THE NEW BLACKLIST

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

If you believe marriage is some ancient traditional deal between a man and a woman of opposite sexes then, IMO, you're perfectly entitled to think gay marriage is out of line without, necessarily, being against gay people. It may be the case that you are against gay people but it doesn't logically follow.

Of course a campaigner isn't going to see it that way - if you are in favour of prop 8 you are a homophobic queer hater and this will probably be seen by the more militant anti-8 contingent as license to assault.

Publishing a list of these "homophobic queer haters" will make a violent assault against them more likely to happen.

People may well get beaten the shit out of over something as arbitrarily stupid as promising to live with someone for ever.

SNAFU 

Exactly.

[Cain]

I don't agree with her views.  I also don't agree with the level of harassment she was subjected to, which I thought was obvious since I've mentioned other people suffering for this sort of thing before.

However, I have to note, the Weekly Standard was one of the publications which went out of their way to castigate their political enemies and create the sort of intellectual and social climate where the Freikorps wouldn't feel out of place in.  To quote pre-insanity Hitchens again, they went out of their way to "create a hooligan atmosphere" where they could "bully and blackmail the opposition and accuse it of treachery and sympathy for the other side" and this filtered down into the wider political culture as playing dirty and winning no matter the cost - by direct harassment and threats against those they disagreed with (see the Adam Yoshida theory of righwing commentary for a fuller understanding of how this works).

So while it was wrong, I've also got to note its very much a case of reaping what has been sown.  Unfortunately, bad actions replicated by both sides in an argument don't tend to lead to realization of one's own hideous techniques, but only make one more trenchent in your own position and belief of personal righteousness.  And one side doing it does make the other think "well, two can play this game".  Its either lying down and letting them get away with it, or escalating in return.

I don't know what the solution is.

[P3nT4gR4m]

I don't agree with her views.  I also don't agree with the level of harassment she was subjected to, which I thought was obvious since I've mentioned other people suffering for this sort of thing before.

However, I have to note, the Weekly Standard was one of the publications which went out of their way to castigate their political enemies and create the sort of intellectual and social climate where the Freikorps wouldn't feel out of place in.  To quote pre-insanity Hitchens again, they went out of their way to "create a hooligan atmosphere" where they could "bully and blackmail the opposition and accuse it of treachery and sympathy for the other side" and this filtered down into the wider political culture as playing dirty and winning no matter the cost - by direct harassment and threats against those they disagreed with (see the Adam Yoshida theory of righwing commentary for a fuller understanding of how this works).

So while it was wrong, I've also got to note its very much a case of reaping what has been sown.  Unfortunately, bad actions replicated by both sides in an argument don't tend to lead to realization of one's own hideous techniques, but only make one more trenchent in your own position and belief of personal righteousness.  And one side doing it does make the other think "well, two can play this game".  Its either lying down and letting them get away with it, or escalating in return.

I don't know what the solution is.

My solution is the same as it usually is -

+ 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I don't agree with her views.  I also don't agree with the level of harassment she was subjected to, which I thought was obvious since I've mentioned other people suffering for this sort of thing before.

However, I have to note, the Weekly Standard was one of the publications which went out of their way to castigate their political enemies and create the sort of intellectual and social climate where the Freikorps wouldn't feel out of place in.  To quote pre-insanity Hitchens again, they went out of their way to "create a hooligan atmosphere" where they could "bully and blackmail the opposition and accuse it of treachery and sympathy for the other side" and this filtered down into the wider political culture as playing dirty and winning no matter the cost - by direct harassment and threats against those they disagreed with (see the Adam Yoshida theory of righwing commentary for a fuller understanding of how this works).

So while it was wrong, I've also got to note its very much a case of reaping what has been sown.  Unfortunately, bad actions replicated by both sides in an argument don't tend to lead to realization of one's own hideous techniques, but only make one more trenchent in your own position and belief of personal righteousness.  And one side doing it does make the other think "well, two can play this game".  Its either lying down and letting them get away with it, or escalating in return.

I don't know what the solution is.

It's not right when the Weekly Standard does it, either, but in terms of "reaping what has been sown", I don't think that many of the people on that donor map could be accused of sowing this particular seed. One wing using bullying and blackmailing tactics in retaliation for the other wing doing it only perpetuates... and will escalate... the cycle. As I've said before, it's not acceptable when EITHER side does it, and when the constituent base believes it's justified against "the other side" it lets this bullying and extortion continue unchecked.

[Aufenthatt]

I say we oppress both groups and force them to unite to get rid of us.
Its about time America got a real taste of invasion.

Excuse me, i'm going to tax some tea.

[Golden Applesauce]

Fundamentally, I don't see a difference between publishing the names of people who donate to a political cause and abolishing the secret ballot system.  Either we keep political donations secret and votes secret, or make both public.

And unless you're only planning on casting ballots for safe issues, the secret ballot is a survival advantage.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Fundamentally, I don't see a difference between publishing the names of people who donate to a political cause and abolishing the secret ballot system.  Either we keep political donations secret and votes secret, or make both public.

And unless you're only planning on casting ballots for safe issues, the secret ballot is a survival advantage.

