Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

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

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Postby Ghostbear » Thu May 31, 2012 1:40 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:If I've made my positions out to be lofty or noble, I have done so in error. They're not. They're simply useful positions for me to take. Giving them names only helps to understand how I reach them. Both a libertarian and a plutocrat might want lower taxes. I think that it's better to say why I want them.

This is why I think that we have so much trouble understanding each other. I don't read your positions as being universal. I think they're your positions, that you want me to feel the consequences of. Conversely, you see mine as universal, when they're not.

Truth be told, if I thought your positions were universal I'd be absolutely terrified of the world we live in. What I am bothered by is that you are applying labels to yourself that are not accurate to you at all. It makes it very difficult to discuss with someone when there's a huge disconnect between one statement ("I care about rights") and another statement ("I don't care about these people's rights"). It's OK to not be a libertarian (I'm not one!) and it's OK to not have a simple catch-all for your beliefs (I don't have one! Though I guess "liberal" is a semi-accurate approximation. Sorta.), but that doesn't mean you should use the label of a group that you're willing to use to further your own, separate, beliefs.

The whole thing could have been avoided by not insisting that you're a libertarian -- it's not an accurate description of your belief system (which, again, is fine -- though I do think I disagree with nearly every part of that system itself), even as a semi-accurate approximation. Your belief system is more accurately described as self-interest than as libertarianism. You're willing to use libertarianism to further your self-interest, but that doesn't mean your beliefs are libertarian. You can't see the rights of others as insignificantly as you do and be a libertarian.

Steroid wrote:I'm glad you brought up the monkey sphere. When I read about that, I thought, "This applies to me," and rather than assume that I am flawed because of it, took it as a good way of understanding myself.

The interesting thing about the monkey-sphere is it's supposed to apply to everyone. If I recall correctly, it's also believed to explain why people care so much about celebrities -- they act as a common point of the spheres of individuals, allow for an easier interaction. It also explains why we're more able to concern ourselves with atrocities in Eastern Europe or North Africa than we are with those in sub-Saharan Africa: the people in one set are less "points" further from our own sphere than the people in another set.

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Postby Steroid » Thu May 31, 2012 1:53 pm UTC

Ghostbear wrote:The whole thing could have been avoided by not insisting that you're a libertarian


I guess, but maybe I'm projecting again. When you say you're positions are mostly liberal, or when you get them from a liberal epistemology, I'd just go ahead and say you were a liberal. But when I do that, people say, "Don't label me! You don't understand what liberalism (socialism, communism, etc.) means!" So I say, OK, I won't. But I'm trying to do that to myself. Stick me in a little box and label me. Call it me-ism if you want, but I want to have a word like that that we can use as shorthand for my position, because I'm not going for nuance. I'm going for simplicity. Again, I'm lazy.

The interesting thing about the monkey-sphere is it's supposed to apply to everyone. If I recall correctly, it's also believed to explain why people care so much about celebrities -- they act as a common point of the spheres of individuals, allow for an easier interaction. It also explains why we're more able to concern ourselves with atrocities in Eastern Europe or North Africa than we are with those in sub-Saharan Africa: the people in one set are less "points" further from our own sphere than the people in another set.

Yeah, but when I first read it on Cracked (or PWOT if it was that old), I remember the tone being, "See how pathetic this makes our species? We should have the capacity to care for everyone." Same thing as the Kitty Genovese story. But I'm like Aesop's dog who rattles his chain thinking it's a badge of honor. I'm proud of my self-interest.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Postby Princess Marzipan » Thu May 31, 2012 1:58 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:But I'm like Aesop's dog who rattles his chain thinking it's a badge of honor. I'm proud of my self-interest.
Hahaha! That is some CLASSIC Steroid right there!
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
Hawknc
Oompa Loompa of SCIENCE!
Posts: 6986
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:14 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Postby Hawknc » Thu May 31, 2012 2:02 pm UTC

Oh dear god we are not having another "Steroid derails the conversation by offending everyone with his political beliefs" thread again. Look at the topic. Look at your post. If your post does not relate to that topic, reconsider hitting "Submit" until it does.

Arrian
Posts: 464
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:15 am UTC
Location: Minnesota

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Postby Arrian » Thu May 31, 2012 2:11 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:You don't even have to reach for examples like that, we have one. In history.


A bunch of states tried to leave so they could keep slavery legal. That shit actually occurred. You'd seriously defend that?


We actually have a lot more than one in our history, and that are much more analogous to the current situation. In fact, we celebrate one every third Thursday of November. There are quite a few religious groups who left their place of origin in order to self govern because their religious beliefs were repugnant and immoral to the local norms: Quakers, Puritans, Mormons off the top of my head. You might say that significant portions of our nation were founded on such a principle. Saying political units such as states can't secede is completely different than saying groups of private citizens can't leave for somewhere they find more palatable.

What's the difference between a group of citizens leaving to form their own colony that doesn't grant any gay rights and a group of citizens leaving for an African country with strong anti-gay laws? The latter is most certainly legally acceptable but would probably result in a worse outcome for gay children. Is it immoral, should we prevent people from emigrating to countries we don't like as well?

(Sure, they can't found their anti-gay colony on American soil, but why not somewhere that accepts them?)

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Postby omgryebread » Thu May 31, 2012 2:36 pm UTC

Arrian wrote:What's the difference between a group of citizens leaving to form their own colony that doesn't grant any gay rights and a group of citizens leaving for an African country with strong anti-gay laws? The latter is most certainly legally acceptable but would probably result in a worse outcome for gay children. Is it immoral, should we prevent people from emigrating to countries we don't like as well?

(Sure, they can't found their anti-gay colony on American soil, but why not somewhere that accepts them?)
We can't prevent emigration at will without severe and unacceptable effects, nor can we invade oppressive African countries at will. (Sometimes we can, and should. Hi Libya.)

We can prevent secession. We should prevent secession, especially for reasons of oppressing people.


I dislike Thanksgiving, and I'll be the first to say I don't care much for the Puritans that founded some of the New England colonies.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

Arrian
Posts: 464
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:15 am UTC
Location: Minnesota

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Postby Arrian » Thu May 31, 2012 3:02 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:I dislike Thanksgiving, and I'll be the first to say I don't care much for the Puritans that founded some of the New England colonies.


It doesn't matter whether or not you like them or what they stand for, the question is whether they had a right to do so. Like you said, it would have unacceptable side effects if we were to prevent emigration, even for moral reasons.

I did misremember how the argument got started, I thought it was a group of Christian fundamentalists who wanted to "secede" by leaving and forming their own nation, but they actually want to take a state with them. That's a different story, like I said, it's settled that you can't take a political unit like a state and secede, you have to take yourself and "vote with your feet."

Jonesthe Spy wrote:On a more amusing note, as far as fences go there's a group called Christian Exodus that decided that the culture war was lost and the best solution was to have all the fanatics - oops, sorry, true Christians - move to South Carolina, become a majority of the population, and secede

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1895
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Postby natraj » Thu May 31, 2012 5:51 pm UTC

Arrian wrote:
omgryebread wrote:I dislike Thanksgiving, and I'll be the first to say I don't care much for the Puritans that founded some of the New England colonies.


It doesn't matter whether or not you like them or what they stand for, the question is whether they had a right to do so. Like you said, it would have unacceptable side effects if we were to prevent emigration, even for moral reasons.


nope, they didn't. there was a little problem with people already living over in the land that became new england who got stomped all over in their desire to carve out a land for themselves. of course, they had better weapons, so we don't care so much about those folks since the puritans won.

there will presumably also be people already living in south carolina or people unwillingly dragged there who would get stomped all over by founding a fundamentalist christian nation there.

hopefully we'll care more about those folks though, i mean plenty of them are white after all.
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he

User avatar
Metaphysician
Posts: 519
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 10:58 pm UTC
Location: WV, The Tenth Circle of Hell

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Postby Metaphysician » Thu May 31, 2012 6:09 pm UTC

Ormurinn wrote:
Metaphysician wrote:Their grounds for secession are specious.


King George thought the same about the thirteen colonies. All England wanted was for the colonies to pay the costs incurred by England defending them.

The colonists were still right to secede. It doesn't matter how specious you think the secessionists reasons are, it only matters what those in the area choosing to secede think.


The colonists seceded because their taxes were being increased, and other laws imposed, with no representation in Parliament, which was against the social contract of the Constitutional Monarchy.

How are these people being oppressed by civil rights being accorded to a group of people they have no association with? Their argument is specious (makes sense superficially in some capacity but is actually wrong at the core) because they assert that they are being oppressed by the laws of the land, when those particular laws are not oppressive by nature, but simply confer equal status upon other individuals.

There are reasons for seceding that would be valid, but these are not those reasons.
What should young people do with their lives today? Many things, obviously. But the most daring thing is to create stable communities in which the terrible disease of loneliness can be cured.
-Kurt Vonnegut

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Postby Heisenberg » Thu May 31, 2012 6:27 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:We can't prevent emigration at will without severe and unacceptable effects, nor can we invade oppressive African countries at will. (Sometimes we can, and should. Hi Libya.)

We can prevent secession. We should prevent secession, especially for reasons of oppressing people.

We can prevent emigration. We can invade oppressive African countries. We can attack anyone who tries to secede. They all involve the use of lethal force. Why do you think one is ok and the others aren't?
Arrian wrote:It doesn't matter whether or not you like them or what they stand for, the question is whether they had a right to do so.
Surely the Puritans had a right to board a ship to Virginia. Equally surely, they had no right to hijack that ship, on which they represented a minority, and sail it to the Massachusetts Bay area. It's a great example of how freedom-seeking individuals can infringe on the liberty of others.

mike-l
Posts: 2758
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:16 am UTC

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Postby mike-l » Thu May 31, 2012 6:41 pm UTC

Christians can't secede (which is why so many of the founders were anti-christian)

Romans 13:1-7
English Standard Version (ESV)
Submission to the Authorities

13 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.

User avatar
ShootTheChicken
Best. Cheerleader. Ever.
Posts: 433
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 5:11 am UTC
Location: America's Hat

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Postby ShootTheChicken » Thu May 31, 2012 7:08 pm UTC

mike-l wrote:Christians can't secede


Only if you assume that they follow the word of the bible even when it isn't convenient.

Which... they clearly don't.
SecondTalon wrote:the Hot Freshness of Wicked Classic.

iamspen
Posts: 485
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Postby iamspen » Thu May 31, 2012 7:18 pm UTC

ShootTheChicken wrote:Which... they clearly don't.


Only because bacon is delicious.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Postby Princess Marzipan » Thu May 31, 2012 7:21 pm UTC

And gays are just icky.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Postby omgryebread » Thu May 31, 2012 9:43 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
omgryebread wrote:We can't prevent emigration at will without severe and unacceptable effects, nor can we invade oppressive African countries at will. (Sometimes we can, and should. Hi Libya.)

We can prevent secession. We should prevent secession, especially for reasons of oppressing people.

We can prevent emigration. We can invade oppressive African countries. We can attack anyone who tries to secede. They all involve the use of lethal force. Why do you think one is ok and the others aren't?
Sorry, you're right, we're certainly capable of doing all those things. However, the suffering caused by doing the first two would far outweigh the suffering alleviated by doing so. Not so with preventing secession.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Postby Heisenberg » Fri Jun 01, 2012 2:13 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:We can prevent emigration. We can invade oppressive African countries. We can attack anyone who tries to secede. They all involve the use of lethal force. Why do you think one is ok and the others aren't?
Sorry, you're right, we're certainly capable of doing all those things. However, the suffering caused by doing the first two would far outweigh the suffering alleviated by doing so. Not so with preventing secession.
Really? A civil war creates less suffering than the persecution of a minority? I'd say the Greatest Happiness, or in this case, Least Suffering principle would argue against the use of force to fight secession.

I think we're better off arguing from a rights perspective, in saying that everyone, even minorities, have rights which must be protected, at great cost. That gets us off the hook for emigration, because that could be considered an equally important right. However, that does leave us on the hook for helping out the African gays, since if the rights of American gays are worth fighting for, the rights of African gays should be too, right?

User avatar
ShootTheChicken
Best. Cheerleader. Ever.
Posts: 433
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 5:11 am UTC
Location: America's Hat

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Postby ShootTheChicken » Fri Jun 01, 2012 3:55 pm UTC

Answer: Yes. Is anyone saying otherwise?
SecondTalon wrote:the Hot Freshness of Wicked Classic.

iamspen
Posts: 485
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: Homophobic bigotry gets standing ovation

Postby iamspen » Fri Jun 01, 2012 4:00 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:I think we're better off arguing from a rights perspective, in saying that everyone, even minorities, have rights which must be protected, at great cost. That gets us off the hook for emigration, because that could be considered an equally important right. However, that does leave us on the hook for helping out the African gays, since if the rights of American gays are worth fighting for, the rights of African gays should be too, right?


The difference being, us average American Joes (and Janes) are in the position of feasably being able to fight for our civil rights. It would take a significant amount of effort and an even more significant amount of dollars to do the same for those outside our country. That doesn't mean the rights of foreign individuals are any more or less important, but it does mean that it's almost impossible for the average American, even when brought together in large groups, to have more than token influence on the laws of another country. And this is true on a governmental level, as well.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests