The Darker Side of the News

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:42 pm UTC

Hard to fault them, even in retrospect. Video probably wouldn't show a great deal in this case. Best evidence is he was acting normally, no malfunctions or what not. So, not really a "hey, that technical problem went wrong, we should fix that" scenario. Video evidence of that would be nice...but it's long odds on it actually making a difference.

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Chen » Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:47 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:Bureaucratic inertia. The black box recorders have been one flight data and one voice only for so long that nobody's bothered to think about video recording. Now that people have died in a situation where video recording would have been useful that may change, but as usual it takes a (or multiple) death(s) to get people to consider changing the way things are done.


I'm not sure the camera vs voice recorder is that big a difference. Most of the data you're going to get is going to come from the flight data recorder anyways which will show exactly what buttons are pressed and such. The cost of changing the microphones into cameras would be enormous. Perhaps mandate it a newly created planes or something but a retrofit of all existing airlines seems highly unlikely.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3989
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Dauric » Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:52 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Hard to fault them, even in retrospect. Video probably wouldn't show a great deal in this case. Best evidence is he was acting normally, no malfunctions or what not. So, not really a "hey, that technical problem went wrong, we should fix that" scenario. Video evidence of that would be nice...but it's long odds on it actually making a difference.


If the cockpit as locked and the co-pilot wasn't making any sounds I could see a hypothetical scenario where the door was locked on accident (or purposefully, with only one person in the cockpit it may be policy to lock the door in that situation to prevent a takeover) and the co-pilot suffers a heart attack or other incapacitating condition, slumps forward on to the control yoke, which would nose the aircraft down, resulting in an "intentional" dive.

I'm not saying it's likely, but I can see the hypothetical, and without video evidence it's difficult to say for certain what happened in the cockpit. That said I think the investigation of the co-pilot's residence/ finances/ medical records/ etc. could turn up evidence to suggest the missing pieces.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Mar 26, 2015 3:05 pm UTC

Flight recorder should cover most of that. Additional, records of communications.

More data is always good, but the additional value provided by video seems fairly minimal.

Chen
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Chen » Thu Mar 26, 2015 3:06 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:If the cockpit as locked and the co-pilot wasn't making any sounds I could see a hypothetical scenario where the door was locked on accident (or purposefully, with only one person in the cockpit it may be policy to lock the door in that situation to prevent a takeover) and the co-pilot suffers a heart attack or other incapacitating condition, slumps forward on to the control yoke, which would nose the aircraft down, resulting in an "intentional" dive.

I'm not saying it's likely, but I can see the hypothetical, and without video evidence it's difficult to say for certain what happened in the cockpit. That said I think the investigation of the co-pilot's residence/ finances/ medical records/ etc. could turn up evidence to suggest the missing pieces.


They did mention in the article that the co-pilot was still breathing (at least) on impact. It also mentions something about pressing the button to start a controlled decent. As I said in the first post I made, I'm not sure how they determined that via sound alone, but I suppose its possible there's some sort of warning or beeping that occurs if you were to turn that specific function on at the "wrong" time or something.

User avatar
Sizik
Posts: 1255
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 3:48 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Sizik » Thu Mar 26, 2015 3:09 pm UTC

NYTimes wrote:"You can hear human breathing in the cockpit up until the moment of impact"


Also,

According to an Airbus video describing the operations of locking the cockpit door, it is locked by default when closed. But when a pilot wants to lock the cockpit door to bar access to someone outside, he or she can move the toggle to a position marked “locked,” which illuminates a red light on a numeric code pad outside. That disables the door, keypad and the door buzzer for five minutes.

While these functions are disabled, the video shows, the only way to make contact with the crew is via an intercom. The doors can then be opened only if someone inside overrides the lock command by moving and holding the toggle switch to the “unlock” position.

If someone outside the cockpit suspects the pilot is incapacitated, that person would normally first try to establish contact via the intercom or by activating a buzzer. If those efforts were unsuccessful, the video shows, a crew member outside the cockpit would need to enter an emergency code on the keypad.

