Can Hatrack overcome the hurt feelings, overlook the fact that person 'A' feels this way about gay marriage while person 'B' feels the other way?
Have people left as a result of the recent uproar, already?
Or, is this community different?
I honestly want to know.
Pat
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I've thought about leaving (because I need less stres in my life).... but I'm still here. At least for now.
Farmgirl
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I know that I've seriously considered leaving.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
The sad part I think is that we were closer than ever before until the OSC essay came out.
The last pages of the most recent major homosexuality thread had conservatives and liberals praising eachother and talking about how there might actually be a middle ground we could agree on. Ryan Hart even sent a letter to his representatives that the liberals agreed with.
Then after the bile-filled essay, we all had to shift into the two camps we started at. Thank you OSC.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
But you haven't. What do you think? Can Hatrack survive this?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
See, what has really got me on this notion that about leaving is that...after reading that essay, I felt very, very unwelcome. And if the host of this forum feels that way about the Left, then I'd rather take that as my cue to exit rather than overstay my welcome.
Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
Then after the bile-filled essay
Well, if certain people keep making ugly comments like this, maybe we'll suffer further damage.
Why is everything that disagrees with my worldview suddenly bile-filled?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
So we're just supposed to ignore the ugly comments made in the essay? I'm for calling a spade a spade right there.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
SW, maybe there are lots and lots of other threads to complain about other Hatrackers?
I think Hatrack can take this. In spite of all, I don't think any has left yet. Although I'll bet we scared the crud out of a couple of potential newbies.
Posted by Anti-Chris (Member # 4452) on :
Thank goodness for that. Place is crawling with them. J/K
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Maybe I'm better off for not having read more than a page or so of that seven-page thread at the top of the list . . .
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
kind of considered leaving too, but i don't want to. besides, it's nice how we can argue, have different opinions then pay virtual board games together cheerfully.
Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
I'm for calling a spade a spade right there.
Okay, but be prepared to suffer the damage.
SW, maybe there are lots and lots of other threads to complain about other Hatrackers?
Um, hello? I thought we might be talking about things that could worsen the relationship here.
Name calling might be one of those things. Overreactions might be another.
Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
I'm too new as it is to consider leaving, but I am really sick of all these topics about exactly the same thing with exactly the same outcome, and I do see them tearing Hatrack up, thread by thread (pun intended, but not meant to be taken in a humorous way). One of the things that attracted me to Hatrack in the first place was that, despite its size, it was a fairly close-knit community. But if this bickering trail that we seem to be taking ever ends, I have a feeling it's going to end with half of the Hatrack population falling off a cliff.
I say we jump trails now, over to a side where we can all argue equally. How about food?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Have I left? No. Will I? Probably not. Is the current kerfuffle adding a great deal of stress to my already stress-saturated life? Hoo boy, you betcha!
quote: The sad part I think is that we were closer than ever before until the OSC essay came out.
I strongly believe that any such appearance was illusory, and due to a number of the people with strong opinions (on both 'sides') having withdrawn from the debate. What is happening now, I think, is the illusion has been destroyed.
[ February 25, 2004, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
SW, I think that "bile-filled" might be referring more to the tone than the content. I could be wrong, of course.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Anyway, the current debate, for lack of a more accurate word, has definitely been the cause of a little introspection on my part. Sometimes it surprises me how emotionally involved I get; normally I'm able to be rational about things. But I'm still here for now and for the forseeable future.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
What damage would that be, Sweet William?
And have you noticed the irony of your own screen name?
Posted by T. Analog Kid (Member # 381) on :
I'm with Mack... I've been staying out of the political threads a great deal because there is one hell of a lot of personifying going on. Where I differ with Mack is that I don't feel very good about all the constant underlying assumptions that those of us on the right are rich people on power trips trying to take what little the poor have left while cramming fundamentalist Christianity down everyone's throat... and trust me they are there-- there was even an entire thread devoted to the notion that being conservative and christian was innately hypocritical. I hit the roof on that one and then just deleted my post in disgust. belle, bless her heart, tried to explain how offensive some of you were being but it did little good at all... at least as far as I can tell.
I also got some pretty condescending personal advice at one point, but that was my fault for putting things out there the way I did.
I was avoiding the board altogether until I saw that great, thought-provoking Ebert review and thought that a lot of those here might be better off for reading it.
<shrug>
what will happen to hatrack? I honestly haven't cared for a while.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Whether or not it will hurt our community, I can't say.
I can say that all of this hubbub has certainly had me thinking for two days. I've discussed with people, read the whopping 10 pages of thread and stewed within my own self. It's been interesting.
So thank you dear Hatrack Family. And thank you OSC...because after all, you DO provide this place for us to discuss your articles and opinions until they're dust.
As long as we can be respectiful debaters, I think we'll be ok. The 10 page thread has been pretty respectful, albeit heated at points, but people haven't been thoughtless, mean, or deliberately offensive. MOST people that is. There are a few of us that like that actually, and it is those whom I hope will 'not survive' this debate. Everyone else is learning a lot I think.
We are definitely more than the sum of our parts. I truly believe that.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
At the risk of sounding cheesy, the difference between this community and other online forums is the fact that we ARE a community. Not a forum. People know each other, people like and are friends with and even Love people they've met over here.
The reason that debates on issues as touchy as homosexual marriage are so divisive is BECAUSE we all generally like each other far too well. And respect each other. So when an issue arises that is that explosive, it does tear our community apart, much the same way a real-life community would be torn apart by similar scenarios.
For instance, I used to be actively involved in local community theatre, up until about the summer after my senior year of high school. I had performed with almost every theatre company in the area. But i noticed a penchant within the close-knit groups (which i once felt deeply attached to and at home with) for gossip. I really developed a strong distaste for being in the company of those who while not always Nasty about others, couldn't help but always, always talk about other people. Even if it was in a nice way, it was constant. "She's in this and she wore that and he said this and they did that..." I felt completely suffocated by the mentality and at times offended so I left. I have done only one show since with a bunch of people I didn't know and thankfully managed to avoid a lot of what turned me off of those acting communities in the first place.
My point is, this is like a home for some people. And at home you don't expect Daddy to question your beliefs and way of life in front of all your loved ones in a very public and explosive manner. And I'm fully aware that this is a forum exclusively for discussion of such things, but the point is some people have taken that to the next level. I know i have, and it's mostly my fault for getting that emotionally involved. But at the same time, that air of "home away from home" has certainly been cultivated here, and by more than just a few members. The problem is there's no middle ground on that, because there will always be those who say "this is like my family" and those who say "this is a great intellectual place where people can express their ideas freely"
So we're always going to have these hurtful, awful fights.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Did you really see these threads as 'fights' Leonide? I'm curious. I don't post in many of the heated threads because of time etc, but I try to follow them. It could be that because I'm not posting they don't seem to have the same mean spirit that a 'fight' would.
But then, I guess that depends on how you define the word 'fight.' Interesting...
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I hope i have not been rude. If so, I am sorry.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
We shall see.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
I was just peeking at a few of your profiles, and most of you are highly-educated professionals. In a general sense, your opinions are already as polarized as they're going to get. Your level of education and respect for the knowledge of other members is what keeps you together.
And the one thing that sets you apart from most other online groups is the fact that you all read. (OSC says that most folks don't)
Unfortunately, you don't represent a very good cross-section of society. So the harmony you've found here is not very likely to extend beyond the bounds of your cyber community.
Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
I agree with Leonide on this one. This IS a community, we respond like a community in more ways than one.
Here in SLC, I work for the Deseret Morning News. I think it's safe to say that there isn't much love lost between us and the Salt Lake Tribune, and maybe even a few of the TV outlets. On most issues, we just don't see eye to eye. In fact, we're in direct competition for our very lives.
Yet when three D-news employees were critically injured in a horrific crash, the media community sprang into action. Since the three people injured were photographers, The Trib offered to not only supply photos of the crash, but to staff the rest of our photography assignments for the rest of the day.
The Tribune has actively been there for us, helping us to cope with this tough time we've be going through. And this spirit of community has permeated everywhere I've gone. People genuinely care when something tragic happens.
I think that deep down, most of us feel this way towards each side of the debate.
I love KarlEd, and hate the fact that this struggle has caused him pain. I would do anything to help ease it, even though I've never known the man and have only a few things in common with him. Right now, that doesn't matter.
And the same goes for mack, and Leonide and synthesia and all those who I can see are suffering from this.
A few days ago I blew up at Lalo and swore I'd never come back, for like the fiftieth time. And despite the fact that I'm know people don't agree with my views on several issues, the love has been there despite it.
Like Leonide said, we'll have fights that make us hate each other, but in the end, I think we'd go to war for each other if we needed to.
Anyway, I again find myself in awe of what we have created here at Hatrack. In some ways, we've outgrown what we were programmed for. We think, we fight but we also love and help.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Pat, you never answered my email. --I--
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
Huh. I've always thought Hatrack was fairly well-rounded in regards to representing a good cross-section of society.
I'm with Syn, here; I haven't posted much on the "controversial" threads, but I do try to follow them, and when I DO post, I try my best to phrase my thoughts in ways that are NOT meant to offend.
I've always loved Hatrack, because even when we discuss things that we are passionate about, we have the ability to remain civil and treat each other with respect (for the most part, anyway). We're able to CONSIDER other viewpoints than our own.
So, yes, I think Hatrack will "survive". It might be painful at times, but we'll all grow and learn, and probably be stronger for it.
And I, for one, REALLY REALLY hope people like Mack don't leave.
EDIT: Yeah, what Pat said.
[ February 25, 2004, 07:51 PM: Message edited by: Zotto! ]
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
I don't think I've ever been very close to leaving for anything going on on Hatrack itself. I've left for a time because of Life In General.
I guess the closest I have ever gotten was the time Paul called me out for sexism. I never did answer his questions...which in retrospect I feel bad about. It got too personal, and I couldn't answer him reasonably, then when it didn't feel so personal I didn't care about the argument anymore. Paul, if you ever want to resume that discussion, let me know.
I would feel badly if someone I liked chose to leave, but it's their choice. Very few people around here actually get kicked out. I am always a little sad when someone leaves.
Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
Well, you answered my question. I guess that's all it took.
It calmed my nerves. It soothed my soul.
Oh, and --I--
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
--*--
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I've been here at Hatrack longer than all but a handful of people, nowadays, and I'd like to think I know the regulars here pretty well. I don't think the issue of gay marriage itself -- or ANY single issue, for that matter -- could tear this place apart. What CAN tear it apart, and what I've tried to fight against since my very first days here (and which I fought against perhaps most loudly in the days of Baldar), is the idea that the people who don't share your opinions are implacable enemies determined to tear down your way of life.
I specifically entitled my post to OSC a "white flag" not because I was surrendering, but because I wanted to remind him -- pointedly, but hopefully politely -- that I come in peace. I don't agree with him, and was angered by the hostility in his tone, but that doesn't make him an OPPONENT, or an enemy, or someone who must be defeated and discredited in order for me to live my life in contentment.
If people ever DO start dividing into camps with this view -- and there have always been a few on Hatrack who have always believed this already, but they're thankfully in the minority -- then there's no possibility of a larger community. It's my hope that we're able to avoid this.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I feel the same. I want peace. I want.. people to be more compassion. I don't want name calling and bitterness. I want a better world.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
I want to give people who disagree with me enormous and debilitating wedgies. Does that make me a bad person?
Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
Yes.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
That's so typical coming from a homophobic mormon right wing bigot.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Of course the only way to make things better is if we all argue, wear each other down, sharpen each other until things get better.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
You know, it's odd.
I got done typing my above post (laughing to myself all the while), and realized that I knew for a FACT that Pat would chuckle too, and not take any offense.
There should be a new rule. People with three digit member numbers can say anything they want about each other. If you've survived around here that long, you probably don't have a thin skin, and are accustomed to the weirdness of all the other long timers.
And people with two digit member numbers can say anything they want about anyone. It's sort of like having a license to kill.
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
at Slash
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
And I wrote the above post before reading Slash's last post.
Weird.
o_0
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
I take utter offense to your hateful, pinko-commie prejudice of us four-digit-ers, Slash. Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
Get over it.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Back in your box, 4689.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
To answer the immediate question: I would hope that people around here are intelligent enough and tolerant enough to accept that reasonable people can disagree.
Then again, I've taken to staying out of threads that I think will probably make me angry. That means pretty much all of the threads centering on issues concerning homosexuality. Things sometimes get ugly in those threads, and I don't come here to get into arguments.
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
Whoo Hoo!
#83, License to Kill.
Cool.
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
The anti-cuatro-digit-agenda is slowly but surely working its insidious way towards infecting all the oldies.
iVIVA LA REVOLUCION!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I only have 3 digits. One of them is used twice. Does that get me any special privileges?
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: At the risk of sounding cheesy, the difference between this community and other online forums is the fact that we ARE a community. Not a forum. People know each other, people like and are friends with and even Love people they've met over here.
I completely agree Leonide.
And I don't think Hatrack will be torn apart.
I've developed my own personal strategy for dealing with the uber-long controversial threads. If I feel strongly about it, I post early on. Then I reply to what other people take to issue with my views, to questions etc.
But I don't tend to jump into the other fights. Must be pretty annoying for the people who would like others jumping in, but it's a way that I can feel I participated without getting over-involved, or over-emotional.
And at least I don't post at the end of a 7 page thread prefacing my post with "Well I haven't read any of this, but read my post anways..."
Edit: Plus, it helps that no-one will take me seriously anyway because of my atrocious spelling. And tense.
[ February 25, 2004, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
If there's anything on which Hatrack can agree, surely it's that such people should be sentenced to the Hug Thread. Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
Hatrack falls apart only when people stop believing in what we have here.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
<-- Hug thread immigration officer
Which "such people" are you sending us, Tom? We need to know how many to expect. Gotta ready all the initiation paraphernalia . . .
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Tom, you don't KNOW me!
I am a riddle, inside an enigma, inside a jelly donut.
Squishy, yet inscrutable.
-Bok
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'm just getting to the point where I don't automatically bow to anyone with a post count over my member number. If only that worked for you oldbies...
As lonk as Bok (rhymes with stoke) is I don't really have a choice.
Not sure what --*-- means, though.
Edit: When I found out Ayelar considered herself conservative today, I realized I really don't know much about anything.
[ February 25, 2004, 09:38 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
No-one can leave here until we're all gay!
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I've been feeling quite happy today.
But I'm still not leaving.
[ February 25, 2004, 09:40 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Oh yeah! dana beat me.
[ February 25, 2004, 09:40 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
Okay, fine.
**goes gay**
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
You can only ask this question because you never join us at Games.com. How can we be ripped apart? Whom would we play Scrabble and Monopoly with?
Ripped apart?!
Come on . . . Hatrack is a giant slumber party!
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
You are so right. Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
How about you two join us for a fun game of Little Mafia on the Prairie! Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
I've decided that I'm now going to try and find something that WILL rip Hatrack apart....
I feel the need to point out that this is a typical hatrack "Why can't we get along?" metathread.
AJ
[ February 25, 2004, 10:20 PM: Message edited by: Banna_Oj ]
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:See, what has really got me on this notion that about leaving is that...after reading that essay, I felt very, very unwelcome. And if the host of this forum feels that way about the Left, then I'd rather take that as my cue to exit rather than overstay my welcome.
Heck, mack, I'm a member of the Left, too, and I ain't leaving.
quote:I think Hatrack can take this. In spite of all, I don't think any has left yet.
I agree with Kat.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
*twitch*
Hasselhoff flying . . . multiple Hasslehoffs . . . what is that creepy alien thing? . . .
::leaves Hatrack for good::
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Pat, I did very nearly rupture something. Oh, and I saw the source of --*--. It all comes clear. So that was David Hasselhoff? I never saw that before. I thought it was as bad as it could get and then he caught the fish in his mouth.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
<----Newbie
Is this the kiss-and-make up thread? Do I get to smooch?
I like that reading the higher temperature threads makes me examine why I think what I think; I have Hatrack to thank for giving me something new to mutter about in the shower every day.
Although with the really controversial threads, it gets hard to keep up when my kids get sick or something, like last weekend.
I'm glad so many people think differently here, and can post with such clarity and persuasiveness. Yummy brain food! I just love them big words.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
In my early days of the first Hatrack incarnation, I was really involved in the serious debating of issues. Heck, I may have even started the first homosexuality thread (anyone remember "Return to Sodom?" ). At first I was really offended when people debated my viewpoints. I remember at one point really disliking Tom Davidson.
But it's amazing how much I've learned about the way the world works and what truly loving your neighbor and being a member of a society means. I am really glad to know and call friends people like Tom and Mack and Celia who I may share nothing with politically.
That's the beauty of this place. What is it? ... "We speak with passion, we listen with respect..." Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
First you go gay, and then you provide links from some place called the Hell One T Work? What's happened to you, Pat?
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
**goes straight**
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Sachiko, apparently you have to smooch girls. (I'm assuming you're a girl, if I recall.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Speaking of David Hasselhoff, apparantly he was on an episode of "Whose Line is it Anyway." Now that, I gotta see.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
When was this video made? Is it supposed to be campy or is it authentic camp?
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
What about animals? Can I smooch cats?
Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
You know, I've clicked on that link zillions of times (most of them were unintentional, mind you!), but that's the first time I've watched it all the way through.
Bleach, people! I need bleach!
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
No, but I predict that all the emotion flying around will propel Hatrack into the fluff portion of its cycle (i.e. walking on political eggshells).
I know I, personally, won't hold a grudge. Growing up LDS and living (and arguing) much of my life as a moral conservative, I can't fault others (even OSC) for their positions.
And I think most of Hatrack is pretty good about disagreeing with the idea rather than the person.
Except for Geoff. I think he genuinely doesn't like me.
But that's more likely to get me banned than make me leave voluntarily.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
No one likes you, Eddie. The only difference is that Geoff tells you he doesn't like you in small words so you'll understand.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Hey, don't you remember that one time you liked me?
Err, wait. I think I remember you saying that it was becoming harder to hate me.
Still. A good start.
But, yeah. You're probably right. I'm pretty oblivious to people not liking me unless they come right out and say it.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
He just did, when he said, "No one likes you, Eddie." He even used small words.
I'm starting to think you have a learning disability.
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Well, I for one welcome all this hostility. Hatrack had become so unbearably fluffy.
To summarise: I disagree, jerk.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I've always thought of Hatrack as more of an English Pub-styled thing.
You walk in and everyone waves or nods, you order a pint and saunter over to which ever group of folks are talking about something that interests you.
There are a few folks telling jokes at the bar, a couple of blokes competing at the dart board. Over in the corner at a quiet table a few close friends are helping another discuss a tough situation in their life, offering support and advice.
Over near the fireplace or speaker's corner, someone makes a proclaimation on some subject of importance to society. Those gathered around, shout back their approval or hop up to join the debate -- some good naturedly, some with heartfelt concern and belief.
Now and then, the bartenders will annouce it's someone's special day and there's a round of drinks and a bit of singing the old birthday songs.
And then, when your time is over, you grab one for the road and head on your merry way, feeling a bit better, thinking a bit more and knowing you'll come back tomorrow.
(Or you can just read the Callahan's Saloon series and draw your own analogies).
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
You know, I've been here long enough that I don't even read the posts in the serious threads. So long as I know the subject I just scan down and look at people's name's and I can mentally fill in what's been said. It's not like anyone has ever *really* changed their stance. Sometimes I have to stop and read a newbie's opinion and then I merrily carry on. I may stop every 20 posts or so and see if I'm right and I almost invariably am (unless there's some unforseen Hatrack tangent TM). It's just a little game I play.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
I have to disagree with you BtL. My opinion on the whole gay marriage situation has been changed based on discussions at Hatrack. Unfortunately, I've been too busy at work to really do much more than read the threads lately.
Although, I still consider it a sin, I have come to the conclusion that the government should keep their nose out of it. I can't say that my mind would have changed on that if it weren't for the discussions here at Hatrack.
