quote:Maybe there's some movie that everybody loves. Please tell me it's not the revenge movie Godfather. I'd be so ashamed if that were our national icon.
is the godfather a "revenge movie"
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
I'm confused about what this is?
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Nevermind. I checked OSC's blog post and sure enough, it was there.
So I'm surprised he didn't mention Star Wars. I personally didn't like the Godfather Trilogy, but I really enjoyed Star Wars. I think most Americans did, too.
Regardless, not everyone can agree one a piece of art or its value. To expect such a thing is silly. Not everyone back in the day agreed that a poem or poet was good, either. Some people just didn't like poetry at all.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Maybe there's some movie that everybody loves. Please tell me it's not the revenge movie Godfather. I'd be so ashamed if that were our national icon.
is the godfather a "revenge movie"
Sorta right? His father is attacked, and he grabs the reigns and goes after his attackers.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
While I don't think it could be called just one type of movie (epic-length stories rarely are), surely among the top things Godfather would be called is a revenge movie. Most of the film centers on either acquiring power and its consequences-which is then used for revenge among other things-or the fallout from using power to take revenge.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Regardless, not everyone can agree one a piece of art or its value. To expect such a thing is silly. Not everyone back in the day agreed that a poem or poet was good, either. Some people just didn't like poetry at all.
True but with most things, all-time best lists do tend to come to some general consensus about many works or artists. For instance, most everyone knows that Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are the big three of classical music. They may not be your favorites but most people still put them at the top. Nearly all greatest scifi lists have Ender's Game on it. Greatest movie lists almost always include Godfather I and II.
One area that seems to have very little consensus is best ever romance novel lists. Take a look at them sometime. Out of ten lists there is one book you might see 3 times, the rest are all different.
Don't ask me why I know this Posted by Sa'eed (Member # 12368) on :
"The Godfather" is as much about revenge as "Hamlet" was, and doesn't OSC always go on about how much he loves Shakespeare.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
You can argue that The Godfather is a revenge movie in the same way you can argue The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly is a revenge movie. It involves play-by-payback — the plot advances because of retaliatory acts — and finishes with some satisfying revenge, of a sort (tense but ultimately comical, in the case of Tuco). But that the movie built up to, effectively, a moment of sheer revenge was not the point. Neither movie was principally about revenge.
Nor do we have to be ashamed if Godfather is our national cinematic icon (it's not). I mean, it's only one of the greatest movies ever made. oh darn??
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Hyperbole and a Half feels real, though of course the title proclaims that it is an exaggeration. And even though it's aimed at women in particular
no it's not
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Speaking of Christmas songs, have you noticed how "Jolly Old St. Nicholas" has been bowdlerized, presumably to please feminists?
presumably an unlicensed old song primarily used in a hypercommercialized winter event has been modified because feminazis are oppressing us with hyper-pc culture. Or something. Well it is a good thing that this is presumed with some sort of evidence right because otherwise it's a loaded dullard's charge
right
evidence, right
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
OSC needs to stop saying whatever comes into his head :/
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: You can argue that The Godfather is a revenge movie in the same way you can argue The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly is a revenge movie. It involves play-by-payback — the plot advances because of retaliatory acts — and finishes with some satisfying revenge, of a sort (tense but ultimately comical, in the case of Tuco). But that the movie built up to, effectively, a moment of sheer revenge was not the point. Neither movie was principally about revenge.
Nor do we have to be ashamed if Godfather is our national cinematic icon (it's not). I mean, it's only one of the greatest movies ever made. oh darn??
It's a fantastic film, almost revolutionary in that it was an attempt to take people who were stock bad guys and actually look at them under the microscope while telling a compelling human story. It's one of the things that helped make American cinema an art form.
That said, if I could only choose one film to represent America to an outsider, it would *not* be that one. It's not a good representation of an American film, seeing as how the characters themselves identify as Sicilian or Italian first and foremost. But then again, that's about par the course for any 1st-2nd generation Americans.
I don't know which film I'd choose in lieu of it.
What about you guys?
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Hyperbole and a Half feels real, though of course the title proclaims that it is an exaggeration. And even though it's aimed at women in particular
no it's not
Clearly it's because the main character is a female person wearing a pink dress.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:grabs the reigns
He does nothing of the sort; in fact, since a reign is not a material object it cannot be grabbed. The word you want is 'reins'.
Reign: The period in which a monarch rules; "Queen Elizabeth reigned from 1558 to her death in 1603".
Rein: Strap attached to a horse's bridle, enabling the rider to pull on it to indicate direction or speed. "He pulled on the reins, but the horse had the bit in its teeth and ignored him." Also used metaphorically to indicate control; "he took over the reins".
Rain: Water falling from the sky. "He's too dumb to come in out of the rain."
Reyne: Fictional family from GRRM's Game of Thrones. "And now the rains weep o'er his hall and not a soul to hear."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: Clearly it's because the main character is a female person wearing a pink dress.
remember when he complained, in a world where the majority of all movies fail the Bechdel test, that Meridia's father wasn't important enough in the movie Brave, and that this was emblematic of that the 'gospel of feminists' is that fathers are to be avoided at all costs
yeap
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Is the title of this thread self-referential?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:grabs the reigns
He does nothing of the sort; in fact, since a reign is not a material object it cannot be grabbed. The word you want is 'reins'.
Reign: The period in which a monarch rules; "Queen Elizabeth reigned from 1558 to her death in 1603".
Rein: Strap attached to a horse's bridle, enabling the rider to pull on it to indicate direction or speed. "He pulled on the reins, but the horse had the bit in its teeth and ignored him." Also used metaphorically to indicate control; "he took over the reins".
Rain: Water falling from the sky. "He's too dumb to come in out of the rain."
Reyne: Fictional family from GRRM's Game of Thrones. "And now the rains weep o'er his hall and not a soul to hear."
Oh I'm sorry, I left out a few words.
"His father is attacked, and he grabs a planted gun, and blows the brains out of three men, and after that he reigns."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Is the title of this thread self-referential?
noap
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Is the title of this thread self-referential?
noap
Oh. You do seem a little like an angry old man shaking your fist at the vicissitudes of ephemera, though. I'm not sure why you feel the need to run-down OSC's views, especially ones as benign and relatively minor as these.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
I think it helps having put into word form why the review is bad.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
As opposed to charades or blinking out morse code?
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Sam is like our Ebert when it comes to OSC.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Is the title of this thread self-referential?
noap
Oh. You do seem a little like an angry old man shaking your fist at the vicissitudes of ephemera, though. I'm not sure why you feel the need to run-down OSC's views, especially ones as benign and relatively minor as these.
hahahahaha, very well.
i was reading the latest orson scott card™ article by orson scott card — like ya do — and it struck me that they are often filled with little bizarre oddities that make me think "wait why does he .. think that"
normally these little oddities end up getting passed by because they have a tendency to be massively overshadowed by that point or points where he shoots straight past this, as you say, benign and relatively minor — into the certainly nonbenign, non-minor, and yes all those things he is now permanently infamous for. We can still discuss those, too. An excellent article came out recently discussing card from honestly as sympathetic a position as he can hope to deserve, and analyzing the tragedy of his malign word and deed against homosexuals. we can have this discussion concurrent to the purposefully trivial bits like his take on allie brosh's book.
but this time as a poster on this orson scott card™ forum i figured i would thread it because this is a forum full of people who follow card so why not. chiefly this time around one weird thing he said provoked an internal discussion (or viccisitudining of ephemerapodes or whatever) as i was surprised to have him classify the godfather as a 'revenge movie' and i started thinking about it and imagined a good back and forth on that one so i posted a thread about it and by extension all the little oddities of his postings, because i'm a rebel and i do what i want and i live by my own rules and back home they call me a revolutionary kinda guy, like once i put mayo on a hotdog, because i'm a lawbreaker and a rebel spirit, that's just how i roll, aint no box can hold me in, or make me cut my hair before the family reunion.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
actually instead of charades or morse code, I think my posts should be in semaphore
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: Sam is like our Ebert when it comes to OSC.
video games are not and will likely never be art.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ...i started thinking about it and imagined a good back and forth on that one so i posted a thread about it and by extension all the little oddities of his postings...
But what you did was make a thread where you mocked him for three minor oddities, rather than inviting discussion. That there has been some back and forth is largely due to other posters; it seems to me that your contribution (other than opening the thread) was pretty much limited to bile and petty denigration.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:But what you did was make a thread where you mocked him for three minor oddities, rather than inviting discussion.
if the first post in the thread hadn't been literally exactly just a question about the thing i wanted discussed (which was then discussed) i would entertain this notion.
instead, i should say my imagining there would be a back and forth on that one was a pretty accurate imagining so far! i could ask you, directly, the same thing! do you think that the Godfather is accurately or best represented as a "revenge movie!" would you be ashamed if it as a movie was 'our national cinematic icon' as opposed to perhaps just being considered a national cinematic icon. my contribution is obviously not limited to 'bile and petty denigration' and i am obviously inviting discussion as you can see in my previous post to you where I do genuinely say we can have your discussions too! this having discussions thing is obviously the best.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Here's what I took from your posts in this thread, prior to my initial post:
1) Is The Godfather a revenge movie? 2) No, it's not; only superficial thinking would make you think it was. Also, OSC is silly for fretting about whether it's a symbol of American culture and ethos. 3) Also, OSC is a sexist and doesn't get Allie Brosh or her audience. 4) OSC is stupid and a sexist. 5) Remember that OSC is a sexist.
Maybe that wasn't you meant for your posts to communicate, and maybe I'm being insufficiently charitable and a different observer would draw different messages from your posts, but to me your contributions seem intended not to generate discussion, but to make fun of OSC for writing things you thought were silly and wrong. To me, it seems like you're just being ornery, directing mean-spirited invective toward an object that won't hear you and is never going to engage you back.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
first! you may want to reread my second post, i haven't even decided whether you can call a movie a revenge movie when, critically analyzed, revenge isn't the overall point of it. obviously the godfather contains revenge of the most capital sort in an epic violent crescendo at the end. obviously i have an opinion to add to the discussion! my opinion does not claim that thinking that the movie is a revenge movie only possibly the result of superficial thinking.
second! there's plenty of stuff that osc says which is silly and wrong in a not exactly trivial manner. i am totally fine mocking that. i know that lolling at his off-kilter rants at [liberals feminists global warmists the shadow government black army of black hoodlums the leftaliban gay marriagists etc] is towards an object that won't hear me and is never going to engage me back obviously. i have no illusions of making osc a better person from mentioning things he says on a forum he doesn't read anymore, and he's certainly made his bed in terms of what i'm going to poke fun at here. his crap about feminists in this latest article is a perfect example of that, in that "oh boy, here goes old uncle orson again" fashion. he conspiracy-itizes the bowdlerization of a heavily commercially co-opted christmas song, baldly presuming (for, uh, reasons? presumably?) it as being the work of appeasement for those feminists. shouldn't this hyper-PC culture have known that this song had a feminist spirit already! silly feminists.
i somehow doubt you disagree this is kind of dumb!
anyway. overexplanation phase over
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
well almost over
quote:Also, OSC is a sexist and doesn't get Allie Brosh or her audience.
like sexist how? there are a lot of different ways to be sexist. he is certainly turgidly anti-feminist but that is because his interpretation of feminists is that it was the feminists who were the sexists all along! but yeah why is he of the opinion that allie's book is primarily geared at women. i do not think that is true of the book. do you?
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Well, I have about 3 chapters left. I haven't read ALL of what's on Hyperbole and a Half, but I can't think of anything on the entire blog that couldn't have been written by someone of either gender.
I will say that the book is primarily geared at people who like dogs. As it happens, I have never had a dog, and don't really like them very much. Some parts were funny, but they were harder to relate to. Maybe OSC meant to say dogs but wrote girls instead.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: well almost over
quote:Also, OSC is a sexist and doesn't get Allie Brosh or her audience.
like sexist how? there are a lot of different ways to be sexist. he is certainly turgidly anti-feminist but that is because his interpretation of feminists is that it was the feminists who were the sexists all along! but yeah why is he of the opinion that allie's book is primarily geared at women. i do not think that is true of the book. do you?
I've long been of the opinion that OSC's horribly written women characters were a sign that he just doesn't understand women very well, and probably doesn't like them very much. But that it's more about not understanding them, than about finding them inferior.
There's always this thing about women in OSC novels: they're mostly uber-competent, but there's almost always something deeply wrong with them that makes them hate themselves. But then, hey, it is literature.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I don't think Katarina, or Ivan's mother were like that in Enchanted. Of course Baba Yaga was, but then she was the main antagonist.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: like once i put mayo on a hotdog
Seriously, what is wrong with you.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well in fairness to the man, I think it can be said that 'something they hate about themselves' is hardly mono-gendered in his work.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
So where exactly is this self esteem generation?
I mean, I'm 24, so I'm pretty sure I'm part of the current generation, or within a few years of it. But I've never seen any of this "everyone gets a prize!" mentality.
I mean, I do remember from about 2nd grade on being in constant competition with my classmates. I was part of a Jeopardy style quiz team in elementary school which was pretty brutal. So was baseball. I remember running until I threw up, countless hours at the gym, getting cussed out by my coach after every practice. I remember going to the State championship in Junior High. And you know what never crossed my mind? "Gee! I sure am glad I don't have to try hard at all, because no matter what I get a participation trophy!" If only I had known!
I remember constantly pulling all nighters studying in high school and college, because college is f***cking expensive as hell nowadays and I wouldn't have been able to even go without the scholarship. Too bad I had the scholarship you had to maintain a 3.5 to keep, rather than the special "everyone gets a prize!" scholarship. I would have really liked that.
I remember going to war at 20 years old, and spending months sleeping on the ground, or in the rain. Being eaten alive by mosquitoes, hiking 15, 20 miles with a 100 lb pack, waking up aching so badly that I could barely move. I remember going 4 days with almost no food while hiking 50 miles. I can remember sweating so much that my clothes turned white from the salt.
...Heck, I can remember *today*, I just got off working a 14 hour shift.
But nooo! I'm part of the entitlement generation! I've had everything handed to me on a plate! I think I'm the smartest person in the world, and I have no work ethic!
At least, according to soft, fat old man who looks like he's never worked a day of hard physical labor in his life. Who admits to never actually dedicating the amount of time or effort necessary to be good at sports (and yet still condescendingly criticizes and disparages high school athletics). Who has probably never really been hungry or had to sleep outdoors or even been in actual physical danger in his life.
Well, I'm glad he feels like *he's* so much better than I am, and ought to be lecturing me on hard work and dedication. Jesus Christ, what a pathetic joke.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I'm 27, some of it existed for my generation.
When I was aged 2-3, I took dance classes. At the end of the year we got a trophy. It said that I did dance for a year. My sister got one that said she did dance for two years. Basically if you finished out the year in some sort of sport, there was a banquet at the end of the year and everyone got a trophy. The first few were very exciting. Because I was three. And maybe a few after that later in elementary school, because I didn't do any trophy earning sports again for a while.
I would say that I'm better than the average person at a number of things, most of them involve math or science. However, I have great difficulty telling if complements are real, and I don't think I've actually earned any of the ones I get. It's a recipe for impostor syndrome, an excuse to slack off and if you want to know why people are attracted to jerks, it's because they think the jerks are the honest ones, and they want to impress someone real.
What blows my mind more is that boomers think that the trophy that I received from being dragged to dance classes when I was three makes me think that I, as an adult, am a great person. Um, not particularly.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
The "participation trophy" is an acknowledgement of the fact you spent a year of your life doing something. It has sentimental value, it's something you can take with you to remind you of the past. My desk is covered with such grown up mementos: a rock from the Paria Cayon, a carved box of letters and dried rose petals from an old relationship, glasses and sculptures from various MC balls I've been to, a few bullet casings, pictures, a slingshot, a hat... sentimental items have a lot of power and I think they're essential to a healthy psyche.
This insipid belief that our generation is somehow spoiled or lacks competition because we recieved participation awards is baffling. How stupid do they think we are?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well in fairness to the man, I think it can be said that 'something they hate about themselves' is hardly mono-gendered in his work.
Well yes, this is an author-tract that OSC follows assiduously in both genders.
But what I mean is this: the female characters have something deeply wrong with them, and they tend to repress it and let it fester for a good long while before doing anything about it. Novina, Petra, Abner Doon's lover, et al. There is also a streak of horrible mothers in the mix: Jason's mom, Link's mom, arguably John Paul's mom (she just ignores his genius), etc. A lot of moms being bat**** crazy and having genius sons.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: So where exactly is this self esteem generation? I mean, I'm 24, so I'm pretty sure I'm part of the current generation, or within a few years of it. But I've never seen any of this "everyone gets a prize!" mentality.
It may be regional, as well as age based. We didn't keep score in youth basketball, for instance, which aside from being a horribly demotivating approach to sports, never worked anyway, because we just kept score on note-cards at the bench anyway. What were they thinking?
But in many ways, this is just a tired "in my day," complaint from an older person who sees diminishing focus on the aspects of his own youth he finds important. While competitiveness for positions in universities stays in place, there's nothing notable there, when at the same time the idea of putting school children in direct competition with each other goes out of fashion for one reason or another.
That can be as much a sign of the class divide in America at work as anything else: our education system now allows the wealthy to continue prodding their own kids to academic success, while systematically de-emphasizing competitiveness for poorer kids that don't receive the same emphasis in their home life. It's the system recognizing that it is increasingly built to cater to the bespoke needs of the rich, rather than the clamor of the poor and upcoming. Economic mobility decreases, and so does the systematic emphasis on skills kids need to be economical mobile.
That's OSC's generation doing this, by the way. It's conservatives who think they should be solely responsible for the success of their own kids, and damn the ones that rely only on the public education system, and don't deserve the same competitive environment as the wealthy provide for themselves.
This has always, and will always be the way- the things you mark as important to your development in your youth are eroded and replaced by other schema with similar results. Nothing really fundamentally changes about how people operate as human beings.
I think the idea of eliminating negative competitive practices is always "just about," to erode some foundation of basic self-confidence for today's youth. Except if you take the long view, the crusading against competitive practices is just always a reaction to competitiveness having increased to dangerous levels already, and the erosion is just supplanting one form of unfair competition with another that is deemed more appropriate for a new generation.
Being a long-term foreigner really helps me to see this process in action. Older folks here (Czech Republic), for example, decry the lack of competitiveness among the youth for the old-generation priorities of prominent placement in state universities and in long-ago prestigious careers like the agricultural ministry, that are now, in the post-communist era, seen as passe or undesirable, and so have to see their competitive entry requirements diminish in the face of less actual competition. The older generation decries the lack of competitive spirit in government work, the olympics, and other Soviet Bloc priorities.
The fact that at the same time, the most competitive kids are learning at least 3 languages in school (as opposed to the 2 their parents learned), and studying international business and economics on a level their parents never imagined when they were in school, is not seen as relevant to the discussion of why fewer people are pursuing decreasingly desirable government work, or decreasingly prestigious forms of athletic competition in favor of newer and more fashionable ones.
This is akin to the idea that America's youth has grown lazy and fails to dream simply because the vogue of the American Automobile has finally, after a century of total dominance, started to dwindle in the modern imagination as the key to class and success. That kids don't want to get their drivers licenses today will *always* be seen as evidence that they are lazier or less motivated than their parents, rather than a sign that they have a new and unfathomed set of economic and social priorities that don't necessarily involve cars.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I would like to add that in certain states, they've made it an expensive, time-intensive pain to get limited license as a high schooler, it's almost not worth it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
millenials are straight up working their hearts out in a rather screwed post-recovery environment, and should be the ones allowed to talk shit to this relatively coddled earlier set of generations, rather than have to deal with a bunch of doughy self-righteous old people as they smirk and castigate them for being too self-absorbed or lazy. oh maaaaaan, we have too much self-esteem, oh maaaaan.
if y'all an old person talking 'down' to millenials, you're harrumphing at a generation that's more intelligent, fights to keep their head above water in an economic environment that you elders would have blanched bitterly about, deal with more competitive life channels, and have a better work ethic overall and are more entrepreneurial. they do harder work for less in a world where living standard landmarks like home ownership have coasted away to become a distant economic improbability for most, inaccessable to the people who are working even longer and harder than their parents did.
and in return they get a bunch of doddering old farts hemming and hewing about how they're spoiled! entitled! lazy! gorged on self esteem! ugh everyone got a trophy.
this article isn't the worst example of it by far, of course, it hardly even registers in the sea of worse stuff dreamed up about Entitled Millenials, it's just another languorous example of the sort of lazy trendpiece conclusions that article writers make about kids these days, what with their webzones and their not getting off my goddamned lawn. Bohrs wrote this comic before OSC wrote his article, but it might as well be considered an apt response to parts of it:
The thing that surprised me about that article, wasn't that OSC was schilling for a board game company (he does have reasonable taste in board games), but rather he praised the independent game shops that made distribution possible via a cross country road trip and called for government protection lest no independent board game get made ever again.
... it's called kickstarter.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
but the point about monopolistic smooshing of indie competition was salient and with merit overall. like, even if probably board game shops arguably are in the same realm as vinyl music shops in that they cling to the fringeiest of fringe markets
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I don't disagree that if german boardgames can only be found at retail stores that are Barnes and Noble, then that makes it impossible to sell a game to BN on your own.
However, I think independently invented products are able to take off more easily now than ever before thanks to the internet. They can find buyers before the product exists. I actually went to school both the Goldieblox creator AND one of the Cards Against Humanity (not at the same stages of life, obviously). They're very much normal people (I mean, entitled millennials).
Along the same vein, a 26 year old Brazilian at a Mexican marketing firm invented one of the best-selling video games of the past few years as a side project. It hasn't even been finished yet. Still, people buy it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
yeah this is not exactly what i would call Indie-starved tunes thanks to the little crowdsourcing reassurance
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Meh. I know spoiled, lazy kids and hard working ones. And Gen Xers. And Boomers. Probably you can't pigeonhole a whole generation.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Meh. I know spoiled, lazy kids and hard working ones. And Gen Xers. And Boomers. Probably you can't pigeonhole a whole generation.
Yup. My response to claims otherwise by memebers of whatever generational camp is generally to roll my eyes and go about my business.
Which, actually, is fairly standard stereotypical Gen X behavior. :: laugh ::
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: yeah this is not exactly what i would call Indie-starved tunes thanks to the little crowdsourcing reassurance
But that's my point, with the internet you can get the same end result, and sell enough to eventually get major distribution.
Cards against humanity point-blank refuses to be distributed in the USA by anyone but Amazon. My other friends got their CAH set for free from our mutual creator friend after he brought one of the manufacturer's prototypes to a party for us to try before the game came out. He's still a grad student last I heard, btw-- I have no idea if he gets any money from sales-- my understanding is the money goes back into the product, or say, their recent promotion.
A little web research tells me that I can get the blueOrange game "Spot it" shipped to store at Walmart. So, not starving either.
If you troll BoardGameGeek.com, you can find threads where the creator of Pandemic is asking people for feedback on his game and see prototypes. You can get that game at Target now.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Meh. I know spoiled, lazy kids and hard working ones. And Gen Xers. And Boomers. Probably you can't pigeonhole a whole generation.
My generation is the best. Generation after me so lazy and undisciplined! Generation before me so ignorant and stupid. I like read article make point out that other generation do everything wrong. Make me feel better about my own just world fallacy.
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
There's also the whole thing about millennial being, you know, still pretty young. I think the whole conversation about the work-ethic of millennial is premature.
But, um, yeah. I thought immediately of this thread when I read OSC's review of a year-old article on cracked expressing his agreement with said article and warning his audience about the language.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: I think the whole conversation about the work-ethic of millennial is premature
Maybe. As generations go, the real question is whether we want to call "much more heavily exploited" or "much more exploitable due to circumstances and/or mentalities about work" something akin to having a 'work ethic.' Because people in my age group are, when you look at the data, being squeezed in a way which generates more labor but keeps wealth out of our hands. Jobs lost in the last crash come back as part-time low-wage options, barely paid or unpaid internships, etc.
And, well, apparently we're doing them! And working longer hours. I guess that's either a work ethic, if not exploitability due to controlled labor conditions.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
I've wondered if the circumstances Sam is talking about will lead to a mainstream re-embrace of socialism down the road a little bit.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
We didn't show up late and get the crumbs. We showed up late, and were handed the bill, and told to do dishes to pay back the bill at the rate of $7.00 an hour while the bill accrues interest of $8.00 per hour.
But hey, we should just roll up our sleeves and stop whining.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jake: I've wondered if the circumstances Sam is talking about will lead to a mainstream re-embrace of socialism down the road a little bit.
I certainly think this is true. And have said so quite a few times.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
well the millenials have already 'embraced socialism' by most ways you can envision the phrase's meaning and intent.
when you get to actually see and live how much actually 'trickles down' when the free market has the wherewithal to act primarily in its own interests, when you get to live in a jobless recovery, when the economic reality around you is that the rising tide raises all yachts (and it's such a darn shame you didn't have one)
well let's just say you're not very likely to be a freemarketeer. millenials are actually so frightfully and profoundly liberal that the "mainstream re-embrace of socialism" is .. I wouldn't say 'totally guaranteed' but rather that nobody has come up with a remotely likely scenario unfolding, short of a massive unprecedented national crisis, that doesn't inevitably result in it.
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
I mean, for what it's worth, most of my friends and I are all in our early twenties. Some are working 50 hours a week between their two/three part-time jobs, and I'm in the opposite extreme, working 24 hours a week with my one part-time job. (Doing music gigs on the side)
In any case, when you've been working 50 hours a week for several years and haven't had a day off in 200 days, it's kind of hard to read the news closely enough to distinguish between actual Socialism and what people on the right have been saying "Socialism" is. If "Socialism" means I can feed my kids and have healthcare, then sure. Socialism sounds great. Let's do it! What are "means of production?"
For my truly socialist friends, this works out pretty well for them. There's no stigma anymore in saying they're socialist, because nobody knows what it means. Lets them lay out the agenda without as much negative bias.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Get out there and vote wouldja? All you almost Socialists. Not just for national elections either. Often those are swayed by the local folks in office. You know. The ones in charge of gerrymandering and voting hours.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
OSC complained about physics inaccuracies in the film Gravity - and yeah, I have no argument. There are some big ones (like the idea that you can aim directly at an object in a trailing orbit and just launch directly for it and travel in a straight inertial line - see Niven's Integral Trees for a more accurate treatment of the physics) and plenty of small ones.
But one of his complaints is that the re-entry vehicle would tumble and burn up if it didn't hit the atmosphere at the right attitude.
quote:Only all of a sudden, another bit of magic! Without fuel, without rockets, the capsule conveniently stops tumbling, rights itself, and enters the atmosphere with the heat-shields downward, after all.
This part didn't seem implausible to me. I figured the craft would be designed so that the correct orientation is the one with the least drag - so the initial drag forces would help it settle into the correct orientation.
Anybody know?
Oh yeah, forgot the big one: stuff traveling in a super fast version of the same orbit lapping you repeatedly. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
yeah gravity plays it extremely fast and loose with that there physics thing. It was using a number of flubs and make believey fudge physics to make the scenario and plot work. For things like being able to take a spacewalk from station to station.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
not even dissing the article, i completely understand it driving people nuts
article worked okay OKAY
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
SpaceShipOne (the X prize winner) had a "feathering" system that allowed it to reenter without the need of maneuvering rockets for stability. However that was a sub-orbital craft traveling at much lower speeds. Tumbling on reentry is a MAJOR problem for spacecraft.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Honestly, as someone who works with communication satellites on a regular basis, the biggest and most obvious problem with the movie is the idea that all of Earth's communication satellites got destroyed, and that they're on the same plane and orbit as the ISS.
Almost all communication satellites (including TV) are in geostationary orbit at 22,236 miles. The ISS orbits at 236 miles. This present several problems...
A) Communication satellites, even those in the same longitude (like G-23 and ES-9 at 121 W) are still hundreds, if not thousands of miles apart from each other. The chances of debris from one hitting another, or of them colliding, is so small it's more or less statistically impossible.
B) Said satellites orbit once every 24 hours. Anything that would cause them to start moving faster would also increase the size of their orbit, therefore moving them out of the Clark Belt, or out of Earth orbit entirely. So again, there's no way they could collide.
C) The amount of force necessary to accelerate/decelerate a satellite quickly enough to literally destroy *every* satellite in orbit in a few minutes would also cause an explosion large enough to cause some serious problems for those of us here on Earth.
So the entire premise is pretty ridiculous and impossible. Which is pretty much what you can expect from Hollywood. Didn't keep me from enjoying it immensely, though.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
lol osc is an old man who can't figure out how to use windows 8
it's super easy, all you have to do is, um
wtf how do i start menu
who coded this
what is this interface
oh my god no
no
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
In his defense, I know people who returned brand new computers when they found out it wasn't worth it to install Windows 7 on those machines. But IIRC this was Fall 12.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I'm pretty sure that's Sam's joke. My understanding is the joke goes like this: he was going to mock OSC for not understanding Windows 8 and then he tried to use Win8 and was confused by its awful interface and ended up just as confused as the "old man" and ... Yeah. That's the joke. OSC isn't alone in his confusion and frustration.
There are some nifty 3rd party add-ons that cosmetically restore windows 7 and keep the disgusting touchscreen Metro crap out of your way. If OSC sticks with Win8 someone who knows him should clue him in. iObit's Start 8 is the free one, there are a few low cost paid versions too.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Yeah, windows 8 is just horrific.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Windows 8 takes roughly 10 minutes to learn to use, and then all of the frustrations OSC mentioned become very minor. His ire is a bit outsized.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
ire or not, windows 8 is an excruciatingly dumb product and i hate it
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Yeah, I think it was a mistake to try to unify the PC experience with the tablet/phone experience. I see what they were going for, and I didn't know the ways in which I'd dislike it before I tried it, but it seems pretty clear that people don't want or need these things to be unified, and in fact probably the continued vitality of the PC niche corresponds to ways in which it works better for some tasks than other devices can, so, like, don't make that harder.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
I think it would be great if I had a touchscreen or a tablet device to use to interface with it. There's a 5$ add on from Stardock that's really good and works well with multiple screens.
I'm 50/50 on it.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Yeah, I think it was a mistake to try to unify the PC experience with the tablet/phone experience.
I don't think they had any choice. They may not have done a good job of it, but I don't think there's any doubt that Apple and even Google are hoping for a unified OS experience across all of their devices and it's actually kind of amazing that it was Microsoft that moved first on this.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
They may have thought they had no choice, but honestly committing to it in the way they did was horrid and, if anything, gave the competitors leeway to sit back, relax, and slowly integrate a unified experience.
That doesn't do what win 8 did.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Yeah, I think it was a mistake to try to unify the PC experience with the tablet/phone experience.
I don't think they had any choice. They may not have done a good job of it, but I don't think there's any doubt that Apple and even Google are hoping for a unified OS experience across all of their devices and it's actually kind of amazing that it was Microsoft that moved first on this.
Fair point. I think it depends on what you mean by "unified". If it means that my keyboard and mouse are less convenient to use than they used to be, it's probably the wrong implementation, for now.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Yeah what "unified" means here is a big question mark. Apple has a lot of consistency: in look, apps, and functionality when appropriate. You could call it "unified" in many respects.
But iOS and OS X are still fundamentally different environments and I don't know that Apple intends on ever changing that. Small touch devices are sufficiently different than computers with mice and keyboards that I'm scratching my head as to why you'd want to give up the advantages of either. Make each OS play to be strengths of the medium.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Yeah what "unified" means here is a big question mark. Apple has a lot of consistency: in look, apps, and functionality when appropriate. You could call it "unified" in many respects.
But iOS and OS X are still fundamentally different environments and I don't know that Apple intends on ever changing that. Small touch devices are sufficiently different than computers with mice and keyboards that I'm scratching my head as to why you'd want to give up the advantages of either. Make each OS play to the strengths of the medium.
[ February 04, 2014, 05:50 PM: Message edited by: Dan_Frank ]
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Apple was playing with the idea of one OS to run them all a while back, but abandoned the idea. MS ran with it and came up with an OS that has some fantastic advancements, but failed to pay listen to people like me who repeatedly told them that the Metro interface just doesn't work with a desktop.
They were essentially betting on the emergence of touch capable devices in larger formats (desktop monitors, laptops, etc) to take advantage of the OS. This did not occur, in great part because the complexity of work that *has* to be done on a workstation or laptop does not easily lend itself to a touch based experience. If MS hadn't chosen to force Metro UI on the non-touch device sphere, it would have received a much better reception.
Once I installed Start8 on my computer at home, Windows 8 was just as effective and in some ways better than 7, but for some reason it didn't like my video card and I my game framerates dropped by about 75%, so I had to go back to 7 on my desktop. I still use 8 on my HTPC, though.
All that said, there are some really neat features in Windows 8 that are really useful for enterprise environments and small businesses, particularly in the realm of virtualization. Unfortunately, the screwed up user experience makes it unattractive to anyone who would want to use those features.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
If I *had* a touch-capable laptop or desktop monitor, I'd probably want to have Windows 8 running on it just to be able to take advantage of Metro once in a while. But I don't own my own laptop, and I like my ~6 year old monitor better than any consumer grade (i.e. affordable) monitors I can find these days.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Okay so the URL gives it away a little. But yeah. I'm inclined to agree.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
For what it's worth I find the quoting style in that article insufferable, but overall it was still worth reading.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Yeah, the quotebombing was...something. But it was informative.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I unparked my four processors once by kicking my win 8 machine by accident.
Biggest ??????? ever
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
I'm pretty entertained by the fact that it's inconceivable to Card that his tastes aren't universal, and that people must be eating Greek yogurt because they've willingly developed a taste for "nasty food" because of its healthiness.
He's just gotten absurdly inflexible in his thinking. If subsections of his essays had titles, that one would be called "Creon in the Dairy Aisle".
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
What always makes me cringe is his arrogance in thinking himself the definitive arbiter of "correctness" in pretty much every field.
Thinking himself more knowledgeable about Churchill than the person who wrote the autobiography he just read, would be one such instance.
I mean sure, maybe Card is the one who is correct about whatever details he is referencing in that section. But to flatly state that the author is "quite wrong", without saying which details are in question or what sources contradict them, is a level of arrogance that is pretty foreign to me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Creon in the Dairy Aisle
Oh, that's a lovely turn of phrase. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: What always makes me cringe is his arrogance in thinking himself the definitive arbiter of "correctness" in pretty much every field.
Thinking himself more knowledgeable about Churchill than the person who wrote the autobiography he just read, would be one such instance.
I mean sure, maybe Card is the one who is correct about whatever details he is referencing in that section. But to flatly state that the author is "quite wrong", without saying which details are in question or what sources contradict them, is a level of arrogance that is pretty foreign to me.
For quite awhile, I noticed many of the same things and chalked it up to blends of affectation for the sake of a column, ordinary but strong conviction on a given topic, along with an ordinary human general failure to ask 'what if I'm wrong?'
My impression has changed over the years. I'm really no in a good position to say how much of that is due to my greater exposure to his politics, particularly on social issues such as gay rights, and the very strong antagonism his methods and ideas arouse in me.
I'm sure that's some of it, but I don't think it's all or even most of it. It would be one thing if he felt passionately. So do I. But he is perfectly comfortable, it seems, to speak about incredibly complicated and controversial issues-such as what is meant by family, the intricacies of foreign policy-as though it were settled. As though he's got a straight line on the obvious truth, and detractors are generally some form of deviant whether it's in that they hate America, hate the religious, or hate families. I don't for example see him now writing another Ender's Game, or a Treason, or especially a Hart's Hope or a Songmaster. One of the many things that made those stories so powerful to me as that everyone, best to worst, was human. All grappled with uncertainty, whether the were good or bad. And there wasn't any what felt like transparent authorial preaching. That's been lost, and I notice it most in his fiction but more often in his columns and politics.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jake: I'm pretty entertained by the fact that it's inconceivable to Card that his tastes aren't universal, and that people must be eating Greek yogurt because they've willingly developed a taste for "nasty food" because of its healthiness.
He's just gotten absurdly inflexible in his thinking. If subsections of his essays had titles, that one would be called "Creon in the Dairy Aisle".
I've heard him say multiple times that he understands taste is subjective, and that his views are flawed, but that doesn't stop him from speaking about tastes in the way he does.
I feel like that statement you've quoted is obviously said tongue in cheek. It's over the top, but part of him still believes it.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Creon in the Dairy Aisle
Oh, that's a lovely turn of phrase.
Thanks. I was kind of pleased when it popped into my head.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
"What always makes me cringe is his arrogance in thinking himself the definitive arbiter of "correctness" in pretty much every field."
To me, that's the hallmark of the debating style here at Hatrack. I've come to expect that everyone knows more than the "experts" here, regardless of the topic. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm so mad
mad about yogurt
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Jake: I'm pretty entertained by the fact that it's inconceivable to Card that his tastes aren't universal, and that people must be eating Greek yogurt because they've willingly developed a taste for "nasty food" because of its healthiness.
He's just gotten absurdly inflexible in his thinking. If subsections of his essays had titles, that one would be called "Creon in the Dairy Aisle".
I've heard him say multiple times that he understands taste is subjective, and that his views are flawed, but that doesn't stop him from speaking about tastes in the way he does.
I feel like that statement you've quoted is obviously said tongue in cheek. It's over the top, but part of him still believes it.
I think that if asked he'd readily admit that physical taste is subjective, but I think (to the degree that it's possible to actually know anything about him based on his essays) that he genuinely believes that the movement toward Greek yogurt is health-driven, and the reason that he thinks that is because he has trouble believing that lots of other people genuinely like the taste of something that he dislikes.
quote:I'm so mad
mad about yogurt
That made me laugh.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Greek yogurt is pretty terrible. Not the taste, but the environmental impact with all the waste product generated from its creation. I'd be rather shocked if OSC brought that up though.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I also realized I was behind by two blogs.
quote:Note to J.K. Rowling: The Harry Potter books are finished. Done. Published. If you wrote something then which you now, as a more mature writer, would probably do differently, so what? You did the best job you knew how to do at the time you wrote the story. Now move on. Your post-publication re-thinks are wasting everybody's time.
Only the first draft is real; your "revisions" in the news media have all, without exception, been pretty stupid, because they completely violate the integrity of what emerged from that first creative fire.
Trust your younger self. Let the older self write the stories that are on fire in your heart today. If there aren't any, then at least have the good taste not to attack the stories that made you rich because people loved them as they were. Not everything you think of is worth saying in public.
Apparently he's still upset that Dumbledore's gay.
After the big stink about Ron/Hermione, the full interview was published, and was a lot more nuanced the what the media reported.
In neither case did J.K. Rowling make a press release saying "Dumbledore's Gay" or "Ron and Hermione should never have married." A fan asked her if Dumbledore had ever married, and the woman who PLAYED HERMIONE IN THE MOVIES asked her if she thought any differently about the character when looking back, as part of an interview about a new HP-related movie project.
Should she just not answer? Should we ban people from asking JKR questions about the books and her relationship to them? Or stop web editors who know that sharing these things might get you to click on a webpage? There's a reason her most recent book was written by "Robert Galbraith."
Anyway, this all reminded me of 1. the afterword of Fahrenheit 451, written decades later, where Ray Bradbury admits he would have changed many things, while simultaneously being outraged that people who were not him shared things that bothered them about the book. I disagreed with Bradbury's fantasy changes, but that didn't mean I didn't find reading about them interesting. Also, 2.OSC has certainly written over details from the Ender series with recent sequels.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
In the column he explains that by stating he is correcting factual inconsistencies. Also, if she wants to reveal more details about the characters, then write that stuff and publish it.
As for J.K. Rowling, perhaps Mr. Card does not know the full context of those two statements. But even then, yes you can answer them. But she'd be better served stating, "I had considered writing them like this, but..."
Personally I got the vibe that Dumbledore was gay, but I still felt if it was not worth mentioning in the book, then the author must not have felt very strongly about that aspect of the character.
Mainly Harry Potter sucks because the protagonist is not an American, nor are there any American wizards. We all know if anybody is going to save any wizarding world it's going to be those scrappy Americans with their plucky, no nonsense, can-do attitudes! With perhaps some gumption thrown in for good measure.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: Note to J.K. Rowling: The Harry Potter books are finished. Done. Published. If you wrote something then which you now, as a more mature writer, would probably do differently, so what? You did the best job you knew how to do at the time you wrote the story. Now move on. Your post-publication re-thinks are wasting everybody's time.
Only the first draft is real; your "revisions" in the news media have all, without exception, been pretty stupid, because they completely violate the integrity of what emerged from that first creative fire.
Trust your younger self. Let the older self write the stories that are on fire in your heart today. If there aren't any, then at least have the good taste not to attack the stories that made you rich because people loved them as they were. Not everything you think of is worth saying in public.
The jaw dropping, horrifying, stupifying irony of that, when I read it, made me gasp with the shock of it.
quote: Anyway, this all reminded me of 1. the afterword of Fahrenheit 451, written decades later, where Ray Bradbury admits he would have changed many things, while simultaneously being outraged that people who were not him shared things that bothered them about the book. I disagreed with Bradbury's fantasy changes, but that didn't mean I didn't find reading about them interesting. Also, 2.OSC has certainly written over details from the Ender series with recent sequels.
It has been 15 years since I read that afterword, but as I recall, it is an ironic, and somewhat angry, reply not only to critics but also to censors who had apparently "YA'd" his book and removed "offending," language. The bit about the Captain burning the pages of a book one at a time, for example, and declaring: "I don't read them!"
Also, he was more upset with the profound stupidness of the criticism- along the lines of people writing him letters to inform him that faber and montag are paper and pencil companies, stating: "and they didn't tell me!"
Also, yes, OSC has, multiple times, revised the text of Ender's Game, making changes I strongly disagree with. And I don't think that is his right, particularly given that the book has passed into place in literature from which it will be accessed by generations to come. He has no right to co-opt that success now by making changes.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
question: did OSC's spontaneous about-face to being a weird ass to JK rowling correspond essentially perfectly with her revealing that dumbledore was gay?
these are questions i must ask from my bathtub full of greek yogurt.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Short answer: yes with an if... long answer no, with a but.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Seriously though what EG details were glossed over that were actually fairly big? I know some contradictions were caught early in the proof reading process and fixed; the only thing I can remember now is how the size of the Jeesh went from like 30 to 9.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
There was the changing of "poltically incorrect" language that I found objectionable (the changes), for reasons here much discussed.
Then he apparently completely rewrote the last couple of chapters to fit with later books, and some other stuff. He just plain forgot where Ender lived when he was recruited, but I don't know that they fixed that.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I'm taking about the things from EG that got discarded in the writing of Ender in Exile.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Short answer: yes with an if... long answer no, with a but.
whaaat
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: I'm taking about the things from EG that got discarded in the writing of Ender in Exile.
I thought that process was just padded out, not dropped entirely.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
aw yiss, from the pay-2-play forum
quote:Well, that was... different. [Smile]
I don't know if I enthusiastically agree with everything OSC wrote in his criticism of Obama and his policies, but I do agree with his premise that the U.S. has been, to paraphrase in the spirit of Churchill, "The worst superpower in history... except for all the other ones."
The primary point I take issue with is OSC's Hari Seldon-like prediction that everything will soon come crashing down around us... but I suppose time will tell on that point.
aw yiss big ol obama doomsday rant coming on down the pipeline
ARE YOU READY
(i'm ready)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Barack Obama is the Beloved Leader of the America-hating Left -- and yes, they hate America and everything it stands for, until you say so, and then they get all tetchy and accuse you of impugning their patriotism.
of course
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:It's not that Barack Obama doesn't know how to be tough. If he had shown half the firmness with America's enemies that he has shown in slapping around the Republican Party and the few elements of the media that don't lick his shoes, we would be in a much stronger position in the world.
...what
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Crimea is holding a succession vote today. Russia's acquisition of that territory is directly in violation of international law. If we don't act quickly but wisely we can expect other countries to read the message loud and clear that the US is too tired to intervene when countries grab things.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote: If we don't act quickly but wisely we can expect other countries to read the message loud and clear that the US is too tired to intervene when countries grab things.
Intervene how, exactly? I for one am not prepared for myself and my family perishing in nuclear fire for the sake of Ukrainian sovereignty, thanks.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote: If we don't act quickly but wisely we can expect other countries to read the message loud and clear that the US is too tired to intervene when countries grab things.
Intervene how, exactly? I for one am not prepared for myself and my family perishing in nuclear fire for the sake of Ukrainian sovereignty, thanks.
Putin is not going to commit to nuclear war over a slice of Ukraine anymore than he did when we told him to get his butt out of Georgia.
We could start with offering the Ukraine an IMF relief package that will ween them off Russia, and allow the Ukraine to determine for themselves if they should let the East secede. Russia has no business making that decision for them, and the so called president of Crimea has no authority to hand that territory over to them.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
If we do nothing, we'll pay for this later. Mr. Card isn't wrong about that. When a country can be bullied by a larger country and nobody does anything about it, all the bullies start dividing the globe up.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote: If we don't act quickly but wisely we can expect other countries to read the message loud and clear that the US is too tired to intervene when countries grab things.
Intervene how, exactly? I for one am not prepared for myself and my family perishing in nuclear fire for the sake of Ukrainian sovereignty, thanks.
Putin is not going to commit to nuclear war over a slice of Ukraine anymore than he did when we told him to get his butt out of Georgia.
We could start with offering the Ukraine an IMF relief package that will ween them off Russia, and allow the Ukraine to determine for themselves if they should let the East secede. Russia has no business making that decision for them, and the so called president of Crimea has no authority to hand that territory over to them.
The IMF is still insisting on austerity measures such as cutting energy subsidies, it won't be from the IMF.
You don't know if Putin will commit to nuclear war, but we DO know he will commit to a full conventional war if the red line is crossed (Ukraine joining NATO).
quote: If we don't act quickly but wisely we can expect other countries to read the message loud and clear that the US is too tired to intervene when countries grab things.
Ukraine isn't in NATO, Poland and many other countries that border Russia are; or already firmly in the Russian or Chinese sphere.
The only precedent set is that if you're a Great Power with nukes the US can't enforce its will on you. Otherwise the US is already taking steps, such as sending units to the Baltic and so on; Poland is also stepping up to the plate.
Maybe America should not be the ones directly stepping in first man in last man out? Let the regional organizations handle it; what should America do if Germany and France aren't on board?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Russia's acquisition of that territory is directly in violation of international law. If we don't act quickly but wisely we can expect other countries to read the message loud and clear that the US is too tired to intervene when countries grab things.
Hey, dealing with Crimea would be great. Have at it. Seriously.
But while you're at it, since the US is suddenly interested in international law for some weird reason, wouldn't this be a great time to deal with a torture prison camp in Cuba, drone strikes in multiple countries, and a military occupation in Palestine? You know, the kinds of violations of international law that the US has full control over? K, thanks.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:The IMF is still insisting on austerity measures such as cutting energy subsidies, it won't be from the IMF.
You don't know if Putin will commit to nuclear war, but we DO know he will commit to a full conventional war if the red line is crossed (Ukraine joining NATO).
Austerity sounds a lot better than being eaten. And I don't think we *should* let the Ukraine into NATO. The Ukraine has way too much history with Russia, and it's too important for Russia to let go. It probably doesn't belong in the EU either. But let it continue to be a sort of autonomous mediator between Russia and West Europe.
quote:The only precedent set is that if you're a Great Power with nukes the US can't enforce its will on you.
Let's not forget Russia is the one who broke the status quo, they are the ones trying to see if we'll blink. That makes Russia first ones in, not the US.
quote:But while you're at it, since the US is suddenly interested in international law for some weird reason, wouldn't this be a great time to deal with a torture prison camp in Cuba, drone strikes in multiple countries, and a military occupation in Palestine? You know, the kinds of violations of international law that the US has full control over? K, thanks.
Yes because either you do the right thing 100% of the time or 0%. You know I hate Guantanamo Bay, it's a blot on us I don't think I'll ever let myself forget. Drone strikes are conducted with the permission of the host government generally speaking, and they certainly aren't used to acquire other people's stuff. Israel/Palestine is not an issue I can do justice, but it's not an instance where the US would ever allow Israel to annex Palestine.
The US absolutely has made grievous mistakes. It still makes them. But lets not forget we are leaving Afghanistan, and Iraq and we never had any intention making them colonies. Let's not forget Somalia, Kosovo, Taiwan.
But sure, by all means lets pretend the US is no different from Russia, and that really the whole world will be so much better if the US goes back to it's pre-WWII foreign policy of not caring what goes on anywhere outside its borders.
It's not like hegemonic stability theory means anything anyway right? I'm sure China will step right into that role and perform it beautifully.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
quote:Crimea is holding a succession vote today. Russia's acquisition of that territory is directly in violation of international law. If we don't act quickly but wisely we can expect other countries to read the message loud and clear that the US is too tired to intervene when countries grab things.
I'm not sure I agree with the idea that the US's course of action in this case represents such an unambiguous message. There are all sorts of reasons why the US (and EU for that matter) could fail to intervene effectively that don't apply to other situations. Considering the stakes involved, would you really want to take a chance that it was just ennui? Even Russia should worry that the rules will have changed by the time they start leaning on the Baltic states. The only rational course is to judge each situation on its own merits without relying overmuch on "well they didn't do anything last time." You recall how that logic turned out for Germany?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The US has already canceled the upcoming G8 meeting in Sochi, and there are a lot of sounds coming out that Russia may be booted from the G8 in general.
In the mean time, there's a bill in the pipeline for emergency relief funding for Ukraine from the US Congress. I think we have France and Germany on board for sanctions, but having the British would help more. Billions in Russian finance is in London right now, and if they can threaten to freeze those assets, it'll go a long way towards making Russia feel more pain.
In all, we probably can't stop Russia if they really want to do this. We're not willing to send weapons. But we can make them pay a serious cost that will have to be factored into their calculus for future actions like this. Getting Europe on board will be absolutely essential.
But in the long run, I think Russia loses if they try to grab the Crimea. They'll take on a pretty big financial burden since Crimea is almost entirely supported, energy, water, and food wise from the mainland. They'll also be taking in a 30% Ukrainian/Tatar population that absolutely does not want to go Russian, and in the case of the Tatar minority, is increasingly radicalized Muslims with outside financing. That didn't go so well for Russia in Chechnya and other places, I don't imagine it will go well in the Crimea. Not to mention they'll pay an international cost, and galvanize regional actors against them at a time when relations were thawing between many.
This creates a lot of problems for him for very little gain.
Elison -
quote:The IMF is still insisting on austerity measures such as cutting energy subsidies, it won't be from the IMF.
Which is exactly what they should do. A combination of artificially low prices from Russia and government subsidies are what got so many people hooked on high gas use to begin with. They need to ween themselves off of those prices to encourage people to use less gas and give Russia less leverage.
quote:Ukraine isn't in NATO, Poland and many other countries that border Russia are; or already firmly in the Russian or Chinese sphere.
The only precedent set is that if you're a Great Power with nukes the US can't enforce its will on you. Otherwise the US is already taking steps, such as sending units to the Baltic and so on; Poland is also stepping up to the plate.
Maybe America should not be the ones directly stepping in first man in last man out? Let the regional organizations handle it; what should America do if Germany and France aren't on board?
Many Russian neighbors have been pulling away from Russia's sphere of influence for awhile now, most notably Moldova and Georgia. But a lot of commentators have noted that Poland, which until recently had pretty bad relations with Russia, will probably move further away from them as a result of the Ukraine action. There had been a thaw recently, but this will push them back into Europe's sway rather than Russia's. This is an isolating, rather than cowing motion. Neighbors won't be scared into acquiescence, they'll be more resolved than ever to resist.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Putin is not going to commit to nuclear war over a slice of Ukraine anymore than he did when we told him to get his butt out of Georgia.
Yeah, my fear is not that it'd just go straight to nuclear war. But if Ukraine goes to war with Russia, and we commit our own military in support, we have Russians and Americans killing each-other with guns and bombs and planes.
There's a reason that through 40+ years of cold war, we avoided that particular situation at all costs. Its because when Americans and Russians start killing each-other, use of nuclear weapons becomes almost inevitable. Particularly when one side starts losing.
It's just not worth the risk. Not even close.
So if Ukraine goes to war with Russia, we pretty much have to tell them "good luck" and watch them get slaughtered.
All of the Hitler analogies fall flat, because Hitler didn't have enough nukes to end human existence.
We have a red line. That red line is NATO. Anything short of that, and our "intervention" options do not include the military. Period. And Putin already knows this.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Xavier: Who used a Hitler analogy?
I agree a conventional war with Russia is not a good idea. But we still have to actually do something substantive, or we will fight this battle again and again.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Hillary Clinton did.
And I think as a comparison to appeasement and land grabs, she's right in that context.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Xavier: Who used a Hitler analogy?
Everyone arguing for intervention. Not always by name, but when people talk about how "appeasement doesn't work" and "historical parallels" and all that, its a pretty obvious subtext.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
The Hitler analogies may not be entirely relevant in terms of consequences of engagement, but the tactics on Putin's side are identical to the point of absurdity.
Hobbes Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
There IS a parallel there. I get the distinction you're making regarding nukes, but there's still a parallel.
When push comes to shove, if Putin invaded Poland, would you risk the nukes?
What about Germany? France? Britain?
At some point you're going to have to say yes and stand up to him.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
The other parallel is that Putin's probably not going to accurately predict where the line is.
Saddam didn't either.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Something else to keep in mind:
If I'm Iran watching all this unfold, my resolve to never, ever, ever give up my nuclear weapons program increases 100 fold.
Russia wouldn't be stealing the Crimea from Ukraine if Ukraine still had nukes, but Ukraine signed a deal in 1994 to give up its nukes is Russia promised never to violate Ukraine's territorial sovereignty. In other words, no stealing land. It also included guarantees to not threaten Ukraine via economic or military force.
That agreement has been thrown out the window.
So if I'm a budding nuclear power, I look at this and see that no agreement written on paper will ever, ever guarantee me the kind of security granted by the threat of nuclear weapons. I'd never give them up.
That's another reason why the world community needs to put Putin in line. He's making nuclear proliferation more likely by showing the value of nukes and the dangers of giving them up.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:Xavier: Who used a Hitler analogy?
Everyone arguing for intervention. Not always by name, but when people talk about how "appeasement doesn't work" and "historical parallels" and all that, its a pretty obvious subtext.
I don't think Hitler is the only historical instance where because nobody stops a bully it emboldens them and other bullies. But he certainly qualifies. To be honest, I wasn't really thinking about him, but I can see how easily he can be conjured up in this discussion.
I think Lyrhawn made an excellent point. It's not just Russia that becomes a problem if this is allowed to stand. It reforms the calculus other nations make in regards to their own borders.
You are absolutely right that two nuclear armed nations engaging in conventional warfare is a horrible thing that nobody wants to be the first to try, because there may never be a second time. But Putin can't use territory grabs as a way to keep the country behind him.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:When push comes to shove, if Putin invaded Poland, would you risk the nukes?
What about Germany? France? Britain?
Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes. All four are NATO nations. Putin knows that invading any of those nations means war with the US.
Other nations not in NATO that I would put on that list: Japan, Australia, South Korea. There are perhaps a dozen other nations that I would tentatively include as mandatory military intervention. Also oddball scenarios like an unprovoked invasion into Africa or something like that.
But this isn't anything like that.
This is a former soviet republic.
The area is majority ethnic Russian.
The elected leader was ousted by a coup, delegitimizing the government.
The country is not a strategic ally or trade partner.
The region in question just voted to break away.
My sympathies lie with Ukraine, and I am in favor of pretty much any non-military threats or sanctions. I just think tough talk about using our armed forces in any way is beyond dangerous.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Who is suggesting we use military assets to actively engage?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: The Hitler analogies may not be entirely relevant in terms of consequences of engagement, but the tactics on Putin's side are identical to the point of absurdity.
Hobbes
Identical? No, I think that's seriously overstating things. Not that I have the least respect for Putin as a decent human being or a conscientious national leader.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Really? Perhaps "tactics" implied to[o] broad a brush. But supplying troops and/ funds to "Germans" in a country you want to occupy, claiming the need to protect that group, and then demanding land and control from the country was the tactic Hitler used again and again until, using it on Poland, he kick-started WWII. From my reading of the news, that is identical to the tactic Putin was taking.
And that was what I was referring to, if it seemed like I meant to also include "blame and slaughter social undesirables in your own country by the millions" I apologize.
Hobbes
[ March 07, 2014, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah. Not so much holocaust, but there's a lot of Sudetenland here.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Who is suggesting we use military assets to actively engage?
well, OSC's argument is fundamentally underpinned by military engagement
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Sorry, I meant to say "what serious person is suggesting we use military assets..."
I have no idea what OSC actually wants to do. Airstrikes on Moscow? Who knows.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Yeah. Not so much holocaust, but there's a lot of Sudetenland here.
Absolutely. My remark was mostly one of degree. There are certainly similarities to both the Sudentland and some to Aunschlass (spelling totally escapes me atm) as well. It may even turn out that most of the controversy within Ukraine has been generated by Russian provocateurs, as was the case in the WWII buildup. I was just pointing out that it seemed to me there were more legitimate beefs this time around, whereas in WWII when Hitler wished to expand, he made a habit of deliberately creating them.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Something else to keep in mind:
If I'm Iran watching all this unfold, my resolve to never, ever, ever give up my nuclear weapons program increases 100 fold.
Russia wouldn't be stealing the Crimea from Ukraine if Ukraine still had nukes, but Ukraine signed a deal in 1994 to give up its nukes is Russia promised never to violate Ukraine's territorial sovereignty. In other words, no stealing land. It also included guarantees to not threaten Ukraine via economic or military force.
That agreement has been thrown out the window.
So if I'm a budding nuclear power, I look at this and see that no agreement written on paper will ever, ever guarantee me the kind of security granted by the threat of nuclear weapons. I'd never give them up.
That's another reason why the world community needs to put Putin in line. He's making nuclear proliferation more likely by showing the value of nukes and the dangers of giving them up.
This is silly, Ukraine had zero capability to responsibly maintain and take care of those nuclear weapons, handing them over to Russia or destroying them was the only responsible decision. Being a nuclear power opens you to a level of strategic consequences that 95% of nations want nothing to do with. Such as opening you to nuclear tipped bunker busting munitions.
Additionally, Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program, that's been largely fabricated by the United States; they've been "6 months away from a bomb" since the 1990's. Its a civilian nuclear program as allowed by being a part of the NPT; Iran still has incentive to freeze progress because of crippling economic sanctions. Iran is already being screwed over by rumors of a nuclear program, actually having one doesn't rationally help them.
quote: Which is exactly what they should do. A combination of artificially low prices from Russia and government subsidies are what got so many people hooked on high gas use to begin with. They need to ween themselves off of those prices to encourage people to use less gas and give Russia less leverage.
This is hilariously wrong. Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus have some of the harshest winter conditions in the developed world with some of the highest cost of living in such because of the price of heating.
You reduce or eliminate subsidies and you're back to square one with tens of thousands back in the streets protesting unlivable living conditions. It'ld collapse the government again, its political suicide.
Also the infrastructure doesn't support it, something like 40% of government buildings, communal homes and regular homes are built to use gas. You'ld need to rebuild something like one third of the country's infrastructure.
quote: But in the long run, I think Russia loses if they try to grab the Crimea.
Not really, not unless this escalates, Russia loses for sure if they lose Sevastopol; they don't have the military ports of sufficient size to support the Black Sea Fleet; additionally Ukraine joining NATO presents a situation of strategic encircle; an agreement that NATO had abrogated years ago when they promised there would be no eastward expansion of NATO, which was broken.
By taking Crimea, Ukraine can't join NATO, you can't have ongoing border disputes and this essentially sabotages Ukraine as a country, so they can't join the EU either; Russia wins.
quote: In the mean time, there's a bill in the pipeline for emergency relief funding for Ukraine from the US Congress.
IIRC, this is for 1 billion$, Ukraine needs over 35 billion$.
quote: I think we have France and Germany on board for sanctions,
Germany for sure isn't.
quote: Austerity sounds a lot better than being eaten.
To reiterate, this is impossible. It'll collapse either the transitionary gov't, or the next government when elections happen. Greece was fairly close to tipping and that's a developed country with a well rooted democracy; Ukraine's is a clusterfruit and can't survive the fall out, MILLIONS of Ukrainians absolutely need that gas.
I really recommend the Eastern Europe thread at SA, it goes into all of these and shows why Ukraine's situation is extremely dire.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's been awhile since I've gotten into one of these with you, so here goes!
quote:This is silly, Ukraine had zero capability to responsibly maintain and take care of those nuclear weapons, handing them over to Russia or destroying them was the only responsible decision. Being a nuclear power opens you to a level of strategic consequences that 95% of nations want nothing to do with. Such as opening you to nuclear tipped bunker busting munitions.
Additionally, Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program, that's been largely fabricated by the United States; they've been "6 months away from a bomb" since the 1990's. Its a civilian nuclear program as allowed by being a part of the NPT; Iran still has incentive to freeze progress because of crippling economic sanctions. Iran is already being screwed over by rumors of a nuclear program, actually having one doesn't rationally help them.
It really couldn't possibly matter less whether or not Ukraine could maintain all of them. They could have easily either sold them for straight up cash, or they could have reduced the stockpile to a much much more manageable size, like say China's. Ukraine had a HUGE nuclear arsenal, just shy of 2000 nukes, with a myriad array of delivery systems. They could have greatly simplified that down to maybe a couple dozen weapons. Expensive perhaps, but relatively easily maintained, and that would have been all the veto power they needed to keep someone like Russia from making a land grab for the Crimea. Instead, they TRUSTED them. Look where trust got them. And woe to anyone who decides trust is worth more than a warm bucket of spit in geopolitcs. Nukes would keep them safe. Promises do not.
As for Iran...please. The IAEA isn't exactly an American lapdog, and they've said in the last few years that there is strong, strong evidence that Iran has been researching weapons design.
quote:This is hilariously wrong. Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus have some of the harshest winter conditions in the developed world with some of the highest cost of living in such because of the price of heating.
You reduce or eliminate subsidies and you're back to square one with tens of thousands back in the streets protesting unlivable living conditions. It'ld collapse the government again, its political suicide.
Also the infrastructure doesn't support it, something like 40% of government buildings, communal homes and regular homes are built to use gas. You'ld need to rebuild something like one third of the country's infrastructure.
Reduce, diversify, and expand domestic supply. They need to cut back on supply to gain leverage with Russia, and if they didn't know it before, they know it now. They need to expand to other heating sources. And they need to dramatically increase their own supply. They're starting to do that last one, signing some big deals with Western shale gas drillers. Within five to ten years they could be entirely free of Russia's gas thrall, which would put them in an incredibly advantageous position to negotiation transfer rights for pipelines that run through their territory. It might make them an exporter to Europe that draws them closer to the West and pinches Putin's even more.
That's a future solution, of course. But their gas subsidies are a bankrupting mess. They're pouring money down the drain, and many people think billions could be going astray in what essentially is money laundering schemes by Yanukovich's government. The money going to the energy industry, by and large, isn't even being used to hold prices down, prices are actually dramatically inflated in part because Russia charges a huge premium for gas. The subsidy money is essentially being passed around to cronies to keep a lot of people employed and a lot of hands greased while not providing much relief for consumers and not upgrading a dangerously old pipeline network.
Simply put, subsidies aren't doing what you think they're doing, and they're bankrupting the country. They need to put in place an immediate, mid and long term solution to cut consumption, cut corporate giveaways, and ween themselves off Russian gas, as quickly as possible. They aren't stupid, they know where the gas comes from and they know how weak it makes them.
quote:Not really, not unless this escalates, Russia loses for sure if they lose Sevastopol; they don't have the military ports of sufficient size to support the Black Sea Fleet; additionally Ukraine joining NATO presents a situation of strategic encircle; an agreement that NATO had abrogated years ago when they promised there would be no eastward expansion of NATO, which was broken.
By taking Crimea, Ukraine can't join NATO, you can't have ongoing border disputes and this essentially sabotages Ukraine as a country, so they can't join the EU either; Russia wins.
No, they lose on just about every count. Ukraine was very, very unlikely to kick them out of Sevastopol, and if they tried, Ukraine would never have been able to secure outside funding for its debt problems because Russia could easily use the world community to get Ukraine to honor its longterm basing agreements. It was all just saber rattling on Ukraine's part.
But they've already lost international prestige. No one will take them seriously on a range of international issues now, since Russia's argument of respecting national sovereignty is a laugh line rather than a police statement now. They'll be virtually ignored now at the UN. They damaged their relationship with China as well, who wants to support them, but is scared to death of approving of anything that threatens arguments regarding territorial sovereignty because they have their own issues out west and with Taiwan. They're also likely to be booted out of the G8, and stand to have billions in assets frozen. I have no idea what sort of sanctions will be in play, but it's likely to cost them as well.
They also foment opposition to them by scaring the ever loving crap out of the Baltic States, Poland, et at. All of them are shouting for United States military help. They want US fighers on their bases ASAP. He spent years trying to thaw relations with these people only to swipe it all away and push them all into the Western camp. Stupid.
But all of that ignores the situation actually within Crimea. 2/3rds of the population might be ethnic Russian and support Russia, but the other third is very much NOT Russian, and will be very angry. The Tatar population probably violently so. The Crimea depends on the mainland for energy, food, water and basically all necessities of life. It's also full of old broken down industries and factories that require infusions of cash to keep competitive internationally.
Putin is taking on a huge headache to guarantee access to a port he was never going to lose access too. There will be a rebellion in Crimea within a year or two, centered on Crimean Tatars, and he'll have to permanently station troops there to quell it. It's a drain on military resources he really can't afford.
Even in his best case scenario, he loses far more than he gains.
quote:IIRC, this is for 1 billion$, Ukraine needs over 35 billion$.
The $1 billion is specifically for energy subsidies until a larger deal can be worked out with allies. Ukraine needs something in the neighborhood of $15-20 billion in the next few weeks to keep them afloat. They'll come up with it.
They aren't willing to do punitive damage, but they're willing to join in in an effort to get Putin to pull back. So....
quote:To reiterate, this is impossible. It'll collapse either the transitionary gov't, or the next government when elections happen. Greece was fairly close to tipping and that's a developed country with a well rooted democracy; Ukraine's is a clusterfruit and can't survive the fall out, MILLIONS of Ukrainians absolutely need that gas.
And I would posit that you don't totally know what you're talking about. Regardless, I'm not suggesting they shut off the spigots tomorrow. But they need to change their behavior going forward.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
I've been in since this started a long ongoing discussion thread in which several Ukrainians and other eastern Europeans posted and provided their commentary, along with other people who have expertese in the region: Austerity measures was a no go with Yanukuvich because it was political suicide and went with the option that seemed the lesser of two evils. It is *still* political suicide even for the neoliberal right wing coalition because it harms so many millions of people that it will cause political unrest as bad that kicked Yanukuvich out; this is the most likely scenario according to those Ukrainians I've seen comment on the issue (people from Maidan, not Party of Regions).
quote: Merkel on same page with Obama
Not quite, actions matter, not words, Germany and Russia are huge trading partners and Europe is dependent on Russian gas, they're not going to impose sanctions and so far this isn't on the table.
Its not about "behavior" there just isn't a way for them to consume less gas, they aren't consuming some inordinate amount of gas for electricity and heating or wasting it. What Ukraine probably needs is to rebuild their infrastructure and expand nuclear power and renewables (as does Germany who stupidly close down nuclear power plants for coal and gas plants); but they can't do that while they are economically insolvent.
What you are suggesting just isn't practical or reasonable, end result; another parliamentary crisis and mass protests.
quote: The $1 billion is specifically for energy subsidies until a larger deal can be worked out with allies. Ukraine needs something in the neighborhood of $15-20 billion in the next few weeks to keep them afloat. They'll come up with it.
But so far though this deal hasn't materialized yet? I think Ukraine needs like a Marshall Plan type deal, lumpsum of something akin to 100-200 billion$ to stabilize and fix things, but so far this isn't in the cards.
quote: No, they lose on just about every count. Ukraine was very, very unlikely to kick them out of Sevastopol
This isn't true, the last time it had to be rammed through the Rada, how can you possibly know what the anti-Russophone fascists will or will not do?
quote: and if they tried, Ukraine would never have been able to secure outside funding for its debt problems because Russia could easily use the world community to get Ukraine to honor its longterm basing agreements. It was all just saber rattling on Ukraine's part.
That it would've been economically stupid doesn't prevent politicians, especially those driven by ideological extremism to do stupid things.
quote: No one will take them seriously on a range of international issues now, since Russia's argument of respecting national sovereignty is a laugh line rather than a police statement now.
Russia appears to have gained prestige among various Arab communities, its not a complete win, there are costs but its easy to see the Russian perspective as to how letting things happen on their own could've been worse.
China and Russia are still fairly close, China made non-committal tch tch noises but in the end this event helps China as isolation from Europe and the West, in the worst case scenario, just means further integration with China and the Shanghai Cooperation.
quote: The Crimea depends on the mainland for energy, food, water and basically all necessities of life. It's also full of old broken down industries and factories that require infusions of cash to keep competitive internationally.
And the Russians spent 50 billion on Sochi, I don't think the cost matters to them; I've actually seen a lot of analysis that the rubble devaluation will actually easily make them tens of billions in oil and gas exports.
quote: They're also likely to be booted out of the G8, and stand to have billions in assets frozen. I have no idea what sort of sanctions will be in play, but it's likely to cost them as well.
There won't be sanctions, and kicking them from the G8 Kerry has already said would be "Unproductive", its not happening.
Do you only read one source of news at this or something? Seriously, read SA.
quote: It really couldn't possibly matter less whether or not Ukraine could maintain all of them. They could have easily either sold them for straight up cash, or they could have reduced the stockpile to a much much more manageable size, like say China's. Ukraine had a HUGE nuclear arsenal, just shy of 2000 nukes, with a myriad array of delivery systems. They could have greatly simplified that down to maybe a couple dozen weapons. Expensive perhaps, but relatively easily maintained, and that would have been all the veto power they needed to keep someone like Russia from making a land grab for the Crimea. Instead, they TRUSTED them. Look where trust got them. And woe to anyone who decides trust is worth more than a warm bucket of spit in geopolitcs. Nukes would keep them safe. Promises do not.
As for Iran...please. The IAEA isn't exactly an American lapdog, and they've said in the last few years that there is strong, strong evidence that Iran has been researching weapons design.
This is really quite knee jerk and narrow focused; Ukraine had no legitimate interest in being a nuclear weapons state; it could neither afford them, nor safely despose of them; sell them to who? Who would buy over 1000 Russian nuclear weapons? Who would afford to maintain them? Someone would have to foot the bill and in the end this was only Russia.
And then what, suppose they could maintain 50 war heads, and then what? Do they have delivery systems? Could they have maintained them? Kept those secure? Would they have been able to reach Moscow or Volgagrad? Are you suggesting Ukraine uses nuclear weapons on Russia to prevent the loss of the Crimea? This seems irresponsible policy.
(Also, maintaining even a 'dozen' nuclear weapons is actually rather expensive).
I haven't followed the IAEA reports for some time but there were serious doubts raised about some behind the scenes shenanigans.
Nevertheless, Iran's economy needs the US sanctions lifted, so it'll agree to do so.
quote: Reduce, diversify, and expand domestic supply. They need to cut back on supply to gain leverage with Russia, and if they didn't know it before, they know it now. They need to expand to other heating sources. And they need to dramatically increase their own supply. They're starting to do that last one, signing some big deals with Western shale gas drillers. Within five to ten years they could be entirely free of Russia's gas thrall, which would put them in an incredibly advantageous position to negotiation transfer rights for pipelines that run through their territory. It might make them an exporter to Europe that draws them closer to the West and pinches Putin's even more.
That's a future solution, of course. But their gas subsidies are a bankrupting mess. They're pouring money down the drain, and many people think billions could be going astray in what essentially is money laundering schemes by Yanukovich's government. The money going to the energy industry, by and large, isn't even being used to hold prices down, prices are actually dramatically inflated in part because Russia charges a huge premium for gas. The subsidy money is essentially being passed around to cronies to keep a lot of people employed and a lot of hands greased while not providing much relief for consumers and not upgrading a dangerously old pipeline network.
Simply put, subsidies aren't doing what you think they're doing, and they're bankrupting the country. They need to put in place an immediate, mid and long term solution to cut consumption, cut corporate giveaways, and ween themselves off Russian gas, as quickly as possible. They aren't stupid, they know where the gas comes from and they know how weak it makes them.
Subsidies to gas consumption don't work that way, this is a resource that lacks elactisity, it'll be consumed anyways, there isn't a feasible means to radically reduce gas consumption by cutting subsidies, you'll just get mass protests as the cost of living increases, especially for pensioners.
Now you're right that they do need to diversify, but it can't be at the end of a IMF Austerity package; to do what needs doing requires more the the minimum required to prevent a default.
Ukraine needs a Marshall Plan and the West doesn't care enough about Ukraine it seems to give it.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:But while you're at it, since the US is suddenly interested in international law for some weird reason, wouldn't this be a great time to deal with a torture prison camp in Cuba, drone strikes in multiple countries, and a military occupation in Palestine? You know, the kinds of violations of international law that the US has full control over? K, thanks.
Yes because either you do the right thing 100% of the time or 0%.
Yeah, I don't know what phrases like "while you're at it" or "Have at it" mean where you're from, but here it means that you can in fact go ahead and do "the right thing."
I'm just reminding you that as a matter of resources that there are on-going situations causing things like torture, have killed thousands, and have displaced people for decades, and are much more cost-effective to address. By not addressing them, you undercut this funny narrative that you're trying to sell about confronting bullies.
It's like if a bully was peeing on your lawn, yeah, we might sympathize. But if you're trying to recruit us to help out, you should probably stop kicking puppies while asking us for help, y'know?
quote:Drone strikes are conducted with the permission of the host government generally speaking
That's a weird defence that's been floating around and I can't imagine that Americans would ever accept this if anyone else was doing it.
One of the major charges against Assad in Syria is that he attacked civilians in his own country. Would it somehow be better if he had the Russians conduct drone strikes instead? Would that somehow absolve the Russians of their responsibility? Would it absolve Assad? Responsibility multiplies in these cases, it doesn't divide.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: So if I'm a budding nuclear power, I look at this and see that no agreement written on paper will ever, ever guarantee me the kind of security granted by the threat of nuclear weapons. I'd never give them up.
That's another reason why the world community needs to put Putin in line.
I fully agree that's the lesson I would learn now ... if I was born a week ago or something.
I don't see how any budding nuclear power could be in a situation where they look at Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and Libya's experiences over the last few years and not learn that lesson, but then look at Crimea and be like, "that, THAT's the event that will decide it for me."
I think the cat's permanently out of the bag on that one and has been for quite some time.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Not quite, actions matter, not words, Germany and Russia are huge trading partners and Europe is dependent on Russian gas, they're not going to impose sanctions and so far this isn't on the table.
Its not about "behavior" there just isn't a way for them to consume less gas, they aren't consuming some inordinate amount of gas for electricity and heating or wasting it. What Ukraine probably needs is to rebuild their infrastructure and expand nuclear power and renewables (as does Germany who stupidly close down nuclear power plants for coal and gas plants); but they can't do that while they are economically insolvent.
What you are suggesting just isn't practical or reasonable, end result; another parliamentary crisis and mass protests.
Merkel is quoted as saying that, while they get a lot of their gas from Russia, it's not even a majority, and they have plenty of gas reserves. Plus it was a mild winter. They'll be fine if Russia gets pissy and shuts off the spigot.
And again, no one is suggesting they dramatically jack up heating prices over night. But a lot of that subsidy money was just plain wasted. It was crony capitalism and giveaways, not direct subsidies to consumers. That part is fine, the part where Yanukovich was paying off gas oligarchs, not so much.
quote:But so far though this deal hasn't materialized yet? I think Ukraine needs like a Marshall Plan type deal, lumpsum of something akin to 100-200 billion$ to stabilize and fix things, but so far this isn't in the cards.
$200 billion was never on the table from ANY country. Russia was going to give Yanukovich $15 billion to stabilize them. The US and Europe are talking through a loan of similar amounts if they'll open up their markets some and move into more of an EU way of doing things. Most economists think it'll be a huge win for Ukraine, billions in extra economic activity will be created. They'll have to grow their way out of this problem the way every other country that has been in similar situations has. The West will give them some training wheels, but they won't ride the bike for them. Nor is Ukraine asking for that. You're being melodramatic.
quote:This isn't true, the last time it had to be rammed through the Rada, how can you possibly know what the anti-Russophone fascists will or will not do?
Because there's more to it than that. Let's say the Ukrainian Parliament HAD decided to kick them out. Russia saber rattles a little bit and shuts off the gas spigots and Ukraine comes back around, or the US and West apply gentle pressure to not upset the apple cart too quickly. Or Russia appeals to the world community to get Ukraine to adhere to previous agreements made and gets a Security Council Resolution going. There were a ton of things that would have happened if, IF Ukraine had decided to revoke base access, which you don't know would have happened. The point is, Russia jumped the gun. They went from step 2 to step 35 in the blink of an eye.
quote:Russia appears to have gained prestige among various Arab communities, its not a complete win, there are costs but its easy to see the Russian perspective as to how letting things happen on their own could've been worse.
China and Russia are still fairly close, China made non-committal tch tch noises but in the end this event helps China as isolation from Europe and the West, in the worst case scenario, just means further integration with China and the Shanghai Cooperation.
Derive the majority of their GDP from trade with Arab states, do they? No. They get most of it from the West, and most of that from Europe. Europe isn't going to be in any mood to cut them any favors, and on the next Syria or the next Iran, no one is going to care what Russia has to say, and no one is going to take Russia seriously when they tell us we have to respect Iran or Syria or whoever's territorial sovereignty. They lost all credibility on the issue. That matters. There's more to influence than how much you can scare people. There's respect. No one in the G7 respects them anymore.
And if you think China was lightly brushing this off, you're crazy. It put them in an incredibly awkward position. They might be allies on some issues, but at the end of the day, China and Russia are not natural allies. They're allies of convenience.
quote:And the Russians spent 50 billion on Sochi, I don't think the cost matters to them; I've actually seen a lot of analysis that the rubble devaluation will actually easily make them tens of billions in oil and gas exports.
Yes, I'm sure the cost doesn't matter to them now, but it was still an incredibly expensive, stupid thing to do. It'll cost them a lot of money in the long run. For now the Russian people are okay with living in a failed kleptocracy, but eventually Europe is going to wise up, and when the Europeans turn off the spigots on their end, Russia goes down hard. Hard. Because it's really all they have propping up the entire economy, and they just signaled to the world that it's time to get moving as fast as possible on making Russia's overpriced gas obsolete.
As you noted above, politician's do stupid things. They aren't concerned not because they thing it's a good investment, but because they aren't gaming this out long term to see the lifetime costs of the decision. It's not going to make them money. It's going to be a black hole.
quote:There won't be sanctions, and kicking them from the G8 Kerry has already said would be "Unproductive", its not happening.
Do you only read one source of news at this or something? Seriously, read SA.
The G8 Meeting in Sochi has already been effectively canceled. Russia was let into the G8 as a sort of olive branch to try to woo them, but if they've decided to be bad actors, there's really no reason to keep on rewarding them for bad behavior. Wait and see how this thing goes down.
quote:This is really quite knee jerk and narrow focused; Ukraine had no legitimate interest in being a nuclear weapons state; it could neither afford them, nor safely despose of them; sell them to who? Who would buy over 1000 Russian nuclear weapons? Who would afford to maintain them? Someone would have to foot the bill and in the end this was only Russia.
And then what, suppose they could maintain 50 war heads, and then what? Do they have delivery systems? Could they have maintained them? Kept those secure? Would they have been able to reach Moscow or Volgagrad? Are you suggesting Ukraine uses nuclear weapons on Russia to prevent the loss of the Crimea? This seems irresponsible policy.
lol. Invading the Crimea doesn't really sound like responsible policy either, does it? But people do crazy things sometimes. Surely you've read enough history to know that.
I don't think you understand the political calculus of nukes at all. Yes, by the way, to most of your questions below. Ukraine had a myriad of delivery systems, from old Russian SS19s to cruise missiles to newer more sophisticated ICBM missiles as well as several types of bomber that could carry a nuke.
And would they threaten a nuke over the Crimea? I don't know, but I bet you Putin would hesitate two or three times before deciding to invade a neighboring nuclear power. That's how nukes work. Why do you think everyone is terrified of Kashmir? It's easy to ask "well gee, they wouldn't really nuke each other over Kashmir, would they?" Except they almost have, a couple of times. Nuclear command and control has been released to field officers during several conflicts over Kashmir. It's the same sort of thing. When nukes are available, they're ALWAYS in play, which is why most nations give serious thought to any action with a nuclear power, because it could always lead to nuclear war.
Why do you think some countries have pushed so hard to get nukes? Look at how nuclear nations are treated vs. non-nuclear nations. It's a trump card that can't be beaten
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:But while you're at it, since the US is suddenly interested in international law for some weird reason, wouldn't this be a great time to deal with a torture prison camp in Cuba, drone strikes in multiple countries, and a military occupation in Palestine? You know, the kinds of violations of international law that the US has full control over? K, thanks.
Yes because either you do the right thing 100% of the time or 0%.
Yeah, I don't know what phrases like "while you're at it" or "Have at it" mean where you're from, but here it means that you can in fact go ahead and do "the right thing."
I'm just reminding you that as a matter of resources that there are on-going situations causing things like torture, have killed thousands, and have displaced people for decades, and are much more cost-effective to address. By not addressing them, you undercut this funny narrative that you're trying to sell about confronting bullies.
It's like if a bully was peeing on your lawn, yeah, we might sympathize. But if you're trying to recruit us to help out, you should probably stop kicking puppies while asking us for help, y'know?
quote:Drone strikes are conducted with the permission of the host government generally speaking
That's a weird defence that's been floating around and I can't imagine that Americans would ever accept this if anyone else was doing it.
One of the major charges against Assad in Syria is that he attacked civilians in his own country. Would it somehow be better if he had the Russians conduct drone strikes instead? Would that somehow absolve the Russians of their responsibility? Would it absolve Assad? Responsibility multiplies in these cases, it doesn't divide.
You know, it's strange. There's a great deal of justice in all of these criticisms. We profoundly undermine our moral authority when we torture, when we openly assinate enemies knowing we'll kill a handfuk of civilians when we do it, and when we give aid or don't qualify it to exclude fanatical religious types who want additional land as much for religious reasons as security reasons. Hell, that's just the tip of the iceberg, really.
But goddamned if it isn't tedious as hell to hear all this holier than thou talk from groups and nations that are also themselves nation-states, and all too often just as willing to either sacrifice ethics for expedience-or to sit on the sidelines with an inward domestic focus, looking to or criticizing America for just the right actions taken or statements made. I don't for example recall an awful lot of in-depth aid and support from anywhere, but particularly Western European nations, to give a lot of aid and support to help former Soviet bloc nations get off the Russian tit. Don't recall a lot of international support for massive aid to Palestinians in their homes and out. Haven't heard a lot about international willingness to commit to anything serious-and I don't mean warfare-to deal with an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Don't hear a lot from anyone about 'yes, please, we'll take these suspected radical militants off your hands and incarcerate them for you'.
The dreaming double standard is tedious, Mucus.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
russia even still being in the G8 is kind of ridiculous anyway, and this whole kerfluffle might be a good way to kick them out
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: So if I'm a budding nuclear power, I look at this and see that no agreement written on paper will ever, ever guarantee me the kind of security granted by the threat of nuclear weapons. I'd never give them up.
That's another reason why the world community needs to put Putin in line.
I fully agree that's the lesson I would learn now ... if I was born a week ago or something.
I don't see how any budding nuclear power could be in a situation where they look at Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and Libya's experiences over the last few years and not learn that lesson, but then look at Crimea and be like, "that, THAT's the event that will decide it for me."
I think the cat's permanently out of the bag on that one and has been for quite some time.
Well, you're obscuring the point a bit.
And I'm not sure all your examples really hold. Libya had a nuclear program that never made it off the ground. It was still in the "Hm, maybe we should make nukes" phase of development, and what little they had was voluntarily dismantled, for what little good it did them geopolitically.
North Korea's problems extend far and wide beyond its nuclear program. It's run by unpredictable crackpots that starve their people and keep them in third world status dependent on food shipments from others to survive. What lesson are we supposed to draw from their nuclear program that isn't obscured by fifteen other problems?
If anything Iraq is the perfect example of why you need nukes. They were invaded, as you like to point out so many times, on absolutely false pretexts that had nothing at all to do with nukes. Iraq would have been invaded whether the rumors of their plans were true or nor. But if Saddam had actually made nukes, there's no way they would have been invaded. Nuclear powers don't get invaded. Nukes would have saved them, but NOT having nukes wouldn't, since we were bent on invading, we'd have made anything up as a pretext to get in there.
Nukes provide security, and they force the West to treat them differently. Everything else is just a promise on a piece of paper that you have zero leverage to enforce if the other side holding the cards decides to change their minds.
I think you're trying to say "Gosh, these countries all have a horrible time...and they have nukes!" But that's pretty hollow post hoc logic. Iran is the only one really getting the screws put to them just because they have nukes, and I think as soon as they test a bomb, that calculus changes.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... all this holier than thou talk from groups and nations that are also themselves nation-states ...
I don't feel up to addressing all those issues across all NGOs and all nation-states, when I think my answers would be different for a lot of them. Could you narrow it down a bit?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think you're trying to say "Gosh, these countries all have a horrible time...and they have nukes!"
Say what?
I think you're totally mis-reading me. I was actually agreeing with you on most of it, I was saying that if I was a budding nuclear power, I would totally want nukes to provide security. Thus, most of what you're saying is just confusing. I'm just disagreeing on the timing, I don't think it takes the Crimea situation to create the attitude of wanting nukes, we've got plenty before that.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You're right, I DID misread you.
I'm so used to you disagreeing with me that I read over parts of what you said.
Sorry about that.
You're right that most of them already know that, it's been reinforced time and again in our dealings with places like North Korea.
But the Crimea is a good reminder, and comes at a time when we're supposedly on the cusp of a deal with Iran.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:The IMF is still insisting on austerity measures such as cutting energy subsidies, it won't be from the IMF.
You don't know if Putin will commit to nuclear war, but we DO know he will commit to a full conventional war if the red line is crossed (Ukraine joining NATO).
Austerity sounds a lot better than being eaten. And I don't think we *should* let the Ukraine into NATO. The Ukraine has way too much history with Russia, and it's too important for Russia to let go. It probably doesn't belong in the EU either. But let it continue to be a sort of autonomous mediator between Russia and West Europe.
This is nice. To Ukrainians this reads as: "let us continue to rape and pillage this country, as we have done for 1000 years.
People in the west of Ukraine want the EU because they remember that their great-grandparents were the ones who didn't starve to death, but could have. We make the mistake of judging the interests of Russia and of the EU with a purely objective, "rationalist," lense. But morally, the EU is not comfortable with the level of brutality that the Russians, and particularly the people in charge of Russia, are. The Ukrainians know this, and they want in on a better roadmap to civilization. They know, especially the younger ones, that the EU is a place that strives, in at least spirit if not always in practice, to be a civilization that is based on the rule of law. Russia is fundamentally not that type of place. It's not terribly complicated on the ground (well it is, but then it isn't).
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And again, no one is suggesting they dramatically jack up heating prices over night. But a lot of that subsidy money was just plain wasted. It was crony capitalism and giveaways, not direct subsidies to consumers. That part is fine, the part where Yanukovich was paying off gas oligarchs, not so much.
Oh yes. I think people have a hard time grasping the sheer magnitude of institutional graft in Ukraine. When you're talking about money from public subsidies, think in terms of high-end designer fashion markups. 70% of the money that the government spends goes into the pockets of the oligarchs. At one point, Yulia's personal income from gas imports was a sizeable percentage of national gdp in Ukraine.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:The IMF is still insisting on austerity measures such as cutting energy subsidies, it won't be from the IMF.
You don't know if Putin will commit to nuclear war, but we DO know he will commit to a full conventional war if the red line is crossed (Ukraine joining NATO).
Austerity sounds a lot better than being eaten. And I don't think we *should* let the Ukraine into NATO. The Ukraine has way too much history with Russia, and it's too important for Russia to let go. It probably doesn't belong in the EU either. But let it continue to be a sort of autonomous mediator between Russia and West Europe.
This is nice. To Ukrainians this reads as: "let us continue to rape and pillage this country, as we have done for 1000 years.
People in the west of Ukraine want the EU because they remember that their great-grandparents were the ones who didn't starve to death, but could have. We make the mistake of judging the interests of Russia and of the EU with a purely objective, "rationalist," lense. But morally, the EU is not comfortable with the level of brutality that the Russians, and particularly the people in charge of Russia, are. The Ukrainians know this, and they want in on a better roadmap to civilization. They know, especially the younger ones, that the EU is a place that strives, in at least spirit if not always in practice, to be a civilization that is based on the rule of law. Russia is fundamentally not that type of place. It's not terribly complicated on the ground (well it is, but then it isn't).
I'm sorry if it comes across that way. But anyway you slice it Ukraine has a deep Russian identity. For goodness sake Kiev is *in* Ukraine. If you let them into the EU, why not the other former Soviet bloc nations that want in? That makes Russia nervous because then they *will* be hemmed in by the EU. Better to turn Ukraine into a sort of Switzerland. Let's be honest, Russia would never allow Ukraine to leave, but they might be comfortable with something like I suggested, we just have to be prepared to enforce it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Again, the experiment by which Ukraine exists as its own country has engendered levels of corruption that are, to use an unfortunate comparison, Africa-like in scale and depth.
The Ukrainians know this, and they don't believe in their own abilities to manage the conflicting interests that catapult their political system's scions the heights of corruption that allow their former president to spend 75 Million USD on his residence, while the average wage lingers at 500 USD a month.
For some perspective, that would be like Barack Obama spending 900 Million dollars on his personal residence while president of the US.
We've tried this Ukraine as a state thing. They don't believe in it, and neither does anybody else.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:We've tried this Ukraine as a state thing. They don't believe in it...
I would say that roughly a third of the country clearly does.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah. I'm not sure if 'they don't believe in a Ukrainian" state is the right reaction.
I was under the impression a large reason why they want to grow closer to the EU is that the EU demands the rule of law and other reforms that for them make them less like a Russian kleptocracy and more like a liberal democracy. Clearly a large portion of the population does believe in Ukraine, they just see the need for significant reform.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Ron Paul with some solid and not so solid points about the Ukrainian situation.
Sanctions are an act of war, but so is an invasion of somebody else's sovereign territory.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I agree on the solid and not so solid part.
But the "act of war" line is pretty murky if we're including all sanctions. If you can count any trade law that causes another country economic harm, then we're at war with half the world.
I think Ron Paul is right that actually going to war with Russia over Ukraine is a bad idea. I think he's also right that we shouldn't be footing the massive bill necessary to bail Ukraine out. Europe needs to come up with a lot of that money. He's also right that some of it is a bank bailout...but it's also about securing Ukraine's medium-term ability to borrow to get themselves out of the hole Yanukovich left them in.
But I don't agree that sanctions are acts of war.
I'm iffy on the popular referendum thing. By many accounts, Yanukovich was never the legitimately elected leader of Ukraine. Many think he rigged enough ballot boxes to steal it.
I think his view of what's happening in Ukraine and what happened recently is awfully naive and problematic. What does he think happens to Ukraine if we had done nothing from the start? Or what happens if we do something now? For that matter, what does he think would have happened in Ukraine or Libya if we'd done nothing? Yeah, in many cases things are still a mess, but they would likely have been much more of a mess, with a higher death toll, had we done nothing.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
to try this back to blogs at cloud territory (not that i'm necessarily upset that an absurd anti-obama rant still in some way provokes non-absurd commentary on ukraine)
osc's article literally contains this quote:
quote:Here's the truth: Big nations always take whatever they want from small nations, unless there's a bigger nation nearby that makes it too costly to do it.
then proceeds to explain how the america-hating left hates america and has no patriotism in part because they collectively apparently don't disagree with that statement, that osc just made, that big nations are always bullies.
think about that, just really think about that
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
OTHER THINGS I WISH TO PICK LIGHTHEARTED FUN AT BUT THEY'RE ACTUALLY KIND OF OUTRAGEOUS WHEN PICKED APART SO IT ISN'T FUN AND GAMES ANYMORE
quote:We are a nation founded on ideas, not ethnicity.
See, the idea of the three fifths compromise,
quote:Why should Putin negotiate with us about anything? Ukraine is none of our business because we don't have the power to make it our business.
Replace Ukraine with Georgia during GWB's administration (haha oh right that happened??) and I'm sure OSC has some sort of invented caveat where it's all like "no, see, that's different, because, something something the liberals"
quote:The America that said, about Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, "This will not stand," is now led by Barack Obama, the worst president in our entire history. In five years, he -- and the American Left -- have had their way, breaking down our strength and turning us into a former superpower.
I love hyperbole! Obama is worst president ever yes even worse than that one that bumbled us into the civil war, eh, i can't even remember his name off the top of my head but who cares there's no way obama was not worse because obama has not already insanely militarily intervened in the crimea, also something something benghazi (take a shot),
quote:benghazi
take a shot
quote:some other insane hyperbolic ranting
seriously what even is this
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Clearly it would be much more prudent for Obama to start a war with a nuclear power led by someone who appears to be somewhat insane. Sounds good.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Holiday themed:
quote: Monday, March 14th -- 10 Most Wanted Day
Albert Einstein was born today in 1879. He was very bright as an imaginative physicist, but was no mathematician. So it is puzzling that his birthday has been designated as Pi Day -- a day to celebrate pi, the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. Oh, wait -- they chose today for Pi Day because it's the fourteenth day of the third month. In America, we note that date numerically as 3-14, and since a course approximation of the value of pi is 3.14, it makes a weird kind of sense.
In Europe, however, where dates are noted numerically in the much more sensible order of day, month, year, the way to get 3, 1, and 4 in order is to choose the 31st day of the fourth month: 31-4.
Unfortunately, because calendars were originally devised by drunk people, the fourth month, April, doesn't have thirty-one days. So I guess Europeans are not entitled to have a pi day at all.
Which makes me wonder -- will pi be resentful of those who don't commemorate it? Will pi become sulky and begin to oscillate in value? Will round things suddenly become elliptical, and ellipses round? Will tires need refilling with air to restore their round shape? Or will even that remedy fail? How does a geometric ratio show its appreciation or lack thereof?
Do we all need to join hands and form a circle and say, "Thank you, pi, for making us round!"? Are there special badges to wear? Should we all inscribe pi on our driveways with chalk?
Or do we just dose ourselves with banana cream, pumpkin, or apple pi?
I think you've summed up the entirety of the holiday in the last sentence. It took a while though-- did you think us scientists, mathematicians and engineers were not human?
FYI- European pi approximation day is 22/7, and the proper Pi day activity is a contest to see who can recite the most digits.
Oh, and if you live near a Safeway, the $5 pis are marked down to $3.14. Usually by this point, the selection is quite picked over, so hurry up!
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:My laptab from Dell, whose screen flips conveniently from laptop to tablet mode, should do the job. I bought it precisely because it should have allowed me to have full access to all my Windows-dependent software, yet also get the graphics interface of a tablet.
Unfortunately, Windows 8.1 got in the way. I've already said enough about that gargoyle.
And there's another problem. To make my laptab light enough to be credible as a tablet, Dell, correctly, used a solid-state drive instead of a spinning drive.
Solid state is faster by orders of magnitude -- you boot in five seconds, bring up programs almost instantly. But solid-state drives are expensive, so we're talking 64 gigs instead of a terabyte. Good-bye to my 250 gigs of music and 150 gigs of audiobooks and Great Courses lectures.
I could work with a small subset of those if I could also plug in additional memory cards. With a single card slot I could plug in another 64 gigs, tripling my available drive space (since Windows itself chews up so much of the built-in "disk").
Fifty bucks more and my machine could do anything I needed.
But ... no card slot.
I know, I can use a USB flashdrive to get the memory I need. Only (a) it's not as fast and (b) it dangles off the tablet like a very weak handle, just begging to be jostled out of place or broken off.
If things are sticking out of it, it's not a tablet anymore. Though I am looking at the SanDisk Cruzer Fit CZ33, which has very little dangling. Maybe that will work well enough.
We're so close to a truly productive in-between machine, with my laptab.
Yeah, but larger SSDs are not that expensive. If it enhances your productivity, the $1300 version with the 256 GB SSD seems rather affordable.
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
I tried to put up a Christmas tree in my living room once. I actually didn't even get as far as buying it; after a couple of calls around town looking for a tree salesman the popo kicked down my door and nabbed me for intent to distribute Christianity.
I showed them, though. Every one of those 40 hash marks on the wall of my cell, which the guards simply thought marked each week I'd been locked up, was actually a little cross.
Have faith, brothers: some day we will be the majority, and we will get OUR believers in control of this government, and we will be able to worship openly. Deep down I know it is possible.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Oh dear.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Oh, boy. Double bubble this week. God and Fox News all in one go? I don't think I want to read the essays, but I know I will.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Fox News, however, hovers right around the middle of the spectrum, covering stories that favor or disfavor either side, without any significant pattern of bias.
again:
quote:Fox News, however, hovers right around the middle of the spectrum, covering stories that favor or disfavor either side, without any significant pattern of bias.
He genuinely does believe that this is where the center lies; think of the "moderate Democrat" characters from Empire.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:benghazi
take a shot
quote:Then we'll see that only Fox News, of all the broadcast media, told it like it was. Just as only Winston Churchill warned the British people of the danger that Hitler posed.
finish the bottle
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Yup. Godwin's law strikes again. Muy original.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Quick journalism ethics question: if the founder of a news organization asks someone to run for president, and also offers that the wealthy owner of said organization would bankroll said campaign, is that okay or not okay? Would you trust that organization's coverage?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
only if it's fox news because, uh, reasons
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
cup runneth over, the other article is basically a guy who tried to keep gays as second class citizens grousing that christians are the real victims of oppression
there is so much i can't i just cant
i can't even go through it point by point even in the most flippant sense
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
OSC:
quote: But that was back in the old days, when most Americans were openly Christian and we hadn't been beaten into silence by lawsuits by atheists.
I'm shocked that he feels safe posting such a comment, considering the likelihood that he will be sued for it...
quote: If we try to celebrate our religious holidays openly, we get sued, as if ours were the one aspect of American culture that has no right to exist.
Again, what the hell? When has this ever happened? And don't link me to every single case being a 1st amendment issue about prayers in school, because that's the *only* reason people ever sue over prayers, and it's also the only time doing so is right.
quote: If we try to rally believers in supporting legislation that affirms our values, we are shouted down for daring to suggest that our faith is a decent grounds for deciding our votes.
Yes. This is true. We live in a liberal democracy (kind of), that is decidedly irreligious. What does he want? To live in Iran?
quote: Anybody else can demand that their faith be respected -- but not us. Call yourself a Christian, and you have removed yourself from any chance of being taken seriously.
I quote only my favorite line from Jon Stewart, ever:
quote: “Yes, the long war on Christianity. I pray that one day we may live in an America where Christians can worship freely! In broad daylight! Openly wearing the symbols of their religion... perhaps around their necks? And maybe -- dare I dream it? -- maybe one day there can be an openly Christian President. Or, perhaps, 43 of them. Consecutively.”
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote: If we try to celebrate our religious holidays openly, we get sued, as if ours were the one aspect of American culture that has no right to exist.
Again, what the hell? When has this ever happened? And don't link me to every single case being a 1st amendment issue about prayers in school, because that's the *only* reason people ever sue over prayers, and it's also the only time doing so is right.
Ironically, OSC is against prayer in school. Or was?
The real horror here is that he doesn't think Life of Brian is funny.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
OSC also doesn't think The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is funny. (Book, not movie, obviously).
I think he may consider British humor as part of the Libtard/Feminazi conspiracy to warp young American minds. Or, he and I just have a different sense of humor. Difficult to tell, these days.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: When has this ever happened? And don't link me to every single case being a 1st amendment issue about prayers in school, because that's the *only* reason people ever sue over prayers, and it's also the only time doing so is right.
Also prayer at city council meetings and the like. But otherwise, yeah.
On one of his other points, Christian fiction that can actually hold its own is shelved with regular fiction in most bookstores I know. The stuff that's only published or purchased because of its "Christian" label is in the separate section.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: OSC also doesn't think The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is funny. (Book, not movie, obviously).
I think he may consider British humor as part of the Libtard/Feminazi conspiracy to warp young American minds. Or, he and I just have a different sense of humor. Difficult to tell, these days.
I mean, how could you not think it is funny with quotes like this?
"A towel, it says, is about the most massively useful thing an interstellar hitchhiker can have. Partly it has great practical value - you can wrap it around you for warmth as you bound across the cold moons of Jaglan Beta; you can lie on it on the brilliant marble-sanded beaches of Santraginus V, inhaling the heady sea vapours; you can sleep under it beneath the stars which shine so redly on the desert world of Kakrafoon; use it to sail a mini raft down the slow heavy river Moth; wet it for use in hand-to- hand-combat; wrap it round your head to ward off noxious fumes or to avoid the gaze of the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal (a mindboggingly stupid animal, it assumes that if you can't see it, it can't see you - daft as a bush, but very ravenous); you can wave your towel in emergencies as a distress signal, and of course dry yourself off with it if it still seems to be clean enough.
More importantly, a towel has immense psychological value. For some reason, if a strag (strag: non-hitch hiker) discovers that a hitch hiker has his towel with him, he will automatically assume that he is also in possession of a toothbrush, face flannel, soap, tin of biscuits, flask, compass, map, ball of string, gnat spray, wet weather gear, space suit etc., etc. Furthermore, the strag will then happily lend the hitch hiker any of these or a dozen other items that the hitch hiker might accidentally have "lost". What the strag will think is that any man who can hitch the length and breadth of the galaxy, rough it, slum it, struggle against terrible odds, win through, and still knows where his towel is is clearly a man to be reckoned with."
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: When has this ever happened? And don't link me to every single case being a 1st amendment issue about prayers in school, because that's the *only* reason people ever sue over prayers, and it's also the only time doing so is right.
Also prayer at city council meetings and the like. But otherwise, yeah.
On one of his other points, Christian fiction that can actually hold its own is shelved with regular fiction in most bookstores I know. The stuff that's only published or purchased because of its "Christian" label is in the separate section.
Ditto for romance novels.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
another double parter from osc
quote:I’m afraid I have a bit of negativity toward Quebec, but that was earned: What irks me is the double standard, where French must be placed on signs throughout Canada, but inside Quebec, English is removed from signs so that only French is visible.
The same thing irks me about feminism. It’s essential for women to have “a room of one’s own” where men cannot come, so that women can be truly themselves. But any place where men can be by themselves is ruthlessly suppressed, because any male privacy is regarded as a conspiracy against women.
I’m afraid I despise hypocrisy and discrimination masquerading as tolerance.
says the guy who literally made the claim in his article "Homosexual "Marriage" and Civilization" that he was showing homosexuals what tolerance really was and it is they who are intolerant
coo
quote:With the weakest yet most dictatorial President in American history
quote:Republicans already start out far behind, because the news media will be uniformly against them
yes the news media including the fox news you just championed will be uniformly against them
coo
quote:But the Republican loathing for Spanish-speaking immigrants has been so virulent that Hispanic voters have no choice but to vote for the Democrats, even though they actually dislike almost every position the Democrats take.
this is a canard that gets gish-galloped out by conservatives constantly but, golly, get ready for a shocker here, — it's not actually true at all. the notion that hispanics are 'naturally conservative' and can be picked back up with an about face (that the republican party would cannibalize itself even just trying to accomplish ever) is a mirage. hispanic voters are against republican economic policies and especially disfavor free-market talk, they have a clear majority in favor of gay marriage (which is not true of republicans), they support the expansion of welfare programs, public investment in the economy, etc.
there's been a lot of talk about this myth but we might as well not do a lot to combat it, because the republicans will sell themselves on it through opinion pieces like this one by OSC, and dive full in on some fundamental misapprehensions of real socioeconomic patterns, because that's what they do, and their strategy on this will stay pretty gigo
works for me
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:The same thing irks me about feminism. It’s essential for women to have “a room of one’s own” where men cannot come, so that women can be truly themselves. But any place where men can be by themselves is ruthlessly suppressed, because any male privacy is regarded as a conspiracy against women.
What? When has this ever happened? Like seriously, how does this even make sense?
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Yes, because when women protest about, say, men being the only people who are allowed to play at the best golf clubs in the world, but don't protest against women only gyms and train cars, that is just simple hypocrisy.
Women have always oppressed men and tried to stop them having any freedom or autonomy. They see men as objects which they can buy and sell, stop them from getting educations, pay them less for the work they do... It's happening all over the world, right now. But thanks to campaigners like OSC, men are finally having their voices heard. They won't stand for it any longer.
I applaud OSC's bravery in standing up to The Woman and saying 'No more!'. It is quite inspirational.
[ March 29, 2014, 08:30 AM: Message edited by: Bella Bee ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: What? When has this ever happened? Like seriously, how does this even make sense?
well yesterday a bunch of feminists stormed into the men's locker room at my gym and declared it a conspiracy against women. and apparently this happens all the time everywhere. so osc's statement is of course representative of feminism, and not ridiculous.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Guys. I'm trying to allow you all to have the latitude to discuss Mr. Card's writings, even critically.
Nobody has really mis-stepped from a rules stand point, but I feel like were heading there.
I would suggest that if you don't have a clue how Mr. Card arrived at an argument he's made, that you consider asking why he feels that way. You don't actually know what his experiences are and how they've shaped his stances on things.
Who knows? Maybe if you ask sincerely he may actually answer the question, where as if you mockingly question, there's no chance of that. I presume you guys want to understand, not just find occasions to points out how far removed his opinions are from yours and how ridiculous that is.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Well, personally I'd love it if he would explain what he's talking about. In his article, he gave no information about what he bases his opinion on, simply stated it as fact that women are being hypocritical in wanting their own space, while stopping men from having any privacy to be themselves. It seems to me that OSC expects us to know what he means already and agree with him, but I genuinely do not have the foggiest. And when something seems ridiculous, it's common to treat it with ridicule.
ETA - I feel like I should actually explain where I am coming from here - I would describe myself as a feminist, but I will and do stand up against anyone who treats men unfairly. I don't want women getting anything more than equality. I also object to people tarring all feminists with the same brush, or seeing us as some kind of homogenous mass of angry women. But I will say that places like my previously mentioned female only gyms or train cars, are very often just safe spaces where women can go and avoid men touching them or saying anything hurtful or uncomfortable to them. Whereas I do see keeping women out of my example of elite golf clubs as being a way to stop women from really excelling in what has traditionally been viewed as a male sport.
I don't know if OSC is referring to any of these things, or if he means something completely different - he has not given any information on this. I can't understand or even agree with him - believe me, I hate hypocrisy as much as anybody. I'm happy to change my opinions, based on evidence.
So I'm right here, honestly asking. No more ridicule, if ridicule is the problem here. Please tell me, Mr. Card, what you meant.
[ March 29, 2014, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: Bella Bee ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Nobody has really mis-stepped from a rules stand point, but I feel like were heading there.
how about as a general rule then we never act more sarcastic, sneering, disdainful, dismissive, or contemptuously mocking of osc's positions as osc is often sarcastic, sneering, disdainful, dismissive, or contemptuously mocking of people like liberals, gay activists, scientists who collectively publish things he disagrees are real, various politicians including Obama, feminists, etc
having then allowed him to set the standard for decorum in voicing one's opinion of another person or a set of people and their opinions, and what tones are on the table for having an opinion on them and wishing to voice it, he can then decide whether to leave the myriad questions his articles raise exactly as they are and proffer no public explanation, or he can respond in any way he chooses
i feel this is a better approach than in some direct or indirect way setting a standard that the onus is on others to beseech clarification politely on the subject of his anger and contempt for other people, groups, or ideas. it would suggest an imbalance between the great realms of Dishing and Taking, that generally implicates someone in a not insignificant degree of hypocrisy.
to note also there are more than a number of people who simply have just that — questions, without ridicule. he can respond to them and ignore the ~haters krew~ if he wants, or he can decide that any quantum of haters in the general pile of voiced responses is something he will use to decide not to respond to anything in the general pile. all are valid options imo.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Who knows? Maybe if you ask sincerely he may actually answer the question, where as if you mockingly question, there's no chance of that.
Actually, my question is completely sincere. I really honestly have no idea how he arrived at that viewpoint, and am genuinely curious how he came to that conclusion. I read it over several times, and there is absolutely nothing rude or mocking in my question whatsoever.
That being said, even if I were to, for example, say something like; "Yeah, I can completely understand this. Like, last week when we were having our secret football team practice and a bunch of feminists found out and came by with clubs and Molotov cocktails to 'ruthlessly suppress' us. At least most of us didn't get raped this time. I'm glad someone is addressing this problem!" it would not be out of a desire to mock Mr. Card. It would be me using sarcasm to juxtapose his views with reality, and to illustrate how large of a gap I believe there is between the two.
The only time I've ever personally mocked him or made fun of him, it was again not for the purpose of belittling or insulting him, but to try and point out how far he falls from his own expectations of my generation, and from his idealization of his own, yet despite that he's still a very successful and influential person. If those statements actually hurt his feelings, I would immediately apologize and try and phrase it in a kinder way. But you can't necessarily expect people not to use certain rhetorical devices because they may be too direct or confrontational.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
I do agree that OSC certainly uses a full range of rhetorical devices to get his point across, and I don't really see why we should not.
Indeed, I stand by my previous snark. But I also think BB is right that in this case, we are more likely to get an answer being civil. While I'm not deleting my earlier sarcasm, I would honestly love a real answer and a more full explanation, and very much hope that Mr. Card will eventually provide us with one. My second comment here was from the heart. I'm certainly not upset that Mr. Card does not agree with my views (he is absolutely entitled to believe what he likes, as thankfully are we all) but do feel like I need clarification on this issue not to make a misjudgement on his views.
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
As long as we're going mildly overboard...
quote:Originally posted by OSC, edited for brevity: So this week, The Produce Box tossed in pea shoots. The idea is to add them to salads for a bit of extra flavor. A hint of pea-ness in the greens. (Try to avoid reading that aloud.) Whole leaves, though small, just don’t work. Here was the real disappointment: We could barely taste them. If I want to have the flavor of peas in my salad, I’ll add peas.
I’m betting someone else must have thought they were wonderful. Just because I don’t like a thing doesn’t mean it isn’t good.
Well, OK, that’s exactly what it means, but I don’t think less of you for liking something I find unlikeable.
OSC finally declares he thinks you're ok if you like to put pea-ness somewhere that he doesn't!
(Hey, he made the joke first.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
ahaha, gold star, taking us back to our nonserious roots
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Aside from the shots at the Quebecois, Feminists and Obama, the most recent World Watch wasn't as out there as some of the other essays.
Given the Catholic (clergy)'s hardline on birth control, abortion and gay issues, and that the Hispanic population is largely Catholic, it makes a lot of sense for the "values voters" to have a less hostile stance toward immigration to not alienate people who would otherwise join their crusade.
However, (and perhaps I am biased as someone who does not share these so-called values) I do not think that the Republican party should be buckling down on the regulation of people's private lives, especially if it wants to retain its market share going forward. For one, doing so is deeply counter to the principles of limited government the party claims to espouse. Secondly, young people, even many who call themselves conservatives, and vote Republican, do not share the moral outrage over these same issues. It's also a very large group. There are very few, if any, moderate Republicans in Congress right now. xkcd had a chart a few years back.
So yes, the Republican party does need to rethink a few planks. I just think they are very different ones.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Given the Catholic (clergy)'s hardline on birth control, abortion and gay issues, and that the Hispanic population is largely Catholic, it makes a lot of sense for the "values voters" to have a less hostile stance toward immigration to not alienate people who would otherwise join their crusade.
i will best as i can try to describe the sociological shortcomings of that notion, and it is best summed up with "hispanic conservatism is not white conservatism"
it's a whole crazy kettle of fish but here's the simple part of it:
republican policy designers and strategists are struggling to avoid coming demographic changes that will lead the party into collapse. they have equated and sold the notion kind of seen here where it's presumed that hispanics are in some way 'naturally conservative' and it usually — usually — is a simplistic line item analysis.
and that is pretty much that "hispanics are very catholic" = "hispanics are conservative"
and then they turn "hispanics are conservative" into "hispanics would be ardent Republican voters if not for Republican antagonizing of their kind through the immigration issues"
it's basically an article of faith that greater hispanic religiousness translates into greater Republicanism. but much as how conservatism around the rest of the world hardly resembles what america considers conservatism, the values, both religious and irreligious, of even first generation catholic hispanics does not resemble what it generally does for white american catholics.
