|
Amergin posted:Is sodomy defined in Texas as "pee-pee anywhere 'xcept hoo-haw" like it is in SC (or GA, can't remember)? I was drunk and peed on the outside wall of a bowling alley here, and a random patron threatened to have me charged as a sexual predator.
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 14:59 |
|
|
MaxxBot posted:You think that's bad? Here's some vintage pre-2012 era Texas GOP platform for nostalgia's sake. I think being able to force minors into gay aversion therapy and specifically the camps dedicated to that purpose is worse, but I guess that's a matter of personal opinion. Those camps are unquestionably a form of psychological and in some cases physical torture and the first hand accounts from participants are chilling.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
Amergin posted:Is sodomy defined in Texas as "pee-pee anywhere 'xcept hoo-haw" like it is in SC (or GA, can't remember)? Sodomy laws in the US originally covered only anal sex and then were later expanded to cover oral sex in the late 19th/early 20th century once judges started becoming aware of the horrors of blowjobs. Texas and a few other states updated their sodomy statutes in the 70s to apply to gays only, so in this particular case it only applied to gays. In practice the sodomy laws were never, ever enforced against consenting heterosexuals in any state, unless of course they were dirty race-mixers. Good Citizen posted:I think being able to force minors into gay aversion therapy and specifically the camps dedicated to that purpose is worse, but I guess that's a matter of personal opinion. Those camps are unquestionably a form of psychological and in some cases physical torture and the first hand accounts from participants are chilling. Well that depends, the police harassment of gays that the sodomy laws enabled could in many cases permanently ruin lives or even result in people being killed. It was highly dependent on where you lived though as to your likelihood of being subjected to such harassment. MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Jun 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:I was drunk and peed on the outside wall of a bowling alley here, and a random patron threatened to have me charged as a sexual predator. You should have peed on them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
Lemming posted:You should have peed on them. Great, then he probably would have been charged with sexual assault.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:Great, then he probably would have been charged with sexual assault. Some things are just worth fighting for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
Lemming posted:You should have peed on them. Not sure why but that made me think of this scene: 
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
Amergin posted:Not sure why but that made me think of this scene: what happened in my mind as he was saying it, but I didn't turn around and just kept on keepin on
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
Yeah my Facebook is full of Troops i went to high school with ranting about how this is more proof Obama is working with the terrorists to destroy America, Bergdahl should be shot as a deserter (along with insinuations about the deserter status of Obama and the penalties that should go along with it), etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
Maybe it's just because it draws parallels to swift-boating but I've become irrationally angry lately reading the back and forth on this Bergdahl situation. I think it's because it combines some of the most abhorrent qualities of the GOP in a tidy package; turning on the military immediately when it's politically convenient, their belief that all Muslims are terrorist, their desire to torture and kill all Muslims, etc. Does anyone know if Bergdahl himself is going to be making any statements, or has he (wisely) chosen to forego doing anything in public?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:Maybe it's just because it draws parallels to swift-boating but I've become irrationally angry lately reading the back and forth on this Bergdahl situation. I think it's because it combines some of the most abhorrent qualities of the GOP in a tidy package; turning on the military immediately when it's politically convenient, their belief that all Muslims are terrorist, their desire to torture and kill all Muslims, etc. He is going to be spending a long time in a hospital and being debriefed, then undergoing investigation and probably a courts martial. Any statement he may make will be set up by the DoD
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:
He's in a military treatment facility then will have to debrief. So no one knows.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:Uh I can't believe I have to say this but you can't subscribe political views on people just based on their skin color. I'm not "ascribing political views" to anyone, they ascribe those political views to themselves when they vote (and answer exit polls). If we're not allowed to look at the way groups of people vote, we might as well throw out the entire field of polling, because that's all that field does. I never ascribed political views to individuals, either. 70% of a group voting one particular way still means 30% didn't vote that way, but it's also an above-supermajority level of support that indicates a relatively uniform opinion across that group. In this case, that opinion was that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, and it was further supported by significant political institutions coordinating with out-of-state backers to mobilize the group to vote in favor of Prop 8. The cherry on top was the bigoted rhetoric such as "gays don't deserve our support because they were never 3/5ths of a person". You can't just buddy up with incredibly regressive organizations (who themselves have a history of loving over black people) and spout bigoted rhetoric and then flush it down the memory hole, either. If this were the Mormon church trying to flush the way they treated black people down the memory hole, you'd never try to argue that popular institutional actions didn't matter because the church was a group of individuals. I'm willing to accept that the black community "evolved" on this issue recently, but that hadn't happened in 2008 and it's not proper to pretend that it had. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Jun 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
 Yea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:You can't just buddy up with incredibly regressive organizations (who themselves have a history of loving over black people) and spout bigoted rhetoric and then flush it down the memory hole, either. If this were a GOP politician trying to flush some past associations with some lovely white-supremacist organization down the memory hole, you'd never try to make this argument. I'm willing to accept that the black community "evolved" on this issue recently, but that hadn't happened in 2008 and it's not proper to pretend that it had. Notice the difference here. When white-skinned people buddy up with bigots, you talk about "the GOP" being homophobes, not white people being homophobes. I don't see you generalizing about how homophobic white people are even though every other referendum banning marriage equality was passed by majority white votes alone. But majority black votes in the only referendum where a ban passed but was just-oh-so-barely short of an absolute white majority voting Yes and suddenly we need to talk about how homophobia in the black community is why gay white people don't have rights. Read over your post. Think about the discrepancies in your language, where white homophobia is "the GOP" but black homophobia is the black community at large. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Jun 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
CitizenKain posted:
Also there is a trend of putting bars inside indoor gun ranges, at least at the new indoor range in my town.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Read over your post. Think about the discrepancies in your language, where white homophobia is "the GOP" but black homophobia is the black community at large. Yes, I posted too soon, you quoted an older version. It's not fair to compare an individual politician to a group, so instead I rephrased that with a group. You still have a choice as to whether or not you are going to associate with conservative church and whether or not you are going to vote the way the pastor tells you. If the bigoted arguments hadn't worked on individual people, or if people hadn't exposed themselves to those arguments in the first place, the support wouldn't have been there. Not associating with people who spout bigoted filth is a solid way to prevent them from having influence. A lot of the issue, I think, boils down to religion being such an important institution in the black community, which is good in the sense that it allows black people institutions when they're largely shut out of many others within society, but bad in that churches tend to be a bigoted, regressive force in our society. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Jun 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Yes, I posted too soon, you quoted an older version. It's not fair to compare an individual politician to a group, so instead I rephrased that with another similar group, the Mormon church itself. Right but once again, here it's not the "white community", you're selecting out a subgroup of people who largely agree ideologically, form a voluntary community of like-minded people, and have an official doctrine of homophobia. So why is it "the Mormon community" when millions of white people vote for a ban (only barely short of an absolute majority of white people, and every other ban was passed with clear white majorities) and not the "white community", but it's the "black community" with the problem when black-dominated religious organizations mobilize to support the ban? Paul MaudDib posted:You still have a choice as to whether or not you are going to associate with conservative church and whether or not you are going to vote the way the pastor tells you. Paul MaudDib posted:A lot of the issue, I think, boils down to religion being such an important institution in the black community, which is good in the sense that it allows black people institutions when they're largely shut out of many others within society, but bad in that churches tend to be a bigoted, regressive force in our society. No arguments here. It is in fact a problem of some religious institutions providing a haven for bigotry. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Jun 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
CitizenKain posted:
Whats up Houston Bro! That particular store has gotten quite a bit of attention with its horrible statements. They expanded recently.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Right but once again, here it's not the "white community", you're selecting out a subgroup of people who largely agree ideologically, form a voluntary community of like-minded people, and have an official doctrine of homophobia. No, you're simply factually wrong here. Crosstabs on white people: 49% in favor, 51% against. Crosstabs on african americans: 70% in favor, 30% against. One of these groups shows a clear majority, and it's not white people, who on the whole don't even approve of the ban. And yeah there's plenty of times where white people get their votes analyzed as an aggregate. White people went 59% for Romney in 2012, for example, were one of relatively few demographics to break strongly for Romney, and can generally be stated to be a major factor in his remaining competitive. Pretty shameful there, but we were talking about Prop 8. Black people are more likely to be religious, but it's not fair to ignore that demographic trend just because it produces negative consequences, any more than we can pretend white people are all actually angels just because they actually tend to be wealthier on average and wealthier people are more likely to vote Republican. There were specific bigoted arguments against gays that were made within the black community that apparently resonated. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Jun 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:No, you're simply factually wrong here. Crosstabs on white people: 49% in favor, 51% against. Crosstabs on african americans: 70% in favor, 30% against. One of these groups shows a clear majority, and it's not white people, who on the whole don't even approve of the ban. I was talking about every other ban that passed with majority white support but for some reason didn't have everyone talking about the homophobic white community, noting that the same standards didn't seem to apply there. Homophobia in the black community is a problem, especially for black gay people who also have to suffer racism in the gay community. But black people aren't oppressing me, and they're not oppressing Dan Savage. The white vote was 49-51, super close to the exit polls' margin of error if not within it, so I'm pretty skeptical of the motives of white people who fall all over themselves to sieze that and crow "See? See? It's the ungrateful black people who are the bigots! They're the ones holding us back!" VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Jun 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But black people aren't oppressing me, and they're not oppressing Dan Savage. Voting in favor of gay marriage bans is absolutely oppression, no matter how much you want to pretend that it's not. You don't need to drag someone behind a truck to be working in support of those who would. Every win builds momentum against the civil rights movement, even if you are not personally in that state. Would it be fair to say that whites who voted against miscegenation or integration were not oppressing black people just because they didn't own a whites-only restaurant?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
Erm, I thought we had already established that that 70% number was overblown? And that it closely correlated with church-going behavior as opposed to any kind of racial marker?quote:We provide evidence showing that while
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
zoux posted:Erm, I thought we had already established that that 70% number was overblown? Ah, yes, a Ta-Nehesi Coates article, certainly an unbiased source that is worth discarding polling data from major organizations over. I love how he outright makes the "black people are more religious, that means that it's not fair to judge them for supporting conservative religious outcomes" argument I dismissed in my last post. I'm reading the report behind that, and the logic relies on two points: First, that pre-election polling (which underestimated African American turnout) showed lower support levels. The same churches that likely produced high black turnout also likely produced above-average support for Prop 8. Second, they take precinct data and trying to back demographics out of it. They do this with precinct data from liberal areas like San Francisco and Alameda. No poo poo, the bay area has below average levels of support. quote:We analyzed precinct‐level voting data on Proposition 8 from five California counties— This seems a lot less precise than exit polling, and seems likely to push any outlier groups (which is what African Americans are argued to be, in this case) back to the mean, even before you think about the fact that they are sampling the Bay Area. They agree that it's not a very confident approach, but then fall back on it correlating with pre-election polling. quote:Rather than I really don't see any reason to discard the exit polling just because an article said a thing. Even the study itself says this is not a very confident approach. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:08 on Jun 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
What polling data are you referring to? Oh I see what you did, you saw the study was commissioned by a group in SF and then stopped reading at that point. zoux fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Jun 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