The code activates a loud buzzer and flashing light on the cockpit control panel, and it sets off a timer that unlocks the door 30 seconds later. The person outside has five seconds to enter before the door locks again.
she/they
gmalivuk wrote:
King Author wrote:If space (rather, distance) is an illusion, it'd be possible for one meta-me to experience both body's sensory inputs.
Yes. And if wishes were horses, wishing wells would fill up very quickly with drowned horses.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3989
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Dauric » Thu Mar 26, 2015 3:19 pm UTC

Chen wrote:They did mention in the article that the co-pilot was still breathing (at least) on impact. It also mentions something about pressing the button to start a controlled decent. As I said in the first post I made, I'm not sure how they determined that via sound alone, but I suppose its possible there's some sort of warning or beeping that occurs if you were to turn that specific function on at the "wrong" time or something.


Breathing itself doesn't mean a lack of incapacitation, someone unconscious is still breathing. That said activating a control that begins a descent is pretty clear evidence of intention.

As far as determining that from a voice recorder: runways have radio transmitters at the ends that transmit a short-range, directional tonal signal to let pilots know that they are in correct position to land on a specific runway. If you triggered a descent and the aircraft wasn't receiving one of these signals then the autopilot would probably be programmed to give an audible warning.

What I find... distressing I suppose, is the complexity of the door locking system. The description makes it sound like something Rube Goldberg illustrated
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Diadem » Thu Mar 26, 2015 3:24 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:If the cockpit as locked and the co-pilot wasn't making any sounds I could see a hypothetical scenario where the door was locked on accident (or purposefully, with only one person in the cockpit it may be policy to lock the door in that situation to prevent a takeover) and the co-pilot suffers a heart attack or other incapacitating condition, slumps forward on to the control yoke, which would nose the aircraft down, resulting in an "intentional" dive.

The door is locked automatically by design. Normal procedure is for the 2nd pilot to let the 1st one back in (after establishing identity via visual check). If the pilot in the cockpit is unconscious or otherwise disabled, this obviously can't happen. There is a safety mechanism for that. Crew members have a password to override the lock on the cockpit door. However this override ALSO has an override (since the password falling into the wrong hands is not inconceivable).

So if the captain was unable to get back into the cockpit, then either a) he (and every other crewmember) forgot the password or b) the co-pilot was actively shutting him out. The co-pilot merely being incapacitated isn't enough.

Also, audio recorders would presumably record someone falling forward on the control yoke. And finally this wouldn't cause the descent path the plane followed. It was a controlled descent, rapid but not rapid enough to set off automated alarms.

So with the evidence we have so far deliberate sabotage by the co-pilot seems very likely.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1446
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby mathmannix » Thu Mar 26, 2015 3:24 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:The Indiana Senate reaffirms, 40 to 10, that Indiana still cares about the religious freedom of its citizens.


FTFY. This doesn't belong in Darker Side. Here's the latest: Gov. A Wet Rag Stuffed Into a Tailpipe signs religious freedom bill. This is about letting people practice their beliefs and not being forced to participate in ceremonies they don't want to. Let's flip this around for you. Let's say that you (presumably a person in favor of same-sex marriage) run a catering business, but you don't want to have to cater to a wedding for a bunch of Bible-thumping conservative ultra-religious types. That's fine. You shouldn't have to, and they shouldn't have the law on their side saying they can sue you for not catering their wedding. It works both ways. And if there's a void in a market, then companies will spring up and fill the void.
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby KrytenKoro » Thu Mar 26, 2015 4:04 pm UTC

mathmannix wrote:
KrytenKoro wrote:The Indiana Senate reaffirms, 40 to 10, that Indiana still cares about the religious freedom of its citizens.


