Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Truth Behind Social Issues Support

ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 8:34:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The unemployment rate can be over 7% for months on end, the national debt can keep rising and rising while rogue nations like North Korea threaten to nuke United States' targets and the only ones who say anything are news pundits and some politicians. The masses don't twitch, Facebook and Twitter remain largely unstirred as such events with deep scope and consequence pass our nation by. However, when a social issue gets brought to the forefront, such as the week's recent explosion of gay marriage support and opposition, suddenly the entire population seems to be on the edge of their seats. I have seen profile pictures changed, Tweets galore, statuses, messages, rants, arguments and insults flying all over the internet over this one issue: gay marriage. But why? It seems that whenever the debt passes a new trillion dollar mark or when unemployment reaches record highs no one rushes to action. The interesting thing is, especially on the issue of gay marriage, that social issues don't even affect a majority of the people that seem to be the most vehemently involved. It doesn't affect them in the slightest. Maybe a few have close gay relatives or friends who are just dying to get married but for the vast majority of people I have come across it will have little to no impact at all.

So why the fuss? Why the energy? Especially when things like war, the economy and government spending DO affect nearly everyone in the long run and have been at the forefront of news and politics without similar reactions?

The answer is simple, like most actions humans take this one is self centered. It's all about making oneself feel good inside and superior to others. The mainstream flow right now is that accepting gay marriage is the tolerant thing to do, the moral thing to do, the right thing to do. People who have dissenting opinions against gay marriage are portrayed as close minded and intolerant. Therefore, the masses on Facebook and Twitter can then feel socially in the right by supporting an issue that really has little affect on them practically and gives the people a feeling of moral superiority over those who disagree. This is why so many flair ups have been happening, once the masses gain this feeling of superiority they wish to flaunt it to reap the warm fuzzy feeling that comes from rebuking a person who goes against the perceived societal right. Whenever you start throwing terms like "equality" and "rights" around people see a gold mine of opportunity for self righteous profit. These words have inherently positive and American connotations with them that get people all excited to be able to champion these ideals in the pursuit of selfish feeling.

This simple reward of feeling self righteous and feeling socially accepted is what motivates the masses to move behind such a movement with vigor. Now I know that there are people out there who do actually have strong feelings and a large stake in the fate of gay marriage, don't get me wrong, however I find it hard to believe that 90% of people on Facebook and Twitter do. And this phenomena does not just stop with those for gay marriage but is also applied to those against. Those against can reap the same self righteous feeling for standing up for their beliefs by scolding their friends and making a witty and stinging Facebook comment. I believe this is why social movements gain so much momentum in general and cause such a buzz. It's all about feeling right and feeling better than others. You can't reap a fuzzy feeling from militantly condemning North Korea nor can you say you're better than your peers for wishing the national debt was lower.

These types of social movements really get exasperated when they appear in the political arena such as the Supreme Court. Why? Because this way there is guaranteed to be a winner and a loser. Everyone likes to feel like a winner. So when there is an opportunity to feel self righteous AND the opportunity to have this feeling justified people come running, sprinting, jumping and flying in from all corners to get a piece of it. If you've adamantly expressed your (new) undying support for gay marriage and LGBT rights all week and suddenly the Supreme Court rules in your favor you now get to portray yourself as a morally justified winner over those who didn't support it and better yet, thanks the social media frenzy you now KNOW who the losers are and thus can feel superior over individuals you personally know. Think this sounds a little base? That's because it is, it's human nature. Whether all of these people on social media realize this consciously or not these are the types of feelings that are supporting their fervor. There is much more to be gained in feeling smug behind your keyboard after typing up something fueling the new social craze on Facebook than there actually will be for you when homosexuals do get the right to marry. Arguing with your friends or getting to post that sneering status about Christians and gay marriage opposition will bring you far more pleasure than attending a gay marriage if the act is ever passed.

That is my assessment of the unrealistic and irrational support for such issues and find this an accurate assessment of why the internet firestorms are always over social and not practical or logical or other uncharged political issues. The same phenomena occurred over things like the Ryan Plan in which people could defend the elderly, mentally handicapped etc or over gun control where people feel morally superior to those who support guns because guns killed children. Whenever there is a chance to defend things that appear innocent or that are accepted by society or made to look righteous people are on board, not truly because the issue is deep and personal to them (there have been guns in this country since it's founding) but because there is ample opportunity to harness a feeling of self righteousness and superiority (I'm standing for the kids of Sandy Hook and if you support gun rights, you're not). It's a sad truth that I feel I have found and it is an uncomfortable one to admit. I think most people are going to try to shoot me down for writing this but I feel this is more accurate than anyone can imagine.