[Pope Lecherous]

Oh, that's a line of reactionary hyperbole if I ever read one. She is against gay marriage, therefore she doesn't view gays as human beings? That's a far stretch. I'm opposed to polygamy, does that mean I don't consider polyamorous people to be human beings?

I don't have multiple wives, but you've really never considered getting violent to defend your beliefs?  You never saw that you might need to defend yourself from someone else's ignorant/righteous beliefs?  Extreme non-violence can only take you so far.

What does this have to do with the conversation?

The threat of violence against the "homophobes" in support of prop 8.  It's not the equivalent of a colored person protesting alone at a KKK rally, but how many people on this forum do you think would punch bill o'reilly in the face if they saw him IRL?  Would you be at your door ready for a logical debate and in the worst case a shotgun?

Fundamentally, I don't see a difference between publishing the names of people who donate to a political cause and abolishing the secret ballot system.  Either we keep political donations secret and votes secret, or make both public.

And unless you're only planning on casting ballots for safe issues, the secret ballot is a survival advantage.

One of the hazards.  Would you be prepared for violence to defend your vote?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Oh, that's a line of reactionary hyperbole if I ever read one. She is against gay marriage, therefore she doesn't view gays as human beings? That's a far stretch. I'm opposed to polygamy, does that mean I don't consider polyamorous people to be human beings?

I don't have multiple wives, but you've really never considered getting violent to defend your beliefs?  You never saw that you might need to defend yourself from someone else's ignorant/righteous beliefs?  Extreme non-violence can only take you so far.

What does this have to do with the conversation?

The threat of violence against the "homophobes" in support of prop 8.  It's not the equivalent of a colored person protesting alone at a KKK rally, but how many people on this forum do you think would punch bill o'reilly in the face if they saw him IRL?  Would you be at your door ready for a logical debate and in the worst case a shotgun?

What the shit? Are you suggesting I'd bring my gun if Bill O'Reilly came to my door? That's fucking ludicrous.

Fundamentally, I don't see a difference between publishing the names of people who donate to a political cause and abolishing the secret ballot system.  Either we keep political donations secret and votes secret, or make both public.

And unless you're only planning on casting ballots for safe issues, the secret ballot is a survival advantage.

One of the hazards.  Would you be prepared for violence to defend your vote?

Something about missing the point...

[Pope Lecherous]

What the shit? Are you suggesting I'd bring my gun if Bill O'Reilly came to my door? That's fucking ludicrous.

No, if someone came to your door that had ideological 'disagreements' with your voting.  Would you be prepared to defend yourself violently if logical discussion has failed?

Something about missing the point...

This is unrelated to your point.  How important is the right to vote to you?  That is the fucking question.  Most people advocate voting for the sake of voting, but wouldn't go as far as to stand up and say "Yea,  I voted this way" against the threat of violence and be prepared to violently defend your belief.  Is it becoming more clear?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

This is unrelated to your point.  How important is the right to vote to you?  That is the fucking question.  Most people advocate voting for the sake of voting, but wouldn't go as far as to stand up and say "Yea,  I voted this way" against the threat of violence and be prepared to violently defend your belief.  Is it becoming more clear?

If it's unrelated, have you considered starting a new thread?

[Pope Lecherous]

If it's unrelated, have you considered starting a new thread?

Skillfull dodge.  It's messed up that a false sense of privacy had been violated, but if you ain't ready to defend your vote by whatever means necessary DON'T vote.  Go be the frightened citizen of some other nation where the winner has been decided in advance.  Those people have courage and give meaning to the vote. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

If it's unrelated, have you considered starting a new thread?

Skillfull dodge.  It's messed up that a false sense of privacy had been violated, but if you ain't ready to defend your vote by whatever means necessary DON'T vote.  Go be the frightened citizen of some other nation where the winner has been decided in advance.  Those people have courage and give meaning to the vote. 

But you see, voting here IS private and confidential. Do you not live in the United States? Are you suggesting that because it's worse in other countries, it's not wrong to erode people's rights here?

[Pope Lecherous]

If it's unrelated, have you considered starting a new thread?

Skillfull dodge.  It's messed up that a false sense of privacy had been violated, but if you ain't ready to defend your vote by whatever means necessary DON'T vote.  Go be the frightened citizen of some other nation where the winner has been decided in advance.  Those people have courage and give meaning to the vote. 

But you see, voting here IS private and confidential. Do you not live in the United States? Are you suggesting that because it's worse in other countries, it's not wrong to erode people's rights here?

Would you still vote even if that put you in danger?  That is the most important thing you can really extract from this.  How important is voting to you? Would you... etc etc

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

If it's unrelated, have you considered starting a new thread?

Skillfull dodge.  It's messed up that a false sense of privacy had been violated, but if you ain't ready to defend your vote by whatever means necessary DON'T vote.  Go be the frightened citizen of some other nation where the winner has been decided in advance.  Those people have courage and give meaning to the vote. 

But you see, voting here IS private and confidential. Do you not live in the United States? Are you suggesting that because it's worse in other countries, it's not wrong to erode people's rights here?

Would you still vote even if that put you in danger?  That is the most important thing you can really extract from this.  How important is voting to you? Would you... etc etc

No, really that's a completely separate issue.