the title of this game that is so outrageous so you know that you definitely won't buy this at all to find out what it really is all about!!!!"
-
Luis, your own thesis is disproven by your own examples and... well, honestly, the only one here who actually seems outraged is you.
-
No, my thesis is definitely not disproven "by my own examples", stop saying silly things like that that have no bearing in anything remotely logical or sensible. If anything, that's the only thing that annoys me.
There's also no "outrage" on my part, stop pathologizing my observations. I'm just describing a phenomena of symbiosis between an "offensive" party and a media that gladly becomes "offended" and gives the former all the publicity they need to sell their crappy game. This type of symbiosis that feed from polar opposites is widespread not only in outrage culture, but in many other issues of our lifes, including wars and so on.
-
And of course it is impossible for anyone to actually mean such a caveat, because they're all evil censorious SJW douchebags who want nothing more than to take your games away and chastise you for having bad wrong fun that makes the little kittens cry.
Because that is totally a real position and not just a strawman that exists in your mind.
yeah, like when Glen Beck says he absolutely doesn't want anyone to start an armed uprising against the government, at all.
Also, "huge success" is, perhaps, a bit overstating it. There was a peak of 3000 users playing it, and as of this moment, there are .... 30 people. According to the various DB trawlers, it has about 40k owners.
now who's srtawmanning, he said sales. it sold well.
-
Okay, I get where you are coming from with the polygon thing, but I found it weird that you get a ~this game should not exist~ vibe from an article where the author literally says that he does not feel that way. I wouldn't take an issue with your stance at all if that piece wasn't there, but now I simply don't get where you are coming from.
See my Glen Beck comment, just because you say explicitly that you don't want something doesn't mean that's not your message.
It could just mean that it's obviously your message, and you are self aware of it, and you know it's a horrible message so you are trying to do proactive damage control. A'la Glen Beck.
-
Also, "huge success" is, perhaps, a bit overstating it. There was a peak of 3000 users playing it, and as of this moment, there are .... 30 people. According to the various DB trawlers, it has about 40k owners.
now who's srtawmanning, he said sales. it sold well.
Dunno, 40k owners means it sold 40,000 times. I wouldn't say that is "Sold well", especially for a game that got a lot of coverage.
See Glenn Beck
With Glenn beck, I'd argue that there is a established pattern of behaviour of saying one thing whilst meaning the other. Now I only read Nathan Grayson whilst he was working for Rock Paper Shotgun, but I've never seen things that would cause me to even remotely compare him to Glenn Beck. He seems a rather honest person.
-
Dunno, 40k owners means it sold 40,000 times. I wouldn't say that is "Sold well", especially for a game that got a lot of coverage.
According to the various DB trawlers...
give me some reason to believe that this mechanism would give accurate results.
With Glenn beck, I'd argue that there is a established pattern of behaviour of saying one thing whilst meaning the other. Now I only read Nathan Grayson whilst he was working for Rock Paper Shotgun, but I've never seen things that would cause me to even remotely compare him to Glenn Beck. He seems a rather honest person.
well, then I guess we are back to the whole 'difference of opinion' thing.
-
Fair enough!
-
Î think that 40k sales for such a simple small mediocre game like Hatred is actually pretty good. Much more than it's worth anyway.
(although I don't believe in that figure. At all. It did manage to get to the top of sales at the start. I'm guessing a lot of people uninstalled it after a few days / 1st month)
-
I would bet $20 there is a significant number of sales to people who never have, will, or intended to install or play it.
and yeah, it outsold GTA V and the Witcher 3 for a day or two, while it's not record breaking, it's not a small volume.
-
The median Steam title sells 32,000 (https://medium.com/@galyonkin/some-things-you-should-know-about-steam-5eaffcf33218) copies, so by the 40,000 figure we can say it sold more than 50% of the games on Steam.
-
I can think of at least one game (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatred_(video_game)) in recent history where you can safely assume nearly every cent of it was from that.
Your argument discounts the existence of segments of society who have fantasies about race and class war or the overthrow of the government or that they're being oppressed. c.f. things like the militia movement, white supremacists, Neo-Nazis, and Dylan Roof.
There are a lot of people to whom Hatred would genuinely appeal: the target market is in the name. Can they sell 40k copies worldwide? If Resistance Records could in its heyday, sure. It's a lot easier to get your hands on a Steam game too.
-
Oh come on, he was being rethorical with the "every cent" part of the phrase, and I think that defending the idea that at least 80% of those units weren't sold because of the controversy happened and gave the game a publicity boost of being the "bad game in town" is just untenable.
-
Your argument discounts the existence of segments of society who have fantasies about race and class war or the overthrow of the government or that they're being oppressed. c.f. things like the militia movement, white supremacists, Neo-Nazis, and Dylan Roof.
There are a lot of people to whom Hatred would genuinely appeal: the target market is in the name. Can they sell 40k copies worldwide? If Resistance Records could in its heyday, sure. It's a lot easier to get your hands on a Steam game too.
In Hatred you murder people of every race, religion, class, and gender, I don't think that would appeal to the people you describe. not without any mods anyway, of which I am unaware of any existing. The segment to which Hatred would legitimately appeal would be edgelord teenagers going through their misanthropic phase. but even assuming you were right on who it appealed to, are these people who would be technically savvy enough to own a computer powerful enough to run the game? or even to know of steam? would they be gamers by any meaning of the word? Ignoring even those barriers to entry, are there even 40,000 people of the class you describe in the country? (honestly asking, I don't know how many of each of those groups there are)
I honestly doubt more than 5% (being really generous here) of the people who bought that game did so because they enjoy the narrative unironically.
[edit] googling "Resistance Records" lead me to this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_Cleansing_(video_game)) which I think would be more in line with what you are thinking and it doesn't look like it sold better than a few thousand copies ever. [/edit]