That I still consider it a sin is somewhat gray based on posts by dkw, Bob and others.
Please don't say that nobody's mind is ever changed at Hatrack, because they are, even if only occasionally. And even when minds aren't changed, at the very least, people walk away with a new viewpoint on the matter that they didn't have before.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
Rip us apart? Naaah, the community is stronger than that. There may be some people who leave for a while, upset at the rancor, but they'll come back; they always do.
Oh, by the way, this is Noemon, posting with my original Hatrack logon so that I can insult Slash, Pat, Tom, and any other 3-digiter with impunity.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes. The principals rarely (though occasionally) change positions in a given argument (the principals being the ones who keep going back and forth on the issue, such as me ). However, people who watch such disagreements are often influenced -- this isn't just on hatrack, this is quite often how it works in real life, as well.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*points finger at #206*
LURKER!
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I want a 3 digit member number I can pull out if necessary!
Anyone wanna trade?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Heh, I just noticed you registered exactly 2000 people after I did, rivka.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I for one thought the 10-page thread was pretty civilized for what it covered. Hatrack has survived much worse.
Sopwith, I like your English pub version of Hatrack. Spot on, chap. *orders a sarasparilla*
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I know that, fugu. And I understand the value of the discussions and I enjoy (enjoyed?) reading them or I wouldn't have stuck around here as long as I have. I'm just annoyed at seeing the same people get offended at the same things and say the same offensive things over and over again. The homosexuality threads (for example) seem to be less about homosexuality than about the grudges held between different posters.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
rivka has interesting (numerical) relationships with many Jatraqueros Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
From the viewpoint of a grandstand sitter, it seems like too often people either intentionally or unintentionally misconstrue what has been posted.
As far as the English pub idea goes, I refuse to drink warm beer.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Much to say.
As one of the people now hopelessly behind in his work because he had to read every single thread, and comment on many, then missed sleep over some of the disucussion, well, thanks.
I got very hot and bothered over these discussions because this is Hatrack.
Because it was Hatrack I felt comfortable letting my feelings flow and my arguments out.
Because it was Hatrack I knew that if they were not worded rudely, my comments would be accepted and debated on their merits, without ridicule unless they deserved it.
Because it was Hatrack I felt the need to try and convince people I respect and think of as friends to agree with me on an issue I believe is morally right.
Thanks for letting me do that.
Oh, and as far as Kissing Animals? Kissing Ravens is not only allowed, its mandatory.
As far as a time when someone disliked Tom Davidson, I think that was early Tuesday.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Dan.
And to be fair - for the Lady Raven too.
There you go!
[ February 26, 2004, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
<buys zgator a pint>
quote:That I still consider it a sin is somewhat gray based on posts by dkw, Bob and others
Z...it's based on you. We all take what we can and internalize what makes sense to us at that point in our lives.
As for me, I will have to admit that my view of what Conservative Christians think about homosexuality has changed dramatically. There are a few who match the stereotype I had assumed was correct. But they are very few and they are not even considered close to right by the other conservative Christians.
So...
I'd have to say that my opinion has changed a lot too.
And I blame people like zgator, Geoff, Belle, and a few others...but mostly Ryan Hart.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I came as close as I ever have to leaving, but on further introspection and a rather sleepless night, I decided that to do so would be cowardly and unproductive.
And there is a small part of me that wanted to post a "Goodbye Forever" type post but those always seem like a plea for people to jump in with "Oh, please don't go" responses. And really, if you have to ask someone if they like you does their answer really mean anything?
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
While I may have to take the occasional break for real life insanity (read that as phd related time consumption), I can think of no Hatrack issue that would drive me off.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I'm glad you didn't go Karl.
And I don't really even know you.
I think your eloquence adds greatly to Hatrack.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
You don't hang out with liberals, right?
Well, I can think of one reason...
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I was raised on the golden rule. If you can't say something nice about someone, don't say anything.
OSC-Fan, your last post....
well...
um...
...
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
WRT misconstruing, I try to apologize whenever I misconstrue someone if it was something that led me to possibly hurtful conclusions, or if its just something minor to at least acknowledge the misconstruement.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think Anne Kate is relatively liberal. I'm liberal on some things and not on others. Somehow we never wind up talking about the stuff I'm liberal on.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know something, Karl? While I usually hate those "goodbye, cruel world" posts, I would WANT one from you; if you left, I'd want to know that you were gone and would appreciate a chance to talk you out of it.
I MISS Ralphie, for example, and will always wonder what went on in her real life that's kept her from this place.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:The essay is out there and everybody is free to agree with it or not. And I think it was about time somebody said something like that, without being afraid of being politically incorrect.
You should attend Klu Klux Klan meetings, then. They talk like that all the time. You'd feel right at home.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
You know, a joke just isn't funny if you have to explain it. Although, perhaps I was being too snide to be funny.
To put it plainly, Ms. Fan, I was hoping you don't hang out with liberals because that would mean that I, being a liberal, would not have to be in your presence and have to suffer your liberal-bashing tripe in person.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I miss Ralphie, too. I'm ashamed that I haven't emailed her directly to tell her so.
I like you a lot, Tom. I'll keep in touch with you privately if I ever do leave. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Rivka:
Pooka: What issues do you consider yourself liberal on? I've always thought of your as being further right than most people I know, so I'm really curious (and honestly so; my asking isn't meant as a jibe of any kind, or anything of the sort).
KarlEd: I'm with Tom; if you were to leave, I'd want to see a goodbye thread from you.
OSC-fan: I think that you misunderstand; for the vast majority of people who have felt hurt enough by this to consider leaving, it hasn't been OSC's essay itself that prompted us to contemplate abandoning the forum, but the reactions and comments of people we have come to care deeply about. There are some exceptions--mack said that it was the essay that almost drove her off, and years ago it was OSC's essays that drove dean off, but for the most part, the people who have felt hurt over this have felt hurt by the comments of people they think of as friends. All of us here have a certain degree of respect for OSC, but not many of us actually consider him a friend.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: The essay is out there and everybody is free to agree with it or not. And I think it was about time somebody said something like that, without being afraid of being politically incorrect.
If this is the first time you've heard someone say 'something like that', then you obviously haven't heard some of Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, Falwell, Hal Lindsey, etc. They've been on this train for years. I don't know whether the fact that none of what OSC said is particularly new to me reflects poorly on me, rather than saying anything about you, though.
edit: changed for clarity...
[ February 26, 2004, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
You don't like those darkies either, do you OSC-Fan?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Wow, you really are dedicated to seeing the other side, aren't you John?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I'm still trying to figure out OSC-fan's age. First I was surprised it was a she instead of a he; and some posts point to a young teen who sees the world in very black & white terms, while others show a little bit of higher thought....
so the jury's still out on this...