Acelerion posted:Whats up Houston Bro! Not in Houston, but I've seen it posted by the screaming idiots who are calling for the head of Bowe.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Voting in favor of gay marriage bans is absolutely oppression, no matter how much you want to pretend that it's not. You don't need to drag someone behind a truck to be working in support of those who would. Every win builds momentum against the civil rights movement, even if you are not personally in that state. Practically, no. Black people make up about 8% of the electorate in the USA. Every single black person in the country coud vote to ban gay marriage and it still wouldn't happen without a plurality of white support. Paul MaudDib posted:Ah, yes, a Ta-Nehesi Coates article, certainly an unbiased source that is worth discarding major polling data over. Not only did Coates have links to support it, but the polling you're touting had 2000 respondents. With 13 million voters, the sampling error is about 2%, so the 49-51 falls within the margin of error. But okay. How about National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute?  Party identification, ideology, religion, and age were all stronger predictors of voting trends, and race barely beat out gender, but hey let's just skip down to the 4th entry for some reason and lay it at the feat of ungrateful blacks rather than sayyyyy old people or men. quote:As shown in Figure 2, two surveys conducted just before Election Day (by Field and SurveyUSA) found insignificant differences in support for Proposition 8 between African Americans and Californians as a whole. Two surveys conducted in the weeks following Election Day found similar results. On average, the difference in support between African Americans and all voters in these four surveys was just two percentage points. The NEP exit poll finding— that black support for Proposition 8 was 18 points higher than Californians as a whole—is most likely an “outlier,” a result that is very different than what concurrent data trends suggest to be the case.  Hmmm, I think I'll seize on the one outlier that just happens to implicate black people though for, you know, perfectly commendable reasons! But I don't know, maybe we can't trust the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute, they might be in cahoots with Coates' sinister pro-black agenda. Edit: Jokes aside, Paul MuadDib (I don't actually think you're being racist on purpose or anything), do be careful about buying into narratives about other minorities being the cause of oppression. It's a well-known tactic of the privileged class to get the oppressed squabbling with each other about whether black people should be more grateful that gays voted for Obama, or if gay people are appropriating Civil Rights even though we were never slaves. Addressing homophobia (in every community) should be about building solidarity. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:27 on Jun 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
You joke but where's Coates' article on gay reparations, hmmm? Way to betray allies, TNC. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
We should pay everyone reparations, then pack up the Republic and go home. http://pando.com/2014/05/31/paying-reparations-to-everyone-america-has-wronged-would-bankrupt-us-so-lets-do-it/
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
Nybble posted:We should pay everyone reparations, then pack up the Republic and go home. Coates isn't calling for anyone to be written a personal check and countries that print their own currency can't go bankrupt.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
Nybble posted:We should pay everyone reparations, then pack up the Republic and go home. I Agree With Ted Rall.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
zoux posted:I Agree With Ted Rall. Let's not say things we can't take back, even in jest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
Nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Not only did Coates have links to support it, but the polling you're touting had 2000 respondents. With 13 million voters, the sampling error is about 2%, so the 49-51 falls within the margin of error. All of that is still pre-election polling, and falls into the same problem as the paper in the TNC article. Pre-election polling failed to predict the intensity of African-American turnout, and the likely cause of that was strong GOTV from black churches. Those same churches are also likely to have agitated for Prop 8, which would have increased the count among African Americans. More generally, pre-election polling failed to predict just how much of a blowout 2008 was going to be. Moreover, polling a relatively small group like African Americans always has a higher margin of error than a huge group like white people, there's literally no polling data you couldn't level this criticism at. The way I see it, we have two kinds of polling here. We have the kind where we ask someone a week ahead of time "are you likely to vote, and if so how will you vote", and we have the kind where we ask someone as they walk out of the polling center "how did you just vote". If there's more exit polling data, I'd love to see it, but the pre-election polling is inherently less credible to me in this election. quote:Edit: Jokes aside, Paul MuadDib (I don't actually think you're being racist on purpose or anything), do be careful about buying into narratives about other minorities being the cause of oppression. It's a well-known tactic of the privileged class to get the oppressed squabbling with each other about whether black people should be more grateful that gays voted for Obama, or if gay people are appropriating Civil Rights even though we were never slaves. Addressing homophobia (in every community) should be about building solidarity. So which is worse, the guy voting in accordance with the crab-mentality rhetoric, or the guy pointing out that the other guy is playing along with the crab-mentality rhetoric? You seem to be making a tone argument here, that it's divisive to point out that in 2008 the black (particularly religious) community was largely working in accord with regressive Mormons and other gay opponents. Moreso than the actual act of working in accord with regressive opponents! Like I said, I'm willing to acknowledge that a lot of evolution has taken place on this issue since 2008. But that's no reason to flush the "gays were never 3/5ths of a person" crap down the memory hole just because it's now obvious how ugly and awful a thing that was to be arguing. Again, this seems to be much like Mormons suddenly "evolving" on black people circa 1970. Sure, it's a good thing that they're on the right side now, but it doesn't justify erasing history so that we can pretend that was always the case. Nor should this be OK just because acknowledging the oppressing group was a minority means knowledging inter-minority strife. E: I'm on my phone right now and can't check the crosstabs, so I can't say whether Prop 8 would have passed if white people vanished from the face of the Earth Nov 3, but given that whites split 49-51 against I doubt it would change the outcome. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Jun 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:All of that is still pre-election polling, and falls into the same problem as the paper in the TNC article. No, it isn't quote:Surveys conducted just before and just after Election Day found much smaller differences in support for Proposition 8 between African Americans and voters as a whole than did the NEP exit poll. The NEP result should thus be treated as an outlier that overstates black support for Proposition 8. But please, unskew the post election polls for me too, Rove. Oh I know, obviously black people were so ashamed after Savage's righteous condemnation that they were lying to the pollsters within 48 hours of the election to downplay the stain of homophobia! Turns out, there's a cute story at hand for why every single poll is wrong except the one that agrees with a certain preferred narrative... Paul MaudDib posted:Moreover, polling a relatively small group like African Americans always has a higher margin of error than a huge group like white people, there's literally no polling data you couldn't level this criticism at. Yeah actually. The exit polls asked only 200 black people. The margin of error there is huge, like 7-8% at least, this is a point against trusting it, especially as it disagrees with every other pre- and post- election survey. The 2-3% sampling error of white people I mentioned just points out that the 49-51 exit poll result can't even conclusively demonstrate a definite white majority opposed. Paul MaudDib posted:So which is worse, the guy voting in accordance with the crab-mentality rhetoric, or the guy pointing out that the other guy is playing along with the crab-mentality rhetoric? You seem to be making a tone argument here, that it's divisive to point out that in 2008 the black (particularly religious) community was largely working in accord with regressive Mormons and other gay opponents. Moreso than the actual act of working in accord with regressive opponents! Argue against those bigots all you want, I won't fault your tone. But generalizing to the black community as a whole is not credible, not just because the other available data don't justify the 70% figure, but also because once again, seizing on the one time a ban passes with a gnat's rear end-hair of white votes against it to spin a narrative about the homophobic black community is a transparent double-standard. When white majorities do something, it's all "Republicans this, and religious conservatives that" but the second white support notches just below 50% suddenly it's all "why are black people so ungrateful when gays supported Obama". VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Jun 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
One of the confusing things over the (white) gay activist outrage was that it appeared to imply that some sort of breach of allegiance on the issue had occurred between black leaders and (white) gay activists when there never was organizational solidarity to begin with in anyway that justifies the likes of Dan Savage's "I voted for Obama and THIS is how you thank me??" response.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
Oh so we're repeating the right wing divide-and-conquer talking point of blacks costing the left on Prop 8? Cool.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:One of the confusing things over the (white) gay activist outrage was that it appeared to imply that some sort of breach of allegiance on the issue had occurred between black leaders and (white) gay activists when there never was organizational solidarity to begin with in anyway that justifies the likes of Dan Savage's "I voted for Obama and THIS is how you thank me??" response. Even if there was a correlation, I'm pretty sure Dan Savage as a white guy still owes a lot even after his generous Obama vote.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Oh so we're repeating the right wing divide-and-conquer talking point of blacks costing the left on Prop 8? I think you misread. I believe the poster in question said that the black community expressed greater percentages of homophobia by voting for Proposition 8, not that the same homophobia had a particularly notable effect in causing the Proposition to pass. The two are different. The latter leads to a conversation likely fraught with subtle racism, the former can possibly lead to an honest examination of homophobia in the California black community.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 1, 2024 14:59 |
|
|
tbp posted:The two are different. The latter leads to a conversation likely fraught with subtle racism, the former can possibly lead to an honest examination of homophobia in the California black community. I don't think we can have an honest examination of homophobia in the California black community if the people asking all the questions are white.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 23:44
|
|