So next time you want to type up a harsh and intelligent sounding defense of heterosexual marriage on Facebook or degrade your friend as a radical conservative Christian for not agreeing with you think for a second what you are actually gaining from such an action. Changing Facebook profile pictures to an equal sign really will have no bearing on what goes down in Washington DC but it does have bearing on your social self righteousness.
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 9:24:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I grant you that there are other pressing issues in the political arena, but the presence of other substantial problems does not reduce the significance of another. But whatever... reasonable people can disagree.

The argument that you are surprised that people do care about the issue of gay marriage to the extent that they do is almost inhuman, insomuch as it presupposes a narcissistic reason for altruistic (or at least ostensibly altruistic) motives and actions. The reasons that people, who are not themselves affected by this issue, care about the outcome of the present Supreme Court case is because they care about others who will be impacted. It is not about self righteousness, moral superiority, nor is it about condemning the opponents. It's about basic human empathy.

I grant you the possibility that some are probably jumping on the bandwagon. Kids, especially college students, look for causes to attach their efforts to, to give meaning to their lives. They think that the pursuit of change matters, that they are making strives towards that end and that theirs are efforts towards a good cause which are well invested.

That said, I do not blame most of the kids (especially young kids) who oppose gay marriage, because they lack the experience in the world to understand the significance of the view they hold, or the societal impact (that is, the harm) that it causes, to the extent that it is translated into policies. I am also not naive enough to think that people change their minds on this (or any issue) on the basis of 'good reasons' alone. People change their minds when the issue is made personal to them -when the lives of someone they care about enough is impacted by the views they hold or the policies they support.

There is a great fear associated with this issue which in sociocultural context parallels that with the fear of assimilating gays and lesbians into the ranks of the US military, permitting interracial marriage, desegregating schools, or effectuating by policy/law any substantive deviation from the norm. This is because people fear that which is alien to them, they are averse to the unknown -which is an entirely human reaction to a human conflict. It is not, however, a reasonable response. But there are limits to the impact of reasons, of which we are all aware -if we pay attention to the events of the world around us.

I think that most of the red equals signs that are all over Facebook are a nice demonstration of progress and solidarity both within the LGBT community, and among those who support equality under the law for all without regard to sexual orientation. I equally think that conservatives manufacturing their own victimization in this issue or the "Christians" I see championing hate-laced rhetoric are creating their own plight. Society will never regard Christians or conservatives as victims, and it's a strategic and moral mistake to pretend to be a victim. This was a huge issue as Sotomayor and Kagan were questioning Cooper (the attorney theoretically representing California), in oral arguments today. There is no evidence to suggest that any tangible harm will come to heterosexual marriage if same sex marriage is legally sanctioned. There is no merit to the claim that conservatives or their values are being undermined by the recognition of same sex marriage in the United States. Conservatives (social), however, disagree.

Because conservatives have made such an effort to make themselves the victims (like you're doing here, CP), their political integrity is the opportunity cost of their rhetorical strategy. The attempt to portray liberals or social progressives as "superior" and to attribute the their intent as one purposed only to the pursuit of "moral superiority" has the counterintuitive effect of both devaluing their own position in the public sphere, and giving credence to the claim of those who hold the view conservatives are rejecting, because of the fact that conservatives have the audacity to claim that they are the ones who suffer, when the other side has a face to attach to their argument.

Every time a gay student committed suicide, a mind about gay rights was changed. The more it was publicized, the faster America's mind began to change because people FEEL empathy for those who suffer, and it is on the basis of that FEELING that people (even who may not even benefit from the SC's ruling) become involved. BECAUSE THEY CARE, they take action. It worked the same way for big issues like this in the past, only this time it's faster. Thank the media, Facebook and modern technology. Change is happening in the same way, only at a much more efficient rate.
Tsar of DDO
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 9:36:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I find that most people are only interested in sports, the makeup horror story of Nicki Minaj, Kim Kardashian, and just pop culture. I don't see the point of obsessing over this crap; I mean who the hell is Selena Gomez and why the fvck should I care?
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 9:38:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/26/2013 9:24:44 PM, YYW wrote:
I grant you that there are other pressing issues in the political arena, but the presence of other substantial problems does not reduce the significance of another. But whatever... reasonable people can disagree.

The argument that you are surprised that people do care about the issue of gay marriage to the extent that they do is almost inhuman, insomuch as it presupposes a narcissistic reason for altruistic (or at least ostensibly altruistic) motives and actions. The reasons that people, who are not themselves affected by this issue, care about the outcome of the present Supreme Court case is because they care about others who will be impacted. It is not about self righteousness, moral superiority, nor is it about condemning the opponents. It's about basic human empathy.

I grant you the possibility that some are probably jumping on the bandwagon. Kids, especially college students, look for causes to attach their efforts to, to give meaning to their lives. They think that the pursuit of change matters, that they are making strives towards that end and that theirs are efforts towards a good cause which are well invested.

That said, I do not blame most of the kids (especially young kids) who oppose gay marriage, because they lack the experience in the world to understand the significance of the view they hold, or the societal impact (that is, the harm) that it causes, to the extent that it is translated into policies. I am also not naive enough to think that people change their minds on this (or any issue) on the basis of 'good reasons' alone. People change their minds when the issue is made personal to them -when the lives of someone they care about enough is impacted by the views they hold or the policies they support.

There is a great fear associated with this issue which in sociocultural context parallels that with the fear of assimilating gays and lesbians into the ranks of the US military, permitting interracial marriage, desegregating schools, or effectuating by policy/law any substantive deviation from the norm. This is because people fear that which is alien to them, they are averse to the unknown -which is an entirely human reaction to a human conflict. It is not, however, a reasonable response. But there are limits to the impact of reasons, of which we are all aware -if we pay attention to the events of the world around us.

I think that most of the red equals signs that are all over Facebook are a nice demonstration of progress and solidarity both within the LGBT community, and among those who support equality under the law for all without regard to sexual orientation. I equally think that conservatives manufacturing their own victimization in this issue or the "Christians" I see championing hate-laced rhetoric are creating their own plight. Society will never regard Christians or conservatives as victims, and it's a strategic and moral mistake to pretend to be a victim. This was a huge issue as Sotomayor and Kagan were questioning Cooper (the attorney theoretically representing California), in oral arguments today. There is no evidence to suggest that any tangible harm will come to heterosexual marriage if same sex marriage is legally sanctioned. There is no merit to the claim that conservatives or their values are being undermined by the recognition of same sex marriage in the United States. Conservatives (social), however, disagree.

Because conservatives have made such an effort to make themselves the victims (like you're doing here, CP), their political integrity is the opportunity cost of their rhetorical strategy. The attempt to portray liberals or social progressives as "superior" and to attribute the their intent as one purposed only to the pursuit of "moral superiority" has the counterintuitive effect of both devaluing their own position in the public sphere, and giving credence to the claim of those who hold the view conservatives are rejecting, because of the fact that conservatives have the audacity to claim that they are the ones who suffer, when the other side has a face to attach to their argument.

Every time a gay student committed suicide, a mind about gay rights was changed. The more it was publicized, the faster America's mind began to change because people FEEL empathy for those who suffer, and it is on the basis of that FEELING that people (even who may not even benefit from the SC's ruling) become involved. BECAUSE THEY CARE, they take action. It worked the same way for big issues like this in the past, only this time it's faster. Thank the media, Facebook and modern technology. Change is happening in the same way, only at a much more efficient rate.

You said most of what I was going to say.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 9:42:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/26/2013 9:24:44 PM, YYW wrote:
I grant you that there are other pressing issues in the political arena, but the presence of other substantial problems does not reduce the significance of another. But whatever... reasonable people can disagree.

The argument that you are surprised that people do care about the issue of gay marriage to the extent that they do is almost inhuman, insomuch as it presupposes a narcissistic reason for altruistic (or at least ostensibly altruistic) motives and actions. The reasons that people, who are not themselves affected by this issue, care about the outcome of the present Supreme Court case is because they care about others who will be impacted. It is not about self righteousness, moral superiority, nor is it about condemning the opponents. It's about basic human empathy.

I grant you the possibility that some are probably jumping on the bandwagon. Kids, especially college students, look for causes to attach their efforts to, to give meaning to their lives. They think that the pursuit of change matters, that they are making strives towards that end and that theirs are efforts towards a good cause which are well invested.

That said, I do not blame most of the kids (especially young kids) who oppose gay marriage, because they lack the experience in the world to understand the significance of the view they hold, or the societal impact (that is, the harm) that it causes, to the extent that it is translated into policies. I am also not naive enough to think that people change their minds on this (or any issue) on the basis of 'good reasons' alone. People change their minds when the issue is made personal to them -when the lives of someone they care about enough is impacted by the views they hold or the policies they support.

There is a great fear associated with this issue which in sociocultural context parallels that with the fear of assimilating gays and lesbians into the ranks of the US military, permitting interracial marriage, desegregating schools, or effectuating by policy/law any substantive deviation from the norm. This is because people fear that which is alien to them, they are averse to the unknown -which is an entirely human reaction to a human conflict. It is not, however, a reasonable response. But there are limits to the impact of reasons, of which we are all aware -if we pay attention to the events of the world around us.

I think that most of the red equals signs that are all over Facebook are a nice demonstration of progress and solidarity both within the LGBT community, and among those who support equality under the law for all without regard to sexual orientation. I equally think that conservatives manufacturing their own victimization in this issue or the "Christians" I see championing hate-laced rhetoric are creating their own plight. Society will never regard Christians or conservatives as victims, and it's a strategic and moral mistake to pretend to be a victim. This was a huge issue as Sotomayor and Kagan were questioning Cooper (the attorney theoretically representing California), in oral arguments today. There is no evidence to suggest that any tangible harm will come to heterosexual marriage if same sex marriage is legally sanctioned. There is no merit to the claim that conservatives or their values are being undermined by the recognition of same sex marriage in the United States. Conservatives (social), however, disagree.

Because conservatives have made such an effort to make themselves the victims (like you're doing here, CP), their political integrity is the opportunity cost of their rhetorical strategy. The attempt to portray liberals or social progressives as "superior" and to attribute the their intent as one purposed only to the pursuit of "moral superiority" has the counterintuitive effect of both devaluing their own position in the public sphere, and giving credence to the claim of those who hold the view conservatives are rejecting, because of the fact that conservatives have the audacity to claim that they are the ones who suffer, when the other side has a face to attach to their argument.

Every time a gay student committed suicide, a mind about gay rights was changed. The more it was publicized, the faster America's mind began to change because people FEEL empathy for those who suffer, and it is on the basis of that FEELING that people (even who may not even benefit from the SC's ruling) become involved. BECAUSE THEY CARE, they take action. It worked the same way for big issues like this in the past, only this time it's faster. Thank the media, Facebook and modern technology. Change is happening in the same way, only at a much more efficient rate.

Whoa how am I playing a victim? I said nothing about being a victim here.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 9:51:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The original post is really just an ad hominem. Sure, some people tweet about SSM to be more popular or whatever but there's certainly genuine support out there. Anyway, it's totally beside the point why they're writing the FB update or tweet -- what I'm interested in is the reasons behind their position. Social issues relate very directly to a certain group of people unlike the ungodly sums of money the government has been spending because a lot of people just can't make sense of the figures.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 9:54:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I could easily turn the issue around and say that people who are overly concerned with economics and not social issues are only concerned with a cold rationality and being smarter than everyone while lacking to care about some of the major issues that effect groups of people.
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 9:58:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/26/2013 9:54:05 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
I could easily turn the issue around and say that people who are overly concerned with economics and not social issues are only concerned with a cold rationality and being smarter than everyone while lacking to care about some of the major issues that effect groups of people.

But you wouldn't do that, because you're smarter than to make arguments on that kind of logic.
Tsar of DDO
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 9:58:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/26/2013 9:51:25 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
The original post is really just an ad hominem. Sure, some people tweet about SSM to be more popular or whatever but there's certainly genuine support out there. Anyway, it's totally beside the point why they're writing the FB update or tweet -- what I'm interested in is the reasons behind their position. Social issues relate very directly to a certain group of people unlike the ungodly sums of money the government has been spending because a lot of people just can't make sense of the figures.

Because allowing same sex marriage is "fair", "equal", and is a right :D

The posts started appearing. But I agree with CP, that economic issues are ignored and we are worse off as a result. If people actually discussed or gained an understanding of economics, society would be better off.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 10:01:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/26/2013 9:51:25 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
The original post is really just an ad hominem. Sure, some people tweet about SSM to be more popular or whatever but there's certainly genuine support out there. Anyway, it's totally beside the point why they're writing the FB update or tweet -- what I'm interested in is the reasons behind their position. Social issues relate very directly to a certain group of people unlike the ungodly sums of money the government has been spending because a lot of people just can't make sense of the figures.


You just reiterated my point exactly: people only care about what directly affects them in a touchy feely way. The point of the whole thing was people need to put this motivation and political energy towards other things, not just social issues.
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 10:03:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/26/2013 9:38:20 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
You said most of what I was going to say.

Cheers. :)
Tsar of DDO
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 10:10:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
But you wouldn't do that, because you're smarter than to make arguments on that kind of logic.

I don't usually try to psychologically evaluate people who I'm arguing with or have noticed certain tendencies in who posts where and how much. I will say that I sometimes get the inclination or the vibe that certain users who post almost exclusively in economics have a difficulty addressing social issues in general because they lack any coherent starting point.

Because allowing same sex marriage is "fair", "equal", and is a right :D

I have no problem with SSM, but I'm a little iffy on calling it a "right."

The posts started appearing. But I agree with CP, that economic issues are ignored and we are worse off as a result. If people actually discussed or gained an understanding of economics, society would be better off.

Certainly.

You just reiterated my point exactly: people only care about what directly affects them in a touchy feely way. The point of the whole thing was people need to put this motivation and political energy towards other things, not just social issues.

I don't know whether a concern for gun laws is "touchy feely" or why that term should necessarily carry any negative connotation. Am I just being soft and emotion driven if I care about the brutal slaughter of whales?

Everybody agrees that people should be more informed about economics and other parts of government; What I'm against is denigrating all supporters of certain causes through saying they're emotion-driven. For one, it doesn't touch on the merit of their complaints (couldn't civil rights advocates have been "touchy feely" emotion-driven people?) and as an empirical claim it has no support.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 10:23:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/26/2013 10:10:59 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:

Because allowing same sex marriage is "fair", "equal", and is a right :D

I have no problem with SSM, but I'm a little iffy on calling it a "right."

I agree, using the term "right" makes me uneasy. People have the right to life, liberty, and property (which they gained through voluntary exchanges).
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 1:36:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/26/2013 9:42:13 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Whoa how am I playing a victim?

I'd like you to give a try at answering your own question. I could explain it, then we debate it, you disagree, I say whatever... etc. but that's not going to be very productive. Re-read over what you wrote tomorrow, and then re-read what I wrote. Pardon the grammatical errors btw... lol. Then, have a go at answering that question of yours for yourself. If you don't want too, that's fine, but I think it would be a salutary exercise for you to try.
Tsar of DDO
LeafRod
Posts: 1,548
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 9:58:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Thank you for the absolutely stunning and groundbreaking discovery that people feel good about doing morally correct things. But you're right, it is so confusing and beyond comprehension that people might feel empathy for others and care about their struggles. Why should anyone care about anything that is not relevant to their personal lives?

By the way, I'm wealthy and successful and moreover I derive my self-worth and happiness from much more than money, so the budget doesn't really affect me personally that much. I guess I shouldn't care about it.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 11:18:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 9:58:36 AM, LeafRod wrote:
Thank you for the absolutely stunning and groundbreaking discovery that people feel good about doing morally correct things. But you're right, it is so confusing and beyond comprehension that people might feel empathy for others and care about their struggles. Why should anyone care about anything that is not relevant to their personal lives?

By the way, I'm wealthy and successful and moreover I derive my self-worth and happiness from much more than money, so the budget doesn't really affect me personally that much. I guess I shouldn't care about it.

Thanks for your stunning display of unneeded venom.
imabench
Posts: 21,216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 11:43:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/26/2013 9:42:13 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

Whoa how am I playing a victim? I said nothing about being a victim here.

Dude read your rant, you basically sound like you are just pissed that the one thing that people do care about reforming is the one thing you dont want to see be reformed.... If people started changing their facebook profile pictures to protest the rising national debt under Obama, then its pretty safe to say that you would have no problem with it and that you would probably join it....
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 12:05:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 11:43:33 AM, imabench wrote:
At 3/26/2013 9:42:13 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

Whoa how am I playing a victim? I said nothing about being a victim here.

Dude read your rant, you basically sound like you are just pissed that the one thing that people do care about reforming is the one thing you dont want to see be reformed.... If people started changing their facebook profile pictures to protest the rising national debt under Obama, then its pretty safe to say that you would have no problem with it and that you would probably join it....

No it's that trendy nonsense takes to the forefront while real issues are ignored. Nobody said "Stand With Rand" during his historic filibuster fighting for our rights while Paul and Cruz delivered monumentally profound 13 hour speeches. That was a major turning point in the world worldwide. No one on Facebook or my roommates Facebook made any mention of that moment even though it sent ripples globally.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 12:25:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 11:43:33 AM, imabench wrote:
At 3/26/2013 9:42:13 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

Whoa how am I playing a victim? I said nothing about being a victim here.

Dude read your rant, you basically sound like you are just pissed that the one thing that people do care about reforming is the one thing you dont want to see be reformed.... If people started changing their facebook profile pictures to protest the rising national debt under Obama, then its pretty safe to say that you would have no problem with it and that you would probably join it....

That's not true. I used gay marriage as a jumping off point but that's not the point I was making. I cited other (brief) examples as well. And I think it has nothing to do about the issues (as the entire piece is about) but rather people like to feel hip and self righteous about the latest social craze and the point is that they don't care about any issues at all, just their own social standing and good personal feelings.

I feel like this whole thing has been straw manned....
imabench
Posts: 21,216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 12:26:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 12:05:25 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:43:33 AM, imabench wrote:
At 3/26/2013 9:42:13 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

Whoa how am I playing a victim? I said nothing about being a victim here.

Dude read your rant, you basically sound like you are just pissed that the one thing that people do care about reforming is the one thing you dont want to see be reformed.... If people started changing their facebook profile pictures to protest the rising national debt under Obama, then its pretty safe to say that you would have no problem with it and that you would probably join it....

No it's that trendy nonsense takes to the forefront while real issues are ignored. Nobody said "Stand With Rand" during his historic filibuster fighting for our rights while Paul and Cruz delivered monumentally profound 13 hour speeches. That was a major turning point in the world worldwide. No one on Facebook or my roommates Facebook made any mention of that moment even though it sent ripples globally.

LOLOLOL no it wasn't
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 12:46:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 12:05:25 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:43:33 AM, imabench wrote:
At 3/26/2013 9:42:13 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:

Whoa how am I playing a victim? I said nothing about being a victim here.

Dude read your rant, you basically sound like you are just pissed that the one thing that people do care about reforming is the one thing you dont want to see be reformed.... If people started changing their facebook profile pictures to protest the rising national debt under Obama, then its pretty safe to say that you would have no problem with it and that you would probably join it....

No it's that trendy nonsense takes to the forefront while real issues are ignored. Nobody said "Stand With Rand" during his historic filibuster fighting for our rights while Paul and Cruz delivered monumentally profound 13 hour speeches. That was a major turning point in the world worldwide. No one on Facebook or my roommates Facebook made any mention of that moment even though it sent ripples globally.

Then you have lame friends.
I heard about the news from a Facebook friend. He was sharing things from other groups, including "X hours and counting" pic every hour or so, and changed his profile pic to a Stand with Rand meme.
My work here is, finally, done.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 12:56:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/26/2013 9:36:21 PM, Contra wrote:
I don't see the point of obsessing over this crap; I mean who the hell is Selena Gomez and why the fvck should I care?

You sir, have obviously never seen Selena Gomez.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
imabench
Posts: 21,216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 1:33:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 12:56:44 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/26/2013 9:36:21 PM, Contra wrote:
I don't see the point of obsessing over this crap; I mean who the hell is Selena Gomez and why the fvck should I care?

You sir, have obviously never seen Selena Gomez.

True ^
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
LeafRod
Posts: 1,548
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 11:32:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 11:18:45 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Thanks for your stunning display of unneeded venom.

Unneeded? I'm just quite tired of dealing constantly with people who don't have any understanding of social justice.

Did you read your own post? It is a stunning display of privilege and everything that is wrong with social conservatism. You are too blinded and rooted in your own (privileged, again) viewpoint that you lack any sort of empathy, and that, probably combined with deep-seated prejudice, prevents you from comprehending the struggles of any minority group. That is annoying and abhorrent. But even worse, you try to justify and rationalize your viewpoint by making up your own motivations for those who are actually out fighting and supporting minorities - either because of their friends, their family, or most importantly, their own senses of morality. You're suggesting that straight people who are supporting gay rights are doing so selfishly or illogically, and that is disgustingly ignorant.

You're the same person who would have questioned why any white person would support the civil rights movement.

And finally, again... even if people are supporting this for their own benefits, who cares!?

1. Anyone who does anything is essentially doing so for his or her own benefit in some way; even if people feel passionately about this issue they derive enjoyment from the activism. You're arguing that people are doing it for enjoyment first rather than enjoyment through passion - that viewpoint pretty much gives you away as someone who, again, has some sort of resentment to the movement in the first place because it is an argument that is tremendously cynical and doesn't really have any basis in reality, reason, or understanding of people.

2. On a deeper level: so what? This issue is fundamentally good and you're wrong if you disagree (yes, I'm aware that it's not even the biggest progressives who are pushing for this and there are much deeper issues at play but still pushing for gay marriage is not at all bad). So again, it's just odd that you felt the need to make such a long post pushing for any way to denounce people who are supporting the issue. It makes you look like a bigot and a fool.

And finally:

So next time you want to type up a harsh and intelligent sounding defense of heterosexual marriage on Facebook or degrade your friend as a radical conservative Christian for not agreeing with you think for a second what you are actually gaining from such an action. Changing Facebook profile pictures to an equal sign really will have no bearing on what goes down in Washington DC but it does have bearing on your social self righteousness.

What?! Is this not what you're doing? Is this not what every single person on this site does? Damn. Forgive me and everyone (who supports an issue you don't like) for feeling passionate about it or caring, especially since a profile picture necessarily precludes any sort of action you would deem important (as if discourse on a basic human level and social media interaction are totally unimportant) and making your views known on something that makes you feel gross (like gay people) is just being self-righteous.

How dare people stick up for others.
LeafRod
Posts: 1,548
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 11:35:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 12:05:25 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
No it's that trendy nonsense takes to the forefront while real issues are ignored.

That's privilege. To you, gay rights are "trendy nonsense." To others they are an entire lifetime of discrimination and inequality.

Those goddamn gay people for fighting for their rights instead of circlejerking about Rand Paul's filibuster.

That was a major turning point in the world worldwide.

classic
LeafRod
Posts: 1,548
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 11:37:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 12:25:41 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
And I think it has nothing to do about the issues (as the entire piece is about) but rather people like to feel hip and self righteous about the latest social craze and the point is that they don't care about any issues at all, just their own social standing and good personal feelings.

You're wrong and I would guess the reason you feel that way is either a) deep-seated resentment against the social issues at play; this is likely given your Debate.org persona of a conservative, or b) deep-seated resentment against your peers themselves; this is likely given your being on Debate.org.

(hope no one was too offended by that joke - obviously I'm on this site too so I don't mean it that seriously)
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2013 11:48:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 11:35:15 PM, LeafRod wrote:
At 3/27/2013 12:05:25 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
No it's that trendy nonsense takes to the forefront while real issues are ignored.

That's privilege. To you, gay rights are "trendy nonsense." To others they are an entire lifetime of discrimination and inequality.

Those goddamn gay people for fighting for their rights instead of circlejerking about Rand Paul's filibuster.

It's not a right, it's a tax break they want. They have the ability to marry, they just want the blessing of the state and the tax breaks. Gays control the pop music industry, gays are multi-millionaire rockstars, gays are in the luxury fashion business, and the list goes on. Gays are not being sprayed with firehouses, banned from restaurants or forced to sit at the back of the bus.

The issue is about an action, not people. All individuals have the ability to get a government contract with the opposite sex. All individuals are denied the benefit of a government contract with the same sex. So it's not people being discriminated against, it's an act that is banned ACROSS THE BOARD, it applies to everyone.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
LeafRod
Posts: 1,548
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 1:32:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/27/2013 11:48:51 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
It's not a right, it's a tax break they want. They have the ability to marry, they just want the blessing of the state and the tax breaks.

I didn't know you speak for all gay people. I'll just have to go tell all the gay people I know who are fighting for this from a moral ground that you know what they're thinking.

But seriously, how do you have the ego to suggest what you and the original poster are suggesting? You're basically saying that every argument, story, viewpoint, etc. that comes from a moral, emotional, civil rights, etc. standpoint from the pro-marriage side is fabricated and that the true motive is tax breaks. And again, even if they did, who cares? The non-tax break arguments have merit in and of themselves and that should be addressed anyway.

Gays control the pop music industry, gays are multi-millionaire rockstars, gays are in the luxury fashion business, and the list goes on. Gays are not being sprayed with firehouses, banned from restaurants or forced to sit at the back of the bus.

Do you also think that black people are not discriminated against because of Barack Obama and Jay-Z (if you think that discrimination doesn't exist for other reasons don't waste my time; I don't care to argue that). Inequality exists and individual cases do not refute that existence, end of story.

The issue is about an action, not people. All individuals have the ability to get a government contract with the opposite sex. All individuals are denied the benefit of a government contract with the same sex. So it's not people being discriminated against, it's an act that is banned ACROSS THE BOARD, it applies to everyone.

Oh man dude you're totally right how did anyone not realize this? Just like everyone had the right to marry someone of the same race. And before you come in rampaging about race not existing: a) that is irrelevant, b) gender is argued to be a construct to a similar degree as race, c) basing the law on sex is dumb.

Honestly I usually have trouble responding to this argument because I find it so mind-numbingly idiotic and insulting. But anyway, clearly the issue is the banning across the board - why should people not be able to marry the same sex, especially when the motivation for two people marrying is almost always about love which is clearly not limited from one sex to another (gender actually, but that point is probably too nuanced for this discussion).
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 11:30:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 1:32:09 AM, LeafRod wrote:
At 3/27/2013 11:48:51 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
It's not a right, it's a tax break they want. They have the ability to marry, they just want the blessing of the state and the tax breaks.

I didn't know you speak for all gay people. I'll just have to go tell all the gay people I know who are fighting for this from a moral ground that you know what they're thinking.

But seriously, how do you have the ego to suggest what you and the original poster are suggesting? You're basically saying that every argument, story, viewpoint, etc. that comes from a moral, emotional, civil rights, etc. standpoint from the pro-marriage side is fabricated and that the true motive is tax breaks. And again, even if they did, who cares? The non-tax break arguments have merit in and of themselves and that should be addressed anyway.

Do I know what they're thinking? No. But I do know that they are fighting for a government contract that grants tax breaks.

Are they fighting for the right to have their own private marriage ceremony and call themselves married? No, they can already do that. The only thing missing is the blessing of the state.

Gays control the pop music industry, gays are multi-millionaire rockstars, gays are in the luxury fashion business, and the list goes on. Gays are not being sprayed with firehouses, banned from restaurants or forced to sit at the back of the bus.

Do you also think that black people are not discriminated against because of Barack Obama and Jay-Z (if you think that discrimination doesn't exist for other reasons don't waste my time; I don't care to argue that). Inequality exists and individual cases do not refute that existence, end of story.

Are you saying gays are being hosed and oppressed? And yes, Obama and Jay-Z couldn't give 2 flying fvcks what a few idiot racist rednecks think. The racists have already been marginalized and their influence stripped away. They are irrelevant in today's society so discrimination is essentially dead.

The only racism that exists today comes from the Democrats who support eugenics organization, Planned Parenthood, founded by racist ethnic cleanser Margaret Sanger on record. And the racism of Affirmative Action.

The issue is about an action, not people. All individuals have the ability to get a government contract with the opposite sex. All individuals are denied the benefit of a government contract with the same sex. So it's not people being discriminated against, it's an act that is banned ACROSS THE BOARD, it applies to everyone.

Oh man dude you're totally right how did anyone not realize this? Just like everyone had the right to marry someone of the same race. And before you come in rampaging about race not existing: a) that is irrelevant, b) gender is argued to be a construct to a similar degree as race, c) basing the law on sex is dumb.

Biologists and scientists say race is not real and has no biological basis and dismiss it as obsolete folk taxonomy. There is in fact a biological foundation acknowledging the very real distinction between a male organ and a female organ.

Honestly I usually have trouble responding to this argument because I find it so mind-numbingly idiotic and insulting. But anyway, clearly the issue is the banning across the board - why should people not be able to marry the same sex, especially when the motivation for two people marrying is almost always about love which is clearly not limited from one sex to another (gender actually, but that point is probably too nuanced for this discussion).

Interracial marriage is not the same. Two different races can procreate, the same sex cannot. If you can't see the difference you're an idiot. Ban on interracial marriage is racist, a ban on gay marriage is what, sexist?

Yes, the same sex can love and do love and nobody is stopping them.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat