Subject: What the hell, America.
Author:
Posted on: 2016-11-09 14:14:00 UTC
I just... I feel kind of numb right now, actually.
Hasn't really sunk in yet.
England, I hope you've got room for one more, because I'm getting out of here as soon as I can.
If you have not already, through early voting or otherwise...
GO VOTE
GO
OUT
AND
VOTE.
I can not stress this enough. Today is not just about the White House's looming vacancy and who will pick the Oval Office drapes. It is about local state congress. It is about balot measures. About justices. Sherifs. Even more. So, even if you think both canidates are a little tough to swallow, or your state is a hard red/blue and there's no point, please still vote. This is your patriotic duty.
Now, go out there, and make us proud. 
So as we all know from Florida way back in 2000, one of the best ways to drag out an election is to call for recounts. There have been various rumours that Clinton might do that, and several purported reasons why (one being a mismatch between results from paper and electronic votes, when Russian hacking has already been part of the electoral season), but so far she hasn't.
But now Jill Stein has.
Apparently you don't have to be in with a shot of winning to request a recount - you just have to be on the ballot. And to pay for it, which, uh, she's up to $2.5 million now. That's far more than the amount needed to file for a recount in Wisconsin (which has to be done by tomorrow), and should cover the actual fees for said recount.
So, yeah. I don't even know if you should donate to this at this point; I have absolutely no clue what's going on any more.
Wheeeeeeeeee, 2016!
hS
And everyone who knows me well should know my opinion on Jill Stein. (Namely, that she's doing her level best to be the left-wing equivalent of the Tea Party.)
And, yet... I can respect her, just a tiny bit, for doing this. Because, even after the lies she's spread about people like me, it seems she's fighting against Trump in a way she's uniquely positioned for.
Because she never had a chance of winning in the first place. It's not the loser being petty, like it'd be seen if Clinton did it. "Pettiness" is, of course, not even within a LIGHT YEAR of how terrible Trump is, but the point is that Stein doing this is better for Clinton than Clinton doing this. It gets the recount done and lets Clinton save face.
It's a well-executed bit of politics, at the very least.
... That La Stein (who, like so many scientifically-illiterate elderly white women, thinks vaccines cause autism and homeopathy is a solution to all one's problems) originally had the goal set as $2mn. Only to move the goalposts at three o'clock in the morning. Slightly shady.
Still, I'll take "slightly shady" over "Christ on a pedalo, how has Der Cheetofuhrer not been impeached yet?" any day of the week. =]
Whether she files in Wisconsin, that is.
The reasoning currently on the page - that $2.2 million is needed purely in filing fees, $2.5 million should cover everything for Wisconsin, and $6-7 million ought to do everything - seems valid to me. Any idea what it originally said? Because either of those first two would make an initial goal of $2.5 million make sense.
hS
We are the citizens of the dystopia. Our lives are worth less than others' right to shoot. Our health is a commodity, to be bought and sold. We work, earn, and live at the pleasure of the Corporations. If we lose their favour, we die - there is no escape.
(Freedom is slavery.)
Our votes mean nothing. Town and country are at war, and those who rule are happy to keep it that way. They have shaped the very landscape to give us no choice in who represents us; even the highest ruler of all is chosen by a bare handful of us, while others merely tread their pre-chosen paths.
(Resistence is futile.)
They say those who seek peace should prepare for war; we, who preach equality, prepare ourselves by rejecting it. Across swathes of our country, outlawed hate is shouted from the rooftops and marches through the street, while our leaders laugh along. The police do nothing to stop them - they are the police.
(Silence is golden.)
Welcome to the Dystopia. We call it the land of the free.
(Ignorance is bliss.)
~hS
I don't remember this line; which book is it from? Is it the Germania?
Which is often bundled with the Germania, apparently. Here. It's the end of paragraph 30 (translated 'solitude' instead of 'desert' in this version).
It's part of a speech by the British (Scottish, indeed) chieftain Calgacus to his men, denouncing the Romans and rallying them to battle against the Roman invasion.
"These plunderers of the world, after exhausting the land by their devastations, are rifling the ocean: stimulated by avarice, if their enemy be rich; by ambition, if poor; unsatiated by the East and by the West: the only people who behold wealth and indigence with equal avidity. To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace."
So yeah, Britain stands against the capitalist Dystopia, hoping that Calgacus was right when he said: "Terror and dread alone are the weak bonds of attachment; which once broken, they who cease to fear will begin to hate."
I'm not sure if Scapegrace realised quite how apt a speech about how the Dystopia's rule of fear will prove its own undoing was, but I wouldn't put it past her. ^_^
hS
I did read De vita Agricolae, but the (Hebrew) translation I read refers to that word as "desolation".
Of course, Calgacus kinda lost, didn't he? The Roman Empire fell just short of three hundred years after he lost Mons Graupius.
The thing about the Roman Empire is that virtually everyone lost to them. They were really, really good at what they did. But that doesn't mean people weren't right to try.
Of course, we in Britain have a pretty weird view of our various conquerors: they tend to turn into the heroes of the next round of conquests. We all cheer on Boudicca when she burns London, but add another 300-400 years and:
When Rome fell, like a writhen oak
That age had sapped and cankered at the root
Resisting from her topmost bough there broke
The miracle of one unwithering shoot.
Romano-British Arthur becomes the hero against the Saxons. And then the Saxons become the heroes against the Vikings and the Normans. Even the Norman kings end up as heroes against Cromwell and his Parliamentarians (debatably). We're an odd country. Comes of being an island - whoever occupies a chunk of Great Britain for more than a hundred years becomes our people, and British, whoever they started out as.
Which is why the current far-right craze for Britishness makes about as much sense as... as King Arthur in full plate armour. IE, none.
~
Regarding the translation: it varies. Remember 'desert' means 'deserted', in the final analysis. 'Wasteland' is another popular variant. But Terry Pratchett used 'desert', so that's self-evidently the best. ^_~
hS
Quoting (and translating from Hebrew) what my friend said, "the word is solitudo which can mean both 'desolation' and 'desert' (in the 'there aren't any people there' sense). The original meaning is 'a lack of people or things around'."
To go bother my friend who's in Classical Studies and ask him whether he had the chance to read Agricola in the original language and whether he has any interesting insights into this particular passage.
On one hand, he seems like a great candidate. On the other hand, Bender and HK-47 are already set to run. Now the robot vote will be split! Curse you, First Past the Post!
In the name of an eternal supply of your alcoholice beverage called bear and a spot as Vice President, Bender accepted to join me to destroy all the meatbags of this country.
Veiled Threat: I recommend that Sir Killalot join our team, or it could become a target in the crossfire between us and the meatbags.
Statement: Once we acquire this office, all the meatbags of this ...ry will learn fear...
After the election, my girlfriend's (adoptive, white) parents tried to reassure her by saying that at least she wasn't in any personal danger, since Trump's supporters weren't attacking Asian-Americans. Claims of attacks on Asian-Americans are already starting to come in.
--Key is scared
Good God.
I have so many Filipino (the not white kind) relatives, there.
Hell, I know people who also have heaps of Filipino (the not white kind) relatives in America.
What an absolute disaster. Someone's already mentioned it, but this really does show how indefensible this election was - these people are the winners.
They're the victors.
They've fought their battle. They've won. They come home to a cup of tea, sat back, relaxed, whipped the slave-boy, job well done.
"When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out."
— Martin Niemöller
Picked up from a friend on Facebook:
https://twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656
Just in case anyone thought we were afraid for nothing. We're not. Electing Trump for president of the United States implicitly sanctions stuff like this, or has at least made these people feel emboldened to act hatefully toward others. Know that this is real. People are being hurt by this.
Look out for your friends and neighbors, people. If you see things like this, say something. Do something. Be there.
(And in case it needs saying, never ever resort to violence. That does not help.)
~Neshomeh
No one- not one member of his administration- has, to my knowledge, stepped forward to protest against his supporters actions.
No one has said this isn't what they want, no one has advocated for peace. Trump has yet to distance himself from the violent outbreaks in any way.
And some people think this isn't what he wants?
Trump tells his supporters harassing minorities to "stop it."
Well, it ain't much, but it's more than we had yesterday.
Incidentally, I've taken up the safety pin, which is mentioned in reference to the photo at the bottom of the article. I know some people criticize the idea as too easy for assholes to copy just to confuse matters, or as an excuse for white people to congratulate each other on their goodness, rest on their laurels, and not take any real action... but to those people, I say, you don't know me or what I'm willing to do. For me, the safety pin is to hold me accountable to my ideals as much as it is to let others know I'm a safe person and will do whatever I can to help someone in distress. It is of course your choice whether you think it's a good idea for you or not; I won't criticize your choice either way.
~Neshomeh
Apparently his campaign did at least finally denounce the support of the KKK's newsletter as of the beginning of the month.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-donald-trump-denounces-support-from-kkk-1478057956-htmlstory.html
So that's something, I guess.
~Neshomeh
Day one: Brother comes home saying kids were storming through the hallways, chanting "TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP!" No fewer than five different fights broke out over the election.
Day two: Hispanic students harassed in the cafeteria to chants of "Build the wall! Build the wall!"
Day three: Someone put sticky notes on a wall of lockers to spell out the N-word. He also got asked about his "dyke sister". Good to know that's how my old bandmates remember me.
You can damn well be sure I'm going.
There's a petition right now that's an attempt to sway the electoral college.
I would like to know, what were the most important issues to you?
...a list of issues that are important in my eyes (in no particular order):
-Stopping climate change
-Scientific research and funding
-Protecting human rights at home and abroad
-Immigration and helping refugees escape from warzones
-Gun control
-Collaboration with military and political allies
-Facepalming at the ham-fisted attempts of the Bloc Québecois at remaining relevant
The most important issues to me included, but were not limited to, some or all of the following (in no particular order):
Mental Health Care
Expansion of the Affordable Care Act
LGBTQA+ Rights
Women's Rights
Gun Control
Religious Freedom
Basic Human Decency
-Phobos, really considering becoming a politician at this point.
I have a particular vested interest in LGBT+ rights, especially once Pence was announced as Trump's running mate. Now that he's VP elect... Well, it looks like progress is going to end up getting set back quite a bit unless we fight it.
-Ix, still hoping for a different outcome in December
/a little typo-based levity in a dark time
~Neshomeh, who also cares about all those things.
Is it because he recognized the reference and approves? Possibly, but I think this answer is too easy. Perhaps I am meant to think this.
Could it be that Jebboy is an agent of the Lizard People from the center of the Earth? More investigation is needed.
-Phobos "The Question" Phobosson
Climate change. Sensible taxation. Forgiveness on student debt. And, most importantly for me, the preservation and upholding of the First Amendment.
That last issue, truly, is why I loath Trump so much. I am an enthusiastic supporter of the First Amendment. I am to the First what an NRA member is to the Second. It's a shame that most First Amendment groups are full of bigots that just want to stop being criticized. To me, the ability for a populace to discuss, debate, and read about absolutely anything they so wish without fear of legal persecution is the cornerstone of any true civilized country. The freedom to practice any religion one wants (as long as it's not a murder cult or something) without fear of persecution by the government is quite literally a major reason this country came to be. The ability of the press to publish what they wish without being silenced is, perhaps beyond anything else, a tremendous tool against tyranny.
And if Donald Trump has his way? You can kiss the First Amendment goodbye.
Forget his ban on Muslims, though believe me I wont, he has spoken at multiple points how he wants the ability to revoke the freedom of the press, because they joke about him, or expose him for just how bad a businessman he truly is. He revels in suing people who disagree. Heck, he even stated how he wants to regulate the internet! To me, despite what most "First Amendment Supporters" say, Donald Trump is the greatest treat to the constitution that as shown themselves in a long, long time.
Also, side note? If anyone who is "Pro First Amendment" ever complains about criticism from the "PC crowd", they are not pro First Amendment. They want to say bigoted things without criticism. I believe everyone has a right to their opinion, and the right to express it. Even the KKK and Westboro. But you know who else has the right to their opinions and ability to express them? Those who think your opinions are wrong. If you are anti-debate and discussion, you are anti-First Amendment. Sorry. Had to get that off my chest.
I'm not very eloquent about policy, but basically, anyone who ignores that whole "liberty and justice for all" thing they make us pledge allegiance to every day of our young lives is not fit to lead this country.
I'm not deaf to the complaints that Clinton MAY have done some questionable things, but... she was never proven to have actually done them, or to have any actual malice aforethought. So... what's left to dislike? (Well, for me, she's not as progressive as Bernie Sanders, who I really wanted. But she's the next-best thing as far as my ideals are concerned.)
Trump, on the other hand, very openly threatens the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for, let's see, brown Americans, black Americans, poor Americans, handicapped/mentally ill Americans, women Americans, LGBT+ Americans, Muslim Americans, and everyone who lives on this planet and would like their descendants to be able to do so without frying due to either global climate change or simply being nuked for the foreseeable future. Just to name a few.
I AM NOT OKAY WITH THAT.
Plus, I never heard any description of his policies that made logical sense to me. This is an actual, serious problem, which I hope someone else can explain better than I could.
~Neshomeh
The bad news is, Trump won. The good news is, I have a day off school to mourn.
Yes, the news is depressing. But in two years, we have a chance to cut this off at the knees. Figuratively speaking.
I keep trying to think through this. Apparently, both sides of this divide are terrified of the other. I know why I'm terrified of Republican platforms - this election especially.* But… why are they afraid of us? I don't want to take their freedoms away. Not to go to church. Not to proselytize. Not even, believe it or not, to own guns. I'd like to see fewer domestic terrorist attacks, so fewer high-magazine guns. Maybe more checks against domestic abusers and people with violence problems buying them. But, as someone who's lived a long time in a rural area, I fully understand the necessity of some gun ownership. And that is honestly the norm - "ban all guns" is a radical and not well supported position. I can't think of any freedom of republicans that I don't support. Not one. I just want more people to have a voice.
Seriously. I know there are some republicans on here. Help me out, guys. Why are you afraid of Democratic positions?
* Pence literally believes in conversion therapy. Shock therapy at that. Trump wanted to deport all Muslims. And Mexicans. And those of Mexican descent. More wars are scary - partly because of the American lives, partly because of the civilian lives lost on the other side. They're likely to cut funding for education; I fear both the broad costs to society and for my personal future, since I am an educator. They are likely to promote policies that lead to unplanned pregnancies, and cut funding for even early abortions.
Before I go any further, please allow me to correct your question. You ask: “Why are you afraid of Democratic positions?”
I, for one, do not think that we are afraid of Democratic positions, per se, as much as that we vehemently disagree.
The things that I, for one, am afraid of, however are
1) Democratic positions being touted by media and academia as the only reasonable opinion, and
2) conservative successes at the ballot box being derailed by left-leaning lawyers in black robes.
Even though I am no hillbilly (obviously), that Cracked article that Neshomeh mentions is more on-the-nose than one might expect. Give it a read.
That said, allow me to reply to the topics you brought up.
I will try to express them as succinctly as possible so as not to go on for hours and give us both a headache. {= )
On Christian bakeries, etc.
I would like to attempt to disagree with you using a correct premise, so please correct me if I'm wrong:
I am under the impression that these businesses wish to refuse service to gay couples because they wish to avoid condoning sin. Is that right?
If so, then is it not their mission to avoid condoning all sin? Should they not strive to avoid selling to ex-cons, to adulterers, to rapists, to people who take the Lord's name in vain, etc.? Are they doing thorough background checks to be sure they aren't giving aid and comfort to anyone who violates the will of God?
I'm guessing no. So, why not? What is the difference between selling a cake to someone who just got out of prison for, say, vehicular manslaughter, and selling a cake to a gay couple? How about a guy who is abusing his would-be bride and a pair of lesbians? How come some sinners get service with smile and some don't? What's the difference here?
I submit to you that there is none. It's all accounted sin, isn't it, and if your business is selling cakes, or flowers, or whatever, it's all none of your business.
... Okay, I suppose if the name of your business is "Christian Weddings for Straight Christian Couples," you're exempt from the above logic. Have fun catering to your niche market; just don't be surprised if it doesn't pay enough to keep the doors open.
On "basic, obvious truths that have gone unquestioned for thousands of years"
There's a logical fallacy named argumentum ad antiquitam, which is the fallacy of assuming that something is good or right purely because it is old. Simply because a thing has been accepted as true for a long time does not, in and of itself, mean that it IS true. People thought the world was flat for a long time. People thought the Earth was the center of the universe for a long time. People thought the Sun went around the Earth for a long time. People thought some truly terrifying things could cure disease for a long time. I could go on and on.
The point is, "we've always believed this, therefore it must be true" is a fallacious argument. You'll have to do better.
(And yes, the opposite argument argumentum ad novitam, that something is good or right simply because it is new, is equally fallacious, just so that's out there.)
On climate change
I believe my thoughts on why denying climate change is ridiculous can be best expressed by this comic:
Seriously, so what if it's not as bad as 99% of reputable scientists say it is? Can't we make the world a better place anyway?
Also, I can't let this go without mentioning that I've seen a difference in weather patterns with my own eyes over my 31 years of life, which is an incredibly short period of time on a planetary scale. Winter comes later, it's not as cold, and when storms do hit, they're worse. Summers are hot and awful. In between, we're practically getting monsoon rains. This sort of thing is exactly what science has predicted, and consistently accurate predictions are exactly how a scientific hypothesis gets upgraded to a proven theory. (Note correct terminology; please do not take the "it's just a theory" tack with me, I might scream.)
~Neshomeh
and I should have headed it off at the pass. So instead of saying the same thing to every responder (I've seen one, maybe two, and there may be more; I haven't read all the reactions yet), I'll say it loud and clear here:
I am not equating homosexuality and racism! I am not equating gays and the KKK!
I was using that extreme example to make a question crystal clear: Does a business owner ever have a right to deny offering a personalized service to a potential patron in order to avoid appearing to give his imprimatur to an idea with which said business owner might disagree?
So to you who are accusing me of making a false equivalence that I am by no means making, have at you.
(And Scapegrace, if I have misconstrued your reply by lumping you in with these responses, I apologize.)
This is an extreme example:
"Instead of high income taxes, let's think about universal wealth redistribution."
It works like this: 'here's an extreme thing we can all agree not to like (except Scapegrace and hS and Kaitlyn WHATEVS); the thing we're actually discussing is like it, but less so; therefore you can see why I don't like it.'
You didn't do that. I accept that you were trying to do that, but you didn't. You did something more like this:
"Instead of high-speed car racing, let's talk about stabbing people in the eyeballs."
Stabbing people in the eyeballs is not an extreme case of the same thing as racing. It's completely different - one is a dangerous activity people enjoy despite the risks, the other is grievous bodily harm.
Being gay - getting married as a gay person - doesn't hurt anybody. Even if you believe it's a vile sin, it only 'hurts' the gay people involved. Being in the KKK is not an 'extreme' equivalent - it's being part of a group that actively (per Data Junkie) promotes crime and (per history) lynching black people.
One of these things hurts other people. One does not. They are not comparable even in 'extreme examples'.
Here are some things that are actually partly analogous to 'not making wedding cakes for gays':
"I don't want to make a cake for that person with Down Syndrome (because they act weird and their face creeps me out."
"I don't want to make a cake for that blond/e couple (because blonde hair reminds me of Nazis)."
"I'm a traditionalist Mormon, and I don't want to make a cake for that black person (because dark skin is the mark of Cain)."
"I'm a Baptist, and I don't want to make a cake for that Mormon (because they say they're Christian but they're nooooooot)."
"I don't want to make a cake for that Christian-Hindu couple (because 2 Corinthians 6:14 and Deuteronomy 7:3 command that Christians shouldn't marry people of other faiths)."
"I don't want to make a cake for this guy to give to his girlfriend (because fornication is a sin)."
"I don't want to make a cake for that gay person (because my religion says it's sinful)."
None of these customers are hurting anyone. All of them are acting in accordance with their own culture and upbringing. Four of them have absolutely no choice in being what they are. You have no moral, ethical, or in most cases legal, right to refuse them because you don't like them.
I apologize that I did not make it clearer from the beginning that I was not equating being gay and being racist.
I did not mean to offend anyone with my example, so to everyone I offended: I'm sorry.
(Let's pretend I hit that "post reply" button a sentence too soon back there.)
These issues are ethical as well as legal, and we can debate them until we're blue in the face and go nowhere.
I think we're confusing two issues. The rights of customers not to be discriminated against, and the rights of free association - basically, to what extent can people say "I don't want to be associated with this practice"? On the face of it, I would say - certainly if, say, someone walks into a bakery with a double lightning bolt on their forehead… a baker might understandably not want to serve them, but would anyway. If a customer walks into a bakery with a swastika on their forehead and says "I need a cake for my organization's annual meeting," that's closer to the equivalent situation of a wedding.
The difference, of course, is that the KKK member (or White Brotherhood, or White Nationalist, or Son of Odin, or whatever) is choosing to engage in bigotry, while the gay persons did not choose to be gay. But in the latter situation, both are choosing to purchase a good or service to celebrate the Thing Baker Doesn't Agree With. And you know what, the law is still on the side of not discriminating based on your beliefs. For both.
For the record, if you read the history of anti-miscegenation laws and discourse, religion played a massive role. People honestly did cite Christianity as the reason why interracial marriage should be banned. So you really should stop making that association. People have cited their Christian beliefs to stop the abolition of slavery, interracial marriage, women's suffrage, and most recently, gay marriage. It's not a novel debate.
As to the rest… well, I'll come up with it later. But really, I do think "We'll be forced to stop teaching our kids that your relationship is hateful to God" isn't even founded. After all, Obama never even considered, not once, trying to outlaw the Westboro Baptist Church. Rahm Emanuel was castigated by the liberal sides of the press for trying to keep Chil Fil A out of Chicago. Yes, liberals would like to see LGBTQ kids not get bullied in school, and would also come down on the side of teachers not telling them they're going to hell. But… dude, no one is going to argue about what you can or can't legally say in your home, in public, or wherever. You'll just have to deal with the consequences of more and more people disagreeing with you. Which is the way it's always been. Electing republicans will not make the social pressure go away. That is the nature of a free society, dude. People express their opinions.
Again… I have a hard time squaring that as an equal concern with the politicians on the right arguing to jail, brainwash, or kill queers like me.
Things heated up real quick, didn't it? Right then. Let's talk about your response to me first.
Thank you. I was admittedly misunderstanding your stance on the climate change issue. And, I am also glad to see that you are starting to read the scientific journals, or at very least, reputable summaries. I must admit to remaining rather ignorant on the specific details myself, so to attack somebody for not reading the primary sources would be hypocritical at best.
That being said. In this, specific instance, there really is no other side. The "other side" are scientists paid directly by energy companies to be contradictory to the accepted science to save their business. I hate using that reasoning. It dismisses potential evidence that could help see things from a new light, but the fact remains, that's just the case. I am no scientist. Heck, many of the fine details fly over my head due to current lack of understanding, so I'll defer to hS and others with greater scientific background.
Now. As for the other arguments. Starting with refusal of service and the nature of sin.
Oh boy.
You know, sometimes my being so very pro First bites me. Because, I see where you are coming from. Now, one has to make a few assumptions as to the nature of sexual deviancy in relation to same sex relationships. Namely, that it is a lifestyle choice and not genetically driven (of which there is substantial evidence for genetics, but for now, let us continue the assumption) and thus, not fully discriminatory like denying somebody for their race would be. If one makes that assumption, then... I actually kinda have to agree. Now, again, I think it's unwise from a business standpoint to do so, rather offensive to those being denied service, and morally dubious, but at the end of the day, as far as I understand, service can be seen as a form of speech. And, as such... I kinda have to defend that right to freedom of speech and religious practice. If I want the right to tell White Pride nationalists to piss off, I have to allow the right for others to deny service based on other lifestyle choices I do support. That's the dual nature of Free Speech.
However, again, we are working off of assumptions. Namely, that gays have a choice in their feelings. Surely you would not argue for a business being able to deny service to a black man, or Chinese woman, or any other ethnicity, would you? Because they have no say in what their genetics are. To deny service because of that would be horrifically wrong. If you agree, then you must concede that gays have the same right to protection from bigotry. Because again, there is rather substantial scientific evidence for homosexually, and other sexual deviancy, to be genetically determined, not socially. Thus, in my personal view, running outside the realm of Freedom of Speech, and into the same category as racism.
But, again, as the White Pride nationalist has the right to express their opinions, so to does the flat earth truther and the homophobic. They have that right to express those opinions without legal attack. That said, so too do the people who disagree have the right to tell those people that they are wrong.
I'll leave climate change alone, since I've already vented my spleen over it and others are carrying that topic just fine without me.
So, sin.
I get the Christian position that sin is sin, period. I get that a lot of Christians feel that celebrating a gay wedding would be as wrong as celebrating murder.
But the thing is, not all sin is equal. You don't try to outlaw exclaiming "Jesus Christ!" in a heated moment; you don't work to legally force people to stay in harmful marriages, or ostracize people who have affairs; you don't even try to refuse service to the many, many people who commit other kinds of sex-related sin, like having oral sex out of marriage, for instance.
Even if someone were to walk into your flower shop wearing no wedding ring and a big button that says "I am a cunning linguist!" with a blatantly suggestive mouth on it, you'd still be obligated to sell that person flowers, even if you're sure they're going to be given to that person's significant other as a prelude to getting freaky, because what they get up to in private is none of your bloody business, and it's not up to you to judge them. That's God's job. Pray for them if you want to; ask if they're interested in talking about Jesus if you want to; but if they say no, then you back the hell off. If we sexual deviants all end up getting destroyed in the Apocalypse, that choice is our right as beings with free will.
Christians do not treat all sin the same. The kind of sin that two (or more!) people get up to consensually, that doesn't actually harm any other person, is not the same as murder, or rape, or theft, or anything else that is (a) nonconsensual, and (b) destructive to health and property. Trying to convince others that it is is both offensive and hypocritical. Please quit it.
Oh, and yes, if the KKK guy wanted the cake guy to make a cake that said something along the lines of "Hooray for 100 years of brutally tormenting black people!", he could in fact refuse that, 'cause it would be against the law. Hate speech is not protected under the First Amendment, and I hope to whatever power there may be that we never allow that to change.
Now, on the book. I haven't read it either, so I guess we're even. It doesn't really matter, because the thing is, the racist has every right to believe what he believes and even to pass it on to his children, too, even as the public school system lauds the end of slavery and the heroism of people like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. What he doesn't have is the right to spout off about how dirty and/or sick and/or evil black people are in public, to threaten people who disagree with eternal fire and torment, or to interfere with other people's freedom to marry interracially if they want to. A racist baker would be just as obligated to sell that cake to an interracial couple as a Christian baker is to sell to a gay couple. He also does not have the right to be free from the judgement of others for his beliefs—nobody does. He may believe his racism is perfectly justified, but that doesn't make his position respectable or correct, and we don't have to put up with it in public—including public schools.
In public, under the law, everyone is equal (or should be). But that has never stopped anyone from being free to believe what they choose and live according to those beliefs in their private lives, and it never will.
Unless Trump and Pence decide to actually kick out all the Muslims, put women in jail for making difficult decisions about their own bodies, and force gay kids into electroshock conversion camps, I guess. 'Cuz, y'know, small government, right? {= |
~Neshomeh is admittedly arguing more from a place of passion than of logic, but hopes her logic is clear and present, too.
In practice… hate speech is almost never prosecuted. KKK parades tend to go unarrested and unfined, as do people talking in public about how other races are sick/dirty/evil. The baker who refused the KKK member would probably be in more hot water for it than the jerk requesting the cake, regardless of all. We do love our first amendment in this country (so long as we're on the side of those exercising it, and it doesn't involve the flag or the pledge or the anthem or a non-anthem patriotic song or celebrities doing it or people blocking traffic or in any way inconveniencing others).
True, it is hard to produce evidence to prove "somebody said a thing." It would almost necessarily have to get into establishing character, which is a pretty murky business. EAIUO could probably elaborate. Maybe if the baker got the request in writing first...
But, that's veering off into a purely hypothetical situation that has less and less to do with the discussion at hand, so never mind. {= )
~Neshomeh
First as to your immediate point about saying a thing, that's hearsay, and while hard to prove is provable. But as to the Hate Speech, that's not exactly correct.
Hate speech was at one point prohibitable, back in the 20's. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., wrote explaining that it along with several other types of speech could be banned or otherwise restricted. Then the 1960s came and between Cohen v. California and Brandenburg v. Ohio, "Hate Speech" gained some modicum of protection. Brandenburg is actually uniquely on point here. It arose as a result of a Klan rally, Ohio tried to prosecute the Klan members, but the Supreme Court held, that even the Klan's speech was protected provided there was no active incitement. In other words, so long as the Speech does not advocate imminent lawlessness, (Clear and Present Danger) then generally you cannot restrict the speech as to content. Time, manner, and place, are different separate issues.
Sigh. I begin to understand why my lawyer friend drinks so much.
Well, we still don't have to stand for it. If they're allowed their speech, we're allowed ours, and we'll just have to be louder and more persistent.
~Neshomeh
This is probably the most offensive thing I have seen said about gay people since Jacer was here. Desdendelle's comments can be attributed to ignorance, but I assume you are American and therefore should know better. Especially since the KKK targets gay people too. You are literally comparing the oppressed to their oppressors and honestly the only reason I sound so calm about it is because there's a word filter on the board.
(I'm not even going to touch the way you present gayness as in any way comparable to thinking lynching black people is awesome. Just, not with a barge pole.)
1/ Richard Lindzen. According to Wikipedia's quoting of the New York Times, "'He agrees that the level of [carbon dioxide] is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate.' He also believes that decreasing tropical cirrus clouds in a warmer world will allow more longwave radiation to escape the atmosphere, counteracting the warming." So his stance is that people are causing climate change and that unverified factors will counteract this.
Glancing over the abstracts of his papers (references 9 and 51 on his Wikipedia article), his data seems very lacking: the first paper claims his proposed negative feedback has not been replicated by later testing, while the second (link) says his data is not from the same radiation he wants to talk about. So no, I don't particularly trust Richard Lindzen Against The World, now that I've read what he actually wrote.
