|
mr. mephistopheles posted: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. But is this realistic? Even when homosexuality was literally outlawed and seen as a sign of mental disorder it wasn't possible to eradicate it. Why would the converse be true? Doesn't it then follow that the better strategy is actual tolerance of intolerance rather than a fruitless shamefest?
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 14:38 |
|
|
I disapprove of Rush Limbaugh and think he should be made illegal. I would boycott his wedding and would not associate with him in public or private.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Darkman Fanpage posted:Why would you buy an Ayn Rand book when they're free everywhere on the internet? I don't want to steal from anybody, even if they do deserve it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
Fox News accidently waves a white flag during a discussion of Benghazi.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:But is this realistic? Even when homosexuality was literally outlawed and seen as a sign of mental disorder it wasn't possible to eradicate it. Why would the converse be true? Doesn't it then follow that the better strategy is actual tolerance of intolerance rather than a fruitless shamefest? Actually, the shamefest is supposed to have tons of fruits involved.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
SedanChair posted: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? Religion is a choice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:But is this realistic? Even when homosexuality was literally outlawed and seen as a sign of mental disorder it wasn't possible to eradicate it. Why would the converse be true? Doesn't it then follow that the better strategy is actual tolerance of intolerance rather than a fruitless shamefest? No. These two things are not the opposite sides of the same coin. People are going to be born gay at just about the same rate no matter what we do. People are not born bigot. They're raised that way. Public shaming means fewer children grow into bigots. Won't eradicate bigotry by any means, but it helps. I don't know what you expect tolerance of intolerance to accomplish. Is there a sizable cadre of bigots that only do poo poo because other people don't like it? If hating blacks was socially acceptable would the klan hang up their robes because there wouldn't be any fun in it anymore? Because it was up until recently (and still kind of is depending on the situation) and the only thing that got hung up was black people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
Notorious QIG posted:Religion is a choice. So is marriage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
I don't think it's accidental by any stretch, i.e. the part where he paints this as a "victory" for Obama like they were fighting the investigations tooth and nail when they weren't, but it's an interesting development to see them blaming Darryl Issa (not by name though) for the whole thing not becoming a -gate. Ah Pook posted:Actually, the shamefest is supposed to have tons of fruits involved. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:I don't think it's accidental by any stretch, i.e. the part where he paints this as a "victory" for Obama like they were fighting the investigations tooth and nail when they weren't, but it's an interesting development to see them blaming Darryl Issa (not by name though) for the whole thing not becoming a -gate. Yeah, it reads to me more like they're saying "Obama got away with it!  " Like if the prosecution in a high-profile trial went for murder one and couldn't prove it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
Leofish posted:Yeah, it reads to me more like they're saying "Obama got away with it! Makes sense, really. I kind of get the feeling they knew from the get go that there was just no way to prove that Benghazi was some sort of massive Oblammo conspiracy to...do something...I don't really even know what they think he was trying to accomplish anymore. This isn't really a surrender but rather "we know Obama is evil and will get him next time."
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:But is this realistic? Even when homosexuality was literally outlawed and seen as a sign of mental disorder it wasn't possible to eradicate it. Why would the converse be true? Doesn't it then follow that the better strategy is actual tolerance of intolerance rather than a fruitless shamefest? Being gay and hating people for being gay. Two identical things with identical causes, which should be treated exactly the same.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
Swan Oat posted:I disapprove of Rush Limbaugh and think he should be made illegal. I would boycott his wedding and would not associate with him in public or private. You're a good, sensible man. My only question on BEHGNAZHZI!11 is what where FOX always referring to about X person WHO WAS THERE!!!11 wanted to speak out/testify but Obama Admin wouldn't let them?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
Zuhzuhzombie!! posted:You're a good, sensible man. Nobody. There was never such a person. There was a person who claimed to be there but it turned out he was just making poo poo up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
Strawman posted:Being gay and hating people for being gay. Two identical things with identical causes, which should be treated exactly the same. Incorrect. Expecting people to not be jerks to each other is as foolish as expecting social conformity. Part of human diversity is being a hateful bastard.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
Darkman Fanpage posted:No I mean "allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream". What does that even mean? Mainstream what? Mainstream ability to vote, probably. Modern feminism has its roots in the suffrage movement of the late 1800s-early 1900s.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
Modern Day Hercules posted:No. These two things are not the opposite sides of the same coin. People are going to be born gay at just about the same rate no matter what we do. People are not born bigot. They're raised that way. Public shaming means fewer children grow into bigots. Won't eradicate bigotry by any means, but it helps. I don't know what you expect tolerance of intolerance to accomplish. Is there a sizable cadre of bigots that only do poo poo because other people don't like it? If hating blacks was socially acceptable would the klan hang up their robes because there wouldn't be any fun in it anymore? Because it was up until recently (and still kind of is depending on the situation) and the only thing that got hung up was black people. Irradicating bigotry is a hopeless utopian dream. But irradicating its economic and political effects in the Land of the Free where all are created equal is something that can and should be done. Who gives a gently caress who you call nasty names in the sanctity of your own heart and home as long as it doesn't hurt others? I guess in that sense, bigotry sorta is like homosexuality. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Incorrect. Expecting people to not be jerks to each other is as foolish as expecting social conformity. Part of human diversity is being a hateful bastard. If public shaming is not a feasible or appropriate way to combat bigotry then what is? The only alternative I see is doing nothing, which is really dumb. Making it not okay to publicly call someone a human being is as much of a victory for gay rights as legalizing gay marriage and they go hand in hand. The general progression is social pressure changes attitudes which then leads to laws changing. I can't think of an instance where a law changed and then social attitudes followed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted: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. Comes up often enough with abortion. 18% disagree with abortion morally but don't think it should be illegal: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/01/22/public-opinion-on-abortion-and-roe-v-wade/ e: And 4% think abortions are a-ok yet think Roe should be overturned. 
Alec Bald Snatch fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Apr 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:If public shaming is not a feasible or appropriate way to combat bigotry then what is? The only alternative I see is doing nothing, which is really dumb. Making it not okay to publicly call someone a human being is as much of a victory for gay rights as legalizing gay marriage and they go hand in hand. The general progression is social pressure changes attitudes which then leads to laws changing. I can't think of an instance where a law changed and then social attitudes followed. Combat bigotry all you want, just don't ever expect to eliminate it is all I'm saying. Eliminating superficial hatred from the human condition is an unrealistic goal and if that's your win condition for equal rights, you will be disappointed. boner confessor fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Apr 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
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 do understand that it's only part of the battle. It just happens to be the biggest and by far most important part of the battle. Actual legal rights for gays are more important than every jackoff in America liking gay marriage. What you're asking for is a cultural change, which will not happen while gays are institutionally discriminated against. When we make the opposition look like a bunch of sticks in the mud as opposed to a legitimate political movement, the cultural change will occur much faster. Notorious QIG posted:I guess it's ok to hate black people so long as you don't try to deny them equal rights. This probably proves my point more than yours. Was slavery totally unacceptable when it was prohibited? No. Was Jim Crow culturally unpopular in the South when it was destroyed? No. It takes time to change an entire peoples' beliefs. Once Jim Crow supporters were marginalized and cast into the extreme of political life, they slowly became more and more unacceptable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:Comes up often enough with abortion. 18% disagree with abortion morally but don't think it should be illegal: Yeah there are examples of this, such as my own self-stated disagreement with abortion, but how is this relevant to political discussion? Popular Thug Drink posted:Combat bigotry all you want, just don't ever expect to eliminate it is all I'm saying. Eliminating superficial hatred from the human condition is an unrealistic goal and if that's your win condition for equal rights, you will be disappointed. Okay but nobody in the thread said that was their goal and I've never seen anyone claim this in real life either so I'm not sure why you're mentioning it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:But is this realistic? Even when homosexuality was literally outlawed and seen as a sign of mental disorder it wasn't possible to eradicate it. Why would the converse be true? Doesn't it then follow that the better strategy is actual tolerance of intolerance rather than a fruitless shamefest? Well ok, it's easier to "eradicate" an ideology than it is do "eradicate" a sexual orientation. There will always be gays. Granted, there will probably always be anti-gay people (there are still honest-to-God fascists out there after all), but you can do way more damage to a simple ideology than you can to something as natural as homosexuality. See: Jim Crow supporters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Yeah there are examples of this, such as my own self-stated disagreement with abortion, but how is this relevant to political discussion? You were asking how common it was for someone to simultaneously disagree with something morally yet not want it to be outlawed and I provided an example of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
comes along bort posted:You were asking how common it was for someone to simultaneously disagree with something morally yet not want it to be outlawed and I provided an example of it. I was initially asking specifically how common he thought it was to disapprove of gay marriage but not support legislation against it. But even then I used your exact example myself in a subsequent post.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:If public shaming is not a feasible or appropriate way to combat bigotry then what is? The only alternative I see is doing nothing, which is really dumb. Making it not okay to publicly call someone a human being is as much of a victory for gay rights as legalizing gay marriage and they go hand in hand. The general progression is social pressure changes attitudes which then leads to laws changing. I can't think of an instance where a law changed and then social attitudes followed. There's a difference between calling someone a human being and saying "I disagree with homosexual marriage but I'm not going to seek it be banned." and trying to draw some sort of equivalency between Obama saying the latter and Bob the Redneck saying the former is disingenuous at best, and actively harmful to the gay rights movement at the worst - we have more than enough evidence that public shaming doesn't make people change their minds, it just makes them feel persecuted and under attack, and as a result more likely to oppose what they disapproved of.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
AdjectiveNoun posted:There's a difference between calling someone a human being and saying "I disagree with homosexual marriage but I'm not going to seek it be banned." and trying to draw some sort of equivalency between Obama saying the latter and Bob the Redneck saying the former is disingenuous at best, and actively harmful to the gay rights movement at the worst - we have more than enough evidence that public shaming doesn't make people change their minds, it just makes them feel persecuted and under attack, and as a result more likely to oppose what they disapproved of. I don't give two flying fucks if they feel persecuted as long as they aren't vocal with their stupid bullshit. You're not going to change their minds by being their buddy either. The best you can hope for is making their views socially unacceptable, and that's what public shaming does. I have absolutely no idea where you got that someone was drawing an equivalency between Obama and a homophobic redneck.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:I don't give two flying fucks if they feel persecuted as long as they aren't vocal with their stupid bullshit. You're not going to change their minds by being their buddy either. The best you can hope for is making their views socially unacceptable, and that's what public shaming does. How effective has public shaming been at stopping racism against minorities? All it does is change the language used, but is Welfare Queen any less vile a sentiment than friend of the family? quote:I have absolutely no idea where you got that someone was drawing an equivalency between Obama and a homophobic redneck. This entire conversation's been about people demonizing people who disapprove of homosexual marriage but don't seek to ban it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
quote:How effective has public shaming been at stopping racism against minorities? They're not being hanged for whistling at white women at least. Cognitive dissonance is easy. I, personally, disagree with most implementations of abortion but I'm pro choice because it's none of my business.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
AdjectiveNoun posted:How effective has public shaming been at stopping racism against minorities? Uhhhh, pretty goddamn good? There's still a ways to go but you can marry other races now without everyone freaking out. quote:All it does is change the language used, but is Welfare Queen any less vile a sentiment than friend of the family? That's not all it did, and no it's not really. quote:This entire conversation's been about people demonizing people who disapprove of homosexual marriage but don't seek to ban it. Yeah, and no ones saying put them in jail, the social stigma of the day is against them and we're approving of that. So what's your point?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:Uhhhh, pretty goddamn good? There's still a ways to go but you can marry other races now without everyone freaking out. Would you attribute that just to public shaming? Discounting the Black Pride movement and sustained Education efforts to teach people that Black Americans weren't racially inferior? quote:Yeah, and no ones saying put them in jail, the social stigma of the day is against them and we're approving of that. So what's your point? My point is that public shaming by itself is ineffective, if not counterproductive, even if it's easy and feels cathartic. It isn't going to cause positive change on its own. It's just a distraction from the real things that cause inexorable, effective social pressure - namely education and acts to show the merit of a cause.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
Well you've got a more specific definition of the phrase. I think in a general sense an education movement is part of public shaming. They're trying to show people why they should feel ashamed for being racists. It's general cultural and social pressure against a belief or ideology. I don't understand it as limited to just calling racists luddite redneck dickwads with massive inferiority complexes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. You're coming dangerously close to denigrating nepotism here, goon sir. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
AdjectiveNoun posted:Would you attribute that just to public shaming? Discounting the Black Pride movement and sustained Education efforts to teach people that Black Americans weren't racially inferior? You're moving goal posts hard. Right before this post you asked if public shaming does anything at all, and now you'll only be satisfied if public shaming was the sole cause of a positive change. Public shaming has contributed to the positive changes in race relations and you know it, you're admitting it here. It's only a part of the explanation, but it is a part and you can't just deny that outright.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
Modern Day Hercules posted:You're moving goal posts hard. Right before this post you asked if public shaming does anything at all, and now you'll only be satisfied if public shaming was the sole cause of a positive change. Public shaming has contributed to the positive changes in race relations and you know it, you're admitting it here. It's only a part of the explanation, but it is a part and you can't just deny that outright. No, I asked how effective it was, because I felt other methods were more effective, as you can see in the context of my posts. I never denied it was a part, only that I felt it was a lesser part than the other methods I mentioned - but I will gladly admit I was wrong to assume people were talking about public shaming in my narrow definition of the term if people are, as Intel&Sebastian says, including the education movement as part of public shaming.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
Stumbled across this gem today.Stephen Colbert's Vile Political Blackface posted:week, after President Obama gave his highly-mockable “Mission Accomplished” speech announcing that 7.1 million Americans had selected an Obamacare plan, Comedy Central’s Stephen Colbert hit the airwaves. He did mock. But instead of mocking Obama’s laughably manipulated 7.1 million number, he did his usual routine: pretending to be a cluelessly cruel right-winger, Colbert spat, “I wish I could come to you with some good news, but the worst imaginable thing has happened: Millions of Americans are going to get healthcare.”  begins from the very first sentence. Making fun of conservatives is worse than black-face you guys!
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
quote:Unlike Stewart, whose mockery is no different in kind from Greg Gutfeld’s on the other side I googled this guy to see some Stewart-esque hilarious mockings. I guess the joke is that conservatives don't find Jon Stewart funny? Because Greg Gutfeld is really not funny at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
Whereupon Limbaugh redefines McCarthyismquote:RUSH: Grab sound bites 14 and 15. This IRS business is amazing. Let's review. And, by the way, this McCarthyism business, remember, it's in movies all the time. You remember the movie The Way We Were? (interruption) Well, who was in it, then? Okay, Barbra Streisand and Robert Redford. It was all about McCarthyism. The media loves it. It's like Alger Hiss. The rest of the program was Limbaugh bitching non-stop about how the GOP are labeled as racists Eric Holder, while standing within a foot of Al Sharpton, posted:I have been proud to stand alongside of you in supporting efforts to advance the cause of justice that has always been at the center of this , this administrations work I am pleased to note that the last five years have been defined by significant strides and lasting reforms, even in the face, even in the face, of unprecedented, unwarranted ugly adversity. And if you don't believe that, you look at the way ...forget about me... forget about me , you look at the way the Attorney General of the United States was treated yesterday by a House committee. Had nothing to do with me what Attorney General has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment? What President has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment. quote:RUSH: You know who got bullied yesterday was Eric Holder. Eric Holder. Yes, he got bullied by a racist, Louie Gohmert. That's the spin on that story yesterday from none other than Holder. Holder showed up... Here you've got a guy, Al Sharpton, who has this group called the National Action Network, which exists because of racist shakedowns of businesses, racial shakedowns. Then he defended Alberto Gonzalez because why the gently caress not quote:Let's go back and listen to flashbacks of Democrats and the way they've treated former attorneys general. Here's Patrick Leahy, Senator Depends, Senator "Leaky" Leahy. It's January 18, 2007. It's a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, and the attorney general is Alberto Gonzales. He testified, and just listen to this. What would we call this, respect for the attorney general?  Back to racism though quote:RUSH: Here's Dingy Harry in 2007, March. There was an all-out effort by the Democrat Party to get rid of Alberto Gonzales. In summation: Liberals are the real racists
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
It must be the ultimate in blueballs to have had to sit and support Bush through poo poo like "Mission Accomplished" and then never get the chance to get any sort of comeuppance on your foes. I suppose that's what would cause someone to act like a website not working for a month is a treasonous offense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 14:38 |
|
|
moths posted:I googled this guy to see some Stewart-esque hilarious mockings. I guess the joke is that conservatives don't find Jon Stewart funny? I love that Greg gutfield is so not cool and so not funny he had to make a book to tell every one that he is actually cool and they are the uncool ones. Thus making him probably the lamest guy in history.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 06:47
|
|