Farmgirl
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Yes, I found a brief reference on This Thread but am still not sure. You top me in age? (I'm 42).
FG
Posted by Lime (Member # 1707) on :
I'm just proud to be a relatively low 4-digit poster... um, I mean lurker...
Hatrack's not going anywhere. If it was, it would have done so a long time ago. When I first started posting, I tried moving into the serious discussions, but shied off for a number of reasons. I'm definitely with Sopwith and the Irish pub metaphor.
It's been years since I've last gone into a Serious Thread (for various reasos), and it's the same thing that I saw years go: people who are concerned with their world, who are active, who aren't content to sit around and avoid big questions, who come together and debate. That's the reason I came here in the first place, and that's the reason I'm going to stay.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:Wow, you really are dedicated to seeing the other side, aren't you John?
And gee, you don't think that applies to you, or any of the other bigots? I know the "other side," as I'm a conservative who normally argues a pretty conservative line. In fact, the only thing that usually has me not following typical conservative rhetoric is the issue of civil rights and liberties. This happens to be such a case.
You see, the conservative outlook—which in this case is heavily influenced by religion—is that something that they consider a lifestyle should not be allowed to enter into what they wish to call a marriage. Further, a conservative is under the mistaken impression that marriage is a term that has some kind of sanctity outside of the law. It is true that someone who holds a religious view of marriage can consider it in accordance to their faith, but that their faith has no bearing on its meaning by law. Because of this mistaken impression, however, the typical conservative view is that marriage is somehow being "attacked," even though all gays want is to be afforded the same privileges and rights as heterosexuals. The typical conservative view is to deny these things—it's always easy to deny others something you already have.
Marriage isn't being attacked by homosexuals. It's being utterly ruined by heterosexuals. The ~50% divorce rate isn't the fault of homosexuals, because heterosexuals are the ones cheating, fighting, and breaking the "sanctity" of marriage in each case. The idea of "my baby momma" and "my baby daddy" isn't something that comes from the homosexual community—it's an idea that marriage isn't necessary to have kids, so why bother? In fact, the only real "attack" on marriage can be percieved by the religious take on it. Guess what: religion has no place in deciding whether a group of people deserve rights or not. And if you don't think the privileges afforded married couples are rights, then don't be hypocrites and offer them freely to homosexual couples.
Just like with the issue of racism, it's easy to claim moral superiority over the issue when you have the advantage and the majority. In fact, when you have those two things, you can keep your perceived "enemy" without the same privileges for a long time and justify it almost any way you please. That type of self-deception only lasts for so long, though, and while it may sound convincing to those who have no problem considering homosexuals second-class in terms of deserving to have privileges, it makes it no less bigoted than the segregationalist laws of the South after the 14th and 15th Amendments.
You (conservatives) say homosexuals are trying to destroy the institution of marriage—white men said black men only wanted equality to take their white women. Both accusations have no proof.
You (conservatives) often say that you might not have a problem with a "civil union" that was not the same as or called marriage—Jim Crow laws allowed blacks to have some of the same rights as whites, as long as those rights were not the same as the rights of whites. Separate but "equal." Uh huh... that doesn't sound different at all.
What boggles my mind is how someone can consider these types of thinking not bigoted. They say the same thing as the racist policies of the past, just using qualifiers that aren't ethnicity based. I understand the opposing arguments, I just don't accept the excuses for why people wish to consider them any different than the racist policies of a hundred years ago.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I left once before, though I never said I'd be gone forever (don't think I did ) not necessarily because of issue threads, though there were some, but because I realized I'd let the issue threads spill over into my life as a wife and mother.
Whenever I notice that I'm getting so emotionally involved that it affects the way I act with my kids, I stop posting on that thread. So, that's why I disappear from some. If I ever feel like it's getting to be too much of a problem I'll take break from Hatrack again.
On more than one thread recently I've found myself snapping at my children when they asked me something while I was reading and posting. That's why I left the thread about the essay. That's why I didn't even open this one until just now, and I'm pleased to see the responses from people like KarlEd and Ela. mack, if I hang in here, you must too. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
John, I'm telling you right now I am deeply offended by your language. Not your ideas, not the expression, but by your continual invective. It shows a lack of insight, it isn't true, and Lalo is NOT the person here you want to emulate.
Knock it off.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And gee, you don't think that applies to you, or any of the other bigots?
Why exactly am I a bigot? Did you take the time to find out my position on this matter, which is available on many threads on this forum?
No. You applied the label "bigot" to someone who probably agrees with you on the merits of the issue but has taken great pains to understand both sides.
You are the one stifling rational discussion on this matter. Not me.
Dagonee
Edit: I think it would be fair to say, and I think most people who have participated in these discussions over the last few months would agree, that I have a more balanced understanding of the arguments on both sides of this issue than most people on the forum.
[ February 26, 2004, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't agree with the NRA. I'm not a republican because I think they've sold out. But I'm not a Libertarian. I'm anti-capital punishment. Let's see. I'm getting kind of impatient with supply-side economics. I'm a recoverying MLM junkie. I know most conservatives don't think that has anything to do with them, but most MLMers are conservative. But I am very "Family Values" for want of a better term. I just never saw how guns and the electric chair help the family.
I thought someone said Ralphie was just busy lately, new job or something.
John- OSC fan and you both seem to suffer from a lack of boundaries. These statements belong on different threads, in my opinion.
[ February 26, 2004, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Marriage isn't being attacked by homosexuals. It's being utterly ruined by heterosexuals.
I'd have to agree with you there, John.
Not to be unduly light-hearted, but upon seeing the title of this thread, does anyone else always think:
"Yes, I hope so! Then we can finally get to the nice, soft, chewy center."
[ February 26, 2004, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Maybe you should look into why you are feeling insulted, Kate. I'm challenging each person who wishes to deny the rights of homosexuals to look at the basis for their decisions on the matter of marriage, and figure out exactly what they feel homosexuals should and should not be allowed to do. If, at any point, you agree that homosexuals should either be intrinsically separated from or simply not have the same amount of rights as heterosexuals, how on Earth can you claim that this is not a completely prejudiced thinking? And if you feel it's okay to legislate this, why is it not okay to call this bigoted? Because it's an accusation that is as equally damning as those who would call homosexuals sinners damned to hell?
I'm not emulating anyone on this matter. It's rather dismissive on your part to assume I am. I'm all about individual rights and liberties, and I made clear what individual rights and liberties are being denied a certain group of individuals. Using slippery slopes like polygamy and incest are not addressing the issue, and opposing slippery slopes (making homosexuality illegal?) would have to apply with just as much validity if you wish to use them.
If you're insulted, I'm sorry. However, the belief that homosexuals should not be allowed the same rights is bigoted, pure and simple. I will not stop believing that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
John, I think we'd finally managed to move past invective, here. Would you apologize for the "bigot" bit, and move on? Your feeling that this is bigoted is perfectly valid, and no one's asking you to change your mind about it, but I don't think it's at all tactful or constructive to say it.
[ February 26, 2004, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Yeah, I have to say that John's and OSC-fan's comments would both be better served in the appropriate threads.
Which is to say, not this one.
-Bok
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
No, I won't apologize. If OSC is allowed to present his honest opinion on the issue openly and vocally, so is everyone else. I stick by the term "bigot" for the exact reasons I gave above, and I'm not going to hide it because someone doesn't like hearing it. I don't like hearing that homosexuals are second-class citizens, but it doesn't stop people from putting forth that in posts.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
But John, and OSC-Fan, you are trying to derail this thread, and force it into the very bitterness and name calling dichotomy that this thread is trying to resolve.
We do not say you are wrong. We are saying you are being impolite. There is a place for your passions and your debate, but this thread is not it.
John, your argument is based on the idea that people should do what they want to do as long as they are not actually infringing on others. Well, I agree, but your argument in this thread is infringing on those who seek to espcape the passions for a bit, or for good.
OSC-Fan, your views are based on the strong religious convictions that include "Do Onto Others As You Would Have Them Do Onto You." That can be translated here to mean, don't add stress to a place people are coming to in order to escape the stress.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
John L,
So you won't even apologize that you applied the term to someone without bothering to find out if the term applied based on your own reasoning? So you're truly not interested in truth, just in scoring cheap rhetorical points wherever you can.
Dagonee
[ February 26, 2004, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I don't remember the actual thread being this full of attacks and angry words, unless it's in page 11, which I haven't read yet. I thought the discussion remained fairly civil despite the essay and the subject matter.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I still think OSC-fan is Lalo in disguise.
And for the past month or so, I thought John L was Leto. I'm glad it's not, but have we replaced him with an even less tactful John L?
(note: I'm not insinuating that I have any tact, either.)
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
John L on Hatrack IS Leto/GreNME/Wolverine (though all those names were voluntarily deleted).
John L on Ornery is NOT Leto.
-Bok
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
I am relatively active in the debates, frankly, I think a good brawl every now and then is healthy, I never thought of leaving, or less of the person for disagreeing.
Rhaegar
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Heh. Where's the Halo Smilie when you need him?
Sorry, John. But it is bad manners to fight in an "kiss and make up" thread. You missed out on half a dozen threads of people at each others' throats only to whip out your sword after all the fun was over. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Rhaegar, sorry, but you're not active in the debates much at all.
Posted by Rhaegar The Fool (Member # 5811) on :
Whenever I am around, which seeing as I am grounded I do get into them, but every thursday and tuesday I am doin it.
Rhaegar
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:You missed out on half a dozen threads of people at each others' throats only to whip out your sword after all the fun was over.
I guess I'll have to learn better timing for when to whip it out.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:years ago it was OSC's essays that drove dean off
Really? That was the reason dean left Hatrack? Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Well, I could be misremembering, but I seem to remember that she said that she'd lost respect for him and didn't really feel comfortable posting here as a result. Anyone remember more details?
I think that dean may be one of the only people who said they were going, and who has stayed away long enough that I believe them. Dean and Bonduca.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
That is how I remember it, Noemon. I miss them both.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Seems a silly reason to leave, frankly. *shrug*
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
I imagine the discourse on racial equality ran much like this over the last century. The segregationalists had many "good" reasons for their views and felt insulted to be called bigots. They fervently denied they were discriminating and came up with all kinds of complex legal reasoning to worm around the issue.
But face it, the moment you back down and stop calling them what they are you become a submissive part of the problem.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Really? That was the reason dean left Hatrack?
quote: Seems a silly reason to leave, frankly. *shrug*
Actually, I've been thinking I should leave for a while now. I've never considered OSC that great of a writer and I seriously dislike most of his War Watch stuff. With this last column, it's pretty clear to me that he is, in a lot of ways, not a good person. At this point, I think it reflects badly on me to associate with OSC. So, I think it's pretty hypcritical of me to be on his site.
I don't want to get into a debate about whether or not OSC is a good person. I'm sure in person he is a swell guy. I just don't get it from his war watch stuff. It's my personal opinion. I know many of you don't share it. The main reason I stay here is because this side of the forum has nothing to do with OSC. He doesn't post here and I don't have to talk to him. I get a lot from interacting with most of you, as I hope you do with me. Though, I know most of you, or a lot of you, anyway, would not care if I left or stayed. Some of you would say good riddance.
The main point of writing this is to, one, add my voice to those on this forum who say that OSC has crossed a line. His latest column is very offensive to me. I think those who were offended by his column on this site have been pretty low key in voicing their disappointment in it and I just wanted to throw my own voice out there in support of those who have made mention of it. Two, I kind of wanted feedback on the way I'm feeling. Is it appropriate that I stay here? Would any of the Mormons on this site continue to post on a site where they were constantly put down and trashed by the site host? Icarus, I don't know what group you feel a kinship with. Would you stay on a site where teachers or hispanics were constantly trashed by the host? I thought your post was a little dismissive and I wanted to point out to you that, to some of us, he is very offensive.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:On more than one thread recently I've found myself snapping at my children when they asked me something while I was reading and posting. That's why I left the thread about the essay. That's why I didn't even open this one until just now, and I'm pleased to see the responses from people like KarlEd and Ela. mack, if I hang in here, you must too.
I am glad you are here, too, Belle, and glad you decided to come back after you took a break for awhile.
KarlEd, you can count me as one who is also glad you decided to stay. I would be very sad if you left.
I, too, miss dean and bonduca. I chatted with dean a few times on AIM after she left, but she doesn't seem to use the screen names I have for her anymore. I am in very sporadic email contact with bonduca.
I didn't know dean left because of OSC's essays. I remember reading a few of the essays when Ornery first went up. I realized right away that I disagreed with a lot of OSC's viewpoints, and some of the essays made me angry, so I just stopped going to Ornery, and stopped reading the essays.
I wouldn't have read this essay, either, if it hadn't been posted at Hatrack. So I guess I agree with Icky that disagreeing with OSC's essays seems like a silly reason to leave. I value my relationships with my fellow Hatrackers too much to let the disagreements about issues and ideas drive me away.
I think, overall, the Hatrackers are an intelligent, well-informed, caring group of individuals. It's true that some people are sometimes less than tactful about what they post, or unwittingly post things that hurt other people. We work things out through our discussion most of the time.
That's why I agree with those who feel that Hatrack will survive this.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I have a lot of respect for OSC. I like his sense of morallity and the way his characters try to do the right thing even if it's hard. But I don't always like how he protrays his "bad" guys. Mostly as immature and selfish and not human enough. It's just that this article really, really hurt. He just sounded so vicious to me and misinformed and I thought of leaving and giving up on his writing since I did not like the Bean books that much or the ones based on Biblical women which were rather cool in a way... But an opposite way of looking at this is important because it lets you know what you believe and the ideas can clash and widdle each other down until we can finally, finally try to understand things clearly....
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Yeah Ela, I'm the same way. I almost always disagree with OSC's WarWatch essays, but honestly, I'm not here because of OSC. It was a search for sites about him that led me here, back in '99, but it's because of the people here that I come back, and that Hatrack is the first thing I check after my mail (and occasionally sakeriver) every morning.
Storm, you're a part of this community. I'd miss you if you were to leave, and the fourm would be that much poorer for the lack of your voice. I don't think that dean's reason for leaving was silly, but I do regret very much that she's no longer a part of daily life on this site.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Storm, I don't know that it's hypocritical for you to stay. I also don't agree with his War Watch stuff and I also don't particularly care for his writing style. And yet, this place is pretty much free of both those things. Heck, I don't even know if I'd say that OSC comes up more than, say, George R.R. Martin or Tolkein. I certainly don't get the impression that the Card's host this forum so a bunch of fans can come and play lip service to him and nod enthusiastically about everything he says. I don't really know why they do host this place, perhaps they like that they've been able to foster this little microcosm, maybe they're only dimly aware of the fact that it exists. Who knows? But I don't think liking Card is a requirement. Mind you, I never did read the membership agreement.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Actually, dean left not because of OSC's columns, but because of me.
It's true. After I attended the second SoCal picnic, everyone else who went to it left California. They thought that would be enough, but even my presence at the same forum was too much to handle, so dean, moonflower, and eventually OlavMah all left Hatrack permanently. Slash has stuck around, but you'll certainly notice he doesn't participate as much as he used to. I'm also the real reason that his wife has never posted.
The picnic occurred only very shortly after Mooselet was born, so they basically met more the "Uncle Moose" than the "Papa Moose," and Uncle was indeed a far less likeable creature. Mooselet has mellowed me out quite a bit, and since that time, Slash actually said a nice thing about me. Once. I only wish the rest of them could see the change in me, so that they might return.
*sigh*
--Pop
[Edit because of stupid sentence structure.]
[ February 27, 2004, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: Papa Moose ]
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Yeah Ela, I'm the same way. I almost always disagree with OSC's WarWatch essays, but honestly, I'm not here because of OSC. It was a search for sites about him that led me here, back in '99, but it's because of the people here that I come back, and that Hatrack is the first thing I check after my mail (and occasionally sakeriver) every morning.
OSC has said in the past that his goal was to create on online community. I would say he has achieved that goal.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
That's funny, Pop; I always figured it was my presence on Hatrack that drove all these cool people away. All of these cool people were posting when I arived, and many have since left, so . . .
-o-
quote:Icarus, I don't know what group you feel a kinship with. Would you stay on a site where teachers or hispanics were constantly trashed by the host?
Hmm . . .
Well, first of all, I apologize for sounding dismissive.
Where I stand on the issue: I believe homosexuals should have the right to marry any unmarried adult they want to, and have their marriage receive all of the same legal recognition that man-woman marriages receive. I do not think this would devalue marriages or the institution of marriage in the least. But the crux of this current issue is, I think, not where you stand on homosexual marriage, but where you stand on the opposition to it. I was uncomfortable with it when Bob first stated that people who opposed gay unions were bigots, but I had a hard time coming up with a reason why he was wrong. I think reading the posts of Belle and others here has finally helped me formulate why I believe Bob was wrong on that count.*
If you believe that homosexual sex is sinful but still think that they should still have marriage rights, then I don't have any issue with that. I can respect that people tend to agree with their religion. I thought the "homophobia" charges that were leveled against OSC years ago were ridiculous. If you believe that homosexials should not be allowed to marry people of the same gender, that was something I was having a harder time with. First of all, I think that many people on that side of the issue are losing sight of the separation of Church and State, and the fact that we should not legislate against actions when no nonreligious reason can be found to do so. I'm coming to understand, though, that those opposed to legalizing gay marriage don't see it the way I do. They don't see marriage to the person you love as a right, and so they don't see the denial of that privilege as an infringement of that right. If I'm oversimplifying, I apologize, but it's impossible to empathize too perfectly with a view I don't hold. This argument doesn't sway me, because I still don't see the why of it, but it helps me see that the people who I know and love and respect on the other side of this issue are not bigoted or evil. Just wrong.
I can see why people found OSC's essay offensive: he doesn't extend to those who disagree with him the recognition that they disagree not because they are evil or his enemies, but because they have analyzed the situation and come to a different conclusion. Many (most?) of his recent columns are filled with rhetoric about the "liberal elite" which paints them as monsters who hate God and families. And I can understand it . . . there truly have been abuses on that side of the political spectrum. Heck, I went to college. There are hateful aberrations on both sides of the political spectrum. But most if not all of the people I know are not trying to destroy families or religion, nor are they trying to step on poor people and take away everyone's freedoms. And since the only evidence I can possibly have about the population at large is my own small sample, I believe that this holds for most people in the world. Most people want, with their beliefs if not their actions, to make the world a better place. Seeing enemies where there are simply people who disagree makes it easy to unconsciously turn up the rhetoric to the point where it becomes offensive, and I think OSC has gotten to this point.
It makes me sad that saying this will possibly move me into the perceived enemy camp, because I think highly of OSC, I agree with some of his beliefs, and I don't see myself as his enemy or him as mine.
None of which answers your question, so let's try again . . .
When I joined Hatrack, I know that OSC was socially more conservative than I am, but I did not consider him rabidly so. Heck, I had also heard and read him say uncomplimentary things about teachers, but I didn't perceive them as a direct insult. If he was rabidly anti-teacher or anti-latino, I likely never would have joined in the first place. But now that I have joined, I don't see this as the OSC fan club. I see this as a community of people, many of whom I have a great deal of respect and affection for. If OSC suddenly started publishing essays rabidly prejudiced against Latinos, I don't think I would leave. Because, heck, he doesn't post here and my presence here doesn't give him anything. Maybe as a member of the community I could effectively argue against such essays. But now, I'm here for the people who are here and for the conversations we have.
I don't post as much as I used to, and I feel less well-known now than I was a year or so ago, but I still enjoy this forum a lot. Leaving it over a political disagreement with the guy who owns it seems rather like cutting off my nose to spite my face.
And, for what it's worth, I personally would miss you if you left. And I think I've expressed to you before that I value your presence here. I consider you to be the perfect debater . . . when I disagree with you, I find that you listen to what I say, and treat me with every courtesy.
-o-
*And this is what Hatrack is all about. Every once in a while, somebody says, "What's the point? Nobody ever changes their mind?" I don't enter these discussions to change people's minds (how presumptious of me if I did!) Clearly, I don't come here to have my own mind changed either. I enter these discussions to better understand those who disagree with me. Since I am, of course, always right, I am baffled when somebody fails to see the logic in everything I say. So, when somebody doesn't see things that way, my first instinct is, naturally, that they are idiots or evil people. But I am always astonished by how many people turn out to be idiots or evil people. So I engage in these discussions to better understand those who disagree with me, because it is unreasonable to think that so many people are idiots or evil. I challenge their beliefs as a way of probing, and understanding. Not because I believe that I can put my thoughts in such a way that they will say, "You know, you're right Joe. I don't know why I didn't see it that way before. From now on, I will favor legalization of homosexual marriages." Rather, I am makig the objections that make me believe as I do, to understand how they deal with them. As an added benefit, I get questioned and challenged too, and find that, while I might not make drastic changes in my beliefs--that was never a goal, remember?--I do refine some points I had never thought out before. I guess dialogue softens the edges.
For instance, while I still would not leave this forum over something OSC said, I can better understand those who would, now.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
Didn't we have a Catfight thread for people who wanted to be snarky? John L should probably find his way there. Calling people names, whether true labels or not, belongs in a Catfight thread!
I love Hatrack because it is the most civilized place I know.
[ February 27, 2004, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: Jenny Gardener ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Icarus, Noemon, and BtL thank you so much for your replies.
Icarus, I thank you in particular for your perspective on this. You always say things so clearly and lucidly. Someday I'm going to grow up to be just like you. Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Aw, shucks!
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
Too much of the arguing here seems like fruitless sound and fury. Let other people spar endlessly to no avail. Go become better at something rather than stagnating.
Struggling with one-trick ponies is only useful only as far as acquiring some idea of what their intellectual framework is supposed to look like. After that, the argument that you are arguing simply to present a differing opinion will only go so far.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
In English, please?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Translation: Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics.
Pod, you don't have to play. It's okay. Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I have the complete quote, with accompanying picture, if you want it, kat. Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Ah.
I don't typically think of what I do here as arguing. Once in a long while I get heated, but usually I think of it as discussing. (Not even debating.) And Kat, your reply sums up my feelings pretty well.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Frisco, that quote and picture aren't very flattering for those of us that have special people in our lives.
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
In the interest of remaining reflexively stable, i'll afford myself this one statement:
Just reminding people that they don't have to argue, and there are other things to do.
(my code is doing data crunching and i'm bored, which is why i even saw the thread)
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
and yes, Kat, that is a good paraphrase (i had forgotten about that image)
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:Frisco, that quote and picture aren't very flattering for those of us that have special people in our lives.
Storm, haven't seen the picture (and don't want to), but if it's like the quote, it's not particularly funny, either.
(figured I'd let you know you're not the only one)
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Thank you. Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
(at risk of jumping on the bandwagon..)
I saw the quote/translation and thought it was actually pretty offensive.
But I had made a pact with myself to not post in any more serious threads... or at least, not to do so seriously, for a little while at least.
Guess that's broken.
Still - I do think it is out of line. To those people who are closely associated with people with disabilities, making fun of the special olympics isn't particularly clever.
(Edit: If I've got the wrong end of the stick, and it wasn't meant in that way, please let me know. But that's the way it sounds to me)
[ February 28, 2004, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
well, i don't know.
I think that "arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics; even if you win, you're still a retard" is indeed offensive, but it manages to convey the proper feeling about the former component of the analogy even if the latter part of the analogy is an offensive, incorrect stereotype, whose sentiment i don't agree with.
i think the same sorts of things can be said for how people treat the elderly. People often treat them like dirt, and it's awful. But it seems to come out of a lack of empath or understanding. I'm undecided if making statements like the above quote constitutes such a lack of empath or understanding. My gut reaction is no. but that's because i have friends who've quoted the phrase before who i don't think are extrodinarily prejudiced against the disabled or elderly.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Pod, surely there is enough wit and intelligence at Hatrack to come up with an analogy that is appropriate at both ends.
I won't tire you out with a long harangue about what winning the Special Olympics really means; suffice it to say that I think more of Hatrack than to expect it to come up with an analogy that relies on such a cheap, shallow, trite stereotype to make a point.
I mean, please ... free speech yes, but tacky cheap shots & intellectual laziness, no.
It just doesn't ring true if you've even been involved with the issue.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
If Hatrack is torn apart by this debate. . .
Do you think I could grill it, and serve it on tortillas, with guacamole and habanero salsa, and grilled onions, bell pepppers, and tomatoes?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Scott, I'm still waiting for the gooey center to be revealed.
How about this analogy instead:
Arguing on the internet is like trying to wash a cat: even while one spot is finally getting cleared up, an outlier you weren't expecting claws you in the back.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Or,
Arguing on the internet is like making spun sugar baskets; sure, you may end up with a brittle structure that is somewhat attractive, but it's never worth burning half your hands off to get there.
[ February 28, 2004, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
(OR CT should respond to my emails )
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
mack, I will go look at email right now.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
That would be the optional sour-cream-and-cilantro topping within the tortillas, CT.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Once again, I am extremely grateful for the gentle voice of CT.
Today, like all too many Saturdays, I'm at the office. Two things struck me while I was working on some other stuff. One was a picture I pass by several times a day:
The picture is of a young man - 18 years old - who has Down syndrome. He's holding and umbrella, wearing a Not Dead Yet tshirt, and holding a sign that says: Civil Rights Are For EVERYONE! It's from the 1999 protest at Princeton when Peter Singer first came to campus. Ted - the young man in question - knew exactly why he wanted to be there and what Singer's advocacy was on infanticide - it's not that complicated. Ted stood in the rain all day, with about 200 other people.
The other was something I came across by accident in a book I was using as a resource for one of the projects I'm working on. It's one of those quotes that a lot of authors like to put at the beginning of chapters:
The point I'm trying to make is that we would prefer to have people laugh with us than at us. -- Burton Minow
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
J/K
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
at Slash
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Oh, and I saw the source of --*--. It all comes clear. So that was David Hasselhoff? I never saw that before. I thought it was as bad as it could get and then he caught the fish in his mouth.
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
Dan.![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
) not necessarily because of issue threads, though there were some, but because I realized I'd let the issue threads spill over into my life as a wife and mother. ![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
It's my personal opinion. I know many of you don't share it. The main reason I stay here is because this side of the forum has nothing to do with OSC. He doesn't post here and I don't have to talk to him. I get a lot from interacting with most of you, as I hope you do with me. Though, I know most of you, or a lot of you, anyway, would not care if I left or stayed. Some of you would say good riddance. ![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)