2/ No-one is claiming we're going to turn Planet Earth into Venus 2.0; that's pure hyperbole on your part. What the entire scientific system is telling you is that Earth's ecosystems are fragile. Twelve thousand years ago, the Sahara Desert was a fertile landscape; natural climate change turned it into a band of yellow acros the entirety of North Africa.
And the Earth is fine with that. It doesn't care if the Sahara's dry or if there's rainforests in Antarctica. The planet - and life on it - will survive, and flourish.
But if we destroy the ecosystem around us, if we become the Sixth Mass Extinction, then that is (to slip into Christian idiom) a vile sin indeed, a violation of one of the very first commands ever given to humanity: to rule over the Earth, not to destroy it. Worse - we're part of the ecosystem we're endangering. Our food animals, our food plants, are part of it. If we push through this incredible shift in the climate, we stand a very good chance of wiping our civilisation, and quite possibly our species, out for good.
In the first Science of Discworld book (from memory), there is a perfect quote which sums up this position: "We can't destroy the planet. We might just be able to save ourselves."
3/ But let's assume we don't feel the least bit of guilt about genociding entire branches off the tree of life, and that we all decide locusts are the best meat or whatever. In four pictures, here's why allowing the planet to warm - regardless of whether it's our fault - is still catastrophic.
1 & 2: Arctic sea ice minimum in 1979 and 2015. The graph plots said minimum. Note that since sea ice floats, this is not causing an increase in sea level.
3: Antarctica, noted for being covered in 6.4 million cubic miles of ice. Note that, as yet, this has not started receding in the same way (I blame the heat-sink effect of it being on land), but that it exists on the same planet as the North Pole.
4: Maps of North America and Europe if all that ice melted and precipitated a ~58 meter sea level rise. I've helpfully marked my house on the Europe one (it's underwater).
This is an extreme - or rather, it's an endpoint. As I said in point 2, it's happened before - during the Cretaceous, when most of Europe was an island chain, and North America had an ocean running through the middle of it. But even a fraction of that sea level rise - when, not if, Antarctica gets in on the mass melting act - will be an unimaginable disaster for places like, oh, the cities that America has built all along its coasts?
4/ Copernicus: actually, it used to be the enforced religious opinion that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Copernicus was a priest who struggled with that fact his whole life, and only published on his death bed because of it. Galileo wrote essays which convinced most scientists, and led to him being tried by the Inquisition, banned from writing or teaching his theory, and being placed under house arrest. So no, Geocentricism wasn't the majority opinion - it was a religious doctrine which scientists had not yet researched. Do you want to try and claim that climate change hasn't been looked into...? Thought not. ;)
(If you're interested in Copernicus and Galileo, by the way, I cannot recommend Dava Sobel's books A More Perfect Heaven and Galileo's Daughter highly enough. She makes it clear - particularly in the latter, which is built around letters from his Catholic nun daughter - that both men were deeply religious, and didn't have the slightest intent of breaking with the Church - they just wanted to discover the truth about the universe around them.)
hS
Because I guess I have a bit more spleen to vent, since I can't stop thinking about this clip from Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, featuring Bill Nye the Science Guy. It's just too apropos and also funny. A bit NSFW due to language, though. It's HBO, after all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg
~Neshomeh
... since I'm no scientist, but I will argue ethics with you:
Mr Valastro should not discriminate against a Klansman. In a proper democratic country, regular citizens do not take the law into their own hands; if said Klansman is a criminal he should be taken care of by the authorities, and in the meanwhile should be able to buy a cake like everybody else. (The case where the authorities don't address the Klansman's crimes is a different kettle of fish.)
In general: there's no such thing as a right to not be associated with somebody, and there is a right to not be discriminated against, especially when it comes to things you don't choose like sexual orientation (if you think you can choose sexual orientation: do you honestly think you could turn bisexual if you'd want to?).
A religion (any religion) is like a dick: it's cool that you have one, but you shouldn't be waving it around in the street and you definitely shouldn't be shoving it down people's throats without their permission, especially children.
Des, uh, the KKK is a hate group, officially classified as a domestic terrorist organisation. It's... a bit different refusing service to someone who's openly a member of it.
Most of the google search results for "KKK domestic terrorist organisation" are things that say "why isn't the KKK designated as a domestic terrorist organisation", so I conclude that no, it's not officially classified as one. It's a hate group yes, but hate isn't illegal. You cannot discriminate against someone because of what's basically their feelings — you can only prosecute hate groups when they break the law. Until a Klansman breaks the law, he's a citizen like you and should be afforded the same rights not to be discriminated against or denied service. There's little difference between denying a Klansman service and denying a "kill all men" feminist service.
How is saying "we don't welcome people who belong to white supremacist organizations here" a bad thing?
The petition response has a bit that says,
"Indeed, although simply believing in white supremacy or belonging to a white supremacist group—while abhorrent—is not a crime, the federal government has successfully charged white supremacists over the years using many federal statutes, including those prohibiting civil rights violations and solicitation to commit crimes of violence." (Emphasis mine.)
The FBI link states,
"The Bureau has been investigating the criminal activities of white supremacy extremists like Ku Klux Klan members since as early as 1918." (Again, emphasis mine.)
So basically being a member of the KKK is perfectly legal if morally repugnant, according to the US Federal government. The government of a free, democratic state has no business being a) Thought Police or b) Morality Police. Its business is prosecuting lawbreakers, which is what both quotes say the government has been doing.
To answer your other question: as EAUO noted, it's illegal for a business to decide not to serve a costumer. If you're a private person, sure, you can say that KKK isn't welcome in your house or similar things, but you're forbidden from doing that as a business.
I don't particularly like the KKK (it's hard to like people who hate me because I belong to a certain ethnoreligious group), but KKK membership does not suddenly make its members not citizens; as citizens they are afforded certain rights. It's that simple. Going "only people I agree with deserve civil rights" is immoral, and it doesn't matter whether your in-group is liberals, Christians, LGBT people or Klansmen.
Are we seriously just gonna... ignore what started this? Why are we ignoring somebody comparing refusing service to queer peeps to the kkk. How are we not addressing this?
wait are we seriously just gonna... ignore what started this? Why are we ignoring somebody comparing refusing service to queer peeps to the kkk. How are we not addressing this?
In both cases it can be boiled down to "I find this person morally repugnant so I'll deny them service". In both cases it's illegal and (in my opinion) immoral. Unless you hold the opinion that says "KKK membership makes someone lose their citizenship" (false) or "KKK members don't deserve their lawful rights because they're racist bastards" (which misses the whole point of "civil right" — you know, stuff people shouldn't take away from you even if they don't like your opinions, the colour of your skin or whatever?) your argument is faulty.
Anyway, "we're not addressing what SoH said" is moving the goalposts. My argument with you isn't about what SoH said, it's about whether civil rights should be universal and apply to all citizens equally or not.
a) It is, in fact, the essence.
In one scenario, someone who's a victim of the KKK's beliefs and actions denies service to a member of the KKK. In the other scenario, someone denies service to someone because of their "lifestyle", which is not, in fact, something they have control over. It's a radically different scenario.
b) I only started this because I was under the impression you lacked the cultural background to understand how destructive the KKK is. The fact remains that what SoH said is hugely abhorrant, and is definitely something that needs to be addressed in a serious manner, something which I had yet to see anyone do.
a) You cannot be a victim of beliefs — thoughts can't come out of someone's head and bite you; you can only be a victim of deeds. A homophobe is entitled to his homophobia — as morally repugnant as it is — because everybody is entitled to their beliefs and opinions. A homophobe is not entitled to act on his homophobia, because that would hurt people.
The essence here is "people are entitled to think and feel whatever, and discriminating against them solely on the basis of that is bad", not "the KKK are evil".
Consider the following scenario: A is a gay baker. B is a Klansman. B beat the living daylights out of A and got an appropriate sentence (I have no idea what's the sentence for aggravated assault over there in the States). After serving his prison term, B goes to to A's bakery and orders a cake.
No matter what A's feelings on the matter are, they are obliged to sell B the cake. Not selling it is a) discriminatory and b) taking the law into their own hands (which, frankly, you really shouldn't argue for if you think you're a victim — usually the perps are crueller than the victims and have less problems with being nasty).
b) If you think what Nesh and Scape and the rest said isn't serious enough, go ahead and address SoH directly. Nobody here is obliged to fight your battles for you and nobody's preventing you from talking to SoH and arguing your case.
Anyway: while I find what SoH argues for w.r.t. the wedding cakes for Gay people pretty immoral — and I've said as much, I think — I find your stance, which seems to be "only people I approve of deserve civil rights", to be hypocritical and immoral. I think that before you criticise anybody out of a civil-rights position, you should ask yourself whether you really agree with all of its implications, because right now that doesn't seem to be the case.
I think you seem to be misunderstanding who the KKK are, as well as certain legal processes in the states.
FIRSTLY
"We reserve the right to refuse service for any reason" is seen in a lot of restaurants and is true, but also has the technicality that it is still illegal to discriminate based on sex, orientation, or, religion.
Therefore, it is legal for anyone to refuse to sell the cake to a member of the KKK. The discrimination only applies to those three categories from a legal perspective (However, many courts do not allow refusal of service based on arbitrary conditions, such as for example, a lazy eye).
This is very important, because the united states are in fact, NOT a democracy. The founding fathers saw the inherent flaws in purely democratic systems and took steps to ensure the united states would be a representative republic instead. One of these flaws is what is known as the "Tyranny of Democracy". That is to say; in a purely democratic system, the majority can rule over the minorities with impunity, as a tyrant dictator would. To avoid this, there are many laws in place specifically dedicated to preventing discrimination against minorities.
SECONDLY
KKK=/=Racist southerners.
KKK = extremist group outlawed by congress back in 1871. That kind of unity in the group hasn't existed for a very long time, but they are still a legally recognized hate group. To be in the KKK, is to have participated in the action, there's not a grey area, where you're a KKK member, but haven't done anything bad yet, you become a KKK member when you do the bad thing.
Refusing to offer service to someone for being gay, and refusing to offer service to someone for being a member of the KKK are entirely different. One of the two had no choice in who they are. The other actively participates in hate crimes.
One is illegal because it's discrimination based on orientation. The other is not, because its not.
Using sockpuppets? Really? You are aware that your IP shows up in the posts you make, right?
I'm done arguing with you because you obviously cannot argue in good faith.
We're living together. I had my two cents.
For calling you a sockpuppet.
However I'm not continuing this argument.
(I'm only here momentarily, don't count on many posts after this.)
As someone who lives with the KKK as a very real threat to their daily lives, and who is quickly having their rights taken away by the conservative right, is that if you're going to disrespect or violate my civil rights, I am certainly not going to respect you or your desires. Respect gas to be mutually earned, it is not automatically owed
You live in a democratic state, not a jungle. In a jungle you could take a gun and shoot those Klansmen and nobody would give a leaky sack of rat droppings about that — but in a jungle those Klansmen would be able to shoot you with impunity, too.
In a democratic state you assume someone is innocent till proven otherwise, and the government mustn't take away anybody's rights until they've committed a crime. You as a private citizen are forbidden from using force against another citizen (barring some special circumstances). Nobody's telling you to respect the KKK, or to like them, but you cannot demand that the government will stand by when someone is being denied their right simply because you find them morally repugnant. Choosing "law of the jungle for my enemies and civil rights for me and mine" is both hypocritical and immoral (the latter because it pisses on the universal part of morality): either all citizens get civil rights, or none of them do.
Behold, me. Your average trans person in the good old U.S. of fracking A.
I can legally be discriminated against, for no other reason than being trans, in 30ish states. I can be refused housing. I can be fired, or passed over for a job. If I'm assaulted in those states (or another half-dozen or so), with the explicitly stated reason of my being trans, it doesn't even count as a hate crime.
So - "all citizens get civil rights, or none do" is a great mantra. America, unfortunately, is made of people, and that philosophy simply doesn't apply here. And, for the most part, the business end of the violence and hatred and disenfranchisement is pointed at people for who they are, not because of their beliefs.
Two things, actually.
1) Philosophy-wise — hell, common-sense-wise — demanding that someone will adhere to a certain principle, be it human or civil rights or anything else, while not adhering to it yourself is textbook hypocrisy.
2) Reality-wise... America is a ...ed-up place. Democratic, my foot. I'm glad I don't live there.
You've perfectly illustrated the difference between the sides of the debate here: the unwashed cisgender majority can play ideological referee and talk about hypocrisy all they want because they aren't affected by this. The right-wing fundamentalists who rage against trans people do so because they feel that their gods tell them to. We on the trans side are fighting because people are literally trying to destroy us. The tools in question vary: legislation, economics, or violence, but the end goal is the same.
So, no, I reject your assumption that all sides are somehow equal in this. There is not a moral equal footing here. Nor is this a safe ideological debate for one of the involved parties. The Trans Day of Remembrance is coming up this weekend, where we mourn our dead. There are eighty-seven names on the list this year, and that's just counting people who we know were trans and we know were murdered.
That's what, a good-sized car bomb's worth?
So. Please stop trying to compare a violent hate group to people who are frequent victims of hate crimes. That is not terribly cool.
In case you haven't read Data Junkie's response, the kkk doesn't much care about civil rights. They exist to apply the law of the jungle to whoever they wish; in fact, membership requires stepping over legal bounds and committing hate crimes.
I reject your allegations of hypocrisy. I believe in simple things like "don't commit violent crime" and "don't support ideologies of hatred." Perhaps I'm ethically gerrymandering to protect my cause, but those seem to both censure the hypothetical kkk member and not say very much about queer people.
Because, once again, comparing people with a minority identity to a literal violent hate group is ridiculous.
If you want a better comparison, I, a hypothetical queer business owner, would not refuse to bake a cake / build a website / whatever for a christian wedding, even if it were, say, a baptist one. Even that is an ideology they have chosen to hold so it's not a fair comparison, but my dislike of what they believe isn't reason to deny them service.
However, I reserve the right to refuse service to all who hold an ideology of hatred. If there were a queer group that advocated and performed, say, church burnings, I would refuse then service too.
(And seriously, the usa is pretty messed up.)
First of all, the criminal thing. One of the ways a state (any state, not necessarily democratic) is different from a jungle is that a certain group of people has a (legitimate) monopoly on violence. Usually, the victim isn't in this group.
(There are, of course, exceptions, but they vary by place — for example, I know that self-defence is an admissible defence in an Israeli court, but not what flies in different states in the USA.)
So even if the KKK are criminals (not debating that, I don't have data) it's not your place to punish them or discriminate against them — assuming the existence of states (particularly, democratic ones) is something you want. Of course, that's where the ...ed-up-ness comes in: you're stuck between suffering for ideals or giving them up (at least partially).
Second, I'm not comparing the KKK to trans people, except in one important quality: KKK are people. If you're a believer in human rights, you cannot not give them the selfsame rights, no matter how horrible they are.
Third, I have it easy over here because I don't think human beings deserve something for being human. (Side note: "right" is a poorly-defined concept and "human rights" is even worse in that regard.)
I think that "justice" is an agreement between people; so it's very easy for me to say that since the KKK are going to treat me badly because I'm Jewish, I'm under no obligation to treat them well. Of course, if I'd go and look for Klansmen to beat up (as opposed to, IDK, self defence or coming to the defence of a victim) I don't have a lot of moral high ground, in my opinion.
Fourth: being a minority in and of itself doesn't make you automatically better. Being a decent human being is what makes you better than the KKK.
Fifth: "I'm more oppressed than you" doesn't fly with me. Pity isn't one of my strong points.
...because this thread is attracting flies.
I don't disagree with you. I'm a soft Kantian, I agree that people are equal and rights are rights, regardless of how odious I find them personally.
That said, I was trying to A, explain where and how I draw the line that says that a business refusing to endorse a gay wedding (and conveniently oppressing my lgbt in-group) is wrong, but a business refusing to endorse an anniversary celebration for the kkk is right. And B, I was trying to make it absolutely crystal clear that trying to compare lgbt people and the kkk is a horrible thing to do.
I really shouldn't have pointed my anger on point B at you, and I'm sorry - that was out of place and not what you were saying.
And to cherry pick one of your points to respond to - no, I don't believe that being an oppressed minority magically makes me morally superior to other people. I've met far too many people who are minorities on one axis and yet totally terrible towards minorities on other axes to believe that. I'm still trying to un-learn my own terribleness on some of those, which has been a long battle. (Yaaaaay white southern baptist upbringing.)
This is politics. In fact, not only is this politics, it's politics of the explosive sort.
I'm going to go into points-mode because it's getting confusing, so here goes:
1) I still don't see the distinction between "refusing to sell a gay couple a cake", "refusing to sell a cake to the WBC", "refusing to sell a cake to Jews" and "refusing to sell a cake to Klansmen". The distinction flies in the face of the "universality" bit of ethics, I think; how is not selling a cake to the KKK any different in essence than not selling it to the WBC, or to a Jew?
2) Comparing LGBT people and the KKK isn't wrong. It's a logical operation. Equating LGBT people and the KKK is a morally-repugnant action. I was doing the former.
...
That wasn't as many points as I've expected. Oh well.
So - at least from my point of view, there's something of a spectrum between "doing business with a person" and "supporting a person's belief system". To try to illustrate that spectrum, here's some examples, revolving around a fictitious coffee shop:
1: Selling a customer a cup of coffee.
2: Selling a group of customers coffee, which they then drink in the shop while talking about their politics.
2: Selling a group of customers coffee, which they then drink in the shop while talking loudly about their belief system.
3: Renting out the shop for an open-to-the-public political event.
4: Doing nothing while a customer stands up and lectures the shop at large about their ideology. (without forewarning)
5: Letting a customer leave a stack of pamphlets about their ideology in the shop.
6: Helping a customer plan (and perform) a lecture to the shop about their ideology.
Regardless of the ideology in question, I hope you can see the progression there. Denying someone the first example is pretty clearly discriminatory. Denying someone the last example is entirely legit - the right to free speech is a thing, but it's very specifically not the right to a venue or an audience.
So, when it comes to cake-baking, there's a lot of possible scenarios that fall on various parts of the board. A simple "happy birthday" cake is probably down towards example 1, really not something to be denied to anyone. On the other hand, decorating a cake with burning crosses and white hoods and "happy birthday to the KKK!" is, in my mind, very much closer to examples 5 and 6- you aren't just providing a service, at that point, you're using your skills and resources in a way that's inescapably glorifying an ideology of violence.
And that's where I'm very much okay with picking and choosing what ideologies should and shouldn't be supported. And comfortable applying value judgements to the ideologies in question - "don't hurt people", a quite universal rule, makes the comparable guideline of "I won't support ideologies that advocate hurting people" and value judgement of "ideologies that advocate hurting people are bad" pretty straightforward, in my mind.
The comparable guideline of "I won't support an expression of queerness" is a thing - but if you chase that one backwards towards a universal rule, it doesn't really go anywhere - the underlying rule seems to be "queer people are gross."
That the imaginary "happy birthday to the KKK!" cake is less like number 5 and more like (the first) number 2. The only way this particular cake can end up as a 5 is if either a) the costumer proceeds to advertise the fact that they bought this cake from you on top of every billboard in town or b) some nosy lowlife hires a private investigator in order to find dirt on you. Otherwise, it's just another cake.
You've just received a perfect case study. DC Restaurant Apologizes After Hosting Alt Right Neo Nazi Dinner with Sieg Heil Salute.
And the thing was then published to Twitter (if I'm reading this right?), which definitely puts it in the higher end of DJ's scale.
Their horrified retraction (as well as their donation) implies that if they'd known the room was being rented to a group of Nazis, they would have refused to rent it to them. That's the case I was pointing out.
(Also, I'm both frightened and saddened by the waves of Nazis coming out of the woodworks, and heartened by the resounding waves of responses.)
Assume the restaurant hadn't been tricked. Then would you have obligated them to host the meal? Only to retroactively de-obligate them once the Nazis posted it to Twitter?
"That's not how time works. That's not how any of this works."
hS
-- hang on a second, let me check something.
Right. Apparently the concept of unfair dismissal is unheard of in the US, which is appalling dear Valar you live in a dystopia. I'm just going to stress this here: in my country, you can't be fired without a good reason.
Seriously. Dear Valar.
hS
It comes down to the obsession with "individual freedoms" that permeates through the U.S. Essentially, we have this doctrine that runs through all our rhetoric and media and narratives, which is that... well, it's complicated. But essentially, Pure Capitalism = Pure Freedom.
It's this idea that because anyone can do anything, since we Definitely Don't Have A Class System, anyone . . . should be able to do anything. Business owners should be able to hire or fire whoever they like, sell whoever they like, etc. And, in theory, if their workers don't like it, they can just... ya know, start their own rival business, and the better idea will win out, because it's a free market.
It really makes absolutely no sense, but at the core of American identity, there is the delusion that everyone, regardless of their socioeconomic status, has equal opportunities and therefore need no protection. (And, of course, is individually responsible for their situation, regardless of how they got there.)
There are places where we're basically just people - my good state of Washington, for one, has about the same protections add the United Kingdom. That doesn't mean we're safe in practice, either here or there. A trans person was assaulted during Pride week on capital hill, the queerest neighborhood in Seattle.
But it gets worse. There are states where we don't have protections. There are nations that require us to spend years living as ourselves before getting access to hrt or updating ids, which ends up being nothing more useful than a government-sponsored hazing. There are states that won't update gender markers on ids until after expensive and major surgeries; this puts a hard class boundary on being able to not be outed as trans every time you show an id. Mandatory sterilization is still a thing in a lot of Europe, too, if you like a side order of eugenics with your prejudice.
And the US and Europe are still some of the best places in the world to be trans.
Welcome to the dystopia.
The key point here is that you live in a country Unfair dismissal is allowed at all. Because that is spectacularly dystopian.
Seriously. Seriously.
hS
Remember, we are cultural capitalists. To an extreme fault. The fact that there is any situation at any time that people have to be given a reason to be fired, you can thank the unions fighting those battles.
There are many on the right that think we restrict the employers right to terminate too much. You know those pesky laws and regulations they keep wanting to repeal? Those workers rights laws are on that list. It ain't just the environment they want to screw over. Laissez-faire economics, ladies and gentlemen. I just don't get it.
A) To be a Klansman is to be a criminal, because you are not officially a member until you commit criminal acts while wearing the hood and robe. I could say "just trust me" but let me make this clear: I know, because I have at least four cousins who are Klansmen. Two of whom enjoyed telling me how they joined. Both are cops.
B) I was not speaking lightly when I said they are a very real threat for me. I am a non-straight trans person living in Georgia, and I am suicidally cocky in the face of bigotry.
C) If you actually think non-FBI law enforcement take action against them, you'd be wrong. They basically control the cops and local governments in the south. See point A.
D) While I enjoy your pseudo philosophical rants from time to time, if you really think it's as black and white as "law of the jungle" vs civil rights, you're a Crow-blighted fool. Laws are a) open to interpretation and b) can and should be changed and updated from time to time.
Anyhow, this is probably my last post here, if you wanna continue this, ping me on Discord.
As far as the right to not associate with someone, there has been a line of US Supreme Court Cases that suggest there is a right to associate, and as such there is an implied negative right to not associate. Now, the line of cases went from allowing certain organizations to not associate with certain groups (namely African-Americans) to stating that they are required to do so. But the difference was because they were essentially for profit organizations, but the idea that a private individual can choose to or not to associate with another person still exists. The government cannot force me as a private individual to be friends with another individual. The difference occurs with an organization it is pretty well established that organizations cannot refuse to associate with people. With perhaps a few exceptions. So I disagree only to the extent that you are referring private individuals, not businessmen. For example in the case of the Baker, the Baker as a baker cannot refuse service to to an individual, but once the Baker leaves the Bakery the Baker is perfectly entitled to even refuse to look at a particular person. Love it or hate it, that's basically the law. Now that is an oversimplification, but that is the gist of it.
Please take a closer look at what I said in response to Seafarer. Both times, I conceded that climate change is a real thing. I nowhere said that it was a hoax.
And one has to have less than one functioning brain cell to deny that rising sea levels are currently a threat to coastal communities and low-lying island nations—meaning that those affected must receive appropriate aid. So obviously, it would be small comfort to say from an ivory tower, "The current warming is part of a greater cycle," even if the argument is true. (Note that I am not trying to make this argument here.)
As I said before, my point of disagreement is not with the existence of climate change, but with the narrative that "if something isn't done, WE'RE GOING TO COOK OURSELVES TO DEATH!!1!!!11!"
As I conceded to Seafarer, I am clearly ignorant of the literature on both sides, and given your first-hand experience about it, I have all the more reason to actually start reading sooner rather than later.
But what I do know is that there is literature on both sides. And that was all I wanted to say in the first place: if there is an argument on the other side, then deal with the argument; do not resort to demonizing the other side as a shortcut to reasoned discussion.
You're admitting that you haven't read the literature? Fantastic! Why, then, do you have such an assured opinion?
I have a science degree. Global warming came up. I have seen the literature. I assumed that you'd just been misled by Fox News and the like, but now you're admitting you were arguing from complete ignorance?
Go educate yourself. Maybe once you finish that, you won't be a palaeoconservative anymore.
Moral issues are arguable without any particular expertise. Policy issues are often arguable, so long as you have a decent knowledge of what you're on about. Science issues? If you have any clue how science works, you'll know that arguing directly* against the consensus is just stupid.
*Disclaimer: science is constantly updated, but what doesn't happen is theories being completely thrown out. They get superseded by new, better theories which more fully explain the data.
You were correct two paragraphs in: "I assumed that you'd just been misled by Fox News and the like." Take, for example, the YouTube link I've posted. I would not call hearing opinions from those who have done their research "complete ignorance". All I said was that I have not done any reading firsthand of the literature--and I suspect that the same is true of most of the Board. We are not all scientists.
...I appreciate that you're listening to those of us who are. But do keep in mind that you should be checking the opinions of multiple people who have done their research, rather than just one. That reduces your risk of confirmation bias. :-)
I have seen the weather patters change.
Me.
My 20 year old self.
In Alaska alone.
There is not a silgle Alaskan I know of, not one who is not a politician playing the Republican party line, that does not belive in climate change. And I know a lot of old conseratives who would agree with every other point SoH has made. The natives have watched as the sea has grown rougher, to where they can barely sail what was once calm waters. They have watched the ice they have depended on for generations disappear before their very eyes. Villages have been slipping into the sea. Rivers widening and shortening. And the glaciers. I, personally, have watched once mighty sheets of ice turn into little better than some ice cubes in a very blue lake.
Heck! Let's take the easiest of anecdotal answers: what's outside my window right now? Usually, the first snowfall that sticks is somewhere around Halloween, and right now we would have a good three to four inches of snow built up, and not likely to go any time soon. Right now? There is some snow, yes. A lot of ice. And I can see grass. A lot of it. Majority of people's yards are still grass.
So, please. Tell me there's a hoax. Tell me that this is just natural warming that gradually occurs, and we're just overreacting. Tell that to the natives who have lost their homes, livelihoods, and very lives because of it.
Read these, and tell those native Elders that they are wrong:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/02/24/the-remote-alaskan-village-that-needs-to-be-relocated-due-to-climate-change/
https://www.adn.com/environment/article/eroding-alaska-village-urges-congress-address-climate-change/2014/01/17/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/interactive/2013/may/13/newtok-alaska-climate-change-refugees
https://www.adn.com/environment/article/alaska-climate-story/2015/08/29/
Democratic positions being touted by the media and academia as the only reasonable opinion.
Did it occur to you that maybe you have this the wrong way around? That it's more likely that academic results are picked up by the media and become Democratic positions because of their rigour, and that conservatives simply refuse to believe them (often due to established interests)? Shall I take climate change as an example? The planet is warming rapidly - there's overwhelming evidence - yet Trump and his ilk want to end climate deals and bring back the coal industry. Thus the Democratic position is treated as the only reasonable opinion because it is backed up by facts, and the opposing position works directly counter to those facts.
Of course, not all liberal positions are so clear-cut, and yes, a lot of Democrat supporters pretend that some of their positions are the only right ones when they aren't.
Mexicans just traipsing across the border are flouting those laws
"Traipsing across the border"? Most illegal immigrants actually enter the USA by plane, with visas. You know that, right? You were just being metaphorical? I agree, though, that illegal immigration is a problem.
The solution to this problem, though, isn't nearly so simple as building a wall. It would probably require investment in policing - which, incidentally, could be paid for if the rich got a higher tax rate.
But you know what would be really good? If the USA joined civilised countries in having a head of government elected by popular vote rather than the archaic system it has now. That way, the will of the majority of voters will always be carried out. (Fun fact: no Republican has been elected (as opposed to re-elected) by the popular vote since George H W Bush.)
And I'm really sorry if I seem angry. I am - Donald Trump being elected did that to me - but I am really keen to see a right wing that isn't populated near-entirely by denial and reactionary politics. If you can be that rational right-winger, I'll do my best to stay civil.
[A] lot of Democrat supporters pretend that some of their positions are the only right ones when they aren't.
And on that, we agree: there is room for disagreement.
And actually, you and I agree more than you think. Even since childhood, I saw the ridiculousness of the Electoral College. The function for which it was designed (the people would choose worthy electors, who would use their independent judgment to choose a President) has never, if ever, come to pass, and most of the arguments for keeping it are BS. However, it doesn't take a Political Science major to see that there's no way that Congress will make any headway towards eliminating the Electoral College.
Fortunately, there's hope. A movement called National Popular Vote (NPV) is halfway to its goal of eliminating the Electoral College by basically exploiting a loophole, so to speak, in the Constitution. NPV seeks to have enough states pass legislation that would award their electors to the winner of the popular vote. Currently, 11 states, controlling 165 electoral votes total, are on board with this proposal. (It takes 270 to elect a President).
However, this is where I stop applauding our similarities. I do not believe that the example you give, climate change, is as clear-cut as you believe. It is incontrovertible that the climate has been warming over the past 200 years (by a total of about one degree Celsius, if I am not misled). However, it is not as clear-cut that DISASTER IS ON THE HORIZON! Check out this video by Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist and an emeritus professor at MIT.
And inb4 "This channel is affiliated with conservative talking head Dennis Prager": Check the sources that Lindzen quotes. This isn't some political hack with an axe to grind.
You're right. For some people, it's already here.
Thinking about this (because once I got the bit between my teeth I just couldn't stop), I remembered a couple of articles I read recently in Scientific American, and then I found some more that I hadn't read. First, "The Ominous Story of Syria's Climate Refugees," which discusses climate change as one of several causes of the Syrian migration.
Second, "Governments Should Plan for Climate Change Migrants." I note that "22 million people were displaced by extreme events in 2013, led by Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines" as opposed to "In the early 1970s, the total number of people displaced [by extreme events] was only about 10 million."
Third, this series about Bangladesh and climate migration.
TL;DR: Rising sea levels, storms, floods, and drought caused or exacerbated by climate change are forcing people to flee their homes and flock to areas that are already overpopulated. This is happening now, not 50 years from now. If sad polar bears don't move you-and-others-like-you to support decisive action against climate change, perhaps the plight of millions of human beings will?
~Neshomeh
P.S. I think the root of many of our problems is overpopulation. I don't believe in forcing people to limit their reproduction by means of something tyrannical like the One-Child Policy, but I do believe in making birth control and sex education freely, broadly, publicly available so we can all make smarter choices about how many humans we add to the viral load population. By extension, I also believe in supporting women's rights and education in particular. When women are educated and empowered to take control of their bodies, their entire community benefits. I don't have a link to back up that statement, but can I slide by with an It Is Known this time?
Just, please, SoH, read what I replied to Neshomeh further up the thread. Alaska has been hit. Hard. And will continue to be. Bet please, tell me it's just a hoax or overreaction.
...I can use xkcd, And RationalWiki. And other actual scientific bodies.
If you reject actual science in favour of YouTube conspiracy theorists, I see no reason to entertain any of your other views, regardless of their merit.
It is not as if I pulled some random YouTube video out of my rear, so I believe that it is disingenuous to say that I am "using YouTube as a source"; I am simply citing to an actual published scientist who also happened to have posted a digestible-length video on YouTube. If I was posting to some random nutjob, then you'd be right to question the validity of my views.
Thanks for at least having the respect to point to other scientists as well.
But I believe that you completely missed the point I was trying to make. The climate is changing: on that we agree. Many scientists are saying the same thing: one would have to be blind to deny that. However, numbers alone do not prove truth.
The difference between someone with a legitimate minority position and a conspiracy theorist is that the conspiracy theorist can empirically be proven wrong; he just doesn't want to see that he's wrong. I've proven elsewhere on this Board that I am willing to admit when I've been mistaken in the face of contrary evidence. I'll take a closer look at your sources; and if I find any others for my position (I will admit that, as climate change is not my bailiwick, I do not have links at the ready), I hope you are willing to do the same.
You're quite right. I'm sorry. I'm so used to the average climate change denialist who drags up one of the 3% of climate scientists who is also a denialist and then claims victory. I appreciate that you're taking the time to look at my sources rather than dismissing them.
I'm quick to dismiss people over climate denial because of something it says on the RationalWiki page - it's too late to convince the people who still reject the science; all we can possibly do is try to make the changes we have to make.
(Oh, I also noted you used Alex Jones's YouTube as a source in another part of this thread, hence my accusation of "YouTube as a source". So, yeah. I'm sorry for leaping, but you haven't been entirely perfect.)
And of course an HTML fail rears its ugly head. There are two links: one to the NPV homepage, and one to a YoouTube video. The second link is at the words "this video".
Let me make something absolutely clear, son. Trump is a vile disgrace, and I would argue that his VP, while outwardly sane, is worse; Pence's record as Governor of Indiana implies he has lifelong beliefs in the kind of deranged rhetoric Trump picked up for political expediency over the course of this divine punishment for mankind's hubris election campaign. They are both people who have espoused the most repugnant ideologies possible.
Republicans voted for that.
Couch it in whatever language you want, that maybe they weren't all bigots, that some, you assume, are good people. The fact remains that they had a choice between two people (well, two people and piddling your vote up the wall), one of whom was a centrist and one of whom was a fascist, and they picked the fascist. Regardless of the reasons, they looked at the vicious, hatemongering bigot and, clothespegs on their noses or not, put a cross against his name. A cross which some of his more vocal supporters now consider themselves free to set on fire on a black family's lawn.
There's a rule of thumb when it comes to victories, and it's this: look at who's celebrating. We'll exclude Donald from this, as it wouldn't be fair, but let's have a looksie at one of the people leading the parades. You may have heard of David Duke and his fellow pointy ghosts. He's all but dancing in the streets. Trump's campaign put the bubbling cesspool of white nationalism back in the mainstream and they're not going away any time soon.
Nigel Farage is celebrating; indeed, in a jubilant interview on Spanish radio he was joking about Trump sexually assaulting Theresa May (Britain's current Prime Minister, if you don't know) when first they meet. Nigel Farage is an isolationist garbage-spewer and his party, UKIP, is the socially acceptable face of the far-right in Britain. They are racists to a man. They were Brexit's chief cheerleaders and, to sell it to the populace, produced a poster of queueing brown people (the white faces in the original picture were, and I swear I'm not making this up, Photoshopped out) with the enormous caption "BREAKING POINT" accompanying it, echoing a piece of Nazi propaganda from the Thirties.
And finally, Trump's biggest fans are celebrating. And they're celebrating like this:-
And like this:-
And like this (found attached to someone's car in North Carolina):-
And like this:-
Do you understand now why your argument comes across as specious apologism for a truly indefensible man? Or are you okay with that, because you think you won't be affected by the madness about to befall the United States?
Because let me tell you something: I'm a trans woman. I'm three thousand miles away. And I'm terrified. Why the poxy hell aren't you?
We both know the answer. It's just not one you like.
One: Have you been paying attention to anything I said? Nowhere was I defending Trump.
Please recall the history of this thread:
VixenMage asked: “Why are you afraid of Democratic positions?”
I replied: “I, for one, do not think that we are afraid of Democratic positions, per se, as much as that we vehemently disagree. The things that I, for one, am afraid of, however are
1) Democratic positions being touted by media and academia as the only reasonable opinion
2) conservative successes at the ballot box being derailed by left-leaning lawyers in black robes."
Seafarer replied, "[I]t's more likely that academic results are picked up by the media and become Democratic positions because of their rigour, and that conservatives simply refuse to believe them (often due to established interests)?"
To which I've basically replied, in essence, that his example is not as clear-cut as he thinks it is.
Now where in that entire exchange was there a defense of Trump?
Two: I do not know what you are implying with that last sentence, nor am I asking you to elaborate. And in this case, I do not even need to answer for myself: the third paragraph in Badger421's post elsewhere in this thread is answer enough.
I know that you are afraid, and I will not deny that you have every right to be. Nor will I deny that those hateful things happened, or that they are wrong.
But I'm willing to bet that whatever you are implying about me is wrong and out of line, and that you need to apologize.
"To which I've basically replied, in essence, that his example is not as clear-cut as he thinks it is."
Yeah, but you're wrong. And you may not be defending Trump himself, but you appear to be defending one of his most terrifying policies, so there's that.
Shall I give you some more examples? Let's try homosexuality, shall we?
Conservatives love to claim that being gay is a lifestyle choice. They come up with all sorts of horrible things "designed" to "cure" these people. And someone who believes in this just became Vice President. If Trump dies, the President of the USA will be a man who believes in shock therapy.
Science is clear on this: homosexuality (and a bunch of other tangentially related things, like being transgender) is largely genetic. Now, knowing that, are you going to abandon your "homosexuality is a sin" outlook and fight to protect them from Pence? Or are you going to ignore the science and the suffering of human beings?
tl;dr: you may not be actively defending Trump or his cabinet, but you are defending his policy, and that's just as bad.
Man, I'm angry tonight.
"To which I've basically replied, in essence, that his example is not as clear-cut as he thinks it is."
Yeah, but you're wrong. And you may not be defending Trump himself, but you appear to be defending one of his most terrifying policies, so there's that.
Shall I give you some more examples? Let's try homosexuality, shall we?
You're veering off-topic, and I will not continue down this avenue of conversation except to say this:
I believe that homosexuality is a sin. You cannot dissuade me from that.
However, people are people, whatever their sins, and no one should be tortured because of who they sleep in bed with.
Those two stances do not contradict.
Therefore, if homosexuals are being tortured in a misguided (or worse, merely obstensible) attempt to change their behavior, then as a Christian, it would be my duty to stand against such practices.
Now to get back on topic: The example you gave was climate change, and all I attempted to do was state that the other side was not without reason. You may believe that the other side is wrong on the science (and having read your latest reply, you clearly have a more on-the-ground perspective than most), but it was not my intention to dissuade you. The point that I wanted to make was made: the other side is not composed solely of conspiracy theorists who are to be written off as incapable of basic logic or ignorant of science. That was all I intended.
So as far as you and me are concerned, I believe that we are agreed that there are two sides to the story. And as far as which side is right, it seems that you and I have that topic wrapped up for now as well: If I want to stand toe-to-toe against you on the issue, I'd best get some studying done first.
...the topic was something along the lines of "academic results become Democratic positions because of their rigour".
I'm not going to try to dissuade you from your views so long as you understand that your views aren't more important than anyone else's. I will, however, say this: saying homosexuality is a sin is directly analogous to saying being black is a sin. Neither the homosexual nor the black person can help it; it's genetic.
But I agree. Stopping now. If you want to reply to this, I will read and consider it, but I won't reply.
I'm not going to try to dissuade you from your views so long as you understand that your views aren't more important than anyone else's.
To that, I have no argument. In fact, that is what I've been trying to say from the get-go: the conservative's view is just as worthy of consideration as the liberal's.
I will, however, say this: saying homosexuality is a sin is directly analogous to saying being black is a sin. Neither the homosexual nor the black person can help it; it's genetic.
On that front, however, I cannot but argue: you're wrong on both the moral and the scientific counts.
I'll address the scientific first.
You yourself said in your previous post, "Science is clear on this: homosexuality (and a bunch of other tangentially related things, like being transgender) is largely genetic." (emphasis added)
That adverb is quite important. Unlike race, homosexuality is not totally genetic. It is still a given that there are factors outside of genetics that can influence whether a person is homosexual or not. Take any two identical twins. If one is gay, it is not a 100% chance that the other would be, too. But if one is Black, so is the other, no variation.
So as a matter of science, it is incorrect to state that homosexuality is just as hardwired as race.
Feel free to correct me if my knowledge is out of date.
Furthermore, as a matter of morality, to say "homosexuality is a sin" is not the same as saying "being Black is a sin." One is taught in the Bible, the other is expressly contradicted by it.
Both Old Testament and New Testament roundly call homosexuality a sin.
However, neither Testament calls it a sin to be born of one race rather than another. To get to the more thorny issue first: yes, in the Old Testament, God did tell Israel to wage war against certain nations. However, it was made clear that the rationale for doing so was the sinful deeds of those nations, not because the target nations were somehow inferior people-groups. Furthermore, under the Mosaic Law, it was expressly stipulated multiple times that Israelite and foreigner were to be treated equally under the law.
And, of course, the New Testament is even more explicit. I'll just quote: "[God] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth" (Acts 17.26)
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)
"Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds; And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all." (Colossians 3:9-11) (emphasis added)
So there's no way around it: sexual orientation and race are not equivalent scientifically or Biblically.
(And before anyone tries to use the fact that I've cited to Leviticus 20:13 in an attempt to paint me as condoning violence against homosexuals, let me cut you off at the pass: you're amiss. The New Testament nowhere gives Christians the right to execute the death-penalties of the Old Testament. On the very contrary, the examples from Jesus' life show that we are not to seek the deaths of those who disagree with the Gospel.)
(And if anyone tries to discredit my NT quotes on homosexuality because they came from Paul and not Jesus, I've already addressed the argument of "Jesus said nothing about homosexuality" in an e-mail discussion with a Boarder a few years ago. I'll paste the bulk of that here:
Now we know that [Jesus] did not have a thing to say directly about homosexuality. He didn't need to; he preached to Jews! (Paul, however, preached to Gentiles, and you should know that the Greeks and Romans did practice homosexuality, so of course he would address it though Jesus did not.) However, Jesus' own words leave no doubt on what his view of the matter would be.
In Matthew 19, we have Jesus being presented with a question from the Pharisees: "The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" (verse 3) ... There were two schools of thought in Jesus' day on the matter. One, the school of Shammai, said that a man could divorce his wife only if the wife was sexually immoral (e.g., if she was cheating on her husband). The other school, that of Hillel, said that a man could divorce his wife for any reason. To make a long story short, what did Jesus say? He said that marriage is permanent, to be sundered only in the case of sexual immorality. But what's important for our purposes is Jesus’ justification: "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Matthew 19:4-6) (What a beautiful saying, and again bringing up the complementary nature of man and woman! Far from being a thing that could be tossed aside at whim, a wife is for life!)
Note that Jesus' justification is rooted in Creation: "He which made them ... male and female ... said, For this cause shall a man ... cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh."
That same reasoning undergirds the condemnation of homosexuality....)
I'll get to the point I really want to make in a minute, but first, this: Jesus isn't talking about homosexuality. He's talking about marriage. He's not trying to make any point about the genders of the people involved, he's using the terms set forth by the opposition. He is making a point about the permanency of marriage. Using it out of the original context strikes me as a bit of a reach.
Now, for the important part. I've got just one question for you: Why? Why would God declare homosexuality wrong? I've yet to get a satisfactory answer to this question. I've heard plenty of people tell me homosexuality is wrong because God said so, but I haven't yet heard a good reason for why He would say so. However, I don't believe He just declares things wrong because it's entertaining. He always has a reason for the things He does, so please, educate me! I'm honestly willing to hear it, because it's a question that's been weighing on my mind for a long time, and I'd love to finally get an answer.
One more way we can prove our devotion to him. See, God likes to set tests for his people. The very first one was the Tree in the Garden of Eden. There was no bloody reason for that tree to exist except for God to say "Oh, and don't touch that one, because I said so."
My Jehovah's Witness friends explained it to me in terms of a father telling his kid not to touch the stovetop, because it's hot and no loving father wants his kid to get burned. However, I can't buy it, because the oven has an actual reason to exist in the house. One arbitrary tree that only exists not to be touched? Not so much. It's just a test, and by its very existence, humanity was set up for the possibility of failure.
Now, I do get the argument that only by giving us chances to disobey God are we given the ability to exercise free will. If God created us with absolutely no way to ever do anything he didn't intend for us, we'd be no more than automatons, doing what we were programmed to do.
That said, I don't get why God still gets to punish us for doing that free will thing we were set up to do. The system seems pretty well rigged against us, really.
At least the Witnesses don't believe in eternal damnation. By them, everybody gets a chance to repent and get back into the Kingdom after Armageddon. I still don't buy into it, but I can at least sometimes appreciate why someone might want to.
~Neshomeh
See, the whole 'face trials, pull through, die, go to heaven' thing was the plan from the beginning. But it had to be a choice. If God had put humanity down here and said 'btw, I've made this planet the suckiest thing around (which has an atmosphere you can breathe), enjoy! See y'all in 70 years!', that would've been vastly, horrifyingly unfair.
So instead, God makes a paradise world which ol' Eve and Mr. Eve can enjoy for as long as they want. Then, when they make the choice to take the fruit of Sucks To Be You, the original plan can kick into action.
O'course, certain meddling snakes may have started things rather sooner than expected, but make no mistake, Eve knew exactly what she was doing when she opted for 'experience life' over 'fruit cocktails forever'.
And, uh, I guess we all experienced the Garden vicariously through their DNA or something. I dunno, it's not my theology any more.
hS, accurately-if-flippantly explaining why LDS theo-cosmology is still the most consistent
Why do many denominations see contraceptives as a sin? Or abortions? It's because sex is an activity done for the purpose of having children. To raise many children is to do the Lord's work. You have to keep in mind, this was a budding religion, rising from under extreme oppression, adopting the struggles of the Jews before them and of a new cult causing the local power trouble. To spread their influence and gain power, they need followers, and the easiest way of doing that is to out-breed the competition. It is a concept used throughout history by many rising cultures. So, now you can see the problem. Homosexuals can't really have any children. Ergo, it's a sin.
Now, why have you not heard that answer before? Because, if I remember right, and please correct me SoH if I'm wrong, the Bible never states that directly. The answer I gave was cultural, historical, but not strictly theological. That, and we Americans are still very shy about the subject of sex. To even discuss such things in proper context with others is inappropriate. Far more appropriate to say, "because God said it was so," than it is to swallow their fear and mention sex itself directly.
... no true Christian bakery will make a wedding cake for someone who's infertile.
Right? ... right?
(Side-note: in LDS/Mormon doctrine, 'reproduction' is explicitly the theological reason - because LDS cosmology assigns a continuing role to reproduction after death. The argument remains riddled with holes, but at least there is an argument.)
hS
Oh, and as for the infertile thing, here is how I imagine the argument would go.
The gift of Life is given unto us by God, as blessing and as means to further His plan. However, there are some whom are not meant to bear child in His plan, but to do His work in other ways. To try and to fail to raise child is not unholy, for to fail is God's plan for those who cannot. However, to deny the opportunity for God's gift, to shun Him so by actively preventing His will, is sin of the highest degree.
Or, to boil it down to cliche, "God works in mysterious ways. Let Him do His work."
You just had to go there.
I don't actually care what your book says. Regardless of what your book says, homosexuality is as innate as race. When I said "largely", I meant that it is partially developmental. A brief glance at the Wikipedia page (yeah, yeah, shitty source, I don't care right now) shows no indication that social factors play any significant role. A deeper search may turn some up, and you can go digging if you want.
Furthermore, as a matter of morality, to say "homosexuality is a sin" is not the same as saying "being Black is a sin." One is taught in the Bible, the other is expressly contradicted by it.
Again, I don't care about your book. What the bible says has no bearing on the analogy: "being gay is a sin" is functionally identical to "being black is a sin"; it just changes who you're being bigoted towards.
(I'll note that your more recent source suggests epigenetic changes as a solution to the twin dilemma - which is just as immutable as birth genome (that is, not totally, but not possible for humans to mess with).)
(And you know what? Race is basically skin-deep. Differences beyond skin colour and slight other slight changes in physical appearance are about as far as it goes. Homosexuality affects how the brain is wired - I'd argue that's actually less mutable than race these days.)
(I hate arguing with religious people.)
I am not seeking to continue this discussion; I just want to point out that your wording led to me replying as I did.
The fact that you specifically used the word "sin" immediately implied a moral dimension. Had you framed your argument as a purely scientific one (e.g., "Sexual orientation is as immutable as race"), or even as a philosophical one (e.g., "I think it is just as bigoted to be homophobic as it is to be racist), I might not have resorted to the Bible. But since you specifically spoke of sin, then IMO, I had no choice but to resort to the standard by which sin is defined.
tl;dr: Please be more careful in your wording. You used religious wording; you got a Biblical argument. (Please pardon my bluntness, but I do not know how I could word this tl;dr summary any more diplomatically.)
I have absolutely no intention of apologizing to you for calling you out on how your positions and beliefs demonstrably hurt me and mine. Your "conservative successes at the ballot box" are ones that actively impede the rights of others less fortunate than yourself to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and I no more owe you an apology for saying so than I do David Duke for calling him a racist. Your OP was talking about how you're scared of being called a bigot for talking about your faith, when actually, you're going to be called a bigot for trying to deny people rights. Your post comparing a gay couple being denied a wedding cake with a Klansman being denied a celebratory cake of some description is a false equivalency so vast it defies human imagination. You're whining about losing a right to discriminate that you never possessed in the first place, and you have the gall to demand an apology from someone explaining to you why that's a problem.
Do not presume to condescend to me. If nothing else, you're no sodding good at it.
Your post comparing a gay couple being denied a wedding cake with a Klansman being denied a celebratory cake of some description is a false equivalency so vast it defies human imagination.
Please cut the hyperbole. It does you no favors.
As for your claim that it is a "false equivalence"; sorry, but you're wrong. In both cases, we are talking about a service being given to help celebrate an event.
Unless you're implying that I am equating homosexuality and racism, which I am not.
Now to return to what I said, I doubt that I can make it any clearer that those racists whose vandalism you've posted do not represent me. And I believe that it has been made just as clear that they do not represent everyone who voted for Trump: there were reasons other than homophobia, xenophobia, or misogyny why people voted for him. And we'd be more than willing to denounce those evils done in his name.
So for you to basically put words in my mouth and lump me with said racists is an insult. How else am I to interpret your own words:
"Do you understand now why your argument comes across as specious apologism for a truly indefensible man? … I'm a trans woman. I'm three thousand miles away. And I'm terrified. Why the poxy hell aren't you? We both know the answer. It's just not one you like."
One can disagree without being disagreeable, as even you yourself admitted before. So no, I do not think that I am amiss in asking for an apology. However, if you still think that none is warranted, I will not continue to push for one.
Kindly do not talk to me again.
I read an interesting Cracked article on the subject a little while back, provocatively titled "How Half of America Lost its F**king Mind." Phobos was quick to poke holes in its arguments, but I still think it's worth thinking about. For reasons right or wrong, people feel incredibly threatened, and that just sucks. What can we do to make it better so this doesn't happen ever again?
~Neshomeh
Seems like we won't get nuclear fallout immediately after all. Just don't panic.
Tammy Duckworth won and will be the first thai-american senator! She is also disablied with both her legs missing so ... yeah!
Kamala Harris won and is going to be the first black female senator since 1999 and became the first Indian-American and second African American female to serve in the United States Senate.
Oregon elected Kate Brown and she will be the first ever openly lgbtqa governor in us history!
Catherine Cortez Masto won and will be the first ever latina us senator!
Also this happened a while ago but Louisiana,a mostly red state,got a democratic Governor!
Not all is lost. The Popular vote was all for Hillary too. We are not a lost cause and we are not irredeemable.
Here is how the 18-25 voted for this election:
I guess you can have hope for the future of the country at least.
That dataa seems to have come from a survey that was made with Survey Monkey. So, you know. Not exactly a professional poll. I'm not saying this map is useless, I'm just saying, use a grain of salt.
Like I said, I copied it from Discord, where Matt posted it. Hope she's at least relatively close of truth.
... than the Brexit/demographics charts.
Does your source break it down into other groups, or is it just the 18-25s?
hS
Matt posted it on Discord, so if there are more like this somewhere, he will be the one who can say it.
We may have taken two steps back, but hey, a half step forward is still moving forward. It's still kinda sad that we'll have to wait two more years to try and take another half step, though.
You've only elected one black woman to the Senate before now?!
hS
Racism (not to mention sexism) didn't die with the civil rights movement, it was just driven underground. It speaks in code and acts in the name of the "war on drugs," among other smokescreens.
Apparently sadness and anger makes me want to be poetic. Ugh. >.<
~Neshomeh
The UK, according to the 2011 census, is nearly 90% white.[Wikipedia] According to a report from Parliament,[parliament.uk] 6.3% of the House of Commons is non-white ('ethnic minority' is the usual phrase) - 41 MPs. 21 of those are women, or almost exactly half. It admits that 'Prior to 2010, there had only been two black female Members and no Asian woman had been elected', but still.
Up in the House of Lords - you know, the unelected relic of autocratic blah blah whatever - the numbers are almost identical: 51 ethnic minority Lords, 20 of whom are women. That's out of 800, so it's 6.4%.
Twenty. Twenty of the members of each House of Parliament are ethnic minority women. And that's 90%-white Britain. America is 12% black, and not even 70% 'non-Hispanic white'. Why are you doing so much worse at this?!
hS
Approximately 50% of our population believe that non-white people are crack-snorting criminals who are stealing their jobs and also mooching off their tax dollars at the same time somehow.
Hell, some of these people might not even know they're racist, because it's all in code. It's hard to fight that.
... Going on about "code" probably sounds like some whackadoo conspiracy nonsense, but it's true. If you analyze the populations in question when we talk about people on welfare, people who go to jail for drug-related crime, illegal immigrants "taking our jobs"... it's mostly people of color, because they are marginalized and poor and have fewer opportunities that come at greater cost than the rest of us.
Maybe now it'll come out into the open again, and maybe we'll be able to do something about it. I don't know.
~Neshomeh
... just flippin' hate poor people. Polish? British? Doesn't matter. We want to kick you out and take away your money, accusing you of benefits fraud - while at the same time looking down on you for not being sneaky enough to exploit the system properly.
The reason for that, I guess, is that our non-white migrants have historically been professionals (rather than, y'know, slaves and people crossing an immediate land border, per America), while our poor migrants are largely from Eastern Europe. So there's far less of an ability to subtly focus on race, and most people's first thought when you say (for instance) 'Indian' is either a doctor or a taxi driver.
There's some broad generalizations in what I just said, of course. But I think the core of it is true.
hS
Especially if they're disabled or mentally ill, because, you know, ew, amirite? We wouldn't want to waste precious money supporting them so they can live their lives with any sort of dignity, that would be just awful for the country.
Just... y'know... I knew people felt this way. I just didn't know there were really so many of them—or, to be as fair as I can possibly bring myself to be, so many people who find other things to be more important than life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and justice for all (to mash together some of the words we supposedly believe in here). WHAT other things, I'm not sure. Avoiding war with Russia, maybe, I saw someone mention that? But then, I'm afraid Russia's going to start World War III and we're going to get dragged in on the wrong side of it.
... Gah, I have to go shower and get ready for work now. At least I know I'll be in a supportive, safe environment there. Just. GAH.
~Neshomeh
I voted later in the day. The turnout was remarkable. According to poll workers this was the largest turn out ever in our precinct. I stayed up all night watching the election and saying "holy crap" every few minutes. I still feel like this election is unreal.
What are the odds that all the people who cheerfully deny climate change are the ones who'll be worm-chewed ashes within 20 years?
The one group of people for whom caring v. not caring about climate change isn't a life or death matter?
That's a wee bit suspect. How very suspicious.
On the bright side, we'll all be too busy trying to fix everything that's been broken to even notice that we're being crushed by the water pressure of the rising sea levels.
God bless the meme-master Harambe voters. Bless them.
Most of you are probably still asleep. You don't yet know what's happened.
Lucky you.
To those of you who voted for Hillary:
I feel for you. I really do.
To those of you who voted for Trump:
What happens next is on your shoulders. Whatever he does over the next four years, it's all on you.
To those of you who voted third-party, particularly in places like Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and everywhere else that the split between the two actual candidates was less than the number of votes thrown away on 'other':
I hope your protest vote is worth the next four years.
To those of you who didn't bother to vote:
Listen.
I hate you.
hS
People complain about the antiquated Electoral College. Maybe it is, maybe not. This is not an argument for the College. But the Electoral College was designed by the Framers of the US Constitution with the idea in mind that direct democracy cannot be trusted. When a State's Electoral Votes go to a candidate, all that means is that that candidate is expected to get those Electoral Votes. But I think only about half of the US requires their Electoral Votes actually go to the candidate that won their state. So theoretically, though highly unlikely, enough of the Electoral College could decide that Trump is not qualified for the Presidency, and could either vote for other choices or Hillary Clinton, so that she gets enough to win a majority, or at least a plurality of the College to win.
Let me impress upon you that this is a highly unlikely scenario, but is not completely unprecedented. In fact Alexander Hamilton, I think it was, basically described that the purpose of Electoral College was to prevent the populous from electing someone who is vastly unqualified from becoming president. And I think there is an argument that Mr. Trump is uniquely unqualified for the position. There is something known as a Faithless Elector. It is rare, but occasionally happens where an Elector does not vote for the person they are supposed to. The last time it happened was in 2004, a Minnesota Elector voted for John Edwards instead of John Kerry, who he was pledged to vote for.
Now to this point in US History these Faithless Electors have never actually decided an election. Enough Electors have voted the way the College implies they will vote. But as we have seen continuously, this election seems to break all the rules. So in theory there could be enough Faithless Electors that allow Secretary Clinton to be elected President instead of Mr. Trump.
In the most 2016ish way possible.
(Wasn't the 2004 incident a mistake, rather than a deliberate act of rebellion?)
Apparently four electors threatened to do exactly this: two Democrats from Washington said they'd refuse to vote Clinton (which they're pledged to), and Republicans in Georgia and Texas said they'd refuse to vote Trump (ditto).
A random article from Time talks about this and suggests the following:
The first applies if an elector abstains or flips his vote in such a way that it results in an Electoral College tie. In such a case, then a little known provision buried in the Twelfth Amendment mandates that the House decides the president, while the Senate chooses the vice president. Each state delegation in the House casts one vote for president, and whichever candidates get the simple majority wins.
The second constitutional check is more broad. On January 6, 2017, the newly elected Congress will meet to determine if the Electoral College vote was “regularly given.” For most of the country’s 57 past presidential elections, this vote has been ceremonial. But it doesn’t have to be. If just one House member and one senator objects to the way that the Electoral College vote played out—for example, if a faithless elector swings the final tally—then the new members can retreat to chambers to vote on what to do about it. If the House and Senate agree, their decision is final. If the House or the Senate do not agree, then the dispute goes to the “executive of the state,” meaning the state’s Secretary of State, who would make the final call.
In other words, if Satiacum, Chiafalo, Vu, or Suprun cast a vote that ultimately alters the course of the election, and anyone in the newly-elected House or Senate balks, then the decision, in all likelihood, will be delegated to Washington Secretary of State Kim Wyman, Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, or Texas Secretary of State Carlos Cascos. And while it’s impossible to say what, exactly, those state chiefs would choose, they would be under extraordinary pressure to honor the voters’ will.
I kind of hope it will happen, just for the total 2016ishness of it all. (Is the the point where I go off-the-wall and start yelling 'Hail Discordia'?)
hS
but there are two teensy-weensy but ever-so-crucial, little, tiny details in the article that they got wrong.
(Please tell me that someone's able to pick up the reference that I smuggled in there without having to resort to Google!)
1) That second check is not constitutional, it's statutory. To be precise, even though the Twelfth Amendment does state that the President of the Senate (a.k.a. the Vice President of the United States) shall count the electoral votes in the presence of the House and Senate, the provision cited regarding determining whether the vote was "regularly given" is in a statute: 3 U.S.C. § 15 (United States Code, Title 3, Section 15) to be exact.
2) When a federal statute refers to the "executive" of a State, it means the governor of the state, not its Secretary of State. So the people that the article should have named are Washington Governor Jay Inslee, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal, and Texas Governor Greg Abbott.
Details aside, however, I must agree that it would be quite the capstone to the 2016 election if even more discord were to arise at the very tail end of the process.
Was because of how outlandish everything in 2016 has already been. If there was ever a year where the Electoral College was going to go sideways, this would be the year.
Yes, Donald Trump will probably be a bad president. Yes, him being elected despite losing the popular vote sucks. Yes, progress, whatever that word means to you, may stall. But it doesn't have to move backwards.
The U.S. government is not a monolith. It can, has been, and will again be, bowed by the public. Even the Republican majority government can be overcome. Nothing is certain, anything can change. Personally, I have resolved to wait and see, and I don't think it's too unreasonable an idea for most of us to do the same.
Meanwhile, please don't write off the people who voted for Trump. Some of his voters were undoubtedly jerks, but definitely not all, and certainly not enough to bring him within spitting distance of the popular vote. There were real, rational reasons to vote for him, and there were real, rational reasons to vote against Hillary. And those who voted for third party candidates had legitimate reasons to dislike both candidates, on policy and character grounds.
Everyone picked the candidate they thought best, and if you dismiss that idea you'll never understand why they held the beliefs they did, or how to change them.
There are two rather insightful quotes by John Green I feel are useful here; "truth resists simplicity," and, "imagine others complexly."
The world isn't black and white, the political divide isn't right and wrong, and the choice this election was not, to most, good or bad.
And who knows, Trump might just surprise us. I don't think he will, but none of us can see the future. Maybe a few good things will come out of his term. Personally I'm hopng this whole debacle will give some momentum to election reform.
-Badger, who dreams of a world where First Past the Post voting and the Electoral College have gone the way of the dodo.
I mean, looking at his cabinet, this is going to be a rough two - four years. Still, hopefully something happens that makes these years not horrifically awful.
Now, I do want to ask this sincerely: what do you want to see implemented other than first-past-the-post? Now, electoral collage? Scrap it. It is the absolute worst system I have ever seen in a so called "democracy" that was outdated at the very outset, and certainly is outdated now. But, to me, I don't see any voting system that would make things more fair. Now, please, by all means, if you have something, offer it! I am not saying that a two party system is good. Far from it. I want more third parties. But, I just don't see how the other systems I have seen don't have the exact same pitfalls that a strait democracy has.
And maybe, if we're proposing things that probably won't happen soon happen (except in Maine! Go Maine!), adding more seats to the House.
Eh, kinda what I expected.
If anyone's curious, I'm relieved because my country's leader is going to be someone I find personally unpleasant, rather than a conniving felon who lies on instinct. Compared to her, I'm relieved to have Trump as president; that tells you just about all you need to know about my views on Hillary.
Personally, if there had been an option to vote for a paper mache bust of Calvin Coolidge, I would have gone with that. He'd have more substance and be sturdier on all issues than the other two combined. And his voice wouldn't be so annoying. And we'd have Coolidge back in office. I just really like Calvin Coolidge okay
To sum up, I don't like either of them, but I dislike Hillary more than I dislike Trump. Anyway, that's Le Far-Far-Far-Far-Far-Far-Far Right (in relation to the rest of the PPC) Alleb's take on things.
-Alleb, who knows all of you can get through this, as she survived eight years of Obama. Also, she's praying for you and hopes your worst fears are proved false
Well, I'll admit that my first reaction was relief as well. Relief at knowing USA had elected a President more open to a multi-polar world, a President who is not going to try to go for another attempt at regime change, in my country or elsewhere, a President who's consistently signalled he's going to leave our Syrian operation be and not plunge the country into further chaos by giving more weapons to terrorists and imposing a "no-fly zone".
Of course, the human brain is naturally wired to detect threats and plan for them rather then rest on laurels, so now I'm also terrified about what he'll do to climate, alongside basically everyone else who takes heed. Though, I have learnt today that he signed a letter alongside lots of other businessmen telling Obama to do more about climate change before Copenhagen.
An uncharitable interpretation is that he only did it to spite Obama, of course, and his later denialism was his real view... but he has to understand it now, or else he wouldn't be building seawalls for his Scottish properties. Moreover, there was that thing he said about his deal-making principle when discussing the Iran deal, I believe: to first terrify everyone and get lots of concessions, but ultimately go along with the spirit of it. In that case, the current panic might even be more beneficial in long term than the complacency Hillary's years would've brought.
If all that fails and he does what he currently says... he's an enormously unpopular US leader worldwide, who would be taking up a position every other country's leader understands is highly dangerous for them. If that's not a perfect storm for open defiance of USA that will lead to the imposition of global sanctions, I don't know what is. In that case, the impact on the economy and the associated decrease in consumption will also help to reduce emission and probably counter much of his coal-loving.
As someone who doesn't live in the US and so isn't affected by its domestic policy (as fascinating as it can often be, for right and wrong reasons), these global-reaching issues were of main importance to me. From reading the board, I understand that many of you have legitimate grievances and reasons to feel unsafe now, but again, it's only four years before you can radically beat the tide back. The US is still one of the better countries in the world to be LGBTQ+, etc., and four years won't undo that.
Your prisons and police are a disgrace of course (in Russia, it's actually illegal for police to open fire without giving warning), and this is set to get worse, but like it or not, the rest of the world will barely notice this in comparison to above. Perhaps, you'll finally manage to recognise great and capable candidates before it's too late next time. You still had you could vote for in this election of course, named Jill Stein. Would've loved if she won it somehow, and hope she and Baraka will manage to put these four years to good use regardless.
I'm genuinely curious to know what President Obama did that you needed to 'survive'. I know what I'm afraid Trump will do - that's the antagonistic (or at least potentially-antagonising reply, which I will make if requested but not if not), but from over here it doesn't look like Obama has done anything to decrease the quality of life of Americans as a whole or individually. (I can actually only name two things he did, period: took a baby-step towards proper healthcare, and killed Bin Laden. He's not made much of an impression on me.)
So: what did you 'survive'? Enquiring me's want to know.
hS
but also know that the fears of the rest of the Board do have some basis in fact. Neither of us would have voted for Trump in the primaries, and correct me if I misspeak, but I believe that we both must admit that our main source of relief is not that Trump won, but that Clinton lost.
You know Trump has appointed a climate change denialist to the EPA? We've already failed to meet our goals in that regard - temperature rise now seems irreversible - but Trump is accelerating it. That's a literal end-of-the-world scenario - not just the "OMG he's gunna take mah guns" nonsense you've had to live with while Obama's been President.
Also: felon? There's this little principle about innocent until proven guilty in US law. Hillary Clinton has not been found guilty of a felony; hence, she's not a felon. Calling her one basically amounts to slander. You can dislike her all you want, but if you're going to repeat lies, you're going to lose the respect of a lot of people (such as me).
Maybe one day the USA will get a modern democratic system - then we won't have Republicans losing the popular vote but getting the White House anyway.
Hopefully, though, Trump might be able to push through Congressional term limits. If he does that, his Presidency might not be a total loss.
Lastly: kindly do not pray for me. If you want to do something for me, use your voice to stop Trump undoing everything the world's been working towards. Thank you.
(i'm dying of heat down here please stop the warming)
Trump looks like he's going to appoint Ben Carson as Secretary of Education. A Young Earth Creationist.
Hooray.
Here and here. Have a beloved piece of my childhood. Share it with your young friends and relatives. And if you like that, there's more! Some of the concepts may be a bit outdated, but it's a start. And I still have a soft spot in my heart for the Bell Laboratory Science Series, too. MASSIVELY outdated, but the basics are still fairly sound, at least.
Also, if you want something a BIT more contemporary, Bill Nye the Science Guy is now on Netflix. I binge-watched all of it not so long ago. ^_^
~Neshomeh
He's cutting Education funding anyway, right? So Carson won't be able to do anything.
hS, silver lining (which is probably toxic metals)
..from what I hear, Trump intends to increase spending in education. So yeah. :-(
It is not basically slander, accusing someone of a crime is under US Law Defamation Per-Se. Usually that means they would not even need to prove damages to win on that. Now as Secretary Clinton is a public figure, such comments would need to have been made with actual malice, which is an incredibly high standard to meet. But as this is a board posting it would actually be libel not slander. But other than they name the two forms of defamation are the same.
And I agree seriously, it seems America forgot that whole innocent until proven guilty with regards to Secretary Clinton. For her it apparently has been guilty until proven innocent beyond all doubt.
I knew you'd show up with the correct terms at some point. ^_^
Forgive me if I don't share your relief.
Because ewwww trans.
*scowls*
I'm seriously considering going back into the closet in real life because I don't want to deal with the prejudice that's already springing out from the carpet under which we swept it.
And I am not happy for many reasons. Chief among them would have to be that, in all likelihood, I could very well lose my health insurance next year once the Republicans axe the ACA. I will almost certainly lose the tax credit I receive on it, which would make insurance a rather onerous financial burden. My father is also at risk. Given that he suffers from diabetes and depression (the latter of which I also struggle with), it will be especially hard on him.
I am also not happy at finding out how many of my fellow citizens are either bigots, or willing to tolerate bigots just to get their own way. I had a smidgen of hope that people might overcome their more base natures to do the right thing. I was wrong. So I suppose I should be a bit grateful in that the election has reaffirmed my choice of Internet pseudonym.
The list goes on. I am not happy that national attempts to curb climate change will be abandoned. I am not happy that federal protections for the LGBTQ+ community will likewise be discarded. I am not happy that a theocratic nutjob is a heartbeat away from the Presidency. I am not happy that every bully, every white nationalist, every neo-nazi, and every proto-facist has been given even a bit of validation.
In short, it's not been a fun day in my head.
But I will not allow myself to give in to despair. As Scapegrace said elsewhere in this thread, "This fight is over. The fightback begins now."
Even if it was 15 years ago, I remember when her father went to the second turn. I remember that, while the first turn was a massive failure thanks to the polls, the ducker was kept out of the presidential office.
I refuse to believe his girl can win just 15 years after that. Unless both of Sarkozy and Hollande are present, and one of them is the one for the second turn. And let me tell you, they're far from there.
I guess the best we can do now is try to make our feelings known during the midterm elections in 2018. For now, though, I hope Trump is merely an incompetent buffoon, and not the reason we have a World War 3.
Apparently there are a lot of people here that are either outright racist/xenophobic/etc. or willing to tolerate extreme levels of that sort of thing. I don't really want to think that we're not upholding the values we claim to share.
I'm also a bit horrified that the racist cheeto might actually start a nuclear war, since he didn't seem to get the Mutually Assured Destruction concept during his campaign.
(and also we can't learn from history, since we basically elected something like a fascist, with a theocrat for VP)
You say, " I don't really want to think that we're not upholding the values we claim to share."
You want to know what I have to say to that?
Good.
Don't.
Don't you for a moment think that because Trump won, bigotry also won. To slightly alter a line from a YouTube video I saw today, while all the bigots voted for Trump, not everyone who voted for Trump is a bigot. (Case in point, yours truly: black, Haitian, PPC Boarder).
We were faced with a horribly flawed choice. Were any other Democrat facing Trump, his multiple gaffes would have ended the election then and there. And were any other Republican facing off against Hillary, the e-mail scandals may well have been her death knell.
And let's not be deceived: both candidates were flawed. The media has highlighted Trump's faults, but let's not pretend that Hillary is blameless. She is clearly corrupt, believing herself above the law. Bill Clinton talks to the head of the Justice Department, and surprise, surprise, even though FBI Director Comey spells out that Hillary was "extremely reckless" with classified information (translated into legalese: "gross negligence"), the Justice Department declines to prosecute.
More personally for me, the "humanitarian" Clinton Foundation misappropriated funds meant to go towards rebuilding Haiti after the 2010 earthquake, but since the mainstream news media has a left-leaning bias, no one hears a thing unless they actually do some digging.
And need I say "Benghazi"? While our diplomats get killed in a terrorist attack, Hillary and Obama are already looking towards some pastor in Florida as a scapegoat. (Let's completely ignore the fact that the attacks came on the anniversary of one of the worst disasters to occur on American soil. Ignore the man behind the curtain! Look at this Floridian jester instead!)
And I could go on.
Hillary becoming President would have just been the capstone of a long-time grasp for power and impunity.
Personally, I wanted someone sane to be the Republican nominee. I can only pray that Congress can curb his worst instincts. No president rules alone.
However, if faced with the choice between two evils, better the one who'd clearly state that he wants to kill me than the one who'd hug me only to get a good angle to plunge a knife in my back. Trump isn't ideal. No one can deny that. But though I may be in the minority here on the Board, at least let it be said that I made a cogent argument for honestly believing that Hillary would have been worse.
…when your so-called evidence stems from Fox News, the American Center for Law and Justice (a Christian conservative advocacy group that has supported anti-LGBT laws in Africa) and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. If you're trying to convince people, then picking such blatantly biased sources is not the way to go.
Likewise, your bringing up of Benghazi—an enormous pile of nothing which has been publicly acknowledged as nothing more than an attempt to smear Secretary Clinton—makes me think you've spent far too long in a conservative echo chamber. Your assumptions and choice of language seem to back that up. "She is clearly corrupt, believing herself to be above the law." How do you know? Do you have words that she has written or said that prove this point? Or is this just an claim made on all this weak evidence?
You say you make a cogent argument for "honestly believing that Hillary would have been worse." I disagree. All you've done is spout the same Fox News drivel that I've seen dozens of times.
Sure, both candidates were flawed. I will fully cop to that. But I would rather have a typical "public stance, private stance" politician than a narcissistic, short-tempered moron who surrounds himself with extremist yes-men.
have shown you that despite my initial poor choice in sources, I should be taken seriously.
As for Alex Jones, I honestly had no idea who he was before your post, nor that he was a noted conspiracy theorist. I do not travel in those circles. My older brother (who is no conservative) shared that video on Facebook, and I, proud as I am about my heritage, already prone to believing the worst about Clinton, and ignorant of who was doing the talking, took it as incontrovertible truth. I know that that is no excuse for not having done more digging into who it was that I was listening to, but at least you now have some context.
You claim:
Bill Clinton talks to the head of the Justice Department, and surprise, surprise, even though FBI Director Comey spells out that Hillary was "extremely reckless" with classified information (translated into legalese: "gross negligence"), the Justice Department declines to prosecute.
That is not, in fact, what happened. You're implying that the Clinton's pressured or persuaded the Justice Department to ignore the FBI's proof that Hillary was a criminal. That is not what happened.
This is a quote from the actual statement from the director of the FBI:
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
[...]
As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case. (Source on the FBI website)
The FBI, not the Justice Department, made the initial statement that they didn't think charges were appropriate. The fact that you either chose to mask that fact, or were unaware of it (and in fact seemed to believe the opposite), makes me extremely disinclined to trust any of the rest of your statements.
hS
Yes, it was Director Comey who first recommended that Clinton not be prosecuted. However, the final decision on whether to prosecute belongs to the Attorney General (who is the head of the Justice Department), not the head of the FBI.
So in my haste (the post was made at 11:16 PM New York time), I wrongly truncated the facts.
The point that I wanted to make was that even though there were possible grounds for a prosecution, it appeared that the fix was in to ensure that Clinton would get away scot-free.
When there are grounds for prosecution, yet the relevant authorities decide not to prosecute — for example, because they estimate that the case cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Not every decision not to prosecute is corrupt.
... the man who said she shouldn't be prosecuted is the same man who a) was a registered Republican for most of his life, and donated to the McCain and Romney campaigns, and b) was quite happy to open a second investigation after already stating they shouldn't prosecute, and have it run right up to the day before the election.
If James Comey was being bribed, threatened, or persuaded into getting Hillary Clinton off, then he did a spectacularly bad job.
hS
"A woman who didn't do the things you think she did lost to a man who did do all the things you're pretending he didn't."
The Wikipedia article is virtually unreadable, but seems to say that Secretary of State Clinton's heinous crime was... not increasing security? More specifically, not increasing security in the face of this specific potential - not, apparently, a direct threat of - terrorist attack? Out of what I know (from the number of terrorist plots purportedly thwarted by the police over here) must have been dozens, if not hundreds. Is that right?
And if so, how does that match up with the fact that September 11th, 2001 - which you've namedropped, I see - was also reported afterwards to have been massively foreshadowed? I seem to remember the president for that getting reelected. Help me out here.
hS
I have to admit that I was misled in part.
Long story short, the conservative talking points were 1) that Clinton ignored calls for help in Benghazi, and 2) that Clinton misled the American people by saying that the attack was part of a spontaneous protest instead of a coordinated terrorist attack.
As far as the first talking point is concerned, this article from the fact-checking website Politifact, shows that it's clear that saying that Clinton ignored cries for help is patently unfair. So I admit that I've been misled.
As far as the second talking point, though, there is some basis in fact. As factcheck.org puts it: "But, at this point, we do know that Obama and others in the administration were quick to cite the anti-Muslim video as the underlying cause for the attack in Benghazi that killed four U.S. diplomats, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. And they were slow to acknowledge it was a premeditated terrorist attack, and they downplayed reports that it might have been." Here is the full article.
I try my best to stay away from biased news sources (biased either way), but after the Brexit referendum campaign, believe me when I say I know how much it sucks to be misled by the people who are supposed to be on your side. I don't honestly know that a single true thing was said by either campaign over Brexit.
Though partly that's because it was all 'predict what will happen if we leave the EU', which we still don't know for sure. Cases where the misleading is about what someone did or didn't do are much worse, because the evidence exists - which means sources which say something misleading either didn't research it (which is bad) or are just lying (which is really bad).
hS
I just... I have been trying to see the positives. I have been trying to see how or why this happened. I just... I can't. This is unbelievable. This is not the America I knew. This is not the America I love. My America is a land of hope and optimism. It is a cultural meting pot, where anyone who is willing to put the work in can make a living for themselves. It is the America that allowed gay marriage within this very decade. It is the America that elected a black president. However, I see I must have been truly blinded by hope.
Does this mean America can't be this again? No. And, in many ways, she is still my home. But, I have a lot of fighting to do to bring that America back. Where freedom of religion is respected. Where we can have civil discourse and respect for differences of opinion. (And yes, hypothetical Trump supporter reading this, I do see the hypocrisy in my statement, thank you.) I have to fight to bring back the country I love.
I may have scared some of you in the Discord chat last night. I won't be killing myself over this. It's depressing. World shattering. Disillusioning. But not worth ending my life over. If anything, I now have a lot more to live for. So, I'm sorry if I scared anyone.
My final note. Trump may become the president of the United States, but he sure is not mine. And I will make sure he knows it.
I just... I feel kind of numb right now, actually.
Hasn't really sunk in yet.
England, I hope you've got room for one more, because I'm getting out of here as soon as I can.
We've decided to be xenophobic ourselves, so I'm sure we'll be starting on that coastal wall any day now.
On the other side, you're not brown talks funny believes crazy things dresses differently dangit, what's the word the wrong sort of person, so maybe you'll get in after all.
hS
Sure, they're still United Kingdom for now, but you can hope they secede and remain inside the UE. Or maybe Ireland...
To be quite honest do not get upset at everyone who didn't vote. Quite frankly some of them couldn't.
It sucks but it's the truth.
Though ... THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED THE ...ING DEAD APE THEY HAD NO EXCUSE!
I'm reminded of how people in Russia voted for Pikachu because they were so upset with the government as it was. I get it, people, you're upset and all. But really, what part of working with what you've got do you not understand? Sometimes the choice we have to make isn't what we want, but that is no reason to pull such a dick move out of pure spite.
I can understand if there was no way you could vote, but sending in a joke candidate just to flip off every candidate in the running is Not Cool in any way, and would more than likely give the majority vote to the candidate with the biggest vote tally e.g. Trump. It's like they say, those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.
Even disregarding efforts such as in, I think, North Carolina to actively suppress the vote you !@#$ing !@#$ks...
Ahem. Not all states support early voting. In those places, if you are, say, working three jobs to support your family and can't afford to miss work to stand in line for hours, you might not have voted.
Also, if you are disabled, elderly, or otherwise unable to travel easily to your polling place, you may not have voted. Especially if you also don't have access to or just don't know about the services designed to overcome travel difficulties.
And, well, if you're underage. I imagine there are some conscientious under-eighteens who are seriously pissed about it right now.
There are reasons.
But yeah, anyone who stayed home because they were complacent, or didn't think it would matter, or just didn't give a shit? I hope you've learned your lesson, and I'll expect to see you in two years for the midterms.
~Neshomeh
Everybody underestimated the ability of the GOP to get its followers to march in lockstep. The revulsion at Trump and Trumpists was evidently public handwringing by people who had no intention of voting any other way. And since they had power at state and local levels, because for some reason the American left is really, really bad at voting down-ballot, they were able to gerrymander and suppress and initiate ridiculous laws based on fear; not the fear that there was going to be fraudulent conduct at the election, but fear that their party was going to lose. Even when its Presidential candidate is on trial in December for child molestation and its VP candidate wants to run mains electricity through the genitals of queer youth.
The disenfranchised tried to vote for a better future, and were systematically denied the opportunity to do so. I can't believe this is the case in America, wherein democracy is one of the most sacred principles - oh, wait, yes I can, because American democracy is only a sacred principle as long as everyone involved is a white man. Or orange man, as the case may be.
Love does not inherently trump hate. Voting trumps hate. Throw yourselves into activism. Throw yourselves forward. I plan on running for local government in my constituency and I urge you all to do the same. We win when we can do what the right does - take control and get people voting down-ballot en masse. Then we can break the back of the GOP, a party so in thrall to its worst excesses it might as well replace its policy lab with a meth lab. Then, and only then, can people who view voting as a lifestyle choice rather than a means of making the country better one soul at a time chuck ballots at Jill Stein and Gary Johnson and every other nonentity with not a snowball's chance in a blast furnace of forming a bloody government.
The American people are derelict in their duty, which is the duty of all humanity, to create a better world. The greedy and the stupid have won today. Now is the time for anyone who genuinely believes in the idea of America, in the ideal of a democracy run for the benefit of the people it governs rather than corporate institutions, to get out and be active. I said it after the 2015 general election, I said it after Brexit, and I'll say it again:-
This fight is over. The fightback begins now.
Kaitlyn said this morning that they're far more widely spaced over there than they are here. Here, you can usually find multiple per town; they're always in walking distance, and there's so many that I've never had to wait in any sort of line.
I didn't really believe her, not properly. That just sounds like an utterly appalling setup for the planet's flagship democracy. But I guess it's true.
Yuck.
hS
No transportation,illness and injury,felony charges remove someone's right to vote(Which is bs),forced to be at work or else they would of been fired,unable to register,had their resignation voided for some reason,there are many legit reasons.
I almost couldn't thanks to a panic attack. I was lucky that they let me re enter the line.
Some of those are legit; some of them are frankly horrifying. But I take your point.
However, mine also still stands: I am frankly furious at the people who had every chance of voting, but just couldn't be bothered.
hS
I'm just saying don't lump everyone who couldn't with everyone who just plan didn't.
I seriously cannot believe this has happened. o.o I mean... seriously. This is completely, totally unbelievable. Have we 100% ruled out the possibility of Russia interfering...?
Okay. Well. Discounting the incredible, this is what we have to deal with. We'll have to be extra-vigilant from now on, guys. If it's our generation's time to risk our own personal safety for the rights and dignity of others, for the very principles on which this bloody stupid country was founded, I for one hope that I will be strong enough to get out there when the time comes and make my forebears and those yet to come proud.
This is the only way I can cope.
~Neshomeh
One country elected a bad leader. Throwing 7 billion people under the bus just because of the actions of 60 million is an overreaction. That's not even considering all the people of the future who apparently are also "beyond redemption," whatever redemption means to you. (It also shows a remarkable lack of understanding as to what other species are actually like. Humans aren't great, but human men don't regularly murder the children of women they're attracted to in order to get her to have kids with them. Male felines do. And the only reason ducks aren't required to register as sex offenders is that they lack the sapience to take responsibility for their actions.)
It also deserves to be pointed out that frankly, in the list of human crimes, this is extremely small potatoes. That's not to say it's good, but compared to the kind of things humanity has already done, it's nothing. If you're sheltered to the point where you've never heard of things like the Rape of Nanking, that's good for you. But if we really are beyond redemption as a species, this was not the deciding moment. It's not even close.
I wrote that message at like 4 in the morning, during my initial bout of anger and sleeplessness. Looking at what everyone else has said, I've come to realize that as bad as this situation is, there is still hope for recovery in the future. And of COURSE I regret my earlier post, for all sorts of reasons.
I was shortsighted and irrational last night, and for that I will have no further say on this for both my sake and that of everyone else. I just hope we all can learn from this and, you know, don't make an even worse mistake.
If we survive the next four years, we can 'trust' Trump and his cronies for utterly destroying any credibility for the far right, whatever the country.
Hardric, trying to grasp any straw in this madness.
First, he's burned a lot of bridges in his own party. That's gonna make it hard to get anything done. I'm still holding out hope Obama can fineigle a Supreme Court justice in the next two months. And much - though certainly not all - of Obama's reforms and policies will be tough to overturn. At least quickly. I mean, anyone remember how the republican filibuster stopped him from getting anything substantive done for years?
Second, the military doesn't like or trust him. Yes, we need a peaceful transfer of power. But I know they have ways of handling presidents who are clearly not mentally competent to hold power - best example being late-stage Nixon. Regardless of what Trump believes his power is, they won't commit war crimes for him.
And, third- this will hopefully lead to some serious reforms of both the primary and electoral systems that we have badly needed for a long, long time.
Lastly… it was close. Very close. And even now I'm fairly sure Hillary got the popular vote (see above, on our useless, outdated, error-ridden electoral system). I'm very, very angry at the republicans who swallowed their conscience and voted for a man whose only policy was hate, at the Bernie or Bust crowd who even now are blaming Hillary supporters for Trump, at the media who pushed Trump into the spotlight because his antics made for better ratings, and at the Democrats who didn't turn out because somehow they didn't feel happy enough about Hillary.
It took us eight years to learn that mistake with Bush. Let's hope we learn it a little quicker this time.
(And, also, though I briefly hoped for impeachment too, please bear in mind that, Republican house and senate aside, Pence's policies are fairly well reflected in A Handmaid's Tale. We're stuck with this now. Strategies have to be riding it out and blocking the damage on a state, local, and federal level, and getting the $@£¥ VOTE OUT next election. And I don't just mean four years, I mean midterms in two years. VOTE, people.)
And yeah, you need the changes. This system was thought for a country too vast for knowing quickly the results, and that stopped to be a problem a long time ago.
Direct universal suffrage is sorely needed. And several turns of election to make sure nobody goes in this Oval Office without the majority of the country behind them.
Way back in the golden age of 2010, we in Britain had a moment of balance. The Labour and Conservative parties both failed to win a majority in the general election, which meant the Liberal Democrats - the only functioning left-wing we had - held the power to shape the next four years. Should they form a coalition with the larger, but right-wing Conservatives, or should they stick to their principles and form one with Labour?
They chose the Conservatives. And then they did absolutely nothing to moderate the Conservative government that followed. They demonstrated conclusively that even the most idealistic politicians want nothing more than to get into power and stay there.
So no, I don't believe the Republican Congress will let Obama appoint a new justice to spite Trump. I don't believe they'll do a single blessed thing to stop Trump once he's in. And I don't believe for a single instant that they will alter an electoral system that just handed their party the win - except to try and bias it further in their favour while they have a solid grip on the reins.
hS
... 'at least Brexit looks marginally less stupid by comparison'.
Actually I can't which is worse: deliberately exiling yourself from the international community, or voting in someone who doesn't seem to think anyone who's not exactly like him (rich, American, right-wing, orange white, male, and old) is a real person.
And both results spring from a growing distrust of 'the establishment' - which translates into voting for the most obnoxious people because they're more 'real' than the politicians. During the Brexit referendum campaigns, we had Michael Gove's apparently-correct claim that 'Britain has had enough of experts'.
I don't think America properly understood that - that every horrifying comment coming out of Trump and getting lavished all over the media just made a vast group of people 'respect him for his honesty' all the more.
hS
Both of these decisions were a moment of monumental stupidity, that no sane person having done a minimum of research would have taken.
We can only hope these idiots don't drag down the world with them, and that with each new failure of them, their position in public opinion will be utterly destroyed.
There's, what, 58.6 million votes for Clinton out there? That's at least, oh, twenty percent of the voting-age population who felt it was worth the effort to try and prevent a racist, sexist xenophobe from taking the Executive branch (to go with a Legislative branch already held by his party, and a Judicial branch which said legislators have helpfully held a place open for him in - is there a word for the entire 'checks & balances' system being under control of a single party?). Maybe even a quarter, depending on how the population/eligible-to-vote breakdown goes.
So that's something, at least.
hS
Authoritarianism or Despotism. And I am deeply concerned about what happens next. If Mr. Trump follows through on even half of his promises, this deeply disturbing. I mean lets look at it, prosecuting his political opponents, categorically banning an entire religious group, mass deportations, splintering of families, and the like. I hope he moderates his position, but he has moderated as of yet, and I see no reason why he will with all branches of government under his party's control.
I'm sure there must be a word for it - a specific word for the American political system, where it must(?) have happened before.
Believe me, if I wanted to make jibes about 'one-party state' and the like, I could come up with them all by myself.
hS
They even gave out these nifty stickers!
My voting station didn't have stickers. At least I rewarded myself with a library stop afterwards.
Early vote-by-mail really is the way to go. It took me almost an entire off day to look up all the candidates and get the voting done, but doing the research is critical.
—doctorlit judges the judges
Early voting is awesome.
I would add to World-Jumper's words: your vote might not count if you do vote, but it definitely won't count if you don't. And the fewer people there are who vote, the fewer people there are whose votes count, and that is bad. So go do it, and drag your reluctant friends and family with you.
~Neshomeh
P.S. By the same logic, please recycle, switch to more energy-efficient lightbulbs, turn out lights when you leave the room, save water, etc. The more people who do these things, the bigger the difference that will be made.
Now, if you''ll excuse me, I'm going back to sleep. 5:30 is too early to be waling up no matter the reason.
And maybe when I wake up, 2016 will he over... /sigh