GSS data essentially confirms the failure of the idea to match up — hispanics don’t seem to be any more socially conservative than whites; when conservatives presume it because of crossover on elements like religiosity, while ignoring that hispanics greatly do not cross over on Republican cornerstones like homosexual oppression, free markets, reduction of welfare benefits, and big ol' wars in the middle east — they're dropping themselves into a trap of hopeful but extremely cherrypicked beliefs.
i should also note that hispanic populations are doing the same exact identical thing that white populations are doing when you get to the second generation hispanic residents and young hispanics — like every other ethnic group, young hispanics pretty much hate the GOP. young hispanics actually a not insignificant amount more because, well, conservatives are the people that loudly and proudly have people like Joe Arpaio in their fold, passing hideously racist laws that target and malign them in practice.
so sure let's assume the GOP does a full about face and somehow magically manages to cut deep into its own flesh to excise its deeply immigrant-phobic, hostile-to-hispanic tendencies, like a tumor that has metastasized most prominently in places like arizona to the point where it seems just .. blatant. let's assume it just flat out does it soon (it won't). they will be winning back a .. possibly decent majority of old, typically first generation, devoutly catholic hispanics, at the cost of alienating the many conservatives who vote conservative because to them the republicans are the party that has any real interest in beating back the brown hordes. meanwhile young hispanics won't be changing their tune, so .. Pyrrhic victory achievement unlocked?
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Dear god, that GSS link was awful. Do the numbers represent an absolute number of people who agree or disagree (my guess it's "agree" based on the way people with college educations in both groups are more comfortable with women working outside the home), but IT NEVER ACTUALLY SAYS what the numbers mean. Do they represent a percentage? Some questions appear to be groups that DO add to 100, the questions that were mutliple choice should be separated out. How many people were surveyed? I realize their are four variables here, but has the author considered making a graph for this sort of thing? It doesn't lend itself to being a table. What the heck is the GSS, are there any sampling biases in this group? Like they missed old people who can't use the interwebs, or the survey was in English? The author says "So I decided to query non-Hispanic white and Hispanic attitudes to a range of “hot-button” social issues in the GSS." Did he query four or five of his best friends or 500?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
He queried a database of sociological information, not any number of his friends.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote: I presume you guys want to understand, not just find occasions to points out how far removed his opinions are from yours and how ridiculous that is.
Now why on earth would you presume that? This forum was taken over years ago by a bunch of trolls who despise OSC and any opinions he has. It's fairly obvious that they have no desire to do anything BUT mock. (What I honestly don't understand is why he continues to give them a platform to do it from . They're basically his antifans.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:It's fairly obvious that they have no desire to do anything BUT mock
it's true, the 99% of my posts which have literally nothing to do with orson scott card whatsoever and are instead of all manner of social, political, cultural discussion, entertainment experience, personal experience, or even just the swapping of funny pictures of cats sensing an earthquake are actually all used as an elaborate cover to flimsily cover the fact that I am absolutely one hundred percent solely and singlemindedly here for the sole purpose of mocking orson scott card. i have no idea why i — WE, even — went to the great difficulty of spending the literal almost all but a percentage of a percentage point of our posts on not OSC when it would be so obviously transparent that we were all here, united, with the all-encompassing desire to be trolls to OSC. In fact, we even bothered trying to cover up our trolling by "raising legitimate points" man I really thought that would provide at least some cover.
But, heck, the jig's up, you saw through our ruse, our pathetically transparent ruse, you even found out we literally despise any opinions he has without question. Our deception of agreeing with him sometimes did nothing to conceal that.
Everyone, take off your masks and reveal your scabulous green hides. Yozhik busted us. Damn.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
lol look at this catte lol. JOKES ON YOU THIS POST IS ACTUALLY THAT I THINK OSC IS COMPLETELY TERRIBLE (like every post)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Yozhik: They're basically his antifans.
And when there are two of us mocking at once we are antifanal.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
antifanopodes
a murder of antifans?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'll say two things, one in OSC's favor (sort of), and other against.
1. I can't see him being literally serious...but I do see how he could think male spaces are being pushed back by feminist splash damage. I got into a very long (much longer than it should have been) argument with a friend last weekend over the Bechdel Test. She thinks EVERY movie needs to pass it, and any movie that doesn't is anti-women. I pointed out plenty of excellent movies that failed it and she said they might be good, but they are also misogynistic. Now, I don't think she represents all feminists, or, God willing, even a majority, but she's also not a lone voice. But I think it's stuff like this, and there's a lot of it out there, that make men like OSC feel like they're a bit under attack.
I think a lot of that is just perceived aggression, because he and others are SO rooted in patriarchal normativity that any threat to the status quo is a threat to masculinity. But maybe also a small part of it is overreaching by some feminists to go beyond equality, or to enforce equality to an unnecessary and damaging degree (as in, the Bechdel Test). I think masculine space comes under assault probably much more than it should in our society, in part because male roles are changing more right now than they ever have, and men aren't really well-equipped to deal with that the way women are, because women have feminism, they have a language and system to talk about changes in gender roles. Men do not. And that's partly their own fault, but it's why you see a lot of the angry backlash to feminism.
2. And as someone who is half French-Canadian, I'd have to point out that Card supports the Party that wants to make English the national language, for seemingly the expressed purpose of making life harder for immigrants. Hell, literacy tests for immigrants in the 20s and 30s weren't as hard as what Republicans want to impose. So it seems a little rich to hit Quebec (a land with longstanding separatist bent, its own culture, language, etc) as hypocritical given the people he supports.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Excellent post Lyrhawn. I too find myself frustrated by some of the kneejerk reactions whenever I discuss some of the changing gender norms/ social expectations that have negatively affected men. The response is usually either "it's not nearly as big an issue as x/y/z problem faced by women, so why are you complaining?" (which is true, but just because it's not as much of a problem doesn't mean it's not a problem), or to immediately lump me in with the rather odious MRA/red pill types and dismiss me out of hand without actually bothering to hear the argument. I feel OSC making statements like he did just makes it that much harder for any meaningful dialogue to take place.
[ April 08, 2014, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: Dogbreath ]
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
quote: Card supports the Party that wants to make English the national language
Minor quibble, but Card doesn't support the Republican Party. His writings, as of late, support principles traditionally considered "conservative," and thus in our absurd American 2-party dichotomy, it is assumed that he must support EVERYTHING the Republicans stand for. This column strongly contradicts that notion, as do his occasional rantings against Republican immigration policies. I haven't been able to find Card's exact position on English as a national language, but based on his other writings, I can deduce that it's highly unlikely he's in favor of such a thing.
Also, I happen to agree (mostly) with Yozhik. I've been mostly lurking on this board for years. I lack the rhetorical skills, patience, and time to write well-worded posts that would contribute to the discussion. I sometimes get the nagging feeling that my failure to actively defend the "conservative" side means that I tacitly agree with the points made here, but to engage in a written rhetorical battle would mean a loss of time to do other things that I, frankly, value more. It frustrates me that so many posters on this board, which is paid for by OSC, seem to relish attacking his viewpoints. There is no attempt to seek understanding, no attempt at conciliation, only desire to take down the other guy. Hmm...that last sentence describes the current state of American politics as well. While I won't go so far as to characterize others as "antifans," I have been reading Hatrack long enough to mourn the loss of the moderate viewpoint.
ETA: Dogbreath does make an excellent point with this:
quote: I feel OSC making statements like he did just makes it that much harder for any meaningful dialogue to take place.
I think that can be applied to most of Card's rhetoric. Sometimes I think he assumes the persona of Demosthenes in his writing, when in real life he's much more like Valentine.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dogbreath -
The exact two responses you just stated are what I always get hit with too.
It's seemingly impossible to start a dialogue with almost ANY one about changing gender roles for men, because most women seem to not want to talk about it, whether because they don't think it affects them, don't think it's their problem, don't care, or whatever other reason. And men are either uncomfortable talking about it at all, or they slip into anti-feminist rage mode because they don't know how to deal with it.
I think women would be a lot happier and get a lot further in their own goals if they'd open up more forums about men to engage in this discussion. Women in society are an active discussion. You can find on any number of periodicals, websites, news outlets on any given day a discussion about women in the arts, women in the workplace, motherhood, moms balancing work and home life, equal pay, troubles with child care, and various legislative issues pertaining to women.
That's a conversation we're having...but we're not having it in a bubble. Every part of that conversation is a string we're pulling on, and men are on the other end of that string, and their lives will all be changed in large and small ways by this conversation...but they don't seem to make up an active, constructive, meaningful part of it. Nor are they often allowed to meaningfully speak in their own defense without the discussion being shut down by the things Dogbreath spoke of above.
Again, I'm speaking in generalities. There's a larger conversation we're not having as a society, and it affects all of us, men and women alike. And it's all our faults as well, men and women alike, that we aren't having it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Brian -
quote:Minor quibble, but Card doesn't support the Republican Party. His writings, as of late, support principles traditionally considered "conservative," and thus in our absurd American 2-party dichotomy, it is assumed that he must support EVERYTHING the Republicans stand for. This column strongly contradicts that notion, as do his occasional rantings against Republican immigration policies. I haven't been able to find Card's exact position on English as a national language, but based on his other writings, I can deduce that it's highly unlikely he's in favor of such a thing.
I'm not sure I can accept that as a meaningful semantic difference. When you sign on to the Republican platform, defend the Republican platform, and demonize Republican enemies as much as OSC does, you don't get to cop out by saying "Oh, but I'm not a Republican!"
At the very least, he shouldn't be surprised when he gets pegged with GOP platform beliefs when he puts as much energy as he does into defending them and attacking liberals.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
does card even really still use the line that he's a Democrat? when was the last time that came up?
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: 2. And as someone who is half French-Canadian, I'd have to point out that Card supports the Party that wants to make English the national language, for seemingly the expressed purpose of making life harder for immigrants. Hell, literacy tests for immigrants in the 20s and 30s weren't as hard as what Republicans want to impose. So it seems a little rich to hit Quebec (a land with longstanding separatist bent, its own culture, language, etc) as hypocritical given the people he supports.
As someone who is 1/4 French-Canadian and hasn't been to Canada in 20 years (and the trip was exclusively to visit the rural town my grandmother left), I could have sworn there were both on the stop signs... So I wikipedia'ed it. And the one or the other is a a new thing (because "stop" is a French word), but really you can find all combos everywhere.
I go to Canada fairly regularly, but I only make it over to the French parts every couple years for family reunions.
I confess I've never looked at the stop signs in Quebec before.
Edit to add: Apparently they have special stop signs for neighborhoods and communities that are predominantly of another language. That's remarkably considerate.
Edited again to add: So, a quick search on the history of stop signs in Canada shows that they held a language convention and decided that since Stop is a French enough word, having Stop and Arret on one sign was redundant. Since they use the predominant language of the area in which the sign is located, some will say Arret, some will say Stop (within Quebec). Some in other parts will be writtein in Mohawk, other tribal languages, or even Chinese, depending on the community. So I'd say it's fair to claim that OSC is simply misinformed on Canada's stop sign policy.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Well, I was 7. Stop signs were pretty cool back then. And for the next six years bonjour, oui and arrêt were the only two French words I knew. Okay, that's not true: this kid Hailey brought in a beginner French book to recess and taught us all Je m'appelle.
I've been to France twice as an adult and never took in the stop signs. If it weren't for my dad demanding that I come back with pictures of 1. Christmas lights and 2. a stop sign when I went to Japan, it wouldn't have registered for me to look at them at. Of course, I had to ask an actual Japanese person where to find one, because they aren't everywhere, and not obvious because they are not octagons.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brian J. Hill: I sometimes get the nagging feeling that my failure to actively defend the "conservative" side means that I tacitly agree with the points made here ...
I don't agree with much else in your post, but this here is a feeling you should never have.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I would say two things about Quebec and sign-age.
I don't think much about the official policy of bilingualism. In the sense of, aside from the three/four(?) years of rather useless French language curriculum in school, it isn't really something that comes up very often. Only government agencies and crown corporations (and some regulated industries) really use both languages with any regularity. But for the much larger private sector, it isn't really a big deal outside of Quebec. I see more Chinese on signs than French.
It is, however, a thing that they legally harass people that use (dominant) English signs (or anything else) in Quebec. In a broader sense, Quebec is probably the most hostile province toward immigrants in Canada and there's some truth in what Card is saying. He's probably not in the best position to make it given that they aren't exactly Republican-hostile toward immigrants, but it is a thing.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That's my understanding of Quebec as well. There was a story I read the other day about some charter Quebec either just passed or wanted to pass that threatens Canada's reputation for multiculturalism, I can't remember the details now.
I don't know. I live in an incredibly diverse metropolitan area, so I'm a big fan of multicultural society and diversity. But I guess I can see why Quebecois would be especially hostile. A lot of them, the French speaking parts anyway, still express an aspect of being repressed and resent being part of Canada. So for them, not only being not allowed to have their own country for what they see as their own people, heritage, language and culture, they also have to absorb immigrants as well. I might not agree with it, but I can see why they might feel that way. I can also see why French speakers might be hostile to English speakers.
My grandparents left when they were relatively young, but my grandpa still has somewhat strong feelings about it even though he sees himself as fully American.
Posted by BBegley (Member # 12638) on :
quote:I think that can be applied to most of Card's rhetoric. Sometimes I think he assumes the persona of Demosthenes in his writing, when in real life he's much more like Valentine.
You have given me so much hope with this. For years now, I have struggled with the disparate quality of Card's fiction and his political writing. The nuanced understanding of human motivation and ethics in his novels stands in such stark contrast to his deeply unpersuasive political writing that it cannot be coincidence.
I think that you must be right, and that this is some sort of experiment on his part. There are plenty of writers I disagree with who make good persuasive arguments, and a writer of Card's caliber could not seriously write the weak, sophomoric, late-night talk radio dreck I read in the world watch columns.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
Regarding Card and immigration, he has written a couple articles that are very critical of the Republican stance on immigration. In this case, he goes with the Democrat platform.
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
Unfortunately, BBegley, it is a well-known effect that even smart people will shut off their brains to maintain a preexisting belief (there's confirmation bias and all the other things mentioned in that initial paragraph: attitude polarization, belief perseverance, illusory correlation, etc.). Anything Card feels he MUST believe (either because he personally wants it that way or because he's invested so much of his life into it [religion]) he will find ways to support, even if they're blatantly irrational or nonfactual.
That includes gay marriage and the Christian (and by extension conservative) persecution complex. I think someone earlier in this thread (or was it another?) duly noted that Fox News exists to feed precisely this effect. Studies repeatedly show Fox viewers are the least informed about actual facts, but facts and rationality aren't what they're targeting...
Posted by BBegley (Member # 12638) on :
If this is the case, I will employ my confirmation bias to assume that Card is adopting a persona (like Colbert, but not funny) to make a point. I refuse to believe that someone who has written as long and as well as Card could write that way.
I think the evidence is clear. There are thoughtful intelligent arguments that conservatives can and do convey. The Card whose novels I read could obviously state those very elegantly and persuasively. The fact that he does not do so leads me to believe that he is performing some sort of satire, or attempting to drive people away from the positions he pretends to advocate.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
a "persona?" satire?
no, that's really not what's going on here. nothing in his history supports the idea.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Card's son Geoff has debunked that particular theory personally, IIRC.
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
Got 95% of the way through his interesting review of Noah, thinking right about then that for once there hasn't been any obnoxious bigotry (ok, a mild jab at feminists, but at least he qualified that). He was even praising an outspoken atheist! And then:
quote:Mercy, after all, is not all that common an ideal these days. Certainly there is no grounds for mercy in atheism, which Aronofsky purports to believe: Nature has no mercy in it, and neither has science. Today's politically correct puritans are utterly intolerant and merciless.
And it's even better combined with a later paragraph:
quote:I call these Judeo-Christian values, because I am reviewing Noah as an adaptation of Genesis. But of course these are all human values, for no human society can long survive without practical implementation of mercy, forgiveness, support for reproduction, and protection of children, in the daily life of the vast majority of human beings.
Atheists: inhuman puritans working (with the gays) to take down civilization!
Some day the Atheists might win and the whole world will descend into the Atheistic nightmare that is currently engulfing Sweden, with its merciless universal healthcare systems and social safety nets, well-educated, healthy children, and happy populace. If we're lucky, God will come along and give all those kids a nice, slow, merciful death by drowning and then He can give his people a third crack at it...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
saw new article, immediately ctrl+f'ed for "feminist"
was not disappoint
anyway
quote:In Noah, the Creator definitely has a list of sins that he deplores and condemns, to the point of destroying almost all humans because of their disobedience and wickedness. Today's atheists also have a list of unforgivable sins for which punishment is eternal, so an atheist could be comfortable with that aspect of Noah.
does he actually understand what an atheist is or is he one of those 'atheism is just another faith!' people
what would this list of unforgivable eternally-punished sins be and in what atheist doctrine is it laid out
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
It's probably a snarky reference to the protests against Eich and himself.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
My guess is that it's a very oblique reference to Brendan Eich.
Edit: Heh.. much not be that oblique, eh?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:But of course these are all human values, for no human society can long survive without practical implementation of mercy, forgiveness, support for reproduction, and protection of children, in the daily life of the vast majority of human beings.
yes we have seen what this guy's model for what he thinks governments have to do for human society to survive. support for reproduction, wink so that civilization doesn't collapse, wink yes yes we haven't forgotten either
quote: Certainly there is no grounds for mercy in atheism
i think everyone should read this particular snippet three times and really think about what he's saying. 'there is no grounds for mercy in atheism' is terminally faulted on a logical level, to say nothing of there being no creed of atheism with which to make this value judgment of atheist beliefs. pretty much even everyone here who is nominally inclined to support osc or are getting sick of his articles being picked apart can see that, or if they can't, it's just an indulgently easy exercise of looking at the myriad of examples in which an atheist worldview is perfectly and often commonly synergetic with mercy. what's the alternative? pretending humanism does not exist as a philosophy?
when this guy is simpering at a group of people who evidently got his goat, it starts to stick out because the generalizations start getting profoundly ridiculous and this is kind of a good little individually packaged example. if atheism really didn't have any grounds for mercy in it (in some impossible structured scenario in which atheism is, itself, a faith) isn't it a little strange that an atheist up and made this movie that he's lauding for being all up ins about the faith? is he trying to be all winky that he's in on aronofsky's secret probably is actually not an atheist, with all this 'aronofsky's purported atheism' ... ? is this how the dissonance is cognitively resolved
WELP there I go again I got all complicated on myself, better dial it back just in case he pulls a snark/satire card on that.
ok, here we go.
quote:Does Noah contradict scripture? Only in a few spots.
heh
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think it's useful simply as an examination of ideas to recognize that there is something...off about criticizing a non-religious viewpoint as not having incentives towards mercy and decency. Useful because it contains a possibility that in the given religious viewpoint, these are virtues that only occur when they are incentivized or punished.
But sometimes, some people make me comfortable enough to take it further. Whatever crazy kool aid Card has drunk lately, and seems inclined to continue drinking, *once* he wasn't like this and could actually credit a non-Christian/Jew/conservative with some basic human virtues worthy of praise and even acclaim. If he retains that ability, he sure as hell doesn't write about it.
Anyway, as for someone who has invested a lot of brain sweat into religion, ethics, etc., with Card I'm happy to take it a step further: if a warning against atheism is that it doesn't incentivize decency and mercy, then that is a strange confession for Card to make. Is *he* decent and merciful-when he is-only because it is incentivized? Is he good only she someone is watching?
As for an eternal sin for atheists, well, that is profoundly stupid even by Card' political-religious commentary standards, so I think it's likely just hyperbole.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I think it's useful simply as an examination of ideas to recognize that there is something...off about criticizing a non-religious viewpoint as not having incentives towards mercy and decency. Useful because it contains a possibility that in the given religious viewpoint, these are virtues that only occur when they are incentivized or punished.
This. I just marvel at the un-self-awareness of implying that one's religion is the stick that keeps them from exercising some brutal instinct they are aware of. It really speaks incredibly well of athiests, doesn't it? I'm an athiest, and I am neither violent, nor unjust in my dealings with others. I must be possessed of incredible self-control.
But the best part is to ponder that he's not only talking about the stick, but also the carrot: the implication is that religion is the framework of human morality. So how do I *know* how to act justly outside of that context? Somehow, I just do?
quote: Anyway, as for someone who has invested a lot of brain sweat into religion, ethics, etc., with Card I'm happy to take it a step further: if a warning against atheism is that it doesn't incentivize decency and mercy, then that is a strange confession for Card to make. Is *he* decent and merciful-when he is-only because it is incentivized? Is he good only because someone is watching?
Well, I think as untenable as that argument is in rational terms, yes, that is the argument he is making. Because when you have economic incentives (like being rich, and white, and wanting things to stay the same for rich white people), you need to get down on taxes, and government, and regulation, and "socialism." You do that by implying that human beings function in purely selfish ways, and that they are not inherently moral. That rationality does not collide with morality- that rationality is base self-interest, rather than enlightened self-interest. Because, if human beings were inherently rational, they would be capable of independently devising a moral system based on rationality. They would not need the church, in the sense that the church would not be stopgap against moral damnation.
This argument has been going on, in one form or another, since the Europeans abandoned the concept of divine-right nobility in favor of enlightenment notions of rationality, and began the long courting period with socialism. Then, as now, the rich and entitled, who were rich and entitled mostly due to the irrational power system perpetuated by the church and the monarchy, will fight against the very notion that people can rule themselves, and are anything like moral beings.
That all has the added bonus of justifying base self-interest as an instinct that human beings should naturally pursue when they are privileged to do so, and not a failing of character. So you get Mitt Romney who simultaneously believes that most human beings are pigs and will take advantage of charity, and acts like a complete pig to take advantage of weak government regulation, and sees no problem in exercising the instinct he ascribes to all people, on a higher level.
Ironic, I know, but that's the game.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:But of course these are all human values, for no human society can long survive without practical implementation of mercy, forgiveness, support for reproduction, and protection of children, in the daily life of the vast majority of human beings.
yes we have seen what this guy's model for what he thinks governments have to do for human society to survive. support for reproduction, wink so that civilization doesn't collapse, wink yes yes we haven't forgotten either
You know, support for reproduction would be a nice touch from the government. Let's start with paid maternity leave and paternity leave as well as subsidies for child care.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:One of the most annoying things about Deconstructionism and Multiculturalism, when they took over university English departments, was that they gave everybody a new vocabulary to use in rehashing every single thing that had already been said about the same old books.
There was almost no new content, and even less that was intelligent. None was intelligible, because the genius of Post-Modernism was that it led to endless verbiage that was both inscrutable and not worth scruting. But because nobody could tell what was being said, or care much even when they did decode it, it allowed an endless supply of new dissertations and papers to be written and published.
In short, without adding even a farthing to the sum of human wisdom, it provided tenure to thousands of dumb people who wanted to pass on their imitation of education to even more thousands of dumb people in want of Ph.D.s.
This is an article about potato chips and corn chips.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rakeesh: You need to stop calling Mr. Card crazy.
----------
I think part of what Mr. Card is suggesting is that many things people think are artifacts of religion, are actually artifacts of how human beings became human beings (evolution, created like that) and that religion is actually giving expression to those things. It's like having a porcupine that's covered with a blanket and yet the barbs poke through and hurt. But people blame the blanket.
Take away religion, and while the specifics of hell might be gone, you'll still have people that functionally believe in that certain people belong in such a place, and will construct it.
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think part of what Mr. Card is suggesting is that many things people think are artifacts of religion, are actually artifacts of how human beings became human beings (evolution, created like that) and that religion is actually giving expression to those things.
This sounds familiar (did OSC discuss something to this effect in an article in the distant past?) but it certainly can't apply to Card's beliefs now, based on his current statements. If these things (including mercy) are innate artifacts of our humanity, surely atheists would have them too, but he clearly thinks otherwise. Hence my pointing out he called atheists inhuman (subhuman?).
*Of course* all aspects of religion are artifacts of human nature, since humanity creates religion. But these things don't NEED religion to exist; contrary to Card's statement that there is no call for mercy in [some list of things he assumes all atheists blindly worship], there are perfectly rational reasons to encourage certain moral behaviors (and even compel many through a framework of law).
We are all independent entities who bind together in a society for mutual benefit (as a social animal we evolved that way and as a rational animal we can understand the benefits of it). Did God hand down the magic of Democracy to us? No, we developed it over time using our powers of observation and rationality. No less with the smaller interpersonal rules: "Love your neighbor as yourself," aka "treat others how you would like to be treated" (which incidentally includes mercy) is a rational guideline for interacting smoothly with the many other people in your community, not a magic concept that just happens to appear in most religions. We all understand that doing harm to others is bad, because we understand that we do not like being harmed ourselves (we also understand that some people may act selfishly, and we create laws and legal systems to handle it).
But Card seems to believe, based on his latest article, that somehow none of this applies to atheists (and gays, I guess. What does he think about religious homosexuals, I wonder).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:This sounds familiar (did OSC discuss something to this effect in an article in the distant past?) but it certainly can't apply to Card's beliefs now, based on his current statements. If these things (including mercy) are innate artifacts of our humanity, surely atheists would have them too, but he clearly thinks otherwise. Hence my pointing out he called atheists inhuman (subhuman?).
I would argue Mr. Card believes things like mercy are harder than wrath, and since humans take the path of least resistance, we tend towards wickedness. God based religion (IMO) seeks to change that human tendency and direct them towards modes of living that while better, are hard work and run counter intuitive to many of our instincts.
(Edit, my attempts to summarize Mr. Card's views on atheism were not sufficient). I think Mr. Card would argue atheism does not succeed at this.
I think Mr. Card would argue that a key reason we are in the place that we are in, is not because people are freeing themselves from religion, but rather the opposite. Christianity causes problems, but overall it promotes a better state of human experience, other ideologies can't replicate that success.
I can't really comment on whether any of those ideas are correct, I've honestly never even tried to consider them.
That said, I do absolutely believe that were we to strip away religion, there would be an enormous net negative result. I recognize that atheists utterly reject this most likely because they don't believe any religion is actually powered by a supreme being.
[ April 10, 2014, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Take away religion, and while the specifics of hell might be gone, you'll still have people that functionally believe in that certain people belong in such a place, and will construct it.
Are you talking about Mississippi?
-------
quote:I recognize that atheists utterly reject this most likely because they don't believe any religion is actually powered by a supreme being.
Religion does seem less useful once you take away the presumption of a supreme being, yes. Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:That said, I do absolutely believe that were we to strip away religion, there would be an enormous net negative result. I recognize that atheists utterly reject this most likely because they don't believe any religion is actually powered by a supreme being.
As an atheist, I'm going to say that I don't utterly reject that stripping away religion could have some pretty devastating results. It would depend on how and why it was stripped away.
I think an empirical approach to deciding what is true is more likely to help one avoid false beliefs than any religion that I know of, and avoiding false beliefs might be helpful if your goal is to minimize harm. But it might be necessary to replace some aspects of religion with non-religious equivalents in order to avoid a lot of negative side effects that might go along with the end of religion if it's a sudden or forced change.
A simplistic example: daily prayer might have some benefits to mood and stress levels in the average worshiper. If everyone stops praying, it might be necessary to replace prayer with daily meditation of another kind to avoid detrimental effects on stress and mood.
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: That said, I do absolutely believe that were we to strip away religion, there would be an enormous net negative result. I recognize that atheists utterly reject this most likely because they don't believe any religion is actually powered by a supreme being.
You say this with no evidence whatsoever. There's a reason I mentioned Sweden earlier - it is one of the most atheistic of European countries (a whopping 18% of people profess a belief in a god) and there is no dearth of peace, social welfare, or happiness as a result.
Statistically speaking, looking at correlations between atheism and peacefulness and atheism and social welfare among the different nations of the world clearly shows that the more atheistic a country is, the more peaceful and the better the social welfare of its people. Is it because (1) atheism causes peace, (2) peace causes atheism, or (3) a more careful, modern, and rational philosophy causes both atheism and peace?
IMO it's mostly (3) with a little bit of (1), but really the cause/effect relationship is irrelevant to disproving the point that atheism is somehow incompatible with positive social results.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Also, great paternity leave policies.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:That said, I do absolutely believe that were we to strip away religion, there would be an enormous net negative result. I recognize that atheists utterly reject this most likely because they don't believe any religion is actually powered by a supreme being.
As an atheist, I'm going to say that I don't utterly reject that stripping away religion could have some pretty devastating results. It would depend on how and why it was stripped away.
This. The USSR wasn't problematic because it was atheistic, it was because it was enforced. Official state religions of any kind are a terrible idea.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Even then, I wouldn't say that a state religion-even an enforced one, to some level anyway-would guarantee a terrible outcome from a human suffering and wickedness standpoint.
Brutal, cynical authoritarian/totalitarian systems on the other hand...well they're more or less always a problem.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by tertiaryadjunct:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: That said, I do absolutely believe that were we to strip away religion, there would be an enormous net negative result. I recognize that atheists utterly reject this most likely because they don't believe any religion is actually powered by a supreme being.
You say this with no evidence whatsoever. There's a reason I mentioned Sweden earlier - it is one of the most atheistic of European countries (a whopping 18% of people profess a belief in a god) and there is no dearth of peace, social welfare, or happiness as a result.
Statistically speaking, looking at correlations between atheism and peacefulness and atheism and social welfare among the different nations of the world clearly shows that the more atheistic a country is, the more peaceful and the better the social welfare of its people.
Nonsense, where are you getting those numbers from?
Why isn't China's GINI coefficient blowing other countries away? Religion isn't even allowed to proselyte there, and atheism has been the majority belief there for decades. I'm willing to place most of the blame on Totalitarianism.
I meant "strip away religion" not "allow people to choose not to be religious." I don't think we're every going to live in a world where everybody voluntarily gives up religion. You're welcome to work towards that, and I'll work towards people voluntarily choosing it.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Even then, I wouldn't say that a state religion-even an enforced one, to some level anyway-would guarantee a terrible outcome from a human suffering and wickedness standpoint.
Brutal, cynical authoritarian/totalitarian systems on the other hand...well they're more or less always a problem.
Define terrible. In grad school, I have friends from both Iran and Israel who very clearly pointed to societal problems directly caused by their state-sponsored religion.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
By 'terrible' I mean really bad, but not North Korean bad, if that makes sense. A USSR, a PRC, a whichever-of-propped-up-dictatorships in South and Central America level of bad.
Compulsory religion I regard as universally bad. Even if I thought there was a right/true one, it would still be bad. But then that's probably just my despicable fallen human pride talking.
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I meant "strip away religion" not "allow people to choose not to be religious."
You meant forcibly strip it from others, rather than voluntarily strip it from ourselves? That's a bit of a non-sequitur (nothing said in this thread was advocating anything of the sort) but I guess I'm just a bit dense since scifibum apparently made the correct interpretation.
Well don't worry; to repeat myself, nobody is pushing to forcibly take away anyone's religion. An increase in atheism appears to be a fairly inevitable result of society's progressively improving understanding of the world and enhanced ability to care for itself through secular government. I don't need to forcibly strip away other people's religion; each successive generation strips away a bit more all by themselves.
Those who want to stay religious are fine by me, as long as they aren't allowed to *actively* suppress the rights and freedoms of others who believe differently (and in that case they are still free to *believe* what they like).
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Nonsense, where are you getting those numbers from? Why isn't China's GINI coefficient blowing other countries away?
For my numbers on Sweden, I used Wikipedia, which is citing some polls from 2009 & 2010.
The author of the atheism/social welfare study I was referencing says: "My study improved on earlier research by taking account of whether a country is mostly Muslim (where atheism is criminalized) or formerly Communist (where religion was suppressed)..."
theamazeeaz also supplied a citation, and here is one more that specifically investigated the reason for the effect, which concluded:
quote:It is quite apparent that there is a strong statistical relationship between state social welfare spending and religious participation and religiosity. Countries with higher levels of per capita welfare have a proclivity for less religious participation and tend to have higher percentages of non-religious individuals. People living in countries with high social welfare spending per capita even have less of a tendency to take comfort in religion, perhaps knowing that the state is there to help them in times of crisis.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Those who want to stay religious are fine by me, as long as they aren't allowed to *actively* suppress the rights and freedoms of others who believe differently (and in that case they are still free to *believe* what they like).
I suspect what this really means is "seek to participate and influence society in any meaningful way."
quote:It is quite apparent that there is a strong statistical relationship between state social welfare spending and religious participation and religiosity.
There may be a statistical relationship between welfare program spending and low religiosity, but there is also a strong correlation between high religiosity and charitable giving. Maybe religious people prefer to be charitable through community organizations and person to person, rather than through government programs.
quote:People living in countries with high social welfare spending per capita even have less of a tendency to take comfort in religion, perhaps knowing that the state is there to help them in times of crisis.
That makes sense to me. So does people becoming religious as their religious community reaches out to help them.
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I suspect what this really means is "seek to participate and influence society in any meaningful way."
The moment you put words into my mouth is the moment I stop discussing anything with you on this forum.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
IMO, if you need to change laws and force other people to live according to your religion's rules in order to participate and influence society in any meaningful way, then you're doing it wrong. Many religions (including the LDS church) have had and continue to have a tremendous impact on our society without feeling the need to oppress other people. Blackblade: you ducked out of the other thread (you should check it out, tertiaryadjunct) where we were discussing this, but you never really explained why you feel that because we oppose legalized religious oppression, we are somehow keeping you from freely exercising your religion? IMO the best way to ensure religious freedom for everyone is to avoid having any religion start passing laws enforcing religious commandments and doctrines. As soon as you start forcing everyone to live by the rules of one religion, you destroy any sort of religious freedom. (Including that of the state sponsored religion, btw. If you're forced to live by a religion's rules regardless, what virtue is it to willingly choose to do so? That'd be like me claiming to be virtuous and generous because I choose to pay taxes)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Why isn't China's GINI coefficient blowing other countries away? Religion isn't even allowed to proselyte there, and atheism has been the majority belief there for decades. I'm willing to place most of the blame on Totalitarianism.
I think that this is overstated for the former and wrong on the latter.
For the former, China's gini coefficient doesn't actually "blow away" other countries. It is not good for sure, and something should be done about it. However, the gini coefficient of the US, many countries in South America, and Africa all exceed China (all places that I don't have to tell you are particularly religious).
China is below average, it is not an outlier (i.e. blowing countries away). This is even if we ignore how misleading it is to lump developing countries and developed countries together on this kind of comparison. See the maps here
For the latter, this is wrong on two counts. While there's a lot of debate on the topic and wildly contradictory polling data, it seems fairly clear that the majority of people in China don't actually self-identify as atheists. They usually just identify as non-affiliated or non-religious.
Edit to add: To clarify, you need to lump together the non-affiliated, atheist, and non-religious to reach a majority (>50%). You don't get there with atheists only.
As for how it got that way, for the periods of time accurately identified as totalitarianism (i.e. during the Cultural Revolution) ... well, we've been down this well-trodden road before. If anything, that promoted Mao worship as a religion more than anything else. I'll just link to a previous conversation we've had. http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=055876;p=3#000142
Historically, the non-interest of Chinese people in religion long pre-dates the PRC. I believe it was the Jesuits who reached China in the 17th century or so who observed that while the Chinese were very supersitious, they were not religious.
Or here's another good summary:
quote:The Chinese have been less concerned with the world of the supernatural than with the worlds of nature and of man. They are not a people for whom religious ideas and activities constitute an all-important and absorbing part of life—this despite the fact that there are nominally more Buddhists in China than in any other country in the world. ... It is ethics (especially Confucian ethics), and not religion of a formal, organized type, that has provided the spiritual basis of Chinese civilization.”
[ April 12, 2014, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Here's another way of observing it way from a different perspective. Since the cross-country polls are pretty poor, here's one conducted in reliable conditions on Chinese immigrants in Canada.
quote:In general, six in 10 Chinese reported no religious affiliation in 2001, compared with only 16% of the total population. Religious affiliation varied with the region from which immigrants originated. Of those who were born in the People’s Republic of China, 71% reported no religious affiliation, as did 58% of those born in Hong Kong and 48% of those in Taiwan.
In other words, the PRC only accelerated the process by 13 to 23% compared to the parts of the Chinese speaking world that skipped the PRC. The bulk of the advantage was already in place.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: There may be a statistical relationship between welfare program spending and low religiosity, but there is also a strong correlation between high religiosity and charitable giving. Maybe religious people prefer to be charitable through community organizations and person to person, rather than through government programs.
Highly religious people are more charitable givers when and only when you count giving money/tithing to their own church as charitable giving
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote: this despite the fact that there are nominally more Buddhists in China than in any other country in the world ... It is ethics (especially Confucian ethics), and not religion of a formal, organized type, that has provided the spiritual basis of Chinese civilization.”
That's like saying Wal-mart is the largest seller of organic food in the United States. In other news, China is also the country with the most English speakers.
Anyhoo, Back in grad school the women's reading group did Huston Smith's "Illustrated World Religions*". It's a downright awful book, and despite the fact that everyone wanted to read it, I was the only one that made it through it. The book contains sections on Taoism and Confucianism, but the two Chinese women in the group said nobody does any of that stuff anymore, and hadn't really heard of much of it AT ALL. Unfortunately, this was all two-and a half years ago, so I don't remember what went on in the particular meeting. We had a lot of book to trash, and I don't remembering drilling forward because they had almost nothing to say about it. I realize the quote is from 1942, but from my infinitesimal sample size of modern China, Confucianism isn't practiced much either**.
*Aside from being extraordinarily boring, it managed to baffle the Buddhist, Hindu and Muslim in our group when it came to their section. **We read a book about North Korea, and they were a lot more talkative about life in China then. I'll assume they're reasonably aware of what goes on in their country.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by tertiaryadjunct:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I suspect what this really means is "seek to participate and influence society in any meaningful way."
The moment you put words into my mouth is the moment I stop discussing anything with you on this forum.
I'm sorry if I am putting words in your mouth. But I've just had this conversation so many times, I'm a bit jaded with it. It sounds like a great sentiment until you get to the devil in the details as it were.
It seems like invariably it turns into, "If you can't give me a secular reason for doing something voting for it, running a business according to it, raising children with it means your shoving your religion down somebody's throat, and infringing on their rights." But it never works the other way.
Thanks for providing your numbers btw. I'll review them.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Those who want to stay religious are fine by me, as long as they aren't allowed to *actively* suppress the rights and freedoms of others who believe differently (and in that case they are still free to *believe* what they like).
I suspect what this really means is "seek to participate and influence society in any meaningful way."
quote:It is quite apparent that there is a strong statistical relationship between state social welfare spending and religious participation and religiosity.
There may be a statistical relationship between welfare program spending and low religiosity, but there is also a strong correlation between high religiosity and charitable giving. Maybe religious people prefer to be charitable through community organizations and person to person, rather than through government programs.
quote:People living in countries with high social welfare spending per capita even have less of a tendency to take comfort in religion, perhaps knowing that the state is there to help them in times of crisis.
That makes sense to me. So does people becoming religious as their religious community reaches out to help them.
I have to agree with tertiary here. Aside from this not at sol being what he said or suggested, in historic terms it's pretty damn galling for the religious perspective to lecture the secular perspective on free thinking and lack of government crackdowns on thought dissent.
Is there a nation on Earth now, or has there been in history, where religion is in the driver's seat, *and* there was a strong focus on free expression, freedom of religion, and keeping government and religious power separate? We have a hard enough time of that over in the secular world where we are at least nominally outright committed to it. Of the monotheistic religions in all their varieties, how many place individual freedom as their chief virtue? And no, I don't mean 'everyone is free to think about religion in their own way', I mean that same sentence with two key words removed.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It seems like invariably it turns into, "If you can't give me a secular reason for doing something voting for it, running a business according to it, raising children with it means your shoving your religion down somebody's throat, and infringing on their rights." But it never works the other way.
I'm sorry if it upsets you-I genuinely am-but if suddenly there were a huge influx of conservative Islamic immigrants into the US, sufficient to make a significant power bloc of their own, and they began to use the democratic process to attempt to enact those portions of 'Islamic law' (broad term there) that are unique to Islam, wouldn't you view that as religion being shoved down your throat? Even though it was done in a generally above board way, using the rules lawfully?
In order for a religion to be forced on someone, or simply an aspect of it, it is not necessary for there to be an overt government crackdown. It can happen peacefully, legally, and democratically. The pledge of allegiance for example-that is, the modern religious version. All nice and legal.
No one is suggesting there be a litmus test for appropriately secular motives in political and legislative discourse-that would be an excellent case of a cure being worse than the disease. But when parts of your or anyone's religion get inserted into *my* life, and they lack a secular justification-gay marriage restriction, for example, and I wouldn't even be participating!-then yeah. It's shoved down our throats. I signed up for the American citizen thing, not the Christian American thing. Just because signing up for the former exposes me to the latter doesn't lean I have to simply tolerate it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: There may be a statistical relationship between welfare program spending and low religiosity, but there is also a strong correlation between high religiosity and charitable giving. Maybe religious people prefer to be charitable through community organizations and person to person, rather than through government programs.
Highly religious people are more charitable givers when and only when you count giving money/tithing to their own church as charitable giving
So? Areligious people give to an areligious organization, religious people give to religious organizations. How is that worth noting? Does one of those forms of giving not count for some reason?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rakeesh:
quote:I'm sorry if it upsets you-I genuinely am-but if suddenly there were a huge influx of conservative Islamic immigrants into the US, sufficient to make a significant power bloc of their own, and they began to use the democratic process to attempt to enact those portions of 'Islamic law' (broad term there) that are unique to Islam, wouldn't you view that as religion being shoved down your throat? Even though it was done in a generally above board way, using the rules lawfully?
Again, the devil is in the details. If they tried to pass polygamy laws and argued that their religion was being infringed upon and that consenting adults should be permitted to form marriages, I would agree with them. If they passed laws requiring that Muslims men and women be permitted to offer prayers 5 times daily and that businesses could not forbid them participating in the call to prayer, I might be amenable to that. If they said pork could not be sold in certain counties "like we have dry counties today" I'm not so sure.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I just don't understand what there is not to be sure about. Banning the sake of pork in a politically defined region, as a matter of public-as in, for everyone forever until the law changes, religious adherent or not-how is that anything less than absolutely unacceptable? I don't care if the county is 98% believer, the county works for the people, not a religion! If they aren't supposed to eat pork, let their leaders instruct them to that effect, and do their own persuasion. They already get an unchallenged first crack at their flock from birth the lasts fr years before there is any real competition. Why do they get the state's overt help too?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
So are you up in arms about dry counties?
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
As someone who doesn't drink, dry counties are pretty stupid, to be honest. I can understand having a dry campus to curb certain social problems after getting bitten by them (or even trying to reduce bar-associated crime).
While you can point to religions where alcohol is forbidden (Mormon), and ones where they drink during services (Catholic), ultimately, how much people care about making laws restricting alcohol depends on how many drunk people regularly appear to pee in one's yard.
However, unlike state lines*, county borders are not really patrolled. Drinking isn't illegal in dry counties (just campuses), just purchase. And most counties are small, relatively speaking. And very few people get drunks on their lawn. Most people do drunk responsibly. So essentially, all that is happening is said county is losing their tax revenue, and local residents are annoyed by the drive, but not that much, because the nearest wet place is probably less than 20 minutes away.
But I don't drink, so I've never been put out enough to protest.
*The police are very much checking people's cars for pot when you leave Colorado.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: There may be a statistical relationship between welfare program spending and low religiosity, but there is also a strong correlation between high religiosity and charitable giving. Maybe religious people prefer to be charitable through community organizations and person to person, rather than through government programs.
Highly religious people are more charitable givers when and only when you count giving money/tithing to their own church as charitable giving
So? Areligious people give to an areligious organization, religious people give to religious organizations. How is that worth noting? Does one of those forms of giving not count for some reason?
For non-mormons, a large portion of the religious giving probably occurs during the pass-the-hat part of church. But like tithing, most of that money goes to put on the church services the religious giver just enjoyed, as opposed to the general charitable causes that church might take on (the local poor, starving kids in Africa). So in a sense, you were paying the admission cost of the service.
Back when I attended Catholic church, there would be be a "second collection", the cause for which would be announced during mass. So the baskets came around twice. The first time, the money would presumably go exclusively to the church.
To be fair, if you donate to a university, the theater or a political campaign you get something out of it as well (stuff named after you/belated thanks for your life opportunities/ the shows you like continue/ politicians you prefer are the ones making the laws).
We must remember though, areligious government welfare spending in socialist states and church charity for certain impoverished members are not the same thing.
The European-style services are not given out because a citizen is poor. For example, the NHS in Britain is not a charity-- it is funded by the people to serve the people.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: There may be a statistical relationship between welfare program spending and low religiosity, but there is also a strong correlation between high religiosity and charitable giving. Maybe religious people prefer to be charitable through community organizations and person to person, rather than through government programs.
Highly religious people are more charitable givers when and only when you count giving money/tithing to their own church as charitable giving
So? Areligious people give to an areligious organization, religious people give to religious organizations. How is that worth noting? Does one of those forms of giving not count for some reason?
religious people give money to religious charity, secular charity too, but mostly they just give to their own church.
subtract what they give to religious institutions for the sake of the religious institution's operation, and the religious are less charitable. its just a matter of what donations are actually going to, you know, charity, and not a new wing for new life church or a recruitment campaign in Ethiopia or a new gilded temple or whatever.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: So are you up in arms about dry counties?
No. I drink so little that it can almost be said I don't, and even in dry counties it isn't very difficult to find booze if you want it. It is, to me, a small and easily avoidable petty injustice.
But then, it is small, and if would naturally hit neither of his who drink at all or never very much. So instead, let's say the immigrants are Hindu. Beef is forbidden. I suspect suddenly it's not something to be brushed aside anymore, right? Or they're Amish. No more buttons for you.
Or hey, they're against medicine. No more pharmacies. What, precisely, is the difference? *This*, incidentally, is why secularists like myself are so very leery of religious motivations in politics and lawmaking. Because for all the BlackBlades out there, fundamentally decent and thoughtful and non-intrusive, I can find someone who thinks buying booze on a Sunday is really not a big thing, and should be restricted. The difference is, that person *cares*, a lot, and why shouldn't they? God is speaking to them in some way. They care enough to make it a thing, and all of a sudden I have to start justifying my daily life decisions to some god-botherers who shouldn't have any input at all on that part of my life in the first place.
And if I happen to come along a hundred years after the fact and say, "Hey, this is ridiculous, let's throw this silly intrusive law out', I am absolutely certain to hear about how I'm attacking faith and want to eradicate religion from people's lives. Who will skip the part where I want to eradicate it from *my* life and the lives of any who don't want it in them.
Such a reaction is understandable if short-sighted. After all, the county has been dry for generations! Why raise a fuss? Who am I to kick up a ruckus? Well, if that upsets people, that's simply too bad.
And the worst part? That's what happens with something *trivial* like a dry county.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rakeesh:
quote:Is there a nation on Earth now, or has there been in history, where religion is in the driver's seat, *and* there was a strong focus on free expression, freedom of religion, and keeping government and religious power separate? We have a hard enough time of that over in the secular world where we are at least nominally outright committed to it. Of the monotheistic religions in all their varieties, how many place individual freedom as their chief virtue? And no, I don't mean 'everyone is free to think about religion in their own way', I mean that same sentence with two key words removed.
Turkey?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Samprimary: Yes, because every church busies itself with building guilded temples, and sending missionaries to Ethiopia to engage in a little cultural assimilation. None of them run soup kitchens, or donation centers, or shelters, or counseling.
Also, you and I both know that charities of religion and areligious natures waste money. It's not like only the theists gleefully waste what they are supposed to use to help the poor. But I'm all ears if you think there is a charity organization that's doing it better than any of the religious ones.
[ April 13, 2014, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
yes.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:It seems like invariably it turns into, "If you can't give me a secular reason for doing something voting for it, running a business according to it, raising children with it means your shoving your religion down somebody's throat, and infringing on their rights." But it never works the other way.
I've made the argument on this site that laws with no secular justification should be viewed as unconstitutional - originally I argued for an amendment to that effect, I think, but MattP pointed out there's an existing standard called the Lemon test that is more or less the same - but I don't think I have taken the position you're describing here.
It's pretty close - that is, I think if there's no valid secular purpose for a law, but there is a clear religious purpose, it's clearly a breach of the "wall of separation" between church and state - but I wouldn't say that anyone raising their children according to their religion, or running their business according to their religion was necessarily infringing on anyone's rights, so what you're describing doesn't match my view or any view that I recognize as common.
A law that simply propped up some part of their religion without any secular justification though? I agree the devil is in the details, but for the most part - those laws are contrary to the spirit if not the letter of the 1st amendment and don't pass the Lemon test.
Dry counties are a good example of a law that has a secular justification even though it's probably religiously motivated. Alcohol leads to intoxication which leads to public safety hazards; there's a pretty straightforward justification there for banning alcohol sales: trying to limit the bad effects of alcohol in that jurisdiction.
In contrast, a law that bans alcohol sales only on Sunday - I have yet to imagine or hear of a secular justification for that.
So I'm a bit MORE up in arms about the latter than the former, even though the latter is not as restrictive as the former and their root causes are probably the same - the former can at least be justified on a secular basis.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Doctors Without Borders-life-saving charitable work where it is most needed, not for profit, and without the dubiously charitable motive of proselytization.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Or, you know, perhaps the most recognized and respected charitable organization in the world, The Red Cross.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I was saving that one!
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
CharityWatch.org has a list of the top-ranked charities on the basis that they "generally spend 75% or more of their budgets on programs, spend $25 or less to raise $100 in public support, do not hold excessive assets in reserve, and receive "open-book" status for disclosure of basic financial information and documents to CharityWatch."
There are a lot of categories. Skimming through, it seems a good representation of both secular and religious-based charities. I haven't done it myself, but it would be interesting to make a list of the "A" ranked charities broken down by whether their main sites cite affiliation with religious organizations or not.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
yeah, there are a whole lot of charities — not just the frontliners for charity efficiency, but a whole uncountable number of them — which are more efficient in general simply by institutionally not having the typical cross-purpose of proselytizing and pr fronting a religion. more of them are also open-book and have transparent accounting, which is very important.
moreover, bb, this is getting away from the important distinction that giving money to your own church isn't giving money to charity, it's giving it to a church. many people conflate the two and innately presume this to be inherently charitable giving, because the church spends part of that money on charity, material or organized charitable support.
With the Methodists, that number is roughly around 25-29%. Churches with non-transparent finances that don't even tell the church's rank and file members where the church donations and tithes go are pretty much always way lower than that. But actively religious people try to add their church donations to their charity donations in a 1:1 equation and then present the resulting data as showing themselves more charitable than non actively religious people. Often they couldn't even tell you how much of their church donations go to charity.
When you stop erroneously relying on this 1:1 equation, it isn't the actively religious who are the biggest givers anymore. they're certainly the less charitable in this country with their voting policies when it comes to public welfare systems, even the most directly charitable poverty assistance programs like TANF and SNAP.
Which is a more important consideration, as individual charitable giving is an almost insignificant portion of actual food, housing, and emergency welfare assistance to the poor.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Charitable giving is a tricky way to measure generosity to society at large. People give to such a variety of institutions for such a variety of purpose that it is all but impossible to account for all the possibilities. Is a woman who lives on the poverty line and gives a pittance to a local animal shelter more or less generous than a wealthy person who donates large sums to her tennis club? What if that tennis club then holds a benefit gala for needy children in Africa?
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
kmbboots, I believe the Bible has a parable or two about that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Not quite was I was getting at. It is even more complicated than that. Say if three people of equal wealth both gave the same amount of money to charity - one to his church which does some amount of work with the poor so part of his donation goes to that and part to a new roof and another to his alma mater some of which goes to faculty salaries in public policy and some to a new building and some to scholarships and the third gave that money straight to Heifer International?
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
Right, it was only a part of your hypothetical.
I wouldn't rate those as equally generous, given the difference objectives of the organizations involved. And it's also tricky when you consider tax benefits, too. Which I think makes some kinds of donations more suspect than others, especially for donations with a PR slant.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Exactly. Evaluating donations is complicated enough that any "this group is more generous than this group" statement backed up by the amount of charitable donations is almost worthless.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
so now in addition to noting how strange and kind of useless it is to generalize the generosity of religious vs. areligious people (despite how often it keeps happening), it's also strange and useless to extrapolate based on total donation value per individual!
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Religious or non-religious, I invite you to participate with me! (What a segue, eh?)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Rakeesh:
quote:Is there a nation on Earth now, or has there been in history, where religion is in the driver's seat, *and* there was a strong focus on free expression, freedom of religion, and keeping government and religious power separate? We have a hard enough time of that over in the secular world where we are at least nominally outright committed to it. Of the monotheistic religions in all their varieties, how many place individual freedom as their chief virtue? And no, I don't mean 'everyone is free to think about religion in their own way', I mean that same sentence with two key words removed.
Turkey?
Turkey seems an odd response given that an enforced secular society is one of the biggest sources of friction in Turkey. Push back against the secular government is where most of their political strife comes from, so I'm not sure how it could be argued that religion is in the "driver's seat."
More accurately, religion is attempting a carjacking.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
How exactly could there be an example of a country where "religion is in the driver's seat" and government and religious powers are kept separate? Does "the driver's seat" here mean something other than governmental power?
Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :
If the people were primarily motivated by their devotion to a particular faith, but the government was secular?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Rakeesh:
quote:Is there a nation on Earth now, or has there been in history, where religion is in the driver's seat, *and* there was a strong focus on free expression, freedom of religion, and keeping government and religious power separate? We have a hard enough time of that over in the secular world where we are at least nominally outright committed to it. Of the monotheistic religions in all their varieties, how many place individual freedom as their chief virtue? And no, I don't mean 'everyone is free to think about religion in their own way', I mean that same sentence with two key words removed.
Turkey?
Turkey seems an odd response given that an enforced secular society is one of the biggest sources of friction in Turkey. Push back against the secular government is where most of their political strife comes from, so I'm not sure how it could be argued that religion is in the "driver's seat."
More accurately, religion is attempting a carjacking.
No the problem has been that when pro-Muslim candidates have been legitimately elected to office by the people, the military engaged in a coup and handed the reins back to the corrupt losers.
Turkey only started doing better when free elections were allowed again.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think you may be blending Egypt with Turkey a bit, BB.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I think you may be blending Egypt with Turkey a bit, BB.
I don't think I am. Look up the military memorandum of 1997 in Turkey. Sorry the Wikipedia link I tried to paste here isn't taking.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I actually thought you meant a plotted coup in 2010, and in any event thought you were referring more to recent history. My bad.
I will say, though, that what looks like a secular government in Turkey is...well, different than what would be considered such here.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I think BlackBlade might be thinking about Turkey, just from a rather non-conventional point of view.
Normally, Turkey started doing well when the non-religious Ataturk started many of the things that Rakeesh was referring to, splitting out government and religious power by splitting off the caliphate, freedom of religion, etc. In other words, secularism was in the driver's seat.
However, later as pro-Muslim candidates such as started winning elections (i.e. religion getting into the "driver's seat"), things like free expression, separation of government and religious power got rolled back, and Turkey has been going downhill.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Decades ago, during the first rush of oat-fiber madness, the makers of Cheerios reformulated them to include way more fiber than they used to have. This was back when I still ate the occasional bowl of cereal. The sextupling of oat fiber in Cheerios had the predictable effect.
When that was my breakfast, for the rest of the day I dared not stray far from the small room with many water fixtures. You see, I already was "regular," and therefore this massive injection of oat bran made me "frequent."
Since Cheerios remained a favorite snack for parents to feed their toddlers at church, I wondered if the fiber content had any noticeable effect on the tykes; since we did not us Cheerios as a snack food for babies, we could not make firsthand observations.
This, too, is neither praise nor criticism; it is only an observation. However, for those who may not wish to alter the number of Depends they go through in a day, it is also fair warning.
Apparently they discriminate, providing these loans only to women -- God forbid a poor man should need a loan to be able to finance a business that would help him feed his family -- but in this imperfect world I can live with that bit of sexism without calling for a boycott.
If you want to know why there are microfinance firms who lend specifically to women, read "Half The Sky" by Nicolas Kristoff and Sheryl WuDunn.
But the TL;DR is that many impoverished men spend their salaries on alcohol before the money even gets brought home to their wives and children, but women will spend the extra money on their children before buying pleasure items, so there's a big push to give women an independent income stream. Also, when women make their own money, their husbands beat them less.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
I'm well aware of why micro finance loans go to women in general and it seems like a good practice to me even if it is sexist by definition. I was just misinterpreting Sam's post and for some reason I decided to note that in a post instead of keeping the fact to myself.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
This was more of a general "you" directed at the piece, than a "you" in particular.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:If you want to know why there are microfinance firms who lend specifically to women, read "Half The Sky" by Nicolas Kristoff and Sheryl WuDunn.
but what about the men?
quote:What would you posit as an easy shorthand for the product?
I'd have just been calling them Morning O's after one use of the product's full name.
unless someone's cutting me a check, in which case it's up to them what and how many times i must refer to the Mococoa, i guess
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: [QUOTE]
unless someone's cutting me a check, in which case it's up to them what and how many times i must refer to the Mococoa, i guess
Yurek Rutz, Yurek Rutz, Yurek Rutz.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
From a review of The Grand Budapest Hotel:
quote:I doubt that this film will be in contention for any Oscars -- it has been released into the dumping ground where some of the best films are tossed when studio marketing departments decide that they can't sell them either to the public or to the Academy voters.
I think of previous favorite movies like Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day and In a World, which were completely overlooked when award time rolled around.
But Oscar-bait movies tend to follow formulas; The Grand Budapest Hotel is doing things that are not "certifiably cool." That is, this film required great artistry, but artistry of a kind that Academy voters are generally blind to.
Subtle yet difficult acting performances -- like many given in this film -- are completely over the heads of most Academy voters, though most of them are actors themselves.
But that's all right. American actors are so badly trained -- or mistrained -- that they have no idea how difficult it is to bring off a performance like Ralph Fiennes's subtle-yet-farcical tour-de-force in The Grand Budapest Hotel.
It's too bad that OSC didn't take a minute to review Wes Anderson's career and notice that his work has gotten plenty of attention and accolades from the establishment that OSC wants to criticize here. This comes off as willfully blind.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I saw both Moonrise Kingdom and Budapest Hotel in theaters. I liked Moonrise Kingdom a lot more, and when it came out there were cries of Oscar Oscar, but it didn't get any nods, so he's got a point there.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I have admittedly lost track of the extent of what OSC says hollywood is/does but I am mystified by the proposal that american actors are badly trained. do we mean the american actors besides the ones that make it so that americans are both the majority of the categories of greatest film actors of all time AND greatest film actors performing today? I would seriously like to see a proposal that another country is producing better actors overall because if this is true I don't know of it or where it is shown.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: I saw both Moonrise Kingdom and Budapest Hotel in theaters. I liked Moonrise Kingdom a lot more, and when it came out there were cries of Oscar Oscar, but it didn't get any nods, so he's got a point there.
It was nominated for the best screenplay Oscar as well as the Golden Globe best picture award. It may not have won, but it received accolades.
OSC's worry that the movie he likes won't win an Oscar may turn out to be accurate. The problem is that he equates this to proof that Academy voters aren't as good as he is at detecting good performances, and indeed they are poorly trained.
OK, OK - this is all part of the "Uncle Orson" persona - who reviews EVERYTHING, because he is just like your uncle who has an opinion on EVERYTHING. The sweeping statements are just part of the act.
...it's just that that shtick works better for yogurt than for movies. Because he's an author and playwright and screenwriter, so he is in a position to offer serious criticism. So I expect him to do so. The avuncular, closed-mind tone he takes in criticizing movies always seems a little too sincere, unlike, for instance, a pronouncement that anyone who likes Hershey's chocolate is a hopeless Philistine.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
yeah OSC is a serious jerk when he calls them hopeless. major strides have been made in getting the UN to recognize Philistine as an independent territory, which is a big sign of progress.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Didn't realize it had a best screenplay nod. I was thinking more of best picture. They've got five zillion slots now anyway.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Bret Stephens made some interesting remarks in the WSJ.
I'm not which stuff I agree with and what stuff I do not, but I'm amenable to the idea that we must learn how to deal with being offended. I also think schools boycotting speakers is garbage but whatever, we've already had that conversation here.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Whoa there sir. Do you have social justice license to post that? I'm not seeing any trigger warnings for your white cishet gender binary enforcing colonialism. I'm afraid we're going to have to take you in, you've been randomly selected for a privilege check.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
That article is about trigger warnings, but then you mentioned "being offended" and speaker boycotts (general ones or commencement ones).
I think they're two separate topics, albeit related ones. I'd rather not try to discuss both at the same time. Do you prefer to talk about one or the other?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
My forum posting time has been gobbled up, but I'm willing to discuss either.
Why don't we go with speaker boycotts.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Okie-dokie. I apologized because for this one I am going to argue against the students (while I would defend trigger warnings). But I've done a fair bit of thinking about both recently.
I got in a tiff about this one recently on Facebook with some alums of my college who, nearly 25 years later, were still very proud of their commencement speaker protest (that resulted in two speakers and the unpopular one stepping up her speech game substantially). Ultimately, even if the people within the college were satisfied with the outcome, the whole incident looked very very bad to national news (I was moved to comment myself because I'd read about the incident from a memoir of someone who interacted with the unpopular speaker during the time of the scandal, and our college came off really bad).
I can see why some students are uncomfortable with certain people who don't share their views, but honestly, unless the person is flat-out disgraced by some scandal, almost any famous person is qualified to give g-rated life advice to their 22-year-old selves, and can make it moderately interesting. Even when you don't like their politics. Graduation speeches should be short, and most are completely forgettable after they are over and all are clichéd anyway. I even say this as someone who spoke at her high school graduation. But I especially say this as someone who got rained on for four hours straight for her grad school commencement. My parents waved as I walked in and then left to go hide in an academic building with a TV somewhere, and medical showed up with space blankets. People walked as soon as they got their diplomas, the weather was that bad. Anyway, these things are simply not as big a deal as people make them out to be.
Students need to realize that graduations are for the parents, and honestly, a lousy speaker is up there with many minor annoyances that trip up bridezillas on their wedding days. My college had student involvement in the selection process, and frankly, people should get involved before the fact, not after it. And I should hope that people educated enough to earn a college degree know to take any speech with a grain of salt.
On the other hand, the outside world needs to realize that whining about the commencement speaker is traditional if the speaker is even remotely controversial. (How does that quote about people being unable to speak without at least one person hating them go?) In fact, students complained about the speaker for my college commencement, it got mild media attention and the speaker called them out for it during commencement. Sure, there are different degrees of whining depending on the person, but it's going to happen, and probably shouldn't be national news.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I was ambivalent on the whole speaker thing until someone asked me "well, would you not just feel a little bit chastened if, like, Ann Coulter was your commencement speaker?" — yes, even if she was giving g-rated life advice to 22 year olds, it's still Ann Coulter. made the point that this is a pretty important point in time for many families' lives that should not be given to an overly controversial speaker.
Past that though it's dependent upon who is being removed as speaker, and why, and how they got the post in the first place.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Heh, Ann Coulter came to campus (not as commencement speaker) when I was an undergrad, thank you College Republicans. I didn't go, but it was a big stink with the whole thing. Her fee was obscene (and the wealthy parents of the students paid quite a bit of it), she started late, and talked for maybe 45 minutes. People talked about the speech after, and I can't remember what she said. I do remember she started off by calling her audience smart (though it was largely comprised of liberal women) and had the common sense not to say certain things at a women's college. I think she knew that she had to make her points in a way to put people who were not on her side to agree with her, though they were largely unmoved.
The best response to having to sit through an Ann Coulter speech is probably just to bring commencement bingo and giggle at the best parts after the fact.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
That's different than being the commencement speaker, though. And in either case I would think the actual best response is to not sit at such a speech at all and to shame a school for being stupid enough to let someone with a long history of indefensible statements speak at your school.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
It's perfectly acceptable not to go to commencement, but I wouldn't let a lousy speaker ruin my degree party. Laugh about it after. Seriously.
I googled 'Ann Coulter Commencement Speech" and the only article about any school dumb enough to pull that one was dated "April 1". So that answers that one. I'm not sure what university would invite her in earnest, and how many trolls here on the committee.
There's a spectrum of evils a commencement speaker can have and she's on the very far end. Most speakers, even the controversial ones, will be supported by at least some segment of the population, and people can admit that they have recognizable merit for having achieved something, or at least being famous. But she still has a platform because there are people who believe her schtick. I'm not friends with these people, but they do exist.
The protest I had discussed on Facebook was against the wife of a sitting politician. He was neither liberal nor popular and she was known only as his wife. I was in pre-school when it happened, so I don't remember the politician's reign. Compared to what I've heard about the predecessor's terms (and his crazy wife), no one cares enough the guy and his wife in question 25 years later to make any one horrible scandal stick out or make me believe the pair of them did anything but advocate for the other side of the political fence as me in what could be described as an honorable manner. They were not liked well enough to be re-elected.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
On the one hand I feel students have the right to inform the school how they want their tuition dollars spent. They obviously don't have legal power to press the issue, but if I pay tuition, I wouldn't want my school to give some of those dollars to say Ted Cruz if he was invited to give the commencement speech. He's a career politician and those dollars will serve to keep him in that capacity.
But on the other, we all lose when the market place of ideas is cordoned off in anyway. I don't trust the masses (in this instance students) to not go crazy with the idea that imperfect people are not worthy to speak at their schools. Michael Moore spoke at my school and there were huge protests. During the speech people stood up and indicated that they were armed and that he should get off the stage. He managed to get through his speech.
I think overall it's safer to allow all speakers to speak rather than trying to use democracy to pick and choose which speakers may speak.
That said, again I reiterate that I don't think there is anything wrong with students voicing their displeasure at a speaker choice or the fee they are asking for.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Threatening someone with guns in that context is totally out of line. I hope they got arrested.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'm not sure. Officers definitely got to them right quick, cuffed them, and walked them out. But I'm not sure if they were charged.
Two individuals did it at different times. We also had some Ralph Nader folks who stood up and tried to shout him down, they were kicked out too. The crowd was largely very hostile. I was very impressed (from an objective standpoint) with Mr. Moore's ability to redirect all the booing and take the air out of it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Michael Moore spoke at my school and there were huge protests. During the speech people stood up and indicated that they were armed and that he should get off the stage. He managed to get through his speech.
jesus, at least the worst coulter had to deal with was risk of getting pied in the face
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Michael Moore spoke at my school and there were huge protests. During the speech people stood up and indicated that they were armed and that he should get off the stage. He managed to get through his speech.
jesus, at least the worst coulter had to deal with was risk of getting pied in the face
It was pretty terrible, people were actually reaching into their jackets like they were drawing a weapon while they shouted at him.
I think Utah has mellowed out a bunch since then, I think that speech was an important moment in defining what kind of school my alma mater was going to be.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Okay, this discussion died. Wanna do trigger warnings?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
You have TWO NEW ARTICLES too!
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
I'm on the fence about the proposal to remove apostrophes. Given the way people often write texts and emails, it seems as if we're heading in that direction. And if it means I don't have to look at another possessive "it's," I'll at least be happy about that. But it will introduce some other ambiguities in the language. If "we're" becomes "were," you'll have to do a double-take whenever you see either word written, the way we have to do already with "lead" or "sake."
While we're proposing new revisions to grammar, let's take punctuation outside of quotes. Take the sentence above, where I quote "it's." Except this time, there's a period instead of a comma inside the quote. In our copy-paste society, we should consider punctuation in between quotation marks to be part of the original quote; anything part of the encapsulating sentence's own structure, like a period or a comma, should go outside the quotation marks. So I would write "it's", instead of "it's,". A lot of people do this already anyway, but it's still considered an error, because the textbooks on style and grammar were written before computer programming and copy-paste.
Also, in our grammar-of-tomorrow, one-sentence paragraphs shouldn't contain periods at the end, since the period has become a sign of aggression Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I didn't take that one too seriously, to be honest. The paragraph was perfectly readable, msotly lkie the oens wtih the fisrt and lsat letetrs cahnegd but all the letetrs are tehre. I was amused at the pre-emptive strike against hate mail, though. Do people send actual direct hate mail or just post here?
Honestly, people claim that homonym spellings are necessary to disambiguate certain sentences, and I'm sure you could come up with great examples (there are numerous ones with punctuation). In most circumstances, context deals with most of them. Otherwise, we'd have terrible difficulty understanding spoken English. As for the others, a reasonably well-educated writer should be aware of potential misinterpretations of sentences and re-write around them.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: I'm on the fence about the proposal to remove apostrophes.
obviously you are not, filthy apostrophe-user
peddle your false apostrophognosticism elsewhere
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
quote: false apostrophognosticism
Sam wins the neologism of the day award. Your prize? This gently-used portmanteau Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Cryptoapostrophognosticism abounds.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Michael Moore spoke at my school and there were huge protests. During the speech people stood up and indicated that they were armed and that he should get off the stage. He managed to get through his speech.
jesus, at least the worst coulter had to deal with was risk of getting pied in the face
That and... you know. All the death threats?
She gets a lot of death threats. Did you seriously not know that? Or are you just saying that obviously no one would ever go through with them so they're irrelevant to this discussion?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
do you mean death threats while she's speaking, or the ubiquitous death-threats-mailed-to-everyone-with-even-a-moderate-amount-of-celebrity? maybe coulter's different, because of how she sort of also makes death threats and death wishes but whatev
what moore appears to been dealing with was terroristic acts in person by people suggesting the threat that they were going to shoot him, which is afaik much more troubling than anything done to disrupt coulter during a speech.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: now there's How to Train Your Dragon 2, and this, too, is a sequel that brings the original story to fruition.
I haven't read the books these films are based on, so I'm not sure how faithful the sequel was to any of the narratives. I'm inclined to wonder, because Hollywood barely knows how to tell stories about real heroes anymore.
Somehow, Dreamworks Animation managed to give us a story in which the peace-loving hero comes up against a bad guy who doesn't want peace, who relentlessly pursues war, and can only be defeated by having his means of warmaking taken away from him.
Which is, of course, the real goal in every war -- to destroy the enemy's capacity to inflict harm or resist your forces. It was what George W. Bush was heading toward achieving -- removing the safe havens for Islamic terrorists -- when a replacement President came in and undid all of Bush's achievements as quickly as he could. Mission almost totally accomplished now.
But not in How to Train Your Dragon 2. The hero, Hiccup, is several years older -- a more manly jaw, a somewhat deeper voice, a bit of facial hair, and a love interest. A kid's movie, growing up.
But it's a grownup movie in a lot of other ways. Good guys get defeated. Killed sometimes. Bad guys have complicated motivations -- yet can't just be "converted" to the good side with a hug and a few kind words. Hiccup is facing Hitler. He can't be appeased, because he wants war. And so the war goes on, and Hiccup has to find a way to lead his people to victory.
quote: I was moved by the heroism -- and by the fact that the hero was honored by his people. That so rarely happens -- in our culture, we're much more likely to vilify or marginalize our true heroes.
can it really honestly be said how inane it is that this review nonsequitors "all the problems in iraq are obama's fault" into a review of an animated movie about dragons
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I noticed it as well, but not having seen the movie, I can't tell you how much of a leap the comparison it is.
The review about which chip flavor is best still wins the award for most painful unnecessary nonsequitor into the author's personal politics during a product review.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I have to say, that when I'm sitting down for a long stretch of gaming in the Mechwarrior Universe with Pirhana Games Inc.'s MechWarrior Online, I find myself thinking through how I'm going to pair it.
No, not with wine, dear reader. I know what you're thinking, and I know as well as you that wine is a surat habit that dulls the senses and makes it harder to score those perfect core hits on the stravag inner sphere weaklings.
No, a clear ristar like myself knows to match the proper energy drink with their batchall. When, as is my temperament, I am in the bleeding-edge assault habit, I will be sipping on the finest of Monster Energy Drink in the Khaos or M-80 flavor while annihilating your front lines in a 100 ton Dire Wolf (that's a Daishi to you stravags). If instead I intend to be pairing a more subtle blend of speed, maneuverability, and jump jet capacity that the 75 ton Timber Wolf offers to the battlefield, I will instead be inclined towards the mellower reflex-enhancing buzz of a Mountain Dew Code Red. Does it bother anyone else that so many other pretenders to the throne came after the resounding success of Code Red? It seems like, just like with liberal hollywood, once someone's made an inspired variation on a theme, they have to drive it into the ground with every following twist on the genre -- or, in the case of Mountain Dew, every unnatural color in the spectrum. Hollywood simply just can't function anymore, and is wholly terrible.
More important to your Pirhana Games Inc.'s MechWarrior Online experience, however, requires that I bring to your attention the relatively recent phenomenon of the "flavored corn-chip" snacks which appear to be all the rage with youths. Wisened fogies like myself will remember a simpler time, before everyone got obsessed with overcomplicated flavor options, in which these were mostly unadorned tortilla chips -- and believe me, they certainly worked in that capacity! --, but they have now exploded into an unconstrained mess of half-worthwhile flavors and obvious dead-ends of flavor opportunity. In a way, trying to navigate through all these flavored corn-chip snacks is like trying to find your way through the mess of absolute failures of the Obama administration, and being forced to watch as the absolute worst president of all time simply ruins everything that George W. Bush was going to successfully accomplish in Iraq. Each maudlin, tepid new flavor standing testament to that Obama is simply the most disgusting, incompetent, ruthless dictator of a president ever, prostrating himself before the shrine of the Religion of Environmentalism and its seven lies of Global Warming.
But before your MechWarrior gets as hot under the collar as liberals do when you point out the clear facts about Obama, let me say that there have indeed turned out to be two flavors worthy of consideration! (Let me also recommend that you build a mech with more Clan Double Heat Sinks and stop relying on so many energy weapons. I know environmentalists in the Leftaliban will shriek at you about how ballistic weapons are a nonrenewable resource, but I find it is better to not listen to them in constructing engines of war. Liberals, like their president, have obviously never understood war.) The two types of flavored corn-chip I believe are worthy of pairing are the Doritos Corn Chip Cool Ranch Flavor and the Doritos Corn Chip Nacho Cheese Flavor. Either, I have found, is an excellent pairing with either the Assault or Conquest mode. And, before you say anything, I cannot count how many letters I have received asking for me to explain the difference between the two gameplay settings.
If you find yourself instead in Skirmish mode, my old standby is the Frito-Lay Cheetoes Cheese-Flavored, Puffed Cornmeal Snacks, but these are for experts only, given their propensity to stain vintage Dragonball-Z T-Shirts or Blue Flame wifebeaters (cue the feminist howlings of outrage that I dared recognize the traditional name of this venerated sleeveless strap-t). Make sure that your mother knows the critical difference between the blood-red of the Nacho Cheese Doritos and the lighter orange of Cheetoes when you send her out to provide for the week's meal plan.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
You forgot University English departments....
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
University English Departments are like that time that Hitler caught Obama unprepared at Benghazi ...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Game of Thrones is one of the most faithful film adaptations ever
in terms of literal adaptation? or what.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
As far as maintaining the tone and feel of the original, I'm guessing. Though IMO, HBO has kind of veered towards making it too brutal - they kill off characters who don't die in the books, just for shock value, and omit a lot of the emotional core of the books that makes you care about the characters in the first place. But this has been my complaint since season 1, and it's actually gotten a lot better in the past few years.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Eh, books aren't films, and they never have been. Maybe certain children's books. Holes, for example is about as long as a book can be and still be a film in its entirety. Books are television serials, and while people have known this before (e.g. James Michener's Centennial, Pride and Prejudice), I think the lesson has really sunk in with Game of Thrones and I hope filmmakers remember to hand over the book adaptations to the tv writers.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah I am generally in the camp that being faithful to a book adaptation can often times be a useless burden. Film is a different medium. The odds of being able to actually literally faithfully translate a book are slim. Adapt, adopt and discard to the full extent of what will make a work work in the environment, medium, and pacing of a series, miniseries, or movie.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I do agree the mini-series is the perfect medium for adapting a book. Book-based movies have *always* suffered, simply due to the way movies are constructed. It's either always awkward and dysfunctional if it's too faithful, or loses too much of the original story for it to really be called an adaptation. OTOH, short stories are the perfect medium to be adapted into movies, and I really wish that happened more often than it does. (Mostly I think the habit of making books into movies is a terrible thing, since it basically cripples the movie from the get-go. Movies do a lot better as original productions.)
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I'm surprised OSC's 20 year-old blew off Jersey Boys and he declared it for baby boomers only. My little sister (same age) has been obsessed with that show ever since she saw it when it came to town. If it comes to somebody else's town and she's there, she has to go see it ... again.
Possibly the best Christmas present I ever bought was when I found a Frankie Valli Christmas album in a used record shop. I don't know why kids today like records so much, but she was also into those at the time. My sister spotted in unwrapped in my parents car (sitting out as to not break it) when they were picking me up from the train, grabbed it, and ran off with it, not even letting it sit under the tree.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:So Boyhood's experiment paid off very nicely. Yet there was still a huge problem that seems insurmountable.
We weren't just watching the kids grow up, you see. We were also watching the world change around them. When filming started, the dust was only starting to clear from 9/11, and when it ended, it was already obvious that Obama was a failed president.
But because each segment was filmed like a diary entry, with the writer (Richard Linklater) only aware of as much as was known about American history at the time, the segments are sometimes sadly dated.
Linklater is, of course, your stock politically zombie-ized Hollywood Leftist, so the main characters, who should have been like normal Americans instead of total conformists, had minds full of pure politically correct drivel.
Linklater makes no attempt to show characters who disagree with him in a fair light. On the contrary, though characters in Boyhood might be complicated in other ways, they are perfect in their compliance with stereotypes.
The only exception is that religious people are not made complete idiots ... but it's a close thing. And the characters we're supposed to know well and care about most deeply are pretty much without any religion, even if they go through the motions to please others.
But Linklater can't help it that he lives in a culture where he never has to think a new thought or try to understand a person who is different from himself. He's as blinded by his environment as any Southern segregationist in 1948.
This is super dumb and maybe the worst review of Boyhood yet, not even joking
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
So am I missing something or is that jab at Obama not even slightly connected to any description of anything in the film.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Not even slightly. In fact, this movie is so apolitical, it's almost overbearing in its even-handedness.
The religious conversion of the father is completely, but totally straight faced. "This is just what people do," is what the film is saying. Not good, not bad, just what happens. The film treats the Afghan war veteran in a similar way. It shows you how he represents himself. He stirs patriotism early on, by talking about how things were for him in Afghanistan in the beginning, and how they could have been better. Then he himself becomes jaded and reveals his powerlessness and torpor. Nothing political in that, really.
I think perhaps this is the passage that raises OSC's ire, but I don't see it. The veteran lionizes the military, and the boy responds well to what he says. Then the vet himself is broken down by his own life. Why is that about politics? Why is that not about human nature?
And the lefty, semi-existential onanism of the main character is, if anything, grating, and intended to show what kids can be like when they're not as smart as they think they are. Linklater makes no attempt to lionize this kind of behavior. He just shows it. The film is almost dispassionate about its characters.
What did OSC want? What could he expect?
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
I would have thought that a film showing the attitudes of people at the time it is set would be a good thing. Portraying the characters as having the attitude to world events years ago that they might have now, would just be anachronistic.
Watching everyone going about in 2008 saying 'Obama will never close Guantanamo, not much will change, the economy will still be crap in six years time and he'll just end up bombing Iraq again...' would look ridiculous to anyone who was alive then. And I didn't think this film was very political anyway.
I don't get what OSC is complaining about here.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
OSC is complaining that linklater wrote characters who weren't immediately prescient of how OSC currently views american politics in the year 2014, and this rustles his jimmies and that furthermore the movie did not lionize and put his american history headcanon on a pedestal for the benefit of the viewers, so linklater is a leftist zombie who wrote total conformists. and don't even get him started about how it is not setting indulgent sympathetic portrayal of religiosity at his feet. also 0bama is completely terrible in all ways and will always be terrible, why can't this article be about that now~~
no i am really not joking at all, that is the most inane and ridiculous thing. i can't even. it's almost like intending parody OF osc. were this latest article the work of a clever performance artist intending to act like OSC losing his marbles, it would not be substantively different.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
You would think in OSC's mind, the irresponsible, not (yet) grown-up deadbeat dad, who is the kind of person who steals other people's campaign signs would be *EXACTLY* the kind of person who votes for Obama. As an Obama supporter, I took it as a bit of an insult but a fantastic portrayal of the left from OSC's point of view.
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
quote:Linklater makes no attempt to show characters who disagree with him in a fair light. On the contrary, though characters in Boyhood might be complicated in other ways, they are perfect in their compliance with stereotypes.
I got the feeling he's complaining most about the angry old get-off-my-lawn-or-I'll-shoot-you conservative dude with the confederate flag.
Which completely ignores the very next person the movie shows: the disturbingly obsessed I-want-Obama-in-a-carnal-way-isn't-he-dreamy chick.
It's almost like if you spent the day going to a couple hundred homes, you'd only specifically remember the few people that stood out...
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote: Back when I was working on the early stages of the movie Ender's Game with producers who actually understood the character
Shots fired!
Maybe I've missed something but this is the first time I've read him mentioning what he thought about the movie. I'm guessing he didn't like it Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick:
quote: Back when I was working on the early stages of the movie Ender's Game with producers who actually understood the character
Shots fired!
Maybe I've missed something but this is the first time I've read him mentioning what he thought about the movie. I'm guessing he didn't like it
You would guess incorrectly. He liked it as a film just fine.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Source?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Source?
He told me.
edit: Not gonna lie I'm totally smirking right now. Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I was pretty sure that's what it was.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: I was pretty sure that's what it was.
My smirk! It's gone!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick:
quote: Back when I was working on the early stages of the movie Ender's Game with producers who actually understood the character
Shots fired!
Maybe I've missed something but this is the first time I've read him mentioning what he thought about the movie. I'm guessing he didn't like it
It's surprising in a way. It was bad in ways that he usually praises movies for being. It must have been difficult to reconcile his awful consumerist view of entertainment and take the high ground he had so many long years ago. You know, when he was an artist.
Edit: Oh no, he liked it as a movie just fine. Well my faith in OSC's reliability has been restored.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I'm a fan of his reviews, except for when he brings politics into his analysis.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Does he not do that ever?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Well, of the three parts to his current review, only Boyhood involved his political opinions.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: I'm a fan of his reviews, except for when he brings politics into his analysis.
I would call them often entertaining, if completely useless to anyone who wants a sense of whether they would like the film. He seems to love picking out arbitrary details to either castigate or praise as brilliant for some arcane "I'm smart because I know this," reason. He strikes me as a bully in that sense, actually- he tries to make people think they're stupid for not picking up on some detail he does, but in truth, he just picks the things to whinge about pretty randomly.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I don't think he tries to make his readers feel stupid - most of the time, he seems to assume that the people reading are ones who won't identify with the groups that he calls stupid or insane or evil. When they do identify with those groups or at least hold a position that he is attacking, I don't think the bullying dynamic holds - at least I don't feel like OSC can bully me for believing that climate scientists are better suited to understand the science than layman AGW deniers - I just kind of feel like he's being foolish.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
it's that his politics are metastasizing into everything, and his political issues and rhetoric have established this noisome tendency to snake and tendril into his articles on the most remote pretenses or bizarre connections, and it's really super silly? an article about a movie is bam suddenly drunken mumblypeg about how stupid and braindead the Left is and ugh 0bama is worst president ever right? the issues invasion really helped the analysis of the movie be so notably off the wall and blahblah confirmational bias commentary
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Well, of the three parts to his current review, only Boyhood involved his political opinions.
I would be surprised if you could go three columns without an overt and often very out of place calumny against Obama, Democrats, and liberals-or a rousing praise of Bush. If you can got three columns supposedly about a film, restaurant, grocery store, or insulated cup without hearing about what vandals are those who want gay marriage legal, or how much Obama secretly hates America but not really because he's barely hiding it now, well. I'll be surprised and eat some crow.
Seriously, at this rate of descent into reactionary politics I'm half expecting some 'I'm not a Birther, but maybe...' nods before his term is up.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
three? you dreamin man
though i guess i could count
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: three? you dreamin man
though i guess i could count
I'm actually tempted to do that as you all have my curiosity up. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
let's just do a cursory look see
i'll just stop when i hit something really weird as i skim, so it won't be exhaustive just an attempt to catch one per
one back: lectures us about the truth of monogamous pair bonding (ell oh ell) and decries the sexual revolution as a bunch of people who proclaimed that anyone who was married or in a faithful relationship is suffering through something unnatural and undesirable
two back: LOOK AT HOW EAGER MURICANS ARE TO BELIEVE ANTI JOOISH PROPIGANDA SURROUNDING ISRALE
three back: 'ultra-left ideologues' prosecute defenders of traditional values (i.e., anti-homo?) literally contains the text "heaven forbid that anyone should try to include a solid grounding in the writings and ideas and accomplishments of Dead White Males -- even though 99 percent of the achievements of Western Civilization spring from them." what oh my god did i read this before and just forget
four back: describes the native american genocide by white settlers as "mutual terror" "completely justified because of savagery on both sides" ... ? well i guess both sides were equally at fault on that one whoopsie no need to go pointing more fingers at the whites for the whole thing after all
five back: idk looks good
six back: froths at straw 'environmentalists' who 'regarded the human population itself as the worst blight on the earth, and therefore opposed saving billions of lives' hahaha ok
seven: i can't load this one
eight: disses five guys, is dead to me. no idk looks good?
nine: can't load. this could be three in a row i bet
ten: he's like, talking about ... like, eggs, right? chicken eggs, and suddenly it's about the leftist media for ridiculing george h.w. bush for being out of touch with the common people, then literally follows that with "when, exactly, was he going to go out and do his own grocery shopping?" hahaha wait what? ok so maybe that's a little weak but it's still, like, i just read that
eleven: oh my god this one dives STRAIGHT into oh screw it I'll just quote it: "Somehow, Dreamworks Animation managed to give us a story in which the peace-loving hero comes up against a bad guy who doesn't want peace, who relentlessly pursues war, and can only be defeated by having his means of warmaking taken away from him.
Which is, of course, the real goal in every war -- to destroy the enemy's capacity to inflict harm or resist your forces. It was what George W. Bush was heading toward achieving -- removing the safe havens for Islamic terrorists -- when a replacement President came in and undid all of Bush's achievements as quickly as he could. Mission almost totally accomplished now. But not in How to Train Your Dragon 2." hahahaha he just spaz segued OBAMA IZ TERRIBUL straight into the middle of reviewing how to train your dragon ok this is kind of like literally like what I parodied him doing a month ago or so. why am i doing this i should be taking a shower
twelve: a electric razor review segues into how schools don't teach people to be critical thinkers anymore or something but who cares this one's fine i think
thirteen: in the middle of a review of @midnight he knickerwads into Slanders Put Out By Some on the Extreme Left and hits all the target points cleanly of his global warming denial, benghazi, and believing obamacare is a failure, very classic example of what we are talking about
fourteen: looks fine
fifteen: looks fine?
sixteen: looks fine??
THAT IS THREE IN A ROW OK RIGHT THERE BAM JUST GOT REKT
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
His latest column:
quote:Obama’s tendency to frolic on the golf course or play cards while barbarians murder innocent people whom he could have protected is as sickening as “let them eat cake” or fiddling while Rome burned.
Yeah...
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Sam, your ramblings never fail to amuse me.
Write more of them.
(Dance, monkey, dance)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: His latest column:
quote:Obama’s tendency to frolic on the golf course or play cards while barbarians murder innocent people whom he could have protected is as sickening as “let them eat cake” or fiddling while Rome burned.
Yeah...
I believe that the recent tally of obama's vacation days had him at 92 total, where george w bush was at 323 total at the same point in his presidency
(yeah, a whole year, about)
hmmmmmm
hmmmmmmmmmmm
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
hhhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I *was* surprised to hear Mr. Card state that President Bush didn't play golf while men were dying during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. That seems logistically impossible.
But maybe I'm misremembering the specific claim.
[ September 22, 2014, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Yea, but Lou Casacuberta makes a good point in the comments section:
quote: obama needs to do something period .take a vacation form ding what!?i expect better writing from washingtn post not defending or sounding like obama with excuses with the mr so and so did it too.grow washingtn stop acting like 6 yr olds blaming evryone but your own mothers,obama obama is on obama agenda...healthcare and global warming stuff period..america wants jobs,better ecnomny,a war leader who gets respect and works with others and is liked .a truthful person and open...nt a president who seperates or divides ..like i said we need 1 who brings together not just talk on islam or muslims but we need a united states for all the people president and this obama isnt it ..he creates racial tension and division .politicians afraid of obama removal because of black community ..america is being held hostage ..lawsuits are being perpared ..boehner has his attrney .they will sue obama for overuse power.he deserves no time off period.worst president in history and most hated
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
There's just too much truth in that comment. It's so much truth it stings my eyes and scrambles my Wernicke's area. It .. agh. ut hurts, my brain .hruts, i see it all nwo??!was so obveos, obama obama is on obama angenda...whres the birth seritfcate, benghazey???worst presedent
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Yea, but Lou Casacuberta makes a good point in the comments section:
quote: obama needs to do something period .take a vacation form ding what!?i expect better writing from washingtn post not defending or sounding like obama with excuses with the mr so and so did it too.grow washingtn stop acting like 6 yr olds blaming evryone but your own mothers,obama obama is on obama agenda...healthcare and global warming stuff period..america wants jobs,better ecnomny,a war leader who gets respect and works with others and is liked .a truthful person and open...nt a president who seperates or divides ..like i said we need 1 who brings together not just talk on islam or muslims but we need a united states for all the people president and this obama isnt it ..he creates racial tension and division .politicians afraid of obama removal because of black community ..america is being held hostage ..lawsuits are being perpared ..boehner has his attrney .they will sue obama for overuse power.he deserves no time off period.worst president in history and most hated
Well said!!! Writing "period" and then using a period seems a bit redundant, though.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I *was* surprised to hear Mr. Card state that President Bush didn't play golf while men were doing during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. That seems logistically impossible.
But maybe I'm misremembering the specific claim.
I hadn't heard either way. I know Obama golfs with Boehner, so I assume many of his golf games are also "work".
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Presidents don't even really have vacations, anyway. And they take what mental health time and changes of scenery they can, wherever and whenever they can find it.
I guess, and for serious here i'm not trying to push an envelope here i just want to have it out there for consideration, GWB was really pushing that with his 407 "full or partial days" off at the same point in Obama's tenure, and its entirely probable that a case can be made for him being relatively more checked out than other modern presidents, but you can't know, because they stay coy on how presidents manage their time and their expenditures. It is pure conjecture.
So, of course, if we're playing a game of conjecture, you end up with idiot apologists who will make their own conclusions. Bush had over three times as many vacation days as obama and he is a heroic war president hero who was obviously spending his time trimming hedges or nodding off at his ranch expertly crafting anti-terrorist strategy. Obama, with less than a third of that total, is nero fiddling while rome burned and is certifiably the worst president ever and a total failure.
We have to have this turn around to today's utterly ridiculous nobummer commentary about how the president is toodling out playing golf IN A TIME OF WAR (I guess once the united states declares war, presidents can't play golf or do anything recreational ever, even if said state of war is ongoing for over a decade now cool)
This does remind me of something, though. OH. Right. Even though he would probably loOOoooOoove the comparison, Card's being most like a low-rent written word Michael Moore in the way he was really seriously pushing bush's dundery imagery and saying look at these images guys obvs the president is an off the clock fumbling moron. Moore's visual selling of that included, appropriately, the president playing golf! Look guys the president was playing golf what a chunderhead play the video of my pet goat again guys
Where and when bush was being a chunderhead, it sure as hell wasn't for playing some golf in the midst of one of the most pivotal and high stress jobs in the damn universe.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Well, I personally thought it was ridiculous because I've lived and worked at MCBH for 4 years... whenever the president takes his Christmas vacation, he goes and eats Christmas dinner with the Marines at the chow hall there. Every single time. He doesn't really do it for press or publicity reasons, it's usually pretty low key. I met him there in 2010 and was completely surprised to see him - and he's come back every year since. In recent years he actually has them kick out civilians and press and only allows the Marines and Sailors in. (We're the only ones who are supposed to be there anyway) He genuinely cares a lot about military members, and goes way out of his way to shake as many hands, and talk to and thank as many service members as possible everywhere he goes. Seriously, he even remembered my buddy Scott (who made a rather inappropriate political joke the first time he met him) 2 years after the first time he met him, which is pretty insane for someone who meets literally tens of thousands of people every year.
Anyway, when he's out here, he pretty much works the entire time. He goes to the beach with his family and plays golf on base once or twice, and he goes to the gym, but the rest of the time he's still working. I can't really say how much work GWB did in comparison when he was on vacation, but to assume Obama is fiddling while America burns is... inaccurate. A lot of his golf games out here are with admirals/generals of PACOM or local government officials, and are more of "on the go meetings" than pure recreation.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You're in the military. Obama is defaming your honor and almost literally spitting on your career and sacrifice! Tell me, sir, have you grown so stupid on liberalism that you fail to see how terrible Obama is, or do you secretly loathe it?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You're in the military. Obama is defaming your honor and almost literally spitting on your career and sacrifice! Tell me, sir, have you grown so stupid on liberalism that you fail to see how terrible Obama is, or do you secretly loathe it?
You need to work on your troll impression.
For starters, turn the grammar down and hyperbole up.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dogbreath, as a member of the military, what was your reaction to the tea tainted salute?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You're in the military. Obama is defaming your honor and almost literally spitting on your career and sacrifice! Tell me, sir, have you grown so stupid on liberalism that you fail to see how terrible Obama is, or do you secretly loathe it?
Oh, don't worry, there are many, many things I dislike about Obama. Just none of them happen to do with how he spends his vacation time or his personal life. He seems like a pretty decent guy personally.
Boots: had to look it up. Um, maybe he was distracted? I once accidentally saluted with a set of keys in my hand, felt like a dumbass.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What a normal, reasonable, human reaction.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
The only people who would react differently are just trolls. It's not like that was some huge scandal...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Rove blasted the move as “insensitive,” but asked, “Are we surprised?” He dubbed Obama as a "chai-swillin’, golf-playin’, basketball trash-talkin’” commander-in-chief.
What are they going to do next, make fun of his shoes? I mean, they already did the tie lapel thing...
Oh come on, that's adorable.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: I mean, they already did the tie lapel thing...
they additionally had their go around with "Obama wears tan suit instead of blue or black: one of, or the worst president ever?"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:If there was ever any doubt how this Commander in Chief really feels in his heart about our men and women in uniform, this should seal the deal. We have warriors engaged in harm’s way, and he does THIS? The latte salute. And he has the nerve to publish it on his Instagram account. Disgraceful.
this was literally on sen. allen west's site
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Deer whistles? Really?
Those were debunked 20 years ago.
I didn't even know the things existed until a few days ago.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I had never heard of such a thing, but a friend told me about Save-A-Deer Whistles.
Let me fix that:
quote:I had never heard of such a thing, but a PR person from Save-A-Deer Whistles paid me to push their marketing material.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
MrSquicky: Mr. Card has stated he is not compensated, and refuses payoffs from companies for the reviews he writes.
Do you have evidence that has changed?
[ October 08, 2014, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
It does seem irresponsible to review a product when you have no way of speaking to the primary function of that product. My Tiger Repelling Rock works great. Sits on my desk quite nicely and I've seen zero tigers since I purchased it.
I don't expect him to do his own tests or whatever, but the review reads like he just read the company's own claims and parotted them without checking any deeper. A little skepticism goes a long way for products making unverifiable claims.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
In reference to deer whistles - it's impossible to verify a specific company's claims, because you can't prove or disprove a negative, nor can you do a scientific study on the matter. So, anecdotal evidence is the only thing you can use. Mr. Card's friend had anecdotal evidence of the product working, and he found the friend's testimonial convincing enough to spend six bucks on a product, in the chance that it may work.
If you're interested in more powerful anecdotal evidence, there's this: The company I once worked for, Missoula Children's Theatre, has a fleet of 45 Ford F150s that travel an average of 15,000 miles a year, all over the United States and Canada. The fleet manager insists on $6 deer whistles on all company vehicles. They haven't had a deer-truck collision in 10 years. Conservatively, that's 6 million miles driven with zero collisions. Does this mean they work? No! But it's another piece of anecdotal evidence, which I said at the onset is really the only kind of evidence possible for this product.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled Card-bashing. Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
You can actually test the claims made, especially because they claim a mechanism which is possible to test. The wikipedia page goes over the criticisms pretty well.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I have driven a few hundred thousand miles in a highly deer-dense area, with no whistle, and have also hit no deer. Most people I know in similar circumstances have never hit a deer. It's a common enough occurrence to warn about, but not so common that it's likely to happen to any given person.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
You can just google "deer whistle" for more info on why they're completely worthless. It's pretty easy to fact check these sorts of things nowadays...
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brian J. Hill: In reference to deer whistles - it's impossible to verify a specific company's claims, because you can't prove or disprove a negative, nor can you do a scientific study on the matter. So, anecdotal evidence is the only thing you can use. Mr. Card's friend had anecdotal evidence of the product working, and he found the friend's testimonial convincing enough to spend six bucks on a product, in the chance that it may work.
If you're interested in more powerful anecdotal evidence, there's this: The company I once worked for, Missoula Children's Theatre, has a fleet of 45 Ford F150s that travel an average of 15,000 miles a year, all over the United States and Canada. The fleet manager insists on $6 deer whistles on all company vehicles. They haven't had a deer-truck collision in 10 years. Conservatively, that's 6 million miles driven with zero collisions. Does this mean they work? No! But it's another piece of anecdotal evidence, which I said at the onset is really the only kind of evidence possible for this product.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled Card-bashing.
No, you can't prove a negative, but you can disprove a negative fairly easy. For example, by finding Russell's Teapot. Or if you install a deer whistle and still hit deer. Which some of the amazon reviewers have done.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
quote:Originally posted by Brian J. Hill: In reference to deer whistles - it's impossible to verify a specific company's claims, because you can't prove or disprove a negative, nor can you do a scientific study on the matter. So, anecdotal evidence is the only thing you can use. Mr. Card's friend had anecdotal evidence of the product working, and he found the friend's testimonial convincing enough to spend six bucks on a product, in the chance that it may work.
If you're interested in more powerful anecdotal evidence, there's this: The company I once worked for, Missoula Children's Theatre, has a fleet of 45 Ford F150s that travel an average of 15,000 miles a year, all over the United States and Canada. The fleet manager insists on $6 deer whistles on all company vehicles. They haven't had a deer-truck collision in 10 years. Conservatively, that's 6 million miles driven with zero collisions. Does this mean they work? No! But it's another piece of anecdotal evidence, which I said at the onset is really the only kind of evidence possible for this product.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled Card-bashing.
No, you can't prove a negative, but you can disprove a negative fairly easy. For example, by finding Russell's Teapot. Or if you install a deer whistle and still hit deer. Which some of the amazon reviewers have done.
That doesn't technically disprove it. It doesn't claim to be 100% effective. I think the most scientific way to judge its effectiveness is to have one car with a whistle and one without, and have them drive the same deer-dense roads at the same time of night, altering nights, for a very long period of time. And repeat this experiment in many different areas.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: I have driven a few hundred thousand miles in a highly deer-dense area, with no whistle, and have also hit no deer.
Lisa, I would like to buy your rock.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brian J. Hill: In reference to deer whistles - it's impossible to verify a specific company's claims, because you can't prove or disprove a negative, nor can you do a scientific study on the matter.
Why on earth couldn't you conduct a scientific study on the topic? Specific claims are being made about the effect of the whistle on deer behavior. Those claims could *easily* be tested.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Some people did and they determined that the deer whistles were ineffectual, as were similar products marketed elsewhere as kangaroo collision deterrents
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
:: shock ::
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
The deer whistle supposedly causes the deer to freeze in place. What if they are standing on the road when that happens?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Well, at least in theory that could give drivers enough time to react. It's harder to avoid a deer that leaps in front of you at the last second than one that you see standing still a few hundred feet ahead.
But that particular effect doesn't seem to hold up to empirical testing.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
see, Obama is tuberculosis
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Obama is an infectious disease see, the parallel is too clear
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
My favorite part of that essay is where he holds up Scott Walker as a guy who does it right.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Not sure what essay you guys are talking about.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
It's the most recent on ornery.org, which is a few months old.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Obama is an infectious disease see, the parallel is too clear
No, he's arguing that Obama is a symptom of the disease (and the distinction between the disease and its symptoms is very much Card's point). It's an argument I don't find convincing at all, but there's no need to misrepresent it.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Don’t underestimate the role that snobbery plays in shopping. Even well-to-do snobs slip into Wal-Mart occasionally, sometimes in disguise, in order to look at the sad little things that the hoi polloi buy, and to gawk a little at the hoi polloi themselves. There are websites devoted to abusing and ridiculing poor people who shop at Wal-Mart.
(To be fair, I also know a lot of non-snobs who could shop anywhere, but enjoy shopping at Wal-Mart because of the wide selection. A belief in the poverty or bad taste of all Wal-Mart shoppers is merely a symptom of the self-delusion of the snobs. Oddly enough, most people I’ve known who have this snobbish attitude fancy themselves intellectuals and liberals who love the poor. They see no contradiction.)
This annoys me on so many levels as some who is 1. liberal 2. likes poor people (and votes to pay taxes and support programs to improve their lives, even though some people certainly do take advantage of the system) 3. lives in a city that barely has a Wal-mart, and I don't shop there.
1. I take it OSC has never visited said website. I don't particularly care for creepshots, but a vast percentage of people seem to get on that site for wearing clothing that doesn't cover what standard undergarments should, let alone the expanded body area that Mormon underwear does. Outfits that show your butt cost pretty much the same as those that don't and are available at every price point. These people don't care.
2. I'm really curious what the political affiliation of the "people of Wal-Mart" website visitors and submitters are. OSC hates liberals, fine, but I really wish he wouldn't assume that everyone who does something he doesn't like must be liberal. I can assure you that conservative types are equally disgusted by the poor people when they shop there (exhibit A, my dad, who is quite conservative)
3. While you can get cheap consumer goods at Wal-mart, the place is pretty much Sam Vines's boots theory run amok. It's fairly well known that many products have a "Wal-Mart version" designed to allow manufacturers to meet the low per-unit price in Wal-mart's high volume.
Wal-mart is cheap for many things, but it's not necessarily the cheapest at all things at all time , however, their advertising sure has people convinced it's the only store that people could ever afford to shop at and the only way people could buy something. While we're on the subject, not all deals on Black Friday are the best deal of the year, either.
I'm also frustrated because buying used, getting to know your neighbors and sharing things you don't use often, price-booking groceries and following the "the pantry principle", and not eating convenience foods are going to save you more money than simply shopping at Wal-Mart for everything just because it's there.
So yes, liberals care about the poor, but hate Wal-Mart, because it's not helping them, just appearing to do so.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Walmart has a pretty good thing going for it with the whole thing where it is powerful enough to ensure over time that it creates entrapping wage structures and the government subsidizes its own workers for it.
then republicans and moral majority types respond to minimum wage arguments by thinking and asserting some version of the jobs market that was an obsolete fantasy by, what, 1970 or so?
basically saying that minimum wage jobs are something that people totally cruise on by into better paying career, so long as they're really trying* (*as judged by a filthy rich white upper class republican male with a political career)!
It's like the paperboy route you took as a kid, on your bike, in this charming illusion I have where paper delivery is still something that is still frequently given to kids on bikes, and isn't primarily done by dire straits middle aged people in cars desperately trying to make ends meet and not being compensated for the wear and tear on their vehicle! A world where people largely can still pay their own way through college on a summer job, or get a house young without being a trust fund kid to save them from being bled dry by overheated rental markets, or expect that their job opportunities are going to be anything other than a steady stream of increasingly marginalizing part-time shuffles. If only the dag-gumbed youths and mirlennials would get their bootstraps on in the morning and stop being such a whiny entitled generation!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
For my part, I am a liberal who can't stand to look at pictures of people at Walmart, because it reminds me of an abused spouse who can't leave, and doesn't realize she is enabling the abuser. I don't live in America anymore, and we don't have the equivalent type of business in Europe because here, people believe that a society of fairness is not compatible with extreme greed.
That and a more traditional culture. There is a great saying among Czechs: "nejsem tak bohatý abych si mohl koupit levné věci." "I am not so rich, as to buy cheap things." The culture is far less focused on material consumerism. And this has interesting consequences: you'll find that people here will wear a coat that might easily account for two months salary. But they might have bought it 15 years ago. Everything is like that.
[ November 05, 2014, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: This annoys me on so many levels as some who is 1. liberal 2. likes poor people (and votes to pay taxes and support programs to improve their lives, even though some people certainly do take advantage of the system) 3. lives in a city that barely has a Wal-mart, and I don't shop there.
1. I take it OSC has never visited said website. I don't particularly care for creepshots, but a vast percentage of people seem to get on that site for wearing clothing that doesn't cover what standard undergarments should, let alone the expanded body area that Mormon underwear does. Outfits that show your butt cost pretty much the same as those that don't and are available at every price point. These people don't care.
2. I'm really curious what the political affiliation of the "people of Wal-Mart" website visitors and submitters are. OSC hates liberals, fine, but I really wish he wouldn't assume that everyone who does something he doesn't like must be liberal. I can assure you that conservative types are equally disgusted by the poor people when they shop there (exhibit A, my dad, who is quite conservative)
A very conservative friend of mine (who was actually just elected state treasurer is Indiana yesterday) absolutely despises Wal*Mart and everything it stands for. She grew up in a small town in Indiana and throughout her career has seen the same scenario played out over and over: Wal*Mart moves into a small town, operates at a loss (because they can afford to do this for *years*) and undercuts local retailers (and increasingly grocery stores too, thanks to Super Wal*Mart), driving them out of business, and ends up employing a quarter of the town's population and gets most of them all on welfare. Because Wal*Mart literally gives classes to it's employees on how to apply for welfare benefits when they first hire on. They've done this hundreds (if not thousands) of times - they roll through small towns previously filled mostly with independent taxpayers and leave a broken, welfare dependent population in their wake. It's perhaps the most bleak, dytopian form of socialism we've seen in America.
Honestly, they're not the only company that has preyed on small towns in this manner, but they're the biggest one to do so. And quite a few conservatives (I mean real, small business, small government, financial independence and the American dream conservatives, which are something of a dying breed) despise them for it.
quote:3. While you can get cheap consumer goods at Wal-mart, the place is pretty much Sam Vines's boots theory run amok. It's fairly well known that many products have a "Wal-Mart version" designed to allow manufacturers to meet the low per-unit price in Wal-mart's high volume.
Wal-mart is cheap for many things, but it's not necessarily the cheapest at all things at all time , however, their advertising sure has people convinced it's the only store that people could ever afford to shop at and the only way people could buy something. While we're on the subject, not all deals on Black Friday are the best deal of the year, either.
The myth that poor people need to shop at Wal*Mart and eat fast food because they're too poor to do anything else is something my wife and I find immensely frustrating.
For starters, Good Will, Ross, and even TJ Maxx have higher quality and much cheaper clothes than those sold at Wal*Mart, and a better selection too. There's no shortage of high quality used clothing in the U.S. There's something to be said for quality vs. price as well - a pair of $70 jeans (on sale at Ross for like $19.99) will last you 2 or 3 years of hard wear before wearing out.
But also, food. My wife and I live on a fairly tight budget (admittedly by choice rather than necessity), and we budget $600 a month for food. In Hawaii, where food is outrageously expensive. And we eat very well - lots of fresh fish, chicken, fruits, vegetables (of every sort), nuts, berries, greek yogurt, pita, hummus, occasionally steak, etc. If we were to eat more simply (but still be healthy) we could easily live off $400/month. We plan out our meals and shopping trips, we cook most nights (unless we have leftovers), we make everything from scratch as much as possible, and we pack lunches every day. We usually have enough money left over at the end of the month to go out to dinner once or twice.
That ends up being about $3 a meal per person, plus snacks. If we were to eat fast food every day, it'd be twice that. At least.
This also isn't very time consuming, which is another argument I've heard. It takes about an hour to and hour and a half for whoever's cooking, and an hour for whoever cleans up and makes lunch for the next day.(we switch off) I work 60 hours a week and it's not particularly demanding. It also takes about 6 hours a month for shopping, since we plan our shopping trips out beforehand and only go 3 times a month.
It also doesn't take much in the way of resources. A stove, a refrigerator, some utensils, $5 worth of tupperware and a cookbook will suffice.
No, the real problems are the myths (only rich people can afford to eat healthy food), lack of education (how to cook, how to make a budget, what foods to eat, how to plan meals), and most importantly, a lack of neighborhood grocery stores. Who actually has a grocery store within 10-15 minutes walking distance? There's a crappy little mini-mart within walking distance of me, but it's mostly frozen hungry man meals and junk food, and very expensive. The nearest actual grocery store is 3 miles. And I live on a relatively small island. If I didn't have a car and instead had 3 kids, I'd be out of luck. It's kind of hard to fit a grocery cart on a bus.
I remember walking to the grocery store as a kid. It was on the corner of the block. I also remember when most neighborhood grocery stores started shutting down - when huge super stores (like Wal*Mart or Meijer) began selling food. And Wal*Mart, McDonalds, and their ilk have no problem perpetuating the myth that they're the only places with affordable products for poor people because frankly, the more you believe it, the more true it becomes.
All this is to say I think the best way to combat crappy living conditions for people in poverty (aside from helping them get out of poverty) is education. Saying things like "they can't help but eat junk food, it's all they can afford! You snob!" or "They can't help but shop at Wal*Mart, it's all they can afford! You snob!" is not only condescending, but is also incredibly indifferent and fatalistic. As important and noble a goal as raising the overall amount of money available to the poorest among is, I think an equally important (but often neglected) goal is efforts to make life more livable and enjoyable at those low wages. And that means education, that means cooking classes and financial management classes at community centers (and more effective community outreach programs), that means more neighborhood stores and businesses and stricter laws to curtail exploitative corporations, it means better public transportation, more parks, better schools, and safer neighborhoods.
I honestly don't know if wanting those things, or all the hours I volunteered working at a neighborhood community center makes me much of a snob. I don't even know if it makes me much of a liberal. (I certainly didn't think so) But it does in OSC's eyes, and also in the eyes of much of the current Republican party, which is pretty sad. At this point, any observations along the lines of "man, being poor sucks" or "gee, it sure is difficult to buy a house when mortgage rates are literally more than I can pay and still eat" makes me an arrogant liberal or a whining, lazy Millennial.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: A world where people largely can still pay their own way through college on a summer job
I think I've shared this here before, but this is something I often discuss with my father. (Who is actually somehow capable of realizing just how shitty our generation has it, amazingly enough)
When he was in college in the late 60s, his college tuition cost him $600 a semester. He worked a summer job roofing, which paid $6 an hour. It was hard work, but he literally made enough money to pay for an entire year of college in about a month. (200 hours of work)
Tuition nowadays at a good state college costs around $6,000-10,000 a semester. 10-16 times what he had to pay. How many 19 year olds make $12,000-$20,000 for 200 hours of work? How many people with graduate degrees make that much?
He tries to bring this up whenever his buddies are sitting around, "Dave's always bellyaching about his student loans, still living at home with me and Margaret. I tell you, when I was in college I didn't need loans! I paid my own way through school, thank you very much, didn't need any help from mommy and daddy. And we bought our house when I was 25. I tell you, this generation... lazy. Ungrateful. Entitled. It's a real shame."
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Also, minimum wage at the time was $1.25/hour. Even if he had been working minimum wage, he would have been able to pay his entire tuition with 4 months work. Let's say, 3 months full time in the summer and 5 hours a week during the school year. You would have to work 9-14 months full time at $7.25/hour to pay $12-$20,000 in tuition.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
And there's an entire other point about an unskilled laborer being able to make 4x minimum wage, or minimum wage at the time itself being about 25% higher than it is now, adjusted for inflation or...
arrrrrrghfghfgn
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
This might lead one to conclude something crazy, like the idea that a tax policy favored by the extremely wealthy *might not* be necessarily geared towards the betterment and justice to the lower 99.2% of the country. Weird!
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I think we're on entirely the same page on why Walmart is horrible.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: This might lead one to conclude something crazy, like the idea that a tax policy favored by the extremely wealthy *might not* be necessarily geared towards the betterment and justice to the lower 99.2% of the country. Weird!
I wish it did and that laffernomics was a real thing and the rising tide lifted all boats. It would be real easy riding in the us if that were true. It would be so harmoniously effective - the rational self interest of the top level capitalist clan would feed back into national prosperity on all levels.
Oh well.
*goes back to reading the national geographic article about epidemic child hunger throughout the rusted out bones of America*
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: A world where people largely can still pay their own way through college on a summer job
I think I've shared this here before, but this is something I often discuss with my father. (Who is actually somehow capable of realizing just how shitty our generation has it, amazingly enough)
When he was in college in the late 60s, his college tuition cost him $600 a semester. He worked a summer job roofing, which paid $6 an hour. It was hard work, but he literally made enough money to pay for an entire year of college in about a month. (200 hours of work)
Tuition nowadays at a good state college costs around $6,000-10,000 a semester. 10-16 times what he had to pay. How many 19 year olds make $12,000-$20,000 for 200 hours of work? How many people with graduate degrees make that much?
He tries to bring this up whenever his buddies are sitting around, "Dave's always bellyaching about his student loans, still living at home with me and Margaret. I tell you, when I was in college I didn't need loans! I paid my own way through school, thank you very much, didn't need any help from mommy and daddy. And we bought our house when I was 25. I tell you, this generation... lazy. Ungrateful. Entitled. It's a real shame."
I'm over half a decade out of college at this point, but I had what I would consider a decent summer college job: a science REU (research experience for undergraduates, typically funded by the national science foundation, and often very competitive). Dorms were usually provided, and we were to generally work for 10 weeks at 40 hours per week (summer vacation lasted about 12-14 weeks, so typically there was one week between when undergrads left and the seniors graduated, and two-three weeks before the new school year started that I could spend with my family. We were compensated about $4000 for the whole summer.
Nowadays I have a PhD, and no, I do not make a semester's tuition in a month (the low estimate). But it's plenty to live on.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
So you're somewhere in the bottom 97% of Americans, economically speaking. (according to this calculator, where conveniently the 97th percentile ends at $143,705/year) It's all right, though, I am too. The statistics listed indicate that, at most, 0.05% of people under 25 make close to that. For the low estimate. So...
While researching this, most of the results were about median household incomes, which led me to the question: what, exactly, constitutes "middle class?" I mean, I know a lot of people define it by profession, but we live in a world where a lot of white collar professionals and even managers sometimes make less than, say, a guy who does flooring or picks up dead animals on the road. (which my friend made $80,000/year doing, amazingly enough) So I decided to set some criteria: - Home ownership - Car ownership (unless you live in a city that actually has good, comprehensive public transportation, as well as grocery and retail stores in walking distance. Like, say, Paris) - Adequate retirement (either a pension or an IRA) - Health care - Basic luxuries. Internet, TV, being able to eat out occasionally, being able to take vacations every year or two. - About $10-$15,000 extra per child. (For child care, extra food, and other expenses)
So I decided to calculate that for where I live, to see if we qualify as middle class.
The median price of houses in my city is $380,000. I actually live in a very affordable area, but if we move from 2 to 3 bedrooms, the prices jump to over $500,000. But let's say having you have 2 kids and they share a bedroom, so $380,000. Anywhere within a mile or two of the beach and you're paying over a million, but we'll disregard that for now.
With a 30 year mortgage assuming you pay 20% down and have a 4% APR (average for Hawaii), you're making monthly mortgage payments of $1,837.63, or $22,051.56 a year, which is actually pretty decent. I pay only slightly less than that in rent on a postage stamp sized 1 bedroom apartment. (I should really buy a house if I can get a decent job here after I get out of the service)
Utilities will easily add another $500/month to that. (electricity is really expensive) Though a huge number of people have had solar panels put on their roof, so you can cut $350/month off that if you can afford $30,000 or so to get them installed.
So we're at $28,000/year now.
A car loan will cost you $471 for a new car or $351 for a used car, average. More if you're driving a mini-van. Let's assume your family has 2 cars, one used and one new. Plus $400/month for gasoline (it's really expensive here), and another $100/month for insurance, and another $100/month for average cost of tires, oil, repairs, what have you. That's $1,422 a month for transportation, or $17,064/year. You can cut $4,000 or $5,000 off that by owning one of the cars outright, or about $10,000 for both. So it's a lot cheaper to be older, or to have more money starting out. The bus isn't an option, it doesn't go near either of our jobs. (Isn't America great?)
So we're at $45,000 now
As discussed, food for us is about $600/month or $7,200/year. We budget pretty effectively and get military discounts. Let's round that out to $10,000/year for 2 adults. (we're not even accounting for kids yet)
$55,000
Airfares, hotels, and other expenses means any sort of off island vacation will cost you about $5,000 for 2 weeks of vacation. Let's say you go home once a year to visit family.
$60,000
Internet, cable TV, movies, boat rides, waterparks, going out, video games, new clothes, other other simple luxuries. Nothing crazy like horseback riding or skydiving or whatever. Maybe 400/month minimum? Let's say $5,000/year
$65,000
Healthcare. Paid by your employer hopefully. If not (say you own your own business), about $6,000 a year. We won't count it for now, though.
Retirement: 2 IRAs maxed at $11,000, or perhaps $12,000 in 401ks in order to make a livable retirement.
Sooo... bare bones, no frills, $77,000/year after taxes, or about $115,000 before. (Federal income tax is 25%, state tax is 8.25%)
In other words, for 2 people, a household income of $115,000 is what you need to be middle class in Hawaii. Or $100,000 if you own your own vehicles outright, budget really well, and don't travel. $130-$145,000 if you have 2 kids.
Except the median household income here is actually $70,093/year. Whoops. What this looks like in reality is that we have "Ohana houses" where multiple generations of family live together in packed into a single house, and very few people save for retirement, or at all really. They spend all their income just making ends meet.
While it's true that older people do own some property and will pass it on to their children, most of the residential property here is actually owned by a relatively small number of rich white people. And will be inherited by an equally small number of rich white people. When you keep rent high enough that people can't even save enough to make a down-payment on a house, you don't get a lot of new home owners here.
Some cursory research seems to indicate this is true across most of the country - "middle class" household income is about twice what the actual median household income is. Which means that home ownership is becoming increasingly difficult, and the dream of retirement and eventual financial independence mostly unobtainable. The majority of people will live in rental property (or in crippling debt) and work until they die, or until they're too old to work and their kids have to support them.
I know all that has probably been said many times and more eloquently than by me, but it's really, truly frustrating for me to know all of this, when there's a huge number of politicians in this country who still believe that a middle class lifestyle is obtainable for anyone who "just works hard enough" for it, or that it's something the average American family can now achieve. The fact that a huge percentage of voters come from a generation when this actually was a possibility and bullheadedly refuse to believe it's not just "lazy millennial who don't want to work hard" only exacerbates this. And by the time they die off, it'll be too late for my generation.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yes. The 1950s convinced Americans that American life defined middle class existence. This is why upper class people call themselves middle class, and working class people do the same.
It also had interesting effects on our economy: the mortgage crisis was a result of unrealistic ideas of how many people could live a "middle class," consumer life.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
*nods* That and the massive amounts of credit card debt and vanishing savings. Without a fairly intense restructuring, our current economy simply can't support as large of a middle class as it would like, and I feel the next 20 years or so will see whole suburbs of cookie cutter mcmansions left vacant or re-purposed as multi-family apartments.
This was already happening in Indianapolis when I left in 2009, and I made a decent amount of money renovating houses because of it. Families leaving their large suburban houses en mass to move into smaller, cheap houses near downtown that had been mostly unoccupied since white flight in the 70s.
The security and comfort of a big $300,000 house and large backyard with a grill and a pool in a quiet cul-de-sac a 40 minute drive from your job stops being so appealing when you realize you could live at just about the same comfort level in a $90,000 house that's a 20 minute bike ride from your job. You just have to give up the yard, live around people of different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds, and walk to a public pool to swim. $300,000 is a lot to pay for status. Which, more than anything else, a suburban house is. A big sign saying "hey! I've made it! I'm living the American dream!" The privilege of isolation.
And I think the main reason why this happens is the rhetoric surrounding class warfare in this country, especially politically. If you're not middle class, you're a failure. You haven't worked hard enough, you're not hungry enough, you're not a go getter. You're lazy. Why do you need a higher minimum wage? Surely if you just applied yourself, your employer would see your worth and you could command a better salary. Why do you need welfare? Why don't you get a job and pay your own way instead of asking for handouts. I think in many ways it's coming from rich people with guilty consciouses trying to justify their wealth by pretending that everyone not as fortunate is simply lazier, but the biggest impact it has is on the working class: "if you're working class, you're a failure." It doesn't help that many politicians are hell bent on making poverty in this country as miserable as possible, supposedly with the oh-so-noble goal of "motivating" poor people to succeed.
So you see people living unsustainable lifestyles with increasing indebtedness every year to prove to themselves that they aren't failures, when they might actually be happier and more successful overall living within their means in a smaller place without that car, or big screen TV, or living room furniture set. Everyone is so focused on moving up socially, no one seems to really care any more about making where you're at more comfortable and livable.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Anyway, I apologize for all the ranting. As of late, I've found myself being pressured (by job offers, superiors at work, family, friends, and society) into the sort of middle class job and lifestyle I never really wanted. I suppose I'm having my midlife crisis about 25 years early, if that makes sense. I've always been precocious like that.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
$500/mo? For electricity?
For a 2 bedroom apt, that presumably has neither heat nor ac (my understanding is it's never boiling hot in HI?
I will grant that air-drying clothes probably will not work.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
No, $500/mo for utilities, including electricity. For a house. (We don't spend near $500/mo on utilities) Water and sewer are also expensive, as is garbage. Also, a lot of the things that are done with natural gas in the mainland (like hot water heaters, stoves, etc.) are all electrical here. It adds up.
You're correct in assuming that most houses here don't have air conditioning. It's not necessary, as it almost never gets about 85 degrees or so outside. (It's almost noon here, and it's currently 78 degrees inside my house with a nice breeze blowing. We literally only close our windows during hurricanes) It's also insanely expensive to run air conditioning.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote: The security and comfort of a big $300,000 house and large backyard with a grill and a pool in a quiet cul-de-sac a 40 minute drive from your job stops being so appealing when you realize you could live at just about the same comfort level in a $90,000 house that's a 20 minute bike ride from your job.
So I'm in Texas, not Hawaii, but we're house hunting at the moment. It just so happens that anything near where I work or any of the business centers where most the jobs are is way more expensive than a house out in the suburbs. If you want to be within a 20 minute bike ride of work you have to either spend 500k or live in an overpriced trailer park.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote: She grew up in a small town in Indiana and throughout her career has seen the same scenario played out over and over: Wal*Mart moves into a small town, operates at a loss (because they can afford to do this for *years*) and undercuts local retailers (and increasingly grocery stores too, thanks to Super Wal*Mart), driving them out of business
Predatory practices like this are actually quite illegal.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:If you want to be within a 20 minute bike ride of work you have to either spend 500k or live in an overpriced trailer park.
I think "overpriced trailer park" may be another way of saying the same thing that Dogbreath was saying - you'd let go of some of the external status markers and a few of the benefits of living in a McMansion in exchange for affordability and proximity to things that would otherwise require you to drive.
I think this is somewhat true in a lot of cities, but of course if everyone was chasing those properties instead of the ones further out in the suburbs, the relative price might change.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:If you want to be within a 20 minute bike ride of work you have to either spend 500k or live in an overpriced trailer park.
I think "overpriced trailer park" may be another way of saying the same thing that Dogbreath was saying - you'd let go of some of the external status markers and a few of the benefits of living in a McMansion in exchange for affordability and proximity to things that would otherwise require you to drive.
No he said that you just have to give up a yard, pool, and white neighbors.
quote: You just have to give up the yard, live around people of different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds, and walk to a public pool to swim. $300,000 is a lot to pay for status.
The places we looked at are giving up a lot more than that.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn:
quote: The security and comfort of a big $300,000 house and large backyard with a grill and a pool in a quiet cul-de-sac a 40 minute drive from your job stops being so appealing when you realize you could live at just about the same comfort level in a $90,000 house that's a 20 minute bike ride from your job.
So I'm in Texas, not Hawaii, but we're house hunting at the moment. It just so happens that anything near where I work or any of the business centers where most the jobs are is way more expensive than a house out in the suburbs. If you want to be within a 20 minute bike ride of work you have to either spend 500k or live in an overpriced trailer park.
*nods* I was talking about Indiana in that scenario, actually. Hawaii is an entirely different beast with real estate. A pool and a yard will run you a million bucks here, at least. (more if you're near the beach
[ November 10, 2014, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: Dogbreath ]
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn:
quote: She grew up in a small town in Indiana and throughout her career has seen the same scenario played out over and over: Wal*Mart moves into a small town, operates at a loss (because they can afford to do this for *years*) and undercuts local retailers (and increasingly grocery stores too, thanks to Super Wal*Mart), driving them out of business
Predatory practices like this are actually quite illegal.
If so, it doesn't seem like much of a deterrent seeing as it continues to happen. What exactly is illegal about opening a new store?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
If you're talking about predatory pricing - i.e, selling items below cost, then yes that's illegal and Wal*Mart has been successfully sued several times for doing so. But the fact that Wal*Mart can sell at a much lower margin than, say, a local business and still sell above cost isn't illegal, nor is running at a loss. (Which is something almost any new store will do for a while, Wal*Mart or not) Because Wal*Mart can sell at those prices nation-wide and makes an overall profit, and doesn't, say, raise prices after the competition has been eliminated. They simply increase their customer base to the point where it becomes profitable.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Given the latest column, I gotta ask how Alvin is doing.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
The "Yes Please/Underwear/Soft Water" column?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
No, the "New Messiah, World of Ice and Fire" one. (where he insists GRRM is obligated to finish SoIaF)
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
Ah, I didn't see that one on the main page; thanks! I'm pretty curious to hear his argument about Ice and Fire.
[Edit III - After reading the article, I'd guess that he doesn't consider the Alvin series to be a work of the same caliber as Ice and Fire. Note that he's pretty explicit about saying that the rule applies to "Great Works". Or maybe he does, and is dragging his heels on Alvin because he wants to be absolutely sure he gets it right.]
[Edit IV - Because if you're going to have three edits, why not four?]
[ November 17, 2014, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: Jake ]
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Its hard not to be infected by the limitless pessimism that is SomethingAwful and be convinced that GRRM is going to die before he finishes the books; or has no intention to finish them now that he can blame the writers of the show or whatever.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
"Limitless pessimism" sounds kind of a bitp of goons
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
You know, I can understand fans of OSC becoming disillusioned with his deepening author tract and loopy politics, but GRRM haters are the scum of the nerd universe. This man has worked for decades for his fans, and been nothing if not gracious in the face of their demanding fandom. I haven't read his books (yet), but even if he should never finish his series, I would not act as if the man owes me a thing. He writes books, you buy them. When he gets sick of writing them, that's too bad for you. As Spock says, wanting a hung is often more gratifying than having it. It is not logical, but it is often true.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: Its hard not to be infected by the limitless pessimism that is SomethingAwful and be convinced that GRRM is going to die before he finishes the books; or has no intention to finish them now that he can blame the writers of the show or whatever.
Huh, that's strange. It's pretty easy for me.
quote:You know, I can understand fans of OSC becoming disillusioned with his deepening author tract and loopy politics, but GRRM haters are the scum of the nerd universe. This man has worked for decades for his fans, and been nothing if not gracious in the face of their demanding fandom. I haven't read his books (yet), but even if he should never finish his series, I would not act as if the man owes me a thing. He writes books, you buy them. When he gets sick of writing them, that's too bad for you. As Spock says, wanting a hung is often more gratifying than having it. It is not logical, but it is often true.
While the Song of Ice and Fire books are fantastic, some of his best writing is his short stories published in the 70s and 80s. His Novelette "Portraits of His Children" is a great place to start reading and get a feel for him as an author.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: You know, I can understand fans of OSC becoming disillusioned with his deepening author tract and loopy politics, but GRRM haters are the scum of the nerd universe. This man has worked for decades for his fans, and been nothing if not gracious in the face of their demanding fandom. I haven't read his books (yet), but even if he should never finish his series, I would not act as if the man owes me a thing. He writes books, you buy them. When he gets sick of writing them, that's too bad for you. As Spock says, wanting a hung is often more gratifying than having it. It is not logical, but it is often true.
I dunno. I don't really blame these people.
I've read the ASOIAF books around the time ADWD came out, and enjoyed them, but I wouldn't say I'm a big fan. I thought ADWD was hard to follow and AFFC wasn't great. I'm very behind on the HBO series.
I was pretty annoyed when it took 3 years between Harry Potters 4 and 5. Between that time, the first two movies came out. Anyway, the only word people had on the books were from movie produces being like, 'yeah, she's writing the book". Because the other books came out so quickly, it still felt off. Also, no query was answered with "oh hey, it's going to be really really long, so long we're gonna drop the font size down". So if someone came along and said "see you in 2003", then, okay, fine.
GRRM ended book 4's epilogue with "Installment 5 out next year!" (printed in the book). He also split the book up so half the characters would narrate book 4 and half the characters would narrate book 5. So book 5 was completing the story from book three, of which the Red Wedding was right near the end. Basically, parts of the story published in 2011 were picking up where the author left off in 2000!
Imagine if there were 10 years between Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. Sure, Jedi underwhelmed some, but it provided closure.
I think there is an obligation for authors to be realistic about how long books will take, and for long series with large stretches, not do nasty cliffhangers.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
He also originally claimed there would only be three books, and then revised it to four, then five... And now his editor claims there might be two more books after Dream of Spring.
I don't hate GRRM and vastly prefer the books over the show except for some bits of dialogue and characterization I think the show does better (Tyrion in general); but the slow writing speed really hurts.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Sure, Jedi underwhelmed some, but it provided closure.
No way man, ROTJ is delightful. And I'll not hear a word against it!
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
I don't know. I can see that if you are giving someone your money you have at least some right to expect something from him. You could argue that you're giving money for the book you are buying, but I think it could be argued that you are buying book 1 and book 2 with the expectation that the series will be finished. If you expected it to not be finished you would not give your money.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Sure, Jedi underwhelmed some, but it provided closure.
No way man, ROTJ is delightful. And I'll not hear a word against it!
I liked it personally. I saw it when I was young enough to like the Ewok scenes, but I can understand why they bothered people.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: I don't know. I can see that if you are giving someone your money you have at least some right to expect something from him. You could argue that you're giving money for the book you are buying, but I think it could be argued that you are buying book 1 and book 2 with the expectation that the series will be finished. If you expected it to not be finished you would not give your money.
I know people who won't read a series until every single book is out. I don't get it personally.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: I don't know. I can see that if you are giving someone your money you have at least some right to expect something from him. You could argue that you're giving money for the book you are buying, but I think it could be argued that you are buying book 1 and book 2 with the expectation that the series will be finished. If you expected it to not be finished you would not give your money.
I know people who won't read a series until every single book is out. I don't get it personally.
As I anxiously wait for the final book in the Powder Mage trilogy I can understand why people don't like to have to wait. I don't adhere to it myself, but I can understand it.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
quote:I don't know. I can see that if you are giving someone your money you have at least some right to expect something from him. You could argue that you're giving money for the book you are buying, but I think it could be argued that you are buying book 1 and book 2 with the expectation that the series will be finished. If you expected it to not be finished you would not give your money.
I think that if this were true, there'd be provisions in the transaction for books 3 and 4. But books from an unfinished series are sold the same as those from finished ones. As a customer of books, you only have the right to get the books you bought.
It's certainly good practice to finish series in a timely manner, but a reader is not entitled to have books written as they wish. Likewise, authors are not entitled to have readers for the books they write. If a series is not living up to one's expectations in either quality or timeliness, one can stop reading it (which I have failed to regarding ASOIF. I'm trying to collect spoilers for Winds but I'm not sure it's working).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I can absolutely understand why some people are angry about the pace of ASoIaF releases. Anyone who can't is kidding themselves, I think.
What I can't understand is the part where this anger gets translated into some expression of an actual right or entitlement to not just future books, but future books released on an agreeable schedule. Well, I can understand that, but to me it is some frustrating thinking. This was brought to mind with something that happened at work this past week, actually.
I recently transferred positions to a different shift and set of responsibilities in the company. More money, more hours, more demands, etc. All to the good. As it turns out, though, someone on the shift I used to be responsible for filed a grievance, and everyone who didn't work the contractually obligated (to offer to employees, that is) number of hours was paid for those hours for six weeks back. This meant that if an employee only worked an hour and a half a day on weekdays (and there are a lot of those, they're there for the benefits), they got paid an extra three hours per day five days a week for six weeks. This ranged in checks from $700 to $1500.
Now, the absurd thing about this is that almost the entire point of that particular sort and shift from the perspective of 3/4s of the employees who work it is 'a low-maintenance part time job that gives benefits'. In fact almost all of the employees don't want three and a half hours a night on that shift as it interferes with family obligations and their regular FT work, but now they're stuck with it.
I missed this window, and even though my check would have been smaller, I was still annoyed as all hell for a little while. I actually felt wronged by the fact that I wasn't going to get some free money for work I *hadn't* done, but could have if I had asked management gotten the hours for anyway, but I didn't want that much time at that sort anyway. It took some committed reminding to myself that just because the fearsome union had negotiated such a payment, I would only ever have been entitled to it pretty unethically (that is, getting paid for hours that collectively the sort didn't want to have, and hadn't wanted to have for at least 20 years). But for awhile I really not only wanted that money, but felt it was unfair I hadn't gotten it.
It's not unlike the ASoIaF situation, I think. Frankly I think the only real reason anyone feels like some covenant has been broken by GRRM's glacial pace is that there is now a community of people clamoring that such has happened. How much other media in the world today is of a similar format? Set in a series of some sort? So much. There isn't any authentic entitlement in any of that, either. The whole force of it here is just the intensity of wanting, which while satisfying in a way to feel doesn't actually comprise an argument.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Ah, that was perfect. Just where my own thoughts were going, but much better expressed by a real author.
I've been waiting for the next book from Rothfuss and will get it as soon as I can after it comes out, but am I mad at him for taking so long? No. It's his book. I want to read it, but I also want him to take as much time as he needs with it, which time I do not dictate. And if he never finishes it, well, I can't say I won't be disappointed, but it's still silly to get mad at him for not producing the content I was waiting to enjoy. Thankfully there are plenty of other authors and books to read.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
It seems fairly obvious to me that he burnt out after the 3rd book in the series.
He published the first 3 books in 4 years time, the 4th and 5th came 5 and 11 years after the 3rd, and there's a clear difference in tone, too. Just compare Storm of Swords to Feast, the former has a passion and urgency to the writing that makes it feel like a quick read even though it's over 1000 pages. The later is a lot more slow, dry, subdued.
And I think this is mainly because he had no idea how big the series would become. He had originally planned it to be 3 books and, well, the story grew in the telling. And since he's publishing it one book at a time, he hasn't had the opportunity to go back and excise characters and story arcs that end up becoming to bloated/distracted later on - he's stuck with them, and has to bring them to a satisfactory conclusion. (usually by killing everyone involved, admittedly, but still...)
So I think he wrote his heart out for the first 3 books, and then realized "holy crap, I'm not even half way done"... and since then, he's lost his drive and passion for writing the series and is completing them out of a sense of duty. And because he has integrity and pride, he's doing it right and making sure what he is publishing is of a quality we've come to expect from the series. Which means time, lots and lots of time. Hell, I've been struggling over the past week and a half on a five page letter I don't really want to write - I can't even imagine having a whole book series.
Tolkien did it right - he didn't publish his series until it was already completed, and that gave him a lot of freedom. He simply stopped writing LotR for 6 years in the 1940s before returning to it. He was able to go back and edit earlier parts of the book many times over the course of writing it, and trimmed a lot of fat in the process. And because he didn't, say, publish Fellowship of the Ring in 1939, he didn't have fans hounding him for 15 years about finishing the series. For all we know the best thing for SoIaF would be for GRRM to take 5 or 6 years off and focus on other things, and then come back and finish the series with a renewed vigor. But that's not realistically going to happen, especially with the immense pressure that's put on him - both online, and now that's he's a celebrity, every time he goes out in public. Which is sad.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
I'm not entirely convinced he's burned out, ADWD for example has a huge amount of effort and subtext to it that I feel is entirely unimaginable to be capable of a burnt out person. The urgency of the first books makes sense because there's an active civil war and fighting; by book 4 that's over and done with and only inevitability and false hope remains.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I disagree. You can write a big work and be burned out. It's a symptom of procrastinating on getting the story where it needs to be.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Just to point out cause he got mentioned recently:
bill cosby is most assuredly likely a horrendous serial rapist and really bad man, so you can be pretty glad you aren't like him!
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Yes, I was kind of wincing to see Cosby and Woody Allen there in the same bit. Being funny is not the only thing that they allegedly have in common.
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: I know people who won't read a series until every single book is out. I don't get it personally.
I started reading the Wheel of Time series In junior high. Book 6 conveniently came out while I was reading them, but then it was another 2 years before the next one. By then I was in high school and had forgotten most of the intricate plot details and 3 dozen characters, so I re-read books 1-6 before reading 7. 2 and a half years later, same deal, re-reading 1-7 before reading 8. At that point I decided to just wait for him to finish...
A large series like that is too detailed for me to remember it all well enough to just jump into the middle of the story after a few years, particularly when "years" could be a decade. There are plenty of other books I haven't gotten around to reading yet; I can read those while waiting for unfinished series to finish.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
It's understandable to want to wait. A Game of Thrones came out when I was 7 years old. I'll be in my 30s by the time the series is finished. That's a pretty big chunk of time. There are adult fans of the SoIaF series who were born after the first book was released.
I haven't re-read the series since 2009, I probably will do so again for Winds, since I've forgotten enough of the minor details and characters for it to become somewhat foggy.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I have mentioned before that I will never read the books until either they are done or grrm is dead. Pretty good strategy so far.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not angry nor do I feel entitled. I do have my doubts about whether GRRM is going to finish (I agree with Dogbreath here) so will wait to re-engage with the books until he does. Why put myself through withdrawal again?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Actually what's gonna happen is I'm going to convince GRRM to retire, then I'm going to get Kevin J Anderson to come up with the series' thrilling canon-spanning conclusion
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
unless my demands are met by midnight on the 15th of february.
unmarked non sequential bills only
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Actually what's gonna happen is I'm going to convince GRRM to retire, then I'm going to get Kevin J Anderson to come up with the series' thrilling canon-spanning conclusion
It's too bad GRRM isn't as good of a writer as Anderson is. I mean, Anderson publishes 4, 5, sometimes 6 books a year. He could finish off the SoIaF series in a year and still have time for a Dune novel and a couple Star Wars books.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Sadly I do not have the freedom to not read the next book should it be released regardless of its place in line before completion; because some infantile pillock on the internet will do everything in his or her power to spoil it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If that's hyperbole out of predicted frustration, I feel you. If it ain't, don't be silly.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
It isn't, because it actually happened. Twice.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
What? The best part of GOT is watching other people's reactions when certain events happen.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: It isn't, because it actually happened. Twice.
I think you take "spoiler" too literally.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Someone once pm'ed me "ROB AND CAITLYN STARK ARE MURDERED AT THE WEDDING BY THE FREYS."
Tell me how that is not a legitimate reason to read the books as a preventative measure.
That and the book readers can't help themselves, I was on a bus once, discussing the books, I was careful to avoid saying anything when the dude straight up mentioned Tyrion murdering Tywin and his buddy is like "Uh, I hadn't read the books...".
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
That person who PM'd you that was being a serious dick.
I think you still have just as much choice whether to read the books as they come out, or not. A "legitimate reason to read the books as a preventative measure" is not hyperbole, but "I do not have the freedom to not [do that]" definitely is.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
If I want to maintain the same level of enjoyment it certainly isn't.
It's like trying to sleep if someone is playing loud music, its certainly possibly you still have the "choice" to sleep or not, but its still being infringed in an effort to deny you a free choice in the matter.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Serious question for Mormons (and North Carolinians). In at least three recent articles (not going to pull them out right now, but I swear I keep seeing it every other week), OSC has complained that the mainstream media made a mockery of the Mormon faith thing, and it cost the election.
From my POV, it was Bain capital, the 47% thing and a high turn out of women, pocs, and millennials who are alienated by right wing party politics. Then again, because I'm not Mormon and I did not live in a swing state or a bible-belt state (where Baptists pass out those "Mormons are a cult" tracts), any of that stuff went over my head.
Would you say it was accurate?
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
Non-Mormon Californian here and I didn't really notice any Mormon mocking either. Here is an analysis claiming his Mormonism had an effect, but not a big enough one (it doesn't say anything about whether the media was part of the effect though): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/benjamin-knoll/mitt-romney-mormon_b_4121217.html Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I honestly can't remember any MSM mockery of Mormonism, and I followed that election fairly closely. Then again, as a non-Mormon I'm not as likely to notice it, and I live in a pretty Mormon friendly area. (There's a BYU campus on island, and a large percentage of the population are LDS)
I can imagine maybe some local news stations in the south doing some kind of tacky "magic underwear" bit, but nothing I've seen in the Mainstream comes even close.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
It doesn't ring a bell, but I couldn't swear that SNL or Jon Stewart (just to pick a couple of random examples, and assuming they are part of what OSC would consider mainstream media) didn't highlight his Mormon-ness in a mocking way.
I mean - his church membership was extremely common knowledge, and people in general seem to think Mormons are somewhere between weird and silly, so it's nearly impossible for extensive coverage of Romney not to include something that seems like mockery. But I don't recall anybody really making a point of it in the context of politics, you know?
Maybe OSC is thinking of "The Book of Mormon" the musical.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't know what OSC said exactly, and I don't know of any polling data that does (or doesn't for that matter) suggest that Romeny's Mormonism cost him the election. But I would guess that if it did play a role, it would be more likely to do so by having Republican voters stay home (or not campaign) then changing the votes of those who did show up.
Hobbes Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: From my POV, it was Bain capital, the 47% thing and a high turn out of women, pocs, and millennials who are alienated by right wing party politics. Then again, because I'm not Mormon and I did not live in a swing state or a bible-belt state (where Baptists pass out those "Mormons are a cult" tracts), any of that stuff went over my head.
Would you say it was accurate?
Perhaps there was some torpor in the base because Romney is a Mormon, but I think you're spot on: the thing that really made him look bad was that he was and is a hypocrite, spouting platitudes about his economic prowess, while he made his fortune doing things which are now mostly illegal, because they are so economically destructive.
People might be dismissive of Obama for his "community organizer," resume, but they for damn sure didn't think of him as a soulless businessman who relished firing people and lapping up huge corporate profits.
His obliviousness and repetitive, absurd gaffes were no help: "I love Nascar... I have several friends who are Nascar owners," and "I had to sell stock to pay for college," were tin-eared to a ludicrous degree for someone ostensibly trying to appeal to working class people.
There is a baseline perception of Mormons that they are not patriotic, or perhaps too insular, and are thus "un-American," which I think also contributed to his image problem, but he as a person and his personal history did nothing to mitigate that perception.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: There is a baseline perception of Mormons that they are not patriotic, or perhaps too insular, and are thus "un-American," which I think also contributed to his image problem, but he as a person and his personal history did nothing to mitigate that perception.
Is there really? I find that hilarious, because a lot of Mormons I know are SUPER patriotic. The Sunday before the Fourth of July, we usually have a bunch of talks about America and patriotism and all that stuff. I've heard people get up in testimony meeting and bear their testimony of how this is a chosen land and how the founding fathers were all inspired to give us the freedoms they did so that the Church could be founded here.
But I completely agree about the rest. I think Romney was a monumental liar and flip-flopper who came off as wooden at best and completely out of touch with most Americans at worst. I always got the feeling that he didn't have any real convictions or beliefs beyond wanting to be president. He always said whatever was expedient. But I don't think it was his Mormonism or the media's supposed mockery thereof that cost him the race.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I would say that there seems to be, in the same way that perhaps Catholics are seen as partisans of something "un-American" by some. This was more pronounced in the past of course. Certainly that was the talk in the 1960s when we elected a Catholic to the White House for the first time (Biden is only the second).
Mormons have a similar thing: they are seen as being partisans to Utah, and in the past that was actually much more true than it is now. There was a time when at least some Utah Mormons saw their future as an independent nation, although it was never a serious proposition.
quote: I always got the feeling that he didn't have any real convictions or beliefs beyond wanting to be president. He always said whatever was expedient.
I think you might be right.
It was like the infamous "47%" comments. Yes, I understand that the man knows that things don't exactly work that way, and I don't believe that he believes the words he was spouting. But he was spouting them. Nobody made him do that. And no matter how tired you are, you shouldn't say things you don't believe in, just to get a rise out of somebody for some money. That's rightly seen as cynical politicking.
There was an interesting piece on this in Double Down (the sequel to Game Change), that essentially made the same argument. Romney's staff found that he was far too malleable for his own good- too willing to say what needed to be said, no matter how far that strayed from his own principles, and that this lack of spine really hurt his campaign.
Again, I think there are some good reasons people have been and were dismissive of Obama as a naive idealist and a dreamer, but *at least* he had that. And when he made his own "guns and religion" comments, the thing is, I think people understood that he really believes that, and forgive him for it. Romney read as a straight up mercenary, Tywin Lannister of the modern age. Being President seemed the thing he wanted to do as a capstone to his life- and that kind of thing doesn't inspire love.
[ December 02, 2014, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Romney's infamous malleability was actually his greatest strength. It's required to be the person who can win both the conservative primary and still stand a shot at the general election. If you were consistent with your principled views, you would only be able to compete in one or the other.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I'll echo Jon Boy in saying that I'm surprised to hear Mormons are thought of by some as insular and not patriotic enough. I've got to think that it mostly means we're "other" to lots of people who see their understanding and version of patriotism as the only real way. I dunno.
I gotta admit, a Mormon in the White House was an exciting prospect for a while. What it would be like to home teach the Romneys? Would you call them Brother and Sister Romney and would they let you bring in cookies? Would Secret Service let the Elders Quorum help them move in?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Romney's infamous malleability was actually his greatest strength. It's required to be the person who can win both the conservative primary and still stand a shot at the general election. If you were consistent with your principled views, you would only be able to compete in one or the other.
GWB seems to be a contradiction to this requirement.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
afr - Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Romney's infamous malleability was actually his greatest strength. It's required to be the person who can win both the conservative primary and still stand a shot at the general election. If you were consistent with your principled views, you would only be able to compete in one or the other.
GWB seems to be a contradiction to this requirement.
That's a very interesting point, and one that I've been contemplating as of late. I've read GWB's autobiography, as well as several of his cabinet members (in the middle of Rumsfeld's right now) and studied his administration extensively, yet the man is still a complete enigma to me. Like, I can understand Rumsfeld, I can understand Cheney, I can understand Rice, can see how they think, how they got to where they did. Bush I don't get.
If I were to hazzard a guess, it may be because Bush is incredibly likeable. For better or worse, he just strikes you as that guy... you know that guy, a little socially awkward, a little bit scatter brained, but honest, earnest, easy going and incredibly loyal. A man's man but friendly and completely non-threatening. The perfect buddy. He'd be great to have a beer with, or go fishing with. You can imagine him sitting on your back porch with his feet kicked up, drinking a beer and shooting the shit. It'd be easy to forget he's an old money millionaire with an Ivy League education who's been surrounded by wealth his entire life.
Obama has a lot of that folksy charisma too, and it's helped him a lot. Especially against McCain and Romney.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Romney's infamous malleability was actually his greatest strength. It's required to be the person who can win both the conservative primary and still stand a shot at the general election. If you were consistent with your principled views, you would only be able to compete in one or the other.
Well, then perhaps the conservative base is... too far from the center at this point?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: I gotta admit, a Mormon in the White House was an exciting prospect for a while. What it would be like to home teach the Romneys? Would you call them Brother and Sister Romney and would they let you bring in cookies? Would Secret Service let the Elders Quorum help them move in?
I would suppose that his staff would be very, very strenuous in their objections to any of these things.
Do you think Kennedy and Biden let it be known that they go to confession? It's a bit of a catch 22. It's abandoning your principles if you don't, but possibly off-putting to other faiths if you do.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: I gotta admit, a Mormon in the White House was an exciting prospect for a while. What it would be like to home teach the Romneys? Would you call them Brother and Sister Romney and would they let you bring in cookies? Would Secret Service let the Elders Quorum help them move in?
I would suppose that his staff would be very, very strenuous in their objections to any of these things.
Do you think Kennedy and Biden let it be known that they go to confession? It's a bit of a catch 22. It's abandoning your principles if you don't, but possibly off-putting to other faiths if you do.
Well yeah. That was mostly tongue-in-cheek. Romney wouldn't have necessarily been abandoning his principles if he couldn't, say, accept home teachers to come to the White House. I actually have no idea how or if home teaching would even work in that case. And no, the Elders Quorum wouldn't have helped them move in (although that would have been a little bit awesome).
However, I don't see how he would have to abandon his religious practices. Why would it be off-putting to other faiths if he went to church on Sunday and generally observed his faith, same as he does now?
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
It was like the infamous "47%" comments. Yes, I understand that the man knows that things don't exactly work that way, and I don't believe that he believes the words he was spouting. But he was spouting them. Nobody made him do that. And no matter how tired you are, you shouldn't say things you don't believe in, just to get a rise out of somebody for some money. That's rightly seen as cynical politicking.
There was an interesting piece on this in Double Down (the sequel to Game Change), that essentially made the same argument. Romney's staff found that he was far too malleable for his own good- too willing to say what needed to be said, no matter how far that strayed from his own principles, and that this lack of spine really hurt his campaign.
Wasn't there a scene at the end of Double Down, where Obama met with Romney after the election and was basically amazed to find that he really believed it?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Romney's infamous malleability was actually his greatest strength. It's required to be the person who can win both the conservative primary and still stand a shot at the general election. If you were consistent with your principled views, you would only be able to compete in one or the other.
Well, then perhaps the conservative base is... too far from the center at this point?
It's a party that is already operating on a strategy of "if we can't consistently and sufficiently manage a system of disproportionate electoral representation in our favor, we are completely boned."
It's a party that will barely be able to stop itself from literally shutting down the government and road-hauling our credit rating just to make sure liberals don't get any credit for making government work. Multiple times.
So the way you are putting it is kind of a demographic understatement.
And if the next republican primaries are as completely comical as we try to forget the last one was, you'll know that it's a course still unrighted for them.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
It was like the infamous "47%" comments. Yes, I understand that the man knows that things don't exactly work that way, and I don't believe that he believes the words he was spouting. But he was spouting them. Nobody made him do that. And no matter how tired you are, you shouldn't say things you don't believe in, just to get a rise out of somebody for some money. That's rightly seen as cynical politicking.
There was an interesting piece on this in Double Down (the sequel to Game Change), that essentially made the same argument. Romney's staff found that he was far too malleable for his own good- too willing to say what needed to be said, no matter how far that strayed from his own principles, and that this lack of spine really hurt his campaign.
Wasn't there a scene at the end of Double Down, where Obama met with Romney after the election and was basically amazed to find that he really believed it?
No, that doesn't ring a bell. Although there are bits in the book that show how much personal contempt Obama has for Romney.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: I gotta admit, a Mormon in the White House was an exciting prospect for a while. What it would be like to home teach the Romneys? Would you call them Brother and Sister Romney and would they let you bring in cookies? Would Secret Service let the Elders Quorum help them move in?
I would suppose that his staff would be very, very strenuous in their objections to any of these things.
Do you think Kennedy and Biden let it be known that they go to confession? It's a bit of a catch 22. It's abandoning your principles if you don't, but possibly off-putting to other faiths if you do.
Well yeah. That was mostly tongue-in-cheek. Romney wouldn't have necessarily been abandoning his principles if he couldn't, say, accept home teachers to come to the White House. I actually have no idea how or if home teaching would even work in that case. And no, the Elders Quorum wouldn't have helped them move in (although that would have been a little bit awesome).
However, I don't see how he would have to abandon his religious practices. Why would it be off-putting to other faiths if he went to church on Sunday and generally observed his faith, same as he does now?
Because when you don't like the President, anything he does is subject to criticism. There was a lot of talk about how would-be VP Lieberman was going to deal with the fact that he is ostensibly an orthodox Jew, and whether he would follow the sabbath rules, and the like (he doesn't anyway).
Hell, I've seen people commenting on Obama going on daytime TV as him slacking off from his job- as if going on TV isn't a huge part of his job.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
It's pretty sad to use a condolence letter for the death of your son as a mouthpiece for your politics.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Hogan died in the middle of 2012. I was in the DEP with him (we both joined from Indiana), he was a good guy. I'm somewhat skeptical of the veracity of that article.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
The letter is dated July 2012.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:They have so much contempt for history that they show a cop using Liquid Paper in 1951 to alter a document in order to get access to Turing’s war records. Only one tiny problem: The first correction fluid was invented by a woman typist in her Texas kitchen in 1951 – but it wasn’t commercially available until 1956.
Those arrogant, elitist movie makers pushing their gay agenda have stooped to a new low. Did they seriously think the American people would be fooled by such a glaringly obvious mistake?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I can just imagine some liberal screenwriter deliberately putting that minor anachronism in there.
quote: Hmm. This scene is pretty good, but it doesn't convey my contempt for history well enough. I hate history so much!
Oh! I know! Liquid Paper wasn't commercially available until 1956—as any fool knows—but I'll have a character use it in 1951! That'll show 'em! Score one for the Liberal War on History, which is totally a real thing!
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Should we tell OSC that most movies that take place in the past and show antique cars, will have cars that were built after the movie is supposed to take place?
I haven't seen the movie, but if they made up the spy thing, half of the scenarios and all this stuff, than it's too much of a fan-fic.
quote: The first correction fluid was invented by a woman typist in her Texas kitchen in 1951
I'm not sure if the point of this quote was to concede that yes the product was invented, but no one in England would have had it because it was not in wide distribution. But the "woman typist in her Texas kitchen" has a name, Bettte Nesmith Graham, and she built a multi-million dollar company (while being a single mother to a Monkee).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
A movie which is not even pretending to be a strictly factual documentary is showing its CONTEMPT FOR HISTORY by anachronizing white out by four years or so.
How CONTEMPTUOUS
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I mean I know it might be a lost cause because we're talking about literally osc here but when you use these disparaging pejorative and Action Words on such extremely trivial things you just show that the words mean nothing when used by you.
If this is what counts as CONTEMPT then ok congratulations
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I guess The Passion of the Christ showed CONTEMPT for history because it showed Jesus as a Caucasian.
oh well...
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I doubt there's a single period piece in all of existence that is not peppered with mostly trivial anachronisms.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Mad Men?
I'm sure there are some and I could Google it, but they try very hard.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I once saw a period piece that took place a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away that AFAIK is entirely accurate.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
No that series showed EXCRUCIATING CONTEMPT because it showed Qui-Gon expressing Midichlorian Theory about three years BBY earlier than it was first referenced in archival texts
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
So I saw the Imitation Game tonight, and I would very strongly recommend that absolutely anyone see it, if only because of how tremendously important Alan Turing's work was to both winning WWII and the technology we enjoy today.
It's an incredibly moving film about a friendless man who saves the world, and then is forgotten, reviled, chemically castrated and treated so horribly that he's driven to suicide. And then largely forgotten by the people he saved.
There's a beautiful scene at the end of the movie where Joan Clarke comes by his apartment and tells him about getting on a train in a town that wouldn't have existed if it wasn't for Turing cracking Enigma, buying a ticket from a man who would've probably been dead if it wasn't for him, working a job in a field that wouldn't have existed without him. And the movie closes with the estimate that Turing's work saved 14 million lives.
What's heartbreaking is knowing that conversation probably never happened. He went to his death hated by the country he saved, because he was different.
So of course OSC hates it, of course he calls it "deeply dishonest" and Oscar bait and pandering. Part of the liberal elitist gay agenda. Because he's the person who supports keeping laws against gays on the books - the same laws that drove Turing to suicide. And I shouldn't be disappointed or upset by that because I shouldn't have expected anything else. But what hurts is how Ender resembles Turing, how much of the pain you can see in Ender saving humanity only to vilified by it causes, and it kills me to know an author capable of writing such a brilliant, similar character can't even understand a movie about that character because he's a homosexual.
tl;dr go see Imitation Game. It's brilliant.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Card is just mad about the part where Turing visits Dumbledore.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Yeah, at first I was skeptical of the Hogwarts story line too, but after I heard "you're a wizard, Alan!" and saw how happy he was to get his wand, I was sold.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The peculiar thing is that I'm sure enough that it would be a surprise to me to learn that Card actually harbored those sorts of thoughts about homosexuals as individuals, Dogbreath. It's been quite some time since he wrote the works I'm thinking of, but he was able to flesh out really human, noble, authentic characters for whom homosexuality wasn't some sort of defining trait worthy of criticism or condemnation by society or by God.
I do, however, based on much of his more recent non-fiction political commentary, think that he bitterly resents an anti-homosexual overall political or cultural stance being condemned. Of course in practical terms-such as being on NOM-that makes little difference. But for me, it serves as a partial explanation for the man's past work and present politics.
As for laws on the books, I don't recall what his stance is on that presently. I think he's cut a rather fine and not-straight (heh) line depending on who he's speaking to, and to what extent and which laws should be enforced, etc. But I don't think he has or would support laws such as came into effect against Turing.
Today, anyway. But many of the same ideas he espouses today about homosexuals were precisely the sort of thing that led to Turing's sentencing.
--------
I've also read that there is some uncertainty as to whether Turing's death was a suicide. He did after all work with cyanide, and did eat apples regularly. I suspect he did, but there is some thinking that goes that he chose a method that could look like an accident for the sake of his family-particularly his mother.
That struck me as especially potent, since I've had a distant family member commit suicide and a much closer one attempt it. Not for similar reasons, but it serves to show that human misery isn't something that comes without a cost. When it's society inflicting it on the individual, it's not just someone with hurt feelings.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Rakeesh: I was quoting Card's review of Imitation game.
What he thinks of individual homosexuals I'm not sure (I've read his books and know he's written gay characters), and I didn't really think is relevant to what I said. He certainly doesn't like movies about them.
What's interesting in the movie is that there's nobody who acts as a mouthpiece for the director, nobody goes on a rant about how unfair Turing's treatment is (especially not him, who, if anything, acts like it's something he deserves, or is at least resigned to), nobody fights for him. Nor is he shown to be especially noble in is "struggle against the law." He's just systemically isolated and driven to suicide. And that's it. I fail to see how that makes it "deeply dishonest"... would he have preferred to have Turing hook up with Kiera Knightly and get married and live happily ever after having babies?
[ January 12, 2015, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: Dogbreath ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:he was able to flesh out really human, noble, authentic characters for whom homosexuality wasn't some sort of defining trait worthy of criticism or condemnation by society or by God.
And for whom actually acting out on those desires rather than suppressing them and or pairing up heterosexually n' having babies typically ends very badly, as a general reminder if we want to talk about how sympathetic these portrayals are :]
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
Yeah. I remember those characters being portrayed as having nobility because of their ability to overcome their natural inclination and stick it in a woman to have babies, thereby fulfilling the Purpose of Life.
At least, the one from the Homecoming series was like that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:he was able to flesh out really human, noble, authentic characters for whom homosexuality wasn't some sort of defining trait worthy of criticism or condemnation by society or by God.
And for whom actually acting out on those desires rather than suppressing them and or pairing up heterosexually n' having babies typically ends very badly, as a general reminder if we want to talk about how sympathetic these portrayals are :]
This.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Hey, I said it first!
Or, at least, implied it. You know.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Dogbreath: Did we even read the same review?
From Mr. Card,
quote:And the movie is worth seeing, because the Ultra project at Bletchley Park is one of the towering intellectual and moral achievements in history -- and it may well have saved the world. Alan Turing was a real man who is worth remembering today -- we still speak of the Turing Test as the best way to evaluate artificial intelligence, and our entire computer culture is based at least partly on his work. This film, despite its flaws and dishonesties and formulas, is About Something, and the Something it's about does matter.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Yes, of course we did. Didn't you see the part I quoted? He pretty much completely trashed the movie, and said it was only worth seeing because it's about something important. He, at different times, calls it deeply dishonest, contemptuous of history, full of lies, pandering, and Oscar-bait. I didn't just didn't pull those words out of thin air, I pulled them from his review.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Also, you conveniently left out the prelude to his "something that matters", namely:
quote:
The writers, directors, producers and backers of award-bait movies went to the same film schools and swallowed the same bogus theories as those who make blockbusters, and the results can be just as hollow and dishonest. But because the “serious” films are often about something that matters (and no, the struggle of X-Men for acceptance does not actually matter in the real world; neither do the voyages of the starship Enterprise), the hollowness can hurt a little more. Case in point: The Imitation Game
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Also, you conveniently left out the prelude to his "something that matters", namely:
quote:
The writers, directors, producers and backers of award-bait movies went to the same film schools and swallowed the same bogus theories as those who make blockbusters, and the results can be just as hollow and dishonest. But because the “serious” films are often about something that matters (and no, the struggle of X-Men for acceptance does not actually matter in the real world; neither do the voyages of the starship Enterprise), the hollowness can hurt a little more. Case in point: The Imitation Game
That's the second paragraph of the review, it doesn't precede the section I quoted.
And where in the review did he say,
quote:Part of the liberal elitist gay agenda
?
All of his criticisms of the film stem from the historiography. Because the film makers make stuff up because they think the actual history won't drum up enough emotion with the audience to get an Oscar nomination. But in fact what was actually at stake was more than enough to tell a compelling story.
He praises the acting, and heck he says,
quote:So along with a beautiful telling of the tale of Turing's childhood friendship with his first love, a kind boy named Christopher, the film spends the bulk of its time on bogus conflicts over Turing's struggle to get along with the other mathematicians working at Bletchley Park, constant down-to-the-wire attempts to shut down his code-breaking machine, and a search for a spy among the codebreakers.
Clearly he doesn't have a bee in his bonnet over homosexuality in this instance.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I would not want to be a gay man in OSC's books anymore than I'd want to be poor Carpenter. I wanted to take that guy out of the book, give him a hug and tell him, dude, you're not a worm because you're disabled! You're AWESOME!
Ugh, and that poor dude in Songmaster . Being gay doesn't even WORK like that!
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
The liberal gay elitist agenda was sarcasm on my part.
But I get the impression that he's being so hard on the historicity because of the homosexuality. The movie isn't meant to be a documentary, but instead a story about a brilliant, lonely young man who's exiled from society and eventually driven to suicide because of bigotry. The history is largely right, but like all films it takes shortcuts or glosses over things in order to tell it's story. Not because it's trying to up the ante dramatically, but because it makes it easier to tell the story.
For that matter, there are no "constant down-to-the-wire attempts to shut down his code-breaking machine", there's one attempt to shut it down, and it's not "down to the wire" whatsoever. Likewise, the search for the spy isn't a big thriller chase, it's a background event, and is mainly there to intersect with Alan's story and describe his character: people are suspicious of him and he gets his office torn apart because he's so socially awkward, he seems a likely candidate for a spy. It's not particularly dramatic, either. I really recommend watching it so you could see how far off his other claims are.
Card has praised other movies that are far, far less historically accurate than this one. (which gets all the important details right) I really doubt he thinks the movie was destroyed by contemptuous misplacement of liquid paper and a failure to adequately explain minute details of cryptography. I think what bothers him is that the movie isn't formulaic in the way he wants it to be - Turing never falls in love with the female lead, it doesn't end with a happily ever after, and the hero doesn't get the praise, accolade and valediction he deserves. In fact, he still hasn't - there were people leaving the theater with me who had never heard of him until seeing the movie.
I recommend seeing it and contemplating why a man who supports keeping anti-homosexuality laws on the books would dislike it so much. Or just seeing it because it's a great movie, honestly.
Also, I said prelude, not preceding. His saying it was about something important at the end is reinforcing how awful and hollow and dishonest he thinks it is, a recap of the views he expressed at the beginning of the review.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I would not want to be a gay man in OSC's books anymore than I'd want to be poor Carpenter. I wanted to take that guy out of the book, give him a hug and tell him, dude, you're not a worm because you're disabled! You're AWESOME!
Ugh, and that poor dude in Songmaster . Being gay doesn't even WORK like that!
Hi Syn! Long time no see! Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
If Turing had just suppressed his homosexuality and devoted his life to getting a woman pregnant in the bonds of real not-dress-up marriage then Card wouldn't have had to have had such a problem with white-out that was anachronistic by a couple of years. Did you plebeians think of that?
Next up on Unkle Parkour Reviews Errything: I Am Suddenly A Huge Dickhole To J.K. Rowling For Reasons Certainly Not Related To That I Found Out That Dumbledore Boned Dudes
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: But I get the impression that he's being so hard on the historicity because of the homosexuality. The movie isn't meant to be a documentary, but instead a story about a brilliant, lonely young man who's exiled from society and eventually driven to suicide because of bigotry.
Also: this.
It is possible that Card isn't being weird about this movie at least in part because of Turing's gayness. But he's so obvious and patterned sometimes that yall crazy if you don't think people are going to look at this and say "lol, classic Card".
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Card has praised other movies that are far, far less historically accurate than this one. (which gets all the important details right) I really doubt he thinks the movie was destroyed by contemptuous misplacement of liquid paper and a failure to adequately explain minute details of cryptography. I think what bothers him is that the movie isn't formulaic in the way he wants it to be
I'm sure he'd agree with this! Which is why he castigates Schindler's List in the same review. I'm sure even he'd agree that he is not completely consistent in his reviews. One day he's feeling pretty pissy about too much homework being assigned at school, and then he happens to watch "Accepted" on TV, and BOOM! A review. And maybe he likes a film he normally wouldn't. Oh wells?
But based on the things he actually complains about, I can buy that he actually doesn't like those things, and the homosexuality isn't bothering him. He *is* the sort of person where if somebody in the film said, "The Russians are our allies." He'd get fussy about it.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
It's certainly possible, yes. It just seems his disapproval of it seems very predictable considering what it's about.
Also, the whole "the Russians are our allies" comment was made *by the spy* trying to plead with Alan not to reveal him, and it was made in late 1942 in the movie - i.e, during the battle of Stalingrad when the Russians most certainly *were* our allies. (Alan ends up revealing him anyway) There never was any search for a Nazi spy, they were always searching for a soviet spy, and the decision to allow him to stay was in order to pass misinformation to the soviets, which is absolutely something Ultra did. (it's revealed that MI6 is pre-inspecting everything he sends)
I don't want to get into every point, but literally every problem he had with the movie seems like he's stretching as much as possible to make minor errors (or even non-errors) into giant, stupid, arrogant blunders designed to pander to the Academy. The white-out comment is just the most obvious. And I feel like if you watch the movie you'll understand what I'm talking about.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Well, I certainly plan on seeing it. So we shall see.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: If Turing had just suppressed his homosexuality and devoted his life to getting a woman pregnant in the bonds of real not-dress-up marriage then Card wouldn't have had to have had such a problem with white-out that was anachronistic by a couple of years. Did you plebeians think of that?
Next up on Unkle Parkour Reviews Errything: I Am Suddenly A Huge Dickhole To J.K. Rowling For Reasons Certainly Not Related To That I Found Out That Dumbledore Boned Dudes
The ironic thing was that Dumbledore boned zero dudes. He didn't get any witches pregnant, but hey, nobody's perfect.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
We can't say that Dumbledore boned zero dudes, only that the whole affair with Grindlewald was so traumatic for him that he probably boned no more.
There is PLENTY of dude boning time before then.
Why do I know this.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Yes, Dumbledore was 150 when he died in 1996. So he would have been 99 when he dueled Grindlewald in 1945. Assuming he first started boning dudes around the age of 18, that's 81 years of dude boning to account for.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
That is, of course, unless theamazeeaz is implying that Dumbledore always bottomed.
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
For all that I dislike Card's general attitude toward gays, I'm not seeing it in that review. He rags on The Imitation Game for all the usual (often nonsensical) reasons he rags on other 'pretentious' movies or books. I really don't see a hint of anti-gay prejudice in this one. If he wanted to hate it because of teh gay, why recommend it at all?
quote:if the film increases our rapport with Asperger’s sufferers as well as lonely young homosexuals, I can’t think of that as harmful.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
FINE i GUESS.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:
Ugh, and that poor dude in Songmaster . Being gay doesn't even WORK like that! [/qb]
Hi Syn! Long time no see! [/QB][/QUOTE]
! Waving smily! It's so cute!
I really hope Dumbledore had a nice, lovely man to snuzzle him some time in his life because it would have been depressing if he was like, I have terrible taste in men so I will just concentrate on my work rather than end up in the arms of some nice fellow. Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Yes, Dumbledore was 150 when he died in 1996. So he would have been 99 when he dueled Grindlewald in 1945. Assuming he first started boning dudes around the age of 18, that's 81 years of dude boning to account for.
No, that's the thing. Dumbledore was in love with Grindlewald (inrequited) when they were obsessed with the deathly hallows. It was the death of his little sister at their hands that ended their friendship and scarred Dumbledore emotionally from forming relationships, long before the 1945 battle.
I remember hearing he was 150 in a Scholastic interview back in the day, but other things seem to point to an age of 115, not 150.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: [QUOTE]
I really hope Dumbledore had a nice, lovely man to snuzzle him some time in his life because it would have been depressing if he was like, I have terrible taste in men so I will just concentrate on my work rather than end up in the arms of some nice fellow.
I'm pretty sure that's what actually happened. Dumbledore could have hoarded all the wizard erotic capital if he wanted to.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: We can't say that Dumbledore boned zero dudes, only that the whole affair with Grindlewald was so traumatic for him that he probably boned no more.
There is PLENTY of dude boning time before then.
Why do I know this.
The Grindelwald thing happened right after Dumbledore graduated Hogwarts and the entire situation has to be a first relationship.
If Dumbledore were more experienced (HP fanfiction style, say) he'd be a lot more direct about his other intentions. He'd also be more likely to bounce back if he had serious loves at Hogwarts. And Rita Skeeter would have had them in her book too.
[ January 14, 2015, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: theamazeeaz ]
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote: One of the things I regard as sacred is the right to be rude and offensive in political print and speech. But apparently that aspect of liberal democracy isn’t sacred to Obama. At least, not enough for him to make even a tiny gesture in its support.
Why has he backed away from showing solidarity with the victims of Muslim terrorism? Because he and his America-hating Leftist friends decided, fifteen seconds after 9/11, that the worst danger was for Americans to get angry at Muslims in general.
I don't see why this is a bad thing, and it blows my mind why someone would think this is true.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Man this latest article is like watching Ben Stein rant while his brain disintegrates. Everything is slathered in pathologically unsupportable hyperbole, Obama is a mustachioed supervillain waiting to use his urban black youths army or whatever to Quisling America over to our new simultaneously Muslim and secular overlords
Does anyone want to bother with a substantive point by point reply to this? Is anyone even really backing him up anymore outside of a vanishing fraction of hardcore right wingers who eat this stuff up like a Bircher quarterly?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Does anyone want to bother with a substantive point by point reply to this?
Please do
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
His thing about returning the bust to the British appears to be based on a false rumor.
Oh, that article? Don't you silly people read them at Rhino Times? They come out every Thursday and there's no paywall.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Googled the Churchill bust thing:
1. There are two, by the same artist. One arrived during the 1960s, the other during George W. Bush's tenure.
2. The Bush bust WAS given back when Obama was inaugurated, because it was considered to be on loan and belonging specifically to Mr. Bush's presidency. Apparently this is standard practice among the people who deal with White House art and the new administration had nothing to do with it.
3. The 1960s bust is very much still there. The rep at the White House had no idea there was one that came and left, and one that's been there all along, and apparently, so do lots of other people.
You're talking about a man who writes scathing "reviews" of movies he's never seen. (think of his several-article-spanning attack on Lincoln, for example) I somehow doubt fact checking plays a role in the articles he writes.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I try to give people the benefit of the doubt.
For example, Obama or his people could have rejected renewing the loan, or Bush's guys just threw it in the box to give to the embassy and didn't say anything.
Although it may be a perfectly fine book, I wouldn't say that a biography of Churchill by Boris Johnson (Conservative Mayor of London, probable future leader of the Conservative party, possible future Conservative Prime Minister, powers that be help us) is likely to be an unbiased, reliable source of information on old Winston.
Conservatives love Churchill even more than they adore Thatcher. They all grow up feeling like he's their grandpa.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Does anyone want to bother with a substantive point by point reply to this?
Please do
No, I blatantly want to pawn it off on someone else.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: Oh, that article? Don't you silly people read them at Rhino Times? They come out every Thursday and there's no paywall.
You know, I actually liked his latest review (not posted on Hatrack yet) sans the obligatory "Obama hates America" bit, but there was one line that actually made me laugh out loud:
quote: I had no interest in American Sniper. The title made it sound too violent. I’ve read too much about war to want to see it close up.
I sure do feel bad for him, you know, with all that reading about war. Must be traumatic.
I realize that's kind of unfair to say, and I'm not trying to claim any sort of high ground here - my military service was relatively safe, boring and trauma free. It's just that as of late after transitioning into a civilian job I've come to realize the most valuable thing the military gives - perspective. It's sort of hard for me to care much about my coffee being made wrong, or traffic being bad, or my boss being unfair with performance reviews, or what Karen the receptionist thinks of me. And it's interesting to see that things that get people all bent out of shape don't really affect me at all. I'm not sure if that makes me numb or well adjusted, but either way I kind of like it. The blog just war things does a pretty good job of capturing this disconnect pretty well, and a lot of vets I know feel the same way - it's just kind of hard to be emotionally invested in relatively trivial things.
Which is actually why I recommend seeing American Sniper, because I don't think I've seen a movie that better captures that feeling. It's not the horrors of war that haunt Chris Kyle, it's the feeling that who he is back home isn't nearly as important, doesn't really matter much.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Also, this. I started reading some of the comments and got through 2 or 3 before my brain started hurting. I have only myself to blame.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Work at home for google!!!!!
Sometimes I wonder if people think that the soldiers fighting The War on Terror were out converting people to Christianity.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
Which is actually why I recommend seeing American Sniper, because I don't think I've seen a movie that better captures that feeling. It's not the horrors of war that haunt Chris Kyle, it's the feeling that who he is back home isn't nearly as important, doesn't really matter much.
In that vein, I'm curious what you thought of Sebastian Junger's War.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Never read it. I'll check it out from the library (you can do that on your Kindle nowadays!) and read it this week. Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I instantly liked his talking about the austere conditions. When I tell people about being in the Marines and talk about spending weeks sleeping on the ground in the same clothes, they all act sort of baffled. I think everybody assumes we went out for a few hours and then go back to a fully functional base with showers and cooks and stuff, when reality is more of 3 strands of C-wire, a tent and a generator for the gear we use (or a lot of times, just a lot of batteries), and if we're lucky some cots for days or sometimes weeks.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Well I didn't bother with a point by point but I did make and disseminate something which is kind of how I feel about the whole of Orson Scott Card's political writings and I guess it's getting some traction. Not that anyone cares, because few people even bother to defend the guy anymore and just sort of sit around awkwardly silent hoping that we just won't talk about those insane things he writes, because it's awkward and embarrassing at this point even to try to suggest that he's not just saying completely nuts things or that even if he's arguing passionately about something it's still totally unfair to think he's not a nice guy because he would be soft-spoken if you met him in person or something
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
You know, embarrassingly, I still read every article, every book, even sometimes his short stories. Why?
Well, growing up OSC influenced me more than almost any other author, save maybe Tolkien. Reading Ender's Game changed my entire perspective on the world when I was 12 years old. I know some people view it as a sort of power fantasy - the poor, misunderstood, genius child saves mankind and proves them all wrong. But foor me, it taught me patience. It taught me emotional control, how to assess social situations logically, how to try and see the motivations behind words and actions rather than evaluating everything at face value. Most importantly, it taught me empathy. For someone who had been a pretty sociopathic child, it taught me a lot about putting myself in another person's shoes and figuring out what makes him tick, why does he feel this way, why does he make the choices he does?
And that's something that used to resonate through all of OSC's work. He had a depth of understanding of human nature, and the remarkable ability to express it so clearly and simply that I could understand and relate to it as a child.
So I think about his old work and the Secular Humanist Revival Meetings and think about what a deep and profoundly human person he used to be, and I can't help but think that he's still that person. That this slide towards increasingly manic, unpredictable, radicalized political opinions and seemingly loose grip on the reality of American politics and society will reverse itself.
At this point even his books are starting to suffer as he pours more and more of his personal ideology into every one he writes. I mean, look at the difference between Ender in EG and EiE, the latter is almost unbearably obnoxious and arrogant in his absolute certainty that everything he does and thinks is right, the former is quiet, reserved, willing to watch and observe, introspective. And all of Card's protagonists have suffered the same transformation - from deeply empathetic, humble, flawed-but-beautiful characters to self righteous arrogant jerks who are inherently good and pure. I was actually excited when The Lost Gate came out because the protagonist is someone who's kind of an asshole and isn't perfect and does plenty of shady things to get by and doesn't lecture anybody on morality. Then by the sequel, he "gets better" and starts heading down to road to self-righteous-jerkdom.
But then I read Ender's Game or Speaker again, and it's still just as good. And I can't help but hope something will change and we'll get our old Card back. I don't expect him to change his political opinions or start liking Obama or even approve of gay marriage. Not demonizing everyone who disagrees with him on arbitrary political or artistic points would be enough. Not blatently inserting political or social opinions into everything would be enough. Having the empathy to realize that not everybody who disagrees with you is a lying elitist hollywood narcissist atheist abortionist America-hating Muslim loving history denying lazy millennial cowardly liberal would be enough.
Will this ever happen? No, it'll probably get worse, not better. Heck, just look at his political writings in early 2008 and compare them to his current opinions - he's gotten far more extreme in 7 years. And I'm honestly not sure how much longer I'll keep watching, because at some point it's no longer good for me to continue being disappointed week after week.
But for right now, I do think it's sad that so many of OSC's fans here are people who are immensely frustrated and disappointed with him. Which says something about how good his work used to be - it's hard to find many people who enjoyed his books but still agree with anything he says nowadays.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Well I didn't bother with a point by point but I did make and disseminate something which is kind of how I feel about the whole of Orson Scott Card's political writings and I guess it's getting some traction. Not that anyone cares, because few people even bother to defend the guy anymore and just sort of sit around awkwardly silent hoping that we just won't talk about those insane things he writes, because it's awkward and embarrassing at this point even to try to suggest that he's not just saying completely nuts things or that even if he's arguing passionately about something it's still totally unfair to think he's not a nice guy because he would be soft-spoken if you met him in person or something
I'd be happy if we talked about the things he writes instead of talking about what it says about him as a person all the time.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I did just that a few posts back. Specifically, talking about what he wrote about American Sniper and my own opinion about the movie.
Honestly, most of the conversation in this thread has been about the things he writes about. Like how much I dislike his patronizing disapproval of millennials, or how I disagree with his political opinions, etc. And I'm sure he's a perfectly wonderful person IRL, and seems very nice and charming in the videos he's in, but I've never met the man, or spoken with him other than a few threads here. (He stopped posting shortly after I started, sorry about that) So my only exposure to who he is is the things he writes.
And over the past decade, there has been a pretty dramatic shift in his rhetoric and a radicalization of his opinions, to the point that you have to wonder what's happened to him as a person to cause this shift. I wouldn't necessarily say he's changed his political stance so much as he's become so incredibly political that it infects literally everything he writes at this point. Everything Obama does is proof of his contempt and hatred for America. Every movie he doesn't like is because the producer was contemptuous of history and an elitist liberal who sneers at the common man.
It's an incredibly defensive, reactionary posture, and if I were to guess I would say that it coincides with the attacks on him about his views on homosexuality, which really picked up steam ~2005 or so. A lot of those attacks were incredibly hyperbolic, demeaning, extreme, and sometimes outright dishonest, and I think maybe unfortunately they've lead him into becoming the sort of person they made him out to be.
Honestly I don't want to continue down this path, since I think this sort of psychoanalysis is pretty condescending and disrespectful, and I'm uncomfortable talking about him that personally. I'm sure he has his own reasons for the choices he made. OTOH, I have no problem with sharing my disappointment with what those changes have caused him to write, if only because of how much I respect the person he used to be. (or perhaps still is, but doesn't show, or never really was but seemed to be)
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I haven't read a thing he has written since...um...let me think...had to look it up....Empire.
And don't plan to.
Just like after Heinlein went nuts and wanted to sex his whole family...including the dog.
We will always have the pre-crazy OSC novels!
Also....great post DB. (Ha! My autocorrect almost changed your initials to something offensive)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: I'd be happy if we talked about the things he writes instead of talking about what it says about him as a person all the time.
Sure, let's talk purely about the words in the articles. Their complete buy-in to weak manufactroverseries like the Churchill bust or the bulk rate 2012 Benghazi conspiracies shows that these political screeds can't or won't avoid preposterous yawners if that would impede the ceaseless obsession with denouncing Obama constantly with the most unsustainable and absolute hyperbole possible. This body of work will tilt at literally any windmill possible to proclaim Obama and the American Hating liberal Leftaliban in sheer contempt for civilized values in general, worst president, joseph goebbels, etc.
But beyond just these specific starters, the meltdown after Obama's re-election and the absurdly deranged article full of 'tongue in cheek' dogwhistles about black people becoming Obama's new dictatorial National Police that 'sure sound plausible' are just completely nuts and these articles are showing no signs of relenting from this trend of laughably pompous neuroses, whether about Obama or liberals or the media or hollywood or feminists or believers of global warming. But it would be nice if at bare minimum these articles avoid a troubling retread into racist territory, for the sake of whatever moral credibility they still claim to have.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
but seriously it's honestly becoming conspicuously irrelevant because talking about the articles IS talking about the man writing the articles, it's utterly inseparable and in the absence of any real controversy about them here or anywhere because practically nobody appears to be seriously trying to defend them anymore, this is if not an idle amusement just sort of a continued output of wonderment specific to the community about what these articles are really saying
but! if anything, we are super experts at irrelevant wonderment, so we got that going for us.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Card has left on me a deeply ingrained legacy as an author I'll never discard or forget, and will keep reading Enderverse fiction, as it comes out, until they are no longer fun reading (which hasn't happened yet).
Not to say that I'm not deeply disappointed in the way things have gone, but I guess I'm just doomed to have to be interested in works written by caricatures of wingbat Right Wingers.
Thankfully I never got into Ringo's Posleen series, crikey.
Turtledove seems to be the only left wing speculative military fiction author at the moment I know of, I need to see if I can find others.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Sam, care to share your piece here?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I too would like to read it...however it would be inappropriate I bet to post a link here...how bout the proper key words to Google it?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
All I have to say is, if you don't like the fact that I treated this place so disrespectfully at my whim over the last 14 years, you have our esteemed host to thank. Whether I was wrong or not, my behavior is a direct result of his. Coming here and treating this like some kind of safe space, in the wake of his behavior ( since @2000 or so) is/was sticking your head in the sand, at least to some degree.
The real downfall of the forum, though, wasn't occasional trolls like me. It was moderation that allowed certain extremely strident members to...do what they did, which was run off most people to other hatrackosphere forums, or other unrelated forums. You can't troll it up through articles, then expect trolls to NOT overrun your own forum.
That sure wasn't my fault.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: if you don't like the fact that I treated this place so disrespectfully at my whim over the last 14 years, you have our esteemed host to thank.
No, I think that's you.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Whether I was wrong or not, my behavior is a direct result of his.
Bull. Two people can each be assholes without one being the other one's origin story.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Man, give it up. Every so often you peddle this bunk around about how your admittedly douchy behavior wasn't really that bad because *point over there*.
You were contemptuous of Card and others here, and so decided to behave contemptuously here in a deliberate (and frankly silly, adolescent, narcissistic) ploy to trash something Card and others liked, making it worse.
Fast forward years later and it's worse, so your story goes, but heck if that's anything to do with you! I guess. I mean, were you either lying about your motives, or just incompetent?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
You'd make a great marriage counselor, Tom.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Yeah, OSC pays for these boards, they are not cheap, and judging by how fast Kristine will reply to queries about book publication and the business end of things, the Card family still reads them (unless JanitorBlade is tasked with letting them know when he sees queries, and then they just pounce on those). I've heard OSC himself make the analogy of it being his living room when he was promoting SOTG back in 2005.
If you want to disagree with what he writes or say something is wrong or silly, that's one thing. The entire point of why we are here is to discuss things that Orson Scott Card writes.
The short time that OSC posted regularly on these forms was pretty awesome and I do miss it. I imagine people would want to continually look to engage him on the political front, which would cut into writing time, be a continual chore, and a waste of time that he could be using to spend with his grandchildren.
... It's also really weird to have people talk about you on the internet as if you can't read what they are saying. I have had to do some interviews for my job, and "who's the hot chick in the middle?"* popped up in one of the internet comments (we had a group picture, and I was in the middle). Part of me was flattered and glad I wore makeup that day (cystic acne is terrible), but the rest of me was seriously disturbed. Like, do I reply to that? What do I say? Am I going to get myself a stalker once they figure out that we were labelled in another picture? Was it a random person? Or someone I know making a joke? I make crap comments on the internet all the time. And then my mother and one of my other co-workers felt the need to tell me that someone on Reddit thought I was hot. Honestly, it was a harmless comment, but still an unsettling experience, and I'm glad I don't have a higher profile so people who I don't know start developing stronger interests and opinions of me. I don't want strangers to care that much.
*This was a categorically inappropriate comment for the interview, which was a group interview about the science we do. And for the morbidly curious, in the picture I was wearing an LL Bean purple hooded zip-up sweatshirt over a button-up, collared shirt (that didn't really go with the sweater, but I keep it in my office and never wash it because work isn't warm enough ever). It was very librarian not-chic.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: All I have to say is, if you don't like the fact that I treated this place so disrespectfully at my whim over the last 14 years, you have our esteemed host to thank. Whether I was wrong or not, my behavior is a direct result of his.
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: I imagine people would want to continually look to engage him on the political front
I disagree. I honestly believe the reason most conversations about him here focus on his political beliefs because that's what he writes about relentlessly. When he writes about non-political things that are interesting and insightful I'm more than happy to talk about those too, and TBH I could probably do a better job of posting more about the things he writes that I greatly appreciate (like his recent TED talks about education), but I think if he started posting here again it wouldn't instantly become political. Unless, that is, he decided to post political things. What do you say then? "Your rant was very grammatically pleasing?"
quote:I keep it in my office and never wash it because work isn't warm enough ever
You know, I started my current job 3 weeks ago, and it's uncomfortably warm in the office all the time. I wear short sleeve dress shirts or roll my sleeves and drink ice water constantly, but I still end up sweating through my undershirt by the end of the day.
There's a woman who works with me who wears a coat. Not a jacket or hoodie, but a friggin coat to work and wears it all day. She always complains about how it's always freezing in the office.
There are some things I'll never understand.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
It's true that politics are what OSC most memorably engages his Rhino readers with, and so they come up a lot. But even if OSC stopped writing about politics and stuck to food and movies and never went on a tangent into politics, readers would still ask about his more memorable pieces, which are on the internet forever, and strike a nerve.
Is your co-worker thin by chance? Us thin folk are just freezing all the time.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote: TBH I could probably do a better job of posting more about the things he writes that I greatly appreciate (like his recent TED talks about education)
I think the last movie I saw in the theaters was Interstellar, and I don't buy many packaged snacks, so it's hard to give opinions on his reviews.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: Is your co-worker thin by chance? Us thin folk are just freezing all the time.
Hey, what are you implying here?
No, she's pretty portly. I think I have a very high metabolic rate (I've had a lot of difficulty gaining weight, and had to go on some pretty strict weight gaining diets to meet my fitness goals) which may be why I'm always warm.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
quote: TBH I could probably do a better job of posting more about the things he writes that I greatly appreciate (like his recent TED talks about education)
I think the last movie I saw in the theaters was Interstellar (though he might change his mind), and I don't buy many packaged snacks, so it's hard to give opinions on his reviews.
Well we're both kind of SoL here, since Card's stated he won't go see Interstellar and I'm too poor/happy about not having diabetes to waste my money buying junk food. (Also, your snubbery of the Interstellar Thread has been duly noted)
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by steven: All I have to say is, if you don't like the fact that I treated this place so disrespectfully at my whim over the last 14 years, you have our esteemed host to thank. Whether I was wrong or not, my behavior is a direct result of his.
Dude, I don't troll my OWN forums...or anywhere else, IIRC. You might respond similarly if a devout Mormon author whose work you gave as gifts and recommended to dozens of people started posting hateful anti-Mormon screeds, for instance.
You know, maybe.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Whether I was wrong or not, my behavior is a direct result of his.
Bull. Two people can each be assholes without one being the other one's origin story.
What's up, Tom? I missed you, baby.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by steven: All I have to say is, if you don't like the fact that I treated this place so disrespectfully at my whim over the last 14 years, you have our esteemed host to thank. Whether I was wrong or not, my behavior is a direct result of his.
Dude, I don't troll my OWN forums...or anywhere else, IIRC. You might respond similarly if a devout Mormon author whose work you gave as gifts and recommended to dozens of people started posting hateful anti-Mormon screeds, for instance.
You know, maybe.
...except, you know, this one, as you started this sidebar by admitting again?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I wonder why people still bother trying to tell steven that it's his fault at this point. Either he knows already and is just fishing for some uppity or he has no clue and never will since everyone has already explained it as nicely as humanly possible.
Either way it's not HIS time they are wasting.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
im gonna punch Steven in the jimmies some day and then lecture him about how I have externalized the fault of my behavior onto him
If he continues to complain about this or hold me responsible for the inflicted suffering I am going to use that as a continued justification for a newly renewed adolescent self righteous spree of further jimmy punchin'
Y'all brought this on yoself Steven you don't see me punchin anyone else's jimmies today
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Great post...sept for the threats of continued physical harm. Doubt that part is long for these boards dude.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
if it was inappropriate, i blame the forum. if you don't like it, hold yourselves responsible not me
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: You know, I started my current job 3 weeks ago, and it's uncomfortably warm in the office all the time.
When I was working as a junior QA something like eight years ago in Longmont I was put right underneath an overcharged vent that turned my workstation to about 30f at best. I was wearing double coats and gloves and a hat in the middle of summer.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by steven: All I have to say is, if you don't like the fact that I treated this place so disrespectfully at my whim over the last 14 years, you have our esteemed host to thank. Whether I was wrong or not, my behavior is a direct result of his.
Dude, I don't troll my OWN forums...or anywhere else, IIRC. You might respond similarly if a devout Mormon author whose work you gave as gifts and recommended to dozens of people started posting hateful anti-Mormon screeds, for instance.
You know, maybe.
...except, you know, this one, as you started this sidebar by admitting again?
I'm pretty sure that was clearly understood to be implied. If not, fine. Assume it to be implied.
And I was always a good-faith member at ornery. I left after several years because I felt the mod had an obvious bias against liberal members, but I never trolled there.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I wonder why people still bother trying to tell steven that it's his fault at this point. Either he knows already and is just fishing for some uppity or he has no clue and never will since everyone has already explained it as nicely as humanly possible.
Either way it's not HIS time they are wasting.
Nicely? Did you ever READ the Hatrack Gossip Thread at Sake, before Mike got ashamed of it and cleaned it up? HA. 'Racka, please. LOL
Then there was JT's site, entropical isle. I'm not even sure how some people justify what they said there. It was offensive, and unnecessary. Anybody care to dispute that?
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
This is the review column thread people.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's almost as though people could... detect you were being a schmuck, and reacted to it, Steven. Weird! Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i have never seen a community less effectively moderated than ornery. the entire place is demented beyond comparison and some days it feels like three quarters of the posts are frenetic overcompensatory obsession piled in a shamespiral of vomitous misery
that or it's like pete at home going for the bingo bonus of 9 rambling chain posts in a row
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: i have never seen a community less effectively moderated than ornery. the entire place is demented beyond comparison and some days it feels like three quarters of the posts are frenetic overcompensatory obsession piled in a shamespiral of vomitous misery
that or it's like pete at home going for the bingo bonus of 9 rambling chain posts in a row
It was better before about 2005 or so. Its downturn happened roughly in parallel with Hatrack's, I think. I lurked there for about 30 minutes once last year, and it has gone full-on surreal, I agree.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:If you ask any American liberal what it is that separates them from those awful Tea Party conservatives, I bet you that nine times out of 10 they’ll answer, “Tolerance.”
Liberals have it; conservatives don’t. Or so liberals believe, in their rigid, unbending, hate-filled view of everyone who doesn’t agree with them.
Well, this week's article starts out nice.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
When did we decide that political affiliation was about personal qualities, rather than philosophical and epistemological convictions?
Tolerance is not a philosophy- it's a quality. It's not one that encompasses any particular philosophy. Something OSC demonstrates on a weekly basis at this point, as he spouts intolerance from every possible philosophical viewpoint.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
If you ask me what most important quality separates me from your average tea party conservative, it is that I am correctly informed by science and I am fighting their attempts to legislate from a position of scientific ignorance, whether they are doing so from a genuine failure to understand scientific consensus, or from having been paid off to undermine scientific consensus.
The fact that I AM also more tolerant, in that I work against structures of power that marginalize minorities, structures of power bolstered by anti-immigration zealotry, "defense of marriage" homophobia, racism that writes off black victims of police violence and dogwhistles urban blacks as 'thugs,' bigotry of many other sorts — qualities endemic to tea party republicans? Less important, but still present. I can only be amused if someone who wrote articles saying that if gay marriage was legalized, it would be justification for Americans to rise up and overthrow their government now wants to lecture others on tolerance or what it truly means to be tolerant or what the actually more tolerant party is. For good reason, I can't particularly take it seriously, and excruciatingly few other people will.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Although I think you'd probably get a better batting average for "tolerance" among average liberals compared to average Tea Party conservatives, that's not what I'd pick as the defining difference. Besides, there is a worrying trend of intolerance among liberals (see Brendan Eich). I don't think our superior tolerance is the best way to brag while things like that are pretty fresh in our memory (although, tiresomely, we have to also point out that Eich is not an example of having his free speech rights or exercise of religion infringed by Big Brother).
Of course, the whole exercise of picking ONE thing as the biggest or most important difference is kind of silly. But if I was forced to pick one thing, it's that the Tea Party is organized around the idea that big government is inherently bad, and most liberals don't subscribe to that philosophy.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Liberals are not Canadian. Also when was the last time I saw a self-declared liberal say that 600,000,000 non-liberals should be mass-murdered?
Oh right, I didn't. That was a Tea Party person saying that "all liberals in the world are scum and should be executed".
On another speculative military scifi author's forum.
I'd say Liberals tend to be just as intolerant, but less about race and more about stupid edgy lifestyle choices.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Just finished the whole article. orson scott card is basically writing (and he may not be intending to say this but when you get to the core points of the article it's what the article is saying) that an example of the intolerance of liberals is that they don't want to see or vocally don't like a movie, but the movie is about people we should lionize no matter what. reading it out like that made me double check just to make sure i definitely have it right, that it's really that impossibly dumb once you boil out all the self-righteous fluff, because that seems a bit hard to believe! but it seems to check out.
Oh, also a hard to embellish strawmanny-thing:
quote:But in the minds of the Other Half, the people who don’t know any soldiers or sailors, “the military” is some faceless mob of angry gun lovers – and those who make or go to films that honor them and show us their sacrifice must be intolerant hate-filled Tea Party conservatives.
yeahhhhhh, so apparently if we want to know what real liberals think in any really representative numbers, he is here to explain to us that liberals think you must be a member of the tea party if you want to go see this movie. i'm really super glad we have him here to explain liberals to us so believably Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Names are Nouns.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I went and saw American Sniper and thought it was a great movie. I don't consider myself a liberal, but by OSC standards I'm pretty much a communist so I fall into the liberal group. I also know people in the military - in fact, I am a veteran. Does this mean I should consider myself a member of the Tea Party? Should I despise myself/hold myself in contempt? I'm so confused here.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
buh
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
I hate all of you, I went and found that dumb article. Does anyone else notice that the idea of tolerance that he is working with just doesn't work at all. It just cartwheels over itself to support that he doesn't like that some liberals don't like something or don't agree with him. Or they say mean things about his beliefs. So he expresses that this is intolerance, and says mean things about their beliefs. And this is tolerance.
You wicked demon liberals I guess you'll never understand. My logic.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
50% odds its because people boycotted Ender's Game because of his personal beliefs and political advocacy.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Parkour: Yes, his logic in it is so incoherent, convoluted and contradictory that it borders the line between "haha, crazy Card" and an argument you might expect from an actual crazy person. Like, I'm not saying that because I disagree with it (though I do), I say that because I'm not sure there's any way possible *to* agree with it. It doesn't make any sense.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Also, American Sniper is a strange movie to pick as a target for a "liberal vs. conservative" benchmark. It's an incredibly successful movie that has been received quite positively by the snobby ivory tower librul movie critics and has gotten 6 Academy Award nominations - including Best Picture - from the bastion of elitist America-hating artsy-fartsy intolerant liberalism itself - aka, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.
It's also interesting to see how Card is singing Clint Eastwood's praises and talking about how great his movies are, *including Million Dollar Baby*, when he completely panned it in 2005 and wrote it off as "shallow, stupid and pretentiously bad."
It's like he's trying to create a political conflict where one exists, and where nobody wants one to exist. Which is sad, because AS really is a great movie and is quite moving and has a lot to say about the past 15 years and war in general. There are so many interesting things you could write about or analyze in the movie, so many different things it has to say about human nature, but instead Card chooses to use it as a vehicle to launch a nonsensical political crusade. Which is a pretty effective response to BlackBlade's question of why we discuss his political opinions all the time - he doesn't leave us much in the way of options.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Eh. Maybe I'm crazy too, but I think it makes sense and Elison has it.
In addition to the problems OSC's faced, the Miss California incident, Chick-Fil-A, Mozilla and Duck Dynasty are great examples of intolerance over finding somebody doesn't support gay marriage. The pro-gay marriage side gets gung-ho about boycotts, and the other side points out that it's technically unfair/illegal to stop someone over an unpopular opinion.
A lot of people will flat out refuse to date Republicans (it's a running joke in certain fiction I've read too), and conservatives do get a lot of crap at colleges. Whether this crap takes the real life form of anything that makes up those "Christian debates atheist professor and wins" chain letters is probably no.
The liberal intolerance for anti-gay marriage views is like intolerance for anti-vaxxers. Being against gay marriage hurts gay couples, which may be the liberal or a close friends. Being against vaccines hurts babies and the immunocompromised. There's a difference between's someone's opinions making them a harmless weirdo and hurting me and mine. One side is all "My religion says it's a sin, my opinion is that gay marriage isn't right and I'm allowed to vote the way I choose and support what I chose because this is the USA". The other side is all "You are denying benefits for my family or friends".
And the other issue that both positions are mainstream in some places and fringe positions in others, depending on where you go.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
theamazeeaz: did you even read the article? It's not about gay marriage at all. It's about how he thinks being liberal means hating the military.
Seriously, read it and tell me how much sense his logic makes by the end.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The pro-gay marriage side gets gung-ho about boycotts, and the other side points out that it's technically unfair/illegal to stop someone over an unpopular opinion.
People do remember that OSC helped lead a boycott against Starbucks for supporting gay causes before people called for a boycott on Ender's Game, right? I feel like people seem to act like this didn't happen.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
No it's different. Starbucks was oppressing Mr. Card by trying to shove their vile gay agenda down his throat, whereas those elitist, intolerant liberals (because liberals are a homogenous group and never ever, say, vary in opinion of whether boycotts are effective or ethical, or anything else for that matter) were attacking him just because he wanted to deprive a whole group of people a basic civil right because he just doesn't like them. On the plus side, he now supports the overthrow of the U.S. government since gay marriage is now federally recognized (DoM repeal), which ought to make any America-hating liberal happy.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I am honestly trying to figure what percentage of liberals or just leftists in general actually act like how card is describing. i get something like it in a real tiny vein of anti capitalist far left radicals in New England just in the form of vague Facebook posts celebrating being able to identify pro war propaganda when disguised as anti war propaganda but that's about it.
He mentioned Michael Moore by name but it is hardly that surprising that he doesn't seem to know what moores argument pertaining to the movie is, even when Moore is busy cramming his big fat foot down his throat these days on the movie
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:The pro-gay marriage side gets gung-ho about boycotts, and the other side points out that it's technically unfair/illegal to stop someone over an unpopular opinion.
People do remember that OSC helped lead a boycott against Starbucks for supporting gay causes before people called for a boycott on Ender's Game, right? I feel like people seem to act like this didn't happen.
No, I don't remember this.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
It was in the news a fair amount in 2013, and used as (pretty blatantly retroactive) justification to boycott the Ender's Game movie by some.
I do think it's kind of disturbing when people talk about how harmless OSC's views are, since it requires a sort of willing ignorance of his work with the NOM and the significant amount of damage he did. I've never boycotted anything related to Mr. Card - I buy his books, went and saw EG in theaters, and heck, I post here - but it's more than a little disingenuous to complain about people boycotting your work just because you want to oppress gays while you're actively running a boycott again a company that supports gay rights.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Are we so sure that the boycott against Starbucks doesn't predate Mr. Card being invited to join the board of NOM? Additionally, it is my understanding that Mr. Card, after joining the board, was not actively involved in decision making. He then left the board some time later.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Yes, we're absolutely sure. That sort of information if fairly easy to find. It was started while he was a member of the board of directors.
Edit: Also, I don't really want to go into how complicit he was in the action, since presumably we don't have a transcript of the meeting that instituted that boycott. It's something of a moot point - as a member of the board of directors, he *was* responsible for the leadership of the NOM and the decisions it made. If he was opposed to the direction the NOM took in 2012 with boycotts (of which there is absolutely no evidence), it was his responsibility to resign. He didn't. (Though you could argue his eventual resignation the following year was due to him being uncomfortable with the direction the NOM was going, it was long after the Starbucks thing was old news)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
what else happened in NOM starting in 2009
quote:In March 2012, NOM memos dated to 2009 advocating strategies of pitting the African-American and homosexual communities against each other, of discouraging Latino assimilation into a culture accepting of same-sex marriage, and of painting President Obama as a "social radical" were released by a federal judge in Maine and published by the Human Rights Campaign.[150][151][152] The internal NOM documents state that they seek "to drive a wedge between gays and blacks" by promoting "African American spokespeople for marriage", thus provoking same-sex marriage supporters into "denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots", and to interrupt the assimilation" of Latinos into "dominant Anglo culture" by making the stance against same-sex marriage "a key badge of Latino identity". The documents also showed a goal to "sideswipe" US President Barack Obama by depicting him as a "social radical" via issues including child protection and pornography.
The revealed tactics were described as "one of the most cynical things I've ever heard"[155] and "scary"[156] by Julian Bond, Chairman Emeritus of the NAACP.[155] The National Black Justice Coalition said that the "documents expose N.O.M. for what it really is – a hate group determined to use African American faith leaders as pawns to push their damaging agenda.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote: The documents also showed a goal to "sideswipe" US President Barack Obama by depicting him as a "social radical" via issues including child protection and pornography.
What's crazy about all of this is this is literally the exact same tactic used by the moral majority folks in the 80s that Card used to decry in his Secular Humanist Revival Meetings.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Yes, we're absolutely sure. That sort of information if fairly easy to find. It was started while he was a member of the board of directors.
Edit: Also, I don't really want to go into how complicit he was in the action, since presumably we don't have a transcript of the meeting that instituted that boycott. It's something of a moot point - as a member of the board of directors, he *was* responsible for the leadership of the NOM and the decisions it made. If he was opposed to the direction the NOM took in 2012 with boycotts (of which there is absolutely no evidence), it was his responsibility to resign. He didn't. (Though you could argue his eventual resignation the following year was due to him being uncomfortable with the direction the NOM was going, it was long after the Starbucks thing was old news)
The boycott was instituted in March 2012, Mr. Card joined NOM in 2009. So you are correct, it was late last night so I didn't try looking this stuff up.
But, and please understand I'm not especially comfortable with discussing conversations I've been privy to with the Cards, from what I gathered Mr. Card was not included in decisions being made. He was asked to join the board, consented, and then nothing...
And ultimately he left for reasons I'm sure were at least partially informed by that. He did not publicly make a statement however, opting to leave as anonymously as possible. I suspect because he didn't want to make a big deal of it, though he certainly took a lot of flak publicly when he joined.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: But, and please understand I'm not especially comfortable with discussing conversations I've been privy to with the Cards,
This is completely understandable and just to be clear, I wasn't expecting you to do so.
quote:from what I gathered Mr. Card was not included in decisions being made. He was asked to join the board, consented, and then nothing...
And ultimately he left for reasons I'm sure were at least partially informed by that. He did not publicly make a statement however, opting to leave as anonymously as possible. I suspect because he didn't want to make a big deal of it, though he certainly took a lot of flak publicly when he joined.
*nods* It sounds like they brought him on board for name recognition, not because they seriously valued or wanted his input. Which really sucks and puts in a difficult spot, but he could have resigned and publicly disavowed affiliation. The fact that he remained with them for 4 years, even after some truly reprehensible things they did came to light, makes it difficult for me to blame those who chose to boycott him. You know I don't support boycotts against his work any more than you do, but I can't say I think they're intolerant to do so.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Also, American Sniper is a strange movie to pick as a target for a "liberal vs. conservative" benchmark. It's an incredibly successful movie that has been received quite positively by the snobby ivory tower librul movie critics and has gotten 6 Academy Award nominations - including Best Picture - from the bastion of elitist America-hating artsy-fartsy intolerant liberalism itself - aka, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.
No, you don't understand. See, because if it wins best picture, then it's because the sneering elitist liberal elites don't get the real message of the film, and have nominated it out of politically correct deference to veterans (which is of course totally phony and pathetic.)
If it doesn't win despite being nominated, then it is because the liberal elitist snobs could never allow a film with such a conservative message to be recognized for the high art that it really is.
That's the ballgame. Cardball.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: In addition to the problems OSC's faced, the Miss California incident, Chick-Fil-A, Mozilla and Duck Dynasty are great examples of intolerance over finding somebody doesn't support gay marriage. The pro-gay marriage side gets gung-ho about boycotts, and the other side points out that it's technically unfair/illegal to stop someone over an unpopular opinion.
It is neither "technically" unfair, nor illegal to stop someone from doing something for an unpopular opinion. Congress chooses not to confirm appointments because they have unpopular opinions, for example. We can stop allowing people to sell things to us for unpopular opinions. There are all kinds of modes in which we can punish people, in absolute fairness and legality, for their unpopular opinions, and we do it constantly, and that's a good thing.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: [QB] But, and please understand I'm not especially comfortable with discussing conversations I've been privy to with the Cards, from what I gathered Mr. Card was not included in decisions being made. He was asked to join the board, consented, and then nothing...
The hamfistedness of this as a justification for his current position on boycotts, generally, and on his involvement with NOM and Ender's Game specifically, is rather striking.
NOM invited him to be a member as a publicity move. He consented to do this. He accepted responsibility for the decisions they chose to make. No matter how much influence he had, he had the ability to announce his resignation. If he ws ignorant of their activities, that is his fault. I am not a member, much less a leader, of any political organization that is carrying out political activities that I have no knowledge of. To be in such a position would compromise my basic ethical responsibilities- and I am not a famous author.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
when you are literally a director of an organization on the literal board of directors, yeah, you have put yourself on a different standard of culpability and considerations for how much you can be said to be in accord with the acts of the organization by default.
he would have to issue some sort of public disavowal of NOM's actions before anyone should seriously protest that point or the point about his boycott hypocrisy. strangely however i am kind of inclined to think he's not interested in disavowing any of that.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: No, you don't understand. See, because if it wins best picture, then it's because the sneering elitist liberal elites don't get the real message of the film, and have nominated it out of politically correct deference to veterans (which is of course totally phony and pathetic.)
If it doesn't win despite being nominated, then it is because the liberal elitist snobs could never allow a film with such a conservative message to be recognized for the high art that it really is.
That's the ballgame. Cardball.
Well, we'll find out which version of reality is true come the 22nd.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
When you play the game of Cardball, you either win, or you aren't Orson Scott Card.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:And ultimately he left for reasons I'm sure were at least partially informed by that. He did not publicly make a statement however, opting to leave as anonymously as possible. I suspect because he didn't want to make a big deal of it, though he certainly took a lot of flak publicly when he joined.
I would if Card had a different history of political rhetoric on LGBT rights, and politics in general, personally be willing to accept such a benign explanation. But...I can't. I'm not asking you to comment on this yourself, BB, since I know you're in an akward position in such a discussion, but if one is going to lend the credibility and publicity of their name to an institution which organizes boycotts against a given cause, and remain silent on this boycott, and then years later bitterly and public resent (and insult) those who organize boycotts in support of that very same cause...
Well. Surely any ethical stance in such a case would at least involve a public statement along the lines of 'NOM once did this, but I did not support...' or 'NOM did this, and I did support it, but feel I was wrong...' or even the at least honest and open stance of 'NOM did this and I supported it, and now these guys do the opposite and I oppose it entirely not because I oppose boycotts but simply because they're wrong'...
To my knowledge, Card hasn't done that. I'll be happy to eat some crow if he has acknowledged what seems charitable to call hypocrisy so far as his stance on boycotts for social changes. I doubt that will be forthcoming, though. It also seems clear to me that he has become so reactionary and so defensive on some issues that the mere fact of someone he loathes-and surely it is fair to say he loathes almost all liberals now, isn't it? he's said as much-holds a position means he gets to despise it simply by virtue of who holds it.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It also seems clear to me that he has become so reactionary and so defensive on some issues that the mere fact of someone he loathes-and surely it is fair to say he loathes almost all liberals now, isn't it? he's said as much-holds a position means he gets to despise it simply by virtue of who holds it.
Yes, thus my response to his latest argument. By virtue of who I am, I (and actually, millions of other people) fall into several groups of people he loathes and lionizes simultaneously. His logic contradicts itself to the point where it's not even internally consistent or rational, and it's mostly because he can't seem to criticize a certain idea, political position, or even single person who holds that idea. Instead, he has to assign that idea to a whole group of people who are, by virtue of being in that group, inherently and always wrong by default.
Thus he can't say "I disagree with Michael Moore" or even "Michael Moore is a giant ass who makes a living by provoking people" (both of which I'd agree with), he makes it out that anyone who dislikes anything about the movie is a liberal - a sneering elitist America-hating liberal who hates the military and has never met a veteran to boot - and anybody who likes it is a conservative. Nevermind the overwhelming number of liberals who liked the movie (as Orincoro pointed out, they "like it for the wrong reasons"), or conservatives who dislike it for various reasons, or even veterans who dislike some aspects of how Chris Kyle is romanticized and the movie contains something of a unrealistic "Western-esque" showdown between good and evil that detracts from the larger story.
But I have a sneaking suspicion that if, say, Michael Moore had praised the movie or Eastwood hadn't spoken at the RNC in 2012, Card would've written a review tearing it apart as another example of Hollywood elitism and Clint Eastwood's incompetence as a director and his contempt for history.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Plot twist: Clint Eastwood is a supporter of gay marriage.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
unironically indeed muslim and/or people of color in fantasy superhero roles offends the hell out of a lot of people
these people are very often a very specific type of people
this type is very predictable
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I admit at this point it's not surprising, it's more amusing really when Card gets going on the good old days and how awful dem lib'rls are and so on and so forth. Some gems:
quote:Sometimes they get their way, but the "high culture" that our betters prescribe for us common Americans is not high. It's not even logical or self-consistent. For instance, our betters told us that for the sake of freedom of speech, we had to tolerate putting the F-word on T-shirts, and eventually into practically any movie with any pretension to be "high art." Hence the pointless single F-bomb in Julie and Julia and other such obvious efforts to be "brave" and "edgy."
I appreciate this for the way it's emblematic of grouchy old man who is seeing changes he doesn't like grumping. For one, there's the conflation of unrelated matters. It is a matter of freedom of speech that just because you or a bunch of people, even, view a word as offensive doesn't mean someone else should be disallowed from showing or saying that word in public. But it's a different question as to whether or not someone should be fired just for using a word, though there is some tie-in.
I love the fantasy he spins about how this sort of censorship from 'our betters' is something that has started since...strangely not long past his young adulthood (it's weird how often the world just goes straight to hell after that period in one's life!). Classic example: really? Was it really black rappers and comedians who put the word 'nigger' into American culture? I could've sworn that that word was already there and in fact had been completely acceptable for generations before entering into a gradual decline, followed by a renewal of the use of the word in a very different spirit than in the past. One might almost think Card was either simply lazy or deliberately full of shit to portray this evolution of language as a straightforward triumph of liberal elites, and so obviously hypocritical.
One might ask a question like 'hey, should an elected official be held to a higher standard than an entertainer, especially when they're speaking, say, on the record about specific policy?' If you're some sort of godless American-hating liberal like myself, you might have the unmitigated gall to answer 'yes', but it's surely all part and parcel of my cabal's efforts to destroy Christianity and Republicans and (especially!) white men.
The funny thing, though, is that he's still got a handle on interesting questions such as the pitfalls of censorship (in theory, anyway) and the way such things seem to play out. I could retain some respect for his politics if he would at least cop to the plain fact that he doesn't really oppose this sort of thing in theory-ideas of censorship, of a particular group setting the tone for the culture, of marginalizing unwelcome ideas-he only actually dislikes it in practice when he's losing.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: black rappers and comedians who put the word 'nigger' into American culture? I could've sworn that that word was already there and in fact had been completely acceptable for generations before entering into a gradual decline, followed by a renewal of the use of the word in a very different spirit than in the past. One might almost think Card was either simply lazy or deliberately full of shit to portray this evolution of language as a straightforward triumph of liberal elites, and so obviously hypocritical.
OSC also famously self-censored the use of the N-word from the first edition of Ender's Game (the Novel).
And nobody fight me on this. It's definitely, definitely there.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I'm still stuck on the part about the single f-word in Julie and Julia being an attempt to be "edgy."
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote: black rappers and comedians who put the word 'nigger' into American culture? I could've sworn that that word was already there and in fact had been completely acceptable for generations before entering into a gradual decline, followed by a renewal of the use of the word in a very different spirit than in the past. One might almost think Card was either simply lazy or deliberately full of shit to portray this evolution of language as a straightforward triumph of liberal elites, and so obviously hypocritical.
OSC also famously self-censored the use of the N-word from the first edition of Ender's Game (the Novel).
And nobody fight me on this. It's definitely, definitely there.
Mine had it, I was actually very confused as a kid because "Isn't Alai Muslim? Why... Why does that.." Wasn't first edition though.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: Mine had it, I was actually very confused as a kid because "Isn't Alai Muslim? Why... Why does that.." Wasn't first edition though.
Because there are definitely no black Muslims in the world.
But yeah, I'm pretty sure my copy has it too (wherever it is, it keeps getting lent out), and I don't think it's first edition. The first time I read EG (around 2000) it definitely had it. It was fairly shocking, though I think I took it as "we're at a point now (in the future, not our now) where racism is a joke because it's not something that exists in any way" sort of thing.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Past tense.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I figured as much, I just couldn't resist. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: ... it as "we're at a point now (in the future, not our now) where racism is a joke because it's not something that exists in any way" sort of thing.
Possibly the only way to truely irradicate racism...an attack by space aliens. We all n*ggers when the plasma bolts start flyin!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: I'm still stuck on the part about the single f-word in Julie and Julia being an attempt to be "edgy."
It's edgydorable!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I love the fantasy he spins about how this sort of censorship from 'our betters' is something that has started since...strangely not long past his young adulthood (it's weird how often the world just goes straight to hell after that period in one's life!)
get off my lawn you damn generation that has different values and challenges than me and is trying to be more inclusive than i am. go achieve life markers we have largely put outside economic reach for you or i will mock your self-centeredness.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
oh and your music sucks, back in my day we weren't trying to be edgy we were just doing it right and didn't care about all this feminist liberal pc blather about school integration I MEAN title nine I MEAN gay marriage I MEAN literally thinking trans are human beings
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:The pro-gay marriage side gets gung-ho about boycotts, and the other side points out that it's technically unfair/illegal to stop someone over an unpopular opinion.
People do remember that OSC helped lead a boycott against Starbucks for supporting gay causes before people called for a boycott on Ender's Game, right? I feel like people seem to act like this didn't happen.
No, I don't remember this.
That's...well, I don't know what to say.
You were an active party in the conversation when it was first discussed. I've brought it up 4 times in conversations here about OSC being boycotted. I know that you were an active participant of at least three of those and one of them involved a back and forth between you and myself that spanned pages. It also was mentioned prominently in many of the calls for boycotting OSC, both about Superman and also Ender's Game.
Despite that, you followed up our conversation and these calls with some pretty nasty aspersions about everyone (you were clear too - "Really, everyone? you were asked. "Yes, everyone." you replied (quotes are not exact)) who supported boycotting OSC, claiming, if I can recall correctly (can't find it in search easily), that they are all only doing it out of hatred for OSC. It seemed at the time and still seems to me to be far out of character for you.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I suspect you might have a teensy little blind spot about certain aspects of this issue.
[ February 17, 2015, 11:53 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:And ultimately he left for reasons I'm sure were at least partially informed by that. He did not publicly make a statement however, opting to leave as anonymously as possible. I suspect because he didn't want to make a big deal of it, though he certainly took a lot of flak publicly when he joined.
Is why he left really that much of a mystery to people? In response in part to his actions as a board member of NOM, including, again, leading a boycott against gay rights supporting businesses, OSC was in turn the target of a boycott.
To try to defend Ender's Game against this, he wrote a piece that essentially said "The fight against Gay Marriage no longer has any point. We've lost."
To me, this seemed obvious, but do people think that him, in an effort to protect his own interests, publicly effectively saying that NOM no longer has any purpose and donating money to them is essentially throwing it away might have played some role in him parting from the organization?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Plot twist: Clint Eastwood is a supporter of gay marriage.
I think the fun one is going to be if GWB comes out in support of gay marriage.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Does anyone care what past pres have to say? They have like equivalent clout to a sitting first lady. Eat your vegetables kids.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Usually (iirc) new presidents keep counsel of previous presidents to help with the transition and seek their advice on certain specific interests (such as foreign policy, re: Bill Clinton regarding the Norks).
The advantage of a democratic system with a peaceful transition of power is that all past presidents almost automatically become Elder Statesmen who can go around helping to advance American interests and act as good will ambassadors.
Experience is experience.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I think the fun one is going to be if GWB comes out in support of gay marriage.
It's not impossible. While he wasn't in favor of legalizing gay marriage in office, he fell well to the left of the party line when it came to the issue. And nowadays his views (pretty much "maybe we should just leave gay people alone, it's not really any of our business") make him sound like a practical Librul. (It's often amazing to see what a sharp turn to the right the Republican party has taken since 2008, that in retrospect Bush looks comparatively reasonable and moderate on a lot of issues)
As far as his personal views, in his autobiography Bush talks about Cheney bringing up the issue with him (Cheney being a gay marriage supporter) and him reassuring Cheney he had no problem with his views, which makes me think any opposition he had to it was out of loyalty to his political party. I can't think of Bush making any homophobic remarks (and expressed in a released private conversation that he had received some flak from Evangelical leaders for refusing to do so) and he never struck me as a particularly hateful person.
On the other hand, he's generally avoided making any political statements since he left office, and I don't think he would make any major announcement in support of gay marriage before the 2016 election. Especially since it's nearly a done deal - I think it'll probably be legal nation wide by the end of this year.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Sure, sure, but my comment was funny.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Can you -imagine- Obama calling up GWB for advice on foreign policy? I can't.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
That would be awesome DB!
Another ten or so & pot will be legal nationwide.
Then the real pary kicks off!
Yay liberty!
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Can you -imagine- Obama calling up GWB for advice on foreign policy?
Yes.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
As a prank?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
No.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Um...isn't GWB known for his lackbof knowledge in that area? Or did I just pick that up from Wil Farrell & SNL?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Um...isn't GWB known for his lackbof knowledge in that area?
Regardless of how competent he was a president, he has 8 years of experience in the office, has met with dozens of heads of states, handled numerous complex geopolitical issues, and had a grasp of the duties and responsibilities of the office - as well as some of the subtleties and nuances of presidential foreign policy and the current status quo - that Obama would definitely be interested in his advice. They met numerous times after the election to discuss the turnover of office, and I imagine Obama probably called him somewhat frequently during his first year. "Hey, you know president so-and-so of this country, what's your take on his current posturing?" or "what's up with Putin and not wearing shirts ever?", that sort of thing. Whether or not that actually happened I'm not sure, but I can certainly imagine it. I can even say I believe it to be likely.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Ahhh like the fbi & mob cooperating to fight the Nazis in the Rocketeer...partisanship pails in comparison to xenophobia (to couch it in the worst possible way).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Even if it's granted that GWB was a uniformly terrible President (and my present opinion is that he was below average, let's say), there would still be potential value in asking for his input on some matters. Even if it were only to be seen asking, or just to evaluate what someone he disagreed with thought of a situation. Though that's not usually what's meant by 'advice'.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Bush, who left office in 2009 with a historically low popularity level, seems content in self-imposed exile. “I crawled out of the swamp, and I’m not crawling back in,” he said in a rare interview with the Hoover Institution this year.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
that he said this means that quite sincerely i think his is an opinion worth soliciting now on political affairs
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Even if it's granted that GWB was a uniformly terrible President (and my present opinion is that he was below average, let's say), there would still be potential value in asking for his input on some matters. Even if it were only to be seen asking, or just to evaluate what someone he disagreed with thought of a situation. Though that's not usually what's meant by 'advice'.
To clarify, my scenario is set in the first few months of the Obama presidency where his advice would be helpful, if only for continuity purposes. I doubt Obama calls him very much *now*.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
It was little known at the time, but GWB and Bill Clinton apparently talked quite often during the bush years- as in perhaps several times a week at some points.
If you think about it, it makes sense. There are very, very few people the President can talk to as a peer. A former president is on a similar level, is no longer seeking office, has similar experiences, etc.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Since The Imitation Game was discussed in this thread...did anyone see the screenwriter's acceptance speech last night? Moving stuff. He stood on stage and said that he tried to kill himself when he was a teenager because he was weird and didn't fit in and he dedicated the award to the kid out there that feels weird or different and that they should keep being weird and they will get their chance to pass on encouragement like he is. Kept in line with the message of the movie.
Also, continuing on that theme but irrelevant to this thread, this is a really powerful music video that I just saw. The lyrics, music, and video...worth watching.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I think the acceptance speech for Imitation Game, as well as the performance of "Glory" by John Legend were the highlights of the ceremony last night. Other than that night went more or less how I expected, though I was pleasantly surprised that Grand Budapest Hotel didn't win Best Picture. Really felt Boyhood got snubbed, as did Gone Girl. (which lost the only category it was even nominated for)
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Kurds in the M-E naming their children after Obama.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
which is worse, the oscars or the grammys
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
In general? Grammy.
Best is the Tonys.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
3 years out of the last 4, best picture has gone to a movie about Hollywood. So, yeah, stay relevant Academy.
I hated The Artist. I thought it was trumped up drivel. Argo was fine, but not a best picture in the same year as Amour, and I haven't yet seen Birdmsn, but I have seen all the other nominees. It would have to be pretty damned good to beat out that competition.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Best picture went to a movie about Hollywood, Best Actor and Best Actress went to actors who played people suffering from disability (despite Bradley Cooper and Benedict Cumberbatch giving superior performances (and I only exclude Steve Carrell because I didn't see his movie) and Rosamund Pike *completely* blowing the competition away), Gone Girl in general got completely ignored, Boyhood got mostly snubbed, Interstellar got snubbed. (coincidentally, my 3 favorite movies last year) It's more or less what I expected.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Gone girl was a clever thriller. Not anything on the level of Interstellar.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Very little is.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It's becoming pretty obvious that to get them oscars, youmake a movie which plucks at the overweening pride of the types of people allowed to vote in the oscars
I like how brazenly ignorant the whole oscars assembly can be of entire movie categories too and still decide the winner. What percentage of the judges even saw half of the animated works to be voted on?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Free DVD for the grandkids.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
3 years out of the last 4, best picture has gone to a movie about Hollywood. So, yeah, stay relevant Academy.
I hated The Artist. I thought it was trumped up drivel. Argo was fine, but not a best picture in the same year as Amour, and I haven't yet seen Birdmsn, but I have seen all the other nominees. It would have to be pretty damned good to beat out that competition.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
There are many many movie awards contests. Why does this one get so much attention? If you think their methodology is garbage, don't watch, don't discuss and don't promote them. And don't be surprised if you disagree with how their choose their winners.
I don't know what you do for a living, but I am going to assume it has absolutely nothing to do with the motion picture industry, and no members of your family or close friends are involved either. I mean, if your first cousin was the best boy grip in Boyhood, and this award would have helped his career, sure, be upset on his behalf.
Otherwise, meh.
Though hate-watching can be fun. But the irrelevant stuff should be irrelevant.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Free DVD for the grandkids.
I went to college with someone whose grandfather was in the academy, and that's pretty much the case. Movie night for us! Wooo!
Then again, he was an animator (Snoopy stuff, I think), so I bet he did watch those ones. Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Well I finally saw Birdman. Good grief, what a train wreck.
It's a depressing, meaningless little movie about wealthy middle-aged men and the things they find important. The sort of cynical, self-aggrandizing, artsy film full of dramatically-read non sequiturs that I'm sure the writer thought were deep and powerful but are mostly ridiculous. (especially the second "truth or dare" scene, good lord) There's also an attempted rape scene that's played for laughs; to help demonstrate the character of one of the men (the women are merely props), and it's about as horrifying as you might imagine.
The film is oppressively self-aware, and of course in the middle of it someone recites that soliloquy from Act V of Macbeth ("...told by an idiot, full of sound of fury, signifying nothing." blah blah blah) It's the film's way of crossing it's fingers and winking: "see, all of this is ok, because the movie is *really* a parody of itself! Aren't we clever?"
It's like that douchebag smartass you know who always hedges are his words in such a way that you're never sure if he's being glib or serious. So that way if he's ever pressed or called out on an opinion he expresses he can pretend he was "just being ironic." He thinks he's being wonderfully clever, everyone else knows he's just a coward.
This movie is the same way: even as it purportedly mocks the petty ambitions and lifestyle of rich old white men, it's still all about (and made for) them. It's trite, it's meaningless, and 20 years from now nobody will remember it.
There were films last year that actually *were* courageous and noble, or at least made the attempt. Interstellar was utterly brilliant and I think 50 years from now it will still be a beloved film, Boyhood was great, the Lego Movie was hilarious and very well made (and not even nominated), The Imitation Game was powerful and told a very important story that has been more or less swept under the rug for 60 years. The Theory of Everything was pretty pointless and utterly formulaic, but it was still pleasant to watch with beautiful cinematography and left you with a warm feeling at the end.