FTFY. This doesn't belong in Darker Side. Here's the latest: Gov. A Wet Rag Stuffed Into a Tailpipe signs religious freedom bill. This is about letting people practice their beliefs and not being forced to participate in ceremonies they don't want to. Let's flip this around for you. Let's say that you (presumably a person in favor of same-sex marriage) run a catering business, but you don't want to have to cater to a wedding for a bunch of Bible-thumping conservative ultra-religious types. That's fine. You shouldn't have to, and they shouldn't have the law on their side saying they can sue you for not catering their wedding. It works both ways. And if there's a void in a market, then companies will spring up and fill the void.

Actually, since I'm not a raging asshole, I would cater to them so long as they weren't disturbing the peace/chasing away customers. You know, the protections that are already in place, and aren't enshrining my right to be a bigot.

I absolutely wouldn't accost them, say "I'm not going to serve you because you're a dirty Christian", and throw them out of my star if they're being polite and quiet.

In fact, since I'm a Christian and not a raging asshole, I would practice what the Bible teaches and show them love and compassion, serving them with a smile, the whole shebang. Most importantly, I would make sure to judge not.

The fact that this bill started being drafted almost as soon as the same-sex marriage ban was struck down should prove the lie in Pence's claims. And if we're actually going to be honest, the studies show that religious freedom has absolutely zip to do with why any constituents wanted this bill.

"Religious Freedom" is the politically tolerable cover that Indiana Republicans are disingenuously using to argue for a bill whose supporters desire for completely unpalatable reasons. And it's massively dishonest to pretend otherwise. The wording of the bill even makes sure to say that this so-important "religious freedom" does not extend to employees, so it's kind of hard to believe they're writing this on principle.

(Hilariously enough, the politicians who supported this bill cited the Home Depot decision and its follow-on cases. Just like everyone with half a brain knew they would. So, everyone but the Supreme Court majority.)
Last edited by KrytenKoro on Thu Mar 26, 2015 4:10 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11128
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Yakk » Thu Mar 26, 2015 4:05 pm UTC

Don't slander people, then excuse it with "FIFY".

KrytenKoro did not state that, and you are misrepresenting his position.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3989
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Dauric » Thu Mar 26, 2015 4:21 pm UTC

mathmannix wrote:Let's say that you (presumably a person in favor of same-sex marriage) run a catering business, but you don't want to have to cater to a wedding for a bunch of Bible-thumping conservative ultra-religious types. That's fine. You shouldn't have to, and they shouldn't have the law on their side saying they can sue you for not catering their wedding. It works both ways. And if there's a void in a market, then companies will spring up and fill the void.


Let's replace "Bible-thumping conservative ultra-religious types" with "African Americans" and see how your hypothetical works out...

The 'race card' can be annoying at times, especially when overused, but the history and demonstrated implications means it makes a good first-pass litmus test when you're talking about interacting with <specified group of people>. If a hypothetical situation sounds inappropriate in that context one should take the time to reexamine the basis of the hypothetical.

In this case a catering company not catering to same-sex couples (or ultra religious couples) strikes a bit close to a diner not serving blacks in the Jim Crow south for my tastes. Your mileage may vary...
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6800
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby sardia » Thu Mar 26, 2015 5:19 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:
Dauric wrote:If the cockpit as locked and the co-pilot wasn't making any sounds I could see a hypothetical scenario where the door was locked on accident (or purposefully, with only one person in the cockpit it may be policy to lock the door in that situation to prevent a takeover) and the co-pilot suffers a heart attack or other incapacitating condition, slumps forward on to the control yoke, which would nose the aircraft down, resulting in an "intentional" dive.

The door is locked automatically by design. Normal procedure is for the 2nd pilot to let the 1st one back in (after establishing identity via visual check). If the pilot in the cockpit is unconscious or otherwise disabled, this obviously can't happen. There is a safety mechanism for that. Crew members have a password to override the lock on the cockpit door. However this override ALSO has an override (since the password falling into the wrong hands is not inconceivable).

So if the captain was unable to get back into the cockpit, then either a) he (and every other crewmember) forgot the password or b) the co-pilot was actively shutting him out. The co-pilot merely being incapacitated isn't enough.

