|
Replies: 70
| visibility 1
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
More news from the front of the culture war
Apr 7, 2014, 3:38 PM
|
|
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/04/owners_anti-gay_views_cause_fu.html
And a new entrant in the contest for ironic statement of the year:
“They’re choosing to open a business in a very open-minded neighborhood,” said Tom Brown, owner of Brown Properties and president of the Sellwood Moreland Business Alliance. “I think their personal views are going to hurt.”
The video that sparked the boycott has since been taken down after the man who posted it (after doing some "research" into the background of the owners of the store after he'd heard "rumors" they might be against SSM) taked personally with the owners of the store, who then made a $1,000 donation to an anti- suicide campaign for gay youth. Unsurprisingly, the man still plans to boycott the store.
Meanwhile, some are proposing to boycott a local restaurant owner who had the temerity to suggest that boycotting businesses because of the private opinions of their owners might not be the best way of doing things: http://blogtown.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2014/04/04/is-the-furor-over-a-sellwood-market-now-turning-toward-kenny-and-zukes
|
|
|
|
 |
All-TigerNet [12851]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15971
Joined: 10/25/02
|
maybe if they boycott everything they will die of starvation
Apr 7, 2014, 3:51 PM
|
|
or exposure.
FIGHT THE POWER!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
Yes, because the right wing doesn't believe in silly boycots
Apr 7, 2014, 3:54 PM
|
|
Maybe both sides of the "culture war" are stupid?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Re: Yes, because the right wing doesn't believe in silly boycots
Apr 7, 2014, 3:58 PM
|
|
I don't remember many right wing boycotts based on the personal views of business owners who weren't trying to be insulting, but if they happened they'd be just as deserving of ridicule. At any rate, those have no bearing on this particular episode.
While I'm not surprised that the gay rights folks aren't particularly tolerant (after all, they've decided opposing SSM is like racism, and we don't tolerate racists, do we?), I'm a little more surprised at their willingness to boycott/ black- list the restaurant owner who just said it wasn't a good idea to boycott businesses because of their owners' priate beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
I thought that was capitalism
Apr 7, 2014, 4:04 PM
|
|
You know, spending or not spending your money however you choose. It would make sense to not spend your money at a place that doesn't support your cause, whichever cause you may support.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
I don't think so
Apr 7, 2014, 4:22 PM
|
|
It would be one thing to spend your money at a business that was publicly supporting or opposing the things you wanted them to, or not to spend money at a business that was publicly supporting or opposing things you don't like. It's another thing entirely to dig into the personal views of business owners and employees of businesses to make sure nobody who disagrees with you can do business or work. In both the Mozilla and the Portland case, a lot of research had to be done to ever even find out that the targets of the 15 minute hate were against SSM (in the Mozilla case, nobody would've known without a felony occurring)
Liberal supporters of SSM need to take a stand against this kind of thing or they may find that "gay rights" ends up meaning something pretty illiberal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
Take abortion for example then
Apr 7, 2014, 4:27 PM
|
|
Would you support a company, who while not outwardly supporting abortion, had an owner who donated substantial money to a pro-choice causes. Wouldn't you feel like the money you are spending is directly enabling to support a cause you don't agree with?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
I wouldn't bother to find out
Apr 7, 2014, 4:33 PM
|
|
And even if I did know, I'd probably still go there if they had a good product.
Heck, I go to Starbucks every once in a while and its CEO has basically told anybody who doesn't support SSM that they don't want their business. That goes far beyond the Brendan Eich or Portland situation, and even goes beyond CFA. I'm not saying that people ought to ignore businesses' politics, but it's more than a little bit ridiculous to call for boycotts because of business owners' private beliefs that have nothing to do with their business.
Again, I'm surprised to find out that liberals don't recognize how anti- liberal this is.
Message was edited by: camcgee®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97716]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64855
Joined: 7/13/02
|
Don't give a crap.
Apr 7, 2014, 7:08 PM
[ in reply to Take abortion for example then ] |
|
If he's not outward, I won't be either. If the business states something publicly, or donates to a cause I don't agree with, I may be concerned. And more because they're being open about supporting a controversial cause than the cause itself. But what a private person wants to do with their $$$ is their own #### business.
The Mozilla dude could have donated to a gay rights group or whatever and I still wouldn't care. He shouldn't be fired either way for personally and discreetly supporting or abhorring anything.
I don't use Firefox anyway, and haven't for several years because it's too slow. After Chrome supported AdBlock and Ghostery, I chose Chrome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97716]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64855
Joined: 7/13/02
|
I think it makes sense to buy your stuff where you get
Apr 7, 2014, 7:00 PM
[ in reply to I don't think so ] |
|
the best quality at the best price and don't give a #### about anyone's beliefs.
Just my $0.02
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56069]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31637
Joined: 8/27/02
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Except it isn't
Apr 7, 2014, 6:15 PM
|
|
These particular business owners want to defend freedom of association as libertarian principle. I don't entirely agree with them there, as the functional meaning of, say, discrimination against blacks in the south was to deny them access to the market. But I don't see why that has much to do with not providing certain services to people that would violate your conscience, as that wouldn't lead to indiscriminate denial of service to gays. If you think it would, then consider that it gays aren't a protected class in most states, and there hasn't been any kind of concerted effort to deny gays access to the market. These particular business owners have also said they're not interested in denying service to anybody because they probably can't imagine a situation when doing so would cause them to violate their consciences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [79429]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63272
Joined: 10/30/05
|
I think this whole uncompromising gay crusade is ultimately
Apr 7, 2014, 3:55 PM
|
|
going to set their agenda back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
I would imagine...
Apr 7, 2014, 4:00 PM
|
|
people with authentically liberal politics will be turned off by it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
If it was an organized "gay crusade" but it's not...
Apr 7, 2014, 4:09 PM
[ in reply to I think this whole uncompromising gay crusade is ultimately ] |
|
these are all isolated cases that are being carried out by individual persons. Many on the left think these people are dumb or don't understand the issue beyond a superficial level**. Then there are others like Cam and his side that think "all internet retards are liberal," and will read this story and conclude that those who advocate for SSM think like these people. It's equally ridiculous.
**Look at the whole #cancelcolbert fiasco and how many 'liberals' pushed back against the "hashtag activism"
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
#canceldeweather***
Apr 7, 2014, 4:15 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
#givemeashowfirstplease***
Apr 7, 2014, 4:36 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
#deweatherwebcam?***
Apr 7, 2014, 4:58 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
I don't think everyone who supports SSM is like these people
Apr 7, 2014, 4:16 PM
[ in reply to If it was an organized "gay crusade" but it's not... ] |
|
I just wonder where those people are when stuff like this happens. In the Portland case, the one SSM supporter who was brave enough to stand up to the mob may end up being boycotted himself.
And of course declaring "all internet retards are liberal" was an exaggeration, but it does seem that the lion's share of these internet mobs are all about stamping out things that progressives don't like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
I hope you don't, but you post about it often enough
Apr 7, 2014, 4:36 PM
|
|
where one has to wonder if it isn't mirroring your personal beliefs. (How many posts about this "illiberal" movement have you posted about now? And why is it seemingly always surrounding the SSM issue?)
I will agree though, mob mentality is dangerous (as the guy that stood up against it in this case found out) but it's far from being just a liberal or conservative problem.
The internet is a rather big place, and also highly segregated. Depending on where you go, it'll define what you see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
It's a salient issue
Apr 7, 2014, 4:41 PM
|
|
Wouldn't you say? And I haven't seen much reporting on it, but I think people should know this is what's going on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Is the War on Christmas a salient issue too?
Apr 7, 2014, 4:53 PM
|
|
It's similar in that a bunch of isolated cases are being trumpeted as "what's going on" and it even could fit in the "illiberal" world view.
There was an article you posted talking all these isolated issues and the idea of "illiberalism" spreading and it included things like the word "######" not being allowed to be used because it might offend transgender people or something. It reminded me of how some on the right talked up the spread of Sharia law spreading and taking over in our country. Again, isolated cases were brought up to give evidence to the issue yet I don't hear as much about it anymore. In any case, I see parallels going on between the two and think this is just the decided upon talking point from the right. Which is why I'm only seeing it surrounding the SSM debate--it's the new tactic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
Crump and B-Meist have made their lifestyle choices
Apr 7, 2014, 5:01 PM
|
|
You should respect them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
how so illiberal of you***
Apr 7, 2014, 5:16 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
Way illiberal broski
Apr 7, 2014, 5:33 PM
|
|
I'm so illiberal I'm almost back to being conservative.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
lol, it is a synonym.***
Apr 7, 2014, 5:40 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
I'm so confused about who is illiberal, and what it means***
Apr 7, 2014, 5:42 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Re: I'm so confused about who is illiberal, and what it means***
Apr 7, 2014, 5:46 PM
|
|
This kind of thing is illiberal because people are demanding that people agree with them instead of allowing others to live with views that they believe are wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Aka, the law of merited impossibility
Apr 7, 2014, 5:05 PM
[ in reply to Is the War on Christmas a salient issue too? ] |
|
This stuff isn't happening/ won't happen, but they'll sure deserve it when it does! That's basically been the pro- SSM reaction to this, which is sad.
Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, there's clearly a very illiberal strain of the gay rights movement, and anybody who cares about liberal democracy should be concerned not to allow them to take possession of the movement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
"seeing what I want to see"
Apr 7, 2014, 5:15 PM
|
|
has been the anti-SSM reaction to this, which is sad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
What should they be seeing?
Apr 7, 2014, 5:24 PM
|
|
Is there another way of seeing these events that somehow makes ensuring that nobody who opposes SSM can open a business or take a prominent position at a company who work has nothing to do with SSM? Should those who oppose SSM not try to point out the excesses of the gay rights movement?
Thus far, with the exception of just a few people like Andrew Sullivan and Damon Linker, the response from the left has generally been unprincipled and uncaring.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
Re: What should they be seeing?
Apr 7, 2014, 5:33 PM
|
|
Are people refusing to shop somewhere stopping people from opening a business?
Do companies hire and fire people based on things outside of business all the time?
Should people who support SSM not try to point out that picking out an individual incident and then generalizing it to make a point about "everyone" or at least "most people" is stupid?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
You may want to actually read what I've posted
Apr 7, 2014, 5:44 PM
|
|
I don't think I've said that everybody who supports SSM wants to make sure those who disagree can't do business or have jobs. In fact, part of the point of pointing these things out is to get liberals who support SSM to acknowledge how illiberal some in the gay rights movement have become. I don't think this is what most SSM suporters thought they were signing up for when they decided we should recognize same sex couples as marriages.
You're also confusing the issue. Nobody is claiming that this is an issue of laws or authorities using the power of coercion to actually stop people from doing anything. As Damon Linker has written,
"It's about social mores and the insistence on the part of a loud, influential faction of so-called liberals that every single American not only tolerate gay marriages, but also recognize and positively affirm the legitimacy and goodness of gay marriages. The punishment for refusing to give in to this non-negotiable demand won't be jail time or other legal punishment — so again, the issue isn't the law. Rather, the punishment will be a social media–fueled witch hunt, ritual humiliation, excommunication from civilized life, and exclusion from prominent positions of power in leading industries."
If you're fine with that kind of thing, then so be it. However, I don't think most of the people who support SSM want this to keep happening, and they need to know when it does so they can speak out against it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
The exact same issue spring up around religion, do they not?
Apr 7, 2014, 5:53 PM
|
|
one could argue its a human problem not a movement problem since the only real common denominator in these cases are human beings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
You lost me***
Apr 7, 2014, 6:23 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
That quote you used:
Apr 7, 2014, 6:34 PM
|
|
"It's about social mores and the insistence on the part of a loud, influential faction of so-called liberals that every single American not only tolerate gay marriages, but also recognize and positively affirm the legitimacy and goodness of gay marriages. The punishment for refusing to give in to this non-negotiable demand won't be jail time or other legal punishment — so again, the issue isn't the law. Rather, the punishment will be a social media–fueled witch hunt, ritual humiliation, excommunication from civilized life, and exclusion from prominent positions of power in leading industries."
Especially in the South, if you go against religion--or "fail to recognize and positively affirm the legitimacy and goodness of (religion)"--The punishment will be a witch hunt, ritual humiliation, excommunication from civilized life, and exclusion from prominent positions of power in leading industries."
heck, some want to get rid of Jack Leggett simply because he's a supposed Atheist or love Dabo because he has players baptized at practices. But beyond that, religions traditionally follows exactly the same argument that quote is raising.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
I read this:
Apr 7, 2014, 5:54 PM
[ in reply to You may want to actually read what I've posted ] |
|
"Is there another way of seeing these events that somehow makes ensuring that nobody who opposes SSM can open a business or take a prominent position at a company who work has nothing to do with SSM?"
1. People refusing to shop at a business does not ensure that the business can't be opened. I refuse to shop at Wal-Mart, and they seem to be doing Ok. If a business can't sustain a small group of people taking their money elsewhere, they probably weren't doing that well anyway.
2. I agree, Mozilla dude got a bad deal. That being said, he's probably not the first person to be fired for his outside views. Mozilla has decided on a certain "company culture" and if he doesn't support that "company culture" then maybe he should find someplace else to work. (As an aside, this is the same argument the right makes about the Hobby Lobby idiocy.)
To say anyone is being "excommunicated from civilized life" is beyond stupid to the point of being comical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Re: I read this:
Apr 7, 2014, 6:22 PM
|
|
I already answered everything you said in 1 in the above post.
There really isn't any comparison between Hobby Lobby not paying for contraception/ abortion inducing drugs and Mozilla forcing Eich to resign because of personal political views. Nobody's being forced to do anything or face resignation in the case of Hobby Lobby.
I also find it hard to understand how someone's private political views have anything to do with a company culture that they themselves, as co- founder of the company, did a lot to create and which they are happy to follow.
The mental gymnastics you're having to do defend this stuff make you look stupid to the point of being comical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13190]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 19419
Joined: 9/27/04
|
No, I'm not the one with the mental gymnastics issues
Apr 7, 2014, 6:46 PM
|
|
Also
Hobby Lobby Argument:
If you don't like our policy on birth control, don't work for us. No one is making you work at Hobby Lobby.
Mozilla Argument
If you don't like our policy on SSM marriage, don't work for us. No one is making you work at Mozilla.
Those arguments aren't similar?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
You're certainly pretty flexible***
Apr 7, 2014, 6:57 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Excesses should be pointed out yes
Apr 7, 2014, 5:38 PM
[ in reply to What should they be seeing? ] |
|
That's a reasonable request.
But when you combine that request with the belief that "nobody who opposes SSM can open a business..." things get ridiculous. Is this different than a religious group boycotting or celebrating a business for something they agree with?
I think the mozilla CEO got a bad deal, but that's how his company thought to go. I can disagree with it, but what more is there to say? It would be equally illiberal of me to say they don't have the right to voice their displeasure at their CEO's personal views. (We can all agree how the CEO's view came to be public is wrong)
My issue is with blowing the "illiberal" argument up into something other than a petty observation. Devoting so much time to making it paints my entire disagreement as coming from a place of pettiness. And then painting all pro-SSM as being "illiberal" just confirms it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Re: Excesses should be pointed out yes
Apr 7, 2014, 6:08 PM
|
|
"But when you combine that request with the belief that "nobody who opposes SSM can open a business..." things get ridiculous."
Of course, this isn't what I said. You seem to think I'm saying there's some sort of legal obstacle to people who oppose SSM opening a business. What I'm actually saying is that it's wrong to try to keep people from having access to the marketplace because of private political beliefs that have nothing to do with the business. The fact that some opponents of SSM can still do business and hold prominent jobs either because illiberal SSM proponents haven't found them/ ignored them or because their harassment failed makes no difference.
"Is this different than a religious group boycotting or celebrating a business for something they agree with?"
That depends. Is the religious group "boycotting or celebrating" because of private opinions and beliefs that don't have much to do with how the business is run? That would be just as wrong- headed. Let's remember that in the case of both the Portland grocer and Brendan Eich, views on SSM had never been talked about in public or in connection with their business. Nobody would've known about Eich's views if a felony hadn't been committed, and nobody would've known about the grocer's views somebody hadn't been doing "research" into them for some reason and discovered their personal facebook page (which wasn't even under the business owner's name).
I'm generally ambivalent about boycotts even when they're because of things people have said publicly, in their role as representative of a company, or even when something the company does makes their support for something I don't like clear. But that's not what we're talking about here.
Not to belabor this point, but nobody's talking about "the right to voice [a business's/ employees'] displeasure at their CEO's personal views." We're talking about imposing political tests on issues unrelated to the business and trying to force those people out through boycotts. We can criticize that without taking away anybody's rights, because in a liberal society we have to work and live with people we disagree with.
That's the importance of pointing out why this kind of thing is "illiberal." I don't think everybody who supports SSM wants everybody they disagree with to be forced out of jobs. I don't think everybody who supports SSM thinks everybody they disagree with hates gays. But that's exactly why I'm surprised that some SSM supporters' first instinct is to defend illiberality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
What about the right to boycott?
Apr 7, 2014, 6:29 PM
|
|
"What I'm actually saying is that it's wrong to try to keep people from having access to the marketplace because of private political beliefs."
Capitalism doesn't work this way. There are MANY obstacles to getting to the marketplace and pointing out just one of them as if it's the only ethically dubious obstacle is disingenuous.
"The fact that some opponents of SSM can still do business and hold prominent jobs either because illiberal SSM proponents haven't found them/ ignored them or because their harassment failed makes no difference."
Again, this is Capitalism and completely undermines your argument. If these boycotts failed to make a difference then the market has spoken and the business survives. Look at Chik-fil-a, it's business did even better after they were boycotted. Oreo cookies weren't hurt after the religious right boycotted their cookies (after Oreo came out as pro-SSM). Boycotts or as you call them harassments, are all part of business. It's a right of the consumer.
You can criticize without generalizing or extrapolating which you are doing with the entire pro-SSM movement.
Additionally, You have decided to demonize a right (or legal and ethically neutral practice), "boycotting" and say instead, that it's somehow taking the right(s) away from someone else. In essence, you are saying those boycotting have no right to take away the right of a business from making money. I disagree with that completely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34823]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 41036
Joined: 2/6/01
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33611
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: More news from the front of the culture war
Apr 7, 2014, 4:23 PM
|
|
It's not ironic to be close-minded about close-mindedness.
Nor is it ironic to boycott or protest against a business because the owners oppose certain human rights that you believe are fundamental.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
That's dimissive of everything the other side says, but ok
Apr 7, 2014, 4:38 PM
|
|
Make those statements explicit in the aims of the gay rights movement rather than making it seem like all it's about is tolerance. People should know that if this strain of gay rights is normalized, nobody will be able to disagree (even privately) and still work or operate a business without being harassed. If you believe this is what they deserve, just make sure people know that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33611
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: That's dimissive of everything the other side says, but ok
Apr 7, 2014, 5:57 PM
|
|
It IS all about tolerance. The gay rights advocates are fighting intolerance. It's their opponents who aren't tolerant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Right
Apr 7, 2014, 6:28 PM
|
|
That's why we can't allow them to be CEOs and we want to do our best to make sure their businesses fail even when they're not staking their public image on the SSM issue.
When supporters of SSM can stop calling everybody who disagrees with them bigoted, then it'll be about tolerance again. Until then, those who think everyone opposed to SSM is no better than a racist is probably going to be pretty intolerant those who disagree with them, no matter what the people who disagree with them say about themselves.
It's pretty clear that those on both sides will be talking past each other til then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33611
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: Right
Apr 7, 2014, 7:08 PM
|
|
That's why we can't allow them to be CEOs and we want to do our best to make sure their businesses fail even when they're not staking their public image on the SSM issue.
"Can't allow them?" There's no law against homophobes being CEOs, nor is anyone suggesting we make such a law.
There is, however, a law prohibiting gay marriage in many states. You're very confused about who is trying to infringe whose rights.
When supporters of SSM can stop calling everybody who disagrees with them bigoted, then it'll be about tolerance again.
That's absurb. That's like saying that if we'd just stop calling racists bigots, then it's about tolerance. Do you hear how loopy that sounds?
And yes, it's the same thing. You can disagree, but you can't disagree that IF discriminating against gays is as immoral as discriminating against a race or gender, THEN it's perfectly fine to refer to such discrimination as bigotry. Philosophize your way out of that! 
Until then, those who think everyone opposed to SSM is no better than a racist is probably going to be pretty intolerant those who disagree with them, no matter what the people who disagree with them say about themselves.
Right! So the debate is over whether homophobes are unjustly discriminating in EXACTLY the same way racists are. The correct answer is that they are. I know you disagree, but you're mistaken, just as mistaken as a committed racist who thinks he or she is morally justified.
It's pretty clear that those on both sides will be talking past each other til then.
Right. What we need to do is determine what things underlie the debate over the morality of gay marriage. Then we can determine whether opponents are bigots, at which point we'll know if it's outrageous to boycott and protest their businesses.
P.S. Is it okay to protest and boycott abortion clinics?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Just so you make it clear:
Apr 8, 2014, 11:54 AM
|
|
If you get your way, nobody who opposes SSM can expect to work without harassment. See, this wasn't made clear by the people who were talking about being "tolerated," even though they were already being tolerated, and even though recognizing their relationships as marriages is more like affirmation than tolerance.
All the rest of this is a digression and an adventure in circular reasoning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33611
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: Just so you make it clear:
Apr 8, 2014, 12:27 PM
|
|
All the rest of this is a digression and an adventure in circular reasoning.
I.e., you can't philosophize your way out of the fact that IF discriminating against gays is as immoral as discriminating against a race or gender, THEN it's perfectly fine to refer to such discrimination as bigotry.
And please tell us if recognizing mixed-race marriages is more like "affirmation" than "tolerance," and then let us know why that distinction matters.
Or just do that hand-wavey thing you do where you call things "digressions" in order to avoid answering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Re: Just so you make it clear:
Apr 8, 2014, 3:12 PM
|
|
What you said is circular because you beg the question rather than making any kind of argument for the idea that recognizing marriage as only between a man and a woman is like not recognizing interracial marriages. You also make no attempt to argue for why you think sexual orientation is just like race or gender, or for why taking a person's homosexual behavior into account when making a decision is the same thing as discrimination based on sex or race. You just assume all these things and march on to the conclusion that since racism and sexism are unacceptable, so should be any way of thinking that makes distinctions between homosexual behavior and marriage.
But, however wrong you think they are, those who oppose SSM have offered a number of reasonable arguments that have nothing to do with irrational animus. If we're being fair at all, rather than just deploying a cynical rhetorical strategy bent on delegitimizing your opponents, shouldn't we look at what people actually say about why the believe something? Even if we decide they're wrong, aren't those people more reliable about what motivates them than their opponents? Simply deciding that everyone who disagrees with you is a bigot based on circular reasoning is not the kind of thing a citizen of a liberal democracy should do.
Here are two essays (I'll excerpt short parts of the essays, but you should read the whole thing before trying to parse their arguments) that explain why sex matters in a marriage, but why that's nothing like insisting that race matters:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/05/1324/
"Anti-miscegenation laws... were attempts to eradicate the legal status of real marriages by injecting a condition—sameness of race—that had no precedent in common law. For in the common law, a necessary condition for a legitimate marriage was male-female complementarity, a condition on which race has no bearing.
... if the purpose of anti-miscegenation laws was racial purity, such a purpose only makes sense if people of different races have the ability by nature to marry each other. And given the fact that such marriages were a common law liberty, the anti-miscegenation laws presuppose this truth. But opponents of same-sex marriage ground their viewpoint in precisely the opposite belief: people of the same gender do not have the ability by nature to marry each other since gender complementarity is a necessary condition for marriage. Supporters of anti-miscegenation laws believed in their cause precisely because they understood that when male and female are joined in matrimony they may beget racially-mixed progeny, and these children, along with their parents, will participate in civil society and influence its cultural trajectory.
... By injecting race into the equation, anti-miscegenation supporters were very much like contemporary same-sex marriage proponents, for in both cases they introduced a criterion other than male-female complementarity in order to promote the goals of a utopian social movement: race purity or sexual egalitarianism.
This is why, in both cases, the advocates require state coercion to enforce their goals. Without the state’s cooperation and enforcement, there would have been no anti-miscegenation laws and there would be no same-sex marriage. The reason for this, writes libertarian economist Jennifer Roback Morse, is that “marriage between men and women is a pre-political, naturally emerging social institution. Men and women come together to create children, independently of any government.” Hence, this explains its standing as an uncontroversial common law liberty. “By contrast,” Morse goes on to write, “same-sex ‘marriage’ is completely a creation of the state. Same-sex couples cannot have children. Someone must give them a child or at least half the genetic material to create a child. The state must detach the parental rights of the opposite-sex parent and then attach those rights to the second parent of the same-sex couple.”"
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/04/marriage-reason-and-religious-liberty-much-ado-about-sex-nothing-to-do-with-race
"Whatever one believes about marriage and however government defines it, there is no compelling state interest in forcing every citizen to treat a same-sex relationship as a marriage when this would violate their religious or other conscientious beliefs. It is reasonable for citizens to believe that marriage is the union of a man and woman. When citizens lead their lives and run their businesses in accord with this belief, they deny no one equality before the law. As a result, such beliefs and actions deserve protection against government coercion.
Great thinkers throughout human history—and from every political community up until the year 2000—thought it reasonable to view marriage as the union of male and female, husband and wife, mother and father. Indeed, support for marriage as the union of man and woman has been a near human universal. The argument over redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships is one over the nature of marriage. Same-sex marriage is the result of revisionism in historical reasoning about marriage.
Bans on interracial marriage and Jim Crow laws, by contrast, were aspects of a much larger insidious movement that denied the fundamental equality and dignity of all human beings and forcibly segregated citizens. When these interracial marriage bans first arose in the American colonies, they were inconsistent not only with the common law inherited from England, but also with the customs of prior world history, which had not banned interracial marriage.[1] These bans were based not on reason, but on prejudiced ideas about race that emerged in the modern period and that refused to regard all human beings as equal. This led to revisionist, unreasonable conclusions about marriage policy. Thinking that marriage has anything at all to do with race is unreasonable, and as a historical matter, few great thinkers ever suggested that it did."
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33611
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: Just so you make it clear:
Apr 8, 2014, 4:20 PM
|
|
I'll address all that after you finally address my question, which was whether you agreed with my conditional statement.
You are incorrect that I am "begging the question." I would be begging the question if I were CONCLUDING that SSM is like interracial marriages. But I'm not concluding that. I'm only asking whether you agree with this conditional statement:IF discriminating against gays is as immoral as discriminating against a race or gender, THEN it's perfectly fine to refer to such discrimination as bigotry. Do you, or do you not, agree with that conditional? You're a philosopher; you understand the question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Re: Just so you make it clear:
Apr 10, 2014, 2:23 PM
|
|
If it's not you that's begging the question, then it's whoever is assuming that discriminating between marriage that depends on difference of gender and "marriage" of two people of the same sex is the same thing as discriminating based on race. To simply assume that the only reason someone might think that marriage can only be between a man and a woman is an attitude tantamount to racism is a prejudice truly worth of being called bigoted.
So the only way to answer your conditional is to say that, while it would be correct to call someone a bigot if any discrimination based on sexual orientation (really, based on the behavior that entails, since nobody is talking about discriminating solely based on identity) were just like discrimination based on race, the kind of discrimination involved in racial discrimination isn't analagous to opposition to same sex marriage for the reasons given in my above post. There's far more needed to demonstrate that opposition to same sex marriage is like opposition to interracial marriage than to say that both keep a particular kind of coupling from being called a marriage in law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33611
Joined: 9/13/99
|
So in short, you agree the conditional statement is true.
Apr 10, 2014, 10:21 PM
|
|
Good. Next time this topic comes up, let's start there and we can better address the issue that started the discussion, which had to do with tolerance.
Just remember your YES answer on the conditional. It's important.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2796]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 3970
Joined: 4/14/05
|
Re: That's dimissive of everything the other side says, but ok
Apr 7, 2014, 6:31 PM
[ in reply to Re: That's dimissive of everything the other side says, but ok ] |
|
Gay people are just as intolerant. The idea that somehow a certain segment of humanity is on any moral high ground is ridiculous IMO.
I support gay rights, but I also see people for what they are.
Hypocrites
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Which is very true and also nullifies this entire argument
Apr 7, 2014, 6:38 PM
|
|
it's pointless and just being used to try and vilify an entire movement (pro-SSM) for something every movement, person, thing, whatever is guilty of--being a hypocrite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33611
Joined: 9/13/99
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33611
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: That's dimissive of everything the other side says, but ok
Apr 7, 2014, 7:31 PM
|
|
I said that totally wrong. Tolerating intolerance is not a virtue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1089]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1611
Joined: 11/10/99
|
If you truthfully believe that SSM is wrong based on your
Apr 8, 2014, 11:26 AM
|
|
religion yet you don't actively discriminate against SS couples or gays in general isn't that the definition of tolerance? You don't agree with it but you tolerate it? Are you a "bigot" based solely on your beliefs?
So personal beliefs without malice are something to be stamped out?
Sort of like stamping out your personal sexual preferences I'd say. Not much difference to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33611
Joined: 9/13/99
|
I see what you're saying.
Apr 8, 2014, 12:30 PM
|
|
Maybe there's a distinction to be made between (a) people who think gay marriage (or mixed-race marriage, or whatnot) is wrong, and (b) people who actively discriminate.
Still, I think racists (and homophobes) are bigots even if they never actively try to interfere with anyone's rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97716]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64855
Joined: 7/13/02
|
Interesting....I've never boycotted a company due to a cause
Apr 7, 2014, 7:13 PM
[ in reply to Re: More news from the front of the culture war ] |
|
And I've spent money at a lot of places. Some of the places I spend money have been boycotted for the views of the owner. Others have not, while openly supporting things I don't agree with.
I must just be crazy to think someone has the same right support bigots or gays.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33611
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: Interesting....I've never boycotted a company due to a cause
Apr 7, 2014, 7:15 PM
|
|
I boycotted BP after they polluted the ocean. Is that okay?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97716]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64855
Joined: 7/13/02
|
Whatever floats your boat
Apr 7, 2014, 7:21 PM
|
|
I'll continue to look for the cheapest gas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33611
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Good luck in that race to the bottom.
Apr 7, 2014, 7:30 PM
|
|
It floats my boat to care about morality once in a while, even if it costs me money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97716]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64855
Joined: 7/13/02
|
Like I said, suit yourself
Apr 8, 2014, 10:08 AM
|
|
I am not going to punish others for what I think should be their right to be "morally" different than I am. This idea of punishing a company or person who you morally disagree with, for whatever reason, is becoming more and more common. It used to be that we accepted moral differences. That was the American way. There's 52% of Californians who morally disagree with gay marriage. We're perpetually split 50-50 on abortion. That's a lot of business I could boycott and a lot of friends I wouldn't have, and a miserable and unproductive life I would lead, thinking I am better than everyone else.
I would rather have a friend who is diametrically opposed to me on most moral issues who could overlook our differences, than one who agrees with me on most issues and seeks to punish those who he differs with. Because that personality trait is worse than disagreeing with me over any issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33611
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: Like I said, suit yourself
Apr 8, 2014, 12:55 PM
|
|
There's 52% of Californians who morally disagree with gay marriage.
That was true maybe 6 years ago. The California public is now 61% in favor of legalization, 31% opposed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_California#Polling
But that's not the point. The point is that you're against boycotting, which is fine. But where do you get the idea that boycotting is new to American history or significantly more common now than before?
P.S. I won't punish you for not boycotting as long as you don't punish me for boycotting. See, we're both tolerant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97716]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64855
Joined: 7/13/02
|
Re: Like I said, suit yourself
Apr 9, 2014, 4:38 PM
|
|
And who knows what it will be 6 years from now? Obama used to be against gay marriage...6 years ago. Should we boycott/fire him? Or how about the IRS? Now that would be a hoot. I pay them thousands a year and in return some of that $$$ will end up paying someone to teach my son to do math using labeled rainbows, and it will only take him 5 times as long to do a problem. Or how about planned parenthood?
But like you said, that's not the point. And don't worry....I won't punish you for boycotting anything. People who boycott things always end up punishing themselves more than anyone else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34108]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33611
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: Like I said, suit yourself
Apr 9, 2014, 8:32 PM
|
|
And who knows what it will be 6 years from now? Obama used to be against gay marriage...6 years ago.
I agree that the public's opinion changes. You brought up the numbers. I was just correcting them. I think we agree that the numbers are not relevant.
Or how about planned parenthood?
People not only boycott Planned Parenthood, they actively protest against them. I celebrate their right to do so.
But like you said, that's not the point. And don't worry....I won't punish you for boycotting anything. People who boycott things always end up punishing themselves more than anyone else.
That's patently untrue. Heard of the Montgomery Bus Boycott? That's just the first one that leaps to mind. There are others. Maybe some boycotts are futile, but "always" is definitely the wrong word.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 70
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