To answer theamazeeaz's question: I'm not especially angry about the Oscar results, I realize what they are and just like watching the show for the theatrics really. This is more of a desire to express what *I* think the best films of 2015 are, not disparage the Academy. I'll admit there is some frustration with the most prestigious film award going to movies like "Birdman", even though I know it doesn't change anything.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Free DVD for the grandkids.
I went to college with someone whose grandfather was in the academy, and that's pretty much the case. Movie night for us! Wooo!
Then again, he was an animator (Snoopy stuff, I think), so I bet he did watch those ones.
Growing up, my friend's mom was a film critic and frequently brought home films for us to watch. There was some danger in this, though: when I was 16 my friend, his cousin and I were all hanging out one night and wanted to watch a movie. Looking through the DVDs "Hey mom, what's this 'Brokeback Mountain' about?" "Oh, I think it's a cowboy film. You boys will like it!"
That night was perhaps one of the most awkward nights of my young adult life.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:It's like that douchebag smartass you know who always hedges are his words in such a way that you're never sure if he's being glib or serious. So that way if he's ever pressed or called out on an opinion he expresses he can pretend he was "just being ironic." He thinks he's being wonderfully clever, everyone else knows he's just a coward.
[humor] Faster to just call me by name![/humor]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The list of Unspeakable Words grows and grows, and we have to deal with all kinds of absurdities lest we give offense to this or that privileged group. It's as if the only group that it's all right to offend with "free" speech is the conservative Christian culture of the 1950s. That's how "Negro" became The Other N-word, and "of color" became preferred while "colored" became anathema.
So Mr. Tweedly definitely won that war.
Yet he also lost it, because the N-word has 100 percent penetration into our culture because of black comedians and rappers. That's because certain groups get a free pass. Rappers can say things about and to women that would get a Republican Congressman impeached. It's all about who can say what to whom, and the rules form such a maze that the only certainty is: If you're a white heterosexual male, or if you're a Republican or Christian of either sex, then whatever it is you said, it was wrong.
This is what inevitably happens when elitists get control of the culture. The culture of the previous in-group that is now the out-group must be suppressed and scorned, if not banned outright.
so basically white heterosexual males and or christians and republicans are the true suppressed and persecuted people because they get in trouble for saying nigger — thanks, elitists. Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Holy shit.
Its like sure, sometimes some people get in trouble for saying something in arguably the correct context; the professor who got in trouble for saying "niggardly" comes to mind; but, really, if you think what the black rapper said was bad; then a public servant and elected official saying it is almost certainly worse why shouldn't he or she get impeached? A rapper is an entertainer, they have no responsibility to the public good, politicians are tasked with good governance!
In the correct context, when its clear you're not being a racist shill, then yeah, even as a white dude you're not going to get in trouble with the 'pc police'. George Carlin could say it just fine! Because he was making a point of how America was founded by a bunch of racist old privileged land owning undemocratic white men.
Argh.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:"political correctness gone MAD" people ****ing love the word niggardly, because it's a word no one uses that sounds almost exactly like YOU KNOW WHAT, so of course when someone drops it in a conversation (which NEVER happens because who the **** says niggardly) heads are going to turn. then they can say AHA it's not racist at all you're so sensitive what next are you going to have to call white people pigmentally challenged this is all nonsense aheh
i read this in, like, 2010
astounded it would end up relevant here
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I first learned what 'niggardly' meant after someone created some contrived moral outrage over it in high school. Since then I've literally never heard it used conversationally except for purposes of, or discussions about, said moral outrage.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I first learned what 'niggardly' meant after someone created some contrived moral outrage over it in high school. Since then I've literally never heard it used conversationally except for purposes of, or discussions about, said moral outrage.
As someone who likes big words. Pretty much this.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
I still read old stuff at work, so occasionally it shows up. Also Japanese light novels tend to use old words.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:"Talent" does not make a writer special; a writer who's a selfish jerk is a selfish jerk -- not one iota of that is taken away by the fact that he is also a writer.
ok
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Now we have Harris Teeter's solution: wheels that lock when you take a cart beyond the parking lot.
If you only take the cart from the store to a parking place in the lot directly in front of the store, you might not even realize that the wheels lock up. (It's only the right-rear wheel that has the locking device.)
But since I also stop at the dry cleaner in the same shopping center, I often park in that lot. My habit was to pick up a cart that someone had left in that area and bring it into the store; that way if I didn't bring my cart all the way back to the store, at least I left them no worse off than I found them.
However, Harris Teeter has decided that people who park anywhere west of the store rather than north of it can go hang themselves, for all they care. Twenty steps from the door of the store, when you're still in front of Harris Teeter's own building, your cart wheel jams up.
Apparently they hate the customers who dare to park in the perfectly legitimate parking spaces to the west of the store. There are no signs that say, "You can't bring carts out to this parking lot." You just find it out when your cart stops moving.
That's not nice. It's also not necessary. They could have established their perimeter to include that parking lot. Yes, there is no shopping cart corral in that area, but so what? A lot of people in the lot that has corrals still leave the carts stranded on medians or blocking parking places. They have to send employees out to pick up the dogies -- er, I mean, strays -- from the north lot. Why not a trip to the west that is no farther?
Oh, well. They never check with me when they make these decisions. Somebody in management decided to cause gross inconvenience to customers who don't park in the "true" parking places -- even though there is no sign to indicate that Harris Teeter customers are not allowed to park anywhere but due north of the store.
Not that it matters when I'm just running a quick errand and have only a couple of lightweight shopping bags with me. It's easy enough to leave the cart and carry the bags the rest of the way to my car.
But a parent with a child in the shopping cart, who has been given no warning, may find herself with a week's worth of groceries and a non-ambulatory child in a cart that now acts as if somebody had tossed an anchor overboard.
So ... what does she do? Obviously, she must abandon her groceries long enough to take her child to the car, strap him into the car seat, and then ...
Oh, wait. Isn't it illegal and, legal or not, foolish to leave a child in a closed car? So what do you do, leave the car doors open while you hike back to where you left the groceries?
And do you start the car so the air conditioning or heat will run? How safe is it to leave your keys and your baby in the car while you make the hike?
And what happens to your frozen foods during the six trips you have to take?
Oh, yes. You certainly learn never to park in the lot to the west of Harris Teeter.
But you may also learn that you would rather not shop at Harris Teeter at all, after they forced you, without warning, to go through all these extra trips and put your baby in danger in order to get everything you paid for out to your car.
The evil parking lots that you're punished for using are part of the same shopping center. But Harris Teeter has excommunicated the customers who park there -- without warning them.
There's a warning on the cart that tells you not to take the carts out of the parking lot. But since the lot to the west of the store is obviously part of the same shopping center, the sign is not helpful at all.
And it would have been so simple for them to establish a larger perimeter. They could have allowed their customers to shop at the other stores in the center, and take their carts with them to their cars. But they decided that they didn't care how much inconvenience they caused.
I can't help but wonder whether this was a chain-wide decision. Does every Harris Teeter now have carts that lock their wheels when you're still well within the parking lots associated with the shopping center? Does the Harris Teeter at Friendly Center, for instance, arbitrarily lock your cart's wheels if you parked near Red Mango rather than near REI?
Or was it just the store we shop at that received this special attention?
Bad management either way. The money they save by not having so many cart pickup runs a hundred yards to the west (while still having lots of them the same distance to the north) is not likely to repay the ill will created for all the customers who found themselves with an immobile cart full of groceries they now had to shuttle to their car by hand. How many of them will not come back?
Personally, it's a lot more efficient to talk to store management than to hope someone reads a particular column.
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
I have a habit of getting pissed off at something and swearing never to give a business my money ever again, and my friends all tell me the same thing. Talk to management, they'll never notice or change anything just because one dude stopped going there. And they're right, but I just don't care. The store has already wasted my time and I'm never going back, so what good does it do me to take another ten minutes to hunt down and talk to a manager?
Now, if somebody would actually pay me to complain about all these things on the internet, I'd be set for life...
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
All OSC's spoiled consumer nitpicking and ramblings about high end grocery stores really help put his opinions on the literary elite in proper perspective. I appreciate it for this.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
He's more than free to write about whatever he chooses - and I almost always just skip the sections where he talks about food, restaurants, specialty boutiques, etc. - but yeah, it is somewhat amusing to watch a guy who demonizes "the literary elite" for appreciating, teaching, or producing literature that the average American doesn't read turn around and spend a large chunk of his time reviewing extravagantly expensive snacks and tchotchkes (including maybe a small novels worth of writing on various chocolates and chocolate shops) that only a small percentage of Americans could afford to buy, and an smaller percentage who would appreciate. Maybe there's a lesson here about how writing things that only a small fraction of our society can really understand or appreciate isn't necessarily a sign of arrogance or contempt?
I suppose a similar concept for me is wine. I buy wine from Costco and usually spend $8-$10 a bottle, sometimes $15 a bottle if I'm drinking Pinot Noir. (which seems to be more expensive here) I know enough to differentiate between a Cabernet, a Merlot, a Pinot, and a Zinfandel. I know I think white wine tastes nasty and generally avoid it. My wife and I have a favorite wine we have only been able to find at one restaurant (and realize it's probably our favorite for that exact reason) and we had a really fun time getting lectured by the world's snobbiest Frenchman in this beautiful little winery in Bordeaux... but if I'm honest with myself one brand tastes as good as any other and I don't think I'll ever have the time or interest to build a wine collection or become an expert, so I'm more than happy to stick to buying $10 bottles of wine from Costco.
But that doesn't somehow translate into spite or open contempt on my part for wine experts, even if they might appreciate the flavor and subtlety of wines I frankly find unappealing, or even nasty tasting. Nor do I think it's a travesty that a Wine Expert certification course (apparently a real thing) teaches people to identify subtle hints and flavors most wine drinkers are ignorant of, or don't even care about. As a consumer I might find it a little silly (just as I find most of OSC's quest to find the perfect gourmet snack food silly), but why should I care?
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Mr. Card has written about the deliciousness of orange juice and Diet Coke, as well as why the hamburger is a fantastic food invented by people working with whatever they had. But more importantly, he would probably be the first to poke fun at how he can only enjoy certain kinds of higher-end foods as opposed to their cheaper versions. He admits to being a food snob.
But he certainly wouldn't write a column that in all seriousness talks about how people who like mild cheddar cheese are ignoramuses, or that the existence of cheaper foods somehow lessens the food industry or speaks poorly of us as a society.
edit: And as somebody who has taken a meal with Mr. Card, he reminds me very much of my fiance. They both love variety and staples in food. It's not the price or accessibility that matters. They just love what tastes good, no matter where it's found.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I think you completely misread me: I don't think it's a bad thing at all that Mr. Card is a food snob. Quite the opposite, actually. I just think his hostility for "elitists" in other fields (including frequent attacks on university English departments) is uncalled for.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
And you also bring up another good point that I was kind of getting at: being an "elitist" by no means implies scorn for more pedestrian things.
Quite frankly, I think University English departments *should* take a somewhat elitist approach to teaching literature. Because why else would you spend 4 years and $100k getting an English degree unless it was to learn all the subtleties and nuances and literary devices you need to appreciate literature? This is coming from a dopey jarhead who has avoided the liberal arts like a plague; but if I were to spend my hard earned money on a college literature class, I should certainly hope I would be taught all of that and more.
Likewise, I would feel gypped if I got into a prestigious culinary school and all I learned was how to cook hamburgers. Hamburgers are my favorite food on the planet and they're awesome and everybody likes them - and you get even make incredibly gourmet, fancy $50 hamburgers - but there's something to be said for the finer things in life. An appreciation for - indeed even something of a snobbery towards - complex and difficult literature, or fine wine, or great food is not a *bad* thing. And Mr. Card seems to have realized and even embraced this when it comes to food, and yet is pretty indiscriminately hostile towards "elitism" in almost any other field.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
I think you are missing my point as well. Getting an expensive degree in say culinary school shouldn't remove your ability to enjoy a candy bar any more than my MBA makes me see a dollar on the ground and smirk because it's all about the Benjamins.
If either of those things were true, then we'd be on the track for Mr. Card's contempt. His contempt seems confined to literary critics who see inaccessibility and apathy/hatred for the common man as things to be embraced.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
He certainly portrays the "elitists" he denigrates as being that way for sure, but it's my experience that he paints with far too broad a brush here. There are a lot of articles where he straight up denounces English professors (not just literary critics) and writers who appreciate, teach, or propagate "inaccessible" works because he *thinks* focusing on such things implies contempt for the common man, even when evidence of that hatred seems to be nonexistent. Experience has taught me this is categorically untrue: I have a friend who's an English professor and loves Harry Potter and Dan Brown novels (of all things)... enjoying - or even dedicating your career towards - something obscure or mostly inaccessible doesn't necessarily mean you disdain the "common man" for not enjoying what you do. (Unless you want to start calling anime nerds elitists)
Put another way: there are arrogant elitist pricks in every occupation and hobby. I've had the misfortune of meeting people who openly mock "poor people food", seen wine aficionados who openly mock people who drink cheap wine, met *plenty* of computer nerds utterly despise "casual gamers" and their ilk (and I think this is the cause of a lot of the misogyny in "#gamergate"), and yes, I've seen (but never met) literary critics who denounce "pedestrian" work as drivel and bemoan the plight of the uneducated masses, because they're soulless pompous blowhards.
Mr. Card is a writer, and a writer in a field that has been subjected to mockery by said blowhards, so he's probably a lot more than his fair share of that sort of nonsense and more sensitive to it than either of us. I don't think his response - conflating the entire literary establishment with some of the assholes in it, or especially going after English programs just for *teaching* the literary fiction tropes and devices he dislikes - is really justified or productive. I'm not convinced the academia is any more festooned with "elitists" (as he describes the term) than any other profession.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Its because those Elitist Liberals are working against the interests of the moral silent majority.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Dogbreath: It not being as wide-spread a problem to you seems to be at the heart of the disagreement then. It seems Mr. Card perceives it to *be* a huge problem.
You both probably have very different life experiences and run with far different social circles. I can't really judge whether you are right or he is, but I think we both agree that people who *only* like inaccessibility are kind of obnoxious.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by tertiaryadjunct: I have a habit of getting pissed off at something and swearing never to give a business my money ever again, and my friends all tell me the same thing. Talk to management, they'll never notice or change anything just because one dude stopped going there. And they're right, but I just don't care. The store has already wasted my time and I'm never going back, so what good does it do me to take another ten minutes to hunt down and talk to a manager?
Now, if somebody would actually pay me to complain about all these things on the internet, I'd be set for life...
I *think* OSC does the column for free.
I also feel that since the shopping cart protection is new (though this has been around for years in much less nice places, along with the ones that make you pay a quarter) nobody has told the management the perimeter is in the wrong spot and the odds are pretty good some manager isn't cackling in an office somewhere
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I get where Card is coming from on the English Department thing. There's some English teachers who flat out refuse to acknowledge that SF has anything of merit whatsoever (the pulp heritage doesn't help).
Like, when Kazuo Ishiguro writes a book about the coming of age of three kids who don't care to tell the reader that they are clones who were raised to be organ donors (in a very fatal sense) and everyone flips out (sorry I just ruined that book for y'all)), but yeah, modern SF has been there, done that and bought the t-shirt. And the stuff Margaret Atwood says is not very nice either.
But apparently, there are people doing their degrees on fanfic, comics and SF these days, so I think you people get that you have to analyze what people read (Twilight and Harry Potter).
As for food, I take comments on my culinary preferences a lot differently than I do my personal politics, my ethics/religion and my job.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Dogbreath: It not being as wide-spread a problem to you seems to be at the heart of the disagreement then. It seems Mr. Card perceives it to *be* a huge problem.
You both probably have very different life experiences and run with far different social circles. I can't really judge whether you are right or he is, but I think we both agree that people who *only* like inaccessibility are kind of obnoxious.
But elite education isn't about only liking inaccessible things; it is about making quality things accessible.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
*nods* Yes, most of the educators I know are rather passionate about sharing the knowledge necessary to understand their area of expertise, as well as their love for it, as much as possible. In layman's terms, "geeking out." I honestly think the imagery of liberal elitists sitting in their ivory towers, sipping wine and eating fine cheeses, scorning the common man and hating America while reading each other passages from Ulysses, is patently absurd. I also realize Mr. Card often employs hyperbole as a rhetorical device (as do I), but even so it seems mis-aimed. I do think he and I have vastly different life experiences - if I were in his shoes, I would probably be far more cynical of the literary establishment too.
The whole Sci-Fi issue *is* a legitimate complaint, though I think that comes more from ignorance or a rather infantile understanding of literature than hatred of the common man:
I remember several years ago I loaned a few of my Vonnegut novels to a friend of mine, and he absolutely loved them, so I gave him my copy of The Last Defender of Camelot and he told me "oh... well I don't know if I would like Sci-Fi stories."
"But all of the Vonnegut books I gave you were Sci-Fi"
"Well, yeah, but they weren't *real* Sci-Fi, right? He just used Sci-Fi trappings to tell stories about the human psyche, or maybe about culture and society or, I dunno, life that he would have trouble telling in a more conventional novel."
"...what exactly do you think Sci-Fi is, man?"
I think he, like many others, have conflated science fiction with mindless, juvenile Star Wars Episode 1 esque adventure and with lasers and explosions without seeing past the surface. That attitude mostly evaporated before my lifetime, though - Star Trek (a show Mr. Card ironically disliked) and the Twilight Zone and others introduced the mainstream to the idea of serious science fiction, and I grew up in the culture they helped create and permeate.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: *nods* Yes, most of the educators I know are rather passionate about sharing the knowledge necessary to understand their area of expertise, as well as their love for it, as much as possible. In layman's terms, "geeking out." I honestly think the imagery of liberal elitists sitting in their ivory towers, sipping wine and eating fine cheeses, scorning the common man and hating America while reading each other passages from Ulysses, is patently absurd. I also realize Mr. Card often employs hyperbole as a rhetorical device (as do I), but even so it seems mis-aimed. I do think he and I have vastly different life experiences - if I were in his shoes, I would probably be far more cynical of the literary establishment too.
The whole Sci-Fi issue *is* a legitimate complaint, though I think that comes more from ignorance or a rather infantile understanding of literature than hatred of the common man:
I remember several years ago I loaned a few of my Vonnegut novels to a friend of mine, and he absolutely loved them, so I gave him my copy of The Last Defender of Camelot and he told me "oh... well I don't know if I would like Sci-Fi stories."
"But all of the Vonnegut books I gave you were Sci-Fi"
"Well, yeah, but they weren't *real* Sci-Fi, right? He just used Sci-Fi trappings to tell stories about the human psyche, or maybe about culture and society or, I dunno, life that he would have trouble telling in a more conventional novel."
"...what exactly do you think Sci-Fi is, man?"
I think he, like many others, have conflated science fiction with mindless, juvenile Star Wars Episode 1 esque adventure and with lasers and explosions without seeing past the surface.
It's not necessarily that extreme.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
What isn't exactly?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
CALM DOWN MAN!
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Dogbreath: It not being as wide-spread a problem to you seems to be at the heart of the disagreement then. It seems Mr. Card perceives it to *be* a huge problem.
You both probably have very different life experiences and run with far different social circles. I can't really judge whether you are right or he is, but I think we both agree that people who *only* like inaccessibility are kind of obnoxious.
But elite education isn't about only liking inaccessible things; it is about making quality things accessible.
That isn't the kind of elite Mr. Card is talking about, I suspect.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
elitist qua elitist
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
The problem here is it becomes a little difficult to pin down exactly what elitists Mr. Card is talking about. (see my take on his article on American Sniper earlier in this thread) Of course he's going to ascribe to them all the qualities we've discussed - the sneering, the contempt for the common man, etc. - but the title itself seems to get applied to more or less anyone who disagrees with him politically or philosophically, and their disagreement is taken as sure proof that they meet the definition. Reasons for disagreeing with him that don't involve being a sneering liberal elitist are either dismissed as being a minority position, or ignored entirely. This means that even when he and I share the same views on things (which we actually do more often than not) like American Sniper, the way he castigates those who disagree with him makes me deeply uncomfortable.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
If one were to ctrl+f "elit*" in card's infamous contemporary batch of articles, in all his columns from "world watch" to "orson scott card gets his jimmy-jams in a caterwauly jump-a-skitter bout all sort-a things, i reckon" and really do an in depth analysis of how he uses 'elitist' and why and in what manner these things are predictably used to ascribe associated manner and agenda, it would really I think show that what dogbreath is saying is correct.
i don't know if i am necessarily intent on actually doing the research to back this up or anything, i just really needed a chance to type "orson scott card gets his jimmy-jams in a caterwauly jump-a-skitter bout all sort-a things, i reckon"
/edit also this is post 14444 of mine so i'm just going to leave that right where it is for tonight, go to sleep, realize i've typed over ten thousand posts on this forum, and SERIOUSLY THINK ABOUT MY CHOICES IN LIFE
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: What isn't exactly?
The part where you explain why someone else would disagree with you. You took a really dumb mindset and projected it on people who don't like science fiction, and pushed it in front of any alternative mindset they could possibly have.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: What isn't exactly?
The part where you explain why someone else would disagree with you. You took a really dumb mindset and projected it on people who don't like science fiction, and pushed it in front of any alternative mindset they could possibly have.
The conversation I referenced actually happened. I wasn't projecting that mindset on him, it was the mindset he conveyed. I'm sure people have all sorts of different reasons being dismissive of science fiction (and there's a big difference there between not liking it I think), some more cogent than others. But at the core of every reason I've seen offered so far seems to be a belief that Sci-Fi is fundamentally silly or inconsequential. That doesn't preclude the existence of alternative mindsets on the issue, nor does it mean there aren't varying levels even within the one I've presented. (you might simply believe Sci-Fi's ludicrous trappings make it an ineffective means of conveying deeper meaning while still acknowledging the attempt, for example)
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I don't thing that indicates that he thinks science fiction is "like Star Wars Episode 1". There's plenty of ground in between Episode 1 and Vonnegut.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
His internal definition of science fiction (because he had never really read any until Vonnegut) was one chiefly defined by the props therein: lasers, spaceships, aliens, the future, action, adventure; fun and exciting, but of no great consequence.* So when he first read science fiction that actually meant something to him, that he felt contained something true and profound, his first response was to (errantly IMO) assume what he was reading wasn't really sci-fi because it didn't match his internal definition of the genre.
I don't think this was particularly dumb, btw. He's a very bright guy and went on to devour most of my sci-fi novels and anthologies once he realized the potential the genre held. His wife and he got to meet Ursula K. Leguin a few years back, of which I am quite jealous. And I've met or read other people who do the same thing: they try to explain why a sci-fi book that meant something to them isn't *really* sci-fi, or even making statements like "I know it's it's technically a sci-fi book, but..." There seems to be a somewhat prevalent misconception that once a work *starts* being meaningful it *stops* being science fiction, which implies a belief that science fiction is or should be viewed as base or juvenile, or at least implies an unnecessarily narrow definition.
*And were you to actually conglomerate all those elements you might end up with something like Episode 1, thus the "esque." But if the analogies I’m using to describe this phenomenon are that inept or distracting, then I’m more than happy to retract them.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Alright, fair enough.
It came off as an awkward paraphrase to me. I don't really like the style arguement where someone speaks on another opinions behalf, and it tends to disagree with me. Its just really common on the internet, and sometimes its really egregious and I get distracted whenever I see it, or something that resembles it.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Just an awkward analogy. Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
I think its because my first scifi *was* pretty much Ender's Game sans the odd Star Trek Voyager/Sliders episode on the snow channel on my pre-cable TV; which as the 16 year old I was pretty much was, spoke to me very deeply and as such I feel I've always felt that Scifi *is* in fact very meaningful, albeit I do come up with two broad definitions:
(1) Science Fiction as speculative fiction. These sorts of stories are more about exploring the author's interest in a given subject manner, or exploring what he feels society or what have you would be like "Should X be wide spread." I'll throw in MilWank HFY (Humanity EEEF YEAH!) stories in this category and all similar (Honor Harrington, etc).
(2) Stories that really want to tell a story but just want the theme/trappings of being scifi.
Star Wars would be (2), Ender's Game is more (1) but the thing about this definition is that I don't feel they are mutually exclusive, they're just useful.
Like Star Trek certainly ping pongs episode to episode!
The ultimate exteme example of (1) Would probably Harry Turtledove A-Hist novels in that they barely contain a plot and typically lack narrative but are ALLL ABOOOOOUT the speculation! (Not scifi but are an example of the extreme end of the spectrum unless we assume Alien Space Bats were involved in every novel!)
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
For me speculative fiction is a branch of sci-fi that is similar to historical fiction...not far off from current & based on reality.
Where as Sci-fi is more fantasy in a futuristic type setting instead of a magic fueled one. StarWars is a classic example of this...an old wizard, a rouge captain & super tough first mate with a young orphan saving a princess from a dark lord. Minus the "light" part of the sabre and switch up space for sailing shipsand StarWars is basically D&D.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Star Wars is "Space Opera," a particular branch of SF that is adventure stories with a space setting.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I've heard of it...
I like Urban Dictionary's definition:
quote: Star Wars: The epic story about the dysfuctional Skywalker family.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
One of the interesting things that cropped up from discussions about space opera and other sci fi sub genres or pseudo whatevers is that s lot of people's definition of sci fi ends up being "if you say it is in the future and or throw in some fantastical technology and or aliens and or have it be in space or on a different planet it becomes sci fi"
Which is weird
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
As to instead, Neuromancer, that's cyberpunk and cool and totally not scifi guyz.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: One of the interesting things that cropped up from discussions about space opera and other sci fi sub genres or pseudo whatevers is that s lot of people's definition of sci fi ends up being "if you say it is in the future and or throw in some fantastical technology and or aliens and or have it be in space or on a different planet it becomes sci fi"
Which is weird
Well, as I think OSC put it many years ago, that is what happens when you win. Sci-fi as a genre has generated a huge portion of the lastingly relevant literature in the last century: 1984, The Time Machine, Brave New World, Ender's Game, Fahrenheit 451, Slaughterhouse 5, The Mars Trilogy, etc etc. People reliably read sci-fi classics for way longer than most other "genre" fiction, because sci-fi has been at the center of literary innovation since the turn of the previous century.
The only problem is that people have been taught to think of "literature" as being divorced from genre fiction. So the great sci-fi pieces are no longer "sci-fi," even when they really are, and always were.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Well, the latest article is off to a great start:
quote:...but with Obama as the sorriest commander in chief in American history, if Congress doesn’t lead, nobody will.
Someone call Andrew Johnson and let him know!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I would say it's becoming absurd... but it's been so absurd for so long. Now this is more like a sport for me. Just a hobby to see where the crazy is leading now.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
For me it's a game of 'so partisan he's crazy vs. deceitful political opportunist vs. crass column writing opportunist who knows his audience'. Because even after so many columns, it's difficult to imagine the author of books like Pastwatch and Ender's Game, though they were a long and a very long time ago, would be ignorant of American history enough to include dudes like Johnson and find Obama wanting.
But then you get his nakedly hypocritical whining about boycotts against his own film, or Chik-fil-A and I can't help but wonder if this is simply who he is now in terms of politics.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I don't know. He spent a good 500 words in his last column explaining, in detail, why he doesn't care about celebrities, and how much fun he has looking at pictures of celebrities, and the satisfaction he feels at not caring about them. Bizarre.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Mr. Card has a far, far stronger grasp on American history (specifically 19th century American history) than I do. I'm pretty sure (or at least, I very much hope) he knows just how rediculously hyperbolic his statements about Obama are. The question is whether he thinks his audience will catch on and he's doing it in a tounge-in-cheek manner (which he's certainly implied before), or if he realizes there are quite a few of his readers who will take it at face value - or even have that belief reinforced because someone as intelligent and educated as him said it - and is intentionally pandering. The fact that the bulk of the article is pretty critical of the Republican party means he might just be playing up the Obama-hate to make his readers think "I'm really on your side" (which is still deceptive), but he's made more than enough looney statements like that uncouched in any such terms that I sincerely doubt it.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I don't know. He spent a good 500 words in his last column explaining, in detail, why he doesn't care about celebrities, and how much fun he has looking at pictures of celebrities, and the satisfaction he feels at not caring about them. Bizarre.
To be fair, this seems to be a pastime of a significant number of bored people, if the recommended articles on my facebook news feed are any indication. "Look at these celebs doing everyday shit like shopping/eating a sandwich/doing their laundry/going on a walk with their kids. See, they're just like us! Isn't that fascinating?"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The main thing I would want to pick the dude's brain about would be to get him to explain the Schrödingerian superposition that Obama exists in as described in sum in Card's screeds.
Obama exists simultaneously as (1) comically inept and wholly useless, and (2) the most terrifyingly effective, scheming, dangerous dismantler and desecrator of real american values and intentional corrupter of the office of the presidency. I just want to know what happens when the discrepancy in how he is described is forced to be confronted. When the waveform collapses, which Obama remains? Is Obama a saturday morning cartoon villain, the most implausible threat to society, who is so inept as to fail at everything and yet inexplicably remains perpetually the darkest and most frightening specter of evil across the whole land of white and delightsome peoples?
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Why not both? Sort of like Jar Jar Binks.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Man, President Skeletor would be awesome. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
^ worldwatch.txt
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: The main thing I would want to pick the dude's brain about would be to get him to explain the Schrödingerian superposition that Obama exists in as described in sum in Card's screeds.
Obama exists simultaneously as (1) comically inept and wholly useless, and (2) the most terrifyingly effective, scheming, dangerous dismantler and desecrator of real american values and intentional corrupter of the office of the presidency. I just want to know what happens when the discrepancy in how he is described is forced to be confronted. When the waveform collapses, which Obama remains? Is Obama a saturday morning cartoon villain, the most implausible threat to society, who is so inept as to fail at everything and yet inexplicably remains perpetually the darkest and most frightening specter of evil across the whole land of white and delightsome peoples?
Tenets of Ur-Fascism.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote: In Paris, when they hear you butchering French, they deliberately speak French more rapidly, and with a more obscure vocabulary, until you're so humiliated you can hardly breathe. That is, if they don't ignore you completely.
Then, if money is involved, they'll take yours and give you the thing you thought you were trying to buy. But never will they show you any pity.
That's Paris. As people in Provence said, "They treat us that way, too." It's nice to know that Parisians are rude even to French people with a regional accent, and not just to Americans.
But they do take special pleasure in being rude to Americans.
I went to Paris a couple of years ago. My wife and I stayed there for a week. Now I speak French pretty well, but I'd be kidding myself to say I don't have an accent. Yet I didn't once run into anyone who gave bad customer service or snubbed me. Everyone was conversant and some even went out of their way to compliment me on my French. The only time I can think of not getting great customer service was at a restaurant and I couldn't get the waiter's attention. Then I had an idea and flipped my utensils over and angled them on my plate at about 4 o'clock. The waiter was at our table instantly. Over there they seem to let you enjoy the dinner and converse instead of bothering you every two minutes to make sure everything is OK. So it was just a culture difference, not a snub, and once I figured out the rule it was simple to adjust to.
Anyway, all this to say is this a stereotype that is lingering around from the past? I suspect France was like that in the 70's, 80's and maybe 90's but I would guess that things have changed. Does anyone else have more recent experience in France. Perhaps someone with less proficient (or more proficient) French than I?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:On a side note, the U.S. media-fueled stereotype of the rude, American-hating French is truly utterly ridiculous, and only propagated by people who have no idea what they’re talking about. Myself, all my friends and everyone I know in France grew up LOVING everything American. There is a big difference between being put off by certain Americans, and hating Americans in general. France and the U.S. have always been enamored with one another, even in disagreement and in spite of cultural differences.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I was in France last October and I can say everyone we met was absolutely delightful and very polite and kind. They were more than willing to smile at our (very bad) French and speak to us in English if they knew it. We spent several days in Paris and a few more in Bordeaux.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
Good to know it's not just me then.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I got made fun of for mispronouncing a word in while attending a show in Paris (monsieur*), which made me feel pretty shitty, because I'm generally very very good with French. This was 2011.
I'm still bitter about it.
On that same trip, my French was good enough to chew out a waiter for screwing up our bill (basically they had one extra person down for three courses instead of two), and to understand how to get to the airport by public transit, in spite of the grève that was going on at the moment, based on the instructions of the lady at our hotel desk.
In college I took a class on the French perceptions of America, and one of the things that was pointed out was that there has never been a wave of French immigration (Québec, yes). So, there were never a group of French to melt into American society, and also, they never needed to use us to deal with an economic/social/religious crisis, which is where immigration waves come from.
**It's mis-see-ur, not mis-shurr, which is very easy to do when your tongue is lazy.
[ April 16, 2015, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: theamazeeaz ]
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
On another note, one of my co-workers is a Frenchman, and another lived in Paris for about a year.
I once asked if there was an unfashionable place in France to be from, and my French co-worker answered, "Paris". This was in the context of the other co-worker's time there though, so he might have been joking.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
my friends who have lived in paris have a 50/50 split, almost, between "it was an ok place" or "i understand now why most of the country hates parisians"
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I was in France last October and I can say everyone we met was absolutely delightful and very polite and kind. They were more than willing to smile at our (very bad) French and speak to us in English if they knew it. We spent several days in Paris and a few more in Bordeaux.
People are generally nice to you when you are spending money. That is not a new trope- it was a refrain in Hemingway's first novel The Sun Also Rises, fittingly about an American living in Paris.
Also, I'm convinced that certainly people are just likable, and so are treated well everywhere they go. I am one such person- it is very rare for me to have a bad encounter with anyone while traveling, and I have spent cumulatively months in Paris over the years. I can always *see* why people think Parisians are rude generally (because they are), but I can also see how the people who tell me this are the ones who don't know how to elicit respect as foreign visitors. If you are observant, and behave in a way that pleases people, you will be treated well.
I've lived in the Czech Republic now for many years. Having learned the language and gotten to know the people very well, I can see why foreigners think they're rude, but I can also see things from the Czech perspective. There are just basically different ways of behaving, and showing people deference and respect, but also projecting confidence. Travelers have a hard time know what projecting confidence and respectfulness means in foreign cultures, and how to go about doing it- they look at things with too much of their own cultural filters attached. If you can let these go, people will feel more at ease in your presence, and so treat you better.
Half the time, I suspect that foreign visitors simply *don't know* when they're being treated with respect- and so they interpret social cues incorrectly, and negatively, when it isn't warranted. This could take the form of anything: here, for example, a waiter doesn't necessarily verbally respond to a request. They simply do it. This is considered to be respectful, and even discrete. Foreign visitors understandably see it as rude, because to them it would be, whereas a chatty waiter here is considered overbearing, rather than charming. On the other hand, you *are* expected to say something if you wish to pass someone on an escalator or through a doorway. So visitors often get snarky comments or bad looks from locals when they do not excuse themselves properly. If you watch carefully, you can see and adapt to these differences fairly easily.
[ April 17, 2015, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I'm from New England, and I stayed there for college. A great many students from the south complained about how *unfriendly* everyone was because they didn't say hello to everyone on the street.
... I think I would go crazy if people did that to me.
My understanding is that NYC is more extreme than NE in this regard, and Paris probably more so.
I read somewhere that cultures where people are spread out, but need to greet each other are actually more violent and backstabby than people who are packed in and pretend others aren't there. I get the impression, Parisians are just very honest about their indifference.
For a good time, I recommend going to TripAdvisor, sorting for the most expensive hotels in Paris, and then sorting by one star reviews. There are a shocking number of people who don't think the desk staff fawned enough upon their arrival.
Oops.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: I read somewhere that cultures where people are spread out, but need to greet each other are actually more violent and backstabby than people who are packed in and pretend others aren't there.
I hear things like this a lot. Especially in reference to the South. To me it usually comes of as someone sneering at the culture and saying how their own culture is much better. That or rationalizing their own crappy behavior.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: People are generally nice to you when you are spending money. That is not a new trope- it was a refrain in Hemingway's first novel The Sun Also Rises, fittingly about an American living in Paris.
The vast majority of interactions I had were with people I wasn't giving money to, though. And the people I did spend money to (like this wonderfully snobby clerk at a little wine shop in Bordeaux) didn't seem to *care* that I was or act obsequiously like they do in the states, which I suppose I could see people viewing as rude. For me it just felt nice.
quote:Also, I'm convinced that certainly people are just likable, and so are treated well everywhere they go. I am one such person- it is very rare for me to have a bad encounter with anyone while traveling, and I have spent cumulatively months in Paris over the years. I can always *see* why people think Parisians are rude generally (because they are), but I can also see how the people who tell me this are the ones who don't know how to elicit respect as foreign visitors. If you are observant, and behave in a way that pleases people, you will be treated well.
I can see that as well. I've travelled many, many, many times in the past 6 years and my wife spent most of her childhood travelling, and I don't think either of us has had a particularly bad experience anywhere we've gone. We both smile easily and speak quietly, and try and dress appropriately for wherever we go.
I think that can make a difference - we were eating dinner in a restaurant in Paris - where we were conversing quietly, spoke to our waiter and ordered in French, and had dressed up nicely - when an Australian couple walked in. They were wearing shorts and t-shirts, were both pretty heavily overweight (which seems very unusual in France), and spoke loudly enough where we could hear everything they were saying from the other side of the restaurant. I could totally see them going back home and talking about how rude and awful people in Paris were to them.
quote:I've lived in the Czech Republic now for many years. Having learned the language and gotten to know the people very well, I can see why foreigners think they're rude, but I can also see things from the Czech perspective. There are just basically different ways of behaving, and showing people deference and respect, but also projecting confidence. Travelers have a hard time know what projecting confidence and respectfulness means in foreign cultures, and how to go about doing it- they look at things with too much of their own cultural filters attached. If you can let these go, people will feel more at ease in your presence, and so treat you better.
Half the time, I suspect that foreign visitors simply *don't know* when they're being treated with respect- and so they interpret social cues incorrectly, and negatively, when it isn't warranted. This could take the form of anything: here, for example, a waiter doesn't necessarily verbally respond to a request. They simply do it. This is considered to be respectful, and even discrete. Foreign visitors understandably see it as rude, because to them it would be, whereas a chatty waiter here is considered overbearing, rather than charming. On the other hand, you *are* expected to say something if you wish to pass someone on an escalator or through a doorway. So visitors often get snarky comments or bad looks from locals when they do not excuse themselves properly. If you watch carefully, you can see and adapt to these differences fairly easily.
Having lived everywhere from Japan - where people are generally very quiet and reserved, respect and cleanliness are very important (you are expected to take off your shoes and wash your hands before entering a restaurant, or sometimes even just ordinary places of business), and it's extremely uncommon to speak to or interact with strangers - to the Philippines, where it's common to have people come and talk to you on the street, or grab your shoulder for attention, or (in my case) touch your hair because it looks so unusual... I think so long as you're friendly and not arrogant or presumptuous and pay attention to your surroundings, you do just fine. Going somewhere foreign and expecting people to treat you according to *your* cultural mores and speak to you in your language - and then getting offended when they don't do so - will certainly make you feel like you've been treated rudely, or might even make people treat you rudely.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
I don't have the article, and I tried to google it, but it was a hard one with the keywords.
I think the gist was that it's a holdover from the dueling days and honor culture, and the statisticians could pull out a pretty good correlation among different areas within the south itself.
If I knew where I read it, I would know how much of it is prejudice.
But to be fair, there's not really a Northern equivalent of "bless your heart".
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
Europeans will tend to say that they have no problem with individual Americans, but a lot of them, especially in the younger liberal crowd, will proudly talk about how awful the US and always has been. I dated a Greek woman for a while, and one night a her saying she would rather her country be under Putin's influence then America's brought me to ask her to name three positive things either about the US or that the US has done. The most intelligent person I have ever met, and she literally could not do it.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Talking about lying about tax policy in the United States, I admire Card's chutzpah to on the one hand claim Reid was lying about Romney* and on the other hand say with apparently a straight face, "Every "loophole" in the tax law was put there by Congress in order to create a cash incentive..."
Ha. Certainly none of the reams and reams^25th of loopholes (I'm sorry, 'loopholes') were created for any reason other than to incentivize certain behavior!
quote:After all, the military's primary mission, when it has a mission at all, is to break things and kill people. This does not boost anybody's economy.
Christ, I know Card knows his history better than to actually believe this. The military doesn't boost anyone's economy? Anyone's? Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Heisenberg: Europeans will tend to say that they have no problem with individual Americans, but a lot of them, especially in the younger liberal crowd, will proudly talk about how awful the US and always has been. I dated a Greek woman for a while, and one night a her saying she would rather her country be under Putin's influence then America's brought me to ask her to name three positive things either about the US or that the US has done. The most intelligent person I have ever met, and she literally could not do it.
Don't be fooled. I've had plenty of friends and acquantances over the years go on and on about how Americans are this and that, and the other thing. And they don't really know any Americans. And when I point out that the American they *do* know (me), they like, they just sigh knowingly and say: "you're one of the good ones."
Europeans generally think they understand Americans because of our cultural and business hegemony. They understand certain things, but that doesn't mean they know what makes us tick.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
quote: I know Card knows his history better than to actually believe this. The military doesn't boost anyone's economy? Anyone's?
Putting your condescension aside for a moment, you're completely missing Card's point. The quote is as follows:
quote: After all, the military's primary mission, when it has a mission at all, is to break things and kill people. This does not boost anybody's economy.
Breaking things and killing people doesn't boost anyone's economy.
A strong military certainly provides an economic boost, which Card argues in the paragraphs following his quote.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
I studied in France 9 years ago, and frankly (pun intended) I didn't experience much anti-Americanism. The most "rude" were the Parisians, but I didn't see any difference between Parisians and New Yorkers, or Chicagoans, or inhabitants of any other big city. Life in a city is much faster-paced, even in a country where the average person spends 4 hours a day eating meals. I was in France during the height of the Iraq War, and even the most hawkish French (an oxymoron, I know) were unsupportive of the U.S. efforts. But none of that translated to dislike of America or Americans in general. The older generations still had strong, positive memories of the American liberation during WWII, and the younger generation thought American culture was "très cool."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brian J. Hill:
quote: I know Card knows his history better than to actually believe this. The military doesn't boost anyone's economy? Anyone's?
Putting your condescension aside for a moment, you're completely missing Card's point. The quote is as follows:
quote: After all, the military's primary mission, when it has a mission at all, is to break things and kill people. This does not boost anybody's economy.
Breaking things and killing people doesn't boost anyone's economy.
A strong military certainly provides an economic boost, which Card argues in the paragraphs following his quote.
Brian, the criticism about condescension might be better placed if I weren't commenting on an essay that was positively slathered in it.
Anyway, however narrowly you choose to define it there are historically a whole lot of times when killing people and breaking things was, in fact, good for someone's economy. Nor is the American military's only mission to kill people or break things either. For god's sake, that hasn't been true since before the Cold War started. Which Card also knows. But perhaps that gets lost in the aria to the genius of republican presidential military competence. God only knows what America shall do without that Sun Tzu of the modern age, George W. Bush, right?
[ April 18, 2015, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
the military's 'primary mission' (if we're going to be using that, i guess) is usually extension of potential for force as a deterrent against challenges against autonomy of the nation's borders, population, economic interests. it can and often does accomplish this mission without breaking things or killing people much at all, though sometimes this is done with a minimal, almost token extension of force
while we definitely overpay into the general protection program of the west and spend way too much on our military in general (and we're really bad at managing what and how to spend on anyway) you can't deny that the primary benefit we get from a military (that isn't running amok in costs) is, essentially, one that backs our economic force
i mean that he just wrote an article that seems to, you know, not really get any of these things? it goes a long way to explaining the general ignorance of ~military stuff~ that would underpin how one could come to the belief that the bush administration had its shit together in terms of war and the military and were generally competent in the two wars it started
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
though i mean when i actually read the (terrible) article, i guess he maybe gets half of that even if some of the things he is writing actively contradicts the idea he is presenting before? i don't know, his writing has become such churlish crank i sort of end up just glazing through it anyway
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
It drives me crazy that any reduction of funding is seen as meaning out military is doing to be decimated without it.
I don't remember which item it was that congress funded (some new plane maybe?) where top military brass actually came out and aid "the old ones work great, no thansk" (who does that?), and congress *ignored them*.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i mean i suppose if military funding cuts reduced our active troop count by one tenth, then that technically counts as a decimation
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
A strong military provides some stimulus, a lot of modern innovations came out of military R&D funding and the space race in general is motivated by security concerns.
There's also a lot of specialized jobs that I imagine would be difficult to find in the private sector (a lot of aerospace related jobs for example) and as well the stimulatory effect of having a couple million poor people have jobs.
But otherwise that's if its just standing around brandishing their rifles while saying "Grr!", once they're used in any way then its Broken Window fallacy time.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:So Baltimore blossoms with the seed that Obama has repeatedly sown from the beginning of his administration, when he publicly stated (or showed) his immediate assumption that any white authority figure, acting against any black person in any way, was completely unjustified in his actions.
Not really unexpected, but still depressing. (it only gets worse from there)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Wow. I'm not sure I remember reading anything by Card that was bluntly racist like that. It's possible I've forgotten. And I suppose not so surprising considering the general arc of frothing Card has done about Obama.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Wow. I'm not sure I remember reading anything by Card that was bluntly racist like that. It's possible I've forgotten. And I suppose not so surprising considering the general arc of frothing Card has done about Obama.
The closest he's come to that level before was his hypothetical scenario where Hitler-Obama recruits "urban youth" or something like that to be part of his New Nazi Party.
I was actually pretty disappointed with this article. I completed expected him to lay the blame of this crisis on Obama and use it as evidence of his incompentence/evil plan to ruin America. I wasn't expecting the racist lecturing that followed. Especially this bit:
quote:If, whenever the police officer is nonblack and the would-be arrestee is black, the police officer knows that any mistake might lead to him standing trial or going to jail or to massive rioting, it only makes sense for the policeman to shirk his duty, step back and allow the black criminal to go about his criminal activities. Thus life is safer for the policeman – and far, far more dangerous for the black communities in which most black criminals operate.
Yeah, that's totally the problem here. Police aren't arresting enough black criminals.
Also the bits later about how black leaders don't really care about all the other black people being killed by all those black criminals, justifying a "handful" of blacks "accidentially" killed by police being for the black communities own good.
I think it's a new low for him.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I wish he would come here and have a discussion about some of the things he writes. I wonder how that would go.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Wow. I'm not sure I remember reading anything by Card that was bluntly racist like that. It's possible I've forgotten. And I suppose not so surprising considering the general arc of frothing Card has done about Obama.
quote:The NaPo will be recruited from "young out-of-work urban men" and it will be hailed as a cure for the economic malaise of the inner cities. In other words, Obama will put a thin veneer of training and military structure on urban gangs, and send them out to channel their violence against Obama's enemies.
Instead of doing drive-by shootings in their own neighborhoods, these young thugs will do beatings and murders of people "trying to escape" -- people who all seem to be leaders and members of groups that oppose Obama.
I wanna put this one firmly in the list of ships that have sailed, cause
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: This article makes me feel slightly better.
Eh. What does he want, a cookie? He finally found religion about poverty and race being criminalized in Baltimore? How brave of him.
Watch as he continues to promote the same economic and social policies that have led us down this merry path the last 35 years. It's okay though. He gets it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
honestly, yes, give him a cookie. there is an entire tidal wave of numbskullery you have to dig out of in terms of this whole issue and if he's willing to come out and say, as a conservative, to conservatives, that there is a big ****ing issue
previous to that, his attitude on civil control was the all too common conservative kind that denies any significant racist hardship imposed on blacks by the police. while he's sure to differ in a lot of ways on the subject of coming to a solution to the problem, he's willing to stand up in front of other conservatives and say 'you can't honestly ****ing deny this is happening anymore people, come on'
bit by bit, person by person, why not celebrate chipping this wall down
also he will probably need the cookie because he's about to spend a year or so finding out how completely bugnut his online audience is by blaspheming the narrative, essentially.
that deserves to be dulled with sweets.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
redstate, a classic mainstay in the realm of these obnoxiously distorted issues, has an author step up and be like "GUYS SERIOUSLY"
with the expected results, apparently
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Yeah, as the editor of a solidly right wing, conservative newspaper (where OSC counts as their token "Democrat"), I genuinely don't think John Hammer has any motives other than honesty and integrity to write that, especially considering the fallout he's going to experience for it. I also think he might get through to his readers and even change minds in a way that few others could.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: honestly, yes, give him a cookie. there is an entire tidal wave of numbskullery you have to dig out of in terms of this whole issue and if he's willing to come out and say, as a conservative, to conservatives, that there is a big ****ing issue
previous to that, his attitude on civil control was the all too common conservative kind that denies any significant racist hardship imposed on blacks by the police. while he's sure to differ in a lot of ways on the subject of coming to a solution to the problem, he's willing to stand up in front of other conservatives and say 'you can't honestly ****ing deny this is happening anymore people, come on'
bit by bit, person by person, why not celebrate chipping this wall down
also he will probably need the cookie because he's about to spend a year or so finding out how completely bugnut his online audience is by blaspheming the narrative, essentially.
that deserves to be dulled with sweets.
^^ Yeah pretty much this.
I don't usually read Rhino Times articles aside from OSC's as I've never done anything beyond pass through NC on the way to somewhere else. My understanding is that this paper leans conservative.
I see a lot of sentiment about how we shouldn't congratulate people in the majority for bragging about their "oh, wait, they weren't lying about being mistreated" moments. Or that intent doesn't matter when people do hurtful things.
The reality is that all of this is a big PR campaign. While the system benefits the majority, it's not like these people are out there committing hate crimes, they're just indifferent and unaffected (until the freeway gets blocked). They are complicit in the sense that only they have the power to change government and haven't yet (if the minority did, this would have been fixed already).
To paraphrase someone who has a really bad handle on these current events, but says smart things from time to time, to get someone to stop doing something, you have to get them to stop wanting to do it.
If we want white people to act better, they need to admit they were wrong, and they (we) don't want to hear it. Some decent people do listen, but most don't because they are human. But if humans in general were good at admitting they were wrong, if they were good at listening to people who were really upset about something, and focusing on what the hurtful thing was and the fact that the person got mad, there would be a lot more people who would still be married.
People listen to their peers. They listen to people they respect, and sadly those voices are the majority. This guy speaks to the people who are likely to be a larger part of the problem, and he's doing it in a way that will get them to listen more than someone blathering on about "systematic injustices".
To present him with a proverbial cookie is to egg him on. To make him want to listen more, to keep telling people who will listen they are wrong, possibly in ways that will get them to sympathize with the victims.
To condescendingly state that he should have figured this out before only serves to show how superior you think are to him.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: similarly, take this piece:
redstate, a classic mainstay in the realm of these obnoxiously distorted issues, has an author step up and be like "GUYS SERIOUSLY"
with the expected results, apparently
There's a world of difference between these two pieces. Wolf very clearly demonstrates the ways in which du jour political imperatives have pushed the conservative movement so far off-balance that it has required them to essentially ignore cold, hard facts, or refuse to present them (in the case of conservative media). That's a lot more meaningful to me than for Hammer to simply admit these facts exist. It's a different level of bravery for Wolf to suggest that the conservative movement is ignoring reality because of an ideological problem, and not merely because reality is somehow difficult to comprehend.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Is there a cookie shortage or something?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
the two pieces are very different, the point of bringing it up as well is that it is another break case where I think cookies are warranted. productive. instructive. mutually beneficial. good policy even in the encouragements of bitter realpolitik or whatever. there's good benefit to just being able to say 'ok, thank you for taking the first few steps on breaking a partisan block in the reason of your ideology' — and that's ok even if it's a bold first few steps, or in the case of the redstate article, a serious quantity of numbered and elucidated steps
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: the two pieces are very different, the point of bringing it up as well is that it is another break case where I think cookies are warranted. productive. instructive. mutually beneficial. good policy even in the encouragements of bitter realpolitik or whatever. there's good benefit to just being able to say 'ok, thank you for taking the first few steps on breaking a partisan block in the reason of your ideology' — and that's ok even if it's a bold first few steps, or in the case of the redstate article, a serious quantity of numbered and elucidated steps
Perhaps. For me though, Hammer's "first few steps," reads as a sort of "non culpa mea culpa." It's *hard* to understand that black people are being oppressed, so it's *understandable* that we don't notice, and so it's not our fault. Now that we noticed, everything is going to be ok, because it isn't our ideology that caused us to be blind to these facts (much less our ideology and actions that has created these circumstances to begin with)- simply that these facts are difficult for us to see and comprehend.
The fact that conservative ideology and social norms require increasingly that people be actively unaware of and hostile to the truth is absent from this revelation. It is a lesson without anything truly being learned. In contrast, Wolf is very aware that he is still applying ridiculously high standards of proof and suspicion upon official sources, subtly mocking the degree to which his readers require him to do so, and *even then* finding ample evidence of a real, serious problem. He not only names the culprit correctly, which is not the difficulty of these facts, or their lack of availability, but in the ideology that refuses to even consider them, and yet fails, even when applied to rigorous degree, to dismiss them outright without violating a degree of 2+2 logic that any sane person would find it impossible to object.
Even Wolf refuses to go so far as to suggest that conservative political ideology has helped create the circumstances ideal for police oppression in small town America, but his implication in pointing out how deeply invested conservatives are in ignoring those circumstances makes his message quite clear. That conservative ideology has become so deeply perverted, that it demands that people *ignore* core principles of conservatism when it comes to small town police forces and whole populations of black people is damning enough.
Posted by hoosiertoo (Member # 13268) on :
Posted by hoosiertoo (Member # 13268) on :
Scone recipes, cookies, cake.
Enough thread hijacks for three or four forums.
I think you people might be aliens.
Entertaining though!
Greetings from right-wing utopia, population 1553. Just cruising through. Thought I'd say hi.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
oh hi hoosiertoo
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:The more I read of the struggles of conscience in the hearts of characters who are loyal subjects of the king but who can’t bring themselves to lie about what they believe about religion, the more I couldn’t help making a comparison that Sansom himself never makes (or even implies).
Sansom is too good a novelist to pollute his historical fiction with anachronism, but you would have to be singularly unaware of contemporary politics not to understand that our situation today is directly analogous to the religious situation in Tudor England.
Today, those who fail to bow to the will of the Politically Correct Inquisition are not burned (that’s ISIS’s gig), but you are subjected to the pillory – and forbidden to speak in public, teach at a university (or, really, anywhere) or hold any appointed or elective office. It is not really a matter of belief, but rather of obedience, just as in Tudor times; as long as you obey and do not dispute the right of the Inquisition to rule our national thoughts, you will be left alone.
But heaven help you if you are accused of heresy, for even the accusation is enough to cost you friends, money, job and freedom. I can assure you from personal experience, that this is as true today as in the 1500s – and the accusers have no qualms about lying outrageously in their accusations, while their followers quickly “believe” whatever lies they’re told.
Once they’ve decided to accuse you, you pay for your thought crimes as if you were guilty. End of discussion.
Without delving too deep into this, I'm genuinely interested in
- What outrageous lies have been circulated about OSC? I do remember one person writing an article calling him a Hitler apologist, but the handful of people who mention it at all do so to highlight what a ridiculous accusation it is and dismiss it out of hand.
-How has Mr. Card's freedom been impacted in any way by this "political correctness inquisition"?
-When has he been forbidden to speak in public or teach? Isn't he a part time professor? Didn't he just speak at a Tedx a few months ago?
-The loss of job or money is one I can sort of see considering the boycotting of the movie and the Superman thing. But people choosing not to buy his books is a far cry from an inquisition.
(Also, EG is still one of the best selling Sci-Fi books of all time, and he makes more money in a year off the royalties from book sales alone than I have made in my entire life. He's hardly destitute.)
Basically, is there any reasonable way in which his experience of essentially seeing an (imo understandable) negative reaction from fans to certain things he's said analogous to an inquisition?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I could conceivably see his freedom having been curtailed, if he had received plausible threats of the sort that made some appearances and positions untenable for him. I don't know if that's happened, and would be reprehensible if it had, but that could be what he meant.
As for money, well he's certainly lost money on the basis of his publicly stated political convictions. How much is difficult to say, and he's probably gained some of it back by those same political statements too.
All of that said, though-aside from the freedom bit if that is accurate-it's just more of his self-victimization whining. As for the loss of money, he has supported boycotts against organizations for their political stances. So basically, shut up about that since he's done it himself is the takeaway there. As for friends, that will necessarily be a case by case basis sort of thing, but then it might be tough for some people to be friends with him if they're accused repeatedly of hating America and wishing to destroy it. As for jobs, see: boycotts.
The whining about political office is especially silly: yes, Mr. Card, if you make statements that are flagrantly at odds with popular thinking on important issues, that will serve as an impediment to elected office. Weird.
Anyway, two things are my takeaway on this newest installment of the OSC pity party: unless he has repudiated, in a persuasive way, his past association with boycotting people and organizations for their support of gay marriage, his complaints about risks to job and money are the pathetic hypocrisy. Two, it's not at the level of the Inquisition (or, well, Tudor England, gotta love that historical mashup), though there is plenty of troubling groupthink always going around.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
-The loss of job or money is one I can sort of see considering the boycotting of the movie and the Superman thing. But people choosing not to buy his books is a far cry from an inquisition.
(Also, EG is still one of the best selling Sci-Fi books of all time, and he makes more money in a year off the royalties from book sales alone than I have made in my entire life. He's hardly destitute.)
I've said this before, but no "boycott" the movie discussions ever have contained explicit details about what Mr. Card's contracts with the studios are. For all we know, he received a very large check for the movie rights and the frequently renewed option as the movie was a decade in the making, and his payment was entirely not dependent on box-office performance or tv movies.
I expect that Card makes money from the Ender's Game movie, simply because having a movie gets people to seek out book and other works of the author.
I do know that some actors do receive money based on movie showings, even after the theater phase.
quote: I am watching one of your movies! Should I take a picture of the screen or of a video with your face on it and send it to you?
You really don’t have to do that. They’re on cable a lot — which is great news for me, it will pay my ConEd bill that month — and I’m glad you like them, but pictures aren’t necessary.
So Wilson gets tens of dollars from her movies today
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
There is a difference between being "forbidden *to speak in public, teach at a university (or, really, anywhere) or hold any appointed or elective office" and no one wanting to listen to you speak, hire you to teach, or vote for you.
*Italics mine.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Dogbreath: Is it really so hard to believe that there are elements in the left who demand so much ideological purity that to fail to say exactly the right thing is to incur all sorts of awful invective?
Do you know about all the emails, letters, or comments made to Mr. Card? Do you believe he's lying when he says people have slandered him or lied about him?
Rakeesh:
quote:As for the loss of money, he has supported boycotts against organizations for their political stances.
I've yet to see any compelling evidence of this claim.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
My memory may be off, but he was on the board of NOM when it was publicly endorsing such boycotts for businesses that supported SSM, wasn't he?
For the record, that would be enough to say that he supported such a stance, BB, if the timeline fits. If he did not, the thing to do would be to either resign and say why, or remain and state disagreement. But did Card ever do either of those things? It's a serious question. If he did not, though-or if he only resigned without making a statement on the subject of boycotts-he gets tarred with that brush, period. If he wants to dissociate himself with a position an organization he leads (or accepts a nominal leadership role as a show of support), he has to, you know, actually repudiate it. He doesn't get to have it taken as a given.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Rakeesh: He joined NOM many months after they had publicly instigate a boycott against Starbucks, yes. I've retained my citizenship in the United States even after they have admitted to torturing and murdering people without trial. I'm a member of the LDS church which has indicated its intent to try to halt the legalization of same-sex marriage. I would willingly serve in leadership capacities for both.
Requiring people to resign because they belong to organizations that do stupid things is a flimsy standard IMHO. Should everyone at the studio that made the film America resign because a racist idiot conceived it? If you can find somewhere where Mr. Card advocates for boycotting people for having stated certain beliefs, that's all I require. As it stands, I've only ever seen him ask people not to patron businesses because of things they are doing.
As it stands, Mr. Card joined NOM after the boycott, didn't get consulted about NOM board actions, and then quietly resigned later.
Requiring a vocal resignation is just as flimsy IMHO. Plenty of people feel a resignation is a loud statement in of itself, without waxing wordy about it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
BB,
Ok, a few things. The comparison to citizenship in the United States is a specious argument for at least two reasons: one, its substantially more difficult to 'resign' if one wishes to than it would be to resign from NOM. Though it is exactly as easy to actually *say*, "I disapproved of these boycotts that NOM undertook." Has he done so? Two, though the principle is the same the proportional power is vastly different. Card is one among millions in one, and one board member among far fewer in the other.
Two, Card has gone significantly further than 'simply having a belief'. He has publicly and frequently advocated, politically, for a particular stance which actually impacts the lives of others. People whom support same sex marriage advocate for a stance that...well, look, Card and others will *say* that gay marriage impacts them somehow, but scratch those arguments with a dull fingernail and you start to find bullshit pretty quick.
That said, you're on a bit better ground here. If Card's only activity in this area were to publicly advocate against gay rights (I'm sorry, 'protect marriage'), and he were being boycotted against, that would be one thing, and potentially something I could get behind agreeing with you about.
Which brings us back to: NOM. As for resigning, you'll note I didn't even say that in order to credibly be a victim now, he would have had to make a big showy resignation speech at a press conference. Hell, he wouldn't even have had to resign. But is he on record, anywhere, we having said, "NOM was wrong to have supported boycotts on businesses who supported gay rights?" He may be, but it's news to me.
I'll also note as for showy resignations, the sorts of fawning, groveling displays you're suggesting I was insisting upon are exactly the sort of stances Card now demands from various enemies. The language of show trials is his political stock in trade, now.
A resignation is a significant statement, it's true. It's also ambiguous beyond 'I did not or could not or both work here any longer'. The part where you're insisting it be read as a rejection of the NOM stance on boycotts is simply wishful thinking, BB.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: when you are literally a director of an organization on the literal board of directors, yeah, you have put yourself on a different standard of culpability and considerations for how much you can be said to be in accord with the acts of the organization by default.
he would have to issue some sort of public disavowal of NOM's actions before anyone should seriously protest that point or the point about his boycott hypocrisy. strangely however i am kind of inclined to think he's not interested in disavowing any of that.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Dogbreath: Is it really so hard to believe that there are elements in the left who demand so much ideological purity that to fail to say exactly the right thing is to incur all sorts of awful invective?
How does that relate to Card's claim of a "Politically Correct Inquisition" that, if you go against, you are "subjected to the pillory – and forbidden to speak in public, teach at a university (or, really, anywhere) or hold any appointed or elective office." He's not talking about "within elements of the far left." He's clearly stating that he believes this to be fact on the national level - his statements don't make sense otherwise.
quote:Do you know about all the emails, letters, or comments made to Mr. Card? Do you believe he's lying when he says people have slandered him or lied about him?
Again, you're warping what I actually asked, and what he actually said. He actually said:
"But heaven help you if you are accused of heresy, for even the accusation is enough to cost you friends, money, job and freedom. I can assure you from personal experience, that this is as true today as in the 1500s – and the accusers have no qualms about lying outrageously in their accusations, while their followers quickly “believe” whatever lies they’re told."
And I replied that I'm genuinely curious what sort of outrageous lies have been propagated about him by the "Politically Correct Inquisition." Specifically the sort that have cost him friends, money, job and freedom. I have no doubt people have told lies about him - I even mentioned one that I've encountered (the Hitler apologist one) - but from what I've seen almost all of the actual backlash he's encountered has been in reaction to actual things he has said about gay marriage and homosexuality. Thus my question, and I would actually be very happy if you could answer it, what lies exactly is he referring to here? Who are the accusers and who are the followers "quickly "believing" the lies they've been told"? Because he genuinely seems to think most of the negative reactions he's seen has been caused by people believing these "outrageous lies" rather than, you know, reading what he actually wrote and strongly disagreeing with it, and I really want to know what those outrageous lies are.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, one need only look at the evidence in Card's own experience. After all, since he has advocated the violent overthrow of the government, along with the retention of laws against sodomy, and called the left the "leftaliban," and populated scenarios in which Obama will soon employ urban youth gangs as a modern incarnation of the Hitler's storm troopers... And rather a lot else of equally hilarious provenance, things have gone badly for him indeed.
His bestselling books has fallen off the shelves of major bookstores. Hollywood refused to produce a movie based on his work, and refused to offer him a cameo in said movie. He has been fired from his job teaching at a university, and his work has been banned from official reading lists, including those of the military and Tor has refused to continue publishing his books... Oh no, nothing of this has happened.
Apparently what has happened is that he's received some impolite mail, and been castigated for his medieval views on gay rights.
Thanks Obama.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: " if you could answer it, what lies exactly is he referring to here? Who are the accusers and who are the followers "quickly "believing" the lies they've been told"? Because he genuinely seems to think most of the negative reactions he's seen has been caused by people believing these "outrageous lies" rather than, you know, reading what he actually wrote and strongly disagreeing with it, and I really want to know what those outrageous lies are.
Just a guess? A very old, very dead embarrassment regarding a paper that got written many years ago about Ender's game being an apologia for Hitler, and a related hit piece on Card's personal character for his handling of that situation. I think there may have actually been 2 papers- I haven't read both.
If you had to nail down Card's personal Waterloo, or maybe Stalingrad (forgive that analogy), that might well be the one.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB,
quote:As it stands, Mr. Card joined NOM after the boycott
I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but, that's incredibly obviously not true and you know (well, at least knew) that it is not true.
OSC joined NOM's board in 2009 and resigned in 2013. The Starbucks boycott was started in 2012. The idea that he joined after is just something you made up. It is easily checkable and actually addressed, specifically to you, on this very thread. In response, you said this:
quote:The boycott was instituted in March 2012, Mr. Card joined NOM in 2009. So you are correct, it was late last night so I didn't try looking this stuff up.
Soooo....what's up with that?
[ June 18, 2015, 07:45 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
MrSquicky: You'll have to accept my apologies. It's embarrassing but I misremembered something I very clearly researched in the past.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: His bestselling books has fallen off the shelves of major bookstores. Hollywood refused to produce a movie based on his work, and refused to offer him a cameo in said movie. He has been fired from his job teaching at a university, and his work has been banned from official reading lists, including those of the military and Tor has refused to continue publishing his books... Oh no, nothing of this has happened.
Totally unrelated: where was OSC's cameo?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
They snuck him in there as one Ender's soldiers in the Battleroom during the fight with Salamander.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
You think he could've been one of the I.F Admirals at the end.
e: Also rationalwiki has a thing where they just sorta speculate that the "Buggers" was meant to be a thinly veiled means of disparaging gays but I don't buy that as it's a British slur that mostly used as we use the word "damn" and very directly relates to the Formics being insectoids, so yeah.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: You think he could've been one of the I.F Admirals at the end.
e: Also rationalwiki has a thing where they just sorta speculate that the "Buggers" was meant to be a thinly veiled means of disparaging gays but I don't buy that as it's a British slur that mostly used as we use the word "damn" and very directly relates to the Formics being insectoids, so yeah.
I don't buy it as means of disparaging the gays either. Buggers='cuz they look like bugs. I've yet to hear someone be genuinely offended by the name (Maybe I'm not listening to the right people? Or they have bigger things that bothered them). Politically speaking, it was changed long before people started sharpening the pitchforks against homophobes en masse and before gay marriage was legal. I got the impression that someone told OSC about the third meaning of the word, and he got really embarrassed and came up with the formic concept.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
'buggers' is probably just unfortunate coincidence. it's not like it's supposed to be pc in the story itself nor ultimately are they bad after all
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
No, he voiced the pilot who takes Graff and Ender to ISL. he wrote a post about it in his blog to the cloud.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Him and others like him think they can blame gays for ruining society, call them children playing dress up in their parent's clothes (which is actually in an essay of his) and deny them rights and that gay people should just nod in agreement and get back into the closet. This isn't going to happen. People are going to fight back using some of the same tactics used by OSC and their ilk. Boycotts and such. General disagreeing. Going, uh, I'm not sure you have an accurate representation of what it means to be gay and here's why. Allow me to recommend several books.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
This last article still is .... Uh, awful. But I can't think of an interesting way to address or approach or explain it
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: This last article still is .... Uh, awful. But I can't think of an interesting way to address or approach or explain it
Are you talking about the English period pieces & British/American acting philosophies?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think it's more likely that he's talking about how you don't see affirmative action policies on American Ninja Warrior, and as a consequence Republicans should be able to engage in voter suppression tactics.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: This last article still is .... Uh, awful. But I can't think of an interesting way to address or approach or explain it
Are you talking about the English period pieces & British/American acting philosophies?
That might be interesting to read.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think it's more likely that he's talking about how you don't see affirmative action policies on American Ninja Warrior, and as a consequence Republicans should be able to engage in voter suppression tactics.
I read this one and it is heartless, privileged ranting combined with a deep misunderstanding of justice, democracy, and how affirmative action works.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i just like how and why anyone at all pretends in any way shape or form that the goal of these voter ID laws is anything but that republicans are trying to keep people who don't generally vote republican from voting, or from having their votes count as much as republican votes, using any means they can get.
or as i said before, the purpose of these voter id laws has never ever ever been to prevent voter fraud, and i am sincerely impressed when people can't figure that out and make arguments predicated on essentially ignoring that the point of these laws is to try to prevent as many poor and minority populations from voting because they would vote against the people who institute these laws in order to keep election turnouts favorable to them
and it is extra special to just witness the extent of, say, orson scott card doubling down on a pretty transparent scheme to unrepresentationally bolster conservative candidates. we start to wonder 'so when would he hypothetically break on that one, where's the point at which he wises up and admits that he's wrong'
but in the same article he's still doubling down on the liberal global warming misinformation conspiracy so yeah
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: We all show positive ID to get on an airplane, rent a car, cash a check, buy alcohol or cigarets, visit a sick person in a hospital, or prove to the cop who stopped us that we're entitled to drive at all, and to drive this car in particular. It is not an unreasonable burden to level the playing field by requiring that voters meet the same standard.
It's horrifying in its own special way to see a person's soul being carved out and replaced by walnut maple ice cream bought at harris-teeters (or whatever high-end luxury OSC is flogging this week).
That there are American citizens who don't fly in airplanes, rent cars, cash checks, or drive must be unthinkable to this affluent white man. And of course, I haven't been carded since I was 25 (and OSC surely hasn't been carded in 30 years), and I have never had my ID checked at a hospital.
The basis of democracy is not to judge burdens and tests for voting according to what is reasonable (read: acceptable) for the average citizen, but that is absolutely necessary for all citizens. All available research shows that in-person voter fraud is simply not an issue. It does not, effectively, happen, and it has no effect on the outcome of any election in the United States, and hasn't for many, many years.
OSC simply doesn't believe in the universal franchise. He believes in the franchise for voters who pass the economic and social tests of his choosing.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
We know this man has an amazing imagination. He has written wonderful stories about what the universe looks like from other points of view. Even alien points of view. How is it possible that he can't stretch his mind far enough to imagine what it is like to be urban and poor?
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
I don't think he realizes that the Unconstitutionality of Poll Taxes was settled a long time ago.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
No, he does, he just doesn't want poor people to vote. I don't even know that it's a racist thing. So much of OSC's identity has become entangled with consumerism and wealth, that I think he hates poor people. Doesn't want to understand them, and wishes that they could be easily disenfranchised. He is not alone.
You know kmboots, I am married to a Ukrainian. This is relevant, and I'll explain why.
My wife's sister sometimes visits us. She is 24, lives and works in Ukraine, and so by the standards of almost any western country, she is very poor, particularly when she leaves the country (their money doesn't go very far).
In Ukraine, and she lives in Kiev which is a richer part of the country, people are adapted to a different sort of life. In Prague, it's typical for somebody who works as a janitor or a server to be able to go out to pubs and such. So there are cafes and theaters, and restaurants, and everything else in quite a high density. People have money to spend on that stuff. In Kiev, one of the things that really shocked me when I visited was that there is *nothing to do* except for in very specific, very concentrated areas. Millions of people though live in areas where the activities that you can do in public involve going to a large grocery store, or sitting on a bench. No small shops. No cafes. No pubs. No ways to spend money people don't have to spend.
So the grocery store is HUGE and FULL of people (to a ridiculous degree), but there is no overflow to any other type of business. Nobody can afford anything that has too much value added. No premium services of any kind can be sustained.
So anyway, when my sister in law visits us, I find myself getting frustrated with her at times. She seems irresponsible to me.
For example, she will go to the other side of town with no ID, no credit cards (she doesn't have any), and no cash, and then get stuck because she can't afford to get home. She'll call my wife and my wife will figure out how to help her. Recently, she got stuck in Bratislava on her way back home, because she didn't have enough cash to pay for the bus once she'd taken a tram to get to the bus station.
She will show up in-country with an equivalent of $20 that has to last up to a week, and she will innevitably use it before she leaves, and need more- but she has no atm card, or bank account, and so her mother will have to wire her cash (which costs a lot) or I will have to sponsor her, which annoys me, but which I expect.
I recall similar frustrations with my wife when she had only been living here for a short time, and I was not supporting her financially. She would do these things that just seemed so irresponsible to me- like taking a train to another town with exactly enough money to pay for a train back. If she needed anything in the meantime, she was in trouble. She sometimes scared me with this behavior, and occasionally she still surprises me by doing things like that.
For example, I remember vividly walking with my wife to the transport office and paying for a yearly transport pass, because she had refused to pay the $200 or so that it costs, when a monthly pass costs "only" $30. She could not, would not listen to my logic when I explained that she would end up paying about 160% of the $200 if she bought a pass every month. My wife isn't stupid. But to her, saving $170 today is worth losing another $160 over the next year. What could I say to that?
But I realized that her sister, and her, years ago, are used to this. This is their normal. The normal is having exactly the amount you need in your pocket (or less), and just dealing with what happens as it happens.
If you don't have enough money to even consider making the right decisions, then logic is really not something you need to engage with in the same way as people who do. In fact, it would only be depressing if you had to think about it in terms of how hard you're being screwed by your own poverty. This is really why poor people vote in such low numbers in the first place. So adding another barrier to that- and assigning it the same importance as all the other rich-people activities that are involved with having an ID, like driving a car, flying in a plane, or renting something, is just icing. It's just one more reason not to bother.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I think in a lot of cases it's not just a matter of not bothering, it's a matter of literally lacking the time, money or incentive to do so. Having seen my wife go through a similar process recently which ended up taking 8 months to complete, I can tell you getting a photo ID is hardly the trivial matter OSC makes it out to be - certainly less so if you're poor. (which goes towards explaining why 11% of American adults - and 25% of African American adults - don't have photo IDs)
Quite simply, it's prohibitively expensive and time consuming if you're living paycheck to paycheck. You need a certified birth certificate (and I live in a state which requires it to be certified within 30 days of the application, which is an additional $50 plus $30 shipping fee if you're out of state), a social security card (which requires you to have a birth certificate, and also have some form of photo identification which can be very difficult to have if you're trying to get it so you can get a photo ID in the first place), proof of residence, and then have to file an application for a photo ID. I know in a lot of states it's actually a more difficult and expensive process to get just a photo ID than it is to get a drivers license - IIRC ours requires a petition with the Lt. Governors office, which can take several months. And of course it costs more money too.
What it ends up being is several hundred dollars, plus a mountain of paperwork, plus several trips to offices that are only open Monday-Friday 8-3:30... and you're working an hourly job that doesn't let you take off in the middle of the day to "run errands", and the offices are 15 miles away, how are you going to get there? more money. Then several months of waiting to finally get an ID that you'll have to renew every 5 years, and is entirely useless to you in any practical way except to exercise your right to vote. (and I'm not getting into asinine payment issues, like some of those offices only accepting checks, which means you have to have a bank account... etc. etc.)
Whereas if you're born into privilege, this process is almost entirely transparent to you. Your parents have obtained and maintained the necessary documents since you were born. You get a passport as a kid (to go on an airplane), or get a drivers license at 16, and from that point on, it's just a matter of renewing that photo ID every 5 or 10 years using the photo IDs you already have. So when OSC says something as outrageously disingenuous like:
quote:You don't have to be smart to have government-issued ID. You just have to take the time to get that ID -- which means you have to have planned ahead just the tiniest bit.
Well yes, that's true. If you're rich and already have one.
But if you're poor, it's a labyrinthine process that's even worse than a poll tax - and arguably comparable to polling tests - at disenfranchising poor people. (and quite disproportionately, poor black people)
That - coupled with the fact that these voter ID laws are always designed to take effect right before major elections - makes this a pretty blatant attempt at widespread and systematic voter suppression on the part of the Republican party. And I don't really believe that Mr. Card is ignorant or unimaginative enough not to realize that that is what's happening, I just don't think he cares.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Has anyone ever seen him reply to a comment on his article? I'd be interested in seeing Dogbreath post that on the article to see if he would reply.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Has anyone ever seen him reply to a comment on his article? I'd be interested in seeing Dogbreath post that on the article to see if he would reply.
You mean on the Rhino Times site? No, I've personally never seen that happen.
But he's the owner of this site, so presumably he still browses the forums here. I don't know if he spends his time reading this thread, but I always write under the assumption that he will read what I say.
I would honestly love it if he decided to engage in a discussion about his articles here. I can understand why he doesn't - I think it would end up being more or less a dogpile considering the contrast between his political beliefs and those of most of the posters here - but it would be nice to help clear up some of the factual issues if nothing else. (like how much of an input he had in NOM's boycotts and why he chose to resign)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But he's the owner of this site, so presumably he still browses the forums here.
I wouldn't make that assumption, necessarily. I know Kristine does, but even then she generally notices things only when BB brings them to her attention.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
In some states, the use of voter ID laws as a poll tax/time barrier to keep liberal demographics (poor, nonwhite, young, etc) from voting is astoundingly transparent in that it is clearly engaged upon as a conservative strategy to keep poor people from voting, especially in areas concentrated with demographics that vote against conservatives. In other states, it is merely just largely transparent that it is a conservative strategy to keep poor people from voting.
In Wisconsin, shortly after passing a voter ID law, Scott Walker shuttered well over one in ten DMV's in the entire state, mostly in areas that were largely democratic, it is told. Other DMV's had their hours expanded.
Conservatives have to assert that this is incidental.
Florida, a state that had largely performed averagely in poll wait times in the past, had its average wait time soar to a 45 minute average in the election directly following a conservative push for voter ID blocks, largely because of catastrophic overload in ... yes, you guessed it: urban centers. Apparently, the republican legislature had also seen it fit to cut early voting times drastically and was not particularly inclined to expand polling capacity.
Conservatives have to assert that this is incidental.
The list of acceptable forms of identification proposed for use in getting a voter ID has often been observed to be oddly skewed in favor of some types of ID, such as a concealed carry license being valid in ways a tribal identification card is not, despite this being profoundly dumb. In some places this was largely shored up by complaints, followed by legal cases against the states in question.
Conservatives have to assert that this is incidental.
There is no scourge of voter fraud — the maximum calculated impact across the country is infinitesimal. Something like maybe 40 confirmed cases since 2000. It is a nonissue. No elections are at risk from voter fraud. The voter ID laws are supposed to prevent voter impersonation, but mail in ballot fraud is responsible for about four times the total amount of (again, infinitesimal) voter fraud. But since mail in ballots are largely mailed in by older white people, you find that these voter ID law pushes will, more often than not, really not touch the issue of mail in ballot security much, or at all.
Conservatives have to assert that this is incidental.
A grand total of five states got voter ID laws passed by conservatives who were reacting immediately to the supreme court gutting a part of the voting rights act, a law passed explicitly to prevent intentional barriers at the state and local levels that prevented African Americans from exercising their right to vote. These states' conservatives had been unable to enact their voter ID laws since their states had a legacy of intentional disenfranchisement of African Americans. The ruling against the voting rights act had put their states under extra scrutiny, given their history of intentional disenfranchisement, that prevented them from passing laws that would disenfranchise voters. Once they were freed from this extra scrutiny, they immediately passed laws that disenfranchised voters. Texas didn't even wait more than two hours to get started.
Conservatives are usually just shrugging at this point, or saying that agenda-packing liberals are just trying to make them look bad in a somehow illegitimate way.
Texas would, of course, succeed in rushing its new voter ID, with the state AG announcing its immediate implementation. The exact same AG, Abbott, was simultaneously planning to put in place redistricting maps conservatives drew up in 2011. These redistricting maps had previously been blocked according to a court ruling that showed that the maps were "a deliberate, race-conscious method to manipulate not simply the Democratic vote but, more specifically, the Hispanic vote."
Conservatives have to assert that something something mumble mumble it's the liberals who are the real election riggers mumble.
Every single voter ID law has been sponsored by republicans and passed purely by republican representatives. They are a purely conservative effort that have constantly and consistently shown the habit of being intended to prevent specific demographics from voting, because these demographics vote liberal. Courts have certainly observed the habit in practice. Laws have been struck down very clearly. Pennsylvania conservatives' attempt was revoked by the courts because it obviously discriminated against low-income and minority voters. A Commonwealth court judge, McGinley, declared that the entire law was absolutely violative of the constitutional rights of state voters — by preponderance of evidence, it was declared, it was there to place undue burden on hundreds of thousands of already registered voters due to a lack of infrastructure and state support for obtaining required IDs.
Conservatives something something no you.
Another circuit judge, Richard Posner, himself actually a conservative, provided a serious critique of the laws, calling the expressed concern about voter fraud an obvious ruse for laws he saw "appear to be aimed at limiting voting by minorities, particularly blacks." The movement to expand voter ID laws as much as conservatives could get away with was spurred by the understanding that, at present, Republican gerrymandering was going to become eventually insufficient a method of keeping disproportional representation in favor of Republican candidates, and something new was needed to hold off the tide.
Conservatives in the states that can get away with this shit just shrug and go "yeah, but you can't stop us, because we won't let you." Then they saunter off confident in the fact that, at least for now, the strategy has been providing the intended effect for them. Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote: I can understand why he doesn't - I think it would end up being more or less a dogpile considering the contrast between his political beliefs and those of most of the posters here
I don't think enough people hang around here to have a dogpile. My guess is it would primarily be you, Orincoro, and Rakeesh engaging him with Samp jumping in with somewhat trollish yet insightful commentary. Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: But since mail in ballots are largely mailed in by older white people, you find that these voter ID law pushes will, more often than not, really not touch the issue of mail in ballot security much, or at all.
Military, too. I haven't voted in person since 2008. I finally just registered to vote here in Hawaii (since I technically don't think it's legal for me to vote in Indiana any more (not that anyone would stop me)) and I'm kind of looking forward to actually being able to vote on election day again.
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: I don't think enough people hang around here to have a dogpile. My guess is it would primarily be you, Orincoro, and Rakeesh engaging him with Samp jumping in with somewhat trollish yet insightful commentary.
I am greatly amused that the guy with nearly 10 times as many posts as me is somehow relegated to being the wacky sidekick of this scenario. Take that, Mr. Rimary!
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
tertiaryadjunct stands in line for a ballot in a polling place, 2012.
Guy at front of line: "So, uh, my wallet got lost or stolen yesterday. I don't have my ID. Is there any way I can still get a ballot?"
Gummint employee: "That's not an issue sir, California doesn't have a voter ID law. Just sign next to your name and you're good to go."
Guy: "Oh, great. But they really should do something to fix that. Anyone could say they're me!"
tertiaryadjunct:
/true (paraphrased) story, bro
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
The internet should require ID. Anyone can claim they're you. It's a crime, and they could go to prison for a year or more, but they can still do it.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Inside Out (Spoilers)
quote: In fact, one of the huge holes in this mental construct is one that every parent recognizes as we watch it form in our children: morality. What does the child internalize as right and wrong, so that they act according to that moral code whether they expect to be caught or not?
You know – the thing that keeps them from playing with knives or matches, or running into the street or hitting their siblings, even when parents aren’t watching. The skills that enable them to get along well in a civilized society.
The children who don’t develop some version of this are what we call “sociopaths” – but most children do. In fact, with our kids the rule-forming function was so strong that we sometimes had to spend more time telling them that something wasn’t a matter of right vs. wrong, and they were free to choose.
This isn't a problem with the movie, I think OSC doesn't get where morals come from.
Morality is not an emotion. It's a value/thing Riley cares about. Hence "Honesty island". Along with Family, Friendship, Goofball and Hockey.
Fear is what keeps kids from playing with knives (and it's shown in the movie show fear takes the driver's seat for toddler Riley). Fear of hurting others or society because people have a "Family island" or a "friendship island". If the person is religious, "God" might be on the list of people to fear hurting, but society and family are totally sufficient.
I imagine if rule-following is internalized very strongly, one might have a "Law" island. There would be core memories of being rewarded when law is upheld, and being hurt when it wasn't that power the island.
One of the most powerful things that a parent can say to hurt a child is "I'm very disappointed in you".
Fear is what sociopaths do not have. I've read a few of the pop books on the subject (the Sociopath Next Door, and the Psychopath test), and one of them mentions an (unethical) experiment done on prisoners which pretty conclusively shows who's a psychopath. Take a prisoner, strap him down, and put stuff on him to measure his vitals. Now count back to 10 and shock him when zero is reached. Now do it again. For non-psychopaths, the vitals go CRAZY as you get closer to zero. The body fears, and anticipates the shock. For psychopaths, nothing. Both groups are in pain and suffer from the electric shock, but only one group fears it the second time.
So in the Inside Out metaphor, a psychopath would literally not have the purple fear guy in the brain. And it's likely that there's no island for other people only interests.
The entire movie offers an explanation for people breaking with the fabric of society: emotional upheaval causes a loss of connection from core memories to core values, and that joy is no longer in the driver's seat. People with bad childhoods might never have had those core memories to form those islands to begin with.
The loss of joy (and even the inability to feel sadness) also a great metaphor for depression, as you go through life not feeling things, and the connections to things you care about no longer work.
quote: (Don’t bother looking for ambition, aggression, competitiveness, introversion, trust, show-offery, vanity, self-hatred, or ... you know, the whole range of motivations and emotions.)
It's not an accident Disgust was the most fashionably dressed of the emotions, and was also responsible for Riley fitting in and wanting to be "cool" in addition to not liking broccoli. To be cool, there's a manifestation of "not cool", and a desire for that not to be you, that isn't necessarily fear based, but rather based on disgust.
And, as the movie's moral shows, things can have more than one emotion, but if you break it down, these things are motivated from the five simple ones. Could there be a sixth emotion? Possibly. But none of the things OSC listed are a compelling case for number six.
quote: Now, it’s true that emotions often pop up for reasons of their own, and we invent causes for them after the fact. But even within this story, they don’t actually cause Riley’s decisions, though they influence them.
Whatever it is in Riley that decides what she’s going to do is never dealt with. We only know that when things get discombobulated, and both Joy and Sadness are accidentally sucked out of the control room and lost in the recesses of memory, Riley gets a deadpan expression and rejects any kind of communication with her parents.
Then Anger (for some reason) picks up a screw-in lightbulb that represents “running away,” and that’s when Riley makes up her mind to go back to Minnesota.
Why Anger? Isn’t running away a fear response (as in “fight or flight”)? It made no sense, but what the heck. The kid is smart, and she’s apparently in the safest part of the city, so she can walk to the bus station without problems, and they accept the credit card and let an unaccompanied child on the bus without any question. Maybe that’s a thing that can really happen.
What were the emotions doing at the console then, if not driving Riley? The lightbulb was pulled out of a collection of "ideas" and literally put in there by anger. Anger wanted her to go to Minnesota. The emotions don't have complete control, but yes, they do drive Riley
There's a very good reason why anger, not fear is driving Riley. Riley isn't afraid of her classmates beating her up, and she's already screwed up being called on, so no need to fear that one. She's mad because what she had was taken away from her and she has no control over her own life.
Cities ... are not that dangerous to walk around in. Remember that part where crime is at an all-time global low. Granted, I was an adult, but I have ample experience walking around late at night, and I've never had to dodge a single person in the bushes. Did someone take a credit card? I don't remember, and assume Riley bought her bus ticket on the internet, and the boarding pass probably got sent to her phone. Age 11 bleeds into middle school age. It's quite easy to assume that Riley belonged to the person in front or behind her
quote: You get the idea. Each new religion within the overarching priesthood of psychology comes in with a roar – the new male baboon entering the troop – disrupting everything and struggling to reach the top of the heap. But if there’s anything of value it’s almost an accident, and as for what is true about the human mind ... well, the actual, verifiable science is creeping along, so we know more than we used to. But the science always lags many leagues behind the claims of the newly converted enthusiasts.
Oof. I wonder how much OSC has been listening to Scientologists these days.
On a side note, did anyone else notice that the mother had sadness in the driver's center seat?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: I don't think enough people hang around here to have a dogpile. My guess is it would primarily be you, Orincoro, and Rakeesh engaging him with Samp jumping in with somewhat trollish yet insightful commentary.
I am greatly amused that the guy with nearly 10 times as many posts as me is somehow relegated to being the wacky sidekick of this scenario. Take that, Mr. Rimary!
apparently my primary contribution is my own patented blend of Edutrolling™
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
On the Martian
quote:In fact, this movie will be practically a remake of Gravity, only this time with plausible science and intelligent writing.
quote:So when Gravity came along, it marked an attempt to follow the pattern of competent-man sci-fi. Even though the science was bad to the point of weeping,
Gravity was not that bad. Really.
quote: Let me point to a couple of very good movies. In Deep Impact, the sacrifice of the astronauts breaks up the asteroid enough that when it collides with Earth, it doesn’t end all life. There are people around to pick up the pieces.
However, when real planetary scientists are looking for a Hollywood movie to watch drunk and giggle at the bad science, they turn to ... Deep Impact (or The Core if they are feeling really masochistic).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm wondering if Card will, in his now usual Obama fixation and vitriol along with his GOP apologism, take a swing at Trump's remarks on Mexicans and try to tell us how it's the fault of gays or Obama or gay Obamas.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'd be surprised. Trump isn't Card's type.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I would say that Trump isn't *anybody's* type, except that he's now the most popular Republican candidate in the race, so clearly quite a few people like him. I genuinely don't understand why. (and I can understand why people like guys like Huckabee, Perry, or even Cruz)
I imagine Card will ignore him during the primaries and, if he wins and it comes down to Clinton or Sanders or whoever vs. Trump, he'll start supporting him and brush off the anti-immigrant remarks as a "gee, funny how the librul media keeps bringing that up...." type rant.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:he's now the most popular Republican candidate in the race
Wait, what
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
He voted for Obama both times didn't he?
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I would say that Trump isn't *anybody's* type, except that he's now the most popular Republican candidate in the race, so clearly quite a few people like him. I genuinely don't understand why. (and I can understand why people like guys like Huckabee, Perry, or even Cruz)
I imagine Card will ignore him during the primaries and, if he wins and it comes down to Clinton or Sanders or whoever vs. Trump, he'll start supporting him and brush off the anti-immigrant remarks as a "gee, funny how the librul media keeps bringing that up...." type rant.
Well, four years ago, my mom made an offhand remark about Trump being a good president because he was a good business man, etc. etc. With his TV persona, I think most people don't know that Trump isn't that great at business. I suspect that's the case with most people.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I don't know much about Trump past his branding, pop culture status, and his boneheaded political comments. Why do you say that he's not that great at business?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
He's really good at using bankruptcy laws to his advantage.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:he's now the most popular Republican candidate in the race
quote:Mr Trump was touting his first place in an average of 105 polls. Of the 14 candidates who have declared, Trump topped the field with 13.6 per cent support to 13.3 per cent for Jeb Bush
If he keeps making racist and xenophobic speeches he'll win the Republican primary in a landslide. They love him.
Elison: Who/what are you talking about?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: I don't know much about Trump past his branding, pop culture status, and his boneheaded political comments. Why do you say that he's not that great at business?
Trump is a cautionary tale. If what he does works, there's something wrong with how you can practice capitalism in your society, and you need to have as few of him happening in your markets as you can possibly manage, because he's poison with a net negative effect. If enough people practiced "successful capitalism" the way Trump has made it work for him, the economy would implode under debt-manipulated fleecing.
He's 'great at business' in the same way that a confessions-of-an-economic-hitman style vulture capitalist is 'great,' based solely on the post-hoc rationalization that they got away with it and are very rich now, even if their methods resulted in a net loss of people's livelihoods and screwed other people over really super hard.
If bankruptcy law hadn't been as excruciatingly oligarch-friendly, he would have been a footnote — a narcissistic comedy routine who inherited his father's business empire, then plunged himself into billions of dollars of debt and had to call it quits. Instead, he just made sure he had enough clever accounting to leave other people footing the bill no matter how spectacularly he failed.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm wondering if Card will, in his now usual Obama fixation and vitriol along with his GOP apologism, take a swing at Trump's remarks on Mexicans and try to tell us how it's the fault of gays or Obama or gay Obamas.
Card has never been a hard-liner on immigration. It's just not compatible with his religious views, I think.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:he's now the most popular Republican candidate in the race
quote:Mr Trump was touting his first place in an average of 105 polls. Of the 14 candidates who have declared, Trump topped the field with 13.6 per cent support to 13.3 per cent for Jeb Bush
If he keeps making racist and xenophobic speeches he'll win the Republican primary in a landslide. They love him.
Elison: Who/what are you talking about?
Card.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
That would be some plot twist.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
UGH
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
UGH WHAT A GENERALLY REASONABLE AND COMPASSIONATE ARTICLE UGH I'M SO MAD
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I know, right?
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
I'm really buying into the whole Trump running a false flag campaign thing.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Yeah, I finished the article thinking, "Man, every so often OSC writes an article where I remember why I read these every week for the last 10 years".
I had some quibbles:
Less than half of Ashley Madison's users were inside the United States, so that skews up a little bit of the math.
While I agree entirely that people on that site created their own problems, there are also some more forgivable reasons for being on it.
1. I read something on Reddit about a gay man from Saudi Arabia who could very well be executed since his name is public, and he's trying to seek asylum (I don't expect OSC to be sympathetic to that one).
2. Swingers and people who have joined who are in open marriages, but would like to keep their privacy.
As for social security, I thought it was entirely paid for by the current population, so while not taking it helps other current boomers, it doesn't do anything for the problems that might arise in 30 years or so.
Also, the rate you get paid is fixed on the year you start taking it, so if you start at 62, you get less per month than if you start at 70. If you live long enough, you make up for starting later.
Publicly vowing to refuse it entirely, seems silly,
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: As for social security, I thought it was entirely paid for by the current population, so while not taking it helps other current boomers, it doesn't do anything for the problems that might arise in 30 years or so.
Not exactly. There are just too many boomers to make it possible for the current generation to support them. But by some freak miracle of political foresight, we saw this coming in the 80's and made sure to start collecting a bit MORE than immediately necessary. The excess is stored in a trust fund* which can be tapped to cover deficits when there are more retirees than can be supported by the younger generation (expected to happen in 2022). At the rate things are going, the trust fund is projected to be tapped out in 2033, at which point benefits will have to be reduced or taxes increased.
* IIRC the trust fund puts the money (over $2 trillion now) in the safest investment possible: US Treasury bonds. This leads to some idiots saying "the government just loans the money to itself and then spends it! It doesn't really exist anymore and we are screwed!!" When in fact the bonds will be reliably paid back just like all are.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"at which point benefits will have to be reduced or taxes increased."
Or the government just issues the money anyway. Which I am mostly persuaded is a fine option. See modern monetary theory.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
It's fine in the sense that it is not substantially different from what the government already does, which is issue bonds which it then buys from itself.
It's only bad in the sense that if the markets somehow feel that the government is giving itself too much money, and relying too much on inflation to cover the long term costs of financing its debt to itself, then the markets can also decide those bonds are worthless. Ultimately the bond market still has to be a market, or it doesn't work out in the end.
Which is why, to back up the issuance of new bonds during a financial boom, you have to raise taxes. This gives government debt more legitimacy- it is assurance that the debt will be paid back.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Also the entire current world order is structured around the supremacy of the US dollar and the invulnerability of the US economy. I don't think there's honestly a point where the bonds would lose their value short of the US no longer being hegemon.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Heh. Where were you in 2010? The bonds "losing their value," is an armageddon scenario. US bonds losing a scintilla of credibility results in financial chaos on a global scale.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Yeah that's why the GOP threatening to default the US is borderline treason because it'll do more damage to the US's global position than any Iran deal.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Heh. Where were you in 2010? The bonds "losing their value," is an armageddon scenario. US bonds losing a scintilla of credibility results in financial chaos on a global scale.
Can you elaborate on that? When you say "losing their value is an armageddon scenario", don't bonds lose their value all the time when rates go up, or do you mean specifically U.S. bonds losing their risk-free status?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Heh. Where were you in 2010? The bonds "losing their value," is an armageddon scenario. US bonds losing a scintilla of credibility results in financial chaos on a global scale.
Can you elaborate on that? When you say "losing their value is an armageddon scenario", don't bonds lose their value all the time when rates go up, or do you mean specifically U.S. bonds losing their risk-free status?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Heh. Where were you in 2010? The bonds "losing their value," is an armageddon scenario. US bonds losing a scintilla of credibility results in financial chaos on a global scale.
Can you elaborate on that? When you say "losing their value is an armageddon scenario", don't bonds lose their value all the time when rates go up, or do you mean specifically U.S. bonds losing their risk-free status?
Bonds don't lose face value- they just can't be bought at the same rate. Bond value pretty much always goes up. If they go down, the conerstone of international finance goes with them.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
And that happened in 2010? Are you referring to the U.S. credit-rating down grade
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
Wherein Noblehunter pretends he understand money:
The credit rating downgrade was an implication that it had become less likely the US would be able to pay off its debts. I don't think the market put much credibility in that particular judgement.
If I understand things right, the only time bonds would trade at less than their face value (ie. the debt holder losing money on the deal) would be if a potential default were imminent. Sellers would be hedging their risk against getting paid back less than they lent (sell for 90% of the face value to avoid the risk of getting 0%) whereas buyers would be trying to get bonds for less than what will eventually be paid (buying for 90% of the face and getting paid 95% from the original borrower). I would expect bonds are normally traded at above face value, starting at the value at maturity agreed to by the borrower and trending towards 100% as people cash out or hedge against risk.
At one point (2008 or 2010), the rest of the system was so screwy that people were buying US bonds close enough to the face value (the money the US gov't got) that inflation meant the bonds would be worth less at maturity than what the buyers paid for them. Traders were willing to accept a known loss to avoid to risk of a much greater loss trying to hold some other asset.
As the above illustrates, the US must always pay its debts. As the major reserve currency, it's where investors go when everything else looks like a bad bet. Other currencies are too instable or vulnerable (Yuan, Yen[?], Euro) or there aren't enough reserves (Pound, Swiss Franc, CDN[which is also somewhat unstable]). Gold works well only if the price is stable, which tends not to be the case when there's a shortage of other investment options.
If the US defaults, there would literally be nowhere safe for money to go. Our economic models aren't set up for that eventuality. Just like many weren't set up to for a decline in housing prices in 2008.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Heh. Where were you in 2010? The bonds "losing their value," is an armageddon scenario. US bonds losing a scintilla of credibility results in financial chaos on a global scale.
Can you elaborate on that? When you say "losing their value is an armageddon scenario", don't bonds lose their value all the time when rates go up, or do you mean specifically U.S. bonds losing their risk-free status?
Bonds don't lose face value- they just can't be bought at the same rate. Bond value pretty much always goes up. If they go down, the conerstone of international finance goes with them.
Bond *funds* do go down when interest rates go up. The though being just getting a new bond is a better deal than sharing these lousy old bond profits.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Bond prices go down when interest rates go up. That's what I meant by value, their price on the open market. I didn't mean that the amount they pay on maturity.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I wonder who ghostwrote that OSC article.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by NobleHunter: At one point (2008 or 2010), the rest of the system was so screwy that people were buying US bonds close enough to the face value (the money the US gov't got) that inflation meant the bonds would be worth less at maturity than what the buyers paid for them. Traders were willing to accept a known loss to avoid to risk of a much greater loss trying to hold some other asset.
In fact, bond yields at one point reached 0%, meaning that it was guaranteed that the buyer would receive less than the face value of the bond when accounting for inflation.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: ?
I think Lyrhawn is just being funny.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: ?
I think Lyrhawn is just being funny.
Apparently not very.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
This week is a fun one:
quote:The result is that the best candidate to run for the Republican nomination in many years, Scott Walker, became a victim of his own diffident, noncombative personality. Being “above the fray” made him invisible, even though he was the only candidate to have governed a state where he faced the gut-check issues.
His enemies try to portray him as anti-union, but that is false. He was against monopoly unions that use their power to steal from the pockets of taxpayers.
For many years in Wisconsin, where (as in most states) the state Democratic Party is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the National Education Association, Democratic Party officials supposedly represented the people when negotiating pay and benefits with the leftist ideologues of the NEA, who supposedly represented the teachers.
That meant that the teachers’ compensation packages had been “negotiated” with the NEA’s people sitting on both sides of the table. Nobody spoke for the taxpayers, and nobody spoke for non-radical-leftist teachers.
Walker’s changes were modest indeed, but you’d have thought he was beheading teachers in the public square. Teachers’ unions always claim that anyone who opposes them is “against education.” But when Walker faced a recall election and won, it became clear that a majority of Wisconsin voters knew that the NEA had been stealing from them, and wanted a slightly fairer sharing-out of taxpayer funds.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
And on the other hand we get:
quote:And Sanders seems to be that rare thing among politicians: A decent human being who refuses to engage in personal attacks while trusting the people to listen to actual ideas and programs as they decide whom to vote for.
If I had to choose between Sanders and Trump, I’d choose Sanders.
Sanders really does seem to appeal to a lot of people across a broad political spectrum. He's pretty difficult to hate.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:His enemies try to portray him as anti-union, but that is false.
I'm deeply curious which unions Card thinks Walker likes.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Hypothetical ones.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: And on the other hand we get:
quote:And Sanders seems to be that rare thing among politicians: A decent human being who refuses to engage in personal attacks while trusting the people to listen to actual ideas and programs as they decide whom to vote for.
If I had to choose between Sanders and Trump, I’d choose Sanders.
Sanders really does seem to appeal to a lot of people across a broad political spectrum. He's pretty difficult to hate.
He isn't black.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
No, Walker doesn't like police unions. Rather, he's letting them exist as long as they promise to stump for him.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: No, Walker doesn't like police unions. Rather, he's letting them exist as long as they promise to stump for him.
This is usually the case for most Republican and right leaning independent politicians. They usually rely on the support of police unions; I can't really think of any prominent police union getting busted by a Republican.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Something funny happened a couple years ago when Walker proposed eliminating job protections for police and firemen over the objections of their unions (which had supported his original election.) Watching them try to figure out how to respond to that proposal was pure schadenfreude.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: This week is a fun one:
quote:His enemies try to portray him as anti-union, but that is false.
what the hell universe do you even have to be from to say this and not realize that it may actually be one of the dumbest and most clearly untrue things you have ever said
no like seriously, is this a stealth comedy routine and in a month or two andy kaufman's gonna jump out and go 'surprise i've been ghostwriting for osc for years lol lololol'
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I agree with him that Rubio/Fiorina is their best shot. That ticket has the best chance of getting them some of the Hispanic and possibly women vote that they'll definitely need.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
A) They'll never be nominated. B) They'd not win anyway.
So I'm liking this election season so far.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: I agree with him that Rubio/Fiorina is their best shot. That ticket has the best chance of getting them some of the Hispanic and possibly women vote that they'll definitely need.
Fiorina I don't think represents womens issues at all so I don't know how it'd get any Democratic or undecided women voters. Maybe +1% from low information voters if Hillary isn't the Democratic nom. Republican women would vote R either way.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Nah, you have an information bias. It's not about undecided or "women voters." It's all about turnout. Women would show up to vote for a woman. That's the difference maker.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i'm still not over that he says walker being 'anti-union' is a false accusation by liberals
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Fiorina is good TV. She's a mile wide and an inch deep, but lucky for her, Americans aren't very good at digging beneath the surface. Between the two of them, they'd likely have a very slick, smooth-talking, well-debated candidacy that I think would do very well. And I think they hit a demographic sweet spot that would peel away voters.
I think they'd also lose some of their core angry white man constituency who just can't get over voting for a POC and a woman. So they might even out (except the non-voters would likely come from states that would already be safely theirs, so they probably still win that).
I definitely wouldn't write them off as a successful duo, especially given Hillary's continuing dysfunction as a candidate, and Bernie's general X Factor which makes it hard to know who will do what when it comes to voting for him. I suspect, however, that minority voters won't be super excited for him, and minority turnout is key for Democratic wins. They'll definitely turn out for Hillary.
I think Hillary loses some of the youth vote, who, when they turn out (even more so now with their sheer numbers), can sway an entire election. Bernies has the chance to lead a youth wave to the White House. I don't think Hillary does.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I definitely wouldn't write them off as a successful duo, especially given Hillary's continuing dysfunction as a candidate, and Bernie's general X Factor which makes it hard to know who will do what when it comes to voting for him. I suspect, however, that minority voters won't be super excited for him, and minority turnout is key for Democratic wins. They'll definitely turn out for Hillary.
The dude was part of the civil rights movement. He marched with MLK. What makes you think he'll be far less popular with minority voters than Clinton?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
He probably is thinking that some Bill mojo rubs off on Hilary, since black folks are supposed to love him. And I guess with Bernie, it's a case of "what have you done for me lately." Which is stupid, I know, but nobody ever accused voters of being critical thinkers.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I definitely wouldn't write them off as a successful duo, especially given Hillary's continuing dysfunction as a candidate, and Bernie's general X Factor which makes it hard to know who will do what when it comes to voting for him. I suspect, however, that minority voters won't be super excited for him, and minority turnout is key for Democratic wins. They'll definitely turn out for Hillary.
The dude was part of the civil rights movement. He marched with MLK. What makes you think he'll be far less popular with minority voters than Clinton?
The polls support both of those statements so far.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Source? (I don't doubt you, I'm just having trouble finding a recent one)
I can't find any articles more recent than 3 months ago on the subject, but from what the ones in June say, the issue isn't so much that minorities don't like Sanders as they didn't know who he was - his main supporters at the beginning of his campaign were young white people. (The dreaded "millennials") I haven't found *any* articles indicating that, should Sanders be the Democratic candidate, minority voters won't come out for him or will vote Republican. (Which is what Lyrhawn is suggesting)
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Hillary has done a lot for black people since her constituency well includes a lot of black people while Bernie represents Vermont, which as I hear it doesn't have a lot. So Hillary has a long and consistent history of advancing issues and policies directly important and pertinent to minorities and that's huge.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Source? (I don't doubt you, I'm just having trouble finding a recent one)
I can't find any articles more recent than 3 months ago on the subject, but from what the ones in June say, the issue isn't so much that minorities don't like Sanders as they didn't know who he was - his main supporters at the beginning of his campaign were young white people. (The dreaded "millennials") I haven't found *any* articles indicating that, should Sanders be the Democratic candidate, minority voters won't come out for him or will vote Republican. (Which is what Lyrhawn is suggesting)
I definitely don't think a Sanders candidacy makes black and Latino voters switch to voting for Republicans. But I think it does lead to an enthusiasm gap that leads many of them to stay home. And for a Democrat that's just as bad. Black constituencies in key states are one of the biggest factors that determine whether a Democrat wins the White House.
The last poll I saw said that fewer than a quarter of all minorities even know who Sanders is, and of those who do, half have a good impression of him. Not really awe inspiring numbers. He's had some bad run-ins with black activists lately, and has a history of not being exciting about talking about race in terms of race, rather than race in terms of socioeconomics, which pisses a lot of minorities off (understandably so).
He's coming around on the issue a lot (or rather, coming around on the idea that he needs to change his messaging), and a lot of minorities will rubber stamp whoever the Democratic candidate is, but at the moment there's no sign that minorities are in any way excited about him. Or indeed, largely even aware that he exists.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:He's had some bad run-ins with black activists lately...
To be fair to Sanders, though, that's entirely due to the rudeness of those activists.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I can see both sides of the argument. Arguably, sitting at a lunch counter you're not supposed to sit at is also rude. I know it's an extreme example, but folks in the struggle don't usually get air time by being polite. You have to ask if Bernie would have released the plan he released about crime, race relations, prisons etc. if BLM hadn't gotten in his face so much so fast. I actually think, in the long run, they did him a big favor.
Edit to add: At no point did I really mean that as an attack on Sanders. His "bad run ins" weren't his fault, and I thought he responded as well as anyone could.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
"Rude" and "wrong" are not synonymous here. The protesters who rushed the stage and took the mike from him in Seattle were inarguably rude and disrespectful to do so. It was also (probably) their only real chance of getting their message to 20,000+ white people in Seattle in such a forceful and direct manner.
Whether, in retrospect, it was also the *right* or effective thing to do is debatable. It didn't hurt Sanders at all - from what I understand, it actually boosted his popularity, and he got the chance to speak again shortly thereafter. (to a larger crowd) Whether it helped or hurt the BLM movement is another matter, and one I'm not sure about.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I can see both sides of the argument. Arguably, sitting at a lunch counter you're not supposed to sit at is also rude.
I understand it's subtle, but are you suggesting that crashing the mic at a campaign event is equivalent to sitting at the front of the bus in Birmingham? That's a reach sir.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Not a huge reach, to be honest.
It was probably a bigger breach of the social contract (ruder?) to sit in the front of the bus or at the wrong lunch counter at that time than it was to get up on stage and grab a mic in the post Kanye/Taylor world - and it risked far greater reprisals.
I didn't see anything hugely wrong with the Bernie Sanders interruption from the BLM perspective. The people it really rankled the most were in large part people who weren't giving BLM the time of day, anyway. The people who were there to listen to Bernie were also likely a more receptive audience for their message, and a group that they ordinarily wouldn't have a chance to speak to.
I think the misstep for me was holding onto the microphone so long that Bernie left the event - it was a missed opportunity to engage with the candidate directly after the event, like Hillary did with BLM proponents the following week (even though her message to them was a little tone deaf, imo). Interrupting an event is one thing, taking an opportunity to get the message out, but shutting it down is another, and probably tied more frustration to the BLM message in the eyes of an audience who gathered for a specific reason that was no longer possible.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I love you FlyingCow and I'm gonna LET YOU FINISH. But Rosa Parks made the greatest act of passive resistance of ALL TIME.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Not a huge reach, to be honest.
It was probably a bigger breach of the social contract (ruder?) to sit in the front of the bus or at the wrong lunch counter at that time than it was to get up on stage and grab a mic in the post Kanye/Taylor world - and it risked far greater reprisals.
Do you think the people calling the BLM activists who took the mic from Bernie rude are doing so because they're black? Like, do you think we live in a society where it's socially acceptable to do that, but only if you're a white person orrr?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I love you FlyingCow and I'm gonna LET YOU FINISH. But Rosa Parks made the greatest act of passive resistance of ALL TIME.
Unless you count Claudette Colvin. And are specifically talking about buses.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
My problem with the BLM/Bernie mike incident is that I have no idea what their message was (besides generically something about Black Lives Mattering). I know they interrupted Bernie and people consider it rude. Ditto with the highway stunt.
When you keep showing up a lunch counter an getting kicked out, the message is that it is stupid that people are being banned from the lunch counter based on skin color (versus, say a reasonable reason, like stealing all the ketchup packets last week). With the bus boycotts, the message is that seating on busses should be open.
With the BLM movement, there's no clear recourse to end unconscious bias among police officers. You can do sensitivity training, but does it actually work? Will it happen for the people who actually get into this situations? Or will people just turn their body cameras off? And it's a constitutional right not to re-try someone once they've had their trial.
And so law-abiding citizens who have never experienced the police abusing power because they have lived law abiding lives in boring suburbia and don't see the privileges they get from their skin color find it upsetting to see an institution that only does good in their eyes could be corrupt.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Not a huge reach, to be honest.
It was probably a bigger breach of the social contract (ruder?) to sit in the front of the bus or at the wrong lunch counter at that time than it was to get up on stage and grab a mic in the post Kanye/Taylor world - and it risked far greater reprisals.
Do you think the people calling the BLM activists who took the mic from Bernie rude are doing so because they're black? Like, do you think we live in a society where it's socially acceptable to do that, but only if you're a white person orrr?
Um.... no? O.o
Not sure where you got that from.
<rereads what I wrote, and what I was responding to>
Nope... still not sure where you got that from. And it's such a non-sequitur that I'm not sure how to respond.
I don't think that the people calling them rude are doing so because they are black. Nor do I feel that their action is socially acceptable (note: whether or not I accept something is entirely different from whether it is "socially" acceptable).
Orincoro noted that comparisons to the actions of the civil rights movement were a reach. I disagreed. When a voice is not being heard, it is sometimes necessarily to breach the social contract (be rude) - whether that is by sitting somewhere you are not allowed, or speaking somewhere you are not allowed.
In the case of the BLM protesters at the Bernie Sanders event, I think any reference to their "rudeness" is irrelevant. The question is whether their breach of the social contract was effective, or not.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Um.... no? O.o
Not sure where you got that from.
<rereads what I wrote, and what I was responding to>
Nope... still not sure where you got that from. And it's such a non-sequitur that I'm not sure how to respond.
I don't think that the people calling them rude are doing so because they are black. Nor do I feel that their action is socially acceptable (note: whether or not I accept something is entirely different from whether it is "socially" acceptable).
Orincoro noted that comparisons to the actions of the civil rights movement were a reach. I disagreed.
When a voice is not being heard, it is sometimes necessarily to breach the social contract (be rude) - whether that is by sitting somewhere you are not allowed, or speaking somewhere you are not allowed.
*sigh*
Let's try this again.
Do you think the BLM activists were "not allowed" (by which you mean, not booked) to speak at that rally because they were black?
quote:In the case of the BLM protesters at the Bernie Sanders event, I think any reference to their "rudeness" is irrelevant. The question is whether their breach of the social contract was effective, or not.
And you'll notice nobody has disagreed with you on this point.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I love you FlyingCow and I'm gonna LET YOU FINISH. But Rosa Parks made the greatest act of passive resistance of ALL TIME.
Unless you count Claudette Colvin.
I think it's pretty obvious from my comment that I DONT. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: My problem with the BLM/Bernie mike incident is that I have no idea what their message was (besides generically something about Black Lives Mattering). I know they interrupted Bernie and people consider it rude. Ditto with the highway stunt.
Apparently, black lives also matter. And if you take that another step, and suggest that all lives, at the end of the day, really do matter, then people get mad and talk about "privilege."
So the message becomes: "don't be a part of this conversation."
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: And so law-abiding citizens who have never experienced the police abusing power because they have lived law abiding lives in boring suburbia and don't see the privileges they get from their skin color find it upsetting to see an institution that only does good in their eyes could be corrupt.
See, I do actually see this as the only realistic aim of BLM. Opening white people's eyes to systemic racism is a doable thing. It's a real problem to solve. The problem with even the name of Black Lives Matter is that it suggests, in a way, that if you already subscribe to the notion that black lives do, in fact, matter, then you aren't really a part of a greater problem. You're off the hook.
It should really be something more aimed at educating people about a systemic ill, rather than a moral absolute like lives mattering. Nobody can argue with "black lives matter," but the same person who will naturally react positively to that message will still not apply it to the real systemic issues being tackled here.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow:
Orincoro noted that comparisons to the actions of the civil rights movement were a reach. I disagreed. When a voice is not being heard, it is sometimes necessarily to breach the social contract (be rude) - whether that is by sitting somewhere you are not allowed, or speaking somewhere you are not allowed.
Eh, no. They are allowed to organize public events and draw their own crowds. There was no legal or practical barrier to that. They just didn't do it.
They may not be allowed to speak at someone else's event, which that person has organized and paid for, and advertised, and drawn crowds to, but that person who did all the organizing has a reasonable expectation of being allowed to run that event themselves. The mic at a campaign event is not public property- what they did was not defensible simply on the grounds that their exclusion was somehow unfair to them. It was perfectly fair.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Ahh... I see now. Got it.
No, I don't think they weren't allowed to speak because they were black. I think they weren't allowed to speak at that rally because they weren't on the list of speakers.
That's not what I meant by not having their voices heard.
The BLM movement was born of recent incidents, but the sentiment of "the lives of black people matter less in the eyes of the law" is much older than that. And people have spoken out about it before, but have been largely ignored - for years on end.
You can plan your own rally - but your voice will not be heard by the people who were at the Bernie Sanders rally. And that's a potentially valuable audience for the BLM movement, because they are largely progressive-minded people (or those open to more progressive ideas for the country).
Interrupting the Bernie Sanders rally gave them a platform to speak to a larger audience (and even got national attention), which is far more than they would have been able to accomplish on their own.
So, I don't disagree with their tactics - who cares if they were rude? They took an opportunity to give voice to something they felt had been ignored in the campaign process to that point.... and it was effective in that both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton pivoted their campaign messages because of it.
They took it upon themselves to breach the social contract and draw a spotlight to a problem. They didn't risk getting beaten or worse (as they would have 50 years ago), but they also didn't sit quietly in their neatly defined box of "you can have your own rally where you can talk about what you want.... and none of us will be there".
My only quibble is that they probably held the stage a little longer than was necessary (until after the headliner had left the event), which brought them more bad PR than they would have otherwise drawn and potentially lost them the opportunity to engage with the candidate directly after the event.
And to Orincoro - bringing the concept of "fair" to people whose very argument is "he system is inherently unfair" isn't useful. "Let them organize their own event that draws a similar crowd of people" isn't far away from "let them eat cake."
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I think we're more or less on the same page now.
To be clear, my main objection is the comparison between or equivocation of the specific civil disobedience of riding on the front of a bus/sitting on a lunch counter to the seizing of the microphone. They're vastly different: the first one is the direct disobedience of an unjust law or custom to highlight the injustice of that law. The second is mostly or entirely unrelated to the practices or concepts they're protesting.
And in that the first may be considered rude, it's considered rude because of the preexisting injustice. Whereas even in a hypothetically perfectly just society, disrupting an event like the second would still be just as rude.
So they're really, really not similar in that context.
What they do have in common is similar goals and (hopefully) similar outcomes, and you'll see I agree with you that their rudeness in doing so is unrelated to whether or not it was a good or effective thing to do.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Why can't seizing the microphone be todays sitting in the front?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
DB explained the difference pretty well:
quote: They're vastly different: the first one is the direct disobedience of an unjust law or custom to highlight the injustice of that law. The second is mostly or entirely unrelated to the practices or concepts they're protesting.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Right. And the news about BLM at Bernie was presented as "BLM now protesting Bernie. They are idiots because Bernie is the candidate who best represents their views".
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: Right. And the news about BLM at Bernie was presented as "BLM now protesting Bernie. They are idiots because Bernie is the candidate who best represents their views".
I wonder if those people would have viewed their tactics more favorably if they interrupted a Republican candidate's rally.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: DB explained the difference pretty well:
quote: They're vastly different: the first one is the direct disobedience of an unjust law or custom to highlight the injustice of that law. The second is mostly or entirely unrelated to the practices or concepts they're protesting.
I'm not saying they're not different.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
But you are saying "Why can't they be the same?"
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
"Why aren't these actions considered to be equivalent?"
"Because they're different, not only in their objective, but also in their justification, methodology, and desired result."
"I'm not saying they're not different."
...then what are you saying, exactly?
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick:
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: Right. And the news about BLM at Bernie was presented as "BLM now protesting Bernie. They are idiots because Bernie is the candidate who best represents their views".
I wonder if those people would have viewed their tactics more favorably if they interrupted a Republican candidate's rally.
Of course. As a happy left winger, I am more than willing to admit my side isn't apt to be fair when someone they don't like is involved (you wouldn't believe the fights I get into about that one). I will admit that I am not versed enough in the giant GOP field to know *which* candidates have made unfortunate statements about police brutality, but I am sure someone has and it would be correct for BLM to show up to remind everyone that this person's ideals are from the 50s (they sure are when it comes to women's health care, sheesh). If not, there is always Trump who is certainly racist toward Latinos, and it is probably the tip of the ice berg.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: And in that the first may be considered rude, it's considered rude because of the preexisting injustice. Whereas even in a hypothetically perfectly just society, disrupting an event like the second would still be just as rude.
So they're really, really not similar in that context.
There are plenty of contexts in which they are not similar - but that doesn't preclude contexts in which they are similar.
(and, as an aside, we don't have any perfectly just societies, or spherical cows for that matter)
A more apt comparison might be the sit in, which are by their very nature disruptive - essentially taking up space in a place where the protesters are not supposed to be, in order to draw attention to a cause.
During the Civil Rights movement, these were usually centered around lunch counters - places protesters were not supposed to be due to segregation - but the sit in concept is not limited to that, and expanded during the Vietnam War to include disruptions of all types.
Disrupting an event (or speaker) to bring attention to a message isn't anything new - it's become a pretty standard protest strategy.
In that context, a line can be drawn from those participating in sit-ins during the 1960s at lunch counters and the BLM protesters who took the mic at the Bernie Sanders event. Attention through disruption; forcing a voice to be heard that is otherwise easy to ignore.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Disrupting an event (or speaker) to bring attention to a message isn't anything new - it's become a pretty standard protest strategy.
It should be noted that this has happened in inverse correlation to the effectiveness of political protest as a strategy.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Much of this article is pretty good. There's a middle section where he wildly exaggerates the power and malice of modern progressives*, but if you can ignore that, otherwise pretty good. It finishes pretty strong (last six paragraphs) even though it lacks pragmatic ideas about how to solve political polarization.
*and makes assured claims about various dire downsides of any policy they've managed to implement, you know, like he does
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Eh, I couldn't get past "if there’s one thing the Left cannot tolerate today, it’s other people’s liberty."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm actually intrigued by how much insight you can get into Card's personal philosophies if you think of him as someone embittered against social leftists but who reveres (while still fundamentally misunderstanding several positions of) Daniel Moynihan.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It reads like Mr. Card admired Progressives until they started helping people other than straight white men.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: Eh, I couldn't get past "if there’s one thing the Left cannot tolerate today, it’s other people’s liberty."
I'd recommend finishing it if you can. He makes some pretty astute observations. I wish more people knew the history of labor in this country.
On our way back from Texas, Katherine and I drove by Trinidad Colorado, not even realizing it was the site of the Ludlow Massacre.
That was a watershed moment in labor relations, and as much as I love learning about unionization and how they operated here in the US, I didn't know so much of that incident.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: It reads like Mr. Card admired Progressives until they started helping people other than straight white men.
That's not an accurate characterization of what he wrote at all.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: Eh, I couldn't get past "if there’s one thing the Left cannot tolerate today, it’s other people’s liberty."
I'd recommend finishing it if you can. He makes some pretty astute observations. I wish more people knew the history of labor in this country.
On our way back from Texas, Katherine and I drove by Trinidad Colorado, not even realizing it was the site of the Ludlow Massacre.
That was a watershed moment in labor relations, and as much as I love learning about unionization and how they operated here in the US, I didn't know so much of that incident.
Read Killing For Coal, great book on Ludlow by a really good historian.
He has an...okay grasp on labor history. He left out the part where the folks he supports spent 60 years gutting organized labor. We're the least organized first world nation and ALL our workers suffer for it. Every year the people he votes for trod out the same tired lines about how unions are destroying America. And they've dismantled almost all the protections for labor that the original labor movement fought and died for. Labor doesnt just drive up benefits for themselves, countries with unions usually find conditions for all workers are better thanks to the unions. There's a positive splash damage effect.
Progressivism meant a lot of different things in the 20s than it meant today. It was linked with things like helping the poor and workers, but it was also linked with a strong sense of moral policing. Henry Ford paid high wages but you had to agree to let the morality police literally come into your home, judge you, and tell you everything you were doing wrong with your life. He was also intensely, violently anti-Union. If you want a real progressive role model ( other than Teddy Roosevelt ) look to Upton Sinclair, America's most under appreciated progressive.
I feel like he does this a lot. He knows just enough about history to get the surface issues right, but generally doesn't hav a good grasp on what's happening underneath. He's drawing many of the wrong conclusions from half understood historical precedents.
Though I think his remedies at the end are mostly right, I'd love to meet his straw man liberal. I've yet to see him describe a liberal that I've actually met in real life.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
He's probably a cousin to friend of labor Scott Walker.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
What I liked about this column - relative to others - is that he made a reasoned argument that can be understood and challenged. It sucks that it's still got a few straw men, but compared to other columns which have nothing but, it was pretty good. He also did a better job than normal of aiming some of his criticism at the right wing.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: What I liked about this column - relative to others - is that he made a reasoned argument that can be understood and challenged. It sucks that it's still got a few straw men, but compared to other columns which have nothing but, it was pretty good. He also did a better job than normal of aiming some of his criticism at the right wing.
It may be wishful thinking, but it seems like over the past few months his columns seem to have been gradually shifting to a more nuanced and reasonable tone, with less of the broad generalizations, ridiculous claims and straw man characterizations (his lecturing black pastors to stop letting democrats tell them what to preach was a low point for me), and bitter diatribes about smug liberal elitists. I really hope it continues that way.
I'm not sure what has inspired the change of heart, but it seems to coincide with his disgust with Donald Trump's popularity, along with maybe the fact that gay marriage is legal everywhere in the US and society hasn't collapsed yet, or maybe just some personal experiences that have given him pause.
quote: I'd love to meet his straw man liberal. I've yet to see him describe a liberal that I've actually met in real life.
His typical liberal seems to either be a smug, sneering, intellectually dishonest, hyper politically correct, likes-the-smell-of-their-own-farts bohemian bourgeois member of academia (or Hollywood) or, if he likes the person in question, a brainwashed/cowed disciple believing the lies of gay agenda/global warming fanatics and being used as a pawn to further the downfall of America.
I suppose I've met a handful liberals who meet most of the qualities of the first example. But usually it just seems like they're very insecure and have latched onto that persona in the hopes that it will make people respect them - they're generally not bad people deep down. I tend to steer clear of people who put a lot of stock in image and parroting whatever political positions and interests they think will make them most acceptable, though, so I could be underestimating how many of them there are.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Those smug liberal professors, always standing on a chair and daring god to smite them if he exists. Thank god there are marines in every classroom in America to punch those professors in the face.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I've met a handful of people who get close to card's contrived liberal typecasting! One of them literally with a turtleneck sweater thing going on
but that took me living my entire life in a place that he would have considered a contemptible elitist liberal hive of liberals and acquiring furtive glances of maybe five or six of these stereotypes in my entire life.
If I had to think of the most ridiculously stereotypable general kind of strawman conservative that we love to draft up and beat the snot out of online, I suppose they are easier to find because of how they cloister demographically?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: If I had to think of the most ridiculously stereotypable general kind of strawman conservative that we love to draft up and beat the snot out of online, I suppose they are easier to find because of how they cloister demographically?
Speaking of which, I've been watching your encounters with Brad on Facebook with a sort of morbid fascination. He seems to be trying very hard to check all the boxes on the "crazy conservative strawman" list.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: Eh, I couldn't get past "if there’s one thing the Left cannot tolerate today, it’s other people’s liberty."
I'd recommend finishing it if you can. He makes some pretty astute observations. I wish more people knew the history of labor in this country.
On our way back from Texas, Katherine and I drove by Trinidad Colorado, not even realizing it was the site of the Ludlow Massacre.
That was a watershed moment in labor relations, and as much as I love learning about unionization and how they operated here in the US, I didn't know so much of that incident.
Read Killing For Coal, great book on Ludlow by a really good historian.
He has an...okay grasp on labor history. He left out the part where the folks he supports spent 60 years gutting organized labor. We're the least organized first world nation and ALL our workers suffer for it. Every year the people he votes for trod out the same tired lines about how unions are destroying America. And they've dismantled almost all the protections for labor that the original labor movement fought and died for. Labor doesnt just drive up benefits for themselves, countries with unions usually find conditions for all workers are better thanks to the unions. There's a positive splash damage effect.
Progressivism meant a lot of different things in the 20s than it meant today. It was linked with things like helping the poor and workers, but it was also linked with a strong sense of moral policing. Henry Ford paid high wages but you had to agree to let the morality police literally come into your home, judge you, and tell you everything you were doing wrong with your life. He was also intensely, violently anti-Union. If you want a real progressive role model ( other than Teddy Roosevelt ) look to Upton Sinclair, America's most under appreciated progressive.
I feel like he does this a lot. He knows just enough about history to get the surface issues right, but generally doesn't hav a good grasp on what's happening underneath. He's drawing many of the wrong conclusions from half understood historical precedents.
Though I think his remedies at the end are mostly right, I'd love to meet his straw man liberal. I've yet to see him describe a liberal that I've actually met in real life.
Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, was required reading in my 11th grade US history class. Thanks for the book recommendation.
I too think Mr. Card does not really grasp why unions are still needed, granted today people are not murdered for striking or protesting, but IMHO businesses are simply amoral, and unions require them to grudgingly consider the needs of their workers instead of ignoring or discounting them. Sure some companies figure it out without being forced to, but the too many business decisions are made because the shareholders wants a return, without ever thinking, "Will our workers go for that?"
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: If I had to think of the most ridiculously stereotypable general kind of strawman conservative that we love to draft up and beat the snot out of online, I suppose they are easier to find because of how they cloister demographically?
Speaking of which, I've been watching your encounters with Brad on Facebook with a sort of morbid fascination. He seems to be trying very hard to check all the boxes on the "crazy conservative strawman" list.
dogbreath ur posts are to long and full of bullshit.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: Eh, I couldn't get past "if there’s one thing the Left cannot tolerate today, it’s other people’s liberty."
I'd recommend finishing it if you can. He makes some pretty astute observations. I wish more people knew the history of labor in this country.
On our way back from Texas, Katherine and I drove by Trinidad Colorado, not even realizing it was the site of the Ludlow Massacre.
That was a watershed moment in labor relations, and as much as I love learning about unionization and how they operated here in the US, I didn't know so much of that incident.
Read Killing For Coal, great book on Ludlow by a really good historian.
He has an...okay grasp on labor history. He left out the part where the folks he supports spent 60 years gutting organized labor. We're the least organized first world nation and ALL our workers suffer for it. Every year the people he votes for trod out the same tired lines about how unions are destroying America. And they've dismantled almost all the protections for labor that the original labor movement fought and died for. Labor doesnt just drive up benefits for themselves, countries with unions usually find conditions for all workers are better thanks to the unions. There's a positive splash damage effect.
Progressivism meant a lot of different things in the 20s than it meant today. It was linked with things like helping the poor and workers, but it was also linked with a strong sense of moral policing. Henry Ford paid high wages but you had to agree to let the morality police literally come into your home, judge you, and tell you everything you were doing wrong with your life. He was also intensely, violently anti-Union. If you want a real progressive role model ( other than Teddy Roosevelt ) look to Upton Sinclair, America's most under appreciated progressive.
I feel like he does this a lot. He knows just enough about history to get the surface issues right, but generally doesn't hav a good grasp on what's happening underneath. He's drawing many of the wrong conclusions from half understood historical precedents.
Though I think his remedies at the end are mostly right, I'd love to meet his straw man liberal. I've yet to see him describe a liberal that I've actually met in real life.
Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, was required reading in my 11th grade US history class. Thanks for the book recommendation.
I too think Mr. Card does not really grasp why unions are still needed, granted today people are not murdered for striking or protesting, but IMHO businesses are simply amoral, and unions require them to grudgingly consider the needs of their workers instead of ignoring or discounting them. Sure some companies figure it out without being forced to, but the too many business decisions are made because the shareholders wants a return, without ever thinking, "Will our workers go for that?"
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: If I had to think of the most ridiculously stereotypable general kind of strawman conservative that we love to draft up and beat the snot out of online, I suppose they are easier to find because of how they cloister demographically?
Speaking of which, I've been watching your encounters with Brad on Facebook with a sort of morbid fascination. He seems to be trying very hard to check all the boxes on the "crazy conservative strawman" list.
dogbreath ur posts are to long and full of bullshit.
About time someone said it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: Eh, I couldn't get past "if there’s one thing the Left cannot tolerate today, it’s other people’s liberty."
I'd recommend finishing it if you can. He makes some pretty astute observations. I wish more people knew the history of labor in this country.
On our way back from Texas, Katherine and I drove by Trinidad Colorado, not even realizing it was the site of the Ludlow Massacre.
That was a watershed moment in labor relations, and as much as I love learning about unionization and how they operated here in the US, I didn't know so much of that incident.
Read Killing For Coal, great book on Ludlow by a really good historian.
He has an...okay grasp on labor history. He left out the part where the folks he supports spent 60 years gutting organized labor. We're the least organized first world nation and ALL our workers suffer for it. Every year the people he votes for trod out the same tired lines about how unions are destroying America. And they've dismantled almost all the protections for labor that the original labor movement fought and died for. Labor doesnt just drive up benefits for themselves, countries with unions usually find conditions for all workers are better thanks to the unions. There's a positive splash damage effect.
Progressivism meant a lot of different things in the 20s than it meant today. It was linked with things like helping the poor and workers, but it was also linked with a strong sense of moral policing. Henry Ford paid high wages but you had to agree to let the morality police literally come into your home, judge you, and tell you everything you were doing wrong with your life. He was also intensely, violently anti-Union. If you want a real progressive role model ( other than Teddy Roosevelt ) look to Upton Sinclair, America's most under appreciated progressive.
I feel like he does this a lot. He knows just enough about history to get the surface issues right, but generally doesn't hav a good grasp on what's happening underneath. He's drawing many of the wrong conclusions from half understood historical precedents.
Though I think his remedies at the end are mostly right, I'd love to meet his straw man liberal. I've yet to see him describe a liberal that I've actually met in real life.
Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, was required reading in my 11th grade US history class. Thanks for the book recommendation.
I too think Mr. Card does not really grasp why unions are still needed, granted today people are not murdered for striking or protesting, but IMHO businesses are simply amoral, and unions require them to grudgingly consider the needs of their workers instead of ignoring or discounting them. Sure some companies figure it out without being forced to, but the too many business decisions are made because the shareholders wants a return, without ever thinking, "Will our workers go for that?"
Did you know that Sinclair originally wrote The Jungle not as a story about food safety but about difficulties in labor organizing? That's since been obscured in the historical record.
Business has managed to convince people that they should be grateful for any job at all. A century ago they couldn't really threaten to move a job to China. Globalization has empowered owners at the expense of workers. But just in time production and tight supply chains should have empowered workers. A strike is arguably more devastating than it used to be becuase most workers are less replaceable than they used to be. Most jobs now require at least some training that can take weeks or months . But thus far most workers have been unable to leverage that advantage to do historically low unionization rates.
I'm technically white collar I suppose, and hopefully very white collar in the near future. But our wages are pushed up along with our benefits because the UAW sets a baseline that corporate has to meet or beat for the office workers. That spills down to our hundreds of suppliers as well. And ripples out to other industries.
We need organized labor now more than ever.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote: That’s because the difference between “attentive, loving courtship” and “stalking” is whether the identical behavior is being perpetrated by a male deemed to be “attractive” or a male judged as “no way ever, death before disgust.”
Statements like these really drive me nuts.
Then again, some people like Twilight, and others think it's horrible, because actually, they don't exempt sparkly vampires from horrible behavior.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
To be honest, I read that as more of a sarcastic jab at the often troubling or downright creepy and controlling male love interests in YA novels aimed at girls rather than "being a stalker is OK if you're hot."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
"Stalker" is probably too strong.
But I actually do think the level of a man's (or woman's) attractiveness affects whether we label something "cute" or "creepy."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
To an extent there is something unfair in this-I agree that depending on the charisma and attractiveness of the pursuer, they might be either a stalker or a courter. On the other hand, though, shouldn't the decision as to whether or not romantic attentions are welcome be up to the person receiving them anyway? File this under the umbrella of 'attractive people have an advantage', other things being equal.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: If I had to think of the most ridiculously stereotypable general kind of strawman conservative that we love to draft up and beat the snot out of online, I suppose they are easier to find because of how they cloister demographically?
Speaking of which, I've been watching your encounters with Brad on Facebook with a sort of morbid fascination. He seems to be trying very hard to check all the boxes on the "crazy conservative strawman" list.
dogbreath ur posts are to long and full of bullshit.
About time someone said it.
like honestly seriously though I like to think I hit all the bingo checkmarks in that particular conversation. the end result was just surreal in its perfection. they all but just completely defaulted to saying essentially "you am use too many fancy-pancy pinko commie words, me am not read ur posts no more" as a final defense
it's like
okay
that's great
thanks
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: To an extent there is something unfair in this-I agree that depending on the charisma and attractiveness of the pursuer, they might be either a stalker or a courter. On the other hand, though, shouldn't the decision as to whether or not romantic attentions are welcome be up to the person receiving them anyway? File this under the umbrella of 'attractive people have an advantage', other things being equal.
Have you ever actually seen this, though? I mean in real life, not in movies.
- Keep in mind the scenario here - boy (or 90+ year old creepy sparkle vampire dude who just happens to look like a boy) is interested in girl, girl may or may not be interested but hasn't reciprocated yet, boy goes through increasingly obsessive and grandiose displays of affection until he wins girl's heart. (Maybe starting with the more innocuous stuff like buying her flowers or making her a mix CD before elevating to lurking outside her bedroom, that sort of thing) Clearly this example doesn't really apply to people already in established relationships, unless it would somehow be stalkerish for an unattractive person in a relationship to do it. -
Because I can't off the top of my head think of a time when I've seen it happen successfully in real life. Which isn't to say it doesn't happen, of course. But it seems that in all the cases I've seen, being respectful of the other person's choice and understanding boundaries seems to be the usual story, with the guys who go for grandiose gestures and/or can't seem to understand "no" (or even "I'm not sure, give me some space") are labeled as stalkery or creepy not because they're unattractive, but are rather considered unattractive because of their actions.
And of course, going back to the high school analogy (am I the only one who didn't really see the point of relationships in high school? I didn't even go to my own prom) from OSC's post, an unpopular, unattractive, uncharismatic guy (a "dork" if you will) will probably be subjected to much more open ridicule and disdain than an attractive, popular guy (whose buddies might even encourage his behavior, bro culture and all that), but I don't know if it means his target will find his behavior less unsettling because of it. (though she may be pressured into pretending she's flattered or not complaining about it)
Or maybe it does work that way. I don't know - it's been close to a decade since I was in high school, and even when I was in it I tended to avoid situations like that. Also, we had 0 vampires at our school. What I do know is, given some personal experiences I've had with abusive and mentally unstable people, even if it was someone I found devastatingly attractive (let's say Scarlet Johansson)... if I told her no or that I didn't want to see her and, rather than leaving me alone, she sent me lots of presents and notes and started following me around and then showed up outside my window at night after I moved across the country I wouldn't be thinking "awww, how sweet" I would be thinking "ohmygod, she's going to skin me and wear me like a suit. nononononono, oh god, please don't cut my face off Scarlet!"
YMMV.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: If I had to think of the most ridiculously stereotypable general kind of strawman conservative that we love to draft up and beat the snot out of online, I suppose they are easier to find because of how they cloister demographically?
Speaking of which, I've been watching your encounters with Brad on Facebook with a sort of morbid fascination. He seems to be trying very hard to check all the boxes on the "crazy conservative strawman" list.
dogbreath ur posts are to long and full of bullshit.
About time someone said it.
like honestly seriously though I like to think I hit all the bingo checkmarks in that particular conversation. the end result was just surreal in its perfection. they all but just completely defaulted to saying essentially "you am use too many fancy-pancy pinko commie words, me am not read ur posts no more" as a final defense
it's like
okay
that's great
thanks
He sure told you.
What amazed me is his buddy actually straight up told me "yeah, I know I'm being a racist asshole, I just don't care." (with worse grammar) Like, he literally doesn't care about being right or justified in his actions or even having a coherent worldview, he just blithely dismisses anything - up to and including literal, non-disputable, easily verified facts - that doesn't give with his narrative.
Which kind of explains why Ben Carson is so popular with these folks, actually. It takes a special sort of person to just make shit up out of thin air and then accuse anyone asking even basic factual questions of a "liberal media witch hunt."
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Uh. I don't know the context about this particular conversation, but for the record I was just kidding about concurring with Sam's assessment of DB's posts.
Well, half joking.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
WHICH HALF OF YOU WAS JOKING
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
either he half was kidding about concurring with a full assessment of DB's full posts or he was full kidding about half of sam's assessment of DB's full posts or full kidding about full sam's assessment of DB's half posts or a quarter kidding about half and full or full and half but with a half repeating end-in on either side, or full on half, but not half on half on full or half on full on half, because that's a quarter.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I was kidding about agreeing with the bullshit half.
The other half was true, your posts are too long.
I'm just saying what we're all thinking.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
GaalDornick: Making Hatrack Great Again.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
lol
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: I was kidding about agreeing with the bullshit half.
The other half was true, your posts are too long.
I'm just saying what we're all thinking.
My posts are neither short nor long. They're exactly the size I intend them to
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
*be.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: If I had to think of the most ridiculously stereotypable general kind of strawman conservative that we love to draft up and beat the snot out of online, I suppose they are easier to find because of how they cloister demographically?
Speaking of which, I've been watching your encounters with Brad on Facebook with a sort of morbid fascination. He seems to be trying very hard to check all the boxes on the "crazy conservative strawman" list.
dogbreath ur posts are to long and full of bullshit.
About time someone said it.
like honestly seriously though I like to think I hit all the bingo checkmarks in that particular conversation. the end result was just surreal in its perfection. they all but just completely defaulted to saying essentially "you am use too many fancy-pancy pinko commie words, me am not read ur posts no more" as a final defense
it's like
okay
that's great
thanks
He sure told you.
What amazed me is his buddy actually straight up told me "yeah, I know I'm being a racist asshole, I just don't care." (with worse grammar) Like, he literally doesn't care about being right or justified in his actions or even having a coherent worldview, he just blithely dismisses anything - up to and including literal, non-disputable, easily verified facts - that doesn't give with his narrative.
Which kind of explains why Ben Carson is so popular with these folks, actually. It takes a special sort of person to just make shit up out of thin air and then accuse anyone asking even basic factual questions of a "liberal media witch hunt."
I remember reading the /r/russia subreddit and there was a thread about why is Russia so homophobic and most of the replies were some variation of "You wouldn't think it normal to see a BDSM couple spanking each other in the street right?" or "We just aren't infected by PC bullshit."
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
quote:My posts are neither short nor long. They're exactly the size I intend them to
quote:*be
[dies and is ded]
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: [qb]If I had to think of the most ridiculously stereotypable general kind of strawman conservative that we love to draft up and beat the snot out of online, I suppose they are easier to find because of how they cloister demographically?
Speaking of which, I've been watching your encounters with Brad on Facebook with a sort of morbid fascination. He seems to be trying very hard to check all the boxes on the "crazy conservative strawman" list.
dogbreath ur posts are to long and full of bullshit.
About time someone said it.
like honestly seriously though I like to think I hit all the bingo checkmarks in that particular conversation. the end result was just surreal in its perfection. they all but just completely defaulted to saying essentially "you am use too many fancy-pancy pinko commie words, me am not read ur posts no more" as a final defense
it's like
okay
that's great
thanks
He sure told you.
What amazed me is his buddy actually straight up told me "yeah, I know I'm being a racist asshole, I just don't care." (with worse grammar) Like, he literally doesn't care about being right or justified in his actions or even having a coherent worldview, he just blithely dismisses anything - up to and including literal, non-disputable, easily verified facts - that doesn't give with his narrative.
Which kind of explains why Ben Carson is so popular with these folks, actually. It takes a special sort of person to just make shit up out of thin air and then accuse anyone asking even basic factual questions of a "liberal media witch hunt."
I remember reading the /r/russia subreddit and there was a thread about why is Russia so homophobic and most of the replies were some variation of "You wouldn't think it normal to see a BDSM couple spanking each other in the street right?" or "We just aren't infected by PC bullshit."
Wait, what?
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: I remember reading the /r/russia subreddit and there was a thread about why is Russia so homophobic and most of the replies were some variation of "You wouldn't think it normal to see a BDSM couple spanking each other in the street right?" or "We just aren't infected by PC bullshit."
Tell them to come to Florida. I see crazy stuff every day. I think it's the bath salts.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer:
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: I remember reading the /r/russia subreddit and there was a thread about why is Russia so homophobic and most of the replies were some variation of "You wouldn't think it normal to see a BDSM couple spanking each other in the street right?" or "We just aren't infected by PC bullshit."
Tell them to come to Florida. I see crazy stuff every day. I think it's the bath salts.
Ask people about themselves, and they will tell you how they wish to be seen.
Yes, in my experience (and I have a lot of experience here), Russians like to be seen as pragmatic, rather than knee-jerk conservative when it comes to what they see as moral, social issues.
In fact, they are mostly infected by a deep fear of not fitting in and being victimized, and a powerful culture of conformity where power is respected, and nonconformity or individuality is deemed a weakness.
This is why essentially all resistance to the Kremlin is inevitably charged with some form of moral failing (sexual perversion, nazism, etc), and all "abnormalities," or deviations from the mainstream are in turn conflated with resistance to proper authority.
Russians are taught that they live in a world of choices- that the strong choose who and what to be, and if they are not strong, or not normal, then it is because of the weakness of their own personal character. It's quite a stunning denial of more relativist western theories, and it's startling if you aren't familiar with its basis in history.
For half a century, being outside the mainstream in Russia and the Russosphere meant being out of society entirely- maybe even dead. For decades, this was a nation that ruthlessly hunted and destroyed the parts of itself that were capable of self-reflection. Nothing could hold a mirror to the communist reality- nothing was allowed to.
And from the perspective of someone married to an ethnic Russian born in that world, I can say this: to many Russians, difference is weakness. Being unusual is dangerous, and thinking unorthodox thoughts is irresponsible. To many Russians, if you aren't toeing the line, you are being reckless with the future of your family.
For a people who emerged from feudalism essentially several centuries behind the west, we do tend to try and treat Russians as if they have our same social history, when they really, really don't.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
when last significantly polled about the issue somewhere between 33 to 37 percent of Russians stated their belief that homosexuals should be eliminated. Not just imprisoned or deported, but flat-out executed.
add to that the percentage of Russians who merely wanted the homosexuals to be imprisoned and it pushes the number of Russians who even permit homosexuals to live without their being homosexual explicitly being a punishable crime into minority status.
If this information is accurate, Russia is Uganda level bad about homosexuality. It's brutal. And the Kremlin exploits it wholesale to keep the citizenry aligned in the correct way.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by NobleHunter:
quote:My posts are neither short nor long. They're exactly the size I intend them to
quote:*be
[dies and is ded]
lol
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Please take note that there is a serious movement to bar anyone who does not affirm their faith in "Climate Change" (i.e., human-caused global warming) from the Paris conference on climate.
In other words, before deciding what actions should be taken by governments around the world, anybody who challenges the scientific basis of climate change activism must be shut out of the conversation. So the decisions are to be made before the process of decision-making begins.
This is, on its face, a complete confession that there is no science supporting the climate-change radicals. Science never seeks to shut out questioning or contrary voices.
And since there is no evidence whatsoever supporting the claim that changes in global temperature are causally linked with humans' carbon emissions, and not one prediction made by the climate-change radicals has ever come true, it is the climate-change lobby that needs to prove that they represent science in any way, while the skeptics about climate change are the only people in the conversation who are acting like scientists.
What's his likely source for this
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I... honestly don't understand where his beliefs as far as global warming come from. They seem so far out of right field and bizarre. I could be wrong, but I don't think he *has* ever named a source, just one day he started saying "yeah, that thing that virtually all scientists agree on is just a giant conspiracy" and just sort of kept with it without ever bothering with a source or a reason why he thinks it's all made up. It's baffling, honestly.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, it combines several of what can be termed his hates: liberals, democrats, and academics. With the way his brain as seen in his writing seems to work on politics now, it was almost a given that he would say this sort of thing.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah but he's all like "please note the existence of this SERIOUS MOVEMENT"
What
Where
Where is this thing he is talking about
What are the details
Where are the deets
What is his source
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
I'm sure it will come as a suprise to many scientist that they're required to listen to the "contrary" and "questioning" ranting of the tin foil hat brigade.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Its so baffling as a Science fiction writer he should be better informed than most Republicans but I'm *SURE* he's acknowledged climate change in his works.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: Its so baffling as a Science fiction writer he should be better informed than most Republicans but I'm *SURE* he's acknowledged climate change in his works.
You may be thinking of the gaiaology in Xenocide/Children of the Mind, where it's revealed that the Descolada is manipulating the plant/animal balance of Lusitania to control the climate.
Or maybe Pastwatch, where an unspecified ecological catastrophe has basically doomed the future of humanity on Earth. Although the disaster is anthropogenic in this book, I don't think it's ever said to be global warming.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Yeah but he's all like "please note the existence of this SERIOUS MOVEMENT"
What
Where
Where is this thing he is talking about
What are the details
Where are the deets
What is his source
My take: I don't think that's how OSC's mind (which, as I've stated before, is full of angry bees) works.
"Climate Change isn't real." is, I think, the belief of his that rests most completely on his hatred of groups of people. I don't believe he has any other reason for his other than that he hates the people who are pushing for it to be addressed.
He hates those groups in large part because he sees them as arrogant, elitists who think they know better than everyone else and who purposely ignore and belittle anyone who disagrees with them.
So you get a compact little circle where he hates them because they do this and he knows that they do this because he hates them. He knows better than anyone else and doesn't need to consider people's opinions who disagree with him, as they are mostly just sheep, arrogant fools, or actively evil.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
man but i could be almost totally positive that somewhere there are articles or series of articles from a handful of sources which collectively define and present the case he believes is the reality of the worldwide mass global warming false-flag conspiracy
i just want to know what it is, honestly.
quote:You may be thinking of the gaiaology in Xenocide/Children of the Mind, where it's revealed that the Descolada is manipulating the plant/animal balance of Lusitania to control the climate.
TEACH THE CONTROVERSY
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
So I guess Orson Scott Card can't get through a pretty simple task like writing an article about that Trump is writhing garbage without being a writhing piece of garbage himself
quote:These voters are keenly aware that the Constitution is no longer amended through constitutional processes. Instead, appointed judges now invent "constitutional" rights out of nothing but the latest fads of inconsistent, incoherent, and often unjust and inhumane "progressive" ideology.
The Equal Rights Amendment was rejected, so the Left abandoned the constitutional amendment process -- and now, when judges decide that the Constitution requires that women must tolerate the presence in public restrooms of any man who decides to put on a dress, anyone who thinks this has nothing to do with the Constitution, and is dangerous to women, is declared to be a bigot who should be fired from his job and permanently silenced.
Thanks for outing yourself as a transphobic bigot to add to your retinue of already-established homophobic bigotry. was very nice of you.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Edit: Also you are welcome to say that Mr. Card's words express transphobic and bigoted characteristics, but you cannot call him one. Please amend your words.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Do you expect in any real way that Orson Scott Card would try to play off that quote as not being anti-trans and claim it was solely about a bad-faith abuse of laws that let trans people not be forced to use the bathroom of an assigned-at-birth gender?
I mean it would be impressively mendacious if he did and I could outline all the problems with it if he did, but ...
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
I wouldn't expect Mr. Card to play anything off in what he writes. He's a very sincere person. He might possibly admit that he was angry when he wrote it, or that he was wrong, but I don't really have a clue as to what his intentions or thoughts were at the time he wrote this words.
Were I to guess I think he would very much look at the link I posted as an example of people assuming rights that the Constitution does not grant them.
But who cares what his motives are? Why don't we just stick to whether his arguments are salient or not. Many of them are not IMHO. Many of them are.
Are there instances where any man can put on a dress and walk into the women's restroom in a public place? Yes. Are they prevalent enough to demonstrate a real problem? I don't think so, not yet. Could it be a problem on paper, yes IMHO.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I agree a concern with motives should not be so important. I admit to feeling quite strangled by the irony, though.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
*nod*
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:put on a dress and walk into the women's restroom in a public place?
Actually, to me this raises the question of why we have gendered restrooms in the first place. Put everyone in stalls and there's sufficient privacy; cooties are not, actually, a thing. What exactly is the reason for this custom?
I further opine that a rapist in a dress can likely walk into a women's bathroom without consequence anyway; few people really look at strangers, and who's going to be the one to say "Excuse me, are you a woman?" The consequences would come if he actually raped someone; and at that point, of course, being in the wrong bathroom is not a very interesting crime. I think this is basically a made-up rationale for a basic discomfort with Weird Men Who Wear Dresses, rather than a serious worry.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Are you really unaware of why the custom exists? I agree ungendered and private stalls are the right solution. Just expensive to overhaul existing facilities.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Somewhat off topic, and not what I think KoM was asking (which I read as "what's the point of still having gender segregated bathrooms?"), but it's actually an interesting question. Where did the tradition of gender separated bathrooms come from?
Everything I kind find on the subject suggests it was a product of the Victorian era and their rather ridiculous standards of modesty. Apparently after indoor toilets became widespread there was a lot of concern about women and men using the same facilities (of the "proper ladies don't poop!" sort) so they started making separate Men's and Women's bathrooms.
I do find a lot of the fear mongering and hysteria of the "we have to protect our womenfolk!" sort with the "men in dresses" thing to be kind of ridiculous. I mean, to date there have been exactly 0 cases of men pretending to be trans* assaulting women in bathrooms, so right now it's an entirely hypothetical fear.
And the fact that it's a nonexistent threat sort of shows the real motivations for passing these laws. If it was really about protecting women, or rather, if discrimination againsts trans* people was an acceptable cost of "protecting women", you would first have to show there is an actual problem of predators pretending to be trans* assaulting women in bathrooms. It has, so far, never happened. (And as KoM said, if hypothetically some dude wants to wear a dress and rape someone, a law stating he can't use a woman's bathroom isn't much of a deterrent when he's already planning on committing a much bigger crime)
So I treat people who claim laws like that are "really about protecting women" with about as much credulity as I treat people who claim anti SSM laws are "really about keeping the gays from forcing their lifestyle of me" which is to say, not much.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
If you want to protect women from being assaulted, one of the biggest bang-for-your-buck moves for university grounds, stadiums, malls, or other public facilities is to ensure adequate lighting at night and minimize concealment areas, such as shrubberies.
There are far, far, far more than exactly 0 cases (and very well documented in court transcripts, too) of men assaulting women in poorly lit or designed public spaces that are decidedly not bathrooms.
Fear being hit by a car if you are crossing a busy street. Don't fear being hit by a meteorite.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: I wouldn't expect Mr. Card to play anything off in what he writes. He's a very sincere person.
He still sincerely objects to being considered bigoted against gays, though, right?
And otherwise, I mean, for a guy who is apparently super sincere and doesn't play anything off in what he writes, he still did write articles in which he definitely did not directly say a pledge to destroy government if it permits gays to marry, and where he only 'jokingly' stated Obama was a dictator who would eventually make his wife his chosen successor and also create a private political army staffed by inner-city gang members. He's very sincere in all his convenient indirectness. So I guess let's give him the benefit of the doubt about his stance on transsexual rights. .... right?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Are you really unaware of why the custom exists?
In detail, yes. I understand how a defender of the custom would structure his argument, basically "something something separate non-married opposite genders when they are going to be naked ew yuck icky". But that doesn't seem like it ought to overcome the obvious counterargument 'stalls', especially since if you don't already have the custom there's no ew-yuck-icky factor, so there's some detail to be filled in of how the custom arose in the first place. I put up an AskHistorians thread, because I'm kind of curious now.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by CT: If you want to protect women from being assaulted, one of the biggest bang-for-your-buck moves for university grounds, stadiums, malls, or other public facilities is to ensure adequate lighting at night and minimize concealment areas, such as shrubberies.
There are far, far, far more than exactly 0 cases (and very well documented in court transcripts, too) of men assaulting women in poorly lit or designed public spaces that are decidedly not bathrooms.
Fear being hit by a car if you are crossing a busy street. Don't fear being hit by a meteorite.
Well, yes, but assault-rape by a stranger is also somewhat in the meteorite class among rapes. Date rape by someone the victim knows, or is at least friend-of-a-friends with, is much more common. Also, admittedly, much harder to come up with sensible just-use-some-money interventions against.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Though there is the benefit of 'measures to protect against bathroom faux-transvestite rapists' doesn't have a lot of crossover effectiveness. Whereas well-lit frequently used public spaces does.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Well, yes, but assault-rape ...
Just to be clear, I used the term "assaulted" -- not "raped" or "assault-raped" -- intentionally.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
As if there are not people who abuse and molest kids in all kinds of systems, but no, let's find an excuse to torment trans people who get beat up on regular basis just trying to go to the bathroom.
Folks ought to learn more about trans people before saying such ridiculous things.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: I wouldn't expect Mr. Card to play anything off in what he writes. He's a very sincere person.
He still sincerely objects to being considered bigoted against gays, though, right?
And otherwise, I mean, for a guy who is apparently super sincere and doesn't play anything off in what he writes, he still did write articles in which he definitely did not directly say a pledge to destroy government if it permits gays to marry, and where he only 'jokingly' stated Obama was a dictator who would eventually make his wife his chosen successor and also create a private political army staffed by inner-city gang members. He's very sincere in all his convenient indirectness. So I guess let's give him the benefit of the doubt about his stance on transsexual rights. .... right?
The fact he uses satire, and speaks to his audience doesn't mean he says things and plays them off. There's a difference between saying, "Obama is going to use inner-city gang members" with a precluding comment saying it's tongue in cheek, and saying something offensive and when being taken to task for it saying, "It was meant *this* way."
[ March 12, 2016, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
no, the fact that he says things and then plays them off means that he says things and plays them off.
we all remember how he played off what his statements 'should' be taken as from 'the hypocrites of homosexuality' when he dug in for several go-arounds about that point
it is from his wide body of words and actions like that — a history that makes it nearly impossible to give him the benefit of the doubt, honestly — that we come to that he will have to state clearly that he's in favor of trans bathroom rights before we can entertain the notion that his words were only incidentally critical in a way which is typically anti-trans
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I don't think that piece could rightly be called satire. If anything, it's pretty much the opposite of satire, since he seems to be not criticizing the people who make such arguments but rather covertly making such an argument himself with "it's just a joke/thought experiment" as plausible deniability.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Not all that plausible.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
"plausible" is an interesting word to associate with this. From that piece:
quote:<snip description of absurd, racist paranoid fantasy>
Will these things happen? Of course not. This was an experiment in fictional thinking.
But it sure sounds plausible, doesn't it? Because, like a good fiction writer, I made sure this scenario fit the facts we already have -- the way Obama already acts, the way his supporters act, and the way dictators have come to power in republics in the past.
The thing is, no, it doesn't sound plausible, at all. It sounds insane and racist. But I imagine if I hated President Obama beyond all reason and was at least a casual racist, maybe it would seem plausible.
Posted by zlogdan (Member # 13358) on :
That is one of the ways the left has to debunk arguments against them. If you dislike Obama, you are racist, if you make objections against gay marriage you are homophobic ( on the other hand when someone attack religious people or religion the terms are rather "smart" and "courageous" ).
Please, OSC is human ( well it is obvious right but for the sake of my argumentation I need to say it )so he has times when he loses his temper.
OSC has never advocated hatred against gay people. He has different opinions on the matter. Tell me how someone that hates gay people can be a huge admirer of Cole Porter or Arthur C Clarke ?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Not all that plausible.
Well, plausible to his defenders, anyway.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If you're going to condemn the hypocrisy of the left for putting words into the mouths of their opponents...well, it might behoove you not to do exactly that with a post directly above yours.
Mr. Squicky, for example, did not say, "OSC doesn't like Obama, therefore he is a racist." Nothing close to that in fact. What he said was...well, it's right there. He referred to an actual statement the man made in which he expressed as a 'plausible' outlier political scenario that could have been lifted line for line from a race war conspiracy theory. Which actually *is*, in fact, a race war conspiracy theory.
As for accusations of homophobia...well, Card lost any credibility on that score awhile ago too. Even if he could be pinned down to any statement he actually made-he has discounted his own remarks in the past as being 'just a theoretical fantasy' sort of thing or 'I was speaking to my audience' when he said jailing some homosexuals might be needed.
Then when you get to the parts where homosexuals are just playing house, when they're not real families, when homosexuals and their allies hate America...yeah. You'll get called homophobic. And it'll go well past the idea of being homophobic just because you want SSM to remain illegal.* Even though there's a case to be made for that, too.
*Ha. My bad! 'To have remained illegal.'
Posted by zlogdan (Member # 13358) on :
I was not "putting words on anyone's else mouths", I was rather trying to point that it has become a common practice to twist conservative arguments in order to give them negative connotations as if it had become true that left means good when we know that is not the case.
And I was not replying to the post above me, I was merely commenting on the topic. The accusations made against OSC are exaggerated and used against him in order to support a liberal agenda.
His statements against gay marriage or Obama, not those that came when he was in a bad mood, they do not implicate hatred, despite of what has been said. However he is entitled to have an opinion that marriage between a woman and a man are the basis of modern society and well that Obama is not a good president.
And please let me just remind you that being gay does not sanctify a person in the same way that being a South American ( with African blood ) born in Brazil does not make me angelical.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by zlogdan: And please let me just remind you that being gay does not sanctify a person in the same way that being a South American ( with African blood ) born in Brazil does not make me angelical.
Of course not. But being a human should grant both of you equal rights in the eye of the law.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by zlogdan: Tell me how someone that hates gay people can be a huge admirer of Cole Porter or Arthur C Clarke ?
I am absolutely positive that there are plenty of homophobic people out there that love Queen's music. I know a guy that is a flaming racist but calls Gary Clarke Jr. his favorite guitarist. Sorry but that's just not a valid argument.
Posted by zlogdan (Member # 13358) on :
I am sorry "knowing a racist guy" and "being certain that" does not count as a valid argument.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Pretend for a moment you are like me and you are gay or bi.
Now read the stuff he says about gay people and tell me that's not a kick in the stomach. It's certainly not a loving and welcoming attitude.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
From Mr. Card,
quote:Leftists, like the perfect mindless conformists that they are, will reply, "Look at the condition Bush left us in, with quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan!" They can say this because they believe their own propaganda -- they called Iraq and Afghanistan "quagmires" before we even invaded them. But the fact is that by the time he left the White House, President George W. Bush had followed the counsel of the wisest military leaders and we were well on the road to long-term victory, including nation-building, in Iraq and Afghanistan.
They were called quagmires because in many people's estimations they were. I've never read anything that suggested that Iraq was ever well on the way to long-term nation-building for either of those two nations.
quote:No, the mess came about because Obama announced a deadline for withdrawal from both countries, which instantly made America irrelevant in both countries, no matter how many troops remained. Obama created ISIS by the premature withdrawal of a very effective occupation force long before the faction-riven Iraqi military could create itself as an effective, unified army.
Mr. Card has said this several times, and I'm honestly confused. From what I understand, President Bush in 2007 agreed to the withdrawal time tables in Iraq. Iraqi leaders would only consider extending those withdrawal time tables if the US agreed to allow Iraqi judicial courts to try US soldiers and contractors for crimes. A non-starter condition. Iraqi politicians knew this, and insisted on it because their bosses in Iran wanted it.
President Obama stuck to his predecessors timeline rather than undermine Iraq's sovereignty by ignoring the timelines.
Or am I missing something in the history?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I am sorry "knowing a racist guy" and "being certain that" does not count as a valid argument.
Are you suggesting that racists cannot enjoy basketball or football, since the greatest players of each are often black?
Posted by zlogdan (Member # 13358) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I am sorry "knowing a racist guy" and "being certain that" does not count as a valid argument.
Are you suggesting that racists cannot enjoy basketball or football, since the greatest players of each are often black?
No. I am just saying you need factual evidence instead of nebulous quoting certain vague evidence.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
zlogdan, I recommend that you look into what black authors of horror have said about their views on HP Lovecraft.
ETA: NB, the art is not the artist.
[ March 17, 2016, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: NobleHunter ]
Posted by zlogdan (Member # 13358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Pretend for a moment you are like me and you are gay or bi.
Now read the stuff he says about gay people and tell me that's not a kick in the stomach. It's certainly not a loving and welcoming attitude.
I will take a look again at all the statements made by OSC. Still, OSC opinions are just similar to the ones late and legendary Brazilian Fashion designer and politician Clodovil Hernandes had about gay marriage. Clodovil was the first openly gay congressman in Brazil.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by zlogdan:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I am sorry "knowing a racist guy" and "being certain that" does not count as a valid argument.
Are you suggesting that racists cannot enjoy basketball or football, since the greatest players of each are often black?
No. I am just saying you need factual evidence instead of nebulous quoting certain vague evidence.
When you're given factual evidence, from the statements OSC has made himself, it is dismissed as bad mood.
Of course you're entitled to your opinion about these issues-about Obama and minorities and homosexuals and America. That's not in dispute. But when you complain about the awful partisanship of the left, and then dismiss angry and hateful remarks Card makes as something to set aside due to a 'bad mood'?
Well then you look ridiculous, because you're being a hypocrite.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by zlogdan:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Pretend for a moment you are like me and you are gay or bi.
Now read the stuff he says about gay people and tell me that's not a kick in the stomach. It's certainly not a loving and welcoming attitude.
I will take a look again at all the statements made by OSC. Still, OSC opinions are just similar to the ones late and legendary Brazilian Fashion designer and politician Clodovil Hernandes had about gay marriage. Clodovil was the first openly gay congressman in Brazil.
Using the fact of being gay as a bona fide for an opinion being worth consideration is, well, a terrible precedent on this particular subject for your position.
Posted by zlogdan (Member # 13358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well then you look ridiculous, because you're being a hypocrite.
How virulent of you calling me ridiculous and hypocrite, this is a very mature attitude. I will boycott your books from now on ;-)
Out of curiosity, do you define your self as a liberal/leftist ?
Posted by zlogdan (Member # 13358) on :
quote:Using the fact of being gay as a bona fide for an opinion being worth consideration is, well, a terrible precedent on this particular subject for your position.
No, I was merely saying that Clodovil as a gay person was a person that had conservative views about marriage and still he did not hate gays and was proud of being gay. Bingo, bingo.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by zlogdan:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well then you look ridiculous, because you're being a hypocrite.
How virulent of you calling me ridiculous and hypocrite, this is a very mature attitude. I will boycott your books from now on ;-)
Out of curiosity, do you define your self as a liberal/leftist ?
You dismissed hateful, racist, and homophobic rhetoric Card has made as something that should be excused because he's human and humans get in bad moods sometimes. Prior to that, you lambasted the left for making character attacks and ignoring real arguments.
It does look ridiculous and hypocritical, these two sets of facts taken together. Further given the sort of aspersions you've cast yourself, it's pretty silly also to adopt a tone of grievance when you're spoken to that way.
As for the homosexual Brazilian congressman, again you are mistaking the issue. It's been clarified more than once so I'm starting to wonder if it's deliberate. I'll clarify again: people are not claiming homophobia and racism for Card because he disapproves of gay marriage and Obama. Full stop.
People are claiming those things about Card because of the ways in which he expresses that disapproval. Gays are just playing house. Homosexuals aren't real families. Liberals and gays hate America and want to destroy families. Gays should be jailed sometimes as a symbol except maybe he didn't mean it because he was speaking to his audience. Revolution would not be unjustified if gays were allowed to marry. Liberals are forcing their values on others against their will, except that polling shows a majority don't think gay marriage should be illegal anymore. Fantasies that should serve as cautionary tales about Obama that could have been pulled line for line from a race war conspiracy theory.
Card has been in a 'bad mood' for a very long time and for a variety of issues, it seems. The mere mention of Obama, liberals, or homosexuals seems to set him into a 'bad mood'. Now if you'd like me not to point out you're looking ridiculous, you're welcome to address any of those with something other than 'bad mood' and 'some homosexuals don't like gay marriage either'. The first objection is just absurd, and the second one is problematic once we set aside your cherry-picking of one of the extremely rare examples of a homosexual who shares your opinion about gay marriage.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Yeah, all of that. Most gays are FOR gay marriage but you do get a handful that are against it. But if they were calling gay people children playing house, well that is not very nice, bro. Not nice at all.
Posted by zlogdan (Member # 13358) on :
quote:You dismissed hateful, racist, and homophobic rhetoric Card has made as something that should be excused because he's human and humans get in bad moods sometimes. Prior to that, you lambasted the left for making character attacks and ignoring real arguments
I am sorry but I need to end up this conversation here as I realize it is a monumental lost of time. I see that you seem so deluded by a revolutionary liberal agenda that arguing with you will be only an exercise of rhetoric rather than a productive discussion.
Well, I have also learned a few good words in the process.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah, that went pretty much the way I figured it would. *wry laugh*
Posted by zlogdan (Member # 13358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Yeah, all of that. Most gays are FOR gay marriage but you do get a handful that are against it. But if they were calling gay people children playing house, well that is not very nice, bro. Not nice at all.
I wholeheartedly agree with you. However, as I spent the last 13 years ignoring OSC I still have lots of things to read about his opinions, I promise to get back to this because your argument to put myself in your place really was effective in terms of a counterpart.
Posted by zlogdan (Member # 13358) on :
quote:Originally posted by NobleHunter: zlogdan, I recommend that you look into what black authors of horror have said about their views on HP Lovecraft.
ETA: NB, the art is not the artist.
I have read about it. Although I have never been much of a reader of Lovecraft, he has inspired many of my favorite authors ( Tim Powers, Alan Moore, China Mieville for instance ) or even was highly regarded by literally beasts like Borges. From my part, I don't understand the hype.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by zlogdan:
quote:You dismissed hateful, racist, and homophobic rhetoric Card has made as something that should be excused because he's human and humans get in bad moods sometimes. Prior to that, you lambasted the left for making character attacks and ignoring real arguments
I am sorry but I need to end up this conversation here as I realize it is a monumental lost of time. I see that you seem so deluded by a revolutionary liberal agenda that arguing with you will be only an exercise of rhetoric rather than a productive discussion.
Well, I have also learned a few good words in the process.
The next time you whine (call it what it is) about how liberals don't address arguments, please do remember your argument-free rebuttal that was entirely devoid of actual facts or quotes this time around, please? Thanks!
Oh, and just for funsies: approval of SSM is not a 'revolutionary liberal' agenda. It's the status quo! The people actually in revolt now are the folks on your team. And it will continue to be the status quo. Never gonna change. And it'll only get worse! As more and more people realize that Card's totally not hateful rhetoric about how gays are trying to destroy families and America is, well, just flat out old scared homophobe bullshit, acceptance of homosexuality will only increase!
Just think about it. The strongest advocates of your side of the argument not only don't advance your cause anymore, they are actually some of the biggest assets to gay rights in the long run in the United States!
Of course all of that is pretty obvious whether you're in Brazil or the United States. This is really me just taunting you with predictions about the future that are already coming to pass. (Another funny note: although this is the closest of anything I've said to 'revolutionary liberal' rhetoric, even this is not at all revolutionary and only moderately liberal. Mentioning this to highlight just how out of touch views like Card's are. Which is to say, increasingly irrelevant.)
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by zlogdan:
quote:You dismissed hateful, racist, and homophobic rhetoric Card has made as something that should be excused because he's human and humans get in bad moods sometimes. Prior to that, you lambasted the left for making character attacks and ignoring real arguments
I am sorry but I need to end up this conversation here as I realize it is a monumental lost of time. I see that you seem so deluded by a revolutionary liberal agenda that arguing with you will be only an exercise of rhetoric rather than a productive discussion.
Well, I have also learned a few good words in the process.
You realize he's literally just discussing things Card actually said, right? I realize you've gone a decade and a half or so without reading any of his stuff, and now you're back and you see "hey, why are people saying this stuff about this great, thoughtful, understanding author?" and Card also encourages that sort of thinking by claiming he's a victim of a "PC Inquisition" (a phrase he coined about half a year ago, and has been using increasingly often to describe his victimhood)... well it's easy to think that maybe he's just the victim of a smear campaign.
So, as someone who has read literally everything the man has published in the past 14 years, let me say: it's not an exaggeration. He really has said all those things, and consistently and frequently enough to say he's not being taken out of context or "just in a bad mood."
Furthermore Rakeesh isn't arguing to support some "revolutionary liberal agenda" nor is he the sort of person to really get swept up in some agenda in the first place - he's often irritatingly and methodically neutral much of the time. Nobody here is trying to perpetuate some smear campaign against the guy, we're all his fans - the handful who still post on his forum - and every one of us has loved and been deeply moved by his work. Speaker for the Dead is one of the few books I reread once a year. So nobody here is gleefully clamoring to destroy his reputation or something, we're sadly acknowledging the facts. (and if you read earlier through the thread, on the occasion he does write something that shows a glimmer of the kindness and empathy he used to write with, everyone gets excited and talks about him finally coming around and so on. Which is really kind of pathetic of us but what can I say...)
Posted by zlogdan (Member # 13358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by zlogdan:
quote:You dismissed hateful, racist, and homophobic rhetoric Card has made as something that should be excused because he's human and humans get in bad moods sometimes. Prior to that, you lambasted the left for making character attacks and ignoring real arguments
I am sorry but I need to end up this conversation here as I realize it is a monumental lost of time. I see that you seem so deluded by a revolutionary liberal agenda that arguing with you will be only an exercise of rhetoric rather than a productive discussion.
Well, I have also learned a few good words in the process.
You realize he's literally just discussing things Card actually said, right? I realize you've gone a decade and a half or so without reading any of his stuff, and now you're back and you see "hey, why are people saying this stuff about this great, thoughtful, understanding author?" and Card also encourages that sort of thinking by claiming he's a victim of a "PC Inquisition" (a phrase he coined about half a year ago, and has been using increasingly often to describe his victimhood)... well it's easy to think that maybe he's just the victim of a smear campaign.
So, as someone who has read literally everything the man has published in the past 14 years, let me say: it's not an exaggeration. He really has said all those things, and consistently and frequently enough to say he's not being taken out of context or "just in a bad mood."
Furthermore Rakeesh isn't arguing to support some "revolutionary liberal agenda" nor is he the sort of person to really get swept up in some agenda in the first place - he's often irritatingly and methodically neutral much of the time. Nobody here is trying to perpetuate some smear campaign against the guy, we're all his fans - the handful who still post on his forum - and every one of us has loved and been deeply moved by his work. Speaker for the Dead is one of the few books I reread once a year. So nobody here is gleefully clamoring to destroy his reputation or something, we're sadly acknowledging the facts. (and if you read earlier through the thread, on the occasion he does write something that shows a glimmer of the kindness and empathy he used to write with, everyone gets excited and talks about him finally coming around and so on. Which is really kind of pathetic of us but what can I say...)
Let aside the fact I am not against gay marriage and surely I am not against gay couples adopting children ( Actually I was merely giving an example that one could possibly be against gay marriage and still do not hate gay people as Rakeesh relentlessly accuses OSC of being), I am really sad ( for this reason I could actually cry ) to see that even among readers of OSC the liberal agenda has made followers and proves one thing I could not accept and grasp until now: the PC agenda has become a de facto standard among youngsters and the obtuse thinking of the left with its convoluted relation with fabianism and marxism has contaminated even intelligent people like Rakeesh . I say that because I was a liberal leftist many years ago and once the left took hold of the status quo here in Brazil it did not take me too long to realize I was wrong and completely deluded.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:the PC agenda has become a de facto standard among youngsters
Oh, please don't be an idiot. You can still step back from the brink on this one.
Posted by zlogdan (Member # 13358) on :
I cannot. Can you please delete my account on this forum ? Please do not block my access by IP I still want to read what OSC writes. thanks.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Youngsters! Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Do people realize there are conservatives who believe in gay marriage? It's really not just a liberal PC hippie dippy Prius driving Berkenstock wearing hipster thing anymore.
There's religious people who agree with it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
youngsters these days really get my craw dandered with their greek yogurts and their hollywoods and their thinking that someone's a bigot because they strongly and clearly advocate bigotry for a decade and become a director of an anti-gay group Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: youngsters these days really get my craw dandered with their greek yogurts and their hollywoods and their thinking that someone's a bigot because they strongly and clearly advocate bigotry for a decade and become a director of an anti-gay group
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by zlogdan: I cannot. Can you please delete my account on this forum ? Please do not block my access by IP I still want to read what OSC writes. thanks.
Will see to it.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Well that didn't last long. Kind of wish we didn't eat our young here. :/
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I'm not really sure how it could have been handled better? I mean, I gave the guy a really warm welcome on the other side, and pretty calmly and politely affirmed that, yes, Mr. Card really said the things he said. And in response I got called a youngster who's been tainted by Marxism. (lol @ Marxism btw, is anyone a Marxist anymore?) In my case, I chose not to respond. Should I have been "well, I can totally understand your point of view. I'll try harder not to be such a dirty commie" or something? Because he was being kind of ridiculous.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Hello, I am here as a genuine person who is "curious," about OSC's point of view.
HOW DARE YOU TELL ME THE TRUTH YOU LEFTALIBAN SWINE!
DELETE MY ACCOUNT!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Well that didn't last long. Kind of wish we didn't eat our young here. :/
What, exactly, do you mean by "eat our young" in this context?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Some young deserve to be eaten
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Always going by the assumption that he's actually gone.
Anyway, I get where JB is coming from. As a thing that happens, it's regrettable. This particular instance? Nah. That guy was looking for a fight, and not even a decent one either. He wanted to preach a bit about poor, put-upon conservatives and how nasty liberals are, and that's fine. I mean it's horse puckey, but some ideas are. The part that keeps it from being regrettable is that he was completely unwilling to hear any sort of rebuttal. He pivoted to talk radio pundit talking points immediately.
So it's not a shame that this particular young...devoured himself, I guess? Since he wasn't thrown out, he left. Which incidentally ties into another discussion about tone policing that's been done over and over again, BB, but it does seem to relate so I'll just remark the following: it wasn't a shame that he left, since he never intended honest dialogue and we didn't eat our young, he stormed out in a dramatic huff and is quite possibly reading these words right now.
The truth is that with the sorts of books Card writes* now, and *especially* with his essays nowadays, Card is himself probably as much if not more of the reason there aren't really conservative voices here anymore. There's certainly an echo chamber aspect here, it's true, but what sort of new blood would be attracted if drawn by one of his essays or his Empire books?
------ DB, you're a rad dude.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Right back at ya Rakeesh.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:In the Mormon Church, there are no paid positions.
i severely doubt this
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Oh dear.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:In the Mormon Church, there are no paid positions.
The church is very secretive with how much it pays people "living expenses", but some inferences can be drawn:
quote:In 2009, the LDS Church in Canada filed the annual earnings of its employees there with the federal government. Out of 184 full time employees, the average salary was $83,000, with 2 of them earning between $80,000 and $120,000, 6 of them earning between $120,000 and $160,000, and the top 2 earning between $160,000 and $200,000. Considering that such salaries were way above the national pay average ($50,000 for business administrators in the private sector, which normally pays better than the non-profit third sector), plus taking into account the “living expenses” benefits that the Church seems to be quite liberal with (as per our earlier discoveries regarding mission presidents), it is safe to presume that the Church generally pays above-average wages with lavish benefits. It then stands to reason that Apostles may earn something between $300,000 and $800,000 a year, if not much more in the higher echelon (i.e. First Presidency and Senior Apostles).
Which seems more or less in line with what you'd expect for executives of a business the size of the LDS church. Which is fine, I mean, they probably bring enough wealth into the church to justify that amount and then some, and I have no problem with them being generously compensated for their work. The "Mormon Church has no paid positions" line, and apparent need for secrecy and obfuscation of the fact that that's pretty blatantly untrue is a little weird, though.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:According to LDS anthropologist and former Church employee Daymon Smith, the Church can invest its religious funds (i.e., money from tithes and offerings) into its own for-profit companies, circulate the monies in multiple investments and other high-yielding portfolios accruing considerable profits, and subsequently return said funds to the Church for religious use, all the while eschewing government taxes along the way because of its religiously-based tax exempt status. Furthermore, the Church can accept donations (i.e., tithes and offerings) in the form of stocks and bonds, which can be sold for profit, allowing the donors to evade federal taxes
that is a really nice racket. like that is a really, really nice racket.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I'm not really sure how it could have been handled better? I mean, I gave the guy a really warm welcome on the other side, and pretty calmly and politely affirmed that, yes, Mr. Card really said the things he said. And in response I got called a youngster who's been tainted by Marxism. (lol @ Marxism btw, is anyone a Marxist anymore?) In my case, I chose not to respond. Should I have been "well, I can totally understand your point of view. I'll try harder not to be such a dirty commie" or something? Because he was being kind of ridiculous.
I could have been clearer. I was more disappointed in the new arrival showing up with boxing gloves tied on, and then leaves all huffy.
I wasn't trying to censure anybody here, I felt mostly y'all we're responding to what they were saying, which is why I played it hands off, and let them go when they asked to leave.
edit: Hence my saying "we" eat "our" own young. I would have liked somebody to maybe tell the youngin to cool it and stick around long enough to learn something, but I'm certainly don't think anybody acted unfairly. Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Some young deserve to be eaten
Ha! True.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:In the Mormon Church, there are no paid positions.
The church is very secretive with how much it pays people "living expenses", but some inferences can be drawn:
quote:In 2009, the LDS Church in Canada filed the annual earnings of its employees there with the federal government. Out of 184 full time employees, the average salary was $83,000, with 2 of them earning between $80,000 and $120,000, 6 of them earning between $120,000 and $160,000, and the top 2 earning between $160,000 and $200,000. Considering that such salaries were way above the national pay average ($50,000 for business administrators in the private sector, which normally pays better than the non-profit third sector), plus taking into account the “living expenses” benefits that the Church seems to be quite liberal with (as per our earlier discoveries regarding mission presidents), it is safe to presume that the Church generally pays above-average wages with lavish benefits. It then stands to reason that Apostles may earn something between $300,000 and $800,000 a year, if not much more in the higher echelon (i.e. First Presidency and Senior Apostles).
Which seems more or less in line with what you'd expect for executives of a business the size of the LDS church. Which is fine, I mean, they probably bring enough wealth into the church to justify that amount and then some, and I have no problem with them being generously compensated for their work. The "Mormon Church has no paid positions" line, and apparent need for secrecy and obfuscation of the fact that that's pretty blatantly untrue is a little weird, though.
I don't believe the apostles and members of the first presidency are paid in the same way church employees are. They do not draw "salaries" but they are given generous living expense reimbursements.
I have been to one of the nicest housing complexes that general authorities are situated in within Salt Lake City. The apartments were very nice, and even luxurious to some degree but I wouldn't call them out of control expensive.
There is no way Apostles and members of the First Presidency are being paid compensation totaling $500,000 - $1,000,000 annually. If they were, they don't seem to spend their money. None of them have mansions, super nice cars, crazy nice clothes. If they were being paid those sums, I'd be furious.
edit: I will concede that the LDS church books being opaque in the US makes it impossible to give a realistic estimate as to how money is managed. But we can see church finances at work in many other countries where they are required to be transparent.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Did you read the article?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Also,
quote:If they were being paid those sums, I'd be furious.
As sort of a reversal of our usual roles here, why would that make you furious? I mean, they're the executive officers of a 15 million+ member organization with billions of dollars in revenue every year - ~$500,000 a year seems pretty reasonable to me. General Officers in the military are compensated similarly under the understanding they would probably make more as business executives. (They get about $220,000 in actual salary, but about twice that in housing allowance, per diem, and other perks)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
it would blow my mind if the top dogs of such a profitable and hierarchical enterprise were not getting at leaaaaast 400k a year each. and i mean that as a bare, bare, barest minimum appraisal.
it seems not at all surprising.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
like the only thing that will be noteworthy about this is how the church excuses a statement like "in the mormon church there are no paid positions" (in this case i am assuming that the church itself would stand behind that phrasing, but it could just be osc talking out his ass, idk)
as in like, that the statement is so clearly false on its face that it becomes interesting to wonder exactly how they pretend it is true? does it rely on semantics? on very weird financial classifications? on the idea that they think they have kept enough of their internal finances 'sacred' that you can't prove otherwise? how fascinating!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The pay, if it is that high, wouldn't be a problem for me, were I still a member. Well, not much of one.
What *would* be a problem is that a) the finances of the Church are kept secret, even from members-seriously, that will never not be problematic and a bad sign at *best*, they're supposed to be representing God's Church, literally the best institution of humanity on earth, and they feel that scrutiny and knowledge is to be avoided...why?; b) because it is often claims for the highest leaders by others how godly they are, how spiritual, how not of the world they are and so on and so forth. This is often used as the humblebrag sort of 'humility' common to many religious institutions. Meanwhile the supposed example they're supposed to be emulating was fairly emphatic on the themes of wealth and wealthy clergy and the worthiness of not being compensated for doing God's work.
Now it's quite possible that a significant or even quite large sum of a large annual 'living expense' might be given back or to other charities. But...well, how would we know?
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Did you read the article?
Yes.
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Also,
quote:If they were being paid those sums, I'd be furious.
As sort of a reversal of our usual roles here, why would that make you furious? I mean, they're the executive officers of a 15 million+ member organization with billions of dollars in revenue every year - ~$500,000 a year seems pretty reasonable to me. General Officers in the military are compensated similarly under the understanding they would probably make more as business executives. (They get about $220,000 in actual salary, but about twice that in housing allowance, per diem, and other perks)
Their executive officer roles are secondary to their roles as ordained leaders of the church by God. One of the major principles our church espouses is that the ministry are not paid so as to avoid priestcraft. I already have iffy feelings about leaders of the church writing books about the gospel that are then sold in church bookstores because I feel strongly about the gospel not costing any investigator money nor any person profiting from it directly.
If I felt my tithed funds were ending up in their personal savings accounts, I would be very upset. It is because I believe that these billions of dollars in revenue are invested in vehicles that further the mission of the church as a whole and not an individual's pocket book that I am OK with the church engaging in investment outside of what it does with tithed funds which are considered sacred and only to be used in specific charitable ways.
But neither of these sources of funds should ever be *paid* to a church leaders. To the corporations employees? Yes, they should be paid salaries. To the church officers? No, absolutely not. Nothing beyond reimbursement for living expenses. My bishop gets paid nothing for his time, neither does my stake president, or my area authority, nor the Seventy, nor the Apostle, nor the First Presidency.
Church materials are quite clear on this point.
Samprimary:
quote:it would blow my mind if the top dogs of such a profitable and hierarchical enterprise were not getting at leaaaaast 400k a year each. and i mean that as a bare, bare, barest minimum appraisal.
it seems not at all surprising.
I agree it would be very unusual. But that is exactly what I expect from the leaders of the church. They shouldn't be drawing any salaries whatsoever. I am happy to pay for their living expenses and fully understand that there is some small discretion in what that means for the individual. But I do not believe they are being paid a salary.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i am going to assume a 0.00000001% chance that tithe money is not effectively used as salary for the church's hierarchical top dogs. i guess it is a complete and practical guarantee that they will repackage or otherwise essentially internally 'launder' the tithing contributions to make the claim that tithes are not what is used
but i am still going to be very, very curious about what argument they will use for this, much like i am curious about how, specifically, they claim there are no paid positions in the church.
additionally i keep seeing it repeated in a number of places that church finances are kept 'sacred' (i.e., to be kept from the prying eyes of the unclean such as myself)
is this a literal wordery, or what? does the church actually claim that its own finances are sacred? what does that mean?
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Samprimary:
quote:additionally i keep seeing it repeated in a number of places that church finances are kept 'sacred' (i.e., to be kept from the prying eyes of the unclean such as myself)
is this a literal wordery, or what? does the church actually claim that its own finances are sacred? what does that mean?
I've literally never heard before that claim of "sacredness" made regarding the church's finances and books.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Samparimary:
quote:i am going to assume a 0.00000001% chance that tithe money is not effectively used as salary for the church's hierarchical top dogs. i guess it is a complete and practical guarantee that they will repackage or otherwise essentially internally 'launder' the tithing contributions to make the claim that tithes are not what is used
The church has absolutely used tithed funds for things such as salary for church employees, debt servicing, operation expenditures. The church even used to as part of general conference report on the church's debt situation to members as a way to shame the leadership into running a tighter ship. Starting in 1959 the church's financials stopped being made public. But they are transparent in Canada and in the UK.
But the fact remains today that nobody has managed to actually demonstrate or prove that any one church leader is being paid outside of what the church has declared it does pay; living expenses.
That they can posit all sorts of scenarios where there could be theoretical salaries paid without outside observers being the wiser doesn't prove it's own point, only give cause for concern (A concern I share), I've never heard a satisfactory explanation for why the church keeps its' books closed in the first place.
That said I don't see anybody leaking documents demonstrating financial fraud. I don't see people leaving the church over the issue. I don't see the leaders spending these millions of dollars they've allegedly paid themselves. But I do see the church spending its money on projects that provide charitable relief or a reasonable return on investment. I do see its internal auditing department affirm funds are being used correctly.
I'll reiterate that the present situation lends itself well to corruption. I haven't yet seen that corruption however. So at present I worry that it will come up, but I'm not willing to just assume it's a foregone conclusion. I believe these men are exceptionally virtuous in many respects. I am hopeful that they will continue to be so.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:I've literally never heard before that claim of "sacredness" made regarding the church's finances and books.
quote:Church members give their tithing donations to local leaders. These local leaders transmit tithing funds directly to the headquarters of the Church, where a council determines specific ways to use the sacred funds. This council is comprised of the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and the Presiding Bishopric. Acting according to revelation, they make decisions as they are directed by the Lord. (See D&C 120:1.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Actually, the fact that finances aren't secret in the UK and Canada and yet are in the United States is either very peculiar (because what benign circumstances might explain secrecy here but not elsewhere?), or disturbing.
Also, not to beat a dead horse or anything, but the defense 'I haven't seen corruption' is pretty paltry when you are kept from one of if not the biggest thing used to sniff out corruption.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:I've literally never heard before that claim of "sacredness" made regarding the church's finances and books.
quote:Church members give their tithing donations to local leaders. These local leaders transmit tithing funds directly to the headquarters of the Church, where a council determines specific ways to use the sacred funds. This council is comprised of the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and the Presiding Bishopric. Acting according to revelation, they make decisions as they are directed by the Lord. (See D&C 120:1.)
I've heard tithed funds called sacred lots of times, I can see how I might be engendering confusion.
But I've never heard of the church,
1: Referring to all funds it manages as sacred. Certainly not its investments.
2: Indicate that the attribute of sacredness requires that the finances be kept from the scrutiny of the world like other sacred things such as temple ceremonies.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Actually, the fact that finances aren't secret in the UK and Canada and yet are in the United States is either very peculiar (because what benign circumstances might explain secrecy here but not elsewhere?), or disturbing.
Also, not to beat a dead horse or anything, but the defense 'I haven't seen corruption' is pretty paltry when you are kept from one of if not the biggest thing used to sniff out corruption.
I'll concede that the secret nature of the church's books makes it harder to prove corruption. But there are plenty of corrupt organizations that have secret books and people find out about that corruption.
Anyway, I'm not defending the fact the finances are kept secret as I don't know why it is, and the church does not discuss why it does so.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Isn't most corruption discovered because either a) someone was specifically looking into that person or institution or b) in the course of ordinary financial reporting, flags were raised and then a happened?
As for the split in secrecy of finances, I wonder if a possible explanation might be that various businesses the church owns and operates are governed by American laws? Which would make secrecy convenient for a number of things. I don't mean to default to suspicion-truly, I don't-but I am drawing a total blank on why it would be important to have the finances secret here but not elsewhere. Though now that I think about it, it may not be legal in Canada and the U.K. to have such secret records.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: [Their executive officer roles are secondary to their roles as ordained leaders of the church by God. One of the major principles our church espouses is that the ministry are not paid so as to avoid priestcraft. I already have iffy feelings about leaders of the church writing books about the gospel that are then sold in church bookstores because I feel strongly about the gospel not costing any investigator money nor any person profiting from it directly.
If I felt my tithed funds were ending up in their personal savings accounts, I would be very upset. It is because I believe that these billions of dollars in revenue are invested in vehicles that further the mission of the church as a whole and not an individual's pocket book that I am OK with the church engaging in investment outside of what it does with tithed funds which are considered sacred and only to be used in specific charitable ways.
But neither of these sources of funds should ever be *paid* to a church leaders. To the corporations employees? Yes, they should be paid salaries. To the church officers? No, absolutely not. Nothing beyond reimbursement for living expenses. My bishop gets paid nothing for his time, neither does my stake president, or my area authority, nor the Seventy, nor the Apostle, nor the First Presidency.
Church materials are quite clear on this point.
Thanks for the explanation.
I'm not sure if I'm understanding, though. The link I provided shows that these people are being re-compensated very generously for their living expenses - indeed, at a much higher standard of living than most of the US lives at. (let alone the world) Look at that list.
1 Medical expenses, including dental and eye care, though not orthodontics (except in specific cases) and cosmetic surgery (unless covered by the insurance provider);
2 Rent (usually quite upscale);
3 Living expenses proper, including utilities, food, household supplies, dry cleaning, phones, internet, dry cleaning, etc.;
4 One official car, with maintenance and gas;
5 One second official car for the wife, with maintenance and gas;
6 Clothing for the mission president and his family;
9 One round trip for each unmarried child under 26 to visit the parents out in the mission field;
10 “Modest gifts (for example, Christmas, birthdays, or anniversary)”;
11 Support for children serving full-time missions;
12 Elementary and secondary school expenses (including tuition, usually in upscale private schools, including fees, books, and materials);
13 Extra-curricular activities for the children, such as music lessons, dance lessons, sports, etc.;
14 Undergraduate tuition at an accredited college or university (tuition cap at BYU’s rate, tuition waived at Church-owned schools);
15 Part-time housekeeper/cook (20 hours/week);
16 Gardener, if necessary;
17 Income Tax and Tithing exemptions.
They're getting:
Free rent in an upscale place, all living expenses paid, two cars *with gas and maintenance included*, clothing, private school tuition and university tuition, and a frigging housekeeper, cook, and gardener.
Those are all very expensive things. It is not technically a salary since it's not money they're able to save or invest, but they're at a standard of living that probably costs $200,000 a year. At least. And those are just mission presidents, not Apostles or General Authorities or what have you.
My wife and I are very fortunate and blessed to earn a low 6 figure income, and we have nowhere near that standard of living. Granted that's because we also live off of about a third of that income, but even if we spent every penny we made, we still couldn't live like that. I couldn't afford to hire a cook and a gardener, and just having 2 kids in a nice private school would just about max me out.
And again, I'm not complaining about them making that much money - I'm sure they work tirelessly to deserve it - it just seems very odd to say "yeah, we're reimbursing them for $200,000+ a year living expenses but of course they're unpaid volunteers." That seems like it's stretching the truth pretty far.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
So basically, multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars providing completely for a lavish beyond-1% upper-class lifestyle for themselves and their children, right down to cooks, housekeepers, and gardeners, and all their expenses pertaining to cars, food, clothing, medical coverage. everything.
i will again be super surprised if they aren't getting 400k worth of "living expenses" per year out of the church. Where do they live? Does chief god-conduit have a known personal residence or two?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:...chief god-conduit...
Every religions got em...however I don't recommend this label for discussions w/ religious folk not named BB
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: So basically, multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars providing completely for a lavish beyond-1% upper-class lifestyle for themselves and their children, right down to cooks, housekeepers, and gardeners, and all their expenses pertaining to cars, food, clothing, medical coverage. everything.
i will again be super surprised if they aren't getting 400k worth of "living expenses" per year out of the church. Where do they live? Does chief god-conduit have a known personal residence or two?
He gets driven around in a luxury car that costs nearly $1 million. He also has a private jet at his disposal. (He and the Apostles all share 2 Gulfstreams, which is sort of a shame. You'd think they would at least get their own personal jet as a "living expense" instead of having to share)
As far as his residence: he apparently lives in an upscale condo in SLC near where he works, with a full wait staff. Nothing too fancy in that regard.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Dogbreath: I'm fully aware that the reimbursements general authorities are a pretty sweet deal compared to how others live. It's a valid criticism in my mind.
I also saw how my mission president lived and while it was a really nice house right in the middle of Taizhong (The church bought it a long time ago), it was a fully functioning mission office. He worked easily 60 hour weeks for three years there. Missionaries were constantly staying in the home. He was a retired military chaplain, I'm sure it was a pay cut. Was there a gardener? I think so? The building had grounds and he certainly didn't have the time to trim the hedges and put flowers in.
The church offers such generous reimbursements because they want as many people as possible to be able to serve with minimal personal financial duress. There was a time in church history where men went on missions for indeterminate periods of time (Often many years) leaving behind their families to try and make due which typically meant the community stepped in to help. It was an enormous hardship in those days. The church did not have the wherewithal to help. Now it does.
President Monson was a bishop at 22, Stake President at 27, Mission President at 31, and has been an apostle since he was 36. He's 89 now. Virtually his entire adult life he has served in the church in what could be considered a full-time capacity, without sabbaticals or extensive time off. He may control the spending of hundreds of thousands of dollars, but none of it actually belongs to him. He can't leave those funds to anybody. He doesn't own the home the church has provided for him. So he has wait staff? He's 89, his wife is dead, he nearly collapsed the last time he spoke in general conference. He probably needs living assistance. I'm happy to help pay for it.
Look, if you want to look at it with a microscope, then I'm sure the way some general authorities get reimbursed is very wasteful. Some probably eat out more than others, or buy more expensive furnishings for their homes. And those are all things we all have to give an accounting for to God one day. How we utilized the resources we had access to. I mean my mom had a general authority submit a list of foods to her he *would only* eat while in Hong Kong for the temple dedication. Obviously the list was all Western foods and could be gotten inexpensively. My mom thought it was ridiculous and ignored the list. General authorities are people, and make mistakes including financial ones. But I think they try *very* hard to be good men. Being careful with money is one of those things.
But these men have also traded out (And many of them were very successful men of means before being called to be leaders) careers and no longer earn salaries. Since they cannot earn salaries that translate into money they can leave behind to their families, I am comfortable with them being well taken care of while they are alive. There aren't going to be rich Monson heirs who inherit fortunes from tithed funds or church investments.
quote:(He and the Apostles all share 2 Gulfstreams, which is sort of a shame. You'd think they would at least get their own personal jet as a "living expense" instead of having to share)
Gulfstreams that were donated to the church by rich members. And not in exchange for favors. And not because leaders of the church were out shopping for jets. Jets used for church business, not because they want to catch their tee time in Scotland.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: [QB] President Monson was a bishop at 22, Stake President at 27, Mission President at 31, and has been an apostle since he was 36. He's 89 now. Virtually his entire adult life he has served in the church in what could be considered a full-time capacity, without sabbaticals or extensive time off. He may control the spending of hundreds of thousands of dollars, but none of it actually belongs to him. He can't leave those funds to anybody. He doesn't own the home the church has provided for him. So he has wait staff? He's 89, his wife is dead, he nearly collapsed the last time he spoke in general conference. He probably needs living assistance. I'm happy to help pay for it.
I don't have a problem with the renumberation that a large organization chooses to give to its leaders. I find it laughable, however, when Mormon's denigrate other denominations for paying a salary to people who follow a similar life trajectory to what you've described here, when the salary amounts to considerably less than the "living expenses" described.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
BlackBlade:
You're being rather dogged in consistently missing the point here. As I've already emphatically stated twice, I have no problem with how much they make. Seriously, I've told you I'm fine with them being paid large sums of money for their "living expenses", I have no problem with their opulent lifestyles. Like, if right now President Monson was on his 300 foot yacht in the Bahamas snorting coke and partying with strippers, I would just say "rock on dude!" - I really don't care how much money he makes or how he chooses to spend it.
What I do have a problem with, and the point you keep missing, is that it's ridiculous, hypocritical, and, worst of all for those who tithe, deceptive to say these are "unpaid positions" when Church leaders are being compensated hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for their work. Living expenses absolutely count as payment. I happen to know this because a substantial part of my salary at a job I held was a cost of living allowance to compensate me for my high rent and utilities payments in Hawaii, and it was both advertised as part of my compensation and (regrettably) treated as such by the government when I paid taxes a few weeks ago.
It's like... ok, I volunteer at a homeless shelter occasionally. If in response to me volunteering, they started cutting me a check for my rent, it wouldn't be a volunteer position then, would it? And I don't think you could honestly call that an unpaid position at that point. And yet you seem to have no problem with saying that people who are paid enough money to maintain an incredibly high standard of living are somehow "unpaid" because they're technically not supposed to invest that money. (whether they do or not is between them and their conscience, it's not something I'm judging)
Or rather, do you consider the money you make that you spend on your rent as not being your salary? Like if you take home $5000/month and you spend every penny of it on living expenses, do you tell people you work for free?
Edit: Another way to look at it: 62% of Americans now live paycheck to paycheck - meaning they have little to no savings, and spend just as much as they make on living expenses. (quite disturbingly, some spend more than they make and are getting deeper and deeper in debt each year) Would you call all of them unpaid volunteers, since they're not able to save or invest either? And keep in mind that very few of them have cooks, housekeepers, gardeners, or kids in top-notch private schools.
[ March 26, 2016, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: Dogbreath ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
As with others, I would not have any issue with the pay (call it compensation or living expenses as you like) at all except for the context the church attempts to establish for it. That context seems to me to be one of selfless, virtuous, godly men* sacrificing and enduring for the good of their fellow man on behalf of God.
But the difficulty is that while this very well may be true, even in every case actually, where it's not true is in respect to the sorts of living expenses/compensation these men receive in return for (or so that they may continue, choose your own description). But the Church seems to invest some effort in perpetuating this story.
Where do the church leaders have to go and with what unexpected urgency do they need to travel that commercial airlines cannot get them there? Super deluxe first class, even, since hard travel can be a burden to the elderly. How much would a single flight in a lear jet run, much less keeping it in operation? If you deduct the cost of all of the first class flights that could have been taken versus the cost of acquiring and operating such an aircraft, how many hungry could have been fed even in the United States, never mind elsewhere where it's much more inexpensive to do so. How many schools could have been built, how much clean water supplied that would actually, very quickly, save lives? How many poor and needy could be helped instead of having a family have, for example, a full wait staff?
My problem with this arrangement isn't that the church leaders are paid/living expensed so well. It's in the things the church says about itself and its leaders around it, and the way they make it much more difficult if not impossible for their own members to see if they're telling the truth about themselves.
They claim to be in direct working relationships with the man who is actually God's prophet on earth. Alright. I wonder, was God whispering something about 'sell the jet, build a water treatment plant somewhere...' To me a question like that is certainly a gotcha question, but it's made a fair question by the fact of the church's use of its own missionary and charitable work for the purposes of proseltyzing and publicity.
They have invited these sorts of high standards on themselves, by making a point to claim for themselves the qualities of charity, humility, and decency.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Another way to put it: it's not a useful way to go about life, considering everyone guilty of corruption until proven innocent. However, if someone claims they are not only corrupt but are actually quite virtuous and yet they're standing next to a fortified bunker into which outsiders aren't allowed to see-or even their own members-and it is out of this bunker from which many of the good things they do come, and into which the tithes of their members to do good go...
Well. The proper response to a claim of virtue in such a case might not be doubt, but it is certainly skepticism. You should be skeptical of any claim anyone makes if they have ensured it cannot be confirmed or denied.
*Are there any positions for which the living expenses of women are paid, aside from 'married to someone who has such a position'?
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: [QB] President Monson was a bishop at 22, Stake President at 27, Mission President at 31, and has been an apostle since he was 36. He's 89 now. Virtually his entire adult life he has served in the church in what could be considered a full-time capacity, without sabbaticals or extensive time off. He may control the spending of hundreds of thousands of dollars, but none of it actually belongs to him. He can't leave those funds to anybody. He doesn't own the home the church has provided for him. So he has wait staff? He's 89, his wife is dead, he nearly collapsed the last time he spoke in general conference. He probably needs living assistance. I'm happy to help pay for it.
I don't have a problem with the renumberation that a large organization chooses to give to its leaders. I find it laughable, however, when Mormon's denigrate other denominations for paying a salary to people who follow a similar life trajectory to what you've described here, when the salary amounts to considerably less than the "living expenses" described.
And that seems reasonable to me. I hope I've never denigrated clergy members who are paid for their services. Have I?
I would point out that a living expense is still fundamentally different than a salary. Reimbursed living expenses do not incentivize one to do things with a personal monetary goal in mind. If nobody draws a salary but your living expenses are covered your decision making rubric is improved IMHO.
Of course I'm not saying that paid clergy all make decisions because of the effect on their pocketbooks.
------
Dogbreath:
quote:You're being rather dogged in consistently missing the point here. As I've already emphatically stated twice, I have no problem with how much they make. Seriously, I've told you I'm fine with them being paid large sums of money for their "living expenses", I have no problem with their opulent lifestyles. Like, if right now President Monson was on his 300 foot yacht in the Bahamas snorting coke and partying with strippers, I would just say "rock on dude!" - I really don't care how much money he makes or how he chooses to spend it.
It appears you too are doggedly missing my point then. Because I *do* care about both of those things. If I felt President Monson was purchasing things like yachts for his personal use, I *would* have a serious problem.
quote:What I do have a problem with, and the point you keep missing, is that it's ridiculous, hypocritical, and, worst of all for those who tithe, deceptive to say these are "unpaid positions" when Church leaders are being compensated hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for their work. Living expenses absolutely count as payment. I happen to know this because a substantial part of my salary at a job I held was a cost of living allowance to compensate me for my high rent and utilities payments in Hawaii, and it was both advertised as part of my compensation and (regrettably) treated as such by the government when I paid taxes a few weeks ago.
There's nothing deceptive about making the distinction. When I was a missionary I wasn't *paid*. My rent was covered by the church, but I did not get to choose my own lodgings. I was given an allowance for food and mission related materials. If I needed something (Like say a new bicycle), I made a paper request, the office approved or modified it, they gave me a set amount of funds to buy a bike, and I used the bike. When I finished my mission, the bike was returned to the mission. If I had excess funds at the end of my mission (I did) I returned those funds to the mission office.
I personally didn't get to hold onto one church dollar during my time as a missionary. Did I buy film for my camera and develop photos that I kept? Yes. Did I buy small keepsakes in Taiwan that I took home. Could we technically say I was being *paid*, just in photographs and souvenirs? I guess, but that's not how most people mean "paid". I was not being "compensated" for my time and efforts. The general authorities are not being compensated. They do not have vast sums of church dollars that they can simply spend how they wish.
quote:It's like... ok, I volunteer at a homeless shelter occasionally. If in response to me volunteering, they started cutting me a check for my rent, it wouldn't be a volunteer position then, would it?
It would (to me) if you spent all your time there and could not hold a full-time job because of the commitment you made to the place you were volunteering at.
quote: And yet you seem to have no problem with saying that people who are paid enough money to maintain an incredibly high standard of living are somehow "unpaid" because they're technically not supposed to invest that money. (whether they do or not is between them and their conscience, it's not something I'm judging)
They are not *paid* enough money to maintain a high standard of living. They aren't just handed large sums of money to spend how they wish. They certainly are not given funds to invest for themselves that they then keep the returns.
Also you are intentionally using words like "incredibly high standard of living". By American standards they live quite well. But it's not right to act like there is no discernible difference between the living standard of a millionaire and a general authority.
quote:Or rather, do you consider the money you make that you spend on your rent as not being your salary? Like if you take home $5000/month and you spend every penny of it on living expenses, do you tell people you work for free?
If you worked for a company that said, "You must live in *this* apartment, *we'll* pay the rent directly." And that was all they did for you, would you say you are being paid?
---------
Rakeesh:
quote:My problem with this arrangement isn't that the church leaders are paid/living expensed so well. It's in the things the church says about itself and its leaders around it, and the way they make it much more difficult if not impossible for their own members to see if they're telling the truth about themselves.
I've said repeatedly that is something I don't understand and feel concerned about. Being a missionary and seeing how my mission president lived does do a lot to help me see how the system works at that level, and that there is certainly reasonable to believe it is like that all the way up to the top.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
besides that the religion pretty clearly does the whole Men > Women thing*, the institution doesn't even really want women in the role of providing for their own living expenses and wants them to marry a man who will do that because that's man role. I can imagine between the two factors and how many positions in the church forbid women there's probably a substantial minority of the phat living expenses dosh alloted to women
*oh man! incendiary proclamation! but truuuuueeee Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: It appears you too are doggedly missing my point then. Because I *do* care about both of those things. If I felt President Monson was purchasing things like yachts for his personal use, I *would* have a serious problem.
I realize you care. But you're arguing to me how their large incomes are justified when I don't really think they aren't justified.
quote:It would (to me) if you spent all your time there and could not hold a full-time job because of the commitment you made to the place you were volunteering at.
lol, no, it would mean my full-time job was working there. You know, since they're paying me to do it.
quote:Also you are intentionally using words like "incredibly high standard of living". By American standards they live quite well. But it's not right to act like there is no discernible difference between the living standard of a millionaire and a general authority.
You're being absurd. I know several millionaires. Two of my uncles are millionaires, my landlords are millionaires, my mother and father in law are millionaires. (as are my FIL's parents) None of them have cooks or gardeners, only one has a housekeeper, none of them sent their kids to private schools. They're millionaires precisely because they didn't spend a lot of money for a long period of time, and were they to live the exorbitant lifestyle of a Mormon general authority, they would quickly stop being millionaires.
I would say the Church leadership has around the same lifestyle as a high 7 figure/low 8 figure millionaire. Not 9 figure yacht-buying millionaire, but they live at a higher standard of living than any millionaires I know.
quote:If you worked for a company that said, "You must live in *this* apartment, *we'll* pay the rent directly." And that was all they did for you, would you say you are being paid?
Yes! Of course I would!
I got a job offer in Kuwait where I would have been given an apartment owned by the company, and given a company car to drive, and they included the price of both in the overall compensation package. When I was in the military, when I lived in the barracks or a squadbay, the cost to the government to house me there - as well as the amount they spent for my meals at the galley, the amount they spent for my dental and medical insurance, my cost of living allowance, the amount they spent for my uniform allowance, etc. - was all factored in to my overall compensation down to the exact dollar amounts. I got sent those statements every month.
The federal government of the US very clearly considers things like a company furnishing your rent, car, food, etc. as income, as does literally every company and organization in the U.S. If they didn't, you would see companies left and right paying their employees "living expenses" less a big chunk of their salaries as a means of tax evasion. You're literally making up a definition of compensation that is apparently not used outside of the Mormon church just to try and justify the false statement of "the church doesn't have paid positions." Don't you see how ridiculous that is?
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Dogbreath:
quote:I realize you care. But you're arguing to me how their large incomes are justified when I don't really think they aren't justified.
OK.
quote:lol, no, it would mean my full-time job was working there. You know, since they're paying me to do it.
No, I'm sorry. You're not being paid. Your expenses are being paid for so you can continue to help over there. You are not being given a rent check because it has anything to do with the value of the service you are providing. You are not being compensated. You seem to be looking at this from this perspective,
"Because I have experience working for an agency where my living costs were part of my total compensation package, they are no different than the salary they paid me as part of that package. It's all dollars and cents anyway."
Is that accurate?
quote:You're literally making up a definition of compensation that is apparently not used outside of the Mormon church just to try and justify the false statement of "the church doesn't have paid positions." Don't you see how ridiculous that is?
So when I used myself as an example, are you claiming all Mormon missionaries are paid employees of the church?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:are you claiming all Mormon missionaries are paid employees of the church?
My understanding is that missionaries actually pay for their own keep.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:are you claiming all Mormon missionaries are paid employees of the church?
My understanding is that missionaries actually pay for their own keep.
Missionaries all pay a set monthly amount regardless of their cost of living. Some pay personally, others have parents that pay.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: No, I'm sorry. You're not being paid. Your expenses are being paid for so you can continue to help over there. You are not being given a rent check because it has anything to do with the value of the service you are providing. You are not being compensated.
This is blatantly incorrect. If someone is paying your rent in exchange for work you do, then you are being compensated for that work. And yes, you pay income tax on that. If you don't, you are committing tax fraud.
You are making up a definition of "compensation" that do not align with reality. Or even with the dictionary.
quote:You seem to be looking at this from this perspective,
"Because I have experience working for an agency where my living costs were part of my total compensation package, they are no different than the salary they paid me as part of that package. It's all dollars and cents anyway."
A) I never said it's no different than salary.
B) It's not just "an agency", it's literally any company or organization in the US. Because that's the law. Once again:
The federal government of the US very clearly considers things like a company furnishing your rent, car, food, etc. as income, as does literally every company and organization in the U.S. If they didn't, you would see companies left and right paying their employees "living expenses" less a big chunk of their salaries as a means of tax evasion.
quote:Is that accurate?
No.
quote:So when I used myself as an example, are you claiming all Mormon missionaries are paid employees of the church?
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Missionaries all pay a set monthly amount regardless of their cost of living. Some pay personally, others have parents that pay.
I think you answered your own question here.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Dogbreath:
quote:This is blatantly incorrect. If someone is paying your rent in exchange for work you do, then you are being compensated for that work. And yes, you pay income tax on that. If you don't, you are committing tax fraud.
You are making up a definition of "compensation" that do not align with reality. Or even with the dictionary.
I'm not sure why you are beholding me to IRS tax practices as if they were the final word on a subject when we discuss what people mean when they use words.
The general authorities live in church provided housing. The housing belongs to the church. There isn't a landlord being paid rents in many cases. It's not really much different than a parent letting their kid stay in their basement for free. The kid wouldn't be required to declare some sort of value for the rent they weren't paying as income.
quote: I never said it's no different than salary.
OK, then I'm misunderstanding you. One of the major things I am saying is that I don't believe the general authorities are or should be paid a salary.
quote:The federal government of the US very clearly considers things like a company furnishing your rent, car, food, etc. as income, as does literally every company and organization in the U.S. If they didn't, you would see companies left and right paying their employees "living expenses" less a big chunk of their salaries as a means of tax evasion.
Again I'm not sure how I got us to a discussion about what the US government considers "income". I've been trying to talk exclusively about two concepts. "Salary" and "Living Expenses."
It is important to me that the former not exist insofar as general authorities are concerned, and I do not consider the latter to be essentially the same thing as the former, which you have indicated neither do you.
quote:I think you answered your own question here.
You might reasonably think that. But you'd be wrong. The amount of money missionaries or their parents pay into the system is typically less than they take out. The church subsidizes the difference with donations to the missionary fund as well as directing money from investments into that same fund.
So a missionary may be paying $400 (The general cost) a month, but expend far more than that amount in the course of their duties. So are missionaries in effect really getting an income equal to their living costs less the $400 a month?
I don't think most people would consider that system as the missionaries having an income.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
As far as I've heard...income tax was to be a temporary war time expedient...and then...bam...government decided to keep it up...
Income tax is BAD.
Sales tax is good
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
the actual story:
the first income tax in the US was for the civil war, but it was not kept up after the war. the first income taxation used in peacetime was in 1894 as part of a thing called the Wilson-Gorman tariff.
because of various issues with income taxation re: constitutionality, the us then passed a constitutional amendment which said "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." And so, you have income taxation.
Income taxation is better than sales tax unless you like severely regressive tax schemes which put the primary burden on working class people and allow runaway wealth gains among the wealthy.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
anyway the most interesting part of the discussion thus far is that while I think none of the rest of us actually think it's unreasonable for the mormon church's head honchos to get enough dosh to live super rich, we just think it's ridiculous to pretend that they aren't effectively being paid for their positions or claim that the church has no paid positions.
additionally i mean if you compare the mormon church to the heads of various other sects i would be pretty sure that the mormon church higher ups have a downright modest lifestyle compared to the televangelist-esque largesse that so many others have taken by their leaders.
but at the same time i guess i have to remember that Mormon, Inc is huge and they are by now effectively a giant socioeconomic enterprise of significant power.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I love Hatrack...I ALWAYS learn something.
It's amazing how little I know in my thirties vs how much I thought I knew in my twenties.
Thanks all
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: 'm not sure why you are beholding me to IRS tax practices as if they were the final word on a subject when we discuss what people mean when they use words.
*blink* You don't understand why I would use the legal and dictionary definition of a word like "compensation" to discuss what people mean when they use that word? Seriously?
quote:The general authorities live in church provided housing. The housing belongs to the church. There isn't a landlord being paid rents in many cases. It's not really much different than a parent letting their kid stay in their basement for free. The kid wouldn't be required to declare some sort of value for the rent they weren't paying as income.
1) If said kid was receiving that rent-free income (along with college tuition, free plane tickets, food, a cook, gardener, housekeeper, etc...) with the explicit understanding that he's getting it in exchange for working at his parent's company, then it absolutely is income. It's compensation for work being done. If he's getting it just because his parents are willing to let him crash there, then it's obviously not.
2) The Church is not a family, nor does it constitute a family unit or a household.
3) There's a huge gap between hundreds of thousands of dollars of "living expenses" being paid for everything you could possibly think of and "crashing in your parents basement for free."
quote:OK, then I'm misunderstanding you. One of the major things I am saying is that I don't believe the general authorities are or should be paid a salary.
Nope, you don't get to move the goalposts like that. It's not a "misunderstanding", you know very well that I explicitly stated that the living expenses are not a salary at the beginning of this discussion. What you said is they are not being compensated.
quote:]Again I'm not sure how I got us to a discussion about what the US government considers "income". I've been trying to talk exclusively about two concepts. "Salary" and "Living Expenses."
No you haven't. You explicitly said that they aren't paid or compensated. If you've realized you were wrong to say that, then just admit you were.
quote:You might reasonably think that. But you'd be wrong. The amount of money missionaries or their parents pay into the system is typically less than they take out. The church subsidizes the difference with donations to the missionary fund as well as directing money from investments into that same fund.
How do you know that? The actual leaked documents seem to indicate that money is really going to pay for the mission presidents' "living expenses." (housekeeper, kids tuition, flights, cook, cars, etc.)
quote:So a missionary may be paying $400 (The general cost) a month, but expend far more than that amount in the course of their duties. So are missionaries in effect really getting an income equal to their living costs less the $400 a month?
I don't think most people would consider that system as the missionaries having an income.
Of course not. At best they're getting a subsidized rate on their mission. If the Church leaders were largely paying their own "living expenses" out of pocket and, say, getting free flights and hotel rooms when travelling to work for the church, then that would be an equivalent situation. (I get free hotel rooms, flights, and use my company card to pay for food when travelling for work)
What's actually happening is they're getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for every imaginable "living expense" - including luxuries like private cooks that most people don't have - to replace all the things that a salary would normally provide someone. And that's not a bad thing, it's actually probably a very good thing and necessary for the Church to attract high-quality leadership, but it is a thing. And compensating or "reimbursing" someone with a standard of living only experienced by maybe the top half of the top 1% of Americans and then claiming they are unpaid volunteers is just absurd equivocation. It's also a straight up lie in both the dictionary and legal definition of compensation.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
additionally i mean if you compare the mormon church to the heads of various other sects i would be pretty sure that the mormon church higher ups have a downright modest lifestyle compared to the televangelist-esque largesse that so many others have taken by their leaders.
If your comparison is to the leaders of other denominations, whose compensation is determined by the denomination, rather than to televangelists who start their own organization and decide for themselves how to distribute the money they take in, I think you're wrong.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
to call it televangelist-esque largesse is to say that some denominations have had leaders who are getting enough cash to live extravagently wealthy, like many televangelists did/do. Some leaders of the southern baptist conference were basically paying themselves a million a year, and might still be.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I'm more familiar with the mainline Protestants. Salaries for the top leaders in the United Methodist, ELCA Lutheran, and United Church of Christ are all in the 100,000 - 150,000 range.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Hello, I am here as a genuine person who is "curious," about OSC's point of view.
HOW DARE YOU TELL ME THE TRUTH YOU LEFTALIBAN SWINE!
DELETE MY ACCOUNT!
I could have saved a whole page of reading if I'd just skipped right to this post.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
oh right i guess i was so interested by the 'in the mormon church there are no paid positions' line that i didn't even bother to mention this yet but
quote:Leftists, like the perfect mindless conformists that they are, will reply, "Look at the condition Bush left us in, with quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan!" They can say this because they believe their own propaganda -- they called Iraq and Afghanistan "quagmires" before we even invaded them. But the fact is that by the time he left the White House, President George W. Bush had followed the counsel of the wisest military leaders and we were well on the road to long-term victory, including nation-building, in Iraq and Afghanistan.
No, the mess came about because Obama announced a deadline for withdrawal from both countries, which instantly made America irrelevant in both countries, no matter how many troops remained. Obama created ISIS by the premature withdrawal of a very effective occupation force long before the faction-riven Iraqi military could create itself as an effective, unified army.
if someone could sit down with orson scott card for like, say, ten to fifteen minutes could we get a signed acknowledgement from him that he understands and confirms his understanding that the withdrawal plan was designed by, signed, and put into motion by George W Bush during his administration
like i'm not even joking here because i would like some confirmation one way or the other that he will at least demonstrate understanding of what makes this whole pair of paragraphs nigh farcical —
here is a relevant patch of text from wikipedia
quote: in 2008 George W. Bush signed the U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement. It included a deadline of 31 December 2011, before which "all the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory".[11][12][13] The last U.S. troops left Iraq on 18 December 2011, in accordance with this agreement.[1][11][12]
can he also acknowledge in some form that it was the bush administration and its administrative handlers who ignored the 'wisest military leaders' which were responsible for the disbanding of the iraqi military, a move almost wholly understood to have been the most dire and critical mistake of the occupation? WAIT NO i am asking too much i should just stick to figuring out if he even just understands that obama wasn't why we left iraq in 2011, bush was, and it was bush's plan in the first place that we were out by 2011
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: I'm more familiar with the mainline Protestants. Salaries for the top leaders in the United Methodist, ELCA Lutheran, and United Church of Christ are all in the 100,000 - 150,000 range.
The head of our Church lives in a literal palace and has taken a vow of poverty so I don't even know where to start. Maybe the Mormons have more in common with the Catholics than they would like to believe.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Dogbreath: I chewed up a lengthier post in the interest of ending this conversation because I've grown to loathe it.
I've failed to correctly recall all the things I've said in this conversation. Yes, GAs are compensated by having their living expenses paid. I was incorrect in my contention over the use of the word "compensation".
After doing research, I found that apostles and members of the First Presidency are paid a living stipend that is drawn solely from church investment income. I think $300K a year is far beyond what what they receive. But that too constitutes some form of wage or salary. I did not know about this stipend.
I do not believe tithing funds are involved.
quote:What's actually happening is they're getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for every imaginable "living expense" - including luxuries like private cooks that most people don't have
I don't believe that. You have not shown that they are in fact senselessly milking the church for amenities they don't need. Folks have mentioned President Monson having waitstaff. Maybe he needs help getting dressed in the morning, or somebody to bathe him. You mention a private cook, maybe he has a house maid or family member that helps prepare his meals because he can't. When I lived in Hong Kong, retaining a house keeper was not expensive, and the majority of people there had them. Context matters.
The fact is the articles you have presented speculate that because Mission Presidents have lots of expenses covered and even have small sums given to them to spend on gifts or plane rides home that the higher up general authorities must have an even better deal. That they must be living life styles akin to corporate executives. That has not been really demonstrated. I've already conceded that it's hard to demonstrate because church financials are not open.
It's also hard because many of the GAs were men of means before being called and so probably have their own substantial amounts of personal savings. If Elder Oaks was driving a BMW I could not say whether he purchased it or the church did.
If it could be proven the latter was the case I would be angry. But the article linked does not demonstrate that.
Please stop telling me that I "Know very well...". I am doing my best in this conversation, and I have *never* lied. I make mistakes in that I cannot always hold the pathway a conversation as taken in my mind. I make mistakes, but I don't deceive so as to win in a conversation.
quote:How do you know that? The actual leaked documents seem to indicate that money is really going to pay for the mission presidents' "living expenses." (housekeeper, kids tuition, flights, cook, cars, etc.)
How do I know what? That missionaries often spend more than they pay in? Math. Or that the money that goes into the missionary funds goes to missionary work? I guess I don't? But the money comes from somewhere. Odds are it comes from the fund, there's not really a good reason why it would not. But if it wasn't that would be an incredible case of fraud. And kind of odd.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Samprimary: I said this and was honestly surprised nobody responded, but then the youngin showed up and got ated.
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: From Mr. Card,
quote:Leftists, like the perfect mindless conformists that they are, will reply, "Look at the condition Bush left us in, with quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan!" They can say this because they believe their own propaganda -- they called Iraq and Afghanistan "quagmires" before we even invaded them. But the fact is that by the time he left the White House, President George W. Bush had followed the counsel of the wisest military leaders and we were well on the road to long-term victory, including nation-building, in Iraq and Afghanistan.
They were called quagmires because in many people's estimations they were. I've never read anything that suggested that Iraq was ever well on the way to long-term nation-building for either of those two nations.
quote:No, the mess came about because Obama announced a deadline for withdrawal from both countries, which instantly made America irrelevant in both countries, no matter how many troops remained. Obama created ISIS by the premature withdrawal of a very effective occupation force long before the faction-riven Iraqi military could create itself as an effective, unified army.
Mr. Card has said this several times, and I'm honestly confused. From what I understand, President Bush in 2007 agreed to the withdrawal time tables in Iraq. Iraqi leaders would only consider extending those withdrawal time tables if the US agreed to allow Iraqi judicial courts to try US soldiers and contractors for crimes. A non-starter condition. Iraqi politicians knew this, and insisted on it because their bosses in Iran wanted it.
President Obama stuck to his predecessors timeline rather than undermine Iraq's sovereignty by ignoring the timelines.
Or am I missing something in the history?
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Bush signed the agreement in 2008, so I was wrong about the year.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
As we know, OSC hates liberals.
Probably offensive speculation: I think the reason why is that they didn't embrace him wholeheartedly when he made some really strenuous efforts in the 80's to bridge his religion and liberalism. I think he really tried (really). He came from the most conservative Mormon place on earth, and something like Secular Humanist Revival was a huge departure from the traditions of his people. That, and other things like having gay characters in his fiction, earned him flack from his community. But he still also got attacked by people on the Left, so I think he decided that they suck.
But I think this is why he loved GWB: because liberals hated him. I think he identified with the guy.
It must be hard to see past the fact that liberals are OK with Obama and really hated GWB. I mean, it must be if you can overlook basic facts like that the withdrawal timeline from Iraq was a GWB thing, not an Obama thing. Of course, many in the GOP or their media friends lie about this, but I think they do so knowingly, and I don't think OSC knows it's a lie.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
*I mean, OK with him. I don't feel like there's all that much fondness left, just a compulsion to defend him against unreasonable attacks. He has a lot of defenders, fewer fans.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Please stop telling me that I "Know very well...". I am doing my best in this conversation, and I have *never* lied. I make mistakes in that I cannot always hold the pathway a conversation as taken in my mind. I make mistakes, but I don't deceive so as to win in a conversation.
THIS was my problem DB in the past. It (quickly) went from a discussion of facts to implied accusations of dishonesty & a veiled aggression.
I have in past been labeled as a member of the "Tone Police"...and I have had a tendency to jump to my own defense when actually wrong.
Ignorance & mistakes are universal.
Seeking knowledge & admiting one is wrong are difficult & at times an overly forceful hand in trying to correct these beliefs can polarize opponents.
Basically...when it feels like a personal attack, changing people's minds becomes all but impossible.
*penny* *penny*
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I was having this same argument with someone once when I pointed out it was GWB that signed the Status of Forces Agreement (which, incidentally, I learned from Samp here), and his response was 'Oh, well he should have changed it."
*shrugs*
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
But isn't one of their central complaints that Obama abuses the power of the presidency by overstepping his bounds and not working with republican plans
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Surely you jest, Samp.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by dkw: I'm more familiar with the mainline Protestants. Salaries for the top leaders in the United Methodist, ELCA Lutheran, and United Church of Christ are all in the 100,000 - 150,000 range.
The head of our Church lives in a literal palace and has taken a vow of poverty so I don't even know where to start. Maybe the Mormons have more in common with the Catholics than they would like to believe.
AND controls one of the largest private investment banks in the world, which is regulated by exactly no one.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
basically it turned into a situation where obama literally just followed the withdrawal agreement, timetable, and treaty that was put into place before he even became president, and conservatives blame him for literally anything bad that happens in the country post-occupation on account of that fact
but if he had revoked the treaty and the timetable for some reason conservatives would have screamed bloody murder about how they had a workable plan for withdrawal and it would have solved everything but instead Obama is installing himself as the new American imperial autocrat.
and literally everything bad happening in the country past that point would be obama's fault.
what an interesting game they play
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Dogbreath: I chewed up a lengthier post in the interest of ending this conversation because I've grown to loathe it.
I've failed to correctly recall all the things I've said in this conversation. Yes, GAs are compensated by having their living expenses paid. I was incorrect in my contention over the use of the word "compensation".
After doing research, I found that apostles and members of the First Presidency are paid a living stipend that is drawn solely from church investment income. I think $300K a year is far beyond what what they receive. But that too constitutes some form of wage or salary. I did not know about this stipend.
So you concede that the statement "the Mormon Church has no paid positions" is untrue?
quote:I do not believe tithing funds are involved.
Where did the Church get the money to make those investments with which to pay it's officers?
quote:I don't believe that. You have not shown that they are in fact senselessly milking the church for amenities they don't need.
That's because I haven't claimed any such thing.
Nor has anyone in this thread.
In fact every single person who has participated in this discussion has explicitly tried to disabuse you of the notion that that is what we are claiming. I have personally done so no less than 6 times. And you have even directly replied to me doing so.
quote:The fact is the articles you have presented speculate that because Mission Presidents have lots of expenses covered and even have small sums given to them to spend on gifts or plane rides home that the higher up general authorities must have an even better deal. That they must be living life styles akin to corporate executives. That has not been really demonstrated. I've already conceded that it's hard to demonstrate because church financials are not open.
I have no good reason to assume that even though Mission Presidents are being compensated for living expenses worth hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, their superiors are not. But even if they're only being paid, say, $100,000 a year, you still must concede that the statement "there are no paid positions in the Mormon Church" is a lie.
quote:Please stop telling me that I "Know very well...". I am doing my best in this conversation, and I have *never* lied. I make mistakes in that I cannot always hold the pathway a conversation as taken in my mind. I make mistakes, but I don't deceive so as to win in a conversation.
BlackBlade, I said "you know very well" because you did know very well that I said that. You both read *and replied* to me saying it.
It is not unreasonable for me to assume that you in fact know things that you have acknowledged knowing. Nor am I accusing you of lying - I acknowledge you may just have a terrible memory. But you acting indignant that I am asking you to maintain a basic level of integrity in this conversation is very frustrating. How gentle and kind in my reminders of "hey buddy, that's not actually what I said but it's ok " do I have to be?
Like, I've been gently reminding you of what has actually been said this entire conversation while giving you the benefit of the doubt, and you've taken that kindness as permission to walk all over me. Then when I finally decide enough is enough and call you on it, you cast yourself as the victim. Don't you see how manipulative that is?
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Dogbreath:
quote:So you concede that the statement "the Mormon Church has no paid positions" is untrue?
I've never said the Mormon church has no paid positions. It has thousands of employees who are paid salaries. I said the general authorities are not paid salaries.
The Apostles and member of the First Presidency (15 men) all have living stipends drawn from church investments. So for all practical purposes they are being paid.
quote:Where did the Church get the money to make those investments with which to pay it's officers?
I don't know. Were I guessing from donations from the members which were then invested bringing in returns which were then reinvested. Members often leave money, land, and valuables to the church. It is certainly possible tithing was involved in some church investments initially such as BYU, but I doubt that is the case today.
quote:That's because I haven't claimed any such thing.
Nor has anyone in this thread.
In fact every single person who has participated in this discussion has explicitly tried to disabuse you of the notion that that is what we are claiming. I have personally done so no less than 6 times. And you have even directly replied to me doing so.
Oh really? By talking about leer jets, and armored security cars? And $300K-$500K in speculated living expense compensation? And all the wait staff that are retained? I'm not convinced.
quote:I have no good reason to assume that even though Mission Presidents are being compensated for living expenses worth hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, their superiors are not. But even if they're only being paid, say, $100,000 a year, you still must concede that the statement "there are no paid positions in the Mormon Church" is a lie.
As stated above there are many paid positions in the LDS church. The accountant who audits the church's books for example is paid a salary. The teachers, bishops, stake presidents, Seventies, Mission Presidents, and Temple Presidents do not get paid salaries. In some cases such as Mission Presidents, living expenses are covered. But other than that nobody gets any money for their service.
This is in contrast to many other sects where everybody from the bishop up is paid, and there is no cap on what that income might be.
But anyway, are there church leaders who get paid. I will say yes.
quote:BlackBlade, I said "you know very well" because you did know very well that I said that. You both read *and replied* to me saying it.
No, I don't know. There are all sorts of things I, you, and others say that I honestly forget they are being said, especially in conversations where there are many people directing commentary to one person.
Yes, I probably need to do a better job reviewing posts again and again when I respond so as to shore up those silly mistakes, but I'm also trying to do you all the courtesy of responding when I don't always have enough time to do so adequately. Mathematically I'm going to spend more time writing than you and two other people all responding to me.
If I say something that doesn't hold up based on past comments, just remind me what was said previously and/or quote it. Leave what I actually know alone.
I'm sorry you feel walked all over, such is not my intention. It really isn't. You asked a question, I answered it, you then started probing. I have tried to give you an honest conversation on a potentially contentious topic and not once have I commented on your personal motivations or integrity.
Don't comment on mine, I don't have the emotional energy to deal with people telling me I'm playing games to win internet debate points. I try always to tell the truth, and admit fault when I see it.
I like you, Dogbreath, but some times it feels a lot like you are annoyed or angry at me. I have too much of that in my RL, and I don't come here to get more of it.
I found out there are paid positions in the LDS church. I don't know what else need be said.
[ March 29, 2016, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: JanitorBlade ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i think especially if we want to hit some kind of annoyance pressure release valve and start over on the tone that i can mention that what's probably at issue has nothing to do with you being without well meaning intent, nor does it have anything to do with you consciously arguing in bad faith. i have trouble really defining it but it seems to me that what the culprit is is that on certain issues and in specific topics of discussion (i don't know how much of a pattern there is outside of explicitly discussing the mormon church/mormon beliefs, but that's a common theme) ...
where for some reason there's just certain parts of the discussion which get sort of 'blanked' by you, and even exhaustive clarification on the part of the other party just does not translate into you updating how you are viewing and responding to their position. like, just some strange little parts that don't translate or become part of your argument as well, and to an outside observer it is like you are ignoring something the other person is saying repeatedly and you end up arguing with where you thought they were coming from something like two cycles ago, and using points that they have repeatedly addressed and asked you to account for.
i have ended up being on the other end of one of those glitched out 'blanked' subjects of discussion with you, about the subject of when you tried to make an argument of the utility of using respect to coax people out of bigoted or harmful beliefs versus society considering those views toxic and denigrating the people who hold those views. it was kind of weird because you would explain your side, and then i would explain a very important and relevant fact that I and rakeesh and lyrhawn (i think) felt undercut what your position was, but then after each two or three posts it was like a reset button had been hit and you would go back to an essentially unaltered version of the original explanation of your side.
as we are all brain damaged monkeys hammering funny little buttons this is not really an implication of you being distinctly inferior at internet fight 2k16, as nobody except ron lambert is perfect and every last one of us besides him have quirks and dumb shit we do as well. it's just that i think i have seen this before so i notice the pattern?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Perhaps the mystery varable is a double condition:
A. The belief in question is a strongly held one.
B. Real life (gross) gets in the way but unlike a mortal earthman who entirely ignores whatever they cannot handle or blows up our near bhuda like IM tries to respond but is not in a place to rearrange his belief structure on the fly.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I do think that there is a difference between compensated and paid. Parish priests, for the most part, live in rectories, sometimes on their own but often the rectory is shared. They sometimes get a small salary for living expense. Religious priests and nuns usually live communally, owning very little. They get a small stipend for toiletries and so forth. Any more major expense has to be approved.
It is sort of like you wouldn't say an wife who doesn't work outside the home is paid to be a wife although she gets a place to live, food, and so forth.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Perhaps the mystery varable is a double condition:
A. The belief in question is a strongly held one.
B. Real life (gross) gets in the way but unlike a mortal earthman who entirely ignores whatever they cannot handle or blows up our near bhuda like IM tries to respond but is not in a place to rearrange his belief structure on the fly.
Handwaving. An essential skill is to reflect on deeply held beliefs in a searching manner.
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
Hi,
It is the idiot here. I sincerely apologize for playing the complete fool and being such a reluctant listener to voices of reason albeit discordant. It is the basis of debate to listen well your counterpart and not be contaminated by your own stupid preconceptions.
I apologize for the harsh talk and lack of understanding.
I specially apologize to Dogbreath because as he said I was unfair and completely dismissed his kindness. I apologize to Rakeesh because although he kept remind me I was going down in absolute lack of reason I kept going. I also apologize for other stupid comments.
I am usually not that kind of person. My rants against the left were completely biased as my country has gone through 13 years of a corrupt ( proven in justice) left government which ruined my country's economy and when I made those comments I let my anger surpass my reason which is something I have always loathed in general. I do not have how to compare the current status here with the American scenario and culture. My comments about the pc-ism and in regard to the influence of Socialist among young Americans was obtuse, stupid and unkind.
I still maintain though that I do not see any hatred coming from OSC, however I absolutely do not dismiss the possibility of being wrong.
After all I was the stupid person that stopped reading my favorite author because I was against one of his opinions once and everyone of you still remain loyal readers even after all the speech you consider wrong coming from OSC.
Regards.
Daniel
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Hey, welcome back! Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'll welcome him tomorrow, since it's currently April 1st. Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I do think that there is a difference between compensated and paid. Parish priests, for the most part, live in rectories, sometimes on their own but often the rectory is shared. They sometimes get a small salary for living expense. Religious priests and nuns usually live communally, owning very little. They get a small stipend for toiletries and so forth. Any more major expense has to be approved.
It is sort of like you wouldn't say an wife who doesn't work outside the home is paid to be a wife although she gets a place to live, food, and so forth.
*nods* There are some differences in usage, to be sure.
I do have a quibble with your example, though. Both culturally and legally, the stay at home wife of your example shares her husband's (or I guess, wife, but for the example let's say husband) income and is entitled to a portion of it. She files income taxes jointly with her husband, her credit (and ability to make purchases) is tied to his, and they share control of his finances. If they divorce, she is entitled to a portion of his income and assets. So in many ways she is being paid for her work at home. The mentality that it's solely her husband's income and not their shared income - and that her husband is furnishing her a place to stay and maybe giving her an allowance at his discretion - is a vestige of outdated cultural beliefs that undervalue stay at home spouses and parents. It's also an incorrect one, both in the eyes of the courts and the IRS. They absolutely do share an income, and she has a legal right to control of that income.
A better example might be a live-in housekeeper or cook. Or in this case, a live-in housekeeper or cook with their own housekeepers, cooks, gardeners, cars, private school tuition for their children...
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'll welcome him tomorrow, since it's currently April 1st.
Meh.
It is remarkably nuanced if it is a joke, though.
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
HEHEHE
It is not a joke I promise. I did not realize the date until now .
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
thanks for the welcome DB.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I do think that there is a difference between compensated and paid. Parish priests, for the most part, live in rectories, sometimes on their own but often the rectory is shared. They sometimes get a small salary for living expense. Religious priests and nuns usually live communally, owning very little. They get a small stipend for toiletries and so forth. Any more major expense has to be approved.
It is sort of like you wouldn't say an wife who doesn't work outside the home is paid to be a wife although she gets a place to live, food, and so forth.
*nods* There are some differences in usage, to be sure.
I do have a quibble with your example, though. Both culturally and legally, the stay at home wife of your example shares her husband's (or I guess, wife, but for the example let's say husband) income and is entitled to a portion of it. She files income taxes jointly with her husband, her credit (and ability to make purchases) is tied to his, and they share control of his finances. If they divorce, she is entitled to a portion of his income and assets. So in many ways she is being paid for her work at home. The mentality that it's solely her husband's income and not their shared income - and that her husband is furnishing her a place to stay and maybe giving her an allowance at his discretion - is a vestige of outdated cultural beliefs that undervalue stay at home spouses and parents. It's also an incorrect one, both in the eyes of the courts and the IRS. They absolutely do share an income, and she has a legal right to control of that income.
A better example might be a live-in housekeeper or cook. Or in this case, a live-in housekeeper or cook with their own housekeepers, cooks, gardeners, cars, private school tuition for their children...
I guess I was thinking pre-modern wife. Which was not all that long ago.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Perhaps the mystery varable is a double condition:
A. The belief in question is a strongly held one.
B. Real life (gross) gets in the way but unlike a mortal earthman who entirely ignores whatever they cannot handle or blows up our near bhuda like IM tries to respond but is not in a place to rearrange his belief structure on the fly.
Handwaving. An essential skill is to reflect on deeply held beliefs in a searching manner.
So you do your soul searching in the middle of being overwhelmed by real life because interWeb people demanded it. [Sarcasm] Because you (Orin) have a rep of being so open minded & easy to convince especially when compared to BB [/sarcasm]
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by zlogdanbr: Hi,
It is the idiot here. I sincerely apologize for playing the complete fool and being such a reluctant listener to voices of reason albeit discordant. It is the basis of debate to listen well your counterpart and not be contaminated by your own stupid preconceptions.
I apologize for the harsh talk and lack of understanding.
I specially apologize to Dogbreath because as he said I was unfair and completely dismissed his kindness. I apologize to Rakeesh because although he kept remind me I was going down in absolute lack of reason I kept going. I also apologize for other stupid comments.
I am usually not that kind of person. My rants against the left were completely biased as my country has gone through 13 years of a corrupt ( proven in justice) left government which ruined my country's economy and when I made those comments I let my anger surpass my reason which is something I have always loathed in general. I do not have how to compare the current status here with the American scenario and culture. My comments about the pc-ism and in regard to the influence of Socialist among young Americans was obtuse, stupid and unkind.
I still maintain though that I do not see any hatred coming from OSC, however I absolutely do not dismiss the possibility of being wrong.
After all I was the stupid person that stopped reading my favorite author because I was against one of his opinions once and everyone of you still remain loyal readers even after all the speech you consider wrong coming from OSC.
Regards.
Daniel
Nice to see you back. Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: So you do your soul searching in the middle of being overwhelmed by real life because interWeb people demanded it. [Sarcasm] Because you (Orin) have a rep of being so open minded & easy to convince especially when compared to BB [/sarcasm]
Ok, I'll bite. Orincoro has a reputation for being obstinate or close minded?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
In the past he has been a trouble maker...and in a direct comparison to BB?
Very similar to comparing Parkour to Lyr...
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'll welcome him tomorrow, since it's currently April 1st.
It is April 2 :-) It was not a joke, but I admit it could a in certain way look like one.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I was joking yesterday about welcoming you today. Still, it's good to see you again. Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: In the past he has been a trouble maker...and in a direct comparison to BB?
Very similar to comparing Parkour to Lyr...
They're both interesting and intelligent people who I wished posted here more?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
[Sarcasm]Yup...you nailed it! [/sarcasm] Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
I'd be more likely to call the oversensitive, passive aggressive manchild the troublemaker, but hey, opinions.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Let's not talk about which of us is more or less openminded. I like Orincoro a lot.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Real critics like myself, instead of mindless leftaliban conformists, remember the REAL reasons why people go to watch movies -- because we are really bad at getting tickets to bad zack snyder movies in time
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
there was so much unintentional hilarity in that article
Is that what I'm going to be like when I'm old and I lose my final marble
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Who is the "...oversensitive, passive aggressive manchild..." I'm honestly unsure who is being referred to.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
You.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Let's not talk about which of us is more or less openminded. I like Orincoro a lot.
Me too. Which is why I expressed confusion at comparing him negatively to you. (To be clear: Because you're both pretty rad dudes, not because I think it's an insult to be compared to you)
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: bad zack snyder movies
Redundant.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
So I guess I'm supposed to go ape nuts now?
Nah.
Heya Hisenburg...that's not cool man.
[ April 03, 2016, 07:25 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: there was so much unintentional hilarity in that article
Is that what I'm going to be like when I'm old and I lose my final marble
What is interesting to me is this is the second or third time he's printed the lie about Obama and the Churchill bust:
"Considering that President Zero’s first act in office was to insult Britain by returning a bust of Churchill – a man who accomplished more to benefit civilization even when he was wrong than Obama has accomplished in his entire tenure in office – that had been given to the White House as a gift many years before.
Yeah, that’s right, slap our best ally in the face by, in effect, spitting on their prime minister who led"
Because this is such a blatantly false (and easily fact checked) claim.
" Lately, there’s been a rumor swirling around about the current location of the bust of Winston Churchill. Some have claimed that President Obama removed the bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office and sent it back to the British Embassy.
Now, normally we wouldn’t address a rumor that’s so patently false, but just this morning the Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer repeated this ridiculous claim in his column. He said President Obama “started his Presidency by returning to the British Embassy the bust of Winston Churchill that had graced the Oval Office.”
This is 100% false. The bust still in the White House. In the Residence. Outside the Treaty Room."
I mean, there are frigging pictures of it. It's still there. Aren't there better lies to repeat? It's gotten to the point where you can't trust anything he writes because he's liable to be quite literally just making shit up. Or at least, willfully choosing to believe and repeat whatever outlandish claim he hears about Obama without doing even cursory fact checking.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The Washington Post wrote out the whole storyof the bust(s), the agreement, the timing, and the subsequent confusion.
Every now and then one of his columns pops up again in my various feeds and against my better judgement I read them again because this man's work had a strong influence on me. Much of it still does, years later. And his reviews are often funny, perceptive, and informative.
I can't do it any more. I just can't. He's become the bitter old relative who can no longer be argued with regardless of actual, provable fact. Even reviews with no political topic at all get anti-"Leftist" rants shoved in and I have to turn away. I don't even reread his older work as much, love it though I do, because hints of future attitudes are starting to show through for me on rereadings and I don't want to give up those memories.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well not that I was feeling bad, but I'm feeling validated by regarding OSC as a hack nowadays.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: The Washington Post wrote out the whole storyof the bust(s), the agreement, the timing, and the subsequent confusion.
What's kind of sad is that Ted Cruz was vague and weasely enough in his phrasing to come close to not technically lying, whereas OSC was specific enough to call it the "bust of Churchill given many years before" as opposed to the one the British loaned to Bush for the duration of his administration, which he then returned when he left office. So he doesn't even have that to fall back on.
Also: Hi Chris! Nice to see you. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Heinlein turned into a sex fiend...GRRM turned into a torturer...OSC turned into bigot.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I don't even reread his older work as much, love it though I do, because hints of future attitudes are starting to show through for me on rereadings and I don't want to give up those memories.
Do you have any specific examples?
I wrote a post a year ago about Ender's transformation from a deeply empathetic, flawed but beautiful character in Ender's Game to a sort of self-righteous know-it-all in Ender in Exile (which sort of starts showing up with his Messiah complex in War of Gifts) and noted his protagonists seem to veer more and more in this direction, especially when it comes to lecturing others on morality. I have yet to see it in his earlier works, though it's been 2 years now since I last read EG.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I've reread some of the short stories in the Worthing series recently, and for me at least it hasn't begun to peek through that far back. Hints, maybe, in some of the later first Ender book. Strong hints in the later Ender books. Not a peep for me in the really early stuff that I love so much, though now I'm worried.
It's a very strange flavor of nostalgia for me. I came across an interview of Fred Rogers (of Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood), and it was fascinating enough that I watched some of the old shows on YT. What a powerful vintage of nostalgia that was, both because of its ties to my earliest childhood but also because he's been dead for over ten years now. But also because by the time I watched him when I was a child, I think he had been on the air for over twenty years. I still haven't been alive as long as he was on television on MRN.
This conversation about Card made me think of it by contrast because I came to him in junior high, where his work was instantly very powerful to me and in odd ways similar as well, in the way it emphasized the dignity and personhood of everyone and also eschewed traditional male icons of action and violence in favor of insight and empathy, the latter being rather a cornerstone of MRN.
But the odd way these two nostalgias mesh for me is that Fred Rogers is gone and has been for more than half of my adult life-his work was important to me when I was very young, but he was also very, very consistent in his style and messaging. I suppose if it hadn't been such a very unusual style and message it would've gone stale decades ago. Whereas for Card I also feel a nostalgia in that even though he is still alive and producing written works, both he and his work seem so profoundly changed to me that on an emotional level, at that first instinctive reaction, my mental response is not so different than if he were dead or completely retired. It's been years since I had any serious hope that he might write works of the strength and dignity and pain and empathy of Hart's Hope or Ender's Game or the short stories in Maps in a Mirror, and it's been longer than that since he stopped writing such works. It makes me sad and nostalgic. Those works were very meaningful to me, and I think they enhanced the culture and humanity as a whole. The world was made better by their having been written and shared.
Now? Now we have an OSC who publishes flimsy, disproven lies about politicians he has lied about in the most transparent, partisan ways for years. Now we've got an OSC who turns reviews about animated movies about dragons and Vikings and relationships between animals and people and nonviolence into a rant about how awesome Dubya was and how awful Obama was. Who has strayed so far from the empathy that made his earlier work so powerful to me that he skips over a whole host of very real, powerful criticisms that could be made to go with...a disproven, stupid story about how Obama supposedly decided to alienate our biggest ally for...reasons, I guess.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote: It's been years since I had any serious hope that he might write works of the strength and dignity and pain and empathy of Hart's Hope or Ender's Game or the short stories in Maps in a Mirror, and it's been longer than that since he stopped writing such works. It makes me sad and nostalgic. Those works were very meaningful to me, and I think they enhanced the culture and humanity as a whole. The world was made better by their having been written and shared.
Yup.
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
The parts I like the best OSC posts are his reviews of trivial things like enjoying Cashew nuts or watching old blockbusters on tv for the first time and enjoying them ( which is something I do ) , or extolling the gastronomic and healthy qualities of olive oil, his reminiscent fond memories of the life in Brazil ( OSC was a missionary in my hometown Ribeirao Preto around the same year I was born), his humorous disdains of tv shows I love ( like Fringe right after watching the first episode ) and to realize OSC likes and loves the same films and shows I like.
I honestly have always taken the politics in essays from every author I admire and read with a grain of salt, specially people like self proclaimed communist China Mieville which is a monstrous and brilliant author but whose work is quite often driven by his social conceptions and political views( like on the impressive modern science fiction classic Embassytown where children are raised collectively or on YAs post modern classic Railsea which depicts non traditional families ) which I do not agree but I don't think the author tries to destroy and condemn the concept of family in a more conservative connotation which I endorse but that I don't want to make or think it must be made mandatory.
I have not read any of his later OSC 90s books or anything after that. But I have read most of his columns from this period and I admit that OSC has been quite bitter and critical towards the American politics and the liberal agenda.
While this might not be valid to USA I must confess I find that these criticisms are valid and real for the local Brazilian political and social context.
My conservative principles are related to giving the proper value and importance to traditional families and not considering them just an evil and old fashioned way of raising children or my absolute respect for safety and rights of regular people having decent lives and my fundamental values against rights of rapists, murderers, child molesters and robbers of public money which the Left and Liberal here in Brazil have defended more often that the rights of the common person and the poorest.
So it is very difficult to me not to feel sympathy for OSC opinions on Liberals and the Left because in my context they are real.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:My conservative principles are related to giving the proper value and importance to traditional families...
Get over that. Seriously. It is a personality flaw rooted in a failure to properly engage in examination of your principles. It is pretty much impossible to defend this position logically once you begin to explore it.
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:My conservative principles are related to giving the proper value and importance to traditional families...
Get over that. Seriously. It is a personality flaw rooted in a failure to properly engage in examination of your principles. It is pretty much impossible to defend this position logically once you begin to explore it.
I am not sure to which part of you refer, but I will assume both:
In regard to my traditional families support: I cannot dismiss the fact I was born in a family with a father and a mother and I am also a father and I expect my children to have their own children and families, what is so bad about it that should make you urge me to stop saying it?
as for calling my self conservative: I understand that you infer that my description as conservative as derogatory, so please discard that. I am a Liberal person. Conservative does not say I tie hands with Mussolini or admire the KKK or I am against gay marriage ( which you know I am not )
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Heinlein turned into a sex fiend...GRRM turned into a torturer...OSC turned into bigot.
One of these things are not like the other
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
None of these things are like the other...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I can't speak for Tom, but he might mean something like dropping the sort of aggressive defensiveness that is often seen in America when 'traditional families' are a topic of discussion. I can't speak to you either, but in our political system there are a number of pundits and many voters who either make a living or genuinely believe in the idea that the traditional family is under attack. Which if true would actually be pretty alarming.
But when the idea is examined, it more or less always turns out that 'the traditional family is under attack' actually means 'some people are trying to expand the legally and culturally accepted definition of family to do things like accept homosexual relationships and avoid shaming unwed parents'.
It's not a zero-sum game, is my point anyway. Someone trying to legalize homosexual marriage and adoption is not making an attack on traditional families. But if we pivot back to Card, the mere act of attempting to do so means one hates America, hates families, and almost literally sneers at anything good and pure in the world.
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
Thanks, I understand it. From my part I was not and I am not trying to say traditional families are under threat.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Isn't a "traditional" marrage one super rich guy & his hundreds of wives? I mean if we go by the vast majority of human of existance to establish "traditional".
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Isn't a "traditional" marrage one super rich guy & his hundreds of wives? I mean if we go by the vast majority of human of existance to establish "traditional".
No, your example really isn't representative of the the vast majority of human existence.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Enlighten me (with sources please).
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote: His team’s analysis reflects all of human history, and modern monogamy has not even left a blip in our genomes. “I don’t know how long monogamy has been with us,” Hammer says. “It seems it hasn’t been around long, evolutionarily.”
[ April 04, 2016, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:My conservative principles are related to giving the proper value and importance to traditional families...
Get over that. Seriously. It is a personality flaw rooted in a failure to properly engage in examination of your principles. It is pretty much impossible to defend this position logically once you begin to explore it.
Don't listen to Tom. There is certainly value in wanting to safeguard and protect monogamous heterosexual relationships.
Just don't go a step further in thinking that crushing other forms of families somehow makes that model stronger.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Stone Wolf:
Polygamy and polyamory does not mean "one rich dude and his hundreds of wives." Nor does having multiple sexual partners - even at the same time! - mean you have multiple wives. For example, there are pretty good odds that every single person in this conversation has had multiple sexual partners in their lifetimes, and I can think of at least one person who has even upped their game and had children with multiple partners, but nobody here is a polygamist.
The vast majority of marriages in human history have either been monogamous, or "mildly" polygamous. (One man with 2-4 wives) The case you mentioned - one rich man who actually marries several hundred women - is exceedingly rare, and is generally only found with royalty in certain countries. (political marriages, or to show off a king's wealth, etc.)
quote:Even within societies which allow polygamy, in actual practice it generally occurs only rarely. To take on more than one wife often requires considerable resources: this may put polygyny beyond the means of the vast majority of people within those societies. Such appears the case in many traditional Islamic societies and historically within Imperial China. India has an occurrence of polygamy about four percent of the Hindu population and about three percent within the Islamic population. The practice of polygamy within the various cultures of Africa is traditional, with either Islamic (supportive) or Christian (prohibitive) colonial influences. However, even within those countries with both Islamic and traditional support for polygamy, the majority of the population never practice such relationships.
Or in other words, most people simply don't have the resources to support more than a spouse or two.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Don't listen to Tom. There is certainly value in wanting to safeguard and protect monogamous heterosexual relationships.
Safeguard and protect them against what, exactly? (I think that was more what Tom was getting at, FWIW)
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
So I see you skipped the article I posted.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
You are referencing the last 6k years...I'm talking the last 200k. YES hundreds is rarer than less than a hundred wives...that part was a humorous exaggeration.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
No, I read it. And directly addressed it in my reply to you. It makes no mention of most marriages - traditional or otherwise - being "one guy and his hundreds of wives." It talks about human sexual reproduction.
You are wrong, and the article you posted does not make you any less wrong.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: You are referencing the last 6k years...I'm talking the last 200k.
You believe the institution of marriage predates civilization?
quote:YES hundreds is rarer than less than a hundred wives...that part was a humorous exaggeration.
So you're making a joke then?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
This is going to be productive and I'm excited to be a part of it!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
The vast majority of the over 200,000 years of human history, humans have grouped for marital purposes in the organization of one male and many (not one or two) females, as supported by the article I provided.
Damn! You got me lawyer talking DB
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Is marriage a concept that can be had prior to civilization? Serious question. Do we say of lions and lionesses that they are married, or just mating? Not that humans in the 12000 BCE ish range of I'm remembering correctly were as primal as lions, but still.
In any event given how different marriage is now-a legal, social, and religious custom with precise practices and traditions-and 'marital purposes' of a group of pre-literate new-to-agriculture people were, it doesn't seem unfair to want to pin down the terms.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: The vast majority of the over 200,000 years of human history, humans have grouped for marital purposes in the organization of one male and many (not one or two) females, as supported by the article I provided.
Damn! You got me lawyer talking DB
The article you linked makes no mention of "marital purposes", nor does it use the word "marital" at all. Where did you get that word from, and how would you define it?
Nor does it mention them grouping in organizations of "one male and many females" at all, let alone for "marital purposes." What's your source for this?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm cool bro...you can have the most argumentative person on Hatrack award uncontested.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
"Long tradition Hammer’s team discovered more genetic differences in the X chromosome than would be expected if equal numbers of males and females tended to mate, over human history. The only explanation for this pattern is widespread, long-lasting polygyny, he says."
Bolding mine. Jesh.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'm cool bro...you can have the most argumentative person on Hatrack award uncontested.
The reason I'm asking you what your source is is because this topic (social and sexual behavior in prehistoric hunter/gatherer societies) is actually something I wrote a research paper on in college, and I can say pretty confidently that the "one alpha man with lots of wives" concept has no basis whatsoever in reality.
Early human social groups had multiple men and women in roughly equal numbers, with the men hunting together in groups and the women gathering nuts and berries as well as fishing and scavenging. There little no evidence of social stratification based on gender, and the concept of male superiority/leadership with submissive women appears to have come about after the agricultural revolution and the development of cities and warfare. (Where a man's greater physical strength would translate to increased social status and value compared to a woman) And indeed, the hunter/gatherer tribes we can still observe today appear to largely egalitarian.
The reason why you might see relatively fewer male ancestors compared to female ancestors is that prehistoric women were the selective sex when it came to picking makes, meaning that men who made better mates were selected first, and thus had a better chance of impregnating more women than their lesser counterparts. The responsibility of raising children was shared by all members of the social group or "tribe."
Marriage itself - along with the concept of the family - appears to have come into existence roughly 5000 years ago, as human societies grew to the point where organization and stratification became necessary. There's evidence that in prehistoric times, after a woman became pregnant her mate and her would bond for 2-4 years (to help increase the child's chances of survival), but these pairings were in and of themselves were monogamous and not "one guy and many wives."
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: "Long tradition Hammer’s team discovered more genetic differences in the X chromosome than would be expected if equal numbers of males and females tended to mate, over human history. The only explanation for this pattern is widespread, long-lasting polygyny, he says."
Bolding mine. Jesh.
Again,
The article you linked makes no mention of "marital purposes", nor does it use the word "marital" at all. Where did you get that word from, and how would you define it?
Nor does it mention them grouping in organizations of "one male and many females" at all, let alone for "marital purposes." What's your source for this?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Is marriage a concept that can be had prior to civilization?
Sorry not to have gotten to this, but I answered this question in my post above. Tl;dr: No.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm playing along but I want you to know in no uncertain terms that talking to you is like a cambatitive dentist experience.
Long lasting polygyny...for the purpose of raising offspring...cohabitation...shared resources...possibly a shared name...marital.
I'm not introduceding a new study here...it was a quip about how "wide spread, long lasting polygyny" was the human norm for humans over the last 200,000 years.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'm playing along but I want you to know in no uncertain terms that talking to you is like a cambatitive dentist experience.
I don't know what that means.
quote:Long lasting polygyny...
"Long lasting" meaning "it was practiced for an extended period of time", not "these were long term relationships."
quote:for the purpose of raising offspring...cohabitation...shared resources...possibly a shared name...marital.
None of those things are mentioned at all in the article you provided.
quote:I'm not introduceding a new study here...it was a quip about how "wide spread, long lasting polygyny" was the human norm for humans over the last 200,000 years.
No, you said "Isn't a "traditional" marrage one super rich guy & his hundreds of wives? I mean if we go by the vast majority of human of existance to establish "traditional"."
Then you said you were "joking" and you really meant:
"humans have grouped for marital purposes in the organization of one male and many (not one or two) females"
What evidence do you have of that?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
The only evidence I need is talking to you is like involuntary tooth removal.
Good day Sir.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Don't listen to Tom. There is certainly value in wanting to safeguard and protect monogamous heterosexual relationships.
Safeguard and protect them against what, exactly? (I think that was more what Tom was getting at, FWIW)
Things that suppress or break them up. Poverty, irresponsible parental and spousal behavior, crime, overwork, policies that make it harder for families to thrive.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Like the KKK for a black family in the south.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Like the KKK for a black family in the south.
For sure.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Things that suppress or break them up. Poverty, irresponsible parental and spousal behavior, crime, overwork, policies that make it harder for families to thrive.
*nods*
Would you say any of those things are unique in that they don't affect polyamorous and/or homosexual relationships or family units?
It seems to me that specifically talking about "defending and protecting monogamous heterosexual relationships" implies that those relationships are under attack - or that the struggles people in those relationships face are ignored - at a noticeably greater rate than others. It's why you, for example, see "black lives matter" being said - because of the implication that we live in a society that does not value black lives. Would you say something similar is going on that warrants specifically defending and protecting heterosexual monogamous relationships?
To clarify, since I know you might assume otherwise: I'm not suggesting they shouldn't be defended. I'm just saying it seems equivalent to forming a "White Lives Matter" matter movement. Asking why isn't saying white lives don't matter, nor is it saying white lives are never disregarded, but rather asking why they need to be defended in particular in a society that is already set up to give them the highest level of comparative value. I mean, if racism and police brutality against blacks didn't exist, then wouldn't "black lives matter" seem sort of odd?
But we see that a lot with rhetoric saying "we need to defend the traditional family!" that seems to imply that traditional families are facing adversity and hardship at a much greater rate than non-traditional families are. Or if they are not, then why not just "we need to defend families"?
[ April 04, 2016, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: Dogbreath ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Cause heterosexual relationships produce offspring. And monogmist relationships are goid for those offspring. To a large extent protecting "heterosexual monogamy" is actually protecting mothers & children from dead beat dads.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Jesus stone wolf you really have to give that whole drama queen schlock up someday
Okay anyway.
Dogbreath: wasn't aware of the whole Churchill bust story. Is excellent addition to a case study in orson Scott card being impressively serially deluded on the subject of obama or the left. Or uh global warming. Or Iraq and Afghanistan. Or gay marriage. Or environmentalism. Or feminism. Or a bunch of other things I guess
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Jesus stone wolf you really have to give that whole drama queen schlock up someday
Okay anyway.
Dogbreath: wasn't aware of the whole Churchill bust story. Is excellent addition to a case study in orson Scott card being impressively serially deluded on the subject of obama or the left. Or uh global warming. Or Iraq and Afghanistan. Or gay marriage. Or environmentalism. Or feminism. Or a bunch of other things I guess
The bust thing was also discussed on page 11 of this very thread.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
It's a shame that his slow but inexorable descent into crack-pottery has so damaged my ability to enjoy his writing.
It's also had a tangible affect on this site (and sister sites, some of which are now defunct) and his brand.
But I guess the crack-pottery is worth it. Or more likely it's a self-fulfilling prophecy at this point.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Good points, DB.
I think there *are* forces that destabilize/undermine stable relationships and family households, but of course they aren't actually specific to monogamous heterosexual marriages. One of the ironies of the SSM debate, from my point of view, is that same sex marriages ought to bring similar benefits to society to those provided by heterosexual marriages - not erode them.
Another thing that happens is that sometimes being on high alert for THINGS THAT WILL DESTROY FAMILIES turn relatively minor problems into bigger ones - self fulfilling prophecies.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Cause heterosexual relationships produce offspring.
It's not the relationship that produces the offspring, though. It's a woman. The extent of the "relationship" could be (and often is) intercourse, or not even that in the case of artificial insemination.
And that seems like a somewhat strange distinction: heterosexual relationships are better or more deserving of protection because the partners in them are capable of reproducing.
A) That's not always true. Many heterosexual couples cannot reproduce.
B) The ability to reproduce seems to have no impact on how good that couple is at raising children. Which is why we allow married folks who can't have children (whether because they are unable to, or happen to both be the same sex) to adopt, incidentally.
I would say the ability to raise offspring is a lot more important than the ability to produce it.
quote:And monogmist relationships are goid for those offspring.
There is no reason "2" is the magic number of parents necessary for good parenting, and that any more is somehow harmful. Consider my sister - she and her husband have 3 daughters. On Saturdays, when they both work, those daughters go to my parents house during the day, on Mondays and Tuesdays they go to my brother-in-laws' parent's house. My wife grew up with her grandparents *living* in her house, and they were in many ways her primary caretakers. I grew up with adult sisters who would watch me when my parents were away.
My point is that many - even most - people grow up with more than two parental figures who are a source of authority, stability, and guidance. There is no reason to think that, say, if someone had 5 parents instead of 2 they would be at a disadvantage. Probably the opposite. (And in every way except the parents having sex together, which is something children generally do not know about or understand anyway, many children (especially those in multi-generational homes) effectively do have more than 2 parents already)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Cause heterosexual relationships produce offspring. And monogmist relationships are goid for those offspring. To a large extent protecting "heterosexual monogamy" is actually protecting mothers & children from dead beat dads.
That didn't really answer his question, though. DB and myself aren't asking 'what makes heterosexual, monogamous marriage worthy of defending?' but rather accepting that it *is* worth defending but then thinking about the next question 'is it being defended well enough?'
Is it being defended well enough against the 'threats' of gay marriage and forms of polyamory? Well, I think the answer there if one accepts that they pose a threat is that even with gay marriage legal, heterosexual marriage is still the barely-dented juggernaut in that particular bout. Proponents of gay marriage don't seek to make more people gay, they seek to make more people think it's OK to be gay, basically. Which isn't the same thing. Unless you (general 'you' here) are jealously guarding a position of power and respect, and derive satisfaction from knowing that 'deviants' are kept shunned. That unquestionably describes some opponents-such as, frankly, Card in some respects. Or one might think that gay marriage actually does some sort of real harm to families, in which case my response is the same as it ever was: show me some evidence, and if you don't, don't expect your position to be afforded the kind of respect you're insisting on.
Or someone might think that religious implications for marriage are something the government needs to take an interest in. In which case my response is that while you (general 'you') have and should have the right to vote your conscience for your own reasons, again, don't expect me or anyone else to give respect to your theocratic leanings, however mild they may seem to you.
As to Brazil, I can't speak to that as I hope I've said? But I can offer a parallel experience of sorts, to a degree. People who have been here awhile might remember that I didn't always take such a harshly critical stance of conservatives and republicans and particularly conservative republicans as I do now. Of course it's impossible for me to gauge how much that change is truly based on a fair-minded assessment of how politics has changed or not changed in my country, but one thing I have noticed over the years is that I have to remind myself more often 'they don't actually hate minorities or homosexuals' or 'they actually think they do respect the US Constitution'. And I am unsuccessful in that reminder than I should be and that I once was. I think that like your experience as you described of Brazilian politics, though less dire, is that dislike and contempt has steadily built in me for conservative republicans in my country. Part of it I 'know' is fair, but it also blinds me sometimes.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I was explaining the logic behind it...not expousing its virtues. I'm all for any kind of marrage...I've often longed to be a part of a line marage like the main character in the Moon is a Harsh Mistress by RAH.
It is possible to be pro straight and not be anti gay. I try and be pro human.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:From my part I was not and I am not trying to say traditional families are under threat...
Who, then, is considering them an "evil and old-fashioned way of having children," per your earlier observation, in Brazil?
I don't think "traditional families" are threatened in any way, either. But you explicitly called out a contrast -- that you hold "conservative" values that do NOT consider "traditional families" to be "evil."
And this is where the self-examination bit comes in. Because in my experience, most people who dig in their heels and proclaim their "conservative values" in opposition to some (presumably) newfangled cultural bugbear have not actually paused to identify whether that bugbear EXISTS or is in fact a threat to their society that exceeds the danger posed by overreacting to the change.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
The modern political culture has confused the meaning of conservatism as it had been (irony abounds), traditionally understood.
Conservatism in the time of Lincoln meant essentially a form of progressive incrementalism. It sought to solve problems using existing political processes, rather than to tear down and rebuild from new blueprints.
The democratic party of that era was much more "traditional," in the sense that they wished to preserve the cultural and social status quo by rewriting the foundations of the government to maintain the existing economic structure under new terms- including expanding slavery westward. Many democrats abhored slavery, but did not believe that the state and presidency should grow in power as it had under Lincoln- largely because its base favored the status quo ante, despite the economic disaster that slavery had become.
As always, Democrats were a coalition of interest groups- not a philosophical center. Those groups dominated the democrats in the senate and house for decades before the Republicans elected Lincoln.
This is all to say, when people say they are "conservative," in the sense that they believe in an older set of values, this is rather misleading. Real conservatism is and was based not on preserving the status quo, but on altering the status quo, while employing the existing political apparatus.
Real economic conservatives, for example, are mostly all democrats, because the democratic party generally favors an approach to economics which softens the leading edge of change, in an attempt to keep society from becoming too stratified too quickly. GOP economics is starkly liberal, in favor of demolishing the existing state apparatus, and letting the market run rampant, in the pursuit of growth overall.
So in the sense of which party really wants change the most, it's an open question. "Conservatives," in the modern incarnation appear to want to maintain a standard of living (or at least the appearance of that standard), through extreme mortification of the state. Democrats want to maintain a plural society with distributed growth, using existing political institutions to do so.
Of the two, the GOP is truly the non-traditionalist organization. What they want to preserve largely never existed, and what they want to destroy, is largely what is traditional and in long practice.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: there was so much unintentional hilarity in that article
Is that what I'm going to be like when I'm old and I lose my final marble
What is interesting to me is this is the second or third time he's printed the lie about Obama and the Churchill bust:
"Considering that President Zero’s first act in office was to insult Britain by returning a bust of Churchill – a man who accomplished more to benefit civilization even when he was wrong than Obama has accomplished in his entire tenure in office – that had been given to the White House as a gift many years before.
Yeah, that’s right, slap our best ally in the face by, in effect, spitting on their prime minister who led"
Because this is such a blatantly false (and easily fact checked) claim.
" Lately, there’s been a rumor swirling around about the current location of the bust of Winston Churchill. Some have claimed that President Obama removed the bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office and sent it back to the British Embassy.
Now, normally we wouldn’t address a rumor that’s so patently false, but just this morning the Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer repeated this ridiculous claim in his column. He said President Obama “started his Presidency by returning to the British Embassy the bust of Winston Churchill that had graced the Oval Office.”
This is 100% false. The bust still in the White House. In the Residence. Outside the Treaty Room."
I mean, there are frigging pictures of it. It's still there. Aren't there better lies to repeat? It's gotten to the point where you can't trust anything he writes because he's liable to be quite literally just making shit up. Or at least, willfully choosing to believe and repeat whatever outlandish claim he hears about Obama without doing even cursory fact checking.
The bust that's still there was not the one that was loaned; PM Blair had loaned another to Bush after 9/11 and that one was indeed returned. It says so in the update to the link you posted. So it's not technically 100% false, just awfully misleading.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: It is possible to be pro straight and not be anti gay. I try and be pro human.
Would you please explain what this means exactly? How does it practically work? If your goal is to be pro human, why add the "straight" at all?
Would you suspect a group that identifies as pro white as being a tad racist? If someone was wearing a "white power" t-shirt, for example, would you think that he meant power for everyone?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: The bust that's still there was not the one that was loaned; PM Blair had loaned another to Bush after 9/11 and that one was indeed returned. It says so in the update to the link you posted. So it's not technically 100% false, just awfully misleading.
Nope,you misread what OSC wrote. He didn't say "the bust that was loaned to the Bush Administration", he specifically said "the bust that had been given as a gift to the White House many years ago." That one is very much still there.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Would you please explain what this means exactly? How does it practically work? If your goal is to be pro human, why add the "straight" at all?
Would you suspect a group that identifies as pro white as being a tad racist? If someone was wearing a "white power" t-shirt, for example, would you think that he meant power for everyone?
That is an interesting question...
"White Power" is associated with baaaad folk with worse ideals. How about...?
"White is beautiful too." (is the "too" truly nessecary? It helps to touch on the examples where racial pride is not seen as hurtful [Black is Beautiful]
Or even better "All colors are beautiful."
Or better still "Humans are beautiful."
Or "We are beautiful."
My daughter has tee shirts that say simply "Beautiful."
It's all good. As long as people can self identify as wonderful w/o stepping on someone else's shoes.
I'm a proud Viking! With a strong Sweedish name.
That's all.
[ April 05, 2016, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Said absent of context, 'All colors are beautiful' can hardly be offensive. But we don't live in a world without context, and it only takes a casual glance around to see which color (and shape) is already beautiful.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I asked a few interesting questions that you did not answer at all. What does "pro straight" mean?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Rakeesh...hardly...eye of the beholder leaves world's of room...all is beautiful in one reguard or another. What makes makes things special is (in part but not whole) how we treat them...reinforce individual beauty not by society's myopic view.
Pro straight...aligned with the ansesteral life awareness of being a link in the chain which bonds modern man to the prehistoric ansersters of man, back indeed to the birth of life itself. Through the love a husband & wife share they can create the miracle of life...of them, by them, but not theirs. I'm pro being pro things.
Yay optimism!
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Pro straight...aligned with the ansesteral life awareness of being a link in the chain which bonds modern man to the prehistoric ansersters of man, back indeed to the birth of life itself. Through the love a husband & wife share they can create the miracle of life...of them, by them, but not theirs. I'm pro being pro things.
Hmmm, how would you say that alignment plays out in your day to day life? To reiterate Kate's question, what does that really look like in a practical sense?
Do you think, by that definition, there are people who are anti-straight?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Living the "pro-straight" "lifestyle"...quality time w/ wife & kids...nest building...4x4x7x52 meals a year...dishes...laundry...trash...parental contols...vomit clean up...vacuuming...play dates...relating to other parents at kid parties...etc...
Anti Straight...hmmm...I'll bet you could find someone who has strong pro gay feelings & dislikes overpopulation & militantly tells you so? I don't kno...I just made that up.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Speaking of context, I forgot to include a qualifier: 'look around and see what our society deems is beautiful'.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'd post a pick of my Google image search of "beautiful" if this board wasn't running on older equipment than a 90 year old marathoner. My point is that there was only one scantily clad girl in the first page results...mostly nature scenes & sunsets.
I'm not getting it Rakeesh, every person chooses what they submit their eyes to (when seeking out beauty)...it's subjective...
Is the point that "mainstream media" supports, nay preys on & actively promotes racist, sexist, shapeist, ageist attatudes? Cause I get that. But that's not what I'm referring to.
More like team pride. I'm a MN Vikings fan...I cheer -for- them...not against the opponent (unless they are conference rivals than hate hate hate, j/k).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That was my point, yes. Though your google search reference doesn't quite seem valid. 'Beautiful people' would be more appropriate for the purpose of this point, I think.
Anyway, my point was that being 'pro-straight' for example without context is fine-though the very labeling of something as pro or con defines a context. But in the context of our society, which is overwhelmingly pro-straight already, it's not quite the same statement as in a context-neutral environment.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
It's not a claim I make often.
"Hi, my gender falls within current cultural masculine norms, but you can call me Mike." is a bit of a non starter.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
(I let my haircut,fashion choices, wedding ring & public behavior say it for me)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Living the "pro-straight" "lifestyle"...quality time w/ wife & kids...nest building...4x4x7x52 meals a year...dishes...laundry...trash...parental contols...vomit clean up...vacuuming...play dates...relating to other parents at kid parties...etc...
What about that is particularly straight? I know plenty of SS parents who have lifestyles that could be described just like that.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
It's something that can't be explained...I hadn't experienced it til about six years back...the birth of our first born. Changed my life. A part of me & a part of my wife...but its own little lifeform. We knew a baby was in there...duh...but life altering when "it" becomes a real life baby.
Never having adopted w/ my gay husband, I can't imagine it...but I'd be shocked if its the same experience or connectivity with the infinite.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Do you think that is true for straight parents that adopt? Do you think that all straight people have children? Are heterosexual people without children not straight?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Probably not "pro straight" like me...I got a cool badge & a secret decoder ring.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
It's impossible for me to do anything but wildly speculate to answer that. Which doesn't sound useful. Can you bullet point it for me?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You know, Stone_Wolf, you can complain that people like Dogbreath are being too much of a rules lawyer. You can also be very vague and unhelpful in replies to specific questions. But you can't really do both without looking pretty silly.
------
As for your 'connection with the infinite' I can think of two questions. One, have you ever adopted and if not how can you effectively speculate as to what it might feel like to do so? Two, if we're going to posit a connection to the infinite-something spiritual, I mean-as a factor of procreation, doesn't one have to consider the question of if and to what extent millions of years of evolution have worked to ensure you feel such a connection?
Put another way, there may in reality very well be such a connection actually experienced with procreation. I certainly can't discount the possibility. But I think we can safely say it's definitely not something innate to the process of fathering or gestating a child. Furthermore, isn't it possible that a couple who strives for the same result-parenthood-and does so without the most direct path to it-heterosexual intercourse between two capable people-might it not be true that they are experiencing a connection to the infinite as powerful as yours?
Put another way, while it's certainly reasonable for you to feel that it was a cosmically important event in your life, a look at human history doesn't appear to point in the direction that this is true for everyone. It's clearly not a default given position.
Finally, and even if you didn't intend to you're still in fact doing it, you're suggesting that your status as a father and a parent is more special than that of adoptive parents. Perhaps that was an intentional claim, perhaps not. But I think that might be a part of some of the pushback you're getting here.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Mostly I'm just positively identifing with groups I'm in. Which is my point. There is nothing wrong with saying good things about a group one belongs to...there is no impied slam to the "opposite" group.
Saying that "black is beautiful" is not saying that "not black is not beautiful".
Or at least -should be-.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
If I was worried about looking silly I wouldn't bother posting.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You know, Stone_Wolf, you can complain that people like Dogbreath are being too much of a rules lawyer.
What's interesting to me about this is I strive very hard to be the opposite of that in my approach.
By which I mean, that term usually refers to someone who attempts to win a case based on the strict letter of the law while completely ignoring - or even often deliberately warping - the context. Whereas for me, in a discussion establishing context is absolutely crucial. And a big part of that is discussing and agreeing upon definitions.
(For example, look at the recent Eich discussion where I worked pretty hard to demonstrate the context of why employees resigning from their jobs in the tech sector doesn't constitute a witch hunt against their boss, or in this discussion talking about the context of an "unpaid volunteer" being given a standard of living generally earned by the top 1% (where the "he's technically not salaried" argument is decidedly the Rules Lawyer approach), or even in this discussion where I, and others, have tried to put the "I'm just in favor of defending traditional marriages"-esque statements into their proper context relative to society)
And I think you would agree with me that it's more or less impossible to have an earnest discussion without also defining and discussing the terms used in that discussion, as well as modifying those terms as necessary, and continually making sure you clearly understand what the other person is saying. It's certainly possible to have ineffective discussions without doing so - whether they're the sort of pointless bloviation of political pundits, or the meaningless, feel good "awww, we all really want the same thing after all" sort of mutual masturbation that happens when people use terms and statements that are too ambiguous to really mean anything - but in my experience, the sort of discussions that actually produce good, thought provoking conversation require integrity and precision.
Then again, I don't mind it when someone asks me what I mean. Or how I define something. It makes me happy, actually, because it means they are being respectful enough to give me a chance to expound upon and clarify my position rather than making false assumptions. Or, more frankly, it means they are being reasonable. It reminds me a lot of how my father would discuss things with me when I was a kid (usually about what I learned in school), and how much I learned and expanded my own understanding of subjects by trying to give him clear and logical explanations. So I don't necessarily empathize with or really understand the perspective of people who respond to questions with outrage. (That is more or less the opposite of what you do, which is why you're one of my favorite people to discuss things with, actually. The fact I don't really understand that outrage is one of my greatest weaknesses, and something that has caused me a lot of anxiety)
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
It's how you "ask"...usually with a big fat inflamitorty statement like "you are wrong" but no explanation...
It's just about the worst way to start a discussion.
I hate it.
Know what I don't hate? Here is an example...
Me: Haha, pithy but inaccurate comment.
Theoretical you: I don't agree with that statement as written. If it was -this- way, maybe. -this- part bugs me because reason reason reason.
Me: Yup...correct...too busy cracking wise for exact details but here is the overview I'm working with...
Disscussion ensuses.
Because discussion is sharing ideas...if one party learns nothing while the other teaches nothing, it's a lecture, not a discussion.
I'm not interested in being lectured to or told "you're wrong". Disagreement is respectful. Declarations with authority are not. (Stupid irony!)
[ April 06, 2016, 01:38 AM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Oh and "rules lawyer" was Rakeesh's words.
I said you made me speak in lawyer talk...I was just joshing that you made me pick my words carefully. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Complaining that others are demanding too much precision and that it's annoying while steadfastly refusing to be precise yourself is surely also a pretty poor way of starting a discussion too.
And you're welcome to point to where someone said you're wrong and offered no explanation. Of course you're entirely within your rights to instruct-some might even say 'lecture' others on the proper way to disagree with you, while continuously refusing to engage them on their own terms as well, which is I guess one way of addressing multiple specific and relevant questions.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: And you're welcome to point to where someone said you're wrong and offered no explanation.
If I had to guess he's referring to this post, where he asked a pretty straightforward question and I gave him a straightforward, factual answer.
After which, of course, he specifically asked me to explain and provide sources, so I gave him a reasonably exhaustive explanation (and several more to his follow-on questions) and provided sources.
Which is somehow now inflammatory behavior?
I'll be honest, Stone_Wolf_, I'm having a hard time understanding why you consider being told you are wrong about something offensive when you explicitly ask if you are right or wrong about something. Likewise, it seems strange to complain about being "lectured" when you explicitly ask someone to explain something to you in depth. Or am I misunderstanding what you meant by "enlighten me"?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Ugh, don't get me started on Ender in Exile. It was all lecturing and nagging about marriage and babies, racial stereotypes and characters that just existed to lecture about marriage and babies instead of being believable people and Ender's mother and father didn't even bother visiting him for the LAST TIME. Why not? There's no excuse for that! He was going to fly out in the space and they have to make some silly speech so Valentine has to be Ender's nagging mother/wife talking about how well she knows him when she didn't and those scientists just existed to make ANOTHER speech about heterosexual marriage and babies and it's creepy as hell for women to be in a marriage lottery like property ugh. that book ruined every Ender book for me and now I can't even enjoy those anymore because of the subtext. No, there is nothing wrong with the nuclear family except the people who have been let down by the so-called traditional family and end up rejected, but that is become rarer as more people accept their (except?) their gay or trans children instead of kicking them out but really that concept of family is fairly new historically. It is NOT under threat just because two men or two women want to get married and have the same rights and can only be made stronger.
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:From my part I was not and I am not trying to say traditional families are under threat...
Who, then, is considering them an "evil and old-fashioned way of having children," per your earlier observation, in Brazil?
I don't think "traditional families" are threatened in any way, either. But you explicitly called out a contrast -- that you hold "conservative" values that do NOT consider "traditional families" to be "evil."
And this is where the self-examination bit comes in. Because in my experience, most people who dig in their heels and proclaim their "conservative values" in opposition to some (presumably) newfangled cultural bugbear have not actually paused to identify whether that bugbear EXISTS or is in fact a threat to their society that exceeds the danger posed by overreacting to the change.
We have many self proclaimed socialist parties here in Brazil and in theory the government is ruled by a socialist party. Many of them radically endorse Marxist and Gramscian ideals.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Probably not "pro straight" like me...I got a cool badge & a secret decoder ring.
Not actually an answer. Again, you haven't identified anything you are "pro" that applies specifically and exclusively to straight people. From your frankly somewhat flaky descriptions, you seem to be pro being a parent but that is not something that all straight people do (or are good at if they end up doing it accidentally) and that many SS couple do really well.
When this is pointed out to you, rather than reconsider your position or support it, you retreat into annoying lala juvenile crap.
[ April 06, 2016, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
Parents that disown their own children is one of the most loathsome things I know. Here in Brazil, it used to be more common to have parents doing that for gay sons and daughters but this has been changed radically.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i confess i too am not exactly real sure what your position is anymore s_w
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
I actually never said I was against gay marriage or gay rights, I believe you have assumed that incorrectly. Please do not take this harshly, but it seems that you assumed it because I said I bear some conservative principles and because I said OSC has never meant any hatred against gay people.
Edit: apologizes, you meant that to SW.
[ April 06, 2016, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: zlogdanbr ]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Honestly it feels like cross talking & whoever talks loudest & longest "wins".
My "position" is glaringly obvious & plain stated: being pro something is not the same as being against the opposite side.
I can acknowledge that I care about & value a positive trait I posses without implying a negative counter reation.
I can be proud of being a husband & father without shitting on ANYONE.
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Honestly it feels like cross talking & whoever talks loudest & longest "wins".
My "position" is glaringly obvious & plain stated: being pro something is not the same as being against the opposite side.
I can acknowledge that I care about & value a positive trait I posses without implying a negative counter reation.
I can be proud of being a husband & father without shitting on ANYONE.
Very very well said indeed! Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I can be proud of being a husband & father without shitting on ANYONE.
But what is the point of stating that as a POSITION?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And what has that to do with being pro straight? And we are typing. No one is talking any louder than anyone else.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by zlogdanbr:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Honestly it feels like cross talking & whoever talks loudest & longest "wins".
My "position" is glaringly obvious & plain stated: being pro something is not the same as being against the opposite side.
I can acknowledge that I care about & value a positive trait I posses without implying a negative counter reation.
I can be proud of being a husband & father without shitting on ANYONE.
Very very well said indeed!
It really wasn't. It was nonsense.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I can be proud of being a husband & father without shitting on ANYONE.
But what is the point of stating that as a POSITION?
When people like zlog say "I'm pro traditional family values" I hear "I like families & children & marrages that last a lifetime & the idea of true love".
You hear "I'm against gays."
It's a problem.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Stone_Wolf_, honey, are you new to this planet? Are you somehow unaware that the phrase "traditional family" is used to mean one man-one woman (preferably with the woman not working outside the home) families? Specifically, not SS families.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Sure...that can happen & does.
My point is that it isn't always the case & y'all jumped on zlog pretty hard w/o even asking..."what did you mean -exactly- by that? Because most people take it -this- way here."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think it was pretty clear in the context of the rest of his posts, but, just to make you happy:
zlogdanbr, do you include SS parents and their children in the traditional families that you believe ought to be given "proper value and importance"?
[ April 06, 2016, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I can be proud of being a husband & father without shitting on ANYONE.
But what is the point of stating that as a POSITION?
When people like zlog say "I'm pro traditional family values" I hear "I like families & children & marriages that last a lifetime & the idea of true love".
You hear "I'm against gays."
It's a problem.
Because the sad truth is that is the rallying cry of people who are against gays. I'm for all the families that are healthy and happy and full of love even if they are not nuclear.
Also traditional family is an odd term anyway. What tradition is that? Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
Km, you mean for example, my neighbor whose gay daughter lives with her partner in the same place along with their adopted daughter?
Or do you mean like my gay uncle who is my godfather and really loved his father and mother's family and still loves everybody in the family ( like we all love him ) even those on traditional marriages?
Or a good friend of my father who is divorced from his first wife, and has married again and is raising a step daughter and one of the daughters from first marriage is gay?
Yes they are all real good examples of families.
Please km, please do not take this offensively but you are really judging my opinions based upon your preconceptions.
The fact I don't hate OSC or even think he is a person that addresses hatred against gays or because I like the idea of a family with a father and mother makes me anti gay?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yes. I mean those examples. Particularly the first where two women are raising their daughter. Do you include those in the kind of traditional families that you like the idea of and think should be given proper value and importance?
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
Sure
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
What a weird phrase. As if being gay is a new thing? I like families to be happy and free of abuse myself. Regardless of what shape they take.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So what do you mean by traditional families. Why "traditional"? What would a non-traditional family be?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
When they go on about that it just makes me want to marry a woman and a man and be polyamorous JUST to annoy them despite being afraid of weddings and liking solitude too much.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
As for Card, zlog, that is a discussion that's been had already but I'll reiterate: people suggesting Card does or might hate/ fear homosexuals have considerably more to go on than a disapproval of gay marriage.
------
A statement I've made that you've yet to address, SW, is that of context and language. Alright, let's take it as a given that when you say 'pro-straight' you mean no criticism* of any other sexuality or child-rearing family unit. That's fine. But the very structure of the term you're using has an implicit criticism of something else. Pros and Cons. Pluses and minuses. Who says for instance 'I am pro-hydration.'? It's a given, a necessity, there can't possibly be a contrary position and so people don't use the language of plus/minus to describe it. So all else aside, given that, people misinterpreting your meaning has as much or more to do with your choice of words than anything else.
*Except that there isn't really an absence of criticism, is there? You're on record as claiming a 'connection to the infinite' for monogamous heterosexual married child-rearing, and expressing skepticism that other couples can attain that much meaning.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Also traditional family is an odd term anyway. What tradition is that?
I tried to make that exact point earlier.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: So all else aside, given that, people misinterpreting your meaning has as much or more to do with your choice of words than anything else.
Fair cop. For me...I'm pro human...so my message doesn't get muddled.
However when BB or Lyr or zlog use the phrase "family values" I also know what they are talking about and it ain't "anti-gay".
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I also kno that when Clive says it it means -exactly- all the bad stuff y'all are talking bout.
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: So what do you mean by traditional families. Why "traditional"? What would a non-traditional family be?
It is a all a matter of semantics km, let me rephrase that ( my first language is not English and perhaps that is the case of confusion ).
I think a family based on father and mother was pivotal to the development of our society but I do not think on same sex marriage as bad or evil.
-- Rakeesh: as for OSC opinions on gay marriage I still do not think about him conveying hatred, however, as you said, the topic seems more likely to be a naive opinion of this old 43 guy/fan. I am still reading and checking all OSC said about it though.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by zlogdanbr:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: So what do you mean by traditional families. Why "traditional"? What would a non-traditional family be?
It is a all a matter of semantics km, let me rephrase that ( my first language is not English and perhaps that is the case of confusion ).
I think a family based on father and mother was pivotal to the development of our society but I do not think on same sex marriage as bad or evil.
Just inferior?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Just none of my business.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Is the phrase "White is beautiful." racist?
Is the phrase "Black is beautiful. racist?
I can see how both or neither are fair answers...but not non matching answers.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Then you are not seeing the picture in context. Saying white is beautiful is only necessary if one is trying to counter people saying black is beautiful. Saying black is beautiful is countering generations - centuries of culture that said that black was ugly.
SW, unless somebody just let you out of the cave where you have spent your life, you really don't have an excuse for thinking that we exist without history and context.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Sure...context is nessecary. And no...I would not wear a "White is Beautiful." shirt...because it IS insensitive.
But that doesn't mean that "Black is Beautiful." isn't rasist...it's just justified & not reasonably insulting.
People seem to use "rasist" when the real discussion should be; is it "commonly found to be offensive" ?
Because a lot of Irish think the tee shirt "Kiss me, I'm Irish...or drunk...or whatever." is funny & ok...is it rasist? Absolutely. Is it "commonly found to be offensive"? Debatable. Seems not to piss off too many folk.
[ April 06, 2016, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Can you see the difference between "Kiss Me I'm Irish" and "Kiss Me I'm Not Black"? Because that is what we mean by white in this context. We don't mean Swedish or German or Polish. If we did, we would say Swedish or German or Polish. What we mean in this country when we say white is not black, not Latino, not Asian. When we celebrate whiteness as opposed to a specific ethnic heritage we are celebrating that we are not coloured. And that is raCist.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It actually does mean 'black is beautiful' isn't racist, when you consider that the actual meaning there is 'black is as beautiful as white'. But it's meant to be provocative, which isn't the same thing. It's a verbal statement in equal opposition to the cultural status quo that is so ingrained that stating something which most would agree to if asked becomes startling. That's not racist.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Perhaps the dictionary might agree w you...arguable...but please remember I think the idea of "races" is unhelpful & causes unnecessary division among us human type folk.
I pray for an ineffectual (but long term) occupation of our globe by aliens who don't look anything like us. Unite all the Humans REAL fast.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yes. I realize you try to live in a magical world where there is no history and everything starts at 0 all the time. And your white, male, straight privilege allows you to pretend that generations of discrimination never happened and have no consequences. But that is not reality so you end up speaking foolishness when you argue that the world is actually the way you imagine it should be.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Possibly...however deciding how to move forward isn't the same as ignoring the past.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You don't get to decide how or when people "move forward". Disregarding centuries of history just makes you look foolish.
When the caricature Stephen Colbert used to play would say "I don't see color," it was lampooning people who act just like you do. Pretending racism doesn't exist doesn't help to make it go away. It just pretends that we have already moved forward and don't have to move any further.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I pretend -race- doesn't matter...to me. My eyes still work. It's not about denying the real world...but instead achieving a higher ideal through acceptance that we are all human.
Should systemic racism be addressed? Yes of course. One way to do that is to promote human race harmony.
The best place to start the world changing is in one's own thought processes.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
*sigh* yeah. You are just wrong. I don't know how to explain it any more clearly. Pretending that there is no discrimination against gay people doesn't make it stop. You can pretend because you are insulated but pretending dismisses their experience and perpetuates the wrong.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Can you see the difference between "Kiss Me I'm Irish" and "Kiss Me I'm Not Black"? Because that is what we mean by white in this context. We don't mean Swedish or German or Polish. If we did, we would say Swedish or German or Polish. What we mean in this country when we say white is not black, not Latino, not Asian. When we celebrate whiteness as opposed to a specific ethnic heritage we are celebrating that we are not coloured. And that is raCist.
Wait a second. You are insisting that celebrating Whiteness *must* also include the very anti-statements that Stone_Wolf has just said he does not mean.
Your comparison "Kiss me, I'm Irish" and "Kiss me, I'm not black" are not equivalent. "Kiss me, I'm white." would be the equivalent.
Black culture has been historically derided and so the correct thing to do was introduce a subversive pro-black culture and mentality. The fact white culture has been prideful and discouraging of other races does not mean it is forever forbidden to appreciate itself or say nice things.
Unless your end goal is every single race amalgamates and we're all just people.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What is white culture?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Wait a second. You are insisting that celebrating Whiteness *must* also include the very anti-statements that Stone_Wolf has just said he does not mean.
Yes. I am saying that, other than in the fantasy that SW and some others pretend, celebrating whiteness is anti-not white. And pro-straight is anti-gay.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
BlackBlade: I actually specifically addressed that point in my reply to you two pages back. It would make me very happy if you didn't ignore it outright.
Since I don't want to rehash that entire post, and since it seems like you're stuck at the same point again, let me just ask: what does celebrating "White Culture", or "Straight Culture" actually mean? Can you really define it in a way that doesn't just describe "culture"? Because that's where Stone Wolf has consistently tripped up, and I think you might have some issues as well.
The thing is "White Culture" - the culture of White people sans any ethnically unique things (like say my own Norwegian culture, which I absolutely celebrate with food and traditions) not found elsewhere - is just the default culture of the United States. It's the culture that we all live and exist in - from movies, to food, to traditions, to values and music. So defining it as "White Culture" is literally just saying "American Culture... except without any persons of color." Because it is otherwise difficult, if not impossible, to define anything distinctly unique about "White Culture" as a whole that is not also shared by literally every group - white or nonwhite - in the US.
Whereas "Black Culture" for example is specifically about celebrating cultural elements that were suppressed, marginalized, and excluded from the overall American culture.
So when you talk about wanting to celebrate White Culture, you first have to ask yourself "how is White Culture actually distinct from just 'culture'?" You quickly find out that any attempts to do that in a non-racist or exclusionary way end up being nonsensical.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: BlackBlade: I actually specifically addressed that point in my reply to you two pages back. It would make me very happy if you didn't ignore it outright.
Since I don't want to rehash that entire post, and since it seems like you're stuck at the same point again, let me just ask: what does celebrating "White Culture", or "Straight Culture" actually mean? Can you really define it in a way that doesn't just describe "culture"? Because that's where Stone Wolf has consistently tripped up, and I think you might have some issues as well.
The thing is "White Culture" - the culture of White people sans any ethnically unique things (like say my own Norwegian culture, which I absolutely celebrate with food and traditions) not found elsewhere - is just the default culture of the United States. It's the culture that we all live and exist in - from movies, to food, to traditions, to values and music. So defining it as "White Culture" is literally just saying "American Culture... except without any persons of color." Because it is otherwise difficult, if not impossible, to define anything distinctly unique about "White Culture" as a whole that is not also shared by literally every group - white or nonwhite - in the US.
Whereas "Black Culture" for example is specifically about celebrating cultural elements that were suppressed, marginalized, and excluded from the overall American culture.
So when you talk about wanting to celebrate White Culture, you first have to ask yourself "how is White Culture actually distinct from just 'culture'?" You quickly find out that any attempts to do that in a non-racist or exclusionary way end up being nonsensical.
I didn't ignore your post. I even typed out a response. When the forum wasn't accepting new posts the other day it got eaten. I've spent a good deal of time reflecting on what I wanted to say in response. Sorry I didn't say something sooner.
quote:Would you say any of those things are unique in that they don't affect polyamorous and/or homosexual relationships or family units?
They affect them often differently. Take polyamory, in a homosexual married couple the results are possible jealousy, degeneration of the relationship, and STDs. For a heterosexual couple the results are possible jealousy, degeneration of relationship, STDs, and children without a well defined parental arrangement, possible abortion, court time and resources spent trying to hammer out living arrangements for the children, and payments from the parent who isn't going to provide accommodations. And children who grow up with a pretty significant handicap due to an absent parent.
A dearth of positive media portrayals of male father figures will not effect lesbian couples in the same way a heterosexual couple might be.
Alcoholism might cause fetal alcohol syndrome in a heterosexual couple's children, but not necessarily in two gay men who have adopted children. Though of course that doesn't mean alcoholism has no effects, just different ones.
Heterosexual couples often unintentionally enter parenthood (I did), and so they need especial attention in that that risk needs to be minimized. Homosexual couples have the luxury of being far more deliberate in raising children.
Obviously bisexual further complicate these things. In any case, I think adultery and polyamory are devastating for children's needs (I'm aware you linked an article suggesting it's not harmful, I haven't had a chance to review it.)
quote:The thing is "White Culture" - the culture of White people sans any ethnically unique things (like say my own Norwegian culture, which I absolutely celebrate with food and traditions) not found elsewhere - is just the default culture of the United States.
That's a fair point. But now you are saying to those who do not have an outside American heritage that they are aware of can only celebrate their national heritage, and that their ethnic heritage can only be problematic. Many white Americans (Just like black Americans) do not have a defined country or even region they are aware they belong to.
I get that celebrations of black culture are in part attempting to own and turn around a concept that has been wickedly impugned. But if that's the case, many minority writers write that color blindness isn't the end-goal because that is pretending race doesn't exist which is racist.
So in the end, we have black Americans who can celebrate being black and whites who can only celebrate being Americans perpetually?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: That's a fair point. But now you are saying to those who do not have an outside American heritage that they are aware of can only celebrate their national heritage, and that their ethnic heritage can only be problematic. Many white Americans (Just like black Americans) do not have a defined country or even region they are aware they belong to.
No I'm not. Where on Earth did I say that?
quote:I get that celebrations of black culture are in part attempting to own and turn around a concept that has been wickedly impugned. But if that's the case, many minority writers write that color blindness isn't the end-goal because that is pretending race doesn't exist which is racist.
So in the end, we have black Americans who can celebrate being black and whites who can only celebrate being Americans perpetually?
BlackBlade: Please read my post again and answer the question. How exactly do you "celebrate being white" in a way that is distinct from celebrating being American? What does "celebrating white culture" actually mean?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If they aren't celebrating a national or specific ethnic heritage what is there to celebrate? What qualities or traditions that are specific to white culture? Food? Music? Art?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: They affect them often differently.
Yes, but you are actually saying that they are affected much worse. Or if not, why would traditional marriages need special protection and safeguarding?
quote:Take polyamory, in a homosexual married couple the results are possible jealousy, degeneration of the relationship, and STDs. For a heterosexual couple the results are possible jealousy, degeneration of relationship, STDs, and children without a well defined parental arrangement, possible abortion, court time and resources spent trying to hammer out living arrangements for the children, and payments from the parent who isn't going to provide accommodations. And children who grow up with a pretty significant handicap due to an absent parent.
Those are all things that are possible in a monogamous relationship as well, though. Do you think STDs only occur in polyamorous relationships? Why would the partners in, say, a 3 partner relationship be more likely to get STDs than those in a 2-partner? Do you think they would be more likely to have affairs or not use protection?
Likewise for "jealousy, degeneration of relationship" etc.
quote:A dearth of positive media portrayals of male father figures will not effect lesbian couples in the same way a heterosexual couple might be.
Are we suffering from a dearth of positive media portrayals of male father figures?
quote: Heterosexual couples often unintentionally enter parenthood (I did), and so they need especial attention in that that risk needs to be minimized. Homosexual couples have the luxury of being far more deliberate in raising children.
So heterosexual parents should be given special treatment, status, or privileges since they may have entered parenthood unintentionally?
FWIW I agree that new parents, especially low-income parents, should obviously be a focus for social programs, especially as far as extending maternity leave/paternity leave, food stamps, child care, etc. I just don't agree with you that we should exclude homosexual couples from that because they have that "luxury."
quote:Obviously bisexual further complicate these things. In any case, I think adultery and polyamory are devastating for children's needs (I'm aware you linked an article suggesting it's not harmful, I haven't had a chance to review it.)
Why?
Also, do you realize adultery and polyamory are, practically speaking, two entirely different concepts?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What is white culture?
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: If they aren't celebrating a national or specific ethnic heritage what is there to celebrate? What qualities or traditions that are specific to white culture? Food? Music? Art?
BB: I wanted to point out that Kate has asked you the same question several times as well. It's not just me picking on you or hounding you or something. You and SW both have the tendency to, in retrospect, single me out as the bad guy for asking you these sorts of questions in discussions where quite a few people actually have participated and asked you the same questions in the same way.
(I should note in this discussion in particular, Kate has been a lot more terse and direct with SW than I have (as have Tom, and Sam, and Rakeesh...), but I have still been given the bad guy label, and I'm trying to ask you not to do the same. Your decision to pretty much summarize my contributions here as "Dogbreath telling me that my insistence on tone in conversation is wrong at times" when that is something just about everyone has told you, and specifically is something I haven't really discussed much at all with you compared to Sam, Rakeesh, Lyrhawn, or kmbboots, whereas summarizing Kate's as "kmbboots desire that we all treat people humanely" is the sort of thing I'm talking about. It's both unkind and unfair)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I agree. I am much less patient with this crap than Dogbreath is.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I celebrate white culture by wearing a tricolour ribbon, with the lion rampant in a floret, on May 17th; and a red poppy on November 11th.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Heya DB...if you want to talk in private about why you get that label...I'm game. But privately. My email is public. Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Since you've decided to be very public about assigning that label and talking about how much you hate my posts, why wouldn't you make your justification for that behavior public as well?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Because I'm not interested in justifications. Or public opinion.
If -you- want to hear -my- opinion, I'm down to talk to you.
However, our personalities rubbing has derailed more than one legit convo, time to take that shjt private bro.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
You realize that "shjt" has been a year-long litany of you periodically, vociferously declaring how much you despise me, countered by me asking "why?", right? Why on Earth would I give you a means to harass me in private too?
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:BB: I wanted to point out that Kate has asked you the same question several times as well. It's not just me picking on you or hounding you or something. You and SW both have the tendency to, in retrospect, single me out as the bad guy for asking you these sorts of questions in discussions where quite a few people actually have participated and asked you the same questions in the same way.
Huh? Did I say something that implied you were a bad guy? I've told you not to tell me what I know, and I've pointed out when it seems like you are angry/frustrated with me. Also, Kate hasn't said anything directly to me that was terse or rude.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Wait a second. You are insisting that celebrating Whiteness *must* also include the very anti-statements that Stone_Wolf has just said he does not mean.
Yes. I am saying that, other than in the fantasy that SW and some others pretend, celebrating whiteness is anti-not white. And pro-straight is anti-gay.
I guess I'm struggling with the idea that it must be that way. I feel like that speaks to us failing in some way, rather than whiteness in of itself can only be understood in terms of what it isn't. It feels wrong.
So had black Americans not been treated poorly and segregated, there would be no black American culture worth celebrating and to do so would only be to celebrate non-whiteness?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: So had black Americans not been treated poorly and segregated, there would be no black American culture worth celebrating and to do so would only be to celebrate non-whiteness?
Why are we talking about hypothetical fantasy worlds here?
But lets go with that fantasy. For it to be possible, then it's an alternate universe where slavery never happened, where segregation never happened, where black people were not oppressed, ghettoized, and marginalized to the point where "black" became a cultural group with it's own music, slang, traditions, food, and social norms separate from the rest of American culture.
Well in that fantasy word, then, "black American culture" wouldn't exist as we know it. There might be Nigerian culture and Kenyan culture (or their non-colonial influenced approximation) for sure, who knows. But your question is utter nonsense since you're asking hypothetical questions about "how would a culture that arose from oppression be treated if that oppression didn't exist?" And the answer of course is that culture wouldn't exist as we know it, either.
Meanwhile, in the real world, where all those things we talked about really, truly happened, you have yet to answer the simple question you've been asked many times now. What is "white culture"? How do you "celebrate white culture"? Is there any difference between "white culture" and American culture?
Please answer. Because it's kind of silly for you to keep bemoaning how it's not acceptable to "celebrate white culture" when you keep refusing to define that term.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Because I'm not interested in justifications. Or public opinion.
If -you- want to hear -my- opinion, I'm down to talk to you.
However, our personalities rubbing has derailed more than one legit convo, time to take that shjt private bro.
Unless the justifications are yours, it seems. And then only for a little while until you are asked specific questions about it and then it's time for more la la fiddle dee dee whimsy, which will be rolled back later for a jab about how someone isn't speaking to you appropriately, and you'll have time to devote to *that*-more time, in fact, than you do to address direct questions.
Asserting a direct challenge to a point of view is not more rude than taking a jab at someone and then getting all whimsical. Quite the contrary, in fact.
---------
BB,
I think that in America society, 'white culture' simply doesn't need explanation because it is the water everyone swims in. Music, television, film, politics, religion, economics, sexuality, and so many more things are not only white in the Midwest where demographically that is more accurate. They're white in, say, Washington DC or Los Angeles, two of the most diverse cities in the country. New York.
To a certain extent this is unavoidable. For most of American history, we have been overwhelmingly white-though there are some big old asterisks there, too. But in a magical time-altering fantasy where America's legacy of race relations wasn't riddled with hypocrisy and crimes against humanity, sure, it wouldn't be important to celebrate any minority culture nor would it be objectionable for the majority to celebrate theirs. Insofar as they have one on the broadest basis of 'white culture'.
But a white Anglo-descended American isn't called British-American. Nor Scottish, Germans, or Irish. I'm not saying those categories don't exist, but when was the last time they were even mentioned much less specified in a discussion about race? Such cultures don't *need* an extra label because of the implicit assumption that they're American. The very fact that we have labels for other groups demonstrates its not true of them.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: You realize that "shjt" has been a year-long litany of you periodically, vociferously declaring how much you despise me, countered by me asking "why?", right? Why on Earth would I give you a means to harass me in private too?
Than do us a favor & don't act like..."what did I do? " Cause I offered to answer & you demurred.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Because I'm not interested in justifications. Or public opinion.
If -you- want to hear -my- opinion, I'm down to talk to you.
However, our personalities rubbing has derailed more than one legit convo, time to take that shjt private bro.
Unless the justifications are yours, it seems. And then only for a little while until you are asked specific questions about it and then it's time for more la la fiddle dee dee whimsy, which will be rolled back later for a jab about how someone isn't speaking to you appropriately, and you'll have time to devote to *that*-more time, in fact, than you do to address direct questions.
Asserting a direct challenge to a point of view is not more rude than taking a jab at someone and then getting all whimsical. Quite the contrary, in fact.
I can appreciate that y'all aren't happy w me...I'm just trying to stay on topic. And not let individual personality disputes bog down otherwise interesting discussion. Sometimes more successful than others.
However it's an open invitation. Anyone who wants to discuss what they feel are my personal short comings or resolve or even escalate any other non relavant to discussion subjects...my email is public. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote: But lets go with that fantasy. For it to be possible, then it's an alternate universe where slavery never happened, where segregation never happened, where black people were not oppressed, ghettoized, and marginalized to the point where "black" became a cultural group with it's own music, slang, traditions, food, and social norms separate from the rest of American culture.
Then why are Irish just folded in w white? They had a -very- similar new world experience.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Wait a second. You are insisting that celebrating Whiteness *must* also include the very anti-statements that Stone_Wolf has just said he does not mean.
Yes. I am saying that, other than in the fantasy that SW and some others pretend, celebrating whiteness is anti-not white. And pro-straight is anti-gay.
I guess I'm struggling with the idea that it must be that way. I feel like that speaks to us failing in some way, rather than whiteness in of itself can only be understood in terms of what it isn't. It feels wrong.
So had black Americans not been treated poorly and segregated, there would be no black American culture worth celebrating and to do so would only be to celebrate non-whiteness?
Had we not kidnapped, murdered, raped and enslaved them for generations, making them chattel, and stripping their heritage and families from them, (or, as you say, poorly treated them) I imagine immigrants from Africa to the US would celebrate the various national and tribal foods, arts, music, traditions of their ancestors and families much like Irish Americans or Scandanavian Americans, or Italian Americans celebrate now.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Cut this "we" crap out. Not only did anyone alive have anything to do w it, many of our ansesters had -nothing- to do with it...such as mine.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
We Americans. We white people. Do you object when someone says "we won WW II"? Not always so eager to embrace white culture (which you still refuse to define) are you?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote: But lets go with that fantasy. For it to be possible, then it's an alternate universe where slavery never happened, where segregation never happened, where black people were not oppressed, ghettoized, and marginalized to the point where "black" became a cultural group with it's own music, slang, traditions, food, and social norms separate from the rest of American culture.
Then why are Irish just folded in w white? They had a -very- similar new world experience.
Yeah. Not really. I will wager I know far more Irish history than you do and I can say that, while a great deal of the Irish immigrant experience was pretty terrible, it came nowhere near the experience of African slaves.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Because I'm not interested in justifications. Or public opinion.
If -you- want to hear -my- opinion, I'm down to talk to you.
However, our personalities rubbing has derailed more than one legit convo, time to take that shjt private bro.
Unless the justifications are yours, it seems. And then only for a little while until you are asked specific questions about it and then it's time for more la la fiddle dee dee whimsy, which will be rolled back later for a jab about how someone isn't speaking to you appropriately, and you'll have time to devote to *that*-more time, in fact, than you do to address direct questions.
Asserting a direct challenge to a point of view is not more rude than taking a jab at someone and then getting all whimsical. Quite the contrary, in fact.
I can appreciate that y'all aren't happy w me...I'm just trying to stay on topic. And not let individual personality disputes bog down otherwise interesting discussion. Sometimes more successful than others.
However it's an open invitation. Anyone who wants to discuss what they feel are my personal short comings or resolve or even escalate any other non relavant to discussion subjects...my email is public.
Except that you aren't consistently trying to stay on topic. At least three times you've pivoted to whimsy and left questions unanswered.
As for the email matter, why on earth should anyone take criticisms to email when you are happy to air yours publicly? It's a blatant double standard. People ask you direct, relevant questions without jumping through the unspoken hoops and you criticize them for it. If they take issue with *that*, sudden I you're trying to stay on topic and you're the better person and let's discuss in email?
That goes triple for DB, of course. You've flipped out on him multiple times in the past and even though he's only asking direct, topical questions he *still* gets busted on for being mean or whatever? (How soon until other people are bullies again?)
As for your question about the Irish, for about the ninth time now the answer is context. We aren't living in 19th century America anymore. Or even early 20th century America. We are in fact living in early 21st century America. The days of legal and cultural bigotry against the Irish are long gone.
The Irish have st Patrick's day, and it's a holiday everyone either likes or is indifferent to. Meanwhile Kwanzaa is part of a war on Christmas and goddamned if we can't go a February without hearing some entitled white jackass whining 'what about white history month?' A sizable percentage of Americas still believe Barack Obama is from Kenya-we've even got one here-and correct me if I'm wrong but fears about Catholics and loyalty to the pope is more or less gone also.
What about the Irish? Seriously?
----
Anyway, in lieu of an actual answer to an oft repeated question 'what does celebrating white culture mean?' I'll posit an answer. I suspect, not unlike being 'pro-straight', it involves celebrating (and thus claiming) very broad positive virtues such as ambition, hard work, bravery, industry, and so on, while neglecting to remember that none of those are actually white at all but human traits instead.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Cut this "we" crap out. Not only did anyone alive have anything to do w it, many of our ansesters had -nothing- to do with it...such as mine.
Yeah, nonsense. That land you're living on? California if I recall correctly? Stolen from thieves at gunpoint. The land your ancestors crossed to get to that stolen land was crossed on railroads that didn't lets just say have the strictest concern for workers' or even human rights. The ships they crossed the Atlantic in? There's a very good chance they had ties to the slave trade. The clothes they wore when they got to America? That fabric came from somewhere.
If you want to say it's unreasonable to carry that stuff forward into the present, alright. It's a silly argument that doesn't withstand much knowledge of history, but a case could be made. But don't let's pretend your ancestors or mine had 'nothing to do with it'.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, wow, I missed the Irish 'very similar' immigration experience to African slaves.
There are basically just three ways that could be said: a profound racism and indifference to past bigotry, a very large degree of ignorance of Irish American and African American (case in point, one is specific to nation, the other to continent) history, or a fit of picque.
Because no, the Irish experience was not-not not not not- 'very similar' to slaves. Or even similar. Holy shit, man.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
My bad...I meant "Irish had a very similar experience as free blacks in the 1800s."
I was using poor short hand.
And it was bad example of the idea I was trying to communicate.
I guess my definition of "racist" might be out of date...i.e. treating a person of one race differently than another because of race.
So...my point that I'm struggling to get out is...the rules for what is and what is not racist seem to be inconsistant.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
And if anyone has a problem with me just start a new thread and I'll try & participate...I'm just not wanting to derail topical conversation.
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by zlogdanbr:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: So what do you mean by traditional families. Why "traditional"? What would a non-traditional family be?
It is a all a matter of semantics km, let me rephrase that ( my first language is not English and perhaps that is the case of confusion ).
I think a family based on father and mother was pivotal to the development of our society but I do not think on same sex marriage as bad or evil.
Just inferior?
You are the one implying that although I would say that such logic is devoid of reason because it is impossible to judge families based on concepts like inferior or superior .
One certainly enjoys the family she or he is part of. The mere fact ( Stone Wolf has been saying this more eloquently than me ) we enjoy our families does not mean we hate other families.
What is probably dangerous is to assume hatred comes from those feelings.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
Just a couple comments.
King Of Men - I only became aware of the poppy tradition when I moved back to England. Here, at least, they're worn in remembrance of the war dead. I'm curious how that has been adapted to celebrate white culture in Scandinavia?
I actually have identified and announced myself as British American, but that was only because I was actually born in the UK and my immediate family still had customs and beliefs that had been brought over from there. Even still, there was one very big difference for me; it was entirely up to me when and how I announced that status, at least once my accent had faded.
People are correct in noting how unfairly Dogbreath has been treated. He is never anything but respectful, even at times when the rest of us would be pulling our hair out and cussing the other guy out. He gets it because he's a known safe target as compared to the rest of us that usually share his opinions. To single him out for being mean or whatever, when there are plenty of other people with the same opinion as him who are a whole lot more straightforward and terse, is simply cowardly.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
quote:Originally posted by zlogdanbr:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by zlogdanbr:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: So what do you mean by traditional families. Why "traditional"? What would a non-traditional family be?
It is a all a matter of semantics km, let me rephrase that ( my first language is not English and perhaps that is the case of confusion ).
I think a family based on father and mother was pivotal to the development of our society but I do not think on same sex marriage as bad or evil.
Just inferior?
You are the one implying that although I would say that such logic is devoid of reason because it is impossible to judge families based on concepts like inferior or superior .
One certainly enjoys the family she or he is part of. The mere fact ( Stone Wolf has been saying this more eloquently than me ) we enjoy our families does not mean we hate other families.
What is probably dangerous is to assume hatred comes from those feelings.
I don't assume hatred. I assume ignorance at best, and apathy towards the genuine concern and possible suffering of others at worst.
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
quote:Originally posted by Heisenberg:
quote:Originally posted by zlogdanbr:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by zlogdanbr:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: So what do you mean by traditional families. Why "traditional"? What would a non-traditional family be?
It is a all a matter of semantics km, let me rephrase that ( my first language is not English and perhaps that is the case of confusion ).
I think a family based on father and mother was pivotal to the development of our society but I do not think on same sex marriage as bad or evil.
Just inferior?
You are the one implying that although I would say that such logic is devoid of reason because it is impossible to judge families based on concepts like inferior or superior .
One certainly enjoys the family she or he is part of. The mere fact ( Stone Wolf has been saying this more eloquently than me ) we enjoy our families does not mean we hate other families.
What is probably dangerous is to assume hatred comes from those feelings.
I don't assume hatred. I assume ignorance at best, and apathy towards the genuine concern and possible suffering of others at worst.
So to like your family is ignorance unless it is a SSM family?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm almost certain she meant that she didn't assume hatred but rather ignorance on the part of those who felt non-traditional families must be inherently inferior.
quote:You are the one implying that although I would say that such logic is devoid of reason because it is impossible to judge families based on concepts like inferior or superior .
One certainly enjoys the family she or he is part of. The mere fact ( Stone Wolf has been saying this more eloquently than me ) we enjoy our families does not mean we hate other families.
What is probably dangerous is to assume hatred comes from those feelings.
It's certainly not impossible to judge a family as inferior or superior on the basis of sexuality, zlog. I'm not sure why you would assert that, as such judgments happen all the time everywhere.
Also, it's not a given that someone enjoys their own family.
Finally, Stone_Wolf has gone further than saying 'I am pro-straight because I enjoy my own family'. For example, suggesting that there is a mystic bond experienced by a straight family that is unattainable by homosexual couples or adoptive couples. Unless he was claiming that the connection to the infinite was entirely a neutral thing devoid of value-and clearly he wasn't-that is a judgment of heterosexual families as superior.
------------
quote:My bad...I meant "Irish had a very similar experience as free blacks in the 1800s."
I was using poor short hand.
And it was bad example of the idea I was trying to communicate.
I guess my definition of "racist" might be out of date...i.e. treating a person of one race differently than another because of race.
So...my point that I'm struggling to get out is...the rules for what is and what is not racist seem to be inconsistant.
OK, so you meant that the Irish had similar experiences to free blacks in the United States in the 1800s. People misspeak all the time, I've certainly done so.
It's still complete nonsense. Were the Irish regarded as 3/5s a person, for example? Could any Irish person at all face the fear of being abducted and sold into slavery as a supposed 'fugitive' slave? Was it completely impossible for a given Irish person to attempt assimilation and gain acceptance into the broader culture in the United States in the 1800s? Could the Irish enlist in the military at the same pay, could they run for elected office, did they face the same sorts of hurdles when they tried to vote? Oh, and were there millions of Irish throughout the country, not just in the South, kept in slavery?
Then no, Stone_Wolf. The Irish did not have a similar experience to free blacks in the United States in the 1800s. Unless you mean the similarity between bad and extremely catastrophically bad. It will be interesting to see whether or not this was another 'misspeaking'.
Anyway, this is one of the reasons there are people who are frustrated with you in this discussion. You say some of the right, politically correct things. You don't see color, people should strive for a society beyond racism, change starts from within, etc. etc. All of those things are nice, but they are also easy to say. But when it comes down to brass tacks of actually discussing what is or has gone on in the world, you utterly, utterly softball things like past racism and its legacy. For example, by claiming first that the Irish had a very similar experience to blacks in the United States in the 1800s, and then to blacks who weren't slaves in the 1800s. There's also the problem that this is so often a rallying cry of those who wish to dismiss racism and its legacies in a more direct, less naïve and more cynical way by claiming 'my ancestors were Irish and we lifted ourselves up, why can't the blacks?'
Which is a thing that has been said and continues to be said. Well, good for the Irish ancestors. Seriously, I do mean that. But not all struggles are equal, and in fact some struggles are incredibly, ridiculously out of balance. If you don't believe me, ask Lyrhawn about it. He is almost certainly the most informed on this board on the time period, and you've held him up as an example before. If he were to weigh in and support the claim that the discrimination faced by the Irish in the 1800s and free African-Americas in the United States at the same time, I would happily eat some crow.
And finally, no, what is deemed racist is not inconsistent. Every example of 'inconsistency' that has been brought up here has been addressed. For example, the supposed 'inconsistency' of why it is acceptable to say 'black is beautiful' versus 'white is beautiful'. Or black lives matter. Just because you've largely ignored thosepoints doesn't mean they haven't been made.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
Rakeesh clarified my statement correctly, even though I suspect that he was mixing me up with Boots.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by zlogdanbr:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by zlogdanbr:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: So what do you mean by traditional families. Why "traditional"? What would a non-traditional family be?
It is a all a matter of semantics km, let me rephrase that ( my first language is not English and perhaps that is the case of confusion ).
I think a family based on father and mother was pivotal to the development of our society but I do not think on same sex marriage as bad or evil.
Just inferior?
You are the one implying that although I would say that such logic is devoid of reason because it is impossible to judge families based on concepts like inferior or superior .
One certainly enjoys the family she or he is part of. The mere fact ( Stone Wolf has been saying this more eloquently than me ) we enjoy our families does not mean we hate other families.
What is probably dangerous is to assume hatred comes from those feelings.
But you are not just saying that you enjoy your families. You are saying that you have a preference - a bias toward - families that are like yours. That assumes that you think that families like yours - with opposite sex parents - are better than families with SSM. That doesn't mean that you hate them but it does mean that you think them inferior.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by zlogdanbr:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by zlogdanbr:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: So what do you mean by traditional families. Why "traditional"? What would a non-traditional family be?
It is a all a matter of semantics km, let me rephrase that ( my first language is not English and perhaps that is the case of confusion ).
I think a family based on father and mother was pivotal to the development of our society but I do not think on same sex marriage as bad or evil.
Just inferior?
You are the one implying that although I would say that such logic is devoid of reason because it is impossible to judge families based on concepts like inferior or superior .
One certainly enjoys the family she or he is part of. The mere fact ( Stone Wolf has been saying this more eloquently than me ) we enjoy our families does not mean we hate other families.
What is probably dangerous is to assume hatred comes from those feelings.
But you are not just saying that you enjoy your families. You are saying that you have a preference - a bias toward - families that are like yours. That assumes that you think that families like yours - with opposite sex parents - are better than families with SSM. That doesn't mean that you hate them but it does mean that you think them inferior.
Hmmmm. I don't know that I would go that far. To an extent, personal preference doesn't have to imply that person is also making a value judgment outside their own personal preference. To use a heavy-handed simple example, I prefer steaks more than asparagus. To me, to my tastebuds, asparagus is inferior to steak. But if I were asked, 'Which is better?' I could only reply 'I prefer steaks'. Which wouldn't be quite the same thing in this context as saying 'asparagus is inferior to steak'.
In a similar way, it makes perfect sense for zlog and Stone_Wolf to prefer straight married families to other family units. I mean, they got married and had kids (actually I may be wrong about that, zlog, I can't recall if you've mentioned?). After all, how could anyone have a personal equivalence of preference for a relationship that fits their own native outlook versus one that is entirely outside their own sexuality?
The trouble is, to me anyway, that the conversation doesn't stop there. It doesn't stop at 'I prefer steak to asparagus'. Instead it continues on to 'we need to make sure steak is protected' and 'aren't people who like asparagus actually criticizing steak?' and 'eating steak has a cosmic connection to the universe, a special spiritual significance that eating asparagus just doesn't yield'. Or, zlog, to look back at past discussions*, a third party will say things like 'people who eat asparagus hate steak eaters, they're just playing at being mammals that like food, people that eat asparagus or who stick up for asparagus eaters hate America and want to destroy it, there's a higher concentration of sexual deviants among asparagus eaters, laws that say asparagus eaters ought to be locked up maybe should remain on the books as a symbol of public disapproval of the consumption of asparagus, people that eat asparagus should never have the same access to public resources that steak eaters have' and so on. Every one of those things I just mentioned are statements Card has made. Anyway, to say that you prefer steak to asparagus is fine. I have no interest in objecting to that. But to take a step further, to defend someone who says that sort of thing as some sort of reasonable voice, to state a mystic superiority to eating steak versus eating asparagus, goes further than a simple personal approval.
*Not trying to hit you over the head with this, rather it's an example of going past 'my own taste is for heterosexual coupling'.
------
Heisenberg, I did get you mixed up. My bad.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: So had black Americans not been treated poorly and segregated, there would be no black American culture worth celebrating and to do so would only be to celebrate non-whiteness?
Why are we talking about hypothetical fantasy worlds here?
But lets go with that fantasy. For it to be possible, then it's an alternate universe where slavery never happened, where segregation never happened, where black people were not oppressed, ghettoized, and marginalized to the point where "black" became a cultural group with it's own music, slang, traditions, food, and social norms separate from the rest of American culture.
Well in that fantasy word, then, "black American culture" wouldn't exist as we know it. There might be Nigerian culture and Kenyan culture (or their non-colonial influenced approximation) for sure, who knows. But your question is utter nonsense since you're asking hypothetical questions about "how would a culture that arose from oppression be treated if that oppression didn't exist?" And the answer of course is that culture wouldn't exist as we know it, either.
Meanwhile, in the real world, where all those things we talked about really, truly happened, you have yet to answer the simple question you've been asked many times now. What is "white culture"? How do you "celebrate white culture"? Is there any difference between "white culture" and American culture?
Please answer. Because it's kind of silly for you to keep bemoaning how it's not acceptable to "celebrate white culture" when you keep refusing to define that term.
You decided to talk about race instead of sticking to family dynamics. I didn't demand you stick to my questions. This is what happens in conversations, they drift. Also I'm trying very hard to find time to consider what you are saying when I'm away from Hatrack, and when I have time, responding to people who have addressed me.
I'm sorry if you feel I've ignored things you want addressed, I certainly have done that in the recent past. But please could you stop taking me to task about who I haven't addressed so often? If this conversation is too frustrating then we could just stop. I don't really need to keep being told how I personally argue incorrectly all the time.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Rakeesh...I'm happy to drop the "-very-"...but I'm sticking to "similar" and here is why...
quote: Irish and blacks often lived side by side in the poorest parts of town in those port cities. While blacks faced racial discrimination from native-born whites, the Irish suffered from anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic attitudes.
Charles L. Blockson, the author of ''Black Genealogy,'' said that because of their skin differences, both blacks and Irish, with features like red hair or freckles, were easily picked out by native-born whites and subject to discrimination. He said that both groups were without property and, because of this, each group built a similar live-for-the-moment culture, commonalities that helped bring them together.
But Irish immigrants and blacks fought over jobs, underbidding one another on wages. The tension reached a fever pitch during the Civil War, when poor Irish could not buy their way out of military service and resented risking their lives fighting for the North for the freedom of blacks who were their economic competitors.
As to the point of white/black is beautiful...I'm not ignoring points made...I don't get em...so they ain't made.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What don't you "get"? I can try to slow it down even further for you.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: We Americans. We white people. Do you object when someone says "we won WW II"? Not always so eager to embrace white culture (which you still refuse to define) are you?
This crap.
A. My gandfathers were in WWII...so yea I associate w that.
B. I never used the phrase "white culture" and no one asked me anything about it. So..easy there.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You aren't your grandfathers. So no, it's not 'we' for you by your own standards. Or is the cutoff two generations? In that case, shall we discuss Japanese internment camps? If you get to feel pride for what your grandfathers did you are by your own reasoning also condemned for what other Americans did in the same war. So yeah. The points have been made. And you know, cut it out with the 'easy there' nonsense. This is a discussions. People get to make assertions in a conversation, and that doesn't mean you're somehow being agressed upon.
As for the article you referenced, well, it doesn't quite seem to say what you suggest. 'Some similarities' isn't the same as 'similar'. They talk about military service, for example. In a war which was in major part at least over the right to keep one race of humans as slaves. When they couldn't buy their way out of military service, they were still paid more. And treated better. They weren't, say, shot instead of being taken prisoner. And of course the Irish weren't in the south in their millions as slaves, either.
It's totally kosher to say 'Irish were treated with shameful racism and unfairness in the United States in the 1800s'. That is a completely true and fair statement. But they weren't slaves! They didn't face the risk of being slaves. As they began their struggle out of the constraints the racism in the United States placed on them, they didn't face nearly as much opposition.
But in any event why does it matter to you? You've already claimed that past has nothing for which you should feel personally involved.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: You decided to talk about race instead of sticking to family dynamics.
That is entirely untrue. Stone_Wolf decided to talk about race, and then you replied to kmbboots' conversation with him. I actually continued the conversation about family dynamics here. Which you never responded to. Because you wanted to talk about race. It's pretty hypocritical to claim "you wanted to talk about race instead of sticking to family dynamics" when in fact I did stick to family dynamics, and wrote a pretty in depth and detailed response to your last post about it. How is you ignoring that post - because you wanted to shift to talking about race - my fault now?
quote:I didn't demand you stick to my questions. This is what happens in conversations, they drift.
Nevertheless, I answered them. And would have continued that discussion if you had responded.
quote:I'm sorry if you feel I've ignored things you want addressed, I certainly have done that in the recent past. But please could you stop taking me to task about who I haven't addressed so often? If this conversation is too frustrating then we could just stop. I don't really need to keep being told how I personally argue incorrectly all the time.
Blackblade. I am not "taking you to task" about who you haven't addressed so often. I am asking you to answer a simple but very important question about what you mean by "white culture." I am not the only person who has asked you that question. I am not the only person who has asked you that question multiple times. I am even, you might notice, not the only person who has commented on your continued refusal to answer that question.
I gave an informed, well reasoned response to your hypothetical question about black culture and then asked what you meant by "white culture." As did Rakeesh. As did kmbboots. And you have, once again, chosen to ignore the discussion at hand to complain about me "taking you to task" and then condescendingly suggested that this conversation is just to "frustrating" for me to handle.
The thing is, the question about how you define "white culture" is so important because it's actually the central question underlying this entire discussion. The same logical fallacy exists behind saying "I just think we need to protect and safeguard traditional marriage" as does saying "what's wrong with celebrating white culture?" as does asking things like "why don't we have a White History Month?" And that flaw is evident in your steadfast refusal to describe what you mean by "white culture." This isn't me trying to take you to task for some personal vendetta or because I feel miffed that you ignored a post of mine, this is me trying very hard to get you to get past this weird mental block you have when it comes to race relations, one where you seem to just hit a wall and start "blanking out" as Sam described it when people try to explain it to you.
So can you please, please just answer the question?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Rakeesh
Of course I'm not my grandfathers...I claimed an "association" w WWII, not participation. Nor did I ever mention two generations. I grew up, cutting my teeth on their war stories & they died before I was an adult, so they retained the legendary status my parents haven't since I achieved adulthood.
At the end of the day I hold myself to a simple, but, I feel, sane standard; did one of my choices directly cause harm? Indirectly? What can I do differently next time? What did I lean? Did I take appropriate responsibility, apologize & attempt to rectify the situation?
Using that template...I had NOTHING to do with slavery or racial oppression.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sure you did. Your parents or grandparents or great-grandparents benefited from systemic biases in their favor. They got to live in better houses, had access to better education, had better jobs. Those advantages have been passed down to you. You live in a society that still bears the imprint of generations of advantage. You did not start at 0.
Now. And this is important. No one is saying that you should be blamed for this. No one is suggesting that you should feel guilt or that it is your fault. All we are saying is that you recognize that this is the world we live in now and, that as a good human being, you have an obligation to remedy bias when you can.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:It's totally kosher to say 'Irish were treated with shameful racism and unfairness in the United States in the 1800s'. That is a completely true and fair statement. But they weren't slaves! They didn't face the risk of being slaves. As they began their struggle out of the constraints the racism in the United States placed on them, they didn't face nearly as much opposition.
Okay. I can go for all this.
The whole black/irish was just an attempt (as was black/white is beautiful ) to get you guys (Rakeesh,DB,Boots,etc) to see that the brand of racism you guys are advocating against uses inconsistent rules. Rules that require us to look at a "black" human in a different way than a "white" human.
And it's not that there aren't -reasons- that you think that. You all are real quick to tell us -why- the rules need to be not the same to be fair.
But it seems like you guys are refusing to acknowledge that the rules you are enforcing treat people differently because of their race .
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
Really? Because anytime I've questioned people, they've said flat out that, yes, they should be treated differently because of race, and then went on to give very good reasons for doing so, mostly having to do with past injustices and the effect those injustices have carried into the present.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
quote:At the end of the day I hold myself to a simple, but, I feel, sane standard; did one of my choices directly cause harm? Indirectly? What can I do differently next time? What did I lean? Did I take appropriate responsibility, apologize & attempt to rectify the situation?
Using that template...I had NOTHING to do with slavery or racial oppression.
But you've almost certainly benefited from it.
If you're white, you've had options available to you that were at least partially dependent on racial oppression. You've inherited wealth or social capital derived from same. You've elected people (unless your vote has been the kiss of death) to a government that has implemented racist policies. [Aside: I wonder how much of North America consists of land stolen (as opposed to be deliberately ceded) from the First Nations?] You participate in an economy that says it's okay to exploit people based on where they live.
You may nothing to do with slavery or racial oppression, but that doesn't mean it has nothing to do with you.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What don't you "get"? I can try to slow it down even further for you.
Are you asking me to explain something I don't understand? Really?
Even further boots? That's not nice at all. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm asking what part of it you don't understand. I thought I was explaining it in small steps but if they need to be smaller, I can try to do that. Where do you get lost? What don't you get?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Sure you did. Your parents or grandparents or great-grandparents benefited from systemic biases in their favor. They got to live in better houses, had access to better education, had better jobs. Those advantages have been passed down to you. You live in a society that still bears the imprint of generations of advantage. You did not start at 0.
You are making the point "you benifited" from this...my claim is I "had NOTHING to do with slavery & oppression." One of these things are not like the other!
quote:Now. And this is important. No one is saying that you should be blamed for this. No one is suggesting that you should feel guilt or that it is your fault. All we are saying is that you recognize that this is the world we live in now and, that as a good human being, you have an obligation to remedy bias when you can.
That is NOT how it seems to me...certainly not how it feels.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
Let me dumb it down a notch.
You're white.
White people have it better. Even in the cases where white people are poor and don't have social connections, a white person starting from zero has a better go of it then a black person starting from zero.
This is because of things like slavery and discrimination. You have it better then blacks, today, because of what was done by white people in the past.
You didn't do anything. But you still have benefited. And it's not an attack against you or any white people to say that most blacks could use a helping hand.
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I mean, they got married and had kids (actually I may be wrong about that, zlog, I can't recall if you've mentioned?).
zlog, to look back at past discussions*, a third party will say things like 'people who eat asparagus hate steak eaters, they're just playing at being mammals that like food, people that eat asparagus or who stick up for asparagus eaters hate America and want to destroy it, there's a higher concentration of sexual deviants among asparagus eaters, laws that say asparagus eaters ought to be locked up maybe should remain on the books as a symbol of public disapproval of the consumption of asparagus, people that eat asparagus should never have the same access to public resources that steak eaters have' and so on. Every one of those things I just mentioned are statements Card has made. Anyway, to say that you prefer steak to asparagus is fine. I have no interest in objecting to that. But to take a step further, to defend someone who says that sort of thing as some sort of reasonable voice, to state a mystic superiority to eating steak versus eating asparagus, goes further than a simple personal approval.
*Not trying to hit you over the head with this, rather it's an example of going past 'my own taste is for heterosexual coupling'.
I have two kids, oldest is 13 and youngest is 10. I hope they become proud nerds and metal heads like me, but ok, I am happy they like super heroes movies, cartoons, star wars and computers. ;-) ( Please this is a comment meant to be humorous, please do not think I want to impose my kids to be like me ).
One thing that is blatant obvious for me now is that OSC was quite inappropriate and unfortunate making those comments -specially the parts where he speaks about jailing gay people.
I'd like to think now that he will one day regret saying things that nasty and offensive and I believe he should have apologized before. On the other hand, although I cannot participate of that opinion I still like his books a lot. I will need to live with that though but SSM defendants and gay readers that felt offended by those unhappy comments are in their rights to stop reading OSC after all I did that myself.
This is not a defense whatsoever, but when you have time please read this link: web page
And skip to a comment made by Janis Ian which although does not make amends with LGBT community at least it shows a more friendly view of OSC.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Could people please stop acting like it's only people on the left who are for gay marriage?
Pretty sure there are conservatives who are for it. Pretty sure there are GAY conservatives for it.
No one is banishing Orson Scott Card. People have the right to disagree. He has the right to be against gay marriage. I have the right to point out why that is not completely logical and the fact that human sexuality and gender is a lot more complex and you can find instances of gay marriage in history.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I like you Syn.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Hey zlog: I don't think anyone here is calling OSC a villain or talking about boycotting his works. I still buy his new books when they come out, and have been pretty critical at some of the absurd shit that he gets accused of. (Probably most notably the whole "Ender is supposed to be Hitler!" thing which still pops up every now and again) He seems like a pretty great guy, for the most part.
He's also said some terrible, hateful, bigoted things, and said them consistently enough that it would be disingenuous of me to just play them off and not acknowledge hey, yeah, he really believes this stuff. Which puts all of us into the awkward position of being fans of an author who says and believes those things.
How did most of his fans handle it? Well, a lot of them stopped being fans. That's why this forum used to be much, much more active than it is now. Most of them just left. Those of us who remain, such as we are, are kind of stuck with that dichotomy.
It doesn't mean anyone here hates him or thinks he's a villain, though.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote: Hmmmm. I don't know that I would go that far. To an extent, personal preference doesn't have to imply that person is also making a value judgment outside their own personal preference. To use a heavy-handed simple example, I prefer steaks more than asparagus. To me, to my tastebuds, asparagus is inferior to steak. But if I were asked, 'Which is better?' I could only reply 'I prefer steaks'. Which wouldn't be quite the same thing in this context as saying 'asparagus is inferior to steak'.
In a similar way, it makes perfect sense for zlog and Stone_Wolf to prefer straight married families to other family units. I mean, they got married and had kids (actually I may be wrong about that, zlog, I can't recall if you've mentioned?). After all, how could anyone have a personal equivalence of preference for a relationship that fits their own native outlook versus one that is entirely outside their own sexuality?
Credit where credit is due. Thank you for listening to us Rakeesh!
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: You decided to talk about race instead of sticking to family dynamics.
That is entirely untrue. Stone_Wolf decided to talk about race, and then you replied to kmbboots' conversation with him. I actually continued the conversation about family dynamics here. Which you never responded to. Because you wanted to talk about race. It's pretty hypocritical to claim "you wanted to talk about race instead of sticking to family dynamics" when in fact I did stick to family dynamics, and wrote a pretty in depth and detailed response to your last post about it. How is you ignoring that post - because you wanted to shift to talking about race - my fault now?
No. I misremembered how the conversation got to where it was. I genuinely thought you had used "Black Lives Matter" as a comparison to my remarks about heterosexual and homosexual couples. I'm sorry, I was wrong.
quote:Blackblade. I am not "taking you to task" about who you haven't addressed so often. I am asking you to answer a simple but very important question about what you mean by "white culture." I am not the only person who has asked you that question. I am not the only person who has asked you that question multiple times. I am even, you might notice, not the only person who has commented on your continued refusal to answer that question.
Because I don't see what good it will do. I attempt to define white culture, and concept that has become steeped in negative things because of misuse, and because nobody has really made a serious attempt to define it outside of what it "is not". So it's already freaking hard (Which isn't to say I haven't been trying, I've just been unsuccessful), and say I manage to point out some things we then nit pick those things for whether they are or are not anti-other race, and we haven't made any actual progress as to whether it's right to protect heterosexual marriages.
quote: The thing is, the question about how you define "white culture" is so important because it's actually the central question underlying this entire discussion. The same logical fallacy exists behind saying "I just think we need to protect and safeguard traditional marriage" as does saying "what's wrong with celebrating white culture?" as does asking things like "why don't we have a White History Month?" And that flaw is evident in your steadfast refusal to describe what you mean by "white culture." This isn't me trying to take you to task for some personal vendetta or because I feel miffed that you ignored a post of mine, this is me trying very hard to get you to get past this weird mental block you have when it comes to race relations, one where you seem to just hit a wall and start "blanking out" as Sam described it when people try to explain it to you.
So can you please, please just answer the question? [/qb]
I cannot conceive of what white culture here in the United States means. I'm not sure anybody has attempted to do so without it degenerating into white supremacy or hatred for non-whites. It is extremely difficult as you seem to have expected.
I grew up in a place where white culture *was* distinct from Asian culture, and often at times it meant I was given preferential treatment, and at others treated poorly. But I could definitely talk about how I was glad to be a white man, just as the Chinese could say they were glad to be Han Chinese, and there wasn't an assumption I was saying I'm glad I'm *not* Chinese.
Look, it just feel fundamentally wrong that to look at my own skin and feel appreciation or happiness is to automatically say I'm glad I'm not "not white". It feels like something we are imposing rather than something that must be. Anyway, I hope that answers your question.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
A straight person being pro-straight reads to me like being pro-hetero-sex (and its positive consequences). Kinda quaint, too, and adorable if they think it's a political position.
[ April 07, 2016, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: NobleHunter ]
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Could people please stop acting like it's only people on the left who are for gay marriage?
Pretty sure there are conservatives who are for it. Pretty sure there are GAY conservatives for it.
No one is banishing Orson Scott Card. People have the right to disagree. He has the right to be against gay marriage. I have the right to point out why that is not completely logical and the fact that human sexuality and gender is a lot more complex and you can find instances of gay marriage in history.
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Hey zlog: I don't think anyone here is calling OSC a villain or talking about boycotting his works. I still buy his new books when they come out, and have been pretty critical at some of the absurd shit that he gets accused of. (Probably most notably the whole "Ender is supposed to be Hitler!" thing which still pops up every now and again) He seems like a pretty great guy, for the most part.
He's also said some terrible, hateful, bigoted things, and said them consistently enough that it would be disingenuous of me to just play them off and not acknowledge hey, yeah, he really believes this stuff. Which puts all of us into the awkward position of being fans of an author who says and believes those things.
How did most of his fans handle it? Well, a lot of them stopped being fans. That's why this forum used to be much, much more active than it is now. Most of them just left. Those of us who remain, such as we are, are kind of stuck with that dichotomy.
It doesn't mean anyone here hates him or thinks he's a villain, though.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Rakeesh
Of course I'm not my grandfathers...I claimed an "association" w WWII, not participation. Nor did I ever mention two generations. I grew up, cutting my teeth on their war stories & they died before I was an adult, so they retained the legendary status my parents haven't since I achieved adulthood.
At the end of the day I hold myself to a simple, but, I feel, sane standard; did one of my choices directly cause harm? Indirectly? What can I do differently next time? What did I lean? Did I take appropriate responsibility, apologize & attempt to rectify the situation?
Using that template...I had NOTHING to do with slavery or racial oppression.
This is all perfectly commendable when one is playing the game, so to speak, and the game is fair. When the house doesn't cheat or always win. What happens, however, when you didn't do anything directly or with intent or indirectly to cause harm-and yet the circumstances in which you started were advantaged at the expense of others?
As for two generations, I meant two generations back. Your parents and then your grandparents.
quote:The whole black/irish was just an attempt (as was black/white is beautiful ) to get you guys (Rakeesh,DB,Boots,etc) to see that the brand of racism you guys are advocating against uses inconsistent rules. Rules that require us to look at a "black" human in a different way than a "white" human.
Where is the inconsistency? Because what is happening is that we are pointing out to you 'the system is currently significantly rigged in favor of some at the expense of others, and that in the past it used to be much worse, and that that has an impact on the present. It isn't 'inconsistent' to say +5 support to African Americans, no change to support for white americans-if the African Americans started out at -5 support.
Whereas on the other hand by continually asserting that that -5 support has nothing whatsoever to do with you, and by acting as though you live in a world where African Americans and others actually did have as much support...do you see where I'm going with this? You aren't actually treating races the same when you refuse to acknowledge the status quo is rigged, and that you receive benefits from it even if you don't ask for them. Imagine a pension fund is robbed, and a thousand people have their pensions stolen. The money is kept until they've died and their children have died, and then generations later their among their descendants, 55% of them receive a disproportionate amount of the recovered funds versus the other 45%. This is all done by some racist Batman or something, entirely without your knowledge or consent.
In such a scenario, even your granparents or great grandparents didn't consent to being robbed or to the idea that eventually it would be returned to their descendants in a disprortionate way. And certainly those descendants had nothing at all to do with any of it.
Except that one day out of the blue, they'll all be getting checks in the mail. And some of those checks will be larger than others. As with our current society, you cannot deny that you have enjoyed benefits of a partly unjust society that never asked you, personally, if you wanted them or wanted the policies that allowed those benefits to exist at all. Those descendants generations later didn't ask for their ancestors' money to be stolen, and didn't ask for it to be returned unfairly.
What should they do in the present, after they receive their checks?
quote:You are making the point "you benifited" from this...my claim is I "had NOTHING to do with slavery & oppression." One of these things are not like the other!
You appear to be making the assumption that if you had nothing to do with these things having been done in the past, that then means you have no responsibility at all to address their impact on the present. Am I reading that correctly?
----------
As for banishing Card, well certainly people have tried through boycotts and shunning and such. No arguing that. Which is as a policy generally not something I personally approve of, though in Card's case his leadership even if it was nominal on NOM means that in his case I shed fewer tears.
------- -------
This is just an observation and I might be entirely mistaken about this, but it feels like discussion between you guys, BlackBlade and Dogbreath, has become increasingly personal and antagonistic? While I admit I tend to side with Dogbreath in those disputes, the facts on the ground do also seem to be growing mutually more hostile and unfriendly.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote: Hmmmm. I don't know that I would go that far. To an extent, personal preference doesn't have to imply that person is also making a value judgment outside their own personal preference. To use a heavy-handed simple example, I prefer steaks more than asparagus. To me, to my tastebuds, asparagus is inferior to steak. But if I were asked, 'Which is better?' I could only reply 'I prefer steaks'. Which wouldn't be quite the same thing in this context as saying 'asparagus is inferior to steak'.
In a similar way, it makes perfect sense for zlog and Stone_Wolf to prefer straight married families to other family units. I mean, they got married and had kids (actually I may be wrong about that, zlog, I can't recall if you've mentioned?). After all, how could anyone have a personal equivalence of preference for a relationship that fits their own native outlook versus one that is entirely outside their own sexuality?
Credit where credit is due. Thank you for listening to us Rakeesh!
I feel like you skipped over some other relevant parts of that post.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:The trouble is, to me anyway, that the conversation doesn't stop there. It doesn't stop at 'I prefer steak to asparagus'. Instead it continues on to 'we need to make sure steak is protected' and 'aren't people who like asparagus actually criticizing steak?' and 'eating steak has a cosmic connection to the universe, a special spiritual significance that eating asparagus just doesn't yield'. Or, zlog, to look back at past discussions*, a third party will say things like 'people who eat asparagus hate steak eaters, they're just playing at being mammals that like food, people that eat asparagus or who stick up for asparagus eaters hate America and want to destroy it, there's a higher concentration of sexual deviants among asparagus eaters, laws that say asparagus eaters ought to be locked up maybe should remain on the books as a symbol of public disapproval of the consumption of asparagus, people that eat asparagus should never have the same access to public resources that steak eaters have' and so on. Every one of those things I just mentioned are statements Card has made. Anyway, to say that you prefer steak to asparagus is fine. I have no interest in objecting to that. But to take a step further, to defend someone who says that sort of thing as some sort of reasonable voice, to state a mystic superiority to eating steak versus eating asparagus, goes further than a simple personal approval.
I couldn't agree more. All the attitudes you have discussed ARE a problem. Also I just LOVE this comparison!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If steak and asparagus were people and asparagus was having its civil rights denied, I might, too.
And, SW, Dude. You were the one stating a mystic superiority of the steak!
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Hey zlog: I don't think anyone here is calling OSC a villain or talking about boycotting his works. I still buy his new books when they come out, and have been pretty critical at some of the absurd shit that he gets accused of. (Probably most notably the whole "Ender is supposed to be Hitler!" thing which still pops up every now and again) He seems like a pretty great guy, for the most part.
He's also said some terrible, hateful, bigoted things, and said them consistently enough that it would be disingenuous of me to just play them off and not acknowledge hey, yeah, he really believes this stuff. Which puts all of us into the awkward position of being fans of an author who says and believes those things.
How did most of his fans handle it? Well, a lot of them stopped being fans. That's why this forum used to be much, much more active than it is now. Most of them just left. Those of us who remain, such as we are, are kind of stuck with that dichotomy.
It doesn't mean anyone here hates him or thinks he's a villain, though.
I stopped reading him. I think I like John Varley and Octavia Butler a lot better, really. I don't HATE him but he frustrates me. It's silly to be so angry about gay marriage in a world of child abuse.
Also what if some cute girl wanted to marry me? One doesn't, but it would be nice. But I'm scared of weddings.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: You were the one stating a mystic superiority of the steak!
Did I? I was just aswering a direct question relating to my life experience.
I can not compare my life experiences to other's usefully having never lived their lives.
If I were to draw this discussion as a cartoon it would be zlog trying to talk about his own intrests at a podium & perky repoter about town Boots keeps interrupting him to ask "What about the gays?!"
"What about them?"
"Have you considered -them- in your position? "
"What position? "
"Your anti-gay position!"
"Huh?"
"You said you are pro families! "
"So?"
"That is an anti gay statement! "
Etc...ad nauseum
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Usually it's said by people who probably will not welcome me at the table if I had a girlfriend. It just is. Now if I say pro family I'm like all the family including the family I'm starting of outcasts and general interestingly odd people.
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
Syn, I have just got
DAWN (LILITH’S BROOD – BOOK ONE) from Kobo. ( 5 bucks for it ) Thanks for the tip.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
He said he was pro-traditional families.
quote: My conservative principles are related to giving the proper value and importance to traditional families and not considering them just an evil and old fashioned way of raising children or my absolute respect for safety and rights of regular people having decent lives and my fundamental values against rights of rapists, murderers, child molesters and robbers of public money which the Left and Liberal here in Brazil have defended more often that the rights of the common person and the poorest.
So it is very difficult to me not to feel sympathy for OSC opinions on Liberals and the Left because in my context they are real.
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
yes it was a matter of semantics in regard of family definitions. I said it already. Still, whenever you hear "traditional family" you seem to assume hatred against gay people which is something extremely out of question in regard to myself.
As for the liberals/leftists here in Brazil... Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: You were the one stating a mystic superiority of the steak!
Did I? I was just aswering a direct question relating to my life experience.
No. You were asked what does "pro-straight" means. Additionally, you answered,
quote: Living the "pro-straight" "lifestyle"...quality time w/ wife & kids...nest building...4x4x7x52 meals a year...dishes...laundry...trash...parental contols...vomit clean up...vacuuming...play dates...relating to other parents at kid parties...etc...
Anti Straight...hmmm...I'll bet you could find someone who has strong pro gay feelings & dislikes overpopulation & militantly tells you so? I don't kno...I just made that up.
Which pretty much shows that you have no idea of the kinds of lives gay parents or childless straight people live.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by zlogdanbr: yes it was a matter of semantics in regard of family definitions. I said it already. Still, whenever you hear "traditional family" you seem to assume hatred against gay people whih is something extremely out of question.
As for the liberals/leftists here in Brazil...
I don't assume, nor have I accused you of hatred. I am still trying to understand why you have a bias for "traditional" families (and what that means to you) over non-traditional families.
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
Ok, this part was not right.
When I said "regular people" I mean all common people, e.g all of us regardless of sexual orientation who strive to make a living here in this country.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Boots...he isn't sticking to that phrasing...has said so multiple times.
Please cut him slack...English is not his first language.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote: ...you have no idea of the kinds of lives gay parents or childless straight people live.
Uhuh. Yup. True. Irrelevant. Pointless. Annoying. But true.
Who cares?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Is it yours?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote: ...you have no idea of the kinds of lives gay parents or childless straight people live.
Uhuh. Yup. True. Irrelevant. Pointless. Annoying. But true.
Who cares?
It does kind of matter when you are advocating for a particular lifestyle without knowing what that means.
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by zlogdanbr: yes it was a matter of semantics in regard of family definitions. I said it already. Still, whenever you hear "traditional family" you seem to assume hatred against gay people whih is something extremely out of question.
As for the liberals/leftists here in Brazil...
I don't assume, nor have I accused you of hatred. I am still trying to understand why you have a bias for "traditional" families (and what that means to you) over non-traditional families.
Ok let me rephrase my old statement: I like my family. Father/Mother type of family was important in human history, it is impossible from my part to deny it. I have never considered SSM families as inferiors that is why this concept of superiority is difficult to apply here. Importance does not mean superiority. And ok, I see your point: SSM families can be as relevant as well. However, I still like my family in the way it is. ( my family I mean I my own family. It means I like my life with my wife and kids ).
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: [QUOTE]It does kind of matter when you are advocating for a particular lifestyle without knowing what that means.
I'm not -advocating- anything.
You are.
You care, that I care about gays. And like...a lot.
But other than a generalized supportive attatude...I don't care about gays!
It's not my business what they do in their beds nor who they marry!
And neither is the sacred bond of marrage I share w my beloved soul mate life any of your or their business!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How is being pro something not advocating for it?
And why would you think that I was all interested in whatever private bond you may have?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Or to borrow Rakeesh's brilliant alagory...I love steak. I think people should be allowed to eat asparagus...and be given equal rights of steak eaters.
Stating a liking for steak does not effect asparagus eaters. At. All.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: How is being pro something not advocating for it?
Please remember, I'm pro humans.
quote:And why would you think that I was all interested in whatever private bond you may have?
This is my point. Why are you so insistant that be I interested in whatever private bond gays have?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well you seem to be interested in the private mystic bonds that straight people have.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Really not.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Because I don't see what good it will do. I attempt to define white culture, and concept that has become steeped in negative things because of misuse, and because nobody has really made a serious attempt to define it outside of what it "is not". So it's already freaking hard (Which isn't to say I haven't been trying, I've just been unsuccessful), and say I manage to point out some things we then nit pick those things for whether they are or are not anti-other race, and we haven't made any actual progress as to whether it's right to protect heterosexual marriages.
It's the underlying assumptions behind both that make the difference, though. Your belief - that it's necessary we protect heterosexual marriages - is predicated on the belief that heterosexual marriages are at a stage where they are relatively disadvantaged compared to homosexual marriages. That there is some special factor that makes heterosexual marriages separate and distinct and more worthy of protection. (because they are under-protected) Because if there wasn't, you would just say "protect marriages." In that special case, the black lives matter analogy is relevant - the statement "Black lives matter" only makes sense in the context of "our society is one that is indifferent or even mildly approving of police violence against blacks." "White lives matter", while a technically true statement, is one that we can (hopefully!) agree is sort of nonsensical in our society, not because white lives don't matter but because that's sort of the default assumption. White lives are already given the highest value, do saying "white lives matter" is a specific call to increase the value of white lives in comparison to black lives, thus increasing the disparity.
Here, let's break it down by assigning imaginary numbers to the overall "points" currently earned by each "team." (I know this is sort of silly, bear with me) This is a consideration of the legal and cultural momentum and support straight marriages have compared to gay marriages - and you can consider everything from "legal history" to "there are a lot more positive media portayals of straight parents than gay" to "parenting books, medicine, education, etc, etc, etc * 10 social and environmental factors that default to already giving de facto preferential treatment straight couples because it is the default" as comprising the points.
OK, so we give team Straight Marriage a score of 8 and team Gay Marriage a score of 3:
S --- G 8 > 3
So looking at the inequality there (a literal mathematical inequality in this case ), you can see Straight Marriage has a +5 compared to Gay Marriage. They're doing pretty good!
Now you make the statement "I think we should protect and safeguard straight marriage." Lets assume those protections and safeguards add +2 points to whoever gets them.
Ok, now lets look at what that does for our teams here:
S --- G 10 > 3
You have actually *increased* the inequality between straight marriage and gay marriage to 7 by putting those special protections and safeguards in place for straight marriage.
Now lets say you just say "I think we should protect and safeguard marriage" and the score gets split:
S --- G 9 > 4
The relative inequality stays the same, but hey, they both get points, so not bad!
*** Now here's a situation that trips a lot of people up, but this is the absolutely critical thing to understand. ***
What if I say "I think we should protect and safeguard gay marriage"? What if I say "black is beautiful?" What if I say "black lives matter?" What if I hold a parade celebrating gay pride? What if enforce affirmative action for African Americans at Universities? What if I say "we should have a black history month so our students can understand the profound, shameful, triumphant, complex, and overall, empowering story of how black people were treated by America, and the culture they formed, the oppression they overcame"?
S --- G 8 > 5
Do you see?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Is she actually interested in your having an emotional investment in same sex couples? Or is she trying to point out, based on your own words, that you are not actually neutral on the question of whether or not straight couples are superior to homosexual couples if you believe the former have a mystic importance that the latter lacks?
Seems to me to be the second one. And for the record, with the whole steaks and asparagus thing, you don't really fit into just the 'I prefer steaks myself' category. Again, based on your own words, you fit into the category of 'steaks are innately superior in reality' category. Which isn't to say you've claimed asparagus is *bad*-but it's been explicitly deemed inferior.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Really not.
Yet you seem to have formed an opinion of them as:
quote: ...aligned with the ansesteral life awareness of being a link in the chain which bonds modern man to the prehistoric ansersters of man, back indeed to the birth of life itself.
In a way that SSM, according to you, are not. You would be "shocked if its [adopting in a SSM] the same experience or connectivity with the infinite".
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Because I don't see what good it will do. I attempt to define white culture, and concept that has become steeped in negative things because of misuse, and because nobody has really made a serious attempt to define it outside of what it "is not". So it's already freaking hard (Which isn't to say I haven't been trying, I've just been unsuccessful), and say I manage to point out some things we then nit pick those things for whether they are or are not anti-other race, and we haven't made any actual progress as to whether it's right to protect heterosexual marriages.
It's the underlying assumptions behind both that make the difference, though. Your belief - that it's necessary we protect heterosexual marriages - is predicated on the belief that heterosexual marriages are at a stage where they are relatively disadvantaged compared to homosexual marriages. That there is some special factor that makes heterosexual marriages separate and distinct and more worthy of protection. (because they are under-protected) Because if there wasn't, you would just say "protect marriages." In that special case, the black lives matter analogy is relevant - the statement "Black lives matter" only makes sense in the context of "our society is one that is indifferent or even mildly approving of police violence against blacks." "White lives matter", while a technically true statement, is one that we can (hopefully!) agree is sort of nonsensical in our society, not because white lives don't matter but because that's sort of the default assumption. White lives are already given the highest value, do saying "white lives matter" is a specific call to increase the value of white lives in comparison to black lives, thus increasing the disparity.
Here, let's break it down by assigning imaginary numbers to the overall "points" currently earned by each "team." (I know this is sort of silly, bear with me) This is a consideration of the legal and cultural momentum and support straight marriages have compared to gay marriages - and you can consider everything from "legal history" to "there are a lot more positive media portayals of straight parents than gay" to "parenting books, medicine, education, etc, etc, etc * 10 social and environmental factors that default to already giving de facto preferential treatment straight couples because it is the default" as comprising the points.
OK, so we give team Straight Marriage a score of 8 and team Gay Marriage a score of 3:
S --- G 8 > 3
So looking at the inequality there (a literal mathematical inequality in this case ), you can see Straight Marriage has a +5 compared to Gay Marriage. They're doing pretty good!
Now you make the statement "I think we should protect and safeguard straight marriage." Lets assume those protections and safeguards add +2 points to whoever gets them.
Ok, now lets look at what that does for our teams here:
S --- G 10 > 3
You have actually *increased* the inequality between straight marriage and gay marriage to 7 by putting those special protections and safeguards in place for straight marriage.
Now lets say you just say "I think we should protect and safeguard marriage" and the score gets split:
S --- G 9 > 4
The relative inequality stays the same, but hey, they both get points, so not bad!
*** Now here's a situation that trips a lot of people up, but this is the absolutely critical thing to understand. ***
What if I say "I think we should protect and safeguard gay marriage"? What if I say "black is beautiful?" What if I say "black lives matter?" What if I hold a parade celebrating gay pride? What if enforce affirmative action for African Americans at Universities? What if I say "we should have a black history month so our students can understand the profound, shameful, triumphant, complex, and overall, empowering story of how black people were treated by America, and the culture they formed, the oppression they overcame"?
S --- G 8 > 5
Do you see?
I see that you think if we do all these things then the institutional inequality between the two persists but it produces the shortest gap out of any of these arrangements, yes? I don't know that I buy it will always be so, but let's say for now that's true.
The contention that we need to protect families is not exactly analogous to white culture ought to be celebrated because the former is arguably essential to our survival as a species. If white culture naturally disappears (Assuming it wasn't crushed into extinction) one day, it doesn't really matter.
I've pointed out how various things affect different marriages differently. I would say heterosexual marriages require defending because when they fail our entire society is upended. If every homosexual relationship broke up there would not be even close to the same impact if every heterosexual one did. We do not depend on gay marriage as a means to persist as a civilization.
That doesn't mean it isn't necessary that we get out of the way of people wishing to live according to the dictates of their conscience and form a family however they feel is right, and the day may yet come where science permits anybody to reproduce absent a member of the opposite sex assisting, necessitating a reconfiguration of societal priorities.
Maybe it's the use of the words "under attack" that are problematic because I don't think anybody is consciously thinking, "I hope nobody gets married and has children, and I'm willing to see to that happening!"
Rather, we are organically reaching a point where people are marrying later, having fewer children, social inequality in increasing, and all of those trends if left unchecked worry me because they are unsustainable. We can already see the effects in countries like Japan, China, and Sweden, where an aging populace eclipses the rising generations. No matter how much I battle to defend same-sex marriages, it's not going to accomplish the survival of our civilization.
I believe marriage is essential in providing the security necessary for children to come into the picture. I believe children being conceived and raised are essential to our civilizations survival.
I don't think marriage is "under attack" from homosexuals because they wish to participate in it. I also think it's wonderful many of them choose to bring children into their families and raise them. But I do think it's possible for marriage as an institution to be eroded, and for children to be seen as less necessary than they are.
I guess in the end I think marriage and children are concepts that are less promoted and protected than they ought to be.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: This is just an observation and I might be entirely mistaken about this, but it feels like discussion between you guys, BlackBlade and Dogbreath, has become increasingly personal and antagonistic? While I admit I tend to side with Dogbreath in those disputes, the facts on the ground do also seem to be growing mutually more hostile and unfriendly.
I've actually been using this thread somewhat to try and demonstrate this to BlackBlade in the hopes of maybe getting him to realize I'm not deliberately antagonizing him. It provides several good examples.
For example, take his post about the hypothetical America where black people were never enslaved and segregation never happened. You, Kate and I all replied with remarkably similar posts.
Now evaluate those posts objectively for markers like how terse, angry, mocking, or just generally antagonist they are. Keep in mind we each have our own posting styles as well - you are somewhat more parenthetical than I am in your arguments, Kate is somewhat even more direct than I - so correct for rhetorical style as needed.
Does one stand out as markedly more aggressive or unfriendly than the other two?
Either way, my post was the one BlackBlade took to be offensive. He thought my post - specifically asking him to answer an important question (which you an Boots asked him to answer repeatedly as well) - was me being unreasonable and just trying to "take him to task" for ignoring my posts. (to be clear, that was not at all my intent) He made no such complaint to you or Kate for functionally identical posts and requests.
Likewise, his earlier response to me saying "you very well know" as a rhetorical device to remind him of something he quite literally claimed he knew half a page back, with the whole "don't tell me what I do or don't know!" Lockean freakout.* And assuming that me jogging his memory that way was accusing him of arguing in bad faith. (even though I specifically said it wasn't. That got ignored)
So at this point I actually striving pretty hard to hit the "reset button" by consistently pointing out to him that no, my posts are not an indication that I am angry with him or trying to antagonize him. That I am posting with approximately the same tone and style as other people, and addressing him just like everyone else is. A particular thing I'm trying to get across is that if I remind him of something he missed or something he said that he had forgotten - which he specifically asked me to do last week instead of just assuming he knew it - that it is not a criticism of his mental abilities. Everyone else does it as well, to everyone else. It is just something that is absolutely necessary to keep the integrity of a discussion intact.
(Something I realize just now as I write this, as I've talked about integrity in discussion once before with BlackBlade, is that I should probably specify that by "integrity" I of course mean "internal consistency" or "soundness", not "honesty" and certainly not "the honesty of the participants.")
That may be a futile effort at this point. I don't think so, though. And I should say, without trying to get into the weeds or dredging things up that should be left to die, there is personal history between us regarding some stuff that mostly happened at Sakeriver. Stuff that is resolved and done with and not worth repeating, but that is probably informing both of our tone and perceptions of each other, consciously or otherwise. Stuff like that sometimes just requires time to get past, and in the end I think BB is a great person and a good friend, so I'm not really worried about it.
*Yes, this is meant as a very bad Lost joke. Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Rakeesh: I'll try to get to your remarks some time soon.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:..you believe the former have a mystic importance that the latter lacks?
I bet I did not represent this well...at least judging by reactions then I'm definitely not communicating very well.
Seeing my first child birthed changed my life in a way that I still struggle to communicate the degree of magnitude (except to other parents ).
It was something that changed in my understanding...not the world.
Could a non birth parent reach this understanding I did but in a different way...absolutely!
Could another parent see their child born & not experience anything profound? I'll bet it's common!
Do I think that children raised by "non traditional" parents are at a deficit? Absolutely not. All things considered, gay /infertile parents are likely in a -better- position to raise children, as they do not have "unplanned" children.
I was responding to a direct question about...was it my white lifestyle?...something.
Anyway. I do not claim any special connection that any other human could/does have bc there is nothing special about me vs every other single individual of the 7 billion of us.
If I said otherwise...I was wrong or misspeaking.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Stone_Wolf_: Living the "pro-straight" "lifestyle"...quality time w/ wife & kids...nest building...4x4x7x52 meals a year...dishes...laundry...trash...parental contols...vomit clean up...vacuuming...play dates...relating to other parents at kid parties...etc...
KB: What about that is particularly straight? I know plenty of SS parents who have lifestyles that could be described just like that.
Stone_Wolf_ :It's something that can't be explained...I hadn't experienced it til about six years back...the birth of our first born. Changed my life. A part of me & a part of my wife...but its own little lifeform. We knew a baby was in there...duh...but life altering when "it" becomes a real life baby.
Never having adopted w/ my gay husband, I can't imagine it...but I'd be shocked if its the same experience or connectivity with the infinite.
KB: Do you think that is true for straight parents that adopt? Do you think that all straight people have children? Are heterosexual people without children not straight?
And instead of taking the opportunity to rethink - or respeak - then, you responded:
quote:
Stone_Wolf: Probably not "pro straight" like me...I got a cool badge & a secret decoder ring.
Would you like another chance to answer those questions?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: It's impossible for me to do anything but wildly speculate to answer that. Which doesn't sound useful. Can you bullet point it for me?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
SW, they are your own words. What do you need bullet-pointed? If you don't know what "pro straight" means, why, for all that is holy, would you identify yourself that way?
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
Lol. You would have to speculate wildly in order to know whether all straight people have children, or that straights without children aren't straight?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: It is possible to be pro straight and not be anti gay. I try and be pro human.
Would you please explain what this means exactly? How does it practically work? If your goal is to be pro human, why add the "straight" at all?
Would you suspect a group that identifies as pro white as being a tad racist? If someone was wearing a "white power" t-shirt, for example, would you think that he meant power for everyone?
This is all a thought exercise to demonstrate that in some ways the established rules (or at least the one you seem to advocating) are illogical or at least counter intuitive even if they justified or appropriate bc of special curcimstance.
However you seem to be very resistant to this idea.
I do accept that you disagree, tho.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
My "decoder ring" comment was an attempt at humor.
There is no such thing as "pro straight"...it's a thought exercise.
I am pro human.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: I see that you think if we do all these things then the institutional inequality between the two persists but it produces the shortest gap out of any of these arrangements, yes? I don't know that I buy it will always be so, but let's say for now that's true.
Going strictly on the racial side of the argument here (since, as I'll get to later, I think you're right that the analogy isn't mapping perfectly, especially with regards to your own perspective):
I think focusing on the present, actual situation is the best way to ground our arguments in reality, though. Because when you start getting into hypothetical "what if segregation never happened and we therefore never developed race as an arbitrary cultural construct" territory, or "it won't always be this way" territory, it can be problematic. And this is something I still struggle with wrapping my head around too, being born with the privilege of not having to struggle with bigotry every day.
We can acknowledge, for example, that "race" is not actually defined scientifically, and that discrimination based on the color of one's skin is just as silly as discrimination based on the color of one's eyes. That is true enough, and few people will actually debate you on that.
The problem with asserting that, though, is where we live in a society where race *does* exist as a social and cultural construct, to the point where centuries of abuse, segregation, and marginalization has actually created the concepts of "black people" and "white people" in America, and where "black" doesn't just mean the color of someones' skin, but is also a people group with it's own culture, music, food, slang, social mores... etc.
So while the conditions that created black American culture are terrible, the fact of the matter is the culture was created. And it's a beautiful, vibrant, powerful culture that provides a source of identity and solidarity to an entire group of people. So when we act annoyed or exasperated that black people identify themselves with a racial category when we obviously know race doesn't exist... it's a means of, intentionally or not, denying them their heritage. I'm sure you've seen similar arguments like "it's not like I don't like black people, I just don't like rap" or whatever. It's this idea that black people need to get with the times and get over that silly "racism" thing since you (generic you) obviously are past it.
*** I should pause here to say that up to this point, these are not things I think you don't already agree with me on. I'm just stating them to build a common foundation between us for what comes next. ***
So this is the point where we need to discuss what White Culture actually is. And as I think you now agree, in the United States in general "White Culture" doesn't actually exist. Not as a discrete entity from American culture, at any rate. There is Irish culture, and German culture, and Norwegian culture to be sure, but as far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong), there is no real definition of "White Culture." The only time I've seen the term actually used is as a corollary - "if we can celebrate black culture, why can't we celebrate white culture?" And the only answer to that is because *we already do*. It's just called American culture. So an attempt to deliberately "celebrate white culture" is, in fact, an attempt to increase the prominence of the already dominant culture in proportion to marginalized cultures. Since we already swim in, live, eat, and breathe white culture, the only way we can "celebrate" it even more is at the cost of others.
That's not to say White Culture can't exist. White Culture as you mentioned exists in China (because it's distinct from the general Chinese culture), it exists in some form here among the local descendants of early European immigrants to Hawaii and is actually distinct from both the local and national culture.
Nor is it to say Black Culture's existence is something that will necessarily always be. Cultural drift and adsorption happens, and it's happened at an increasing rate now that black culture is not (so badly) stigmatized and kept separate from the general American culture at large. Maybe in 100 years or so, black culture will be so integrated into American culture as a whole that racial designations like "black" or "white" will seem as antiquated or odd as, say, "lighteye" or "darkeye." ( ) But recognizing that as a possible - even a good! - future doesn't mean we can just start acting that way now, because it's kind of a dirty move to insist on rigorously enforcing the rules equally now when you ran up the score by cheating during the first half. In that case, the term that was behind will always stay behind - the score needs to be reset first before fair play can commence.
(This is on a broad, society wide level when talking about concrete things like affirmative action or reparations or housing assistance and so forth. In day to day interactions, obviously, I try to just treat everyone the same as much as possible while remaining cognizant of my own biases and racism)
quote:The contention that we need to protect families is not exactly analogous to white culture ought to be celebrated because the former is arguably essential to our survival as a species. If white culture naturally disappears (Assuming it wasn't crushed into extinction) one day, it doesn't really matter.
I've pointed out how various things affect different marriages differently. I would say heterosexual marriages require defending because when they fail our entire society is upended. If every homosexual relationship broke up there would not be even close to the same impact if every heterosexual one did. We do not depend on gay marriage as a means to persist as a civilization.
That doesn't mean it isn't necessary that we get out of the way of people wishing to live according to the dictates of their conscience and form a family however they feel is right, and the day may yet come where science permits anybody to reproduce absent a member of the opposite sex assisting, necessitating a reconfiguration of societal priorities.
Maybe it's the use of the words "under attack" that are problematic because I don't think anybody is consciously thinking, "I hope nobody gets married and has children, and I'm willing to see to that happening!"
Rather, we are organically reaching a point where people are marrying later, having fewer children, social inequality in increasing, and all of those trends if left unchecked worry me because they are unsustainable. We can already see the effects in countries like Japan, China, and Sweden, where an aging populace eclipses the rising generations. No matter how much I battle to defend same-sex marriages, it's not going to accomplish the survival of our civilization.
I believe marriage is essential in providing the security necessary for children to come into the picture. I believe children being conceived and raised are essential to our civilizations survival.
I don't think marriage is "under attack" from homosexuals because they wish to participate in it. I also think it's wonderful many of them choose to bring children into their families and raise them. But I do think it's possible for marriage as an institution to be eroded, and for children to be seen as less necessary than they are.
I guess in the end I think marriage and children are concepts that are less promoted and protected than they ought to be.
I don't think increasing numbers of gay marriages is going to lead to decreasing numbers of straight marriages, though. It may in the very short term, especially when it comes to religions that encourage people to hide their sexuality becoming more tolerant, but in the long term I think the number of marriages overall - including heterosexual couples who choose to have children and heterosexual and homosexual couples who choose to adopt (or have test tube babies, or get artificially inseminated for lesbian couples) will stabilize.
That being said, I do have to say I think your fears of civilization collapsing because the birth rate is falling is entirely unwarranted. Literally every study I've seen on the subject shows that the world population is projected to continue increasing rapidly at least until 2050, with the population of Africa doubling in that time period.
The problems you're seeing in Japan are related to the low immigration rates to Japan. The US would also have a negative population growth if not for immigration, incidentally, and most western countries with low or negative population growth figures will continue to have their population supplemented by immigrants from the developing world for the foreseeable future. Honestly, considering the huge global population we currently have, and considering how incredibly quickly that number is growing, I think not enough people having children is the *last* thing we should worry about.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: My "decoder ring" comment was an attempt at humor.
There is no such thing as "pro straight"...it's a thought exercise.
I am pro human.
Life is not a thought experiment. There are real people whose lives are ruined or whose happiness is forbidden by people who are pro straight. Progress is thwarted by people who think like you do. It isn't some game for you to play at, insulated from the real consequences of your "thought experiment".
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm sorry you feel that way.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Don't be sorry. Change.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Not that kind of sorry.
Change what exactly?
Being pro human? Not a chance in hell.
I'm sorry that I couldn't get my point across to you...I'm as pro gay as a straight gets.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So you were being dishonest in your earlier answers?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
No, you aren't. Because you can't be motivated to set aside your selfish, lazy pride to learn why it's problematic, much less act any differently. You're perhaps as "pro-gay" as it's possible for someone who couldn't be bothered to care gets.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: So you were being dishonest in your earlier answers?
Never! I was trying to explain with examples...I've been -very- consistent about my actual beleifs...I'm pro human.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: No, you aren't. Because you can't be motivated to set aside your selfish, lazy pride to learn why it's problematic, much less act any differently. You're perhaps as "pro-gay" as it's possible for someone who couldn't be bothered to care gets.
This is a very harsh criticism, and I don't agree a bit.
I fear I have failed to communicate here somewhere along the way.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Is no one else wondering about what it means to be pro human? Like is there a significant anti-human movement?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So all that crap about mystic ancestral pro straight connections that adoptive gay parents don't share was...what?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:..you believe the former have a mystic importance that the latter lacks?
I bet I did not represent this well...at least judging by reactions then I'm definitely not communicating very well.
Seeing my first child birthed changed my life in a way that I still struggle to communicate the degree of magnitude (except to other parents ).
It was something that changed in my understanding...not the world.
Could a non birth parent reach this understanding I did but in a different way...absolutely!
Could another parent see their child born & not experience anything profound? I'll bet it's common!
Do I think that children raised by "non traditional" parents are at a deficit? Absolutely not. All things considered, gay /infertile parents are likely in a -better- position to raise children, as they do not have "unplanned" children.
I was responding to a direct question about...was it my white lifestyle?...something.
Anyway. I do not claim any special connection that any other human could/does have bc there is nothing special about me vs every other single individual of the 7 billion of us.
If I said otherwise...I was wrong or misspeaking.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You have an odd way of defining "consistent".
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Are you sure? Sounds like a misunderstanding to me.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Is no one else wondering about what it means to be pro human? Like is there a significant anti-human movement?
Being pro human is being for ALL of humanity...so yea...I'd say there lots of tons of stuff that persecutes & oppresses folk...mostly others of us...but yea...significant.
Also things like disease, hunger, disasters, etc.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Is no one else wondering about what it means to be pro human? Like is there a significant anti-human movement?
Being pro human is being for ALL of humanity...so yea...I'd say there lots of tons of stuff that persecutes & oppresses folk...mostly others of us...but yea...significant.
Well, that's a pretty low bar to clear. What I'm trying to get at is saying you're pro-human is like saying you're pro-happy. It's basically pointless because it includes just about everyone. Unless you're talking to a terrorist, I guess. And I imagine if they think what they're doing is for the good of humanity.
quote: Also things like disease, hunger, disasters, etc
Are you anti those things?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Being a humanitarian might be better termanology if you prefer.
Yes...exactly...anti oppression, anti disease...etc.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dude. It's not a misunderstanding. If we are to take your latest explanation of your meaning, then since you said something profoundly different earlier, that means you miscommunicated quite badly, repeatedly.
Which no problem, that happens! Seriously. I don't have a beef with that aside from the short-term frustration. What is different, and what is actively uncool, is when along the way these contradictions were brought up you either outright didn't respond to them, pivoted to whimsy*, or asserted that the other party was being unreasonable asking for clear details.
And frankly, the lazy charge sticks pretty well too. Case in point African Americans in the 1800s versus the Irish. First it was very similar. Then it was similar. Then it was 'they were both poor and lived in bad neighborhoods'. At no point did you say something like 'ah! I thought I knew this but I was mistaken, my bad'. Instead at every point you just say 'oh I didn't mean *that*' even when your words plainly communicated the meaning you rejected. When I went down to the simplest level of food comparison, the only part you initially referred to was the one which appeared to endorse your position!
It's exasperating. Of course you're entitled to your opinion-everyone is. But an opinion isn't *magic*. Just because you thought about it for a minute or two after the question and don't mean anyone any ill by your opinion doesn't make it somehow *valid*. That's one of the things discussions are for, to hash out ideas and cast aside those ideas that have mistakes.
There is a mystic connection, now there's not. Pro straight now pro human. Pro straight was always a joke even though you never gave an indicator it was. You want people to challenge you but then you pivot to whimsy. You admit a situation is complicated yet persist on generalities.
All of which, ok, cool, but geeze if you could skip the part where you complain when others find that style of discussion difficult?
*Also, this doesn't read as whimsy. Not to me and I suspect not to boots either, though she can speak to that herself. To me it reads-given that it happened repeatedly-as a deliberate evasion.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Try reading it over from start to end...boots misunderstood me from the get go...I'm very sorry that misunderstanding leads to frustration...to show you I'm not lazy...I'll demonstrate with an example...
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I was explaining the logic behind it...not expousing its virtues. I'm all for any kind of marrage...I've often longed to be a part of a line marage like the main character in the Moon is a Harsh Mistress by RAH.
It is possible to be pro straight and not be anti gay. I try and be pro human.
Before boots first question...I'm pro human...consistancy.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Pro straight is & all ways was was a thought experiment...not a joke.
The joke was the that we have decoder rings...and my serious answer is RIGHT BELOW IT.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dude! How is it consistency if you say one thing, then another, then sort of move back to the first thing, and then back to the first thing entirely?
You weren't consistent. You communicated badly, probably due in part to your tendency to respond to complicated arguments with two-sentence replies.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I couldn't disagree more...just read it from start to finish. I was consistent.
You convinced me that a direct comparison of the hardships of the free blacks & irish in the 1800s wasn't helpful to my argument so changed what I was saying. You asked me to!
Other than that I have not flipped on any major issues.
I was always pro human.
I was always for gay equality.
Pro anything else was me trying to make a point...one that I bet only the conservatives in the group will get. But despite that I was always clear...I am only speaking positively about my own group...from my personal experience.
That you guys have dragged me through a field of weirdness is not my fault.
I stated my point clearly before any of this started...that being pro things isn't the same as being anti it's opposite.
I have put real effort into pointing out when we agree & praising your efforts...
I do not deserve your comments of mistrust bc of this one incident...so I must assume it was the years & years I wasn't as consistent or forth coming that are causing your strong feelings of mistrust. Well...I guess I earned those so...okay. I'll lie in the bed I made.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You communicated badly, probably due in part to your tendency to respond to complicated arguments with two-sentence replies.
To be fair here, you guys write crazy long posts. Being able to articulate the way you and DB do is not a common skill.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: So while the conditions that created black American culture are terrible, the fact of the matter is the culture was created. And it's a beautiful, vibrant, powerful culture that provides a source of identity and solidarity to an entire group of people. So when we act annoyed or exasperated that black people identify themselves with a racial category when we obviously know race doesn't exist... it's a means of, intentionally or not, denying them their heritage. I'm sure you've seen similar arguments like "it's not like I don't like black people, I just don't like rap" or whatever. It's this idea that black people need to get with the times and get over that silly "racism" thing since you (generic you) obviously are past it.
Great post. I'm struggling with saying something about context and meaning, and I'm not there yet, but this entire post was quite helpful. Thank you.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I stated my point clearly before any of this started...that being pro things isn't the same as being anti it's opposite.
Are same-sex marriages the opposite of heterosexual marriages?
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I couldn't disagree more...just read it from start to finish. I was consistent.
You convinced me that a direct comparison of the hardships of the free blacks & irish in the 1800s wasn't helpful to my argument so changed what I was saying. You asked me to!
Other than that I have not flipped on any major issues.
I was always pro human.
I was always for gay equality.
Pro anything else was me trying to make a point...one that I bet only the conservatives in the group will get. But despite that I was always clear...I am only speaking positively about my own group...from my personal experience.
That you guys have dragged me through a field of weirdness is not my fault.
I stated my point clearly before any of this started...that being pro things isn't the same as being anti it's opposite.
I have put real effort into pointing out when we agree & praising your efforts...
I do not deserve your comments of mistrust bc of this one incident...so I must assume it was the years & years I wasn't as consistent or forth coming that are causing your strong feelings of mistrust. Well...I guess I earned those so...okay. I'll lie in the bed I made.
SW from my personal point of view of you did well.
Anyway, I think I finally understand from where all these - wrong - claims "that SSM proponents and gay rights activists want to destroy the old fashion way of defining marriage", no, it did not come from you, in my opinion it came even from people like me, who clearly have misunderstood the argumentation at first point.
The neo conservatives - yes they call themselves that way - have often interpreted the defenses as attacks due to the passionate argumentation and obviously they fear that. "Conservative" seems to be now a word that arouses a lot of fears as well. What I just want to tell in terms of marriage is that the old fashion way is fine for me. SSM marriages also are fine for me.
I think I have struggled with these concepts in the past months because some of the stronger voices against our corrupt government ( who uses Socialism as means to benefit themselves ) are conservatives that "preach" that. At these times of moral and ethical crisis permeating the Brazilian society it is easy to accept suppositions as evidences.
Even though I admit that the power of the word "conservative" can inappropriately convey an offensive meaning but in my case most of these ideals are related to the way criminals have been defended by the left be it corrupt politicians, child abusers, kidnappers, robbers or murderers in detriment of the regular us regardless of our sexuality.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Are same-sex marriages the opposite of heterosexual marriages?
Nope. I'd say the opposite of heterosexual & SS marrage are the "confirmed batchelor"...(reguardless of gender)...i.e. single people who like to party & dislike commitments.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
So the point that you "clearly stated before any of this" was that you're not anti single people who party?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
My point was being -for- something is different than being -against- something that might be considered the opposite of that something.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by zlogdanbr: Syn, I have just got
DAWN (LILITH’S BROOD – BOOK ONE) from Kobo. ( 5 bucks for it ) Thanks for the tip.
Ooo I hope you like it. I love that series. Though the third one is my favourite.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: My point was being -for- something is different than being -against- something that might be considered the opposite of that something.
In the abstract, sure, maybe.
In the real world of colors and sexualities and consequences, favoring one thing more than another tends to mean that second thing suffers because of it. But I suppose it doesn't really matter, since you've so modified your original statement to be so general and vague as to be basically mewningless.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I strongly disagree that I was inconsistant.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You have been consistent about that.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I try.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:In the real world of colors and sexualities and consequences, favoring one thing more than another tends to mean that second thing suffers because of it.
How would this work?
Bob: "I enjoy my hetero lifestyle."
Gay Rob: "Ouch, right in my civil liberties! "
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Heh. So is that now what you said at the start?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Yes. I posted a copy of me saying that...before boots ever asked me a single question.
I'm sorry that so many people seem to think otherwise. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:In the real world of colors and sexualities and consequences, favoring one thing more than another tends to mean that second thing suffers because of it.
How would this work?
Like this: Bob: "I enjoy my hetero lifestyle."
Bob2: "Me,too! Hetero lifestyles are great! " Bob3: "Yeah. Much better than those gay lifestyles that don't mystically connect with our ansesters." Bob4: "Yeah. They think they are as good as we are!" Bob5: "We should protect hereto lifestyles!" Bob27: "What does Bob think?" Bob43: "Bob says he is pro strait like us." Senator Bob: All you voter Bobs are pro strayt, so elect me and I will make some pro strate laws!" Bobs78-81: We are so pro strate, we are going to go beat the crap out of some gays. Bob is pro straat too so he won't care. Bobs142-472: Pro straight? Whatever. Not really paying attention. Gay Rob: "Ouch, right in my civil liberties! "
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Or as Desmond Tutu put it, "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor."
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
More to come!
I'm just so happy to be on the same page discussion wise! Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Bob: "I enjoy my hetero lifestyle."
Bob2: "Me,too! Hetero lifestyles are great! " Bob3: "Yeah. Much better than those gay lifestyles that don't mystically connect with our ansesters." Bob1: "WTF? 3" Bob2: "Yea, 'Robert' 10% of the population is gay & has always been. Bob1: "And it's WAY more common among animals." Bob3: "Yea, but they don't make babies like we do!" Bob1: "Uhem! Like your fourth?" Bob3 blushes.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Or as Desmond Tutu put it, "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor."
Now THIS is an argument that hits home with me. I myself am decidedly not neutral as a self styled humanitarian.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Bob: "I enjoy my hetero lifestyle."
Bob2: "Me,too! Hetero lifestyles are great! " Bob3: "Yeah. Much better than those gay lifestyles that don't mystically connect with our ansesters." Bob1: "WTF? 3" Bob2: "Yea, 'Robert' 10% of the population is gay & has always been. Bob1: "And it's WAY more common among animals." Bob3: "Yea, but they don't make babies like we do!" Bob1: "Uhem! Like your fourth?" Bob3 blushes.
Yet again, this is what happens in your imagination. Not in real life. Just look at the news from North Carolina and Mississippi. Even after all the progress made by those who are not pro straight.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
In all of this discussion you fail to see that you have demonstrated a knee jerk reaction that is borderline "anti-straight ".
Take the Duggers for example...they might feel themselves "pro hetero lifestyle" & really think they are only reresenting their own beliefs in a positive light...and I feel comfortable saying that if they did...you would have a problem w it...a big one!
Do people say "family values" & mean "kill all gays" it can & does happen.
Those people are lyers & a real problem.
But here's the bottom line...your seeming view that most mean it badly I do not agree w.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
Have you ever been wrong, Stonewolf? About anything? Or has it always been a case of other people just not understanding what it was you were really saying?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Ask around.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
The same Duggers who spoke nonstop about the evils of homosexuality while being/covering up for kiddie diddlers.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Ask around.
Yeah, I'm not asking others. I'm asking you. You appear to have a rather extraordinary resistance to just saying, "Huh, I was wrong about that. My bad."
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:If I said otherwise...I was wrong or misspeaking.
quote:Reguardless, not my proudest moment.
I'm sorry.
?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Heisenberg: The same Duggers who spoke nonstop about the evils of homosexuality while being/covering up for kiddie diddlers.
They are not my favorite show...but my wife likes it...anyway...their son touched their daughter's breast over the cloths while she was asleep...turned himself into his parents and they took him to the police...so yea...your summery is fairly inaccurate.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: In all of this discussion you fail to see that you have demonstrated a knee jerk reaction that is borderline "anti-straight ".
Take the Duggers for example...they might feel themselves "pro hetero lifestyle" & really think they are only reresenting their own beliefs in a positive light...and I feel comfortable saying that if they did...you would have a problem w it...a big one!
Do people say "family values" & mean "kill all gays" it can & does happen.
Those people are lyers & a real problem.
But here's the bottom line...your seeming view that most mean it badly I do not agree w.
Look around you. If significant numbers didn't mean it badly, why did it take so long and a Supreme Court ruling to allow SSM in most states? Why are we seeing brand new laws making it legal to discriminate?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Heisenberg: The same Duggers who spoke nonstop about the evils of homosexuality while being/covering up for kiddie diddlers.
They are not my favorite show...but my wife likes it...anyway...their son touched their daughter's breast over the cloths while she was asleep...turned himself into his parents and they took him to the police...so yea...your summery is fairly inaccurate.
Do some research. That is not quite what happened.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote: Look around you. If significant numbers didn't mean it badly, why did it take so long and a Supreme Court ruling to allow SSM in most states? Why are we seeing brand new laws making it legal to discriminate?
Or maybe those people you are counting as enimies are actually on the same side...which is why SSM is federally protected at all.
Your view of people seems angry & dark.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dude. Are you nuts? It wasn't people realizing they were on the same side that made SSM possible. It was a lot of hard work over decades in blood, sweat, and tears and often in direct opposition to cheerful indifference like yours. I'm not talking about how you would describe your own outlook, but rather the attitude of 'hey, here's a problem with your ideas on this, I'll explain' to which you reply 'I'm a humanitarian!' with basically that amount of detail and explanation.
Oh, and it also became possible frankly because a lot of other people who 'want to protect the family' died off and were replaced by newer humans who thought 'hey in terms of morality and moral value, maybe there's no difference'.
Jesus, this is African Americans and Irish all over again. On the same side? Really? Her perspective on this issue seems 'dark and angry' to you because the history of our dealings with homosexuals in this country has often-and recently!-been dark and angry. Yours is bright and happy because you know very little about it and think 'I'm a humanitarian!' is some sort of policy statement.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Heisenberg: The same Duggers who spoke nonstop about the evils of homosexuality while being/covering up for kiddie diddlers.
They are not my favorite show...but my wife likes it...anyway...their son touched their daughter's breast over the cloths while she was asleep...turned himself into his parents and they took him to the police...so yea...your summery is fairly inaccurate.
Multiple girls, four of his sisters and a babysitter, over and under their clothes, breasts and genitals, sometimes when they slept, sometimes even they were awake. And that is just what he admitted. His parents did not take him to the police. After almost a year, when he kept doing it, they took him to a family friend and supporter who also happened to be a police officer. That police officer gave him "a stern taking to". That officer is now in jail for child pornography.
That many many people have worked very very hard is not a suprise to me...but with out a prevailing attatude of acceptance from those like me that hard work would have been a butt load harder.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Heisenberg: The same Duggers who spoke nonstop about the evils of homosexuality while being/covering up for kiddie diddlers.
They are not my favorite show...but my wife likes it...anyway...their son touched their daughter's breast over the cloths while she was asleep...turned himself into his parents and they took him to the police...so yea...your summery is fairly inaccurate.
Multiple girls, four of his sisters and a babysitter, over and under their clothes, breasts and genitals, sometimes when they slept, sometimes even they were awake. And that is just what he admitted. His parents did not take him to the police. After almost a year, when he kept doing it, they took him to a family friend and supporter who also happened to be a police officer. That police officer gave him "a stern taking to". That officer is now in jail for child pornography.
Yes. My bad. You are correct. Which also makes Heisenberg's account very inaccurate as well.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:... (you) think 'I'm a humanitarian!' is some sort of policy statement.
Well pro human didn't seem to go over well.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: In all of this discussion you fail to see that you have demonstrated a knee jerk reaction that is borderline "anti-straight ".
Take the Duggers for example...they might feel themselves "pro hetero lifestyle" & really think they are only reresenting their own beliefs in a positive light...and I feel comfortable saying that if they did...you would have a problem w it...a big one!
Do people say "family values" & mean "kill all gays" it can & does happen.
Those people are lyers & a real problem.
But here's the bottom line...your seeming view that most mean it badly I do not agree w.
The Duggars do not only represent their beliefs in a positive light. They strongly work to squelch other viewpoints.
The TLC show didn't air those parts, kept their political activism out of the show, and coddled their views (even reassigning gay crewmembers). My friend lived in Fayetteville for a while. Mrs. Duggar robocalled quite a bit. Their activism also extended to (successfully) campaigned to prevent stores from selling alcohol, in ways that don't really stop vice, but serve to annoy shoppers, give Wally World a monopoly and divert tax dollars to other municipalities (it's worth noting for this argument that I am a teetotaler).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Heisenberg's account seems accurate, certainly more accurate than yours.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Heisenberg: The same Duggers who spoke nonstop about the evils of homosexuality while being/covering up for kiddie diddlers.
They are not my favorite show...but my wife likes it...anyway...their son touched their daughter's breast over the cloths while she was asleep...turned himself into his parents and they took him to the police...so yea...your summery is fairly inaccurate.
Multiple girls, four of his sisters and a babysitter, over and under their clothes, breasts and genitals, sometimes when they slept, sometimes even they were awake. And that is just what he admitted. His parents did not take him to the police. After almost a year, when he kept doing it, they took him to a family friend and supporter who also happened to be a police officer. That police officer gave him "a stern taking to". That officer is now in jail for child pornography.
Yes. My bad. You are correct. Which also makes Heisenberg's account very inaccurate as well.
Hahaha. What? They discover their son is a diddler, wait a full year while he KEEPS ON DOING IT, and when the family friend cop turns a blind eye they figure everything is just fine and dandy now. How the hell is that NOT them covering up?
I'll tell you right now, if I report a child molester to a police officed and he proceeds to do jack shit about it, I don't consider the matter closed. I go find another frigging police officer.
No. I was not inaccurate.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
They did talk to their pro straight church elders who also covered it up.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Thank you for the new info on the Duggers all...I didn't do any research bc I don't care about them...it was yet another bad example.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
SW, I think you have the potential to learn, but you need to spend more time learning about the real world and less time theorizing about how the world should be.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I will keep that in mind in future conversations Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Rakeesh
Not shockingly...I disagree.
That many many people have worked very very hard is not a suprise to me...but with out a prevailing attatude of acceptance from those like me that hard work would have been a butt load harder.
Yes, it's not at all surprising that someone profoundly ignorant on a part of history thinks that they should get some credit for not actively standing in the way of people actually trying to redress injustices with more than an effortless 'attitude of acceptance'.
This is a point that's been made over and over again. A casual, lazy, do-nothing 'attitude of acceptance' when the status quo is massively geared unjustly against a particular group helps the status quo, not the victims.
Am I mistaken, or have you said in the past that you don't or didn't even vote? If I am mistaken, then that's my bad. If I am not, though, it makes your lazy 'acceptance' even less worthwhile.
Can we skip the part, just this once, where you pretend and make a bunch of pronouncements as though you actually had any insight based on knowledge of history about homosexuals in America, and just admit it's a part of American history you don't know much about? It'll be ok, I swear to god, no sarcasm, no beef, no razzing.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Definitely not my speciality.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
And I don't vote in presidential matters as my state will carry the liberal reguardless. Local stuff...primaries...yes.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: And I don't vote in presidential matters as my state will carry the liberal reguardless. Local stuff...primaries...yes.
No you don't. We all had a big discussion about it last year, remember?
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: For one, I'm in California, so my vote for Pres doesn't either way. Either my vote literally doesn't count if I vote Republican, or if for Democrat, I can just stay home.
Would I even be able to vote in primaries as a Lib.? I thought only people registered to Dem or Rep can vote in their respective primaries?
Honestly the few times I tried to vote I got confused, bored & disinterested very quickly.
You didn't even know how to vote in the primaries and repeatedly talked about how you thought voting was pointless. There hasn't been a primary in California since that discussion, so it's kind of difficult to believe that you do in fact vote in "local stuff... primaries." What "local stuff" do you vote in?
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia:
quote:Originally posted by zlogdanbr: Syn, I have just got
DAWN (LILITH’S BROOD – BOOK ONE) from Kobo. ( 5 bucks for it ) Thanks for the tip.
Ooo I hope you like it. I love that series. Though the third one is my favourite.
It is a pretty pretty good book. I know I like a book when I just grab the book and when I see I am past 30 pages.
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote: Look around you. If significant numbers didn't mean it badly, why did it take so long and a Supreme Court ruling to allow SSM in most states? Why are we seeing brand new laws making it legal to discriminate?
Or maybe those people you are counting as enimies are actually on the same side...which is why SSM is federally protected at all.
Your view of people seems angry & dark.
This is something I partially agree. Sometimes it is difficult to sit and hear a discordant opinion when it is so angrily put. For example, if someone says "I like my straight life" this could lead to replies much more bad tempered and complete misconception of the original purpose the statement actually tried to convey thus leading to an endless angered debate when it should not go that way.
On the other hand if you disapprove that the very statement "I like my straight life" it might sound as if you were condemning people for that behavior when your initial aim was to bring equality to the table.
Brazilian congressman and gay activist Jean Wyllys always answers with "you are homophobic" to anyone that says "I disagree", which make his points much harder to be understood.
So all this debate just feeds the minds that want to believe that gay activists want to end up with heterossexual couples instead of truly understanding the objectives of the activism.
I really understand the idea of being pro human because I am a product of blood from many different heritages. When you have African, Italian , Portuguese , native Indian and even Slavic ancestry, it is hard to not be pro human.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: And I don't vote in presidential matters as my state will carry the liberal reguardless. Local stuff...primaries...yes.
No you don't. We all had a big discussion about it last year, remember?
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: For one, I'm in California, so my vote for Pres doesn't either way. Either my vote literally doesn't count if I vote Republican, or if for Democrat, I can just stay home.
Would I even be able to vote in primaries as a Lib.? I thought only people registered to Dem or Rep can vote in their respective primaries?
Honestly the few times I tried to vote I got confused, bored & disinterested very quickly.
You didn't even know how to vote in the primaries and repeatedly talked about how you thought voting was pointless. There hasn't been a primary in California since that discussion, so it's kind of difficult to believe that you do in fact vote in "local stuff... primaries." What "local stuff" do you vote in?
Your style is combative.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Honest question: why is *his* style combative, and what does it say about *your* goddamned 'style' that, yet again, you reply to serious points that highlight flaws in your position with one liners not even addressing those points?
Let's review this discussion. Straight couples experience a mystic bond that you don't see how others could experience...and after multiple direct challenges to that idea in which you didn't address it, suddenly you hadn't meant it like that at all and why are people combative or dark and angry?
African Americans and Irish faced very similar circumstances in the 1800s. Then similar. Then they lived near each other and were poor. *Then* it's something you just don't know much about.
The Duggars weren't so bad, except wait they were and it turned out you didn't actually know anything at all about them but that didn't stop you from criticizing the views of others who did.
Yeah gays have had it rough you guess, like the Irish or the African Americans!, but boy howdy their job would've been tougher if it weren't for a 'prevailing attitude of tolerance' from people like you. Except no, people like yourself when they weren't mired in apathy and laziness on social issues, had to be dragged figuratively kicking and screaming by the exact sorts of activists whose work they scoffed at and wondered why they had so much hate for straight people the whole time.
You vote in 'local stuff' except wait we talked about this before and as it turns out you couldn't have voted in 'local stuff' as you claim you have since that last conversation. And I suppose in a page or two you won't have meant *that*, either.
And *Dogbreath* is being 'combative'? *I* have been combative. He has stuck to your points, as shifting and spineless as they have been more than once in this discussion. This? You labeling him 'combative'? That's just your passive-aggressive way of trying to control the conversation by making him appear mean without actually saying anything substantive. And the worst part is he's not even being combative!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
zlog, the difficulty here is that you consistently seem to be permitting gay rights activism to be symbolized by the most radical activists. Which if you want to do that, that's fine. But here in the United States at least and I suspect also in Brazil, gay rights far left radicals are much fewer in number and power, and generally less in awfulness, than their far right counterparts.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
No one objects to someone enjoying their own life. We rejoice in that. Adding "straight" is suspect because, why? Why do you feel it necessary to point out that it is your straight life? And people don't just say my straight life. They just say straight life and they think everyone should have a life like theirs.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: No one objects to someone enjoying their own life. We rejoice in that. Adding "straight" is suspect because, why? Why do you feel it necessary to point out that it is your straight life? And people don't just say my straight life. They just say straight life and they think everyone should have a life like theirs.
I don't when describing myself include "straight".
I just hear something different then you do when zlog & others say they are pro family values.
We have established that we disagree on that particular.
I like pro human...i'm sticking to it despite the numerous seeming disapproval.
I've found in this life one can be happy or right.
You guys may be right. Debatable. I'm more interested in working on my happiness.
I'm struggling with near debilitating pain & ibsd while being the sole care giver of two small children & a bedridden wife. Recently (last week) a dear family friend and my uncle passes & i found out my father cheated on my mother & brought back disesase to thier marage bed & then told me consistently he never cheated on her (also never hit her...also a lie). My mother in law suffers ptsd & bi polar & ossilates from angrily demanding to discuss previous discussed arguments & openly abusive tirades. I'm also battling depression & some kinda agrophobia that both my maternal uncle (rip) & grandmother had.
Now why mention all this? Not interested in pity. I'm busy. I answer things as best I can. At times I do not have time for an elaborate answer. However your impatience has been quite irksome...but I haven't even mentioned it.
Also, you guys are agressive . Even admittedly so.
Those things you are up in arms about...were vehicles...in an attempt at discussion...
But you guys seem like such militant PC cops that we get tangled in all this minutia...and I'm honestly tired of it.
I come here for a chat every now and again, not really up for witchhunts.
As to my voting...since our previous conversation I have registered to vote and will be participating (not in presidential ).
As to personally Rakeesh...I've tried & tried to be kind & respectful to you and you are so insistant that I'm fundimentally dishonest.
Get over it already. Or not & I'll just mostly ignore you like I do DB.
No big deal either way.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Both you and zlogdanbr hear something different from the "pro family values" because you are profoundly ignorant of the situation. You both have reasons for that: zlogdanbr is from another culture and you...have a lot going on. We are "militant" because we know more about the situation and the damage "pro family values" do to people, often people we care about. I appreciate that you come for a chat but ehen you know that others know more than you do, the best approach would be to learn rather than stubbornly clinging to the way you imagine things should be.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
If your goal is education...scorn doesn't prick up ears. It shuts down hopelessly myopic bigots whose only likely contrabution to the human condition is dying.
Zlog & myself may well be ignorant.
But we came here willing to talk so if you want anyone left around to listen, I'd dial it down a bit if I were you.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
That was not a threat to leave...I'm just trying not to be bossy...by saying "if I were you". Anyway. Sorry if that came out harsh.
[ April 09, 2016, 10:09 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: No one objects to someone enjoying their own life. We rejoice in that. Adding "straight" is suspect because, why? Why do you feel it necessary to point out that it is your straight life? And people don't just say my straight life. They just say straight life and they think everyone should have a life like theirs.
I don't when describing myself include "straight".
I just hear something different then you do when zlog & others say they are pro family values.
We have established that we disagree on that particular.
I like pro human...i'm sticking to it despite the numerous seeming disapproval.
I've found in this life one can be happy or right.
You guys may be right. Debatable. I'm more interested in working on my happiness.
I'm struggling with near debilitating pain & ibsd while being the sole care giver of two small children & a bedridden wife. Recently (last week) a dear family friend and my uncle passes & i found out my father cheated on my mother & brought back disesase to thier marage bed & then told me consistently he never cheated on her (also never hit her...also a lie). My mother in law suffers ptsd & bi polar & ossilates from angrily demanding to discuss previous discussed arguments & openly abusive tirades. I'm also battling depression & some kinda agrophobia that both my maternal uncle (rip) & grandmother had.
Now why mention all this? Not interested in pity. I'm busy. I answer things as best I can. At times I do not have time for an elaborate answer. However your impatience has been quite irksome...but I haven't even mentioned it.
Also, you guys are agressive . Even admittedly so.
Those things you are up in arms about...were vehicles...in an attempt at discussion...
But you guys seem like such militant PC cops that we get tangled in all this minutia...and I'm honestly tired of it.
I come here for a chat every now and again, not really up for witchhunts.
As to my voting...since our previous conversation I have registered to vote and will be participating (not in presidential ).
As to personally Rakeesh...I've tried & tried to be kind & respectful to you and you are so insistant that I'm fundimentally dishonest.
Get over it already. Or not & I'll just mostly ignore you like I do DB.
No big deal either way.
I'm sorry things are going bad for you, sincerely. I hope they improve, and I hope you've tried antidepressants. With all of that going on, you should be eligible for aid from the state, and I hope you are receiving it.
The fact that you're holding onto the short end of the stick at the moment in no way excuses the way you converse with and treat others on this board.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Thanks. Yes, pills, yes disability.
To be honest it seems like I put more effort int how i treat & speak to people here than you.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
And yet the results are so much worse for you.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I have been posting here for about two decades.
I've made some friends & some enimies.
You may have ignored my apology twice, but that doesn't mean I never apologized.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
I never asked for an apology. All I did was label your passive aggressive jab for what it was.
But anyway, what I was talking about is how you act. You are not always, nor even most of the time, the victim. You spew crap, get corrected, refuse to admit you're wrong and get defensive, and then claim you are under attack by those correcting your arguments.
The people who you would term friends tend to be the type that won't call obvious bullshit, bullshit.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
And how much weight would you assign to your advice if our positions were reveresed? You seem openly hostile. As to your comment...you commented about me...not my behavior. You labeled a depressed man an "immature, passive agressive manchild" if memory serves.
There is a difference between saying "Please stop this negative behavior." As I have done with you & name calling, as you have done with me.
I can accept that at times I'm innapropriate or hurtful, or speak foolishly...I have no delusions of perfection.
However please hear me clearly, your behaviors towords me are innapropriate & you have repeatedly ignored me when I have asked you to stop.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
I'm under no obligation to accept your definition of inappropriate, nor to accept your demands that I stop.
Nevertheless, I'm tapping out. I'm just a big meanie and you're just a victim. Whatever gets you through the day.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
Oh, and for the record, the phrase was oversensitive, passive aggressive manchild.
You are oversensitive.
You are passive aggressive.
To me, at least, these characterisitics are childish.
And whatever problems you might have don't buy you a pass from people pointing that out when you bring those traits to a public message board.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dang. You're rather more active now when it's time to lecture others about how unfair they're being than you were actually addressing arguments (or even making them, which you didn't do much of at all).
I am sorry things are bad for you. Which sounds like an understatement. And without a context, I wouldn't say things like the first paragraph. Except that it's consistent. You've always had more to say about people being 'mean' to you (such as Dogbreath, for pity's sake) than you do to defend your arguments or criticize others. And no, pointing out that you feel super nice towards everyone isn't actually an argument.
If I were to ask you 'please stop ignoring challenges and actually address them with rebuttals, or else admit up front that you don't know much about subject x', somehow I don't think you'd be receptive. Even to this point, after 'connection to the infinite', after Irish and African-Americans, after 'gay rights wouldn't be where it was it not for people like me' it's a nonsense non-admission of 'I'm not perfect'.
You don't treat people with respect, and so in a surprise to no one you aren't getting it in return. Except that you are, actually, from at least two of the people whom you've maligned as 'combative' and 'dark and angry'. You appear to think that your own self-perceived good intentions are all that's required for your position to be above reproach.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
You can be right.
I'll be happy...over here.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Heisenberg: I'm under no obligation to accept your definition of inappropriate, nor to accept your demands that I stop.
Nevertheless, I'm tapping out. I'm just a big meanie and you're just a victim. Whatever gets you through the day.
Just FYI...you are obligated...or at least...in violation of the tos. I could ask BB to step in and ask you to stop. I haven't...but I could. But as you say you are tapping out..all of that is unnecessary...
I'm not a victim. Worked hard to become not one.
Stay topical & not personal & you won't have a problem with me.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
No, I really am not obligated, as you will no doubt find out the next time I feel inclined to point out you shitting all over a good discussion.
Although I'm guessing by that point you'll be able to clarify for us that what you MEANT to say was that I should FEEL obligated, and so you were never incorrect.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Not a threat to leave...trying not to be bossy...if I were you.
Do you have a habit of calling women bossy when they happen to be right, or just kmbboots?
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: As to my voting...since our previous conversation I have registered to vote and will be participating (not in presidential ).
If you're being honest now, then good for you. Seriously. Being politically active and informed is a big step forward.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: You can be right.
I'll be happy...over here.
You do not seem very happy.
But ignoring that for a second, do you think that choosing to remain willfully ignorant about how damaging and destructive your views about marriage are - and the deleterious repercussions thereof - is justified because it maximizes your personal happiness? Because if so, then that's contemptible.
[ April 09, 2016, 09:36 PM: Message edited by: Dogbreath ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
But feeling good about something means it is impossible for it to actually be detrimental.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Man, there's a lot of tap dancing here by people who can't or won't realize that "protecting traditional marriage" is just the 21st century version of separate drinking fountains. It's actually not that easy to watch.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
"Traditional"
Whose tradition?
Can marrage predate history? *And if so what would that look like?
Does a "pro family" stance cause unintended negative consequences to ssm?
Is "pro children " a thing? I'd be behind that.
Is "protecting" any lifestyle a good goal? If so which?
How can supportive conservatives like myself voice approval of SSM within our family definition?
I'm pro all stable & loving parent/s who provides a good home for children reguardless of how that family is made up.
...is kinda wordy.
*eta
[ April 10, 2016, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Pro-family would do it, but again, things that are regarded as universally good or nearly so are pretty much never described as 'pro-x'.
And when they are, there is almost always an agenda involved that is less direct. 'Pro-life' for example. It's not as though there are many death cults operating in American politics, for example, and so pro-life while technically accurate is also an attempt to brand the opposition. Not unlike 'pro-choice'. 'Pro-freedom' is the sort of thing people say when they're drumming up support for something that could be considered controversial.
Consider times when 'pro-x' is used when there *isn't* a political agenda that is geared against *something*, and see if you can think of one as used in American politics today. Not idiosyncratic usage that is more or less useless when discussing with others.
Also consider how strange it sounds to describe something universally approved of that way. 'I am anti-murder' or 'pro-cures for disease' or 'anti-fair trials' or 'pro-literacy for children' or 'anti-clean air'.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Also? In the United States, 'traditional family' has a pretty well-defined set of meanings and it's silly at best and disingenuous at worst to say that and be surprised when other people identify the commonly used meaning.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Good thing I didn't then.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Nothing to say (again) on usage of pro- and anti-in the context of American discussions about culture and politics, eh?
Oh! Sorry, I misread the name. Hello, Stone_Wolf.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
But what the hell, I'll try again: in a context where a word or phrase has an accepted meaning-such as 'pro-family' in the United States*-then it's not unreasonable to think that using a few extra words to clarify might be appropriate.
Then again, that's coming from the perspective of someone who doesn't think that doing nothing-not even voting-and thinking nice thoughts means one should get some credit for gay rights in this country.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Nothing to say (again) on usage of pro- and anti-in the context of American discussions about culture and politics, eh?
Oh! Sorry, I misread the name. Hello, Stone_Wolf.
I acknowledge your apparent opinion that to be "pro" obviously good things is redundant, childish or stupid. I still feel that way.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: But what the hell, I'll try again: in a context where a word or phrase has an accepted meaning-such as 'pro-family' in the United States*-then it's not unreasonable to think that using a few extra words to clarify might be appropriate.
Then again, that's coming from the perspective of someone who doesn't think that doing nothing-not even voting-and thinking nice thoughts means one should get some credit for gay rights in this country.
A few extra words such as?
I acknowledge your apparent opinion that I am lazy or privileged or in general a bad person.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I acknowledge your apparent opinion that to be "pro" obviously good things is redundant...
Imagine it in this context:
A: "Motorcycles should be considered vehicles, even though they have two wheels." B: "No, they shouldn't. Only four-wheeled contraptions are vehicles. In fact, two-wheeled whatsoevers are blatantly unstable and shouldn't be allowed on the roads." A: "God, that's narrow-minded. Hundreds of thousands of people own motorcycles and use them for transportation. They're clearly vehicles." C: "I am a fan of traditional vehicles because I like hauling lots of cargo in my truck. My daddy owned a truck, and so did my granddaddy. Someday, I hope my son will own a four-wheeled vehicle. Also, calling people who like traditional vehicles narrow-minded hurts my feelings, because everyone in my family loves traditional vehicles."
You are C. Your statements -- taken in complete isolation -- are non-controversial. In context, however, it is very difficult to read them as anything but support for B's position, unless you take care to explicitly support A's position while doing so.
You can ignore context here because it genuinely doesn't matter to you; since Hypothetical You owns a truck, you don't care one way or another whether a motorcycle is considered a vehicle. But to people who have learned the hard way that voiced support for "traditional" vehicles -- especially when that support is based on tradition itself -- is usually dog-whistle for opposition to motorcycles, your phrasing is problematic at best.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
My phrasing?
Pro human somehow feeds the "anti two wheel" group?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
You're like someone who calls themselves pro-life because they enjoy being alive and is shocked, simply shocked, that anyone would assume that meant you had a particular position on abortion.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Man, there's a lot of tap dancing here by people who can't or won't realize that "protecting traditional marriage" is just the 21st century version of separate drinking fountains. It's actually not that easy to watch.
got it in one
"protecting traditional marriage" is the vapor-thin front of legitimacy combed over people's bigoted quest to hamper gays because they are people who think gay people are gross and weird and they do not want them to have equal legitimacy to heterosexuals in our civilization
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: You're like someone who calls themselves pro-life because they enjoy being alive and is shocked, simply shocked, that anyone would assume that meant you had a particular position on abortion.
I'm pro human...since I made that up...there is no way (that I'm aware of) to mistake that stance w...anything else.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Man, there's a lot of tap dancing here by people who can't or won't realize that "protecting traditional marriage" is just the 21st century version of separate drinking fountains. It's actually not that easy to watch.
Yeah man, it reminds me of how after that "support marriage equality" equals sign thing became a trend on Facebook, a bunch of folks began sharing equal signs made out of a figure of a man and woman (hilariously enough, the same ones you would see on bathroom doors) with things like "share this if you support traditional marriage!" or "support straight marriage" and so on.
Anyways, there was a lot of this horseshit going on back then, too. People would get called on it and say things like "why is it ok to support gay marriage but not traditional marriage?" or "if you can support gay marriage, why can't I support straight marriage?" All while pretty transparently ripping off a symbol of marriage equality to express their disagreement with it.
It reminds me of how for a while after people started saying "black lives matter", some white people in response started saying "all lives matter" and were shocked, just shocked, that anyone would find that offensive.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I can agree..."protecting traditional marrage" & similar catch phrases are a thin sham when what they really mean is either (but not both) "I'm straight & am REALLY into it" (and do not understand that by gathering behind a pacific flag, we are being shepherded by bigots) or "I am against SSM & want to actually oppress them but not feel like a bigot."
But "All Lives Matter." is hardly offensive...in and of itself...because all life does.
So please explain (nicely) where the rub is...as I'm not seeing it.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
All lives of course matter. No one disputes that. But the purpose of BLM is that we have a criminal justice system, and a lot of other systems, that behaves as if white lives matter more than black lives. There was a good analogy I think I read either here or Sakeriver that goes:
A boy sits down to eat dinner with his family. The father proceeds to serve food to everyone except for him. As the family begins to eat, the boy exclaims, "I need food!" The father corrects him, "Everyone needs food," and proceeds to eat dinner.
I probably butchered the story but I think it gets the point across.
Basically, it goes back to the whole context thing that's been repeatedly explained here.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's been explained, nicely and crossly, more than once. The answer is that it's *not* 'in and of itself'.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Unending patience is a virtue, Rakeesh.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I can agree..."protecting traditional marrage" & similar catch phrases are a thin sham when what they really mean is either (but not both) "I'm straight & am REALLY into it" (and do not understand that by gathering behind a pacific flag, we are being shepherded by bigots) or "I am against SSM & want to actually oppress them but not feel like a bigot."
But "All Lives Matter." is hardly offensive...in and of itself...because all life does.
So please explain (nicely) where the rub is...as I'm not seeing it.
Ok, let's try the Socratic method here, Stone Wolf.
1) Why do people say "black lives matter"? What events happened, or social or cultural factors exist, that would make someone feel like it's necessary to point out that yes, black lives do matter?
------
Now, and this is crucial for you to understand for the next part: "all lives matter" did not exist as a phrase before "black lives matter" did. That's not speculation or opinion, that's hard statistical data. The first occurrences of people saying "all lives matter" as a phrase started roughly one month after "black lives matter" came into existence.
------
2) Why do people say "all lives matter"? Consider that the saying sprung in existence as a very clear and direct corollary of "black lives matter", and as a challenge to it.
3) Have you ever been in a situation where you tell someone that you have a specific problem, and in response they reply "everyone has problems!" Do you feel that they are merely waxing philosophical about the vicissitudes of life, or do you feel that they are specifically saying that to downplay, marginalize, and/or ignore your problem?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Thanks for putting it in context DB.
At first I thought it was a pro life thing when I saw that slogan pop up on neighborhood signs.
Hmmm...
There seems to be an all lives matter pro life campaign.
Okay...so from black lives 1st to all lives (race) 2ND to all lives (anti abortion) 3rd.
Jesh!
Anyway...I see your point.
Thanks for being nice.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hey, thanks for reiterating what you and about a half dozen other people have explained at least once each already, Dogbreath.
It's also interesting to note that *that*, it seems, is your standard for 'nice' when it comes from Dogbreath: he needs to be completely polite when offering an explanation you've repeatedly ignored-and criticized him for offering-in the past. That ain't 'nice', that's some of that unending patience Gaal was referring to. Hell, by the standards of the Internet it's goddamned saintly.
Anyway, what is still confusing? Some political groups are appropriating a term used by groups who are often their opponents and using it against them.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Anyway...I see your point.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: zlog, the difficulty here is that you consistently seem to be permitting gay rights activism to be symbolized by the most radical activists. Which if you want to do that, that's fine. But here in the United States at least and I suspect also in Brazil, gay rights far left radicals are much fewer in number and power, and generally less in awfulness, than their far right counterparts.
It makes sense, well a heavy load of sense. I have been thinking and reading about this a lot. Statistically speaking the number of gay radical activists is considerably very low, I have always known that. It feels very stupid of my part specially because I believed that tiny bits represented the actual majority of the activists.
Apologizes.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Not at all stupid, zlog. In fact it is one of the most common mistakes in politics, one I'm guilty of as well. I think I alluded to it earlier in this thread: even on issues where one only partly disagrees, it is easy for the loudest and most provocative voice to be the one you hear.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
quote:Originally posted by zlogdanbr:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: zlog, the difficulty here is that you consistently seem to be permitting gay rights activism to be symbolized by the most radical activists. Which if you want to do that, that's fine. But here in the United States at least and I suspect also in Brazil, gay rights far left radicals are much fewer in number and power, and generally less in awfulness, than their far right counterparts.
It makes sense, well a heavy load of sense. I have been thinking and reading about this a lot. Statistically speaking the number of gay radical activists is considerably very low, I have always known that. It feels very stupid of my part specially because I believed that tiny bits represented the actual majority of the activists.
Apologizes.
The ability to take in views and information that don't match your own, and to honestly consider them, is a pretty rare trait. Good on you.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I wonder if the phrase had been "Black lives matter too" if there would have been all this uproar?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yes. It would have taken a different route, but yes. Because the people who need that explained-that 'Black Lives Matter' is not implicitly or explicitly a statement of 'Black Lives Matter More'-are the ones who either didn't recognize there was a problem already, or didn't care.
Example of an easy response from someone who didn't care or wasn't informed before to 'Black Lives Matter Too': "Well yeah, no one said they didn't. Anyway I don't see color and we're more or less past racism as a problem in the United States anyway, right?"
The phrasing isn't the problem. And in any event, it was designed to cause an uproar. It was designed to be provocative. It was designed in fact with one of its goals being to startle people who believe that as long as they do not consciously hold racist thoughts in their minds, they aren't part of a problem with race in this country.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Here. Read this so you understand a little bit about Black Lives Matter.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Yes. It would have taken a different route, but yes. Because the people who need that explained-that 'Black Lives Matter' is not implicitly or explicitly a statement of 'Black Lives Matter More'-are the ones who either didn't recognize there was a problem already, or didn't care.
Example of an easy response from someone who didn't care or wasn't informed before to 'Black Lives Matter Too': "Well yeah, no one said they didn't. Anyway I don't see color and we're more or less past racism as a problem in the United States anyway, right?"
The phrasing isn't the problem. And in any event, it was designed to cause an uproar. It was designed to be provocative. It was designed in fact with one of its goals being to startle people who believe that as long as they do not consciously hold racist thoughts in their minds, they aren't part of a problem with race in this country.
All very interesting.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Will do boots...today. Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Okay...read the WP article...very enlightening on the origin & purpose of the phrase.
Two things come to mind.
A. Drug & prostitution laws are some BULLSHIT!
B. My father instructed me on how to act when pulled over...in his words "here's what you do to not get shot..." Open all windows, turn off your car, put your keys on the dashboard, keep your hands in plain sight at all times, no sudden movements, keep your hands on the wheel or atop your head, never reach for anything w/o asking permission, always be up front about what you got/did, be respectful & call them "sir" "deputy" "officer" etc. He told me this at age 15...in MN...we had one black person in our county...he was a preacher...not in our town...he lived in the county seat...30 min away.
Anyway. Cops are dangerous...always have been...likely to always be.
I really love the use of tazers & pepperspray. Had those cops in that article been too quick w non lethal weapons then such catch phrases would not be nessecary. Maybe like..."black eyes matter" from the exessive mace in the face.
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
Here in Brazil you need to follow B instructions when you are under a gun pointed by a criminal. You have then 50% chance of not being killed if you do that.
Unless you are a cop, criminals kill policemen without asking anything even in front of his family.
Usually the criminal does not need to worry if he/she is under 17 because not matter what crime was committedeven the president will come in his/her defense.
If the criminal is above 18 and if he is caught he/she can be free in less than 5 years on parole for good behavior.
If the criminal has family, every family member receives around 500 dollars per member while he/she is jail.
Gotta love Brazil.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thanks for taking the time to get a little caught up on context.
The drug laws we have were put in place pretty much to keep black people and hippies in jail and not voting.
I'm glad that your father gave you some instruction but these weren't all traffic stops. Even for those that were, you have to bear in mind that the urban black population is accustomed to different treatment from the police. Being meek is not a guarantee of safety. And sometimes people just have their fill of having to be meek in the face of injustice and aggression.
[ April 12, 2016, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Okay...read the WP article...very enlightening on the origin & purpose of the phrase.
Two things come to mind.
A. Drug & prostitution laws are some BULLSHIT!
B. My father instructed me on how to act when pulled over...in his words "here's what you do to not get shot..." Open all windows, turn off your car, put your keys on the dashboard, keep your hands in plain sight at all times, no sudden movements, keep your hands on the wheel or atop your head, never reach for anything w/o asking permission, always be up front about what you got/did, be respectful & call them "sir" "deputy" "officer" etc. He told me this at age 15...in MN...we had one black person in our county...he was a preacher...not in our town...he lived in the county seat...30 min away.
Anyway. Cops are dangerous...always have been...likely to always be.
I really love the use of tazers & pepperspray. Had those cops in that article been too quick w non lethal weapons then such catch phrases would not be nessecary. Maybe like..."black eyes matter" from the exessive mace in the face.
Being rude to a police officer should not result in being beaten or thrown in detention.
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
quote:]Being rude to a police officer should not result in being beaten or thrown in detention.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
The cops in the UK are tremendous. I actually feel comfortable walking up to one on the street and asking them for help/directions.
The way I describe US police to people here is like this. Anytime you meet a cop, pretend like you're meeting a strange dog. Most dogs are lovely, but there's a small amount that are just dangerous to anyone they meet, and you can't tell the difference by looking at them.
Make no sudden moves and try not to startle them. Even a nice dog will bite out of reflex I'd they're scared.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
I would like to live in a world where police in the US don't need to carry guns, but if you take them away then they might as well be mall security guards. There are just too many firearms in the hands of citizens, criminal and otherwise.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Great analogy!
And yes Elison...I agree...however keep in mind a cop has no idea what he is walking up on. Their soft vests are SO EASY to overcome...any medium power rifle round & some hand gun rounds go through their vests like butter...
The danger to them is real...but I still agree that any used of lethal weapons/beating are just stupid.
Tazers & mace & sufficient for most things & it just boggles my mind that cops are willing to shoot first and ask questions latter in this day and age!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Heisenberg: I would like to live in a world where police in the US don't need to carry guns, but if you take them away then they might as well be mall security guards. There are just too many firearms in the hands of citizens, criminal and otherwise.
Perhaps a steel plate & a helmet but only oc & tazers on their belts...guns are in the car...easy to get to...but not used on first contact. Same w night sticks. Just like they do w the long guns now (shotgun & ar15 are pretty standard equipment where I am I CA.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
So recently, a cop sees a man walking down the highway and stops to see what's up. The man let's him get close, then pulls out the knife he had hidden (which police suspect had already been used to murder someone) and goes for the cop. Cop pulls his weapon and shoots the guy center mass. Guy goes down, and then almost immediately stands back up and keeps coming.
To the cop's credit, he backed up and tried to calm him down. But I don't have any problems with the first shot fired, and wouldn't have had any if he had finished the guy when he kept coming.
The police need more oversight. They need better training and a high level of accountability for the times that they feel justified using force.
What they do not need is to be made more vulnerable. Police already die. Like, a lot of them.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
P.S. police soft vests offer ZERO stab protection (other than an extra inch to go thru).
I'm SO for more training.
Including the difference between a black teen in a hoody & an mp3 and a bad guy with a really real gun.
Even in your example...the cop could have/should have tazed him with more efficiency.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
When I worked at the first of 3 shooting ranges...the cops would come to practice and OMG they needed it! Yeeouch
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
No. He should not have tried to taze him.
The man was within stabbing distance, with a knife, and trying to stab him. A knife is not a semi lethal weapon, at all.
And not to mention, the perp in question was shot point blank in the abdomen and basically brushed it off like it was nothing. I'm not asking police to deal with people like that in situations like that without the option of lethal force.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
But 10,000 volts is a WAY more reliable way to stop people...AND it's non lethal.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am. Or at least to consider options that don't lead to a "use lethal force or die" situation. If the guy was that dangerous, he should have waited for help. If a guy was just walking down the street, maybe don't confront the guy. There is a policy in many cities that basically amounts to harassment. Stop them if they look shady. Or are loitering. Or might have pot on them. Or jaywalk. The idea is that if they think that the police are always watching them, they will stay out of trouble. See Florida's "stop and frisk" policy.* Baltimore, for instance. Freddie Gray wasn't doing anything when he was arrested except for fleeing when police made eye contact. Since the police had a history of busting him on small or no charges, I can't really blame him for that. He ended up dead in the back of a police van. Not a quick death either.
Michael Brown had stolen some cigarillos. There may have been a struggle for the gun in the officer's car but Brown had already lost that struggle and was running away when the officer shot him 12 times. Laquan McDonald was breaking into vehicles in a trucking yard and was down after the first bullet before the officer (the only officer that fired) shot him 15 more times. Did the SWAT team really need the flash grenade that grievously injured a toddle while his sisters were held at gunpoint to arrest a guy who also lived there for selling $40 worth of meth? (The guy wasn't actually home at the time.) Tamir Rice was 12. The police shot him before they even got out of the car and would not administer first aid.
Is that what you do when peoples' live matter to you?
I agree that police are doing a dangerous job but they choose to do a dangerous job. More preschoolers are shot than police officers. Maybe shoot first just in case is not the best way to keep people safe and maybe it shows that those lives are not all that valuable to the people who are supposed to be protecting them.
quote: After a 6-month investigation, the TV network Fusion has documented a racist, illegal policing strategy that a local public defender calls "stop and frisk on steroids." One Miami Gardens police officer reports that his supervisor ordered him to stop all black males between the ages of 15 and 30. Just 110,754 people live in Miami Gardens, yet going back to 2008, police have stopped and questioned 56,922 people who were not arrested. There were 99,980 total stops that did not lead to arrests, and 250 individuals were stopped more than 20 times.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
That stuff is all deplorable, and is why I wrote that there needs to be a high level of accountability.
We'll just have to agree to disagree. I think the police should have the option of deadly force at their disposal.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
She didn't say she wanted that option removed.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Being meek is not a guarantee of safety. And sometimes people just have their fill of having to be meek in the face of injustice and aggression.
I would not characterize the behavior I described as "meek"...it's more like "careful & compliant".
I've been pulled over while working the range & had guns in my car (legally). The cops frisked me (I had a knife & Leatherman which I disclosed) and had me sit for over an hour while they checked my credentials & my car's too...paperwork & physical search.
I could easily had been in jail (I was speeding)...but I handled my business. I'm 6'2" 300 lbs so I can easily intimidate w/o meaning to.
Careful & cooperative.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Sometimes, one's interactions with police are not entirely in the hands of their own behavior.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Read the links, SW.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Also, let's just note that it's a perverse inversion what is supposed to be the American attitude towards its government, that it is chosen by and answerable to us, in the way we expect people should interact with police officers. Note that I mean this not as a practical concern but one of how we and our government should interact.
The expectation, and sometimes this even extends to those who are victimized by police, is that we should be deferential and even obsequious to police officers. Even if we have not broken any laws. Note that I am not saying 'cooperative', I'm talking about an attitude almost of fawning.
Cops work for us. We pay their salaries, we empower them to carry and wield deadly force in our service, and they are volunteers that have to go to some trouble to attain that position. Respect is appropriate, courtesy is appropriate, cooperation is appropriate. But often there is an attitude that one should-not simply as a means to avoid trouble in a pragmatic way-kiss ass to police, and that police have a right to expect this sort of thing from citizens.
That is *my* attitude and I've interacted with police and the courts, counting being pulled over, maybe a half dozen times in my life. All of them fairly, also. I suspect my attitude would be substantially less forgiving if I had been 'randomly' stopped and searched by police in my own neighborhood many times not just in my life but recently.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Read the links, SW.
And miss my son's screaming declarations while he breathlessly jumps around the bed & couch?
Patience please
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm not saying when you should do it; I am saying that the discussion will be more productive after you do.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Okay Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:So when I was in Los Angeles last week, I proudly told people that I’m from North Carolina, which usually brought comment about our “awful” new law – and said that, while no law is ever perfect, I’m proud of our state legislature for standing up against the tsunami of insane, intolerant social change.
Of course, they had to cease speaking to me immediately – those who were Total Conformists within the Established Church. No heretic can be allowed to pollute the purity of their ignorance.
But most of the time, the response I got was, in a nutshell, “Yes! That’s how I feel about it!” even though, in almost every case, their tone had been scornful of our law until I spoke up in its favor.
Because few regular people actually believe in the dogmas of the Established Church. They just know that if they don’t talk as if they believed, the consequences are likely to be unbearable.
You know, like the citizens of Communist countries before liberation. Like Afghanis under the Taliban. Like Palestinians under the rule of terrorist governments. Like citizens of Seattle.
what
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
God, how crazy will he be in ten years if he's like this now?
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
What "awful law" is he referring to?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
This is the "bathroom law" in question (as well as some of the events surrounding it). Basically it's a law that criminalizes transgendered persons using a bathroom that matches their gender identity. Or in other words, if you're a woman but were born male, you could be jailed for using a woman's bathroom.
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
quote:Originally posted by Heisenberg: That stuff is all deplorable, and is why I wrote that there needs to be a high level of accountability.
We'll just have to agree to disagree. I think the police should have the option of deadly force at their disposal.
Down here in Brazil it would be impossible to Police work without fire guns. Criminals are heavily armed to a point their armament far excedes the power of the guns our police can carry.
Last month a safe box was robbed and the criminals used their guns shooting randomly to stop police to come near them. It is not uncommon to see drug dealers in favelas using military weaponry against police who cannot - for the sake of safety of common people - use powerful weapons like bazookas.
Still, it is very common to see gunfire killing innocents, specially children, and both sides- police and criminals are to be blamed.
Our police is said and known to be corrupt and violent but I think it happens because most of them are not psychologically prepared to do their jobs and facing real risk of death in front of them and low salaries, they become stressed and violent. And they commit abuses.
Criminals are much more violent though. I am not sure if this exists in USA but here in Brazil we must carry money in our wallets all the time. This is said to be "money for the robber" because it is statistically seen that it makes robbers angry not to have enough money and it leads them committing violence against the citizen.
Sometime ago, a dentist was leaving her clinic late a night when a group of criminals approached her. After they getting all they wanted from there they took her to a atm machine and when they saw she had only 5 dollars in her account they put fire in her body. Sadly this is one case among many.
The human rights associations here work really hard to allow safety and rights to the criminals, but they usually work to restrain police violence and abuses instead of realizing you cannot talk to criminals in terms of peace and love. I would be tremendously happy to see a place where non deadly weapon where enough, but at least here in Sao Paulo, this is just a dream.
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
This is the "bathroom law" in question (as well as some of the events surrounding it). Basically it's a law that criminalizes transgendered persons using a bathroom that matches their gender identity. Or in other words, if you're a woman but were born male, you could be jailed for using a woman's bathroom.
Thanks. While I don't agree that transgenders should be jailed by doing that. I admit, I am not proud of saying it but I have a real hard difficult time to understand transgenders. My first thought is always about agreeing with the conservatives but I know I have this dark side of me whose I need to fight. So what I do is to think about the Wachowskis and Brazilian comedian Nany People rather than Caytlin Jenner as examples and although the beast inside me is not completely tamed at least I feel in peace and I understand, then, transgenders the best way I can.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
This is the "bathroom law" in question (as well as some of the events surrounding it). Basically it's a law that criminalizes transgendered persons using a bathroom that matches their gender identity. Or in other words, if you're a woman but were born male, you could be jailed for using a woman's bathroom.
Was this the NC law that removed sexual orientation as a protected class statewide?
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Yes. Sexual orientation and gender identity were not protected classes statewide in the first place, but there were ten municipalities that had local protections for LGBT persons in place, and this law stripped those protections. Meaning it's now legal to fire people, deny them service, refuse them housing, etc. for being gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. It's a cowardly, hateful, discriminatory law pretty clearly designed to oppress and discriminate.
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Yes. Sexual orientation and gender identity were not protected classes statewide in the first place, but there were ten municipalities that had local protections for LGBT persons in place, and this law stripped those protections. Meaning it's now legal to fire people, deny them service, refuse them housing, etc. for being gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. It's a cowardly, hateful, discriminatory law pretty clearly designed to oppress and discriminate.
Dude this is loathsome. Not even the more radical Right people here in Brazil would endorsee tis law. It is complete not human. Does OSC support this law ? Man...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Not only does he support it, he likens the culture that opposes it to the Taliban and most of the individuals who claim to oppose it to cowering people under a tyrant's boot.
But I suspect soon we will hear 'don't call him crazy' and 'it's not fair to say he hates homosexuals or transgender people' and 'what about that gay writer' and so on.
I would love to hear somewhere an explanation of 'doesn't hate' that reconciles the problem of 'doesn't think it should be illegal to fire, deny housing, etc., them for being gay'. That certainly sounds like 'love the sinner, hate the sin' to me!
Anyway, that won't happen here since on such topics this board doesn't have a diversity of opinion anymore, but it would still be interesting to me if there were such a defense somewhere.
What's amusing to me, in a bitter anticipatory schadenfreude way is that I know Card is aware of the currents of culture and history well enough (in spite of how batshit he's gotten) to recognize how much he will be reviled and to the sorts of extent his earlier work will be forgotten and overshadowed as a result of his politics and homophobia. And I can speculate that it must make his teeth grind, that awareness.
Well, the part where his earlier work will be overshadowed doesn't make me happy. Imagining the current totally not hate-filled politically rational Card feeling angry about that, though, does give some conciliatory pleasure though.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Yes. Sexual orientation and gender identity were not protected classes statewide in the first place, but there were ten municipalities that had local protections for LGBT persons in place, and this law stripped those protections. Meaning it's now legal to fire people, deny them service, refuse them housing, etc. for being gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. It's a cowardly, hateful, discriminatory law pretty clearly designed to oppress and discriminate.
Yeah that's what I find loathsome about the law too. And Mr. Card's lack of even mentioning that aspect of it makes me wonder if he realized the law does much more than stop the hypothetical man from putting on a dress and waltzing into the women's bathroom.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
He's a grownup and purports himself to be an informed political commentator. But supposing he actually *didn't* know that (well publicized, basic fact of that law), then I will grant it does mean he's not necessarily homophobic. For this.
Of course what it does mean, if he didn't know that, is that he allowed his hatred for liberals and the left in this country to fuel him to a knee-jerk hysterical and profoundly lazy reaction which he then wrote about.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Perhaps.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Sounds like me.
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Yes. Sexual orientation and gender identity were not protected classes statewide in the first place, but there were ten municipalities that had local protections for LGBT persons in place, and this law stripped those protections. Meaning it's now legal to fire people, deny them service, refuse them housing, etc. for being gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. It's a cowardly, hateful, discriminatory law pretty clearly designed to oppress and discriminate.
Yeah that's what I find loathsome about the law too. And Mr. Card's lack of even mentioning that aspect of it makes me wonder if he realized the law does much more than stop the hypothetical man from putting on a dress and waltzing into the women's bathroom.
I honestly hope OSC will eventually clarify it, because you know this law suppresses and denies basic human rights to LGBT people to work and make a decent living, things that should stand above left or right, or sexuality.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Yeah that's what I find loathsome about the law too. And Mr. Card's lack of even mentioning that aspect of it makes me wonder if he realized the law does much more than stop the hypothetical man from putting on a dress and waltzing into the women's bathroom.
Honestly, there's enough stuff that Card gets wrong - and I don't mean he has the "wrong" opinion, I mean he's just plain factually wrong (see the Churchill Bust thing) - that, along with his reviews about browsing Buzzfeed articles, makes me strongly suspect he's getting a lot of his news from clickbait sites. Like, strongly suspect. Like, all my super-conservative friends on Facebook will be sharing around that inane article about Obama sending away Churchill's bust a week before Card brings it up again completely out of the blue suspect.
So if he got presented this situation as "North Carolina passes bill to protect little girls from sex predators, and THIS is how the liberal media reacts!" with the snidest picture of Caitlyn Jenner you can imagine as the image... well, I could see how that would sort of perfectly match and reinforce all his preconceived expectations about the "PC Inquisition" and how liberals are all hateful hypocrites and/or sheep. And as I said, he really, really hasn't been fact checking his articles at all for the past several years.
That seems like a pretty plausible explanation. And it's certainly one that makes more sense to me than he actually knew the full ramifications of the bill and defended to praise it anyway. The former is sort of annoying, but in a "annoying uncle to forwards you conspiracy theory e-mails" way. The latter is just appalling.
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
DB , it makes a whole lot of sense what you said. Dude it makes me feel better.
One of my best friends is a real conservative person who does believe those rumors.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
from like ten pages ago
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: it is from his wide body of words and actions like that — a history that makes it nearly impossible to give him the benefit of the doubt, honestly — that we come to that he will have to state clearly that he's in favor of trans bathroom rights before we can entertain the notion that his words were only incidentally critical in a way which is typically anti-trans
unsurprisingly, guess what's happening
he was not incidentally critical
and is gonna for sure be garishly transphobic
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Oh no...a former woman saw my junk!
Freeeeeeeak ouuuuuut!
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Ok boots...read em both.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: But 10,000 volts is a WAY more reliable way to stop people...AND it's non lethal.
Yeah, I don't think I'm buying that. If you've got stats or sources or anything, by all means share. But I've heard of people ignoring a tazer the same way this guy ignored a gunshot, and there's nothing to make me think a tazer is more debilitating then a bullet.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'll look...but fyi, "stopping power" is one of the most hotly debated thing other than AK vs AR (AK wins).
quote:Anatomy can also ruin your day. An inch or less this way or that may be the difference in your future. People are not homogenous, and no one is good enough to shoot the heart on a fighting person reliably. It’s luck. And it gets worse. Your bullet may absolutely shred the heart, or it may not. No bullet is perfect. Throw in a few inches of fat or muscle, some bones, varying positions, and it’s all, pardon me, a crapshoot. No telling what will happen. If I have to fight you, I’d prefer to put some holes in you first on general principles, but there is no guarantee of any particular effect.
And it gets still more difficult. People wear clothes and hide behind things, and they have stuff in their pockets. They sit in cars. They might be standing over you ready to deliver the coup de grace when you get off your first shot into the pelvis from below. Then you’ll be wishing for a lot more than 12 inches of penetration in gelatin.
Add to that the variation in the determination of your assailant, what he is wearing, how far away he is and how good you are in the worst moment of your life. Add it all up, and you will have to shoot till there is no need to continue, (or you run out of ammo) and hope for the best. There is no guarantee of winning even if you shoot first and best with the most.
Hand guns are great. I love em! And if cops really really need gyns they should carry rifle caliber cqb weapon system...a pistol's main ability is portability/concielability...since uniform officers have no need to hide ther gun...
More to come...have to go for now
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
so once upon a time in the fully civilized land of america (fully civilized, I say!) a fully civilized event called the Cottonwood Wal-Mart Parking Lot Doomsday Mormon Busker Brawl occurred. Well, maybe it is not remembered by that name specifically, but it should be.
A family of eight or so people living and sleeping in a Chevy Suburban (can you imagine the smell?) in a Wal-Mart parking lot got it on with the police in a wild brawl you might remember being caught on tape and it was great because these guys had evidently been saturated with tons of apocalyptic anti-state paranoia and had learned techniques to handle tazings and sprayings well. Like they would get tased over and over again and just roll the contact leads out and then get back to punching cops.
Well until one of them wrestled a cop's gun out of its holster after trying to choke the cop out, then he shot the cop in the leg. then the cops unsurprisingly killed him.
But it's such a morbidly interesting video to watch, not just because it is the CWMPLDMBB but because you watch how they circumvent their tasings
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
and also because it is legitimately being argued that tasers have more 'reliable' stopping power than literally shooting someone with a bullet and i kind of want to kibosh that now
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
What tasers were they using? Most taser have barbed darts & require emts for removal...as they bury themselves under the skin...
I'll look more...however everything I've read/seen/heard points to taser being WAY more effective than most bullet wounds.
Plus once the barbs are in, one can shock & shock & shock...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am less concerned with police using lethal force to defend themselves and am more concerned with the decisions they make to confront and escalate to the point that they need to defend themselves with lethal force.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I agree w your concern, however, when facing difficult challenges (as I'm sure we all agree policing the US is difficult) often the best course of action is to setting one's self up for success.
So to prevent shootings...leave the deadly force in the locked car & first respond with less than lethal (but still highly effective ) weapons.
[ April 15, 2016, 10:59 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: What tasers were they using? Most taser have barbed darts & require emts for removal...as they bury themselves under the skin...
the kind you can roll to break the contact leads on if you know how (aka all of them)
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Ahhh...I will have to learn that technique. Didn't you mention that the suspect got a hold of a cop's gun & shot him w it?
I'm not suggesting disarming cops entirely...just that a gun is unnecessary on first contact...with improved armor.
Or had that cop's first mag (& his cop buddies) been rubber bullets the perp would still be alive & the cop wouldn't have a hole in his leg!
[ April 15, 2016, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i know that this is your pet project, tirelessly advocating a blanket slate of nonlethal weapons options for police, but rubber bullets in particular are not going to happen. they are not very useful and are even being phased out of riot use. they are insufficient as a less-lethal technology.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I'm not suggesting disarming cops entirely...just that a gun is unnecessary on first contact
Usually yes. In this case, it is why the situation had to escalate to that an individual wrestled a police officer to the ground and took his firearm and shot him with it before the police themselves escalated to lethal force. And they had been having an all-out brawl before then. The tasers simply did not work to keep the officers safe. Most of the gang of individuals were pacified at gunpoint.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm not seeing any part in particular of disagreement...for my thought to be actually helpful, the non lethal weapons (nlw) would have to be reliable...the sticky foam is quite impressive.
Reguardless...if a Star Trek phaser on stun was available I doubt we would be arguing at all.
I was not aware of the rolling technique...so clearly my info isn't cutting edge.
What do you guys think about just the idea of increasing the armor on cops? I bet they wouldn't be so trigger happy if they felt less vulnerable.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
To my knowledge, there is no armor currently available that both protects from close range, large caliber rounds, and is not ridiculously bulky and/or heavy.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
Kate, I agree that the police are poorly trained, too edgy, and have such little accountability for their actions that it might as well be none at all.
However, suggestions such as "well, they shouldn't have approached him," are kind of problematic. The man was walking on the side of a highway, causing a traffic hazard. Not to mention, it's strongly suspected that he had murdered someone else prior. He was going to confront somebody, sooner or later.
These kinds of unknown, sketchy situations where it's possible that either someone needs help, or society needs protecting from them, is one of the main reasons that we even have police. My work is recently been thrown into some minor chaos, because one of the clients has turned violent and in order to keep ourselves and him safe we have to work with him on a two to one basis. I can't imagine the budget and logistical problems if we required a full team or even a pair of officers for every little situation.
Lastly, if the officer HAD had backup, it wouldn't have made a difference. The perp had enough presence of mind to hide the weapon and wait in ambush. It would have turned into a deadly force situation no matter what.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
could you imagine what cops would look like if they had to wear ballistics that would protect you from close range fire
it would be straight dispatches from the Democratic Republic of America
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
15k posts...congrats
And yes...I can imagine...I posted pictures
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: 15k posts...congrats
what the helllllllllllll am i doing with my liiiiiifeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
If you become the forum moderator you can start over from 0.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: If you become the forum moderator you can start over from 0.
seventy seven thousand posts
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
I knew Samprimary was really Clive, Cindy, et al.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i am kind of distressed that my worldwide posting sum total is distracting me from talking about that orson scott card just wrote the perfect sleepy problematic grandpa article where he rambled on a bit about egg sandwiches before going on a grumble about that some people didn't want to talk or associate with him because he was happy that his state passed a stupid transphobic law and this just goes to show that the liberals are the true intolerant and hateful ones
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
maybe if those los angeles types had done him the service of being sure to stand around and give obligatory and polite acknowledgement of his views — as he deserves — instead of freely electing to stop talking to him, he wouldn't have had to have gone on a ten minute caterwaul about how their behavior is representative of a Taliban-esque cult of intolerate hate
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
My worldwide forum post count is only about 20k. More than half of those were made on UBB.classic, though, so I think that reflects some dedication
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Wow, this essay is impressive.
Take this:
quote:For six months this absurd and pointless intrusion on the privacy of women becomes the law in one absurd and pointless North Carolina "city," until the state legislature passes a law that returns us to the status quo ante, along with language designed to keep other cities from passing laws to enforce conformity with the dogmas of the Established Church.
Charlotte is absurd and pointless! Not even quite a real city.
Also it's an Established Church that wants to protect transgender individuals from discrimination and harassment, not, you know, people in Charlotte who feel differently than the NC state government. (Also those people in Charlotte are obviously so much more Established than the state government...)
quote:But now a return to the simple, safe rules that protected women for generations have become Heresy, and the state that dares to defy the new dogma is worthy of a boycott by all of the Total Conformists. Suddenly the practices that were universal a year ago are a hideous crime, a rebirth of fascism, a virtual pogrom against the transgendered.
And I wondered: Is there a philosophy here? Unlike medieval Christianity, there's no effort at logic or consistency or even evidence. We have to take anthropogenic global warming on faith -- and then prosecute any scientist who insists on rejecting theories that are contradicted by all the evidence.
Oh good, he didn't forget to bring up AGW.
I'm sure glad the NC state law was based on evidence, unlike the nasty Charlotte law.
quote:Notice how short a timelag there was between Bruce Jenner's big publicity push and the demand that all "transgendered" people must be called by their new name and with pronouns appropriate for their new "gender." Notice that instantly anyone who expressed disapproval was the object of outspoken hatred.
Yes, literally Caitlyn Jenner was the beginning of all transgender related ideas for politeness and tolerance. The concept of transgender has definitely not been part of an extremely common initialism identifying several minority populations who generally get a lot of hate and discrimination and pretty much nobody ever had any publicly stated preferences for how to treat them. Not until Jenner, and then everything was different!
Ugh, too tired. But there's so much more.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I should stop reading his essays. They're spoiling many of my fond memories of his stories.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'll say this, almost with every essay now where he remarks on any social or political controversy, I feel less guilty about feeling some spiteful satisfaction at how much being scorned for his scorn bothers him.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
as i put it in 2014
quote:as a general rule then we never act more sarcastic, sneering, disdainful, dismissive, or contemptuously mocking of osc's positions as osc is often sarcastic, sneering, disdainful, dismissive, or contemptuously mocking of people like liberals, gay activists, scientists who collectively publish things he disagrees are real, various politicians including Obama, feminists, etc
having then allowed him to set the standard for decorum in voicing one's opinion of another person or a set of people and their opinions, and what tones are on the table for having an opinion on them and wishing to voice it, he can then decide whether to leave the myriad questions his articles raise exactly as they are and proffer no public explanation, or he can respond in any way he chooses
i feel this is a better approach than in some direct or indirect way setting a standard that the onus is on others to beseech clarification politely on the subject of his anger and contempt for other people, groups, or ideas.
the subjects that he decides to be witheringly indignant and insulting about definitely don't hurt, either. it's one thing to be a churlish imperious bespawler on subjects of trivial personal taste (as I can personally attest, knowing that anyone who enjoyed Prometheus is wrong and dumb and probably smells like a week-old bag of farts) but instead he chooses to do so in ways compounding and furthering his cruelly fixative history of devoting his time, energy, and hate towards entire classes of marginalized people or anyone who would dare call him out for it.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
I'm telling you folks to stop directly calling Mr. Card any pejoratives. Please stop. I'd also appreciate people editing their posts. If they don't I'll go through and do it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
There's that unfortunate overdose of irony again:(
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Coach your pejoratives in the Plausible Deniability format osc used in his article about Obama mobilizing gangs of inner city blacks to oppress and kill people who disagree with his rule.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: inner city blacks
Urban youths!
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: There's that unfortunate overdose of irony again:(
You mean enforcing rules I've agreed to enforce?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The part where you are instructed to tell people 'don't call him names' about a man who calls them names, JanitorBlade. Hates America, leftist Taliban, hates families, loves our enemies, I could go on at length and have before, you know the things he's said as well or better than I do.
And I know you've got a job to do and that's fine. But here, now, all that is is the authority of the rules, and that's it. There's nothing of ethics or fair play involved here. The owner has given instructions (which in this case amount to 'regardless of how bigoted and hateful I am towards people, they cannot say the same it about me), and he owns the place so he gets to set the rules.
All of that's fine, it really is. But the irony is there, and frankly it seems unlikely you're unaware of it. You've even acknowledged it before, in exactly this context.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Coach your pejoratives in the Plausible Deniability format osc used in his article about Obama mobilizing gangs of inner city blacks to oppress and kill people who disagree with his rule.
Mr. Card is not required to maintain his forum's rules in columns he chooses to publish in order for them to apply here.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
He sure isn't! Money can indeed buy someone a place where they can dictate 'do not treat me as I treat others.'
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Not that it matters, but I'm *pretty* sure I've never called Card any names or "pejoratives" here, or done anything but disagree with his stated views using polite language.
That being said, I wouldn't want to cause trouble for you, so I'll leave the forum so all those wonderful folks who actually agree with his views about gays, transgendered folks, blacks, poor people, scientists, and liberals can feel free to post here without being threatened by the fact people might disagree with them. Have fun!
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Not that it matters, but I'm *pretty* sure I've never called Card any names or "pejoratives" here, or done anything but disagree with his stated views using polite language.
That being said, I wouldn't want to cause trouble for you, so I'll leave the forum so all those wonderful folks who actually agree with his views about gays, transgendered folks, blacks, poor people, scientists, and liberals can feel free to post here without being threatened by the fact people might disagree with them. Have fun!
I haven't called anybody out in particular. I'm seeing this problem happen again and I'm asking people to stop.
Members here are welcome to say these views Mr. Card espouses are all sorts of things, even evil. But you can't say Mr. Card is evil is a bigot is anything pejorative.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The part where you are instructed to tell people 'don't call him names' about a man who calls them names, JanitorBlade. Hates America, leftist Taliban, hates families, loves our enemies, I could go on at length and have before, you know the things he's said as well or better than I do.
And I know you've got a job to do and that's fine. But here, now, all that is is the authority of the rules, and that's it. There's nothing of ethics or fair play involved here. The owner has given instructions (which in this case amount to 'regardless of how bigoted and hateful I am towards people, they cannot say the same it about me), and he owns the place so he gets to set the rules.
All of that's fine, it really is. But the irony is there, and frankly it seems unlikely you're unaware of it. You've even acknowledged it before, in exactly this context.
I often do not like things Mr. Card writes. I've told him to his face that I think he is wrong about the threat SSM poses to society. It was terrifying to do so, he was very gracious during that conversation.
I do not like that he uncharitably ascribes the basest of motives to those who supported Charlotte NC's attempt to be more inclusive towards transgendered people. And called Charlotte a ""city"". I don't like that he so readily lumps people and positions into groups and lambasts them. It hurts when it's positions I espouse, because in my past I have found so much clarity and impressive thought in Mr. Card's writings. To see that disappear is miserable.
But I've committed to keeping this place devoid of malice and invective towards all individual members of the community. I find it baffling that even with this small community of posters I have to repeat again and again that no matter how viciously Mr. Card has spoken out against a person, place, or thing, that we are not permitted here to insult him or treat him poorly. It would be interesting indeed if his columns specifically called out members of this community and insulted them. But we are not there. We are in a world where Mr. Card publishes his unvarnished opinions about people and ideas both cherished and hated, and he offends people here as a result.
If you want to discuss why you absolutely hate many of Mr. Cards ideas and positions, that *can* be done here. I would hope it would be also balanced by what you agree with but I get that when people are hurt by something, they want to express that frustration. But you cannot come here and have total freedom to say as you wish, just as you could not in many forums with similar rules. One in particular is that you cannot attack a member of the community here. If you want to post somewhere else that you think Mr. Card is crazy, that is your prerogative. But it is not here.
It's not that complicated, and we are all smart enough to comprehend it. The day Mr. Card says "Rakeesh is a bigot" on his published columns, then I'll immediately start talking to the Cards about revising rules around here. But as they stand, Mr. Card has not come here and broken his own forum's rules, so we are all required to uphold them as well.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
blackblade is just the messenger and didn't set the rules and has actually resisted applying the rules for QUITE A WHILE and let us get away with border and full rulebreaking for a while
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
You should probably talk to him about shutting the forums down, especially since his hate-speak over the past 8 years or so has done most of the work of it already. Then you wouldn't have to suffer through the cognitive dissonance of defending his reprehensibly prejudiced views. I'm being serious -- that sucks for you. You're a good guy, and this is a shitty job.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I actually agree with JT. There's no way these forums will serve his interests under the current conditions.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:You should probably talk to him about shutting the forums down, especially since his hate-speak over the past 8 years or so has done most of the work of it already. Then you wouldn't have to suffer through the cognitive dissonance of defending his reprehensibly prejudiced views. I'm being serious -- that sucks for you. You're a good guy, and this is a shitty job.
I think you're missing BB's point. He's have to defend OSC's positions as moderator - in as much as he does so, he is choosing to do so. What he's talking about here is requiring a certain standard of behavior to be applied towards a poster, whether you agree or disagree with that poster.
For myself, when I was more active, I and others tried to make this a place where OSC's columns, etc. were far beneath the acceptable norms of behavior, not because we had to, but because we valued reasonable, respectful discourse and disagreement.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I wonder...does this mean we will never learn the end of Alvin's tale? Even if Card writes it...the soulful, connected writer who thought of Making & created such a true feeling world...well...I fear...
Ya kno.
Also...take it easy on BB...and by that I mean say "I think this view of OSC's is bigoted" vs name calling...it's not that hard to couch ones views within the TOS.
[ April 25, 2016, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
BB did nothing wrong and is doing nothing wrong. he is just doing the job he's supposed to do.
i mean i would have zero qualms with having gotten a ban or two because we all ought to have been perfectly aware that The Rules, such as they are here, would mean that you aren't allowed technically to call OSC a homophobe or a bigot or a transphobe, because he takes these observations about his screeds as being substanceless and derogatory namecalling, and nothing more.
That he doesn't believe the way he conducts himself in articles has any impact on what sort of tone you're allowed to use against him should come as no surprise because of course he doesn't Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
It's like...on one hand you are saying the same thing as me...but at the same time I feel you are still messing with BB saying shit like "...you aren't allowed technically to call OSC a homophobe or a bigot or a transphobe..."
Like thumbing your nose at him...(singsong) *I still said it*
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Lol, not this time. I more point that out as something that COULD HAVE BEEN outlawed, but we are actually or we have been actually allowed to go ahead with those criticisms. I don't have to be sneaky with criticisms we have been permitted to make!
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
someone noted that it appears that the conservative base always needs OR is always fed something to help them believe that their values are constantly under threat by corrosive, bad things. having really super lost the gay marriage thing, this transgender bathroom thing becomes the next bleak and barren hill for people like osc to die on.
for now, anyway.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I'm feeling pretty upset that trans people are being exposed to such a surge of hate. But I don't even know. Arguing with people doesn't seem to work, they just dig in.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's amusing to me how much we're not hearing about how awful and dangerous gay marriage is nearly to the extent we were when it was banned. One might almost begin to wonder if the politicians at the head of such charges actually weren't very invested in protecting America against this critical danger if they give up the fight so quickly.
Look at pro-life movements. Say what you will about tactics and beliefs, there is conviction, and it's sustained through many years of Roe v Wade.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:someone noted that it appears that the conservative base always needs OR is always fed something to help them believe that their values are constantly under threat by corrosive, bad things. having really super lost the gay marriage thing,
The primary purpose of morality has been and probably always will be to dehumanize people that you want to do bad things to. One of the best ways to do this is to portray the people you want to hurt as somehow attacking you (or vulnerable people). And the thing about hate and about feeling like a victim while actually being the powerful one is that it feels really good.
You don't want to give up that rush and self-vindication. So, when society makes it unacceptable to bully gay people and people know enough about them that they laugh at your bizarre fear mongering stories about them, well, people are still really weirded out by trans people.
Emotionally driven prejudice is rarely about the specific target*. It's about the emotional needs of the one holding the prejudice. <Minority group X> is sexually perverse and destroying society is a real common one, with interchangeable groups - in some cases, I kid you not, it's actually the Jews, and generally means that the person who holds that belief has some serious sexual hang ups.
For a lot of people, it feels good to bully people, but the way we're wired, most people can't do that to people they see as fully human. But, hey, if somehow this weak minority group is actually super-powerful and bent on attacking you and everything that is decent (instead of struggling to get by in the face of your constant attacks, like it might otherwise seem), why you're not a bully, you're a hero. Bonus points if you push your own stuff onto them and them beat on them for it.
* Although, sometimes the two go hand in hand, like how gay conservatives are often the most vocal anti-gay people out there.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
ha! i find it worth noting that the theory certainly fits with how someone like me on ~the Leftaliban~ side of things would rail on OSC, even if i think there is a tremendous moral difference overall created by that what people rail on OSC for pertains to his being a person who is dedicated to the furtherance of marginalization of entire classes of vulnerable people.
in what is possibly the least surprising thing ever, i think it is a-ok to express that i think these people are scum and that they need to be denigrated very vocally and actively to either change their minds, or if that's not possible, challenge their positions vigorously and call them out for their shit so that their base bigotries will have less transmissibility to future generations and will not hold the legislative weight that people like OSC want to use to pass legislation targeting people like gays or transgender individuals.
i know where his convictions come from, more or less, and how it should be unsurprising that a holder of deep and stolid mythological mormon gender essentialist beliefs would immediately and categorically reject transgender as being an actual thing, and that someone who has literally argued that such gender essentialist necessities mean that gay marriage being legal means the end of civilization would of course think that bills protecting transgender individuals are dangerous hokum, potentially endangering the poor womens!
it is still disappointing, though. like, even if i obviously wasn't going to respect his beliefs, i at least would have been open to the possibility that i could appreciate that he's wise enough to not immediately jump on the newest fundamentally doomed, terrible, short-lived conservative bandwagon of bigoted moral outrage. and yet, he couldn't wait longer than a few grandpa thoughts on egg sandwiches before grabbing that banner and marching on and being so full of salt about how people don't have to nod politely at a bigot.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:The primary purpose of morality has been and probably always will be to dehumanize people that you want to do bad things to.
I think I can see what you're getting at, but I think the human expression of morality largely arises out of empathy, and empathy can be at odds with other elements of survival instinct - so I would say that the primary purpose of morality is group survival advantage, and the boundaries of moral systems are often driven by competition (real or perceived) between the in-group and the out-group.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I feel like we may be agreeing, but I'm not sure that we aren't saying the exact opposite of each other.
I'm saying that morality's primary purpose (or maybe, most common purpose is a better way of saying that) is to counteract empathy for people who you want to hurt (often because they have something you want or you perceive them as wanting something you have).
In most people, empathy is a naturally occurring instinct that makes it difficult to do harm to people that you feel empathy for. When you find yourself wanting to hurt someone, the conflict often leads to developing morals for why they deserve to be hurt, and ultimately, why they aren't fully human.
[ April 28, 2016, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
We probably mostly agree except probably on what we would tend to mean if we say "morality" or "morals". I'm including general moral rules like "be kind to others" in that, but I understand that you are referring more to codes that would be enforced by authority or community.
Another possible point of disagreement: I think maybe often the purpose of the code is to protect the herd. The flip side of this is sometimes, but not always, to "not-protect" those who won't conform. For example, before the 20th century I think it was far more dangerous to violate norms of sexuality and marriage than it is today, thanks to medicine and prophylactic measures that came into existence recently. While communities certainly took the opportunity to condemn and punish violations, I think the purpose for the rules was at least partly to benefit the group, not simply to provide a target for aggression.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It's amusing to me how much we're not hearing about how awful and dangerous gay marriage is nearly to the extent we were when it was banned. One might almost begin to wonder if the politicians at the head of such charges actually weren't very invested in protecting America against this critical danger if they give up the fight so quickly.
Look at pro-life movements. Say what you will about tactics and beliefs, there is conviction, and it's sustained through many years of Roe v Wade.
Or, you know, it's surprisingly hard to show how allowing gay marriage has ruined lives, aside from the odd example of people who don't like making money enough to sell their services to anyone who asks. Back when it was first approved, there was a lot of hand-wringing about what to tell elementary schoolers, until people figured out that most five year olds don't ask the awkward follow up questions when told they call fall in love with anyone they want.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i would say morals more at its core have effectively developed with the purpose of groups of people coming up with rules that keep them strong amongst themselves. this comes with or without the having-to-protect-themselves-from-the-outgroup thing, I would think.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Whoa whoa whoa whoa! He put scare quotes around the word "city"? There is no insult that can bring the man further down than he has brought himself.
Pack it up boys, this thing is over.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
I do agree, though, it's kind of an odd choice to put the quotes around "city" in that context, given that he's talking about Charlotte.
One would hardly call Detroit a Michigan "city", Baltimore a Maryland "city", or Boston a Massachusetts "city"... though all have a lower population than Charlotte. There are only 15 cities in the country with more people than Charlotte.
Weird.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
One mighty almost wonder if in a tantrum and a fit, he was flailing about for any sort of insult, no matter how absurd.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I imagine him doing air quotes with his fingers and dramatically rolling his eyes while sneering the word.
I get that people are really weird about using scare quotes in uninformed rants. I'm just aghast that a professional writer did it. Like, a generally regarded as talented one. With best sellers and awards and such. Seriously?
If only he'd added "so called" before it...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Maybe he meant that it wasn't the city doing it but some other group forcing its way on the city?
I admit that is a pretty big stretch.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I would have expected for an AGW rant, like, Those "scientists"
But now Charlotte is a "city" because it did the not terrible transphobic thing ok cool
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
And it would've "gotten away with it" if it "weren't" for those "crazy kids."
*"gets" mask ripped "off" face
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Hey BB, any chance you'd be willing to ask OSC to stop by here and discuss and clarify some of the things he says in his columns? Kind of like Reddit's AMA.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Hey BB, any chance you'd be willing to ask OSC to stop by here and discuss and clarify some of the things he says in his columns? Kind of like Reddit's AMA.
Maybe.
But I wouldn't expect it to go very well, there's so much frustration and anger that inhibit meaningful communication.
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Hey BB, any chance you'd be willing to ask OSC to stop by here and discuss and clarify some of the things he says in his columns? Kind of like Reddit's AMA.
Maybe.
But I wouldn't expect it to go very well, there's so much frustration and anger that inhibit meaningful communication.
This would be really excellent. Specially for OSC to clarify and defend himself.
-- ps I have been a member of Michael Moorcock's forum for around 4 years. Not just the people there are the finest people I ever met on any forum, but also Michael Moorcock very often posts there.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
There's a couple of issues.
1: There's a very long history of Mr. Card feeling (rightly or wrongly) increasingly attacked here. Even though he does not remark, Mrs. Card has always actively followed the goings on here. At this point it's very similar to a dysfunctional relationship. If the community requested it, I believe Mr. Card would acquiesce to coming. He cares about this place.
But I would anticipate that were a dialogue opened up it would revert to the same dynamic that resulted in his stepping back in the first place, unless some major efforts were made to stop that from happening.
2: The topics that people would probably want to discuss are largely going to be things we've hashed out here many times, and they are very tense ones. Sure there would be some lighthearted or neutral ones (What have you eaten that you can recommend lately?) by it would be mostly this most recent kerfuffle about transgendered bathrooms, gay marriage, leftaliban, etc.
I, as much as anybody else would love to bring Mr. Card back as a regular poster or even just doing the occasional AMA.
But we need to figure out some ways to ensure that's a positive experience and not a negative one.
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
Hey Janitor from my part I will not attack OSC, actually I am more on his side than any other thing.
I believe the discussion taken here will eventually lead most people to understand OSC well. He is NOT a mean person, not a bigot, not a gay hater, etc. He is a very decent and intelligent person. And he happens to be one of the greatest sci fi authors of our time.
People willing to discuss these issues need to understand that before starting the debate.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:People willing to discuss these issues need to understand that before starting the debate.
Heh.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'll say it up front: it's insulting to behave as though the onus for civility is on one side here. Setting aside the questions of technicality and rudeness here versus rudeness elsewhere, we have *read* his columns. Card is not some wilting victim. Let him, or anyone speaking for him, offer as well as ask for assurances of civility if we're going to do that.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
BB didn't suggest that the onus is on one side. Right now, he's talking to us. He didn't say OSC doesn't have a responsibility to be civil as well.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: BB didn't suggest that the onus is on one side. Right now, he's talking to us. He didn't say OSC doesn't have a responsibility to be civil as well.
Yep.
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:People willing to discuss these issues need to understand that before starting the debate.
Heh.
LOL, I realized later that this statement is out of context and completely invalidates the idea of debating heheheh What I meant is well let's us be polite with each other and eventually OSC opinions will be clarified.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What do you think is unclear?
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
My statement
"People willing to discuss these issues need to understand that before starting the debate."
just after "I believe the discussion taken here will eventually lead most people to understand OSC well. He is NOT a mean person, not a bigot, not a gay hater, etc. He is a very decent and intelligent person. And he happens to be one of the greatest sci fi authors of our time."
implies that to start the debate you need to agree with my point or OSC points.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If we agreed why would we debate?
What about OSC's opinions do you think is unclear?
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
What needs clarification in that essay?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Those pesky LGBT people with their privileged class status.
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
Ok, from my part I give up.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Look zlog, I can appreciate your desire to defend Card. For my part I once felt and behaved in much the similar ways, though not many here will remember as it's been many years. But I'm afraid that the truth is that these disagreements and impressions aren't just a matter of misunderstanding or poor communication (whether on the part of Card or those reading his words).
He's made his opinions on 'the Left' in this country (which isn't the left in Brazil, I should point out), on Democrats, on opponents of George W Bush, on supporters of Obama, on supporters of LGBT rights, all very clear. And that opinion is uniformly hostile, contemptuous, and personally insulting and has been for years.
As a thought exercise I can imagine it's possible he's entirely correct about all of it. But even if that were true, it still wouldn't be a situation wherein a more clear explanation could be offered and suddenly the environment isn't as antagonistic.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I thought a dialogue where the left here could explain to OSC the reasoning behind our views and refute some of the claims made in columns, and OSC being able to defend himself against the criticism levelled against him here would be worthwhile. It seems like you don't agree.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Not sure who you are asking but I can't imagine what OSC would have to gain. He certainly doesn't need to justify himself to us and we aren't likely to change his mind.
What do you imagine he could say that would "clarify" his views into something not bigoted and what do you imagine that we could say that would change those views?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I don't expect any stances on issues to be changed, but maybe respect for each other's views is a possibility.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Okay. What do you imagine could be said that would make his view worthy of respect? Or make him respect ours?
And, again, he doesn't really need us to respect his views. Why would he want to spend time (better spent on writing or his family) on fending off arguments from a bunch of fans?
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
"Demosthenes" might do it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If we want to know his views, all we have to do is read his columns. He has put them out there for us.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Okay. What do you imagine could be said that would make his view worthy of respect? Or make him respect ours?
That there are rational reasons for having leftist views.
quote: And, again, he doesn't really need us to respect his views. Why would he want to spend time (better spent on writing or his family) on fending off arguments from a bunch of fans?
He writes columns. He clearly doesn't mind spending time discussing political and social issues. What does being fans have to do with it? I'm not asking for him to come here and answer questions about his books.
What's your issue with the idea? Do you prefer only having discussions in echo chambers?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm not against the idea; I just don't think it is going to happen.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Yeah, that doesn't jibe with the fact that the only two things we've heard from JB is a "maybe" and his belief that Card would agree, while only asking that we agree to discuss respectfully, and you repeatedly insisting there is no point.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If it does, I will be very happy for you and very surprised.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I cannot imagine, having spoken with several of the Cards on this topic, that the issue is that OSC genuinely needs to be reminded/persuaded that liberals are capable of rational thought, or that this hypothetical epiphany would cause him to begin openly according more respect to opinions he does not share.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
This is the worst idea EVER.
The only thing more entrenched & immobile than OSC & the posters here was WWI France.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
To clarify, my earlier post was addressed to zlog and I forgot to preface if that way. JB is simply doing his job when he sets a condition like civility. Though I will point out that neither he nor anyone else actually has the means to make that condition stick for OSC, in the scenario where he discussed things here and violated it.
--------
quote:I thought a dialogue where the left here could explain to OSC the reasoning behind our views and refute some of the claims made in columns, and OSC being able to defend himself against the criticism levelled against him here would be worthwhile. It seems like you don't agree.
Well, it's worth pointing out that there aren't any secret liberal (or even Leftaliban) arguments or cases to make here that Card hasn't been exposed to. I suppose that is really what I object to, and it's simply a question of tone. The situation is not one of equivalent hostility and rudeness, where both sides should stand down equally and start over. Card has been routinely hostile and libelous (I don't mean anything actionable, of course) in his writing towards LGBT and liberal folks in his columns dealing with politics. And also Pixar films from time to time.
I can say all of that in this thread because Card has made it abundantly clear that he believes as bad or worse of people who think like I do on these subjects. But if for the purposes of an artificially civil, diplomacy style setting for discussion it's a condition that those sorts of things not be mentioned or hinted at in any hypothetical conversation, I really am fine with it. With letting JB be the arbiter of whether such conditions are met, as well.
But none of that means that this state of affairs is likely to be based in an honest misunderstanding from one side or another, is what I'm saying.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I would pay money to just have a period of time where OSC and Tom Davidson must respond to a specific number of each other's questions and posts.
partly because Tom would pepper him with exactly the right questions and exactly the right critiques of his views
and partly because Tom would drive OSC completely insane. he would literally be shaking at his computer, mind clouded with toothgrinding hate, responding to Tom.
there would be no finer adkjflhasdflkjhaf in the world
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I would pay money to have that not happen.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
oh come on i'd even hire someone from the world wrestling federation to do play-by-play announcing and I'd have a t-shirt printed up and everything and be in kayfabe the whole time Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
that said, i'll take $50 to call the whole thing off
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
...from each poster
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
The statements made by OSC in regard to the left generally deal with a "so-called" veiled Communist plain that aims to denature Western Catholic Jewish culture. These theories seem to be founded on the criticism on the theoretical works of Antonio Gramsci, which is a huge influence on the left here in Brazil and Latin America.
I honestly have not read any specific work of Gramsci, I have been simply enlightened by right wing intellectuals that have studied his work and despite how biased these claims might be, it seems that Gramsci actually supposedly proposes that in order to effectively have the paradigm change aimed by Communist revolutionists, it is necessary to break up and demolish the current Western Cultural Hegemony by inciting changes in the way society sees and accepts sexuality, marriage, acceptance of criminal behavior or religion norms. It is also part of the deal to foment cultural and social vilification of the western male past activities.
Gramsci also allegedly seems to recommend that alliances with less radical left activism, like Fabian socialism, are made in order to catapult the changes and the actual revolution.
As I said, I am only repeating what I read from people like Olavo De Carvalho ( who Brazil's most respected right wing philosopher and who have read all works of Antonio Gramsci ) and Reinaldo De Carvalho, center-right Brazilian columnist.
Thus, if a specific Left activist claims to be dumbfounded by Antonio Gramsci ideals seems acceptable to assume that this specific activist in fact endorses gay marriage, defensive actions and human rights for killers or atheism in order to end up with the current status quo rather than thinking on the civil rights.
I reiterate that I have chosen not to accuse the American left in these terms because of respect to the Left people here at this forum- who seem not to endorse the obtuse thinking of the Latin American left - and because I don't live there and so it'd be even more obtuse of my part trying to assume things for real without actually living them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I honestly have not read any specific work of Gramsci, I have been simply enlightened by right wing intellectuals that have studied his work...
In general, it is never a good idea to speak with authority about someone based purely on the words of his political enemies.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I can't remark knowledgably about Central or South American politics of any stripe, really, much less drill down to what particular writers and philosophers have to say.
What I *can* say is that I think it's been quite some time since Card has even mentioned communism in one of his columns, and that if his 'spirited criticism' of the left has anything to do with communism, he's done a poor job of communicating that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
yeah no kidding
i mean for all my frothing i try first and foremost to not do that ever, because when you're as frothy as me it is an easy path into epistemic closure
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: What I *can* say is that I think it's been quite some time since Card has even mentioned communism in one of his columns, and that if his 'spirited criticism' of the left has anything to do with communism, he's done a poor job of communicating that.
Yes but he mentions the "the left", does not he ? Gramsci says that it is a part of the revolutionary process to make alliances with moderate leftists or non communist left.
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I honestly have not read any specific work of Gramsci, I have been simply enlightened by right wing intellectuals that have studied his work...
In general, it is never a good idea to speak with authority about someone based purely on the words of his political enemies.
Yes I agree, but as I remarked ( I am not a political scientist or a scholar.), I am no authority in anything ( except in my field of work of course ), I am just interested in the type of left that has been exemplified as evil and criticized by OSC and that very much resonates to the criticism I have read about the left.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Feel free to ignore Tom's little jabs...we all pretty much do.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So you do think it is a good idea to speak with authority about someone based purely on the words of his political enemies?
I am not sure that you get to speak for "we all" without defining that more narrowly.
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
Depends, see, Olavo de Carvalho, although a rigid opponent of communism, happens to be one the greatest authorities in the topic here in Brazil. You can also take my word - and feel free to pass it forward - on Java or windows, they both are awful ;-)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Zlog,
He does, but-and of course this is just my take on it from having read his columns with an admittedly jaundiced eye-'the left' hasn't been about economics for Card for quite a few years. It's almost always, as in I cannot recall a contrary example, about one of two things: criticism of Bush/War on Terror, or the so-called culture wars in the United States. Come to think of it he might have had *some* criticism of Obamacare on the lines of economics, but it is far, far from a majority or even a significant minority of his hostility to the left.
----
I can't say I haven't been frustrated with Tom Davidson before, but hopefully it wasn't often for very relevant and useful remarks such as that one? And yeah, we all speak for ourselves, I believe.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Unfortunately I'm basically always going to be lost when talking about Brazilian politics. I know only the most rudimentary history, I don't speak Portuguese, in fact I'm not even certain that is the language spoken primarily in Brazil without checking. I don't even have any Brazilian friends or acquaintances, to my knowledge. Card himself probably knows a fair bit, if I'm not mistaken, since he's traveled extensively in Brazil or at least South America?
Anyway, having said all of that an enemy of a given person or ideology being a trustworthy messenger for how their enemy thinks or feels is uncommon, at least in my experience. Of course it's possible that messenger might be *right* when he discusses the hidden or unconscious motives of their enemy, or when she lists the states beliefs of that enemy. In specific instances, anyway.
For example, sticking with Card to keep it topical, for the sake of argument he might be right: I might secretly long to bring religious conservatives specifically and religious people in general under the yoke of an oppressive regime of political correctness. Maybe I do secretly long for the humbling of America and the triumph of our enemies. Perhaps it's true that a man such as myself doesn't really believe in the ideals I claim to, but actually cling to it out of a sense of timidity and toadying to the Leftaliban or something.
He could be right about all of that, but of course if you actually asked me about it I would give very different answers about my reasons for supporting or opposing a given law or custom. Maybe I'm lying or self deluded when I do give different answers, and Card was right about a man like me all along, but typically in a serious discussion of politics, mind-reading by the most strident opposition is a poor standard of evidence.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Unfortunately I'm basically always going to be lost when talking about Brazilian politics. I know only the most rudimentary history, I don't speak Portuguese, in fact I'm not even certain that is the language spoken primarily in Brazil without checking. I don't even have any Brazilian friends or acquaintances, to my knowledge. Card himself probably knows a fair bit, if I'm not mistaken, since he's traveled extensively in Brazil or at least South America?
Have you not read Speaker for the Dead? Lusitania is a Brazillian colony and they speak Portuguese. And yes, Card did his mission there (so the choice of country to make the colonists was not random).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ah, that's probably the association I had for it. I think I also remember something from Lovelock as well? Can't say for sure, it's been many years since I read either. Might be due for a reread.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
/me is sad Lovelock will never be finished.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: /me is sad Lovelock will never be finished.
Indeed.
(Edited to add quote, since it was a page rollover.)
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Unfortunately I'm basically always going to be lost when talking about Brazilian politics. I know only the most rudimentary history, I don't speak Portuguese, in fact I'm not even certain that is the language spoken primarily in Brazil without checking. I don't even have any Brazilian friends or acquaintances, to my knowledge. Card himself probably knows a fair bit, if I'm not mistaken, since he's traveled extensively in Brazil or at least South America?
Have you not read Speaker for the Dead? Lusitania is a Brazillian colony and they speak Portuguese. And yes, Card did his mission there (so the choice of country to make the colonists was not random).
That is true. One of the places OSC has lived was in Ribeirao Preto that just happens to be the city I was born. My parents moved from there back in 1975 but the rest of the family stays there until this date.
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
I have supported our "left government" party until 2004. It was back then that I have seen myself illuded, still, I have never thought seriously about their associations and committiment to the Communist cause until recently when I have realized their "plan" was not just a crazy conspiratory theory.
This is not to say I believe the same thing will ever take place in USA, e.g , communist parties taken the power hidden themselves as moderate lefts specially because moderate left is what I have called myself all my life. But I think I will read about Gramsci and peers.
Thanks for all the opinions. As I said I was not trying to be an authority.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Ok.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Without calling anyone in particular a committed, entrenched bigot directly, I suppose I should say now that it would be consistent with a committed, entrenched bigot to shift gears and spontaneously find their way, post-primary, to supporting a candidate who has long been asserting that he wants to institute a blanket ban on immigration and travel specifically for people of the islamic faith. Without calling anyone in particular insanely demented for doing so, I imagine it would be 100% appropriate for that consideration to apply should someone suddenly find their footing in the general and say that for the good of the nation, this candidate must be president because the alternative is ew liberals. Bonus points if this is a person who has now had repeated turns of saying, essentially, that as a democrat, they of course desire nothing more than to ensure the democrats lose and nothing the democrats do is good and they are literally trying to destroy the nation on purpose with their incompetence.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
I'm pretty sure such a person would have not argued to vote for Trump, but rather to ensure the GOP retains control of Congress for the next four years.
It sounded like our hypothetical possible bigot wasn't voting for either candidate for President.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well at least this time, it wasn't a *total* segue into a political rant as CA:CW has obvious political considerations for its story. But god I miss the man who had some freaking nuance in his politics. There are a lot of problems with the UN (many of them, it seems to me, built right into its structure), and it is tiresome to hear brutally repressive regimes pretend to any sort of position of moral authority to lecture, particularly since the preexisting bias is often paper thin.
But for pity's sake, the UN simply isn't an anti-American anti-Israeli institution. Are there such elements in it? Undeniably. Do they have disproportionate power? That case could be made (from a citizen of a nation permanently seated on the security council). But that's not all it is. Does Card even believe that, or is it more 'speaking to his audience'?
As for WWII, before anyone starts climbing up on the cross of its righteousness, let's just remember our alliance with the Soviet Union, our willingness to turn a blind eye to fascist accession, and our turning away of Jewish and other refugees. I know Card knows his history better than that. It was a war that had to be fought, but the truth is it should have been fought years earlier and would have been millions of lives cheaper. Also not to forget that we don't tend to regard as icons of righteousness actions which profited the doer enormously.
As for the film itself, well, Tony Stark aside from his decades of weapons manufacturing and negligent sales, created Ultron. In any rational world questions of criminal negligence would be asked.
BB, it's difficult to see how you read that and think he's not saying 'vote for Trump'. He is on record as agreeing with his wife in thunking that a Trump presidency would be better for the Supreme Court, the Constitution, the American military, and by proxy literally the world as a whole. *Then* he starts talking about Congress.
Of course it wasn't a speech so we won't be able to judge for sure if his words were transparently deceptive, such as his 'best option for the country' Trump's remarks, "...some, I'm sure, are good people." where both tone and context make it abundantly clear that's mere political cover.
He's not a Democrat, and that's fine. I don't care if he claims to be anymore, he's lying to at least two people-himself and/or everyone else. And he hasn't explicitly endorsed Donald Trump, he *did* explicitly endorse the GOP and guess who will be their candidate for the presidency in November? Did he ever say 'I can't vote for Trump'? In fact he states that it is 'silliness' to vote for neither.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I recently had to distance myself from a friend I've known literally half my life...not because of what he did...but because I finally got it...he had ALWAYS given unasked for advice, he -consistently- refused to discuss or admit to negative behavior, for 18 years he treated me like a child.
And I couldn't be mad at him. I knew he had these traits...heck, his advice was quite helpful for the first decade or so.
I just got over it. No yelling or fighting or anything...just kindness & thankfulness for the good times we had.
And here's why I mention it. Card used to be my hero. Used to be. Since his views changed so strongly, he has been pretty consistent.
I'm just kinda over it now. Just like with my friend, I struggled for awhile before I came to accept that you can't change people...you only get to choose if they are in your life or not.
I don't read OSC's articles. I know what to expect.
I'm not sure why you guys still get worked up over it. Card is who Card is. Getting angsty about it doesn't change a thing.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
since this is an accidental doublepost, I will replace it with an advertisement for mentos
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: I'm pretty sure such a person would have not argued to vote for Trump
Yet. I am not saying that anyone in particular has outright stated it. It would only apply if they did outright argue to vote for trump, or if it becomes wildly obvious that they're clearly implying to vote for trump while trying not to get caught saying it outright.
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
I'm amused at Card's image of a Quebec caring about French signs in the rest of Canada. Well, I would be amused if it wasn't appallingly ignorant.
I thought Hollywood was the domain of the Evil Left. So how is it that Civil War clearly comes down against the UN (darling of the Evil Left)? I'm confused.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
You're not the only one.
The general rule of thumb is this: either Card likes the movie, which means it must have somehow subverted the evil intentions of its leftist creators who are obviously too stupid and ignorant to understand that the writer has tricked them into revealing their own foolishness, or he hated the movie, in which case its leftist creators are to blame for its lunatic adherence to extreme left.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
he does literally use the word 'lunatic' to describe that, right
it sounds like his wordery when he really gets his jimmy jams going
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
JIMMIE JAMS Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
best post in thread, hall of fame and close forum forever
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
We haven't voted on a forum mvp yet.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I would like to submit that thread where I was so fed up with someone that i just started talking about mountain dew. i cherish that moment more than any of my moments, which are numerous
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: We haven't voted on a forum mvp yet.
I think we all know who it is.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
We do?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Is it CT?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i'm a shoe-in for forum mvp because dogbreath left
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
You guys are nuts. Clive's got it in the bag.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
That BlackBlade guy was nominated President of Hatrack once upon a time...
Posted by NobleHunter (Member # 12043) on :
Sure, but have you seen the news? Any yahoo can be nominated these days.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Since I've contributed literally nothing to this thread while silently judging you all, I going to throw my hat into the ring for veep.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: Since I've contributed literally nothing to this thread while silently judging you all, I going to throw my hat into the ring for veep.
You need to have switched your party affiliation to jatraquero within 90 days in order to be on the ticket. Did you switch your party affiliation to jatraquero within 90 days?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
There's a party? Am I invited?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Nice going, JB.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Still have my "Kiss me, I'm a Jatraquera" t-shirt. :-)
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Best old man blog ever.
quote:I was thrilled to miss Hamilton because a few weeks ago, I heard some horrible noise coming from downstairs, and when I rushed down to see who was getting murdered, my wife was jigging to the first song on the Hamilton CD.
I knew I could never stay in a room, even a large one, where that noise was being produced at top volume, so the quiet hotel room where I sang children's songs to my granddaughter was by far the better bargain for me.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
gonna just put it here for no reason at all, now
Anyone who pens up a screed against being tolerant of islamic individuals in the united states in the wake of these attacks, using any variation or theme of the argument that this shows that muslims are not to be trusted and it is foolhardy not to specifically and legally discriminate against them (and there will be many people who do this), will be showing us that they are small-minded, shitty bigots, whose moral weakness and pathetic aspirations towards autocratic religious favoritism would legitimately make our country a terrible place, and they deserve to be called out for being foul idiots that deserve the misery and personal insecurity that comes with watching society pass them by and judge them as ignorant holdbacks whose toxic bigotry should be curtailed and kept from bleeding into future generations.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Sort of the Minority Report of calling people out?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Precog fight!
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
For me, the issue is the genuine bewilderment at negative reactions toward bigotry to the LGBQT community, as if it were a subject lively debate with no real-world consequences, such as which direction to orient your loo roll. Rather, the intolerance of intolerance always had murder as one of its motivators.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
loo roll Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: Best old man blog ever.
quote:I was thrilled to miss Hamilton because a few weeks ago, I heard some horrible noise coming from downstairs, and when I rushed down to see who was getting murdered, my wife was jigging to the first song on the Hamilton CD.
I knew I could never stay in a room, even a large one, where that noise was being produced at top volume, so the quiet hotel room where I sang children's songs to my granddaughter was by far the better bargain for me.
I might have actually enjoyed a more thorough critique from him.
What exactly didn't he like about it? Just the fact that SOME of the musical (albeit a large part) is rapping? I don't have a hard time imagining someone not liking it just because of the form it takes (though I think he's still fairly harsh even for that).
And did he listen to any more of it than just the opening number?
Seems like a pretty shallow critique.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
Old men make the best music critics. My Granddad always hated the Beatles. Considered them worthless hippies.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm worried that commentary on Orlando will set a new benchmark for unpleasantness.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I always leave room to let people surprise me.
But yes, I have the same worry. I've already seen it in other quarters.
Somehow this will all end up being Obama's fault.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:So he gives his perfunctory recognition that Citizen Kane is the greatest movie, ya-da ya-da. But I don't. Because all I see in Citizen Kane is the relentless vanity of an empty blowhard -- not Kane, but Orson Welles -- whose "artistry" is so heavy-handed I'm not sure but what he thought of moviemaking as blacksmithery, with his message the hammer and his anvil the audience.
I will forgive some ineptness in the art of filmmaking for a story that I care about and believe in. But if I hate every character and every word they say, I walk out and never look back. I neither know nor care how Pulp Fiction ended, because the only happy ending for that movie, after the thirty minutes I saw, would be for every character in it to be smashed and instantly killed by the tank that crunched its way up the freeway in Fast & Furious 6.
I have despised the promos for every Quentin Tarantino film because they all seem to be intellectually pretentious and violently childish. I've given Scorsese a few more chances because of Taxi Driver and because in his rare interviews he's not such a vain and empty-headed donkey as Tarantino.
Gleiberman admires both directors for their artistry -- and boasts a little about being real-life friends with Tarantino. All I can see is that Tarantino and Scorsese make appalling, obvious, ineffective artistic choices.
i take it back osc
you can rant about darkies and liberals and musselmen and them transsex'ls and gayfolk all you want as long as you promise you won't talk about movies again
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well as everyone knows, the best way to have a worthwhile opinion about a given piece of media's cultural worth is to watch less than half of a single movie, write it and the creator off entirely, and sneer dismissively at any further production for decades.
Jesus. I mean if the objection were going to be 'too violent and/or sexualized', well, there's a case to be made for that. Obviously their films aren't too much of either of those things for my taste but opinions, right? But 'never watched even half of one, it's stupid and awful, and anyway I've seen interviews (and totally watched all of them, despite my opinions regarding the movies) and geeze the guy is a jackass anyway'.
Oy. I miss the Orson Scott Card who wasn't so thoroughly committed to making a life's work impression of a smug, patronizing, moralistic know-nothing jackass. I miss that guy a lot. But at least I've still got a number of books written by a man who didn't share the opinions of a caricature of a grouchy, homophobic old man angry at the world for not thinking like he does.
PS With care I made sure to couch my harshest criticisms with a veneer of 'I'm not saying *he* is these things, necessarily', even though my meaning is I think pretty clear. Thus is civility and my own worthiness preserved.
PPS I very nearly succumbed to massive irony and posted a similar post without actually reading the review, very confident that it wouldn't have been necessary. As it turns out it didn't change his meaning from the bits quoted above, but hey, contempt provoked a useful response. In scorning Card's choice of deliberately avoiding actually taking in an entire Tarantino or Scorcese (after Taxi) film before writing both off as scumbag directors forever, I identified the impulse in myself and quelled it.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Awesome PPS. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Thanks! It was a useful validation, from myself to myself in the form of an avoided behavior, of the idea that being harshly critical of someone and saying so in direct, rude terms is not always a harmful thing.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Ummm...I was just on board for the no hypocrisy part.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Ummm...I was just on board for the no hypocrisy part.
Oh, I didn't think you'd be onboard with the rest of it, really. After all to agree with that to any extent would invalidate, say, sweeping generalizations made about the utility of being 'mean', and we can't have that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Here's the thing. I didn't think the original Ghostbusters was all that funny, either.
nooo
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I think that, of the two putrid candidates this year, Trump is the less dangerous. Marginally. But he'll probably appoint Supreme Court justices who have actually read and understood the Constitution, and are willing to abide by it, something that can never be said of Obama or Hillary, or anyone they would nominate to the court.
wow ok
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I will at least agree with OSC that Zach Woods in the opener was one of the funniest parts of the movie. I'm a little concerned that he thought Leslie Jones was the funniest, given that her role is the most stereotypically flat as the loud angry black woman (though I think she managed to rise above it at points).
I'm also conflicted about Hemsworth, who I thought was funny, but has become a bit of a lightning rod over how you view his role. I looked at it as an over the top commentary about the vapid role attractive women tend to play in movies. Also as an inversion of the original where Murray spent the whole movie lusting after Weaver shamelessly. So part of me thinks they wasted him on a really stupid role, and part of me appreciates what they were trying to do (I'm assuming that's what they were trying to do). And a tiny tiny part of me thinks, well, if equality means men AND women can be portrayed as hot morons, I guess that's something, but wouldn't it be better of neither gender was treated like that? I don't know.
But the fact that he didn't recognize Kate McKinnon as the obvious stand out of the movie makes it hard for me to take anything he says seriously.
quote:Here's another difference: When Trump, on a whim, orders something illegal or unconstitutional, the people around him won't obey him. He'll hate it, but mostly they'll keep him from being an anti-constitutional dictator like Obama and Hillary want so badly to be.
Of course he'll fire them, but as long as he remains a Republican he'll keep having that same "problem" with anyone he appoints. The military especially do not obey illegal orders.
This isn't even true as of THE LAST TIME A REPUBLICAN WAS PRESIDENT.
The idea that Republicans will all refuse illegal orders while Dems will whistle on their way to doing whatever the Furher demands is hilarious.
Apparently he's forgotten about Nixon and Watergate and Regan and Iran-Contra. All illegal. All perpetrated by Republicans AND the military.
Contrary to popular belief, everyone in the military isn't an expert at Con Law. Or on the US Code. Or even the UCMJ. By and large in American history, when the president orders something done, just about everyone does it. The idea that all of a sudden that rule would change with Trump in charge defies the entirety of American history, and frankly defies the logic of human history.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Given that Card is familiar with Nixon, and Iran Contra, and all the rest...well, he's just lying, to be honest. That's how Card does federal political commentary these days: hyperbole and lies.
Anyone familiar with Trump would *never* think that he had a reputation for hiring or appointing strong-minded subordinates who would tell him when he was wrong and stick to their guns if he disagreed. Trump doesn't even say that about himself in the books he's hired other people to write about him. On the federal level, at least, Card's politics are riddled with lies. He's a Republican. He supports Republicans all the while claiming to be holding his nose, but sure enough the next time it comes up he supports Republicans. Probably until the time they stop their doomed, already lost fight against gay marriage, at which point he'll stop supporting them in every federal election ever.
He's lying about nominees. He can't even say what he actually means-that he feels the nominees Clinton would appoint would incorrectly interpret the Constitution. He's got to go ridiculously over the top and lie to suggest they haven't even read nor do they care about the constitution, these potential nominees. I can't speak to his local and state politics, but it's been many years since Card became an utter hack on federal political questions. I don't speak of his being a conservative republican on basically every federal issue, though obviously that's not my politics. But goddamn, it's a freaking let down everytime I read another of his columns. The Maps in a Mirror collection, Ender's Game, Worthing Saga, so many others, with the continual theme of 'everybody is a person, even the bad people, no one is a mustache-twirling villain', among many other themes.
What the hell happened to Card, anyway? Is it possible all of the garbage he puts out now was somehow there back when he was writing Hart's Hope or Songmaster? Or if not, what bizarre personal transformation occurs to make someone so very different and so contemptuous of nuance and integrity, when speaking of a political rival, in so little time?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:This isn't even true as of THE LAST TIME A REPUBLICAN WAS PRESIDENT.
The idea that Republicans will all refuse illegal orders while Dems will whistle on their way to doing whatever the Furher demands is hilarious.
Apparently he's forgotten about Nixon and Watergate and Regan and Iran-Contra. All illegal. All perpetrated by Republicans AND the military.
Contrary to popular belief, everyone in the military isn't an expert at Con Law. Or on the US Code. Or even the UCMJ. By and large in American history, when the president orders something done, just about everyone does it. The idea that all of a sudden that rule would change with Trump in charge defies the entirety of American history, and frankly defies the logic of human history.
we must presume the party that is irresponsible and broken enough to nominate literally donald trump is the one that will be principled and noble and will stop trump, because reasons
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Or if not, what bizarre personal transformation occurs to make someone so very different and so contemptuous of nuance and integrity, when speaking of a political rival, in so little time?
well
do we start by assuming that his transformation has been one of his loss of nuance and sane interpretation of political issues rather than one of him simply losing his tact and no longer possessing the sorts of filters that would have prevented him from permanently becoming associated with right wing blatant anti-gay hatred
if i had to bet on it, i would have to say the safest bet is on years of saturation in a warped and demented epistemological bubble common to the media environment most american conservatives stay essentially confined to
it's becoming a more common story. we get to watch what it does to people over decades. it just eats away at people's sanity. you hear stories from a lot of people about how their parents or their friends or their extended family used to be a lot different, a lot less crank and paranoid, but they would start watching fox news or listening to right wing talk radio all the time and they would become observably, measurably more bombastic and deluded and polarized against a bizarrely expanding list of anti-american conspirators that eventually just grows to be everyone who's for the most part not like them, as time goes on. it just makes you weird and paranoid and sincerely just ****ed up and closed off and angry at a disconcertingly large list of Conspirators Against The True America, be it police critics, feminism, hollywood, immigrants, asylum seekers, muslims, black activist groups, atheists, gays, gays especially that dare to destroy marriage by trying to be allowed to be married, transgenders, the science community, 'ebonics speaking thugs' or 'innercity youth' or anyone who dares suggest that it is a historically and legally inaccurate fact to suggest that america is a christian nation founded on christianity)
is it unique to the right wing / nativism / etc? not at all, though i think it is easy to say that osc neither is nor will be able to ascertain when and where the shadows of epistemic closure are actually present in the left because he repeatedly presumes it of the entire left even if sometimes he tries to contort back his words and doublethink that he does not blanket demonize liberals, so don't get him wrong. but for anyone who isn't already so saturated in american conservatism's now almost completely all-encompassing paranoia and sandblasting condemnation of anything non-conservative, i can say i am trying to keep stock of and prevent the same general tendencies from the other side from happening to me, because it's all too easy these days for people to end up subject to the same from the weird, wild far left, and end up taking a dive in headfirst to chambers of bizarre and constant catastrophization and negative filtering and absolutely unipolar acceptance of progressively odder things as unchallengable ideological purity tests
it is hard to do because i do genuinely think american conservatism is now so off the rails that it is imploding the GOP essentially into a white nativist hate group. which sounds extreme, it really sounds like something in language i would have written off as bombastic partisan catatstrophization not too many years ago, like how i would have interpreted it if i was listening to someone rant that gwb was a total fascist/hitler or something. It is hard to square looking at conservatives and saying something like "these conservatives have been so warped by their epistemic bubble that they write off all of liberalism as being intellectually bankrupt and dangerous and terrible! not like myself, which purely through facts and reason know that conservatism is intellectually bankrupt and dangerous and terrible!"
sometimes i worry about that and i try to say 'maybe it's time to step back and really try my best to keep things in perspective and keep what i can best assume to be a measured, non-reactionary assessment of conservative culture and policy and governing ethos'
When I saw Card had reviewed the new Ghostbusters, I'll admit I was fairly confident I would be mortified. It seemed, to me, to be very fertile soil for angry words about feminism and how men are the victims now, and so on and so forth. But, I was wrong about that, and not only was there not anything about feminism in the review which I expected, there wasn't anything political either, which I would also have expected if I'd thought about it. So, egg on my face there!
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I don't read cards articles often but I've never seen him rag on a film for having feminist influences. I have seen him dismiss feminist grievances irl and I could see him being defensive over feminist criticism over a film but thats not the same thing.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
On a film specifically? Or pivot to a remark about the culture based on the film or show into a rant about feminism? Because he's definitely done that.
A movie recently was abruptly about Obama. It's a thing he does.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
I believe you then. as I said I've seen him take jabs at feminism.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: A movie recently was abruptly about Obama.
that one
... was weird
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Which one was that, how to train your dragon 2?
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
So. OSC is no longer a Democrat.
Because we Democrats love killing babies.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Emreecheek: So. OSC is no longer a Democrat.
I also regret to inform the GOP that I am no longer a Republican
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Card's solution to oversight and overreach questions in our military and security apparatus: they just don't obey illegal orders.
Oh, good. Intrinsic trust is historically a very reliable tool to manage the interaction of civilian government and military/security in a free society.
I also like how he credits European colonization and achievement with an achievement that still hasn't happened yet: we are *still* not able to feed everyone everywhere. People-not just small groups but lots-still starve. Of course the capability exists, but you might as well say cancer is treatable and survivable everywhere as thought that were that.
Let's also gloss over the part where, circa the crusades and such, nowhere that Islamic nations conquered Christian ones was Christianity voluntary. Of course there are degrees of involuntary, but still.
As for the Democratic Party, frankly Card plays so loose with the truth in politics now that I simply won't take him at his word that he felt himself a democrat lately. And while I can certainly understand someone having trouble with applause there, it's simply a lie to say that they were applauding the death of a child. It's fine to think that is what an abortion is, but if someone doesn't believe that, and they applaud, they're applauding something different. Applause is *all about* intent. If someone gets ripped on at a stand up show and it makes them laugh, are they laughing because they agree that they're somehow awful? Or did they laugh because they thought the joke was funny and they came to laugh?
Card used to have integrity and nuance. I remember it so, so vividly in many of his books that were, and are, important to me. It still stings to see the end result of this transformation into deceitful oaf.
[ August 06, 2016, 05:34 AM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Card's solution to oversight and overreach questions in our military and security apparatus: they just don't obey illegal orders.
his logic is essentially that hillary and trump are both corrupt
but that there's an essentialist difference between how corruption would work between the two.
he described it as follows:
if a corrupt democrat is in government, the liberals will 'unite' and make all her illegal orders happen,
but if a corrupt republican is in government, he won't be able to, because his appointees will be republicans, and that means they will resist his illegal orders and keep him in check - republicans ignore the illegal actions ordered by their own republican presidents.
we actually have proof this is true because we are currently residing in a fantasy universe where things like watergate and iran contra did not happen; the only knowledge of such acts we have come from quantum signals tunneling through from other parallel dimensions where they did happen
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Heads up guys,
I must announce again that I sadly can no longer consider myself a member of the Republican Party.
As a person who has done nothing but 100% hate the Republican party for years and tell everyone as often as I can that they must vote against republicans at all costs, I remained a committed Republican, always assured that every Republican policy was wrong and the Democrats were way better. But I am all about some obscure Republican values I guess so I am totally a Republican.
Or WAS! Until today when finally the party that I have virulently denounced in every meaningful sense and hatefully criticized to the point of demented obsession did something that meant I couldn't be a part of them anymore.
This is TOO MUCH. Today I say GOODBYE to the republican party.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Wait, he was really still a Democrat until just recently?
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
What site does he publish his columns on these days?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
It still boggles my mind. 'I can no longer call myself a democrat* because they don't see that they're killing babies.' It's harshly worded to say the least, but it's valid. If a group's philosophy is so different that they disagree with you on what are, to you, fundamental truths then yeah, you should leave.
But no, instead they're bragging about killing babies. Ugh.
*he can claim to have been a democrat all this time, but at the least he's lying to himself.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
Huh. The most interesting part of that to me was that Card is absolutely, positively sure that there will never be sentient AI.
I mean, I guess it's to be expected, the man believes in souls and the special specialness of human beings, but his absolute certainty is a bit strange.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
He was knowledgeable about computers in the 80s. I think it's possible, as a consumer, to view the progress in computing since then as just more code and faster machines.
I doubt he grasps how deep neural networks and machine learning work, as much as I doubt he grasps the things we're learning about how brains work.
So I think he's just applying what he knows about computer programming in assessing how today's AI and any realistic fictional AI might work, in addition to the belief that a person's identity and intelligence are tied up with a spirit instead of a part of physical body function.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
What applause is Card referring to?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
During the DNC, a woman giving a speech mentioned that she had an abortion. There was applause, but I prefer to assume it was for her freedom of choice and bodily autonomy - or her reference to the availability of a clinic - not for the death of a fetus. It's a good illustration of how a different set of facts and assumptions can really change the meaning of the same event for different audiences.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: *he can claim to have been a democrat all this time, but at the least he's lying to himself.
there was no subtlety to it. he would in all or almost all cases bring up his being a democrat for only two reasons
1. to weaponize his self-affiliation against democrats, in a way i guess he thought enhanced the credibility of his criticisms or rejections of democrats. like he would be asserting 'as a democrat' that the democratic candidates and policies are overwhelmingly terrible and that the democrats absolutely had to lose and must be fought at all costs in the upcoming election
2. try to use it as a trump card to deflect criticism, in a "it shows you how little these jackbooted Political Correctness leftaliban thugs care about the truth when they assail me so haughtily with slander. they're so desperate to tear me down they conveniently ignore i'm a democrat!" way
he literally never supported the democratic party, its proposals, its policies, or its candidates over the course of the entire time he farcically maintained that he was a democrat. he only ever made the claim as part of his ceaseless condemnation of the democratic party and 100% consistent calls to support the republican party, which "as a democrat" he did each single election
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
I mean, I would think y'all would be glad he formally acknowledge what y'all thought has been a fact a long time.
Also I'm pretty sure Mr. Card has consistently supported the Democrats on immigration, and have heavily criticized the GOP for their stance on it.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
To be fair, I would assume he supports Democrats in local and state elections sometimes.
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: He was knowledgeable about computers in the 80s. I think it's possible, as a consumer, to view the progress in computing since then as just more code and faster machines.
I doubt he grasps how deep neural networks and machine learning work, as much as I doubt he grasps the things we're learning about how brains work.
So I think he's just applying what he knows about computer programming in assessing how today's AI and any realistic fictional AI might work, in addition to the belief that a person's identity and intelligence are tied up with a spirit instead of a part of physical body function.
I was initially puzzled at this too but I believe Card is referring to a Jane ( non deterministic ) type of AI rather than a Oversoul type ( which bases its behavior on accumulated data and programming routines ) which is basically the kind of AI that we eventually will see in my opinion as a professional programmer.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: To be fair, I would assume he supports Democrats in local and state elections sometimes.
maybe like less than one tenth of the time, and doubtfully but not assuredly ever for a congressional seat in the last decade
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Well, I can agree with him if his point is that Jane is unrealistic.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Jane is a kinda supernatural element in the fiction, I don't think Humans could create another Jane if they tried until they at least really understood the physics behind philotes and even then I think the point of philotes was it blended physics with metaphysics.
I think Card was probably conventionally a Democrat pre-2000. He certainly doesn't like overt racism and probably recognizes what the southern strategy is?
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Evan McMullin is a far far saner choice to me than Trump. I was pleased to hear Mr. Card say so.
I also agree voting for a third party so as to keep either of the two major party candidates from getting the requisite number of electoral votes is a great idea in theory. But who on Earth would the republican-controlled House vote for?
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Cruz, or Romney, whoever they can get who would agree to it. It's kind of terrible in theory because it just hands the Presidency to the Republicans.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Evan McMullin is a far far saner choice to me than Trump. I was pleased to hear Mr. Card say so.
I also agree voting for a third party so as to keep either of the two major party candidates from getting the requisite number of electoral votes is a great idea in theory. But who on Earth would the republican-controlled House vote for?
OSC for the past few months: "I don't like either of them, but I'm probably going to vote for Trump because he'll appoint conservative SCOTUS judges. Don't talk to me about voting 3rd party, either, that's a fool's game."
OSC today: "Hey guys I'm going to vote for a 3rd party candidate!"
Don't get me wrong, I'm very pleased he (and other conservatives who still have a conscience) is choosing not to vote for Trump, and there's nothing wrong with changing your mind, but I wonder what prompted his sudden change of mind?
ETA: If it isn't clear, I mean "having a conscience" is driving factor for these folks choosing not to vote for Trump, not "people who will vote for Trump don't have a conscience." (Since certain folks have a tendency of, rather illogically IMO, assuming that I must also believe the inverse of any statement I make. Which makes about as much sense as accusing someone who says "if you were born in Illinois, you are an American citizen" of saying "people born outside of Illinois are not American citizens", but it seems to happen here quite regularly so I figured I'd make a preemptive strike...)
[ August 25, 2016, 03:54 AM: Message edited by: Dogbreath ]
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: Cruz, or Romney, whoever they can get who would agree to it. It's kind of terrible in theory because it just hands the Presidency to the Republicans.
Well, if Clinton or Trump fails to get 270 votes (because of a third party candidate), the House can only choose among 3 candidates with the most electoral votes.
So, Romney and Cruz wouldn't be options.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
The presidential election? Is that what bothers us from this week's essay.
As someone who does use math above algebra in her job, I was extremely pained by the part where OSC stopped reading the book about math when it got to trig because it was "useless". And asserted that you can get a great math education learning what disciplines *do* without doing any actual problems smh.
Hint: if your job involves outer space, trig is important.
It's also interesting that this book is 1. out of print, 2. has few reviews on amazon and 3. the reviewers note the book is riddled with errors. Not sure how OSC got his hands on it.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Those might go hand in hand.... admitting that he's not "math smart" and placing some sort of value on a write in vote in NC.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Doesn't Ender/Bean use trig all the time in Battle School?
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
If they are doing any kind of math that involves 1. orbits, 2. motion and position in space beyond 1 dimension or 3. things spinning, yes, yes they do.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
Also, computer animation relies heavily on trig (in addition to other math disciplines).
A sine wave is the atom of motion.
ETA: ...as well as sound.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Hell, I used trig all the time in the Marines. It was pretty essential to understanding RF propagation theory and building field expedient antennas, as well as making sense of our SATCOM modems and QPSK constellations. Phase-shift keying is a modulation form that encodes data by modifying the phase of the radio wave, being able to look at a circular constellation diagram and understand that a radio wave is actually a sine function and mapping those points, as well as using a spectrum analyzer to tune our antenna onto a beacon frequency and adjust polarization to begin broadcasting... all require at least a fundamental understanding Trigonometry. Beyond that, though, we also had to use it for Land Nav, parallax is a big part of range finding, mortarmen used trig all the time, you need it to set up fields of fire when planning out machine gun placements... Without high school trig classes, a lot of the dopey Jarheads I served with would have been screwed.
That's actually something that really bothers me about the "most people don't really need to learn anything beyond Algebra" argument (which Card has used multiple times now), it's not really true and is becoming increasingly less true as more and more people get jobs in technology or engineering. By downplaying the importance of math, or making those classes optional in high school, you're closing kids off to a huge number of job fields that they may not at the time even realize they need those skills for. Not everyone can be a writer.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: That's actually something that really bothers me about the "most people don't really need to learn anything beyond Algebra" argument (which Card has used multiple times now), it's not really true and is becoming increasingly less true as more and more people get jobs in technology or engineering. By downplaying the importance of math, or making those classes optional in high school, you're closing kids off to a huge number of job fields that they may not at the time even realize they need those skills for. Not everyone can be a writer.
This is what bothers me as well. I suspect Card's audience for these articles comprise two groups 1. people in Greensboro who read the Rhino Times and 2. OSC fans. I assume most all of us are adults who are settled in a career (especially because the board now seems to be made up of people who have been here for years and spammers), but Ender's Game resonates the most with high schoolers. For those folks, the advice is dangerous and wrong, especially if they respect OSC's opinions about stuff.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow:
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: Cruz, or Romney, whoever they can get who would agree to it. It's kind of terrible in theory because it just hands the Presidency to the Republicans.
Well, if Clinton or Trump fails to get 270 votes (because of a third party candidate), the House can only choose among 3 candidates with the most electoral votes.
So, Romney and Cruz wouldn't be options.
AFAIK, electors in each state are allocated to the person who wins a simple majority. Unless polling changes in Johnson's favor (or Stein's) so that he actually takes some percentage of the vote, the only way the election will be decided by the house is by some stroke of luck that gets an election at 269-269.
Right now, polling at 538.com just doesn't support a third party candidate having any kind of numbers to win a state or come close to it. According to wikipedia, Ross Perot had a plurality of votes by June, and it was the fact that he dropped out and undropped out that cost him so much of his still unusually large 20% share (I was 6 when all of this went down, I just remember people making fun of his ears).
One could say à la cardagainsthumanity that people should skip the middleman and just vote for Trump , but in OSC's case, he has been only pretending to be a democrat since the first two Clinton administration, he was never going to pull that dem lever, so he's taking away the vote from Trump, not Hillary.
The thing that scares me is that Stein isn't mentioned in the major 538 page (an August 21 article has her at 3-4%) and it's noted that many of the polls Silver uses only have the two options. Thus, it's hard to see at the state level, which is being spoiled and by how much.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow:
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: Cruz, or Romney, whoever they can get who would agree to it. It's kind of terrible in theory because it just hands the Presidency to the Republicans.
Well, if Clinton or Trump fails to get 270 votes (because of a third party candidate), the House can only choose among 3 candidates with the most electoral votes.
Regardless, to the earlier point, there's no way for Romney, Cruz, Paul, or Rubio to jump in at that point. They have to choose among the 3 highest electoral vote getters.
So, Romney and Cruz wouldn't be options.
AFAIK, electors in each state are allocated to the person who wins a simple majority. Unless polling changes in Johnson's favor (or Stein's) so that he actually takes some percentage of the vote, the only way the election will be decided by the house is by some stroke of luck that gets an election at 269-269.
Right now, polling at 538.com just doesn't support a third party candidate having any kind of numbers to win a state or come close to it. According to wikipedia, Ross Perot had a plurality of votes by June, and it was the fact that he dropped out and undropped out that cost him so much of his still unusually large 20% share (I was 6 when all of this went down, I just remember people making fun of his ears).
One could say à la cardagainsthumanity that people should skip the middleman and just vote for Trump , but in OSC's case, he has been only pretending to be a democrat since the first two Clinton administration, he was never going to pull that dem lever, so he's taking away the vote from Trump, not Hillary.
The thing that scares me is that Stein isn't mentioned in the major 538 page (an August 21 article has her at 3-4%) and it's noted that many of the polls Silver uses only have the two options. Thus, it's hard to see at the state level, which is being spoiled and by how much.
Yes. A third party has a snowball's chance in hell of getting electoral votes this election.
But let's say Gary Johnson managed to win New Mexico (his home state), plus a few states like Utah and the Dakotas. That's 17 electoral votes. If Trump manages to pull out of his nose dive and win some swing states, that might be enough to keep Clinton from hitting 270.
Even if this were to happen, the decision would go to the House, with a delegation from each state deciding between Clinton, Trump, and Johnson. (And the Senate deciding between Kaine and Pence). Johnson probably has an even worse shot of winning that decision than pulling in the 3-4 states that he'd need to keep Clinton or Trump away from 270.
Regardless, though, there would be no way for another Republican (like Romney, Cruz, or Paul) to jump in at that point.
[ August 26, 2016, 07:18 AM: Message edited by: FlyingCow ]
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Oooh! I found some good polls that show the Clinton/Trump vs Clinton/Trump/Johnson/Stein.
Looks like NC is the state that might change due to a third party (see Aug 24).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Evan McMullin is a far far saner choice to me than Trump. I was pleased to hear Mr. Card say so.
I also agree voting for a third party so as to keep either of the two major party candidates from getting the requisite number of electoral votes is a great idea in theory. But who on Earth would the republican-controlled House vote for?
I must be missing something. How would that work exactly? Wouldn't you have to get whole states to go third party in order to assign their electoral college votes to a third party? (Except for Nebraska and Maine.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
if the presidential election EC split took the election to the (massively gerrymandered) house and thus got trump elected despite losing the popular vote and EC vote
well i mean
i would hope i did not live in a riot-prone area. i would also assume the EC was for sure dead in a generation.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Voting for a third-party candidate is not a wasted vote. No one can know which candidate a third-party candidate will hurt more.
so if bernie sanders was running as a third party candidate this election, would osc just throw his hands up and say 'the question of whether one of the only scenarios that would allow trump to win will hurt hillary or trump more is an unsolvable mystery!"
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Probably not. It's not immediately obvious when both candidates are losing votes in the way it would be with Sanders. That doesn't mean statistics can't sort it out. But if you don't understand math, statistics seem like a black box that makes no sense whatsoever.*
In general, when something doesn't make sense, it's an indicator that it's probably wrong. However, science and math contain plenty subtleties and things that are just plain counter intuitive. People assume their lack of understanding as an indication something is wrong, rather than a product of not being properly educated.
But hey, you can stop taking math after trig. Nobody needs it, except engineers. Certainly not armchair political commentators who want to understand polling.
*Speaking of statistics, right now, Trump has a ~30% chance of winning according to 538, which it was around 20% a couple of weeks ago. It's worth noting that a Trump victory is entirely consistent with him having even a 5% chance of winning. As in, he could win and the modeling was not broken. In science, we don't consider something a result unless we are looking at 99.7%+.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Evan McMullin is a far far saner choice to me than Trump. I was pleased to hear Mr. Card say so.
I also agree voting for a third party so as to keep either of the two major party candidates from getting the requisite number of electoral votes is a great idea in theory. But who on Earth would the republican-controlled House vote for?
Two months ago, we were all like "Egg McMuffin who?". Now we're wondering if he actually might win Utah.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
He's in the hunt.
The only thing I'm sure if in that crazy "House gets to choose the next president" scenario is that I won't like the results.
Let's say Hillary wins the popular vote. Do they deny the will of the people, that thing they so often proclaim is paramount, to put anoint Trump, and therefore sacrifice all ability to pretend to distance themselves from him?
Or do they actually put McMullin in the White House? A guy only a tiny fraction of the population was even able to vote for or who have even heard of him, for actually being the more reliable conservative choice?
Or do they vote Hillary, their own personal Satan, into the White House after decades (and most especially the last few months) of vilifying her to the point where a large portion of the country wants her jailed without trial?
I think the odds of that scenario happening are low, but I'm 100% sure I wouldn't like the results. And I think all politicians, but the current House Republicans in particular, are so craven that they wouldn't give a crap about the actual results of the election when they're handed the power to choose the next president. They'll choose whoever they think will benefit them personally the most.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i just noticed this part here
quote:Many Americans will not be able to vote for McMullin, or even write him in. But he seems poised to be able to carry at least one state, Utah, with a serious chance at several more, mostly in the American west.
i honestly wonder where he gets fed an image of the election at this moment that makes him think this isn't essentially pure fiction. mcmullin stands a long-shot chance of possibly winning utah, and will not win any other state, period. there is no serious chance at any other state.
quote:So they're going to vote for a person who really is prepared -- in training, in temperament, in character -- to govern the United States of America in a way that most of us could be proud of and happy with.
mcmullin is a straightforwardly strict cultural conservative, a supply-sided follower of Hayak and Friedman and an ossified retro paleocon, with policies overtly in the camp of people who want to do away with the separation of church and state and make america a soft theocracy based on christianity, complete with a strong anti-abortion component. pretty much nobody would like him except old white christian american males who want the country back the way they feel it was in the Good Old Days.
nearly nobody else would like him.
you basically almost have to be an old white christian with little real understanding about why other groups of people aren't conservative to be able to think this way.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: i just noticed this part here
quote:Many Americans will not be able to vote for McMullin, or even write him in. But he seems poised to be able to carry at least one state, Utah, with a serious chance at several more, mostly in the American west.
i honestly wonder where he gets fed an image of the election at this moment that makes him think this isn't essentially pure fiction. mcmullin stands a long-shot chance of possibly winning utah, and will not win any other state, period. there is no serious chance at any other state.
quote:So they're going to vote for a person who really is prepared -- in training, in temperament, in character -- to govern the United States of America in a way that most of us could be proud of and happy with.
mcmullin is a straightforwardly strict cultural conservative, a supply-sided follower of Hayak and Friedman and an ossified retro paleocon, with policies overtly in the camp of people who want to do away with the separation of church and state and make america a soft theocracy based on christianity, complete with a strong anti-abortion component. pretty much nobody would like him except old white christian american males who want the country back the way they feel it was in the Good Old Days.
nearly nobody else would like him.
you basically almost have to be an old white christian with little real understanding about why other groups of people aren't conservative to be able to think this way.
I don't know that you've pegged him down quite right. He hass said he has no intention of revisiting Proposition 8 or the Supreme Court decision on the matter, which is very much not in line with the official GOP party line on same-sex marriage.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Yeah, but he'd almost certainly nominated SC justices who would oppose same sex marriage and Roe v. Wade - so, saying he has no intention of personally revisiting something would really be moot.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm still wrapping my head around the mental image of the Cards watching "Swiss Army Man."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
In an election between Trump and McMullin, I'd actually have to think about it before voting.
Off the cuff, I'd say I'd probably end up supporting McMullin, but to me it wouldn't be a no-brainer. Trump is a crazed loose canon, but his ideological bent is so unfixed that there's no telling what laws might get passed or what he'd actually do that would affect most people's lives (short of actual war).
But McMullin stands for almost everything I oppose, and having him in there, just as likely as Trump to start a war and with clear vision and focus on enacting a series of laws, every one of which I'd oppose, would force me to at least think for a moment before voting for him.
And that's why I get the sticky situation a lot of conservatives are in vis a vis Trump and Clinton. But at the end of the day, I think I'd still find it impossible to vote for Trump. We survived 8 years of Bush, damaging though they were. I think we could survive 4-8 of McMullin with less damage than Trump. And I'd hope most conservatives would come to the same conclusion about Clinton and Trump.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
If McMullin alone was against Trump, in Hillary's place there is no question for me. Yeah, he needs some serious, serious vetting (and given my vote is cast, I do not care to), but I assume he 1. knows we can't just nuke them 2. gets that most Muslims are not terrorists 3. thinks smoking is bad for you and 4. does not work for Putin. 5. pays taxes. 6. knows where Aleppo is. 7. is motivated by love of America vs his reflection.
I don't have a desire to burn my country down, and while I suspect I disagree with McMuffin on a lot of things, the incompetent super villain is worse than competent, well meaning person I disagree with.
Posted by Elcheeko75 (Member # 13292) on :
Just for argument's sake, what if you replace the incompetent super villain with Cruz, the actual super villain?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I would probably vote mcmullin over cruz
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
I think if you live in Utah and you have the chance to deny Trump some EV's it isn't like you risk putting him into the WH.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Wait, are you asking Cruz vs McMullin? That's easy, McMullin a million times.
Cruz vs Trump is a lot harder (I can't pick Kasich, can I?), I'm not sure if the damage Cruz will do deliberately is worse than the damage Trump would do collaterally. Fortunately for me, both are rather blatantly despised by their own party.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: i just noticed this part here
quote:Many Americans will not be able to vote for McMullin, or even write him in. But he seems poised to be able to carry at least one state, Utah, with a serious chance at several more, mostly in the American west.
i honestly wonder where he gets fed an image of the election at this moment that makes him think this isn't essentially pure fiction. mcmullin stands a long-shot chance of possibly winning utah, and will not win any other state, period. there is no serious chance at any other state.
quote:So they're going to vote for a person who really is prepared -- in training, in temperament, in character -- to govern the United States of America in a way that most of us could be proud of and happy with.
mcmullin is a straightforwardly strict cultural conservative, a supply-sided follower of Hayak and Friedman and an ossified retro paleocon, with policies overtly in the camp of people who want to do away with the separation of church and state and make america a soft theocracy based on christianity, complete with a strong anti-abortion component. pretty much nobody would like him except old white christian american males who want the country back the way they feel it was in the Good Old Days.
nearly nobody else would like him.
you basically almost have to be an old white christian with little real understanding about why other groups of people aren't conservative to be able to think this way.
I don't know that you've pegged him down quite right. He hass said he has no intention of revisiting Proposition 8 or the Supreme Court decision on the matter, which is very much not in line with the official GOP party line on same-sex marriage.
538 has him at up to a 25% change of winning. That's not a long shot at all. Anything with a 25% shot that comes true is perfectly consistent with its model (which makes the current 538 polls for Trump very very very scary).
Also, if McMullin's mom is a lesbian as the white nationalist Robocalls say, I'm not particularly worried about him rolling back gay rights any time soon. Honestly, if Republicans want to stop alienating young people, they have to drop a lot of the "family values" garbage, including the anti lgbt platform.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: Wait, are you asking Cruz vs McMullin? That's easy, McMullin a million times.
Cruz vs Trump is a lot harder (I can't pick Kasich, can I?), I'm not sure if the damage Cruz will do deliberately is worse than the damage Trump would do collaterally. Fortunately for me, both are rather blatantly despised by their own party.
Cruz is like, Underwood. But more visible in his backstabbing stabby stabbyness.
I can't decide if this makes him more or less competent though, Underwood in season 3/4 made it hard for me to watch.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Posted by Elcheeko75 (Member # 13292) on :
I find it depressing that given the chance to go back in time and make a different decision, a large portion of the Republican Party would be heartily behind Cruz. Being faced with the knowledge that you accidentally made the worst possible choice and wishing that you could have instead made the second worst possible choice suggests a commitment to blind self destruction that is just unfathomable to me.
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
I have specially enjoyed how OSC bashed Steve Jobs. I find it annoying and insulting people calling him "a technological guru". I can say that because I am one of those guys that work hard in the background writing pieces of code so that guys like Jobs take the prize.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, stop doing it and get your own prize! Says the non-socialist.
Posted by zlogdanbr (Member # 13374) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Well, stop doing it and get your own prize! Says the non-socialist.
Your comment has been read.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elcheeko75: I find it depressing that given the chance to go back in time and make a different decision, a large portion of the Republican Party would be heartily behind Cruz. Being faced with the knowledge that you accidentally made the worst possible choice and wishing that you could have instead made the second worst possible choice suggests a commitment to blind self destruction that is just unfathomable to me.
i would have enjoyed watching cruz fail too
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Cruz would've had to follow the rules of a normal election and I think we've seen less emails.
Posted by Elcheeko75 (Member # 13292) on :
I wonder if the Russians would have preferred a President Cruz with a rubber stamp House to a President Clinton under a perpetual House investigation.
Now that I think about it, it's pretty much a win-win for the Russians. They either get President Trump or a Clinton who is going to be stuck in this e-mail morass for at least the near future.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Nah, Clinton has the freedom and willingness to stand up to them in an effective way; Cruz would do so in an entirely uneffective way.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It took me about two minutes to find an example of Card's writing something critical of Obama within two years of his election. All I had to do was look for a title with a remotely political sounding title. In this case it was Nov 2009, the one about Soviet Jokes.
I could look for more but, eh. I think the point is made.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
what
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:After Obama was elected in 2008, I refrained from writing anything critical of him for a couple of years.
oh
does card just forget and construct a new reality for himself or is he just lying here
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:After Obama was elected in 2008, I refrained from writing anything critical of him for a couple of years.
oh
does card just forget and construct a new reality for himself or is he just lying here
I vote new reality. Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
I give him two or three articles before he Comes Around on trump because he likes something awful Trump and his administration is doing.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
Probably to colored people.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
I bet soon trump is doing stuff which violently polarizes the country and Orson Scott Canard, the man who called Obama the most divisive worst president ever, makes an article saying he likes how Trump is trying to heal the country's rifts. He's a uniter!
Meanwhile Trump is probably going to be doing some crazy Duterte level shit and setting us up for real problems.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: I give him two or three articles before he Comes Around on trump because he likes something awful Trump and his administration is doing.
man i hope not
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Maybe we'll get lucky and Mr. Card might through his Mormon upbringing consistently not like Trump either.
I could maybe forgive his bullshit about Obama if it was because he doesn't like any President.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:After Obama was elected in 2008, I refrained from writing anything critical of him for a couple of years.
oh
does card just forget and construct a new reality for himself or is he just lying here
Sadly, the concept of "I reject your reality and substitute my own" has become a viable political strategy, and looks to be the basis of much of the current administration's platform.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: I give him two or three articles before he Comes Around on trump because he likes something awful Trump and his administration is doing.
Nope. Gays. His cabinet is full of anti-gay people ready to take back all the progress we've made over the last several decades.
Also who says coloured? How antiquated.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:"As American as Motherhood and Apple Pie" - that used to be a saying. Now half of America is against motherhood and is willing to kill the babies to prevent it.
I... don't even know what to say to that. Does he seriously believe that?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Even if he does, it's amusing that he says 'now'. It's been a generation or more since half of America was 'against motherhood' in the way he means.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Admittedly I feel the same sort of annoyance when pro-choice folks start mind reading and say or imply things along the lines of "people who want to ban abortions don't really care about babies, they just want to control women's bodies!" (Usually accompanied by some factoid showing that not all pro-life folks are 100% consistent in all their beliefs and actions, and therefore must be devious rather than, you know, human) But that logic is at least somewhat coherent - I mean, by virtue of placing a fetus' right to live above a woman's right to chose they *do* want to control women's bodies, it's just that a lot of them believe that that control is a mostly regrettable consequence rather than the motivation. And we do see some people (a surprisingly large number as of late) who really, truly do want to hamper women's access to any form of birth control because they think controlling women's sexuality is a biblical principal. So the argument at least makes sense.
But I can't make heads or tails of where he comes up with "half of America is against motherhood." Does he honestly believe the goal of half the population is to keep as many women from becoming mothers as possible? Because that's some next level conspiracy theory stuff there. Is that Mormon dogma or where is that belief coming from, exactly?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I really couldn't say. But the truth is Card's commentary on national level politics has been characterized by profound laziness or dishonesty for some years now. There's simply no other way to arrive at a belief that country is evenly split on abortion and birth control than to know better and lie about it, or to be lazy (which also encompasses conspiracy thinking).
It's always hazardous to generalize such large groups anyway, leading to problematic 'gotchas' like you're describing, but this is a bit different I think.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: But I can't make heads or tails of where he comes up with "half of America is against motherhood." Does he honestly believe the goal of half the population is to keep as many women from becoming mothers as possible? Because that's some next level conspiracy theory stuff there. Is that Mormon dogma or where is that belief coming from, exactly?
That particular belief isn't Mormon doctrine, but it is Mormon doctrine that the family is central to God's plan and that Satan seeks to destroy the family. But getting from those beliefs to "half of America is against motherhood" is quite a leap.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I can imagine if one were inclined one could construct an explanation of that line something like:
* He's being flippant and expects the audience to pick up on it
* He is lumping together progressive and feminist views on the traditional belief that the best/highest duty of a woman is to be a mother as, flippantly, being against motherhood
* He is lumping the typical pro-choice argument together with the above views on gender roles, assuming that pro-choice reasoning is motivated to prevent women from being tied into motherhood
flippantly
* He's not talking to you if you're going to do anything other than nod and agree how much worse things are now
f l ippantly
But it's too much work. He's being cranky and he doesn't like how things are different and how it's a lot of work to understand and fairly represent people (and yep I'm saying that here too, but generally I do try to avoid hyperbolic stereotypes as a starting point, so I think he's the one making it particularly hard in this case).
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: But I can't make heads or tails of where he comes up with "half of America is against motherhood." Does he honestly believe the goal of half the population is to keep as many women from becoming mothers as possible? Because that's some next level conspiracy theory stuff there. Is that Mormon dogma or where is that belief coming from, exactly?
That particular belief isn't Mormon doctrine, but it is Mormon doctrine that the family is central to God's plan and that Satan seeks to destroy the family. But getting from those beliefs to "half of America is against motherhood" is quite a leap.
I'm probably using the wrong word here, but I'm using "dogma" in a way not meant to be synonymous with "doctrine." To clarify, I read an article a few months ago (I think it was in the November issue of the Atlantic) that delved into the psyche of Glenn Beck, and argued that a lot of the seemly bizarre or otherwise inexplicable of his beliefs and actions are actually inspired by his understanding of Mormon Dogma. By which I mean, a set of non-doctrinal, prophetic beliefs or theories about the future/the end of days that have been interpreted or extrapolated from various opaque, ambiguous statements made by early church leaders and are essentially treated as if they were doctrine. Especially by folks in more conservative, occult groups of the Church.
I thought this was really fascinating, and since then whenever I read a seemingly nonsensical or absurd statement from Card I wonder if it's because he's been drawn into one of those groups, and is consequentially interpreting current events through that lens. Like maybe Oliver Cowdery once said "and lo it shall come to pass that one half of the nation shall turn their hearts against their mothers and slay their children, and in those days the golden man of flaxen hair shalt descend from on high upon a moving stair..." or something like that. I dunno.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I don't think OSC's words reflect any particular prophetic or doctrinal speculation, other than the general belief that the world will go downhill until Christ's second coming.
However, there is often a theme in talks from church leaders that the traditional family is under attack - this encompasses gay marriage, fornication, single parenthood, abortion, and high divorce rates. I can sort of see how believing in that theme of social changes might contribute to the thought that society is turning against motherhood, although I think OSC's phrasing is both extreme and novel.
I do sort of think he's going for rhetorical effect rather than literal claims a lot of the time, but the problem is that even if you consciously dial back what he says on that theory you're still left with offensive and problematic beliefs IMO.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Uh, how the heck is motherhood American anyway? I think other countries have mothers. I wish they'd look at the things that really make families suffer. Sometimes it's their doctrine that hurts people more than a whole parade of gay bears. Especially pushing that every woman should have to be a mother even if they don't want to.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Thanks, that's definitely it! But I could have sworn that I read that article several months rather than several weeks ago. (January was one of the craziest months of my life to date, which probably contributes to the sensation of time dilation)
quote:I do sort of think he's going for rhetorical effect rather than literal claims a lot of the time, but the problem is that even if you consciously dial back what he says on that theory you're still left with offensive and problematic beliefs IMO.
I'm reminded of a guy I knew in high school who would often make bizarre or deeply personal, hurtful comments about folks, and then once he saw he had hurt them and/or suspected they were about to confront him about it, would immediately laugh and punch your arm and say "I'm just messing around, man! Don't take it so seriously! It's just a joke!" I was always perplexed by that sort of behavior and it took me a while to realize it was a sort of moral cowardice: he got all the sadistic pleasure of being able to hurt people, while at the same time avoiding the consequences of that bullying.
In the same article Card also talks how he had an interview with a reporter recently in a McDonalds, and he complains about how the reporter mentioned him being weirdly rude and demanding towards the employee at the register, "The reporter wrote about the incident as if I were some kind of spoiled-brat diva. She wasn't film-savvy enough to get the reference to Five Easy Pieces - she didn't know I was following a script."
Except he also talks in an almost-bragging way about how upset and confused the girl behind the register seemed - wouldn't that be a cue for a normal person to realize the other person *isn't* picking up on your "script" and to apologize and behave decently rather than complain about everyone else just not being sophisticated enough to get your humor? Like, I sometimes quote movies in interactions with people, but those people are usually friends, and I don't do quotes that might offend them unless it's a private joke between us. (As an example: A few years back I was close friends with my Battalion's armory clerk, so sometimes when I would go draw my rifle or pistol from the armory I would slam my ID and weapons cards down on the counter and shout"GATOR NEEDS HIS GAT, YOU PUNK ASS BITCH!" This is something I would decidedly not choose to do when talking to someone I don't know)
Or his now-infamous "thought experiment" a few years back about Obama establishing a dictatorship by deputizing black gang-members and beating up or assassinating political dissidents. He was just writing a sci-fi piece, right? he's a sci-fi writer and makes up stories all the time. Anyone who read that as anything more than idle speculation was clearly just misinterpreting him, right? Except that it was published in a conservative newspaper where he frequently *does* write very seriously about his political opinions to an audience who might very well take it at face value...
I dunno. I mean, it's a subject that's been rehashed many, many times here. And I'm just as guilty of hyperbole as anyone else, but usually I can at least derive an authors' intent or actual beliefs from the hyperbolic statement, but this one was so off the wall that it really bothered me. Maybe I'm just sleep deprived and fixating on something more than I normally would.
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
Jumping back to July for just a moment...
quote:When Trump, on a whim, orders something illegal or unconstitutional, the people around him won't obey him. He'll hate it, but mostly they'll keep him from being an anti-constitutional dictator like Obama and Hillary want so badly to be.
Of course he'll fire them, but as long as he remains a Republican he'll keep having that same "problem" with anyone he appoints. The military especially do not obey illegal orders.
But Democrats have long since proven that they don't care about integrity or honor in their public officials. Lyndon Johnson. Barney Frank. Bill Clinton. Over and over again, corrupt orders from corrupt Democratic politicians are not just obeyed but covered up or dismissed as nothing.
Elect narcissistic liar Trump, and he'll probably be contained within reasonable limits.
I'll give him credit for understanding Trump for what he is (nobody should need credit, because the truth is so unbearably obvious, but we're in an odd reality now).
I just wonder how his faith in the imagined integrity of the Republican Party is doing...
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I'm probably using the wrong word here, but I'm using "dogma" in a way not meant to be synonymous with "doctrine." To clarify, I read an article a few months ago (I think it was in the November issue of the Atlantic) that delved into the psyche of Glenn Beck, and argued that a lot of the seemly bizarre or otherwise inexplicable of his beliefs and actions are actually inspired by his understanding of Mormon Dogma. By which I mean, a set of non-doctrinal, prophetic beliefs or theories about the future/the end of days that have been interpreted or extrapolated from various opaque, ambiguous statements made by early church leaders and are essentially treated as if they were doctrine. Especially by folks in more conservative, occult groups of the Church.
I thought this was really fascinating, and since then whenever I read a seemingly nonsensical or absurd statement from Card I wonder if it's because he's been drawn into one of those groups, and is consequentially interpreting current events through that lens. Like maybe Oliver Cowdery once said "and lo it shall come to pass that one half of the nation shall turn their hearts against their mothers and slay their children, and in those days the golden man of flaxen hair shalt descend from on high upon a moving stair..." or something like that. I dunno.
Okay, I see what you're saying, though scifibum already kind of answered your question. No, I wouldn't say that there's a Mormon folk doctrine that half of America is against motherhood, though as scifibum said, there are certainly a lot of beliefs, both official and unofficial, about the importance of the family and the threats to it.
So while I've never before heard anyone say anything like "half of America is against motherhood", I certainly see how Mormons who believe in certain folks doctrines could come to that conclusion, even if I still think it's quite a leap.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Also considering how so far its been mainly Democratic/Obama appointee Federal judges reigning him in, the GOP have stood by and let everything happen.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by tertiaryadjunct: Jumping back to July for just a moment...
quote:When Trump, on a whim, orders something illegal or unconstitutional, the people around him won't obey him. He'll hate it, but mostly they'll keep him from being an anti-constitutional dictator like Obama and Hillary want so badly to be.
Of course he'll fire them, but as long as he remains a Republican he'll keep having that same "problem" with anyone he appoints. The military especially do not obey illegal orders.
But Democrats have long since proven that they don't care about integrity or honor in their public officials. Lyndon Johnson. Barney Frank. Bill Clinton. Over and over again, corrupt orders from corrupt Democratic politicians are not just obeyed but covered up or dismissed as nothing.
Elect narcissistic liar Trump, and he'll probably be contained within reasonable limits.
I'll give him credit for understanding Trump for what he is (nobody should need credit, because the truth is so unbearably obvious, but we're in an odd reality now).
I just wonder how his faith in the imagined integrity of the Republican Party is doing...
i laughed at this for like a solid two minutes. the republicans in congress have lined up to rubber-stamp his cabinet and it's still a mystery as to whether or not the republicans will vote soon with less than three defectors on the singularly most inept, unqualified, and undesirable cabinet appointee in my living memory.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: Also considering how so far its been mainly Democratic/Obama appointee Federal judges reigning him in, the GOP have stood by and let everything happen.
Except the Washington judge who stopped the Muslim ban was a Bush appointee.
Posted by Elison R. Salazar (Member # 8565) on :
Was he? My mistake.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Though it does bear mentioning: a GOP appointee facing neither reelection nor the prospect of having to work with Congress.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Even if he does, it's amusing that he says 'now'. It's been a generation or more since half of America was 'against motherhood' in the way he means.
And abortion rates are :checks the wind with a finger: At a 40 year low.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Stupid question: how much of that decline in abortion rates is attributable to laws restricting access to abortion, and how much is attributable to things like better sex ed or easier access to birth control?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
somewhere between 'largely' and 'almost entirely' depending on region. removing the ability to have an abortion apparently according to sociologists cannot reduce abortion rates down below a homeostatic rate of performed abortions, whether these performed abortions are legal or 'back alley.'
this homeostatic rate is fixed almost entirely on the rate of unwanted pregnancy
guess what impacts unwanted pregnancy positively? comprehensive sex ed and birth control coverage. in some states it has more than halved the rate of unintended or unwanted pregnancy. guess what conservatives want to get rid of? comprehensive sex ed and birth control coverage.
Posted by ladyday (Member # 1069) on :
I don't think that's a stupid question at all.
I wonder what happens to that homeostatic rate when *unplanned* pregnancies are taken into account? I imagine there is significant overlap between unplanned and unwanted, however the behaviors might differ, with more unplanned pregnancies making their choice based on access. In those cases, then, I would think restrictive access might make an impact on the abortion rate.
I do completely agree with Samp on what impacts unwanted (and unplanned) pregnancy. I'm really just pondering a more specific answer to Jon Boy's question, wondering what all information one needs to get at the answer.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: somewhere between 'largely' and 'almost entirely' depending on region. removing the ability to have an abortion apparently according to sociologists cannot reduce abortion rates down below a homeostatic rate of performed abortions, whether these performed abortions are legal or 'back alley.'
this homeostatic rate is fixed almost entirely on the rate of unwanted pregnancy
guess what impacts unwanted pregnancy positively? comprehensive sex ed and birth control coverage. in some states it has more than halved the rate of unintended or unwanted pregnancy. guess what conservatives want to get rid of? comprehensive sex ed and birth control coverage.
That's what I would have guessed, because the most effective way to tackle any issue is generally to attack the root cause. And if the root cause of abortion is usually unwanted pregnancy, then the easiest way to prevent abortion is to prevent unwanted pregnancy, not to simply make it difficult to get an abortion.
But it seems like it would be pretty easy for conservatives to point to falling abortion rates and say, "See? All of these anti-abortion laws are working! We'd better keep it up!" So I guess the next question is, do you have a link to a study that shows the causes of the declining abortion rate?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Abortion rates have been falling for three decades in the developed world, as Vox’s Sarah Kliff has explained. But in developing African, Asian, and Latin American countries, rates have either held steady or increased since the 1990s. That’s because women in developed countries, such as in Europe and North America, have much better access to higher-quality methods of birth control, and live in a culture that treats contraception as less of a taboo.
But abortion rates in the US have been falling even faster than usual since 2008 — 3 or 4 percent per year instead of about 2. And while Guttmacher researchers Rachel Jones and Jenna Jerman caution that more research is needed to fully understand the link between abortion access and abortion rates, better contraception appears to be the main reason.
“Fewer women had abortions in 2011 than in 2008 because fewer women became pregnant when they did not want to,” the researchers write. Over this period, the proportion of pregnancies that were unintended fell from 51 percent to 45 percent.
The best explanation for this sudden drop is that use of long-acting reversible contraceptives (or LARCs) like IUDs and implants increased 130 percent among US women between 2007 and 2009. LARCs are much more reliable and less likely to fail than either birth control pills or condoms (LARCs fail less than 1 percent of the time, compared to 9 percent with typical use of birth control pills or 18 percent with condoms).
That trend likely continued between 2011 and 2014, Jones and Jerman conclude. Low-income family planning clinics supported by the Title X program gave LARCs to 11 percent of their patients in 2014, up from 7 percent in 2011. Low-income and young women have the most unintended pregnancies, and are mostly served by Title X clinics.
quote:Over the past six years, Colorado has conducted one of the largest experiments with long-acting birth control. If teenagers and poor women were offered free intrauterine devices and implants that prevent pregnancy for years, state officials asked, would those women choose them?
They did in a big way, and the results were startling. The birthrate among teenagers across the state plunged by 40 percent from 2009 to 2013, while their rate of abortions fell by 42 percent, according to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. There was a similar decline in births for another group particularly vulnerable to unplanned pregnancies: unmarried women under 25 who have not finished high school.
“Our demographer came into my office with a chart and said, ‘Greta, look at this, we’ve never seen this before,’ ” said Greta Klingler, the family planning supervisor for the public health department. “The numbers were plummeting.”
To me, the evidence is clear: free, readily accessible contraception and comprehensive sex education are responsible for the profound decline in abortions.
The pro-life movement will mostly reject this conclusion because this conclusion is not morally allowed for them and they seek to remove women's access to contraception and sex education. They will continue to push a claim that the reduction in abortions is primarily or wholly due to their effort to close abortion clinics across conservative states.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Thanks, Sam.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I admit I'm looking forward to OSC pivoting around and dismissing the growing evidence for close ties between Trump and Russian intelligence services. I think it's gonna be good.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I admit I'm looking forward to OSC pivoting around and dismissing the growing evidence for close ties between Trump and Russian intelligence services. I think it's gonna be good.
I doubt he will. He has no love for Trump.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, he's been playing that game for years. He may not like Trump personally but he explicitly supported the framework that elected him. He's on record claiming that Republican staffers won't obey unethical or illegal orders-and here we are!
Not a chance in hell Card cops to that being probably wrong now, really.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I admit I'm looking forward to OSC pivoting around and dismissing the growing evidence for close ties between Trump and Russian intelligence services. I think it's gonna be good.
I doubt he will. He has no love for Trump.
He can actually play it very safe: he can say that Democrats were wrong to jump on that wagon so early and so loudly, even if they prove to be right.
He's not very pro-Republican in my opinion - never has been. Just very much anti-American Left.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I'm probably using the wrong word here, but I'm using "dogma" in a way not meant to be synonymous with "doctrine." To clarify, I read an article a few months ago (I think it was in the November issue of the Atlantic) that delved into the psyche of Glenn Beck, and argued that a lot of the seemly bizarre or otherwise inexplicable of his beliefs and actions are actually inspired by his understanding of Mormon Dogma. By which I mean, a set of non-doctrinal, prophetic beliefs or theories about the future/the end of days that have been interpreted or extrapolated from various opaque, ambiguous statements made by early church leaders and are essentially treated as if they were doctrine. Especially by folks in more conservative, occult groups of the Church.
I thought this was really fascinating, and since then whenever I read a seemingly nonsensical or absurd statement from Card I wonder if it's because he's been drawn into one of those groups, and is consequentially interpreting current events through that lens. Like maybe Oliver Cowdery once said "and lo it shall come to pass that one half of the nation shall turn their hearts against their mothers and slay their children, and in those days the golden man of flaxen hair shalt descend from on high upon a moving stair..." or something like that. I dunno.
Okay, I see what you're saying, though scifibum already kind of answered your question. No, I wouldn't say that there's a Mormon folk doctrine that half of America is against motherhood, though as scifibum said, there are certainly a lot of beliefs, both official and unofficial, about the importance of the family and the threats to it.
So while I've never before heard anyone say anything like "half of America is against motherhood", I certainly see how Mormons who believe in certain folks doctrines could come to that conclusion, even if I still think it's quite a leap.
Late I know, but thanks for your response. I appreciate it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I admit I'm looking forward to OSC pivoting around and dismissing the growing evidence for close ties between Trump and Russian intelligence services. I think it's gonna be good.
I doubt he will. He has no love for Trump.
He can actually play it very safe: he can say that Democrats were wrong to jump on that wagon so early and so loudly, even if they prove to be right.
He's not very pro-Republican in my opinion - never has been. Just very much anti-American Left.
The thing of it is, to me, is if Card and Americans like him (of which there are many who don't actually like Trump in a vacuum), if he doesn't want to get tarred with the brush of being a Trump supporter it's simple: support third party candidates in elections such as the most recent, and in times such as these.
I can't recall Card ever doing so on national level politics, and he definitely didn't in the 2016 presidential election. Instead it was 'Clinton is mega evil and so is the American Left, so yeah even though Trump is a schmuck if you love freedom you should support him'. You can be a Trump supporter without actually liking Trump.
Oh, and I'm on the edge of my seat waiting to hear Card denounce Trump's handling of Flynn where one day he fires him and the next day it's the media's fault and gee willickers we can't be soft or ineffectual on America's enemies for example by having the NSC horribly understaffed and...
Yeah. Card will definitely lay out the wrath and certainly won't parrot the White House line about the real problem being the leaks, and he will absolutely not fail to throw a spotlight on the absurdity of Trump whining about leaks now.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum:
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I admit I'm looking forward to OSC pivoting around and dismissing the growing evidence for close ties between Trump and Russian intelligence services. I think it's gonna be good.
I doubt he will. He has no love for Trump.
He can actually play it very safe: he can say that Democrats were wrong to jump on that wagon so early and so loudly, even if they prove to be right.
He's not very pro-Republican in my opinion - never has been. Just very much anti-American Left.
The thing of it is, to me, is if Card and Americans like him (of which there are many who don't actually like Trump in a vacuum), if he doesn't want to get tarred with the brush of being a Trump supporter it's simple: support third party candidates in elections such as the most recent, and in times such as these.
I can't recall Card ever doing so on national level politics, and he definitely didn't in the 2016 presidential election. Instead it was 'Clinton is mega evil and so is the American Left, so yeah even though Trump is a schmuck if you love freedom you should support him'. You can be a Trump supporter without actually liking Trump.
Oh, and I'm on the edge of my seat waiting to hear Card denounce Trump's handling of Flynn where one day he fires him and the next day it's the media's fault and gee willickers we can't be soft or ineffectual on America's enemies for example by having the NSC horribly understaffed and...
Yeah. Card will definitely lay out the wrath and certainly won't parrot the White House line about the real problem being the leaks, and he will absolutely not fail to throw a spotlight on the absurdity of Trump whining about leaks now.
The idea that Card did not support a third-party candidate is an alternative fact. In multiple essays he advocated for Evan McMullin. .
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Even at the end? Honest question. If he was consistent in his support for McMullin until Election Day, then I was wrong to be so critical and harsh-about that-and apologize for it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
yeah afaik card was never in the tank for trump. everything i have seen, iirc, boiled down to 'trump and clinton are both terrible, but because trump would helm a republican administration, republicans will hold him in line and hold him accountable, but democrats would never hold hillary accountable!'
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Ah, I admit I had mostly forgotten about McMullin. I was wrong to say he needed to support third party candidates, because of course he did. Apologies for that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
'never trust a person who was literally on the board of directors for the National Organization for Marriage and calls liberals the real bigots for calling him a bigot'
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: 'never trust a person who was literally on the board of directors for the National Organization for Marriage and calls liberals the real bigots for calling him a bigot'
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Listening to osc talk about the new yorker is like watching him get tantalizingly close to a breakthrough. "now i tell you what the new yorker is some fine stuff, they produce some really deep important information and they're credible. but ... they have all these articles about that conservatives are being horrible and undermining democracy! hmm. hmmmmmm.
hmmmmmmm
...
oh well, besides that part where they're obviously wrong and crazy, it's all good!"
he's soooooo clooooooooooose to figuring it outttttttttttttttttttt, it's right theeerrreeee
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Try the word "eructation" or "eructate" on your friends. "Oh dear, I'm afraid your new blouse has made me eructate." "Yes, let's eat at Olive Garden; I haven't eructated enough this month." "Disney can't do worse with Star Wars than the three eructations that Lucas called prequels."
It will make you popular. People are always impressed by those who know and use obscure but slightly dirty-sounding words.
OK but this is some pretty nicely executed sarcasm. (I mean, I really hope it is.)
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Listening to osc talk about the new yorker is like watching him get tantalizingly close to a breakthrough. "now i tell you what the new yorker is some fine stuff, they produce some really deep important information and they're credible. but ... they have all these articles about that conservatives are being horrible and undermining democracy! hmm. hmmmmmm.
hmmmmmmm
...
oh well, besides that part where they're obviously wrong and crazy, it's all good!"
he's soooooo clooooooooooose to figuring it outttttttttttttttttttt, it's right theeerrreeee
Did you see the part in today's paper where OSC advocates for a cap on the mortgage interest tax deduction because it's not fair the poor to subsidize the rich to have millions lopped off their taxes?
To be fair, it's nice to see some subversive liberal ideas slipped into the conservative rag.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
*nods*
OSC has always been - and continues to be, afaik - pretty solidly progressive on fiscal issues and things like welfare, housing assistance, immigration, etc. He's just deeply opposed to socially liberal policies like legal protections for gay and transgender folks, gay marriage, abortion, and Environmentalism (the last one I've never really understood why). Oh, and in the past few years, if it's a progressive policy that helps black people then he's suddenly a conservative about it (see his defense of voter ID laws and voter suppression in North Carolina, his "Obama recruiting poor young black men for his national police", his articles amounting to "real racism ended in the 1960s, BLM folks are just thugs who just don't respect police officers", etc.). I'm not really sure where this animosity towards black people came from because, AFAIK, it wasn't there more than a few years back.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
yeah the infamous "what if" rant purely hypothesizing about Obama's gangs of innercity negro thugs being used as a private police force to violently suppress conservatives was a bit out of left field but
quote:Obama is, by character and preference, a dictator. He hates the very idea of compromise; he demonizes his critics and despises even his own toadies in the liberal press. He circumvented Congress as soon as he got into office by appointing "czars" who didn't need Senate approval. His own party hasn't passed a budget ever in the Senate...
Having been anointed from the start of his career because he was that magical combination -- a black man who talks like a white man (that's what they mean by calling him "articulate" and a "great speaker") -- he has never had to work for a living, and he has never had to struggle to accomplish goals. He despises ordinary people, is hostile to any religion that doesn't have Obama as its deity, and his contempt for the military is complete.
You'd think that such a man could not possibly remain in office past the Constitutional limit of two terms -- but I think the plan is already in place.
Look at how Hillary Clinton is being set up as the fall guy on Benghazi. Her lies under oath will destroy her in the run-up to the 2016 election, while the press will never hold Obama's feet to the fire.
This is because Michelle Obama is going to be Barack's Lurleen Wallace. Remember how George Wallace got around Alabama's ban on governors serving two terms in a row? He ran his wife for the office. Everyone knew Wallace would actually be pulling the strings, even though they denied it.
Michelle Obama will be Obama's designated "successor," and any Democrat who seriously opposes her will be destroyed in the media the way everyone who contested Obama's run for the Democratic nomination in 2008 was destroyed.
But the plan goes deeper than this. Barack Obama, like Hitler and the Iranian dictators, announced his plan, though the media (as with Hitler) has "forgotten" it.
Barack Obama needs to have a source of military power that is under his direct control. Like Hitler, he needs a powerful domestic army to terrify any opposition that might arise.
Obama called for a "national police force" in 2008, though he never gave a clue about why such a thing would be necessary. We have the National Guard. We have the armed forces. The FBI. The Secret Service. And all the local and state police forces.
The trouble is that all of these groups have long independent histories and none of them is reliably under Barack Obama's personal control. He needs Brown Shirts -- thugs who will do his bidding without any reference to law.
Obama will claim we need a national police force in order to fight terrorism and crime. The Boston bombing is a useful start, especially when combined with random shootings by crazy people.
Where will he get his "national police"? The NaPo will be recruited from "young out-of-work urban men" and it will be hailed as a cure for the economic malaise of the inner cities.
In other words, Obama will put a thin veneer of training and military structure on urban gangs, and send them out to channel their violence against Obama's enemies.
Instead of doing drive-by shootings in their own neighborhoods, these young thugs will do beatings and murders of people "trying to escape" -- people who all seem to be leaders and members of groups that oppose Obama.
Already the thugs who serve the far left agenda of Obama's team do systematic character assassination as a means of intimidating their opponents into silence. But physical beatings and "legal" disappearances will be even more effective -- as Hitler and Putin and many other dictators have demonstrated over and over.
i have to say in retrospect this is my favorite stormfront article. perfect 5 out of 7
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
You know, it's been a few years since he wrote that, and in the intervening time I've sort of willed myself into believing it wasn't really that bad.
I wonder if anyone who he listens to anymore has asked him how things are going for him under the Michelle Obama administration.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I liked the bit how he destroyed all rivals by, say, inviting them into his administration at top cabinet positions.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Thing is, compared to what's published today on Breitbart, Infowars, GatewayPundit, etc... that's even pretty tame.
Still lunatic-fringy, but that fringe has crept more and more into the mainstream of the conservative movement.
I wonder if he can look back on that now with any perspective at all, or if he's still completely in the tank for the Obama-conspiracy-of-the-week.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:out of left field
Surely you mean "out of right field"?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
i'd prefer to still say left field in the hopes that it triggers him
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: *nods*
OSC has always been - and continues to be, afaik - pretty solidly progressive on fiscal issues and things like welfare, housing assistance, immigration, etc. He's just deeply opposed to socially liberal policies like legal protections for gay and transgender folks, gay marriage, abortion, and Environmentalism (the last one I've never really understood why). Oh, and in the past few years, if it's a progressive policy that helps black people then he's suddenly a conservative about it (see his defense of voter ID laws and voter suppression in North Carolina, his "Obama recruiting poor young black men for his national police", his articles amounting to "real racism ended in the 1960s, BLM folks are just thugs who just don't respect police officers", etc.). I'm not really sure where this animosity towards black people came from because, AFAIK, it wasn't there more than a few years back.
What do they call people who are the complete opposites of libertarians?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Authoritarians.
Posted by ToniFoster (Member # 13529) on :
Yeah!!!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
as a member of the 'anti-defense left' i don't give a shit about defense. like if another country invaded us i would be all like 'eh whatever' and just roll over. maybe take a nap that's how it works
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
As a member of the 'Freedom-hating Left' I don't understand why we don't talk more about how much we hate freedom. I mean, I get it, we ALL hate freedom SO MUCH, but we never talk about it.
I think it's time to come out of the shadows.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
<snort>
There will be no celebrating of anti-freedom sentiment here! Join the ranks now citizens.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hey, JB, why are "johnnyhenderson" and his posts still around? It's transparent spam.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
They are? Give me a sec.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
If you are talking about the one over in IGMS, I don't actually moderate that board. I can't find any posts by him in Books, Film, Food, Culture or OSC.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Will see to it.
Posted by LudWig (Member # 13490) on :
I HATE FREEDOM
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
see the best part about it is that the left is simultaneously anti-freedom and anti-security, like this apparently actually isn't any sort of a thing that might maybe make less sense if you think about it
it's like good ol' ben franklin said, "those who would give up essential liberty to remove all safety, uh, and .. i guess that, uh, .. they deserve .. uh, .. this makes sense to someone i guess. wait is orson scott card trying to describe liberals again"
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
"George, please learn a lesson from Robert Jordan and get this done while yours are the hands on the keyboard!"
Mr. Card, please finish Master Alvin!!!!!!
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
And another Pastwatch novel! Also, a sequel to Enchantment!
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I don't know what is left to talk about in the Enchantment-verse, but I'd read it!
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
More than a dozen paragraphs about the (very real) problem of novel/unexpected research getting more funding and attention than research that takes longer or attempts to repeat/confirm preexisting work...
...and the moral of the story is that there's a science conspiracy to make sure nobody says anything novel or unexpected about global warming.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
He's dead wrong that more funding wouldn't do anything.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
OSC apparently wants "pique" to be spelled "peak" or "peek".
IMO the last thing English needs is more homographs.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Fun! Can we trade out facade for fa-sod? Because I never liked that one. It's not a real word, but sod is. Other possibilities: sheik (Or is that pronounced shake?) foe coo And let's do rhyming ones! crokay, bokay (okay) kallone (Stallone)
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
When I lived in England for a few months, my flatmates told me that "filet" is pronounced with a hard "t" sound at the end... like "fill-it", not "fill-ay". So, the McDonald's menu item was a "fill-it o' fish".
When I asked why, they said because they speak English, not French.
Of course, this didn't apply to an eggplant or a zucchini... which they called an aubergine and a courgette, respectively. Or to snow peas... which they called mange-tout (and pronounced "mahnj-too").
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
So here's the story.
Round about 1065, the British people were living in Normandy doing their thing.
One day they looked around and said
"Wow, look at all of these French people. Those are some crappy neighbors."
And they moved.
Posted by tertiaryadjunct (Member # 12989) on :
quote:I just think this whole laptop thing began in Europe, where officious authorities really hate it when you have a device that you can use for many different purposes that are not under their control.
Is he really so out of the loop on what was a major US presidential scandal (bragging about our laptop-bomb intelligence to Russia)? I mean, I know there are like too many scandals to keep track of these days, but that was a pretty big one.
I can only assume Fox News never mentioned it.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:I just think this whole laptop thing began in Europe, where officious authorities really hate it when you have a device that you can use for many different purposes that are not under their control. If you've ever been given a "suggestion" by a policeman or a flight attendant anywhere in Europe, you know how arrogant and unyielding the authorities can be.
I'd love to hear some examples of these suggestions that he's talking about.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's particularly funny given that we've had passengers beaten on planes in the USA-not Europe, so far as I know.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Instead, because of their naked attacks on President Trump and their obvious leftwing bias, along with several instances of outright lies and stories based on nothing, CNN is a distant third place and Fox remains in first.
Meanwhile, about halfway between them, MSNBC, the perpetual also-ran, is now the dominant leftwing slanted news source for liberals who need better comfort than CNN's ham-handed efforts have provided.
Yet the liberal news media still speak of Fox News as if it ran false stories all the time, as if Fox were the biased network. Yet every independent evaluator of news networks consistently rates Fox as the least biased, the most even-handed of all the networks, including ABC, NBC and CBS.
Does anyone know what he's talking about here? I was sort of curious to find the source of these claims and literally couldn't find even one independent evaluator that found Fox to be the least biased network. The two evaluations I found right off the bat, Pew and Politifact, actually said the opposite is true.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
Yeah, no clue on my end. I might actually ask because I'm curious.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Does anyone know what he's talking about here? I was sort of curious to find the source of these claims and literally couldn't find even one independent evaluator that found Fox to be the least biased network. The two evaluations I found right off the bat, Pew and Politifact, actually said the opposite is true.
Independent evaluators, Dogbreath. Obviously Pew and Politifact have been bought and paid for by the liberal media. Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
Hmmm. Politifact is run by Times Publishing Company, which is owned by the Poynter Institute. I suppose that might count as a bastion of liberal elitism, so you've got me there. But if you read up on Joseph Pew and his descendants, I sincerely doubt the Pew Memorial Trust is in any way an agent of the liberal media/gay agenda/what have you. You can never be too careful, though.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath:
quote:Instead, because of their naked attacks on President Trump and their obvious leftwing bias, along with several instances of outright lies and stories based on nothing, CNN is a distant third place and Fox remains in first.
Meanwhile, about halfway between them, MSNBC, the perpetual also-ran, is now the dominant leftwing slanted news source for liberals who need better comfort than CNN's ham-handed efforts have provided.
Yet the liberal news media still speak of Fox News as if it ran false stories all the time, as if Fox were the biased network. Yet every independent evaluator of news networks consistently rates Fox as the least biased, the most even-handed of all the networks, including ABC, NBC and CBS.
Does anyone know what he's talking about here? I was sort of curious to find the source of these claims and literally couldn't find even one independent evaluator that found Fox to be the least biased network. The two evaluations I found right off the bat, Pew and Politifact, actually said the opposite is true.
I don't have a linked source for this, but my understanding is that this is based on a survey of the programming during "news hours", where someone just reads the news, which take place during very limited times of the day. The rest of the air time is "commentary", which yeah, is about as biased as you can possibly get and doesn't count in the survey.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
I thought it might be something like that as well, but I searched for a while and couldn't find it. I figured if it was the consensus of every independent evaluator of news networks, it might be easier to find?
I'll have to use my school's virtual library later to see if I can find any published studies.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
...That was faster than I thought. Anyway, one of the results I found is publicly available from Stanford University: Bias In Cable News: Persuasion and Polarization. Their results are pretty fascinating (the study as a whole concludes that watching Fox News actually causes viewers to become more likely to vote Republican), but on page 10 they specifically go into their methodology:
quote:To quantify the slant of each news channel in each year, we follow Groseclose and Milyo (2005) and Gentzkow and Shapiro (2010) in comparing the language that the channels use to language that Congresspeople use. This procedure is designed to capture the connotations that a politician or media outlet can imply by using differences in language to describe the same program or policy, e.g., “personal accounts” versus “private accounts” or “war in Iraq” versus “global war on terror.” It cannot, however, pick up all forms of slant present in television news - for instance, the use of quotations or clips from an opponent’s speech in order to satirize or mock the opponent’s views - and thus likely underestimates the dispersion in slant among the slanted outlets. We obtained broadcast transcripts for CNN, FNC, and MSNBC from the Lexis-Nexis database for the sample period 1998-2012 by downloading all transcripts in each year for each identifiable cable news program from each of the three channels... our estimates for this scale factor put FNC very close to the median Republican member of Congress.
Note that this study is from April of 2017 (three months ago), so this is most likely the most recent - or one of the most recent - analyses of the political bias in reporting for the three networks. This is the visualization of the results of the aforementioned transcript analysis:
It would appear that, up until 2012 at least, CNN has consistently been the least politically skewed in their reporting. For most of the time period studied the baseline (no ideological bias at all) is within the 95% confidence interval, and while they did take a sharp turn to the left around 2008, it appears they have since mostly regressed to the mean. (As opposed to Fox and MSNBC which have continued to become more ideologically skewed)
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: Hmmm. Politifact is run by Times Publishing Company, which is owned by the Poynter Institute. I suppose that might count as a bastion of liberal elitism, so you've got me there. But if you read up on Joseph Pew and his descendants, I sincerely doubt the Pew Memorial Trust is in any way an agent of the liberal media/gay agenda/what have you. You can never be too careful, though.
Jonathon was kidding, if that wasn't clear.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
It was. I was going with the joke. Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
Oh good. I wasn't quite sure.
Posted by Dogbreath (Member # 11879) on :
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Yeah, no clue on my end. I might actually ask because I'm curious.
By any chance did you get a response? If not that's fine, I'm mostly just curious to find out what his source was.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
I'm still waiting for a response on a previous query so I haven't asked this one yet, unfortunately.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
How antiquated.
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)