Also, audio recorders would presumably record someone falling forward on the control yoke. And finally this wouldn't cause the descent path the plane followed. It was a controlled descent, rapid but not rapid enough to set off automated alarms.

So with the evidence we have so far deliberate sabotage by the co-pilot seems very likely.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... ings-plane
It's mass homicide.

User avatar
EMTP
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:39 pm UTC
Location: Elbow deep in (mostly) other people's blood.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby EMTP » Thu Mar 26, 2015 5:31 pm UTC



. . . is the best hypothesis we have, with less than 48 hours since the crash, and a lot of investigation left to do.

Right now the co-pilot deliberately crashing the plane seems consistent with the evidence we have. But there may be another explanation we haven't yet identified. Most plane crashes are caused by pilot error, not sabotage. No one has yet identified a motive. If I had to bet money I would probably bet on murder by co-pilot, but it's early days.
"Reasonable – that is, human – men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."
-- Alan Watts, "The Way of Zen"

Choboman
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 10:54 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Choboman » Thu Mar 26, 2015 7:25 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:In this case a catering company not catering to same-sex couples (or ultra religious couples) strikes a bit close to a diner not serving blacks in the Jim Crow south for my tastes. Your mileage may vary...


You might feel that they're the same from a moral perspective (and I'd tend to agree), but from a legal point of view sexual orientation is not a protected class, so businesses have a right to refuse service.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3989
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Dauric » Thu Mar 26, 2015 7:36 pm UTC

Choboman wrote:
Dauric wrote:In this case a catering company not catering to same-sex couples (or ultra religious couples) strikes a bit close to a diner not serving blacks in the Jim Crow south for my tastes. Your mileage may vary...


You might feel that they're the same from a moral perspective (and I'd tend to agree), but from a legal point of view sexual orientation is not a protected class, so businesses have a right to refuse service.


And there's arguments about whether they should get protected status or not.

Like I said though, it makes a good first-pass litmus test, the litmus test in chemistry being a one-shot disposable test that determines if a substance's PH is above or below a certain value. It's certainly not a detailed analysis to substitute African American for any other group, but of you find yourself feeling uncomfortable about the hypothetical after the substitution, you should probably go back and take a second look at the hypothetical.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:08 pm UTC

Choboman wrote:
Dauric wrote:In this case a catering company not catering to same-sex couples (or ultra religious couples) strikes a bit close to a diner not serving blacks in the Jim Crow south for my tastes. Your mileage may vary...


You might feel that they're the same from a moral perspective (and I'd tend to agree), but from a legal point of view sexual orientation is not a protected class, so businesses have a right to refuse service.


Legal statements make a poor justification for morality, IMO. The two are often a little disconnected.

Morally, I think that not catering to someone because of identity is pretty jerkish behavior. Also, I suspect it's economically unwise. The tide has turned pretty hard on this issue, and thus, being known as that place that still discriminates will result in earning an increasingly ugly reputation over time.

But...it should probably still be legal. I mean, it's nice to be able to SEE the jerks. And they're a little different from a moral perspective, in that it's bound up in the whole wedding thing. Not being able to get catering from one place for one event is different from places that bar you altogether solely due to identity. It's still not GOOD, but comparing it to racist history is severely overselling the current situation. We can't really ban everyone being a jerk.

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1806
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Quercus » Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:25 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:
Choboman wrote:
Dauric wrote:In this case a catering company not catering to same-sex couples (or ultra religious couples) strikes a bit close to a diner not serving blacks in the Jim Crow south for my tastes. Your mileage may vary...


You might feel that they're the same from a moral perspective (and I'd tend to agree), but from a legal point of view sexual orientation is not a protected class, so businesses have a right to refuse service.


And there's arguments about whether they should get protected status or not.


Sexual orientation is a protected characteristic in the UK under the Equality Act (2010), so there's precedent in other countries for it being the equivalent of a protected class.

User avatar
ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 918
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby ObsessoMom » Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:32 pm UTC

I don't think it's "severely overselling the situation" to compare discrimination against same-sex couples to discrimination against mixed-race couples. I say this as a member of a mixed-race couple. Biblically-justified bigotry is Biblically-justified bigotry.

But I don't think legislative solutions are always the best remedy for hatred.

If someone doesn't want my business for whatever reason, I'd rather he or she were allowed to freely express that hesitation, so that I won't be blindsided by what a mediocre job she does when I hire her to take my wedding pictures, or how mediocre the service is at my reception in his restaurant. A lot of damage can be done without anyone's necessarily being able to prove that it was intentional discrimination, you know. Accidents happen. A suspicious number of them, in the case of my husband's and my honeymoon--none of which were significant enough for us to bother taking anyone to court for redress, but they still made things pretty unpleasant. We would have liked to have taken our business elsewhere, had we known.

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Tirian » Fri Mar 27, 2015 2:24 am UTC

My problem is that refusing service to gay people is not an actual religious tenet in any religion I know of. The Book of Leviticus obviously says that (male) homosexuality is a bad thing, but the only punishment described for it is death. Now, I'm as glad as the next person that even the wingnuts in the American conservative Christian community do not suggest that we should literally follow that law. But that doesn't mean that they're allowed to rewrite Leviticus 20:13 to say "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must not be allowed to have jobs or housing, and it is forbidden to enter into any business dealings with them."

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6579
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Thesh » Fri Mar 27, 2015 4:53 am UTC

Tirian wrote:But that doesn't mean that they're allowed to rewrite


Uhh... Christians have been "reinterpreting" the bible for as long as its been around. They have to infer, deduce, or reinterpret the Bible or else they would no longer really fit in modern society in the first place.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby ahammel » Fri Mar 27, 2015 1:55 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:The Indiana Senate reaffirms, 40 to 10, that Indiana is a backwards, unwelcoming hellhole.

In response, Salesforce pulls out of Indiana.
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6800
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby sardia » Fri Mar 27, 2015 1:56 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
Tirian wrote:But that doesn't mean that they're allowed to rewrite


Uhh... Christians have been "reinterpreting" the bible for as long as its been around. They have to infer, deduce, or reinterpret the Bible or else they would no longer really fit in modern society in the first place.

Don't forget that religions are syncretic, aka they're like the Borg. Anything they come across is either assimilated or destroyed. Christmas? Comes from druidic obessions with trees. Concepts of saints en masse? Latin America + local gods. Concept of good vs evil personified? Zoroastrianism. I think angels too, but I'm away from my history books.

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Tirian » Fri Mar 27, 2015 4:47 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Thesh wrote:
Tirian wrote:But that doesn't mean that they're allowed to rewrite


Uhh... Christians have been "reinterpreting" the bible for as long as its been around. They have to infer, deduce, or reinterpret the Bible or else they would no longer really fit in modern society in the first place.

Don't forget that religions are syncretic, aka they're like the Borg. Anything they come across is either assimilated or destroyed. Christmas? Comes from druidic obessions with trees. Concepts of saints en masse? Latin America + local gods. Concept of good vs evil personified? Zoroastrianism. I think angels too, but I'm away from my history books.


There are certainly angels in the Bible from Genesis through Revelations. Of course, the first thing out of their mouths when they encountered humans was "Be not afraid", so I will grant you that our artistic depiction of them must have gotten seriously borked somewhere along the way.

To Thesh's point: yes, of course. But first, these are generally the Biblical literalists doing this shit, so I'm not sure that they should feel comfortable with citing half a verse and hand-rolling the second half.

But my larger point is this. If we're going to start carving religious exemptions into laws, I think we need to be certain that they are theologically-grounded religious exemptions and not individual moral exemptions. Otherwise, we have no laws at all. I think there should be a two-stage test for that: you need to demonstrate that you're a member of a congregation affiliated with a certain denomination, and that denomination needs to have taken a formal position on the law that you don't feel like following. (As opposed to the Bible, these happen all the time from Catholic encyclicals to Protestant convocations to Islamic fatwas.)

And to return to my original point, I don't know that any major religions say that you're allowed to treat gay people like shit just because we're not allowed to stone them like in the good ol' days. I don't doubt that several of them would if the issue were pressed. But then, like people have said upthread, we would be clear on which religions are rooted in hate and fear and which aren't. As an aside, this would end all the problems with religious exemptions for vaccinating children because almost nobody belongs to religions that actually do object to vaccinations.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Fri Mar 27, 2015 4:50 pm UTC

Sorry, what is the worry here, exactly? That businesses in Indiana will be able to refuse service to gay people? They can already do that: there is no non-discrimination law protecting gay people in Indiana. That sucks, but presumably the Indiana legislature is not trying to put a loophole in a law that doesn't exist.

RFRAs have been on the books federally and in various states since 1993. My impression is that they're most often used by prisoners from religious minorities, who want an exception to this or that prison regulation so that they can practice their religion. To my knowledge, no RFRA has ever been used to carve out an exception to a nondiscrimination law. And they've certainly never been used to carve out an exception to an imaginary nondiscrimination law.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Mar 27, 2015 5:18 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
Tirian wrote:But that doesn't mean that they're allowed to rewrite


Uhh... Christians have been "reinterpreting" the bible for as long as its been around. They have to infer, deduce, or reinterpret the Bible or else they would no longer really fit in modern society in the first place.


Pretty much what religion is, yeah. Society changes, so does religion. *shrug* It's not even as if there's only one true interpretation of the Bible or something. Got all kinds of different divisions just among Christianity. For some, gay marriage is something they have a problem with. For some, it's not.

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Sorry, what is the worry here, exactly? That businesses in Indiana will be able to refuse service to gay people? They can already do that: there is no non-discrimination law protecting gay people in Indiana. That sucks, but presumably the Indiana legislature is not trying to put a loophole in a law that doesn't exist.

RFRAs have been on the books federally and in various states since 1993. My impression is that they're most often used by prisoners from religious minorities, who want an exception to this or that prison regulation so that they can practice their religion. To my knowledge, no RFRA has ever been used to carve out an exception to a nondiscrimination law. And they've certainly never been used to carve out an exception to an imaginary nondiscrimination law.


Oh yes, religious freedom is much broader than wedding services for same sex couples. That just happens to be the current controversy.

So, stuff like if a prisoner can have a short beard because muslim or whatever. It also applies to that, but that doesn't get pageviews.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby KrytenKoro » Fri Mar 27, 2015 10:18 pm UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Sorry, what is the worry here, exactly? That businesses in Indiana will be able to refuse service to gay people? They can already do that: there is no non-discrimination law protecting gay people in Indiana. That sucks, but presumably the Indiana legislature is not trying to put a loophole in a law that doesn't exist.

RFRAs have been on the books federally and in various states since 1993. My impression is that they're most often used by prisoners from religious minorities, who want an exception to this or that prison regulation so that they can practice their religion. To my knowledge, no RFRA has ever been used to carve out an exception to a nondiscrimination law. And they've certainly never been used to carve out an exception to an imaginary nondiscrimination law.

Honestly? Whether or not this actually has a legal effect in Indiana (which I'm not entirely sure of), the context of the law and the reasons why it was written are clearly "we shouldn't have to acknowledge that homosexuals are people too". If nothing else, it's terrible for PR and makes Indiana look like a backwards hellhole, which Salesforce, GenCon, and even the Indiana Department of Tourism have acknowledged and given as their reasons for objecting to the law. Despite this, the Senate and Governor went ahead with signing the bill.

Whether the law can actually be used to justify any new unethical behavior that won't be immediately struck down by the Supreme Court or not, it's still a giant, purposeful middle finger to homosexuals in Indiana, and emboldens those who desire to discriminate against homosexuals -- something I can very much attest is increasing in response to the bill's passage. That's the main thing that's pissing me off.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6800
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby sardia » Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:02 am UTC

Now before we demonize the politicians here, let's remember who elected these folks. Bigoted homophobes, but you'll know them as your overly religious parents and grandparents.
People like to disparage politicians without connecting it to the 50% of the voting public in Indiana who are assholes that shit over everything.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10495
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:43 am UTC

Hey, don't look at my parents. They voted for the guy that promised jobs and America, not for the shitstain that promised jobs and America.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10268
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby addams » Sat Mar 28, 2015 1:52 am UTC

Has anyone found The Law and posted it?
It might be worth a read, when I'm battling insomnia and a Policy Paper is just not quite enough.

Who wrote it?
Can that person write?

If it were posted here,
we might get a good laugh out of it.

Those LandLocked, Southern and Baptist are Famous for...
They are Famous the way The Black Adder is famous.

They write the way he speaks.
Difficult for a native reader.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Sat Mar 28, 2015 2:39 am UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:Honestly? Whether or not this actually has a legal effect in Indiana (which I'm not entirely sure of), the context of the law and the reasons why it was written are clearly "we shouldn't have to acknowledge that homosexuals are people too".

That isn't clear to me at all, but perhaps you could produce the evidence that makes it clear.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Tirian » Sat Mar 28, 2015 5:58 pm UTC

Here is a snippet from http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchore ... ana-sb101/, which on the whole gives a balanced a nuanced review of the both the importance and abuses of religious liberty.

Eric Miller, the Founder and Executive Director of Advance America (an organization that provided much of the impetus for SB 101) says, “It is vitally important to protect religious freedom in Indiana…It was therefore important to pass Senate Bill 101 in 2015 in order to help protect churches, Christian businesses and individuals from those who want to punish them because of their Biblical beliefs!” [...] Advance America gives three examples of situations where Senate Bill 101 will “help.” The first is the provision of peripheral services such as baking or flowers for gay marriages. The second is transgender bathroom use. The third is the use of church property for gay weddings.


So those are among the motivations for the bill, evidently from the special interest that thought the law was worth writing and passing. Now, you may be right that the first and third was always the prerogative of businesses and churches, in which case this law is somehow "sending a message" that the rights of Christians are more equal than the rights of LGBT folk. But the second is suggesting that it is a "substantial burden" (in the words of the law) for a restaurant owner to have a patron use the bathroom according to presented gender instead of birth sex. I cannot easily think of something more dehumanizing than denying a person from essential excretory functions with dignity, nor (as I've noted before) is there any scriptural or theological justification for inflicting such shame. This law is about nothing other than being meaner to some people than to other people with the blessings of the state.

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1806
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Quercus » Sat Mar 28, 2015 6:16 pm UTC

help protect churches, Christian businesses and individuals from those who want to punish them because of their Biblical beliefs!


I love how a "religious freedom" bill is quite transparently seen purely as a "Christian freedom" bill by the people behind it. Last time I checked Christianity wasn't the only religion...

Edit: Ah, the article linked makes that point extensively... I should really read these things before posting, rather than afterwards.

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Tirian » Sat Mar 28, 2015 6:31 pm UTC

Indeed. Despite the fact that the three cited reasons for supporting the bill are all anti-LGBT even more than they are pro-Christian, the article makes an interesting case that religious freedom laws may well be cited more by non-Christian faiths. I mean, can a Muslim business owner insist that his female employees dress themselves according to his standards of modesty on the grounds that it is a substantial burden for him to be tempted by their bare legs and uncovered hair?

User avatar
Grop
Posts: 1994
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:36 am UTC
Location: France

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Grop » Sat Mar 28, 2015 7:02 pm UTC

help protect churches, Christian businesses and individuals from those who want to punish them because of their Biblical beliefs!


Such reverted rhetorics!

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Tirian » Sat Mar 28, 2015 8:14 pm UTC

Grop wrote:
help protect churches, Christian businesses and individuals from those who want to punish them because of their Biblical beliefs!


Such reverted rhetorics!


"These perverts are trying to purchase our goods and services! Gasp! We'll soon put a stop to that!"

Of course, for them the persecution will only start now that they've signed their misbegotten bill into law. GenCon is locked into a contract with Indianapolis until 2020 from what I understand, but I'll bet my last dollar that they'll only work with businesses that have a formal and strong anti-discrimination policy in place that protects both customers and employees. The "faithful" being publicly ostracized for not having a "We Serve Everyone!" sign in their window is probably exactly what these culture warriors had in mind.

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby eSOANEM » Sat Mar 28, 2015 11:54 pm UTC

There is a vocal minority of Christians who have this persecution complex surrounding their Christianity like it's still the Roman Empire under Diocletian. There will be no reasoning with such people, we can only hope the young folk learn better and the old folk die off faster.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Tirian » Sun Mar 29, 2015 2:27 am UTC

Indiana Governor supports clarifying religious objection law

A Wet Rag Stuffed Into a Tailpipe has always said that the law was not about discrimination. I'll take him at his word; it was probably about pandering to fundamentalist Christians with what he probably imagined to be a vague symbolic document whose interpretation would have eventually been established by the courts. I look forward to seeing what the revised bill is about, and hope that this time Hoosiers hold their legislators and governor accountable for the values that their laws proclaim about them.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10268
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby addams » Sun Mar 29, 2015 3:32 am UTC

eSOANEM wrote:There is a vocal minority of Christians who have this persecution complex surrounding their Christianity like it's still the Roman Empire under Diocletian. There will be no reasoning with such people, we can only hope the young folk learn better and the old folk die off faster.

I know the first part of your statement is True.
They Preach, "We are The Persecuted!."
As their churches March Right!

Right!
Far Christian Right!

It is a position that is held comfortably by Millionaires.
oh... How those earning less than $600,000.00 suffer.
<Sarcasm> brackets required.

They do believe they are Prosecuted.
Look at the evidence.

The World is fucked up, violent and crazy.
The Rules of their faith are wholesome.

The Second part of your Statement was my Plan A, when I was young.

In all these thousands of years, over and over...
The Mean Bastards die and are replaced with another set of Mean Bastards.

Every Generation has Mean Bastards, Mean Girls and a few Intellectuals.

You cannot wait for them to Die Off.
You will grow old, get sick and die, trying.

Besides!
The Evangelical American Christian Church is Young!
The membership is Young.

The message and the rewards resonate with Young Families.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:14 pm UTC

Tirian wrote:Indeed. Despite the fact that the three cited reasons for supporting the bill are all anti-LGBT even more than they are pro-Christian, the article makes an interesting case that religious freedom laws may well be cited more by non-Christian faiths. I mean, can a Muslim business owner insist that his female employees dress themselves according to his standards of modesty on the grounds that it is a substantial burden for him to be tempted by their bare legs and uncovered hair?


I don't see why not.

This would probably be very unpopular outside of a narrow niche, but surely fairness compells us to allow religious freedom for all religions in equal measure. And yeah, religious freedom laws have been used to defend non-christians in the US before. Sure, that may not be the intent of the authors, but it's a normal effect.

Tirian wrote:Of course, for them the persecution will only start now that they've signed their misbegotten bill into law. GenCon is locked into a contract with Indianapolis until 2020 from what I understand, but I'll bet my last dollar that they'll only work with businesses that have a formal and strong anti-discrimination policy in place that protects both customers and employees. The "faithful" being publicly ostracized for not having a "We Serve Everyone!" sign in their window is probably exactly what these culture warriors had in mind.


It is really pretty irrelevant to gencon. Despite the makeup of the rest of the state, Indianapolis itself is pretty urban, and...I've certainly not seen even a hint of discriminatory policies in the past. The gaming community as a whole is pretty outspokenly for equality here, that isn't gonna change just because a law does.

Everyone will be tripping over themselves to condemn the thing that everyone else is also condemning, but there'll be zero net change.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests