THE NEW BLACKLIST

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

To those of you who think this harassment is acceptable because you find the woman's views reprehensible... what the fuck is wrong with you? You're as disgusting as the people who think it's OK to send hate mail to queers who try to adopt. I'm sorry, condoning harassment because you don't agree with the political views of the person being harassed is fucking sick.

Let's look at this another way:  This woman is out to ruin the private lives of about 10% of the population, based on hate and/or fear alone.

While I don't condone anything further, this woman's hurt feelings don't stack up to the rights of one person, let alone 30 million or so.

So you think it would be OK for a militant right-wing newspaper in a largely right-wing community to publish a link to the addresses of gay-rights supporters?

It's a bunk comparison. You're assuming the Chronicle is comparable to right wing militant groups.


The difference is that the "militant" gay-rights supporters don't have a history of oppression, violence, and murder against the opposition.

The militant anti-gay crowd does.

You're still making the distinction that a certain political tactic is OK from one side but not from the other. I'm saying that it's not. What is it, EXACTLY, that YOU think makes it OK from one faction but not from the other?

Do you think anything exists to prevent a right-wing publication with largely right-wing militant readership from publishing a link to a map with the addresses of donors to a gay-rights campaign? Do you think there should be?

It's still a false comparison. You repeating it and trying to couch this in purely partisan terms doesn't make it any less manipulative or false.

It's a clever tactic but you're asking me to compare angry words to bloodshed as though both are bloodshed.

If a conservative group with no history of oppression, violence and murder of the opposition published a link to names/addresses for its readership it would be a fair comparison, and no I wouldn't be concerned. That's not what you actually said and actually implied however.

Do I think militant right wing publishers should have the right to do what the Chronicle did? Yes, and when people cross the line they should get punished for it, regardless of which side of the debate they fall on.

You seem to be trying to spread the meme that "militantly" pro-gay means such people commit the same kind of atrocities that militantly anti-gay people commit and with the same frequency.

I call bullshit. Where's your evidence?

The militant right wing is actually militant. Calling the readership of the San Francisco Chronicle "militant" in the same sense of the word is absolutely ridiculous.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I should have known better than to engage with you... you're all over the place, flat-out INVENTING motivations to assign me, and completely missing the point that harassing people or setting them up for harassment because of their political views is wrong, both for the goose and the gander, and if you let the goose do it, you'd better believe the gander will as well.

If you pick and choose who is treated with human decency based on whether you agree with their political views, everyone loses.

Now, I'm going back to ignoring you completely.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

To those of you who think this harassment is acceptable because you find the woman's views reprehensible... what the fuck is wrong with you? You're as disgusting as the people who think it's OK to send hate mail to queers who try to adopt. I'm sorry, condoning harassment because you don't agree with the political views of the person being harassed is fucking sick.

Let's look at this another way:  This woman is out to ruin the private lives of about 10% of the population, based on hate and/or fear alone.

While I don't condone anything further, this woman's hurt feelings don't stack up to the rights of one person, let alone 30 million or so.

So you think it would be OK for a militant right-wing newspaper in a largely right-wing community to publish a link to the addresses of gay-rights supporters?

Nope.  Not right (legal, of course).  Gays are not stomping on the rights of the right wingers.  It's not a double standard...it's just that my standard is based entirely on whether or not someone is trying to eliminate the rights of others.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The threat of violence against the "homophobes" in support of prop 8.

Why the quotes?  If you support proposition 8, you're a homophobe.  Dress it up with things like "definitions of marriage", etc, all you like.  You aren't fooling anyone.

It should be legal for straights and gays to marry people of the same sex.  However, no reprisals should be taken against a church that doesnt want to have anything to do with it. 

Certainly.  Freedom or religion is a right, after all.  And the fact that they won't marry other people is not a violation of those other peoples' rights.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

If you have to defend your vote with violence, then it's not really a vote, it's a method of keeping score during an armed conflict.  Because, see, immediately after the election all the people who voted against the interest of the most armed and vicious group will find themselves mysteriously unable to cast a ballot next election.

If you are willing to stand up and vote knowing that the most armed and vicious group disagrees with you, that's balls.  If the issue being voted over isn't worth that risk to you or you aren't ready to take that risk (priorities) reassess your need to vote, your views on voting, and/or the topic at hand...

This is utter and complete rubbish.  Fuck off.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm sorry, that is completely fucking retarded.

Everyone should be heard.  (!?)

By whom?  I am not required to give serious consideration to, or even listen to, stupid things.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Sometimes i think we should let it just let it turn into a free-for-all and see the "strong" starve after there are no weak left for them to feed off.  Some people don't need governance, can't be governed, don't want to be governed but need to be governed. and some governments need to make it so that they have people to govern despite them not needing to be governed.  The term Social Contract comes to mind, but it may not be relevant

So move to Somalia.  Let us know how that works out for you.  Some of us prefer civilization and the rule of law.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Are you even actually replying to what I wrote?

The "51% of voters can't be wrong" meme is getting pretty old

So why are you serving?  It's obvious that you have nothing but contempt for the republic.

Move to Somalia.  Seriously.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

To those of you who think this harassment is acceptable because you find the woman's views reprehensible... what the fuck is wrong with you? You're as disgusting as the people who think it's OK to send hate mail to queers who try to adopt. I'm sorry, condoning harassment because you don't agree with the political views of the person being harassed is fucking sick.

Let's look at this another way:  This woman is out to ruin the private lives of about 10% of the population, based on hate and/or fear alone.

While I don't condone anything further, this woman's hurt feelings don't stack up to the rights of one person, let alone 30 million or so.

So you think it would be OK for a militant right-wing newspaper in a largely right-wing community to publish a link to the addresses of gay-rights supporters?

Nope.  Not right (legal, of course).  Gays are not stomping on the rights of the right wingers.  It's not a double standard...it's just that my standard is based entirely on whether or not someone is trying to eliminate the rights of others.

NIGEL:  Opun further reflection, it occurs to me that I am arguing that the end justifies the means.  Since this is never morally acceptable, I withdraw my argument.

[Pope Lecherous]

This is utter and complete rubbish. 

Why?

So move to Somalia.  Let us know how that works out for you.  Some of us prefer civilization and the rule of law.

Now Sepia's rant comes to mind, the rich eat first.  Fuck all those rants everyone posts about the big scary Machine  right? Is that what it is now?  Is this site Fight the Power, or It's Pointless to Fight the Power?

Now, I'm going back to ignoring you completely.

Does someone watch the office?  SHUN...  UNSHUN... RESHUN

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

To those of you who think this harassment is acceptable because you find the woman's views reprehensible... what the fuck is wrong with you? You're as disgusting as the people who think it's OK to send hate mail to queers who try to adopt. I'm sorry, condoning harassment because you don't agree with the political views of the person being harassed is fucking sick.

Let's look at this another way:  This woman is out to ruin the private lives of about 10% of the population, based on hate and/or fear alone.

While I don't condone anything further, this woman's hurt feelings don't stack up to the rights of one person, let alone 30 million or so.

So you think it would be OK for a militant right-wing newspaper in a largely right-wing community to publish a link to the addresses of gay-rights supporters?

Nope.  Not right (legal, of course).  Gays are not stomping on the rights of the right wingers.  It's not a double standard...it's just that my standard is based entirely on whether or not someone is trying to eliminate the rights of others.

NIGEL:  Opun further reflection, it occurs to me that I am arguing that the end justifies the means.  Since this is never morally acceptable, I withdraw my argument.

Ahhh...  this is why I respect you, man. For serious. For me to fight for a government and a populace which respects my rights, I must also fight for the government and the people to respect the rights of those I disagree with.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

This is utter and complete rubbish. 

Why?

So move to Somalia.  Let us know how that works out for you.  Some of us prefer civilization and the rule of law.

Now Sepia's rant comes to mind, the rich eat first.  Fuck all those rants everyone posts about the big scary Machine  right? Is that what it is now?  Is this site Fight the Power, or It's Pointless to Fight the Power?

What is this site about? Does one person determine it?

Now, I'm going back to ignoring you completely.

Does someone watch the office?  SHUN...  UNSHUN... RESHUN

If you haven't been here long enough to understand the reasons behind individual relations, do you have the insight for meaningful commentary?

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

It's fucking creepy as hell that someone can just look up your charitable or political contributions and then harass you or try to damage your career. It's both creepy and frightening that a paper can publish a list of names and HOME ADDRESSES of people who donated to a particular cause, especially with the full knowledge that most of their readership is vehemently opposed to that cause and the people who supported it. I mean, fuck, that's just not right. It's not right when the right-wing does it to the left, and it's still not right when the left-wing does it to the right. It's some unethical bullshit, is what it is.

Who fucking cares whether this woman understands the underlying motivations about her beliefs? I may not agree with her at all, but I don't think that or her self-analysis are relevant.

Except the paper didn't do it.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/13/BA0R16EIMB.DTL&tsp=1

The newspaper did not print her home address or the addresses of other donors.

Mullarkey, an artist, contributed $1,000 to the Prop. 8 cause. But her donation to a statewide initiative was public information, available on the Web site of the California secretary of state.

The Prop. 8 donor database, which was provided to newspapers by the Associated Press, didn't include Prop. 8 supporters alone, as Mullarkey strongly suggested.

It was weighted 2-1 in the other direction, including 96,000 records of donors who were against Prop. 8 and 46,000 in favor of it.

So it only printed their names and states of residence?

That's better. Marginally. I still think it's pretty fucking alarming. Like I said, harassment of that nature isn't OK when the right does it, and it's still not OK when the left does it.

Political donations are always a matter of public record, for reasons which are pretty obvious, when you think about it from a corruption POV.

So do you still think donations should be a matter of public record and that newspapers just shouldn't post the information even though they legally are able to?

Or are you on board for either laws against publishing such information or throwing out the laws on such publicly available information wholesale?

[Template]

Sometimes i think we should let it just let it turn into a free-for-all and see the "strong" starve after there are no weak left for them to feed off.  Some people don't need governance, can't be governed, don't want to be governed but need to be governed. and some governments need to make it so that they have people to govern despite them not needing to be governed.  The term Social Contract comes to mind, but it may not be relevant

So move to Somalia.  Let us know how that works out for you.  Some of us prefer civilization and the rule of law.

Now Sepia's rant comes to mind, the rich eat first.  Fuck all those rants everyone posts about the big scary Machine  right? Is that what it is now?  Is this site Fight the Power, or It's Pointless to Fight the Power?

What does what you're saying now have anything to do with what you said to begin with?  You have used the word "strong" in quotes; you have much to answer for.  You can't just imply that there's something wrong with labelling an unspecified group "strong", without identifying group and/or false qualities associated with strength.

Also, that anarchy means men with guns tell you what to do.  And can kill yuo without filing paperwork.

As for fight the power or no: "Go right ahead, throw yourself at The Power--your blood will just grease its gears, but whatever."

Somalia.

[Tempest Virago]

Pope Lecherous seems to be operating under the idea that might makes right.