|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Ok but they're still anti gay marriage. That makes you "pro-choice." Likewise those old folks are "pro-marriage freedom."
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 20:21 |
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:My grandparents did not attend my aunt's same sex wedding because they disapproved but they voted in favor of it being legal. It must be one of those old school conservative attitudes where your personal opinion about things is distinct from your opinion about what the law should permit. So your grandparents are hypocritical and also opposed to (specific) marriages entirely because they are same-sex. That's still being opposed to same-sex marriage, thanks for playing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
Notorious QIG posted:So your grandparents are hypocritical and also opposed to (specific) marriages entirely because they are same-sex. That's still being opposed to same-sex marriage, thanks for playing. I don't think you quite understand what I'm saying here. It is possible to disapprove of a thing while also supporting someone's ability to do thing. On a personal level person may be anti-thing, but on the political level they are effectively pro-thing. This is an important distinction because the part that really matters is whether or not thing is legal, not getting dirty looks for doing thing. Also saying "I won't do this but you should be able to, even if it is bad" is not hypocritical. If you voted to ban same sex marriage and then got a same sex marriage somehow, that would be hypocritical.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
So I think Rush does not approve of Colbert replacing Letterman http://mediamatters.org/video/2014/04/10/rush-cbs-has-just-declared-war-on-the-heartland/198837
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:So you're defining them by their personal opinion and not their political opinion? Accurately defining their ideology in a way that makes sense to anyone who doesn't care to be a pedant.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Also saying "I won't do this but you should be able to, even if it is bad" is not hypocritical. If you voted to ban same sex marriage and then got a same sex marriage somehow, that would be hypocritical. You're right. Saying "I think you should be able to do this, well maybe not you specifically but the general 'you'" is hypocritical though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
I foolishly promised my father that I'd read Atlas Shrugged and bought the ebook version. This put me on the mailing list for Impact Weekly, the Ayn Rand Institute's online newsletter. http://email.aynrand.org/hostedemai...cd&ei=st76ibLmN
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
Notorious QIG posted:You're right. Saying "I think you should be able to do this, well maybe not you specifically but the general 'you'" is hypocritical though. It appears that we have different definitions of the term.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:I don't think you quite understand what I'm saying here. How common do you think this viewpoint is and in what situations would this distinction be meaningful in a discussion beyond not hurting someone's feelings for calling them opposed to something they don't believe they are opposed to. They are not pro gay marriage, they're just more anti state control than they are anti gay marriage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:It appears that we have different definitions of the term.  How do you not understand that it is hypocritical to say both "I believe that gay marriage should be legal" and "I disapprove of your marriage because it is a gay marriage"?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
Notorious QIG posted:
Because their reasoning why it should be legal does not conflict with their reasoning why they personally disapprove. It's not that hard.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Notorious QIG posted:
One can personally be against something and not feel the need to legislate against it for the rest of society.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
Notorious QIG posted:
Hypocrisy implies that one has higher standards or virtues than one actually does. For example, saying that drug users are degenerates while hiding one's own drug use for the purpose of appearing morally superior. Advocating for the legality of gay marriage while also disapproving of gay marriage is pretty straightforward, and does not require any sort of deception or false standards. mr. mephistopheles posted:They are not pro gay marriage, they're just more anti state control than they are anti gay marriage. What I'm saying is that one can be both pro- and anti- on different scales. Which is why I was questioning the logic of equating Obama's questionable stance on marriage to a person who actively contributed to a legal restriction on marriage. boner confessor fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Apr 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Accurately defining their ideology in a way that makes sense to anyone who doesn't care to be a pedant. Yes the best thing for any sphere of politics in the U.S. is for us to continue pursuing neat categorization of everyone's beliefs. Surely the only reason we're still deadlocked is because our ideological divisions are not cemented enough!
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Levantine posted:One can personally be against something and not feel the need to legislate against it for the rest of society. Ugh, fine. I still maintain that anybody who claims to not be anti-gay marriage who opposes a specific marriage for the sole reason that the marriage is between two same-sex individuals is not consistent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
Notorious QIG posted:Ugh, fine. I still maintain that anybody who claims to not be anti-gay marriage who opposes a specific marriage for the sole reason that the marriage is between two same-sex individuals is not consistent. Opposes and disapproves are different words, that mean different things. I do not oppose bronies, though I disapprove of them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
Pththya-lyi posted:I foolishly promised my father that I'd read Atlas Shrugged and bought the ebook version. This put me on the mailing list for Impact Weekly, the Ayn Rand Institute's online newsletter. Why would you buy an Ayn Rand book when they're free everywhere on the internet?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Opposes and disapproves are different words, that mean different things. I do not oppose bronies, though I disapprove of them. Fine, so replace the word "opposes" with the word "disapproves" in my post. I still stand by it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Mineaiki posted:Yes the best thing for any sphere of politics in the U.S. is for us to continue pursuing neat categorization of everyone's beliefs. Surely the only reason we're still deadlocked is because our ideological divisions are not cemented enough! That is some impressive willful misreading.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
You can be opposed to a thing without clamoring for its being outlawed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Notorious QIG posted:Ugh, fine. I still maintain that anybody who claims to not be anti-gay marriage who opposes a specific marriage for the sole reason that the marriage is between two same-sex individuals is not consistent. Why does it matter though? I mean yeah definitions blah blah blah, but in the end that is a victory for gay rights. Anything further is just hounding some old conservative sticks in the mud for being relatively inoffensive assholes. This sort of discussion is good when we're talking about libertarians—the type who say they're for getting rid of government marriage altogether, but what they really mean is they don't give a poo poo about gays and social liberalism is their bottom priority, and like Ron Paul they'll actually block gay marriage in the meantime because "they don't want to get government involved." It's useful then because it calls out supposed social justice advocates for using social justice as a platform to lure in liberals and then reneging on their promise. They're essentially Republicans in disguise and it's good to "shame" them for it. That's a battle we're still fighting. Shaming people who don't like gays but who actually voted for gay marriage anyway is just wasting energy being righteous. We won there. Go home. This is why shaming today is nothing like it used to be as a means of pursuing justice. It has no sense of direction at all, and just lashes out spitefully every which way until literally everyone thinks you're an rear end in a top hat and wants to stop associating with you. See: #cancelcolbert
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:That is some impressive willful misreading. I need to make sure everyone knows these old people who voted for gay marriage are neo-cons, because that will make things better for gays I think. Stop associating with us old people, you need to stay on your side of the aisle. gently caress you for voting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
So Hannity is taking it up a notch today. The IRS scandal is no longner just one of Obama's many Watergates, it is now worse than Watergate. Oh, and also liberal groups being targeted is a lie, which I know because he said so without citing anything to back it up and I trust him because he tells Someone school me if I'm wrong but the whole "scandal" is groups with a very blatant political agenda applying for tax status reserved for apolitical groups and being challenged, yeah?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
Mineaiki posted:I need to make sure everyone knows these old people who voted for gay marriage are neo-cons, because that will make things better for gays I think. Stop associating with us old people, you need to stay on your side of the aisle. gently caress you for voting. It's still better than nothing because hey, at least they're helping us get legal recognition, but if you don't understand that legal recognition is only part of the battle then I don't know what to say.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
Notorious QIG posted:It's still better than nothing because hey, at least they're helping us get legal recognition, but if you don't understand that legal recognition is only part of the battle then I don't know what to say. I dunno, part of living in society is dealing with people who don't approve of you for whatever goofy reason. It's impossible to please or get along with everyone. How much social recognition is necessary to achieve a victory for equal rights? How would you achieve this? mr. mephistopheles posted:Someone school me if I'm wrong but the whole "scandal" is groups with a very blatant political agenda applying for tax status reserved for apolitical groups and being challenged, yeah? More or less. None of the groups were actually denied, it just took a while for them to get approval. There's very little substance to this scandal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:I dunno, part of living in society is dealing with people who don't approve of you for whatever goofy reason. It's impossible to please or get along with everyone. How much social recognition is necessary to achieve a victory for equal rights? How would you achieve this? I guess it's ok to hate black people so long as you don't try to deny them equal rights.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Notorious QIG posted:I guess it's ok to hate black people so long as you don't try to deny them equal rights. Well, uh, yeah. I wouldn't say it's OK to be a bigot but it's not illegal to be a bigot nor should it be as long as you're not infringing on other people's rights.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Notorious QIG posted:I guess it's ok to hate black people so long as you don't try to deny them equal rights. Yeah, it totally loving is. Your thoughts don't matter. Your actions do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Well, uh, yeah. I wouldn't say it's OK to be a bigot but it's not illegal to be a bigot nor should it be as long as you're not infringing on other people's rights. No poo poo it's not illegal to be a bigot, nor should it be, but it also shouldn't be socially acceptable. That's my point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
Notorious QIG posted:I guess it's ok to hate black people so long as you don't try to deny them equal rights. Keep it to yourself and no one will ever know so why would it matter?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
Notorious QIG posted:No poo poo it's not illegal to be a bigot, nor should it be, but it also shouldn't be socially acceptable. That's my point. I don't think it's realistic to expect everyone to conform to ideals of social acceptability. Every person is flawed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
If someone said they were in favor of "traditional marriage" and actually did something aimed at, say, lowering the divorce rate, I'd believe them. It would also help if they'd specify which tradition they mean, because there are plenty of traditions where marriage is a property arrangement with no possibility of divorce. But when "protecting traditional" means "no gays" it kind of rings hollow since, you know, the existence of gay couples doesn't hurt straight couples.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
Notorious QIG posted:I guess it's ok to hate black people so long as you don't try to deny them equal rights. Uh, yeah. Exactly. You're allowed to hold whatever stupid, racist hate you want in your heart in America. But when you exit your hidey hole there are rules to protect people against stupid, racist, hateful poo poo that hasn't been codified into law.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:I don't think it's realistic to expect everyone to conform to ideals of social acceptability. Every person is flawed. That's why you get shamed for it instead of going to jail
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:That's why you get shamed for it instead of going to jail This is precisely why I have never said it should be illegal, only socially unacceptable. I hope that helps.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Someone school me if I'm wrong but the whole "scandal" is groups with a very blatant political agenda applying for tax status reserved for apolitical groups and being challenged, yeah? That's my understanding. And a lot of the dumber ones identify as political right in their loving names. So it's not that the IRS was singling them out based on ideology, it's that a ton of right wing idiots suddenly applications for non-political tax exemptions for organizations named with political keywords. It's only a "biased" crackdown because only one side was stupid enough to try it en masse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
I will never approve of people being religious, but I don't want to outlaw religion. Is a "battle" necessary until I change my mind?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
moths posted:That's my understanding. And a lot of the dumber ones identify as political right in their loving names. So it's not that the IRS was singling them out based on ideology, it's that a ton of right wing idiots suddenly applications for non-political tax exemptions for organizations named with political keywords. It's probable that the way in which the IRS went about this process produced a biased outcome. Which is the most petty, ridiculous thing to have senate hearings over but the GOP is desperate for scandals.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
I think their point was that ideologies still have a negative social impact and making a distinction between thoughts and actions excuses them in a way when we shouldn't excuse them because negative attitudes generally lead to or perpetuate negative actions. Saying it's okay for someone to be racist or homophobic as long as they're not voting for oppressive legislation is missing the point of why those things are bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 20:21 |
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Someone school me if I'm wrong but the whole "scandal" is groups with a very blatant political agenda applying for tax status reserved for apolitical groups and being challenged, yeah? I always thought part of it was that many of these groups believe taxes are theft and are applying for tax-exempt status. Some extra scrutiny might be required in those applications to ensure everything and everyone involved are legit. Eulogistics fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Apr 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 21:11
|
|
