FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Prop 8 Supporters Mapped Out (Page 2)

  This topic comprises 15 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  13  14  15   
Author Topic: Prop 8 Supporters Mapped Out
Jhai
Member
Member # 5633

 - posted      Profile for Jhai   Email Jhai         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
That seems like the least likely use of a list like that.

I suspect that if you wanted to associate with someone outside civil or business relations, then you'd probably know enough about them to make this a topic. Especially since it was so controversial - I know the general position of just about everyone I associate with outside of business, and I live on the other side of the country.

In other words, if you are in a position to be friends with someone, you wouldn't need the list to know what is important to them.

Really? You discuss this with every small business owner you shop from, and all of your neighbors? You would know prior to, say, inviting over a few neighbors for a BBQ, whether they've donated to Prop 8 or not?
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
Political speech is protected by the constitutuion in a very big way. Performing medical procedures is not.

The purpose of such maps are clearly to draw unfavorable attention on people for their political speech. I wonder if the people who like these maps would also support maps of people who donate to, say, Muslim charities, or people who support abortion causes.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
Jhai: It's a controversial issue. It is important enough to want to avoid accidentally being nice to someone who supports it, and it was important enough to them to give money for the cause. Yeah, if you have more than any kind of surface conversation with someone, then I'll bet it would come up.

If your point is that you don't want to risk for one second being nice to someone who believes differently than you, then you've really lost me.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Occasional
Member
Member # 5860

 - posted      Profile for Occasional   Email Occasional         Edit/Delete Post 
I really think a map that shows all the contributors against the prop should be made. After all, if the other side can do it, I don't see why it can't be done for the opposite.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
That seems like the least likely use of a list like that.
...

On the other hand, there's that old saying about politics and religion being two topics that one should avoid at the dinner table and this issue combines both.

In fact, wasn't there a thread recently on whether one should expose one's personal effects and and views at work, with some arguing that was unhealthy? It would seem that such a map would aid in determining whether to start a friendship with such people who wouldn't exactly volunteer this kind of information otherwise. (Not that I support using such criteria to determine whether to form friendships, but theoretically it seems quite possible)

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
What about map of all the places where people who got married in the window when it was legal live? Would you feel the same way about that map, Jhai? What would think of someon who would want such a map so they avoid all non-forced contact with the people on the list?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Occasional:
I really think a map that shows all the contributors against the prop should be made. After all, if the other side can do it, I don't see why it can't be done for the opposite.

I would be happy to be on such a map - and will be if someone makes one.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
People who like them are irrelevant. People who believe they should be legal will tell you all of the same things- there's nothing for you to do in this situation but complain... and it looks like you're getting ready to sit down and do just that for a few pages. Have fun!

Actually, performing medical procedures IS protected by the constitution- in so far as our laws are based on the constitution, and medical procedures are regulated by the federal government. And, in fact, the confidentiality of medical procedures is ALSO protected in the constitution.

But the question was whether doctors should have the right to privacy in their living arrangements. I believe they should have that right if it is needed to keep them safe. I think we can agree that in certain cases, they do need that to keep themselves safe.

So Kat, it's okay for people to make political speech through public donations, but do you think it's not okay (as in SHOULD BE ILLEGAL) for people to make that information publicly accessible in new ways?


Ultimately, no matter how long this discussion goes on, and I think it will, you are arguing from the "get those kids off my lawn" perspective. This is something new. It is good when it does what you want it to, and bad when it does something you don't want it to. For the "good" cases, you recognize the disconnect between potentiality and action. In the "bad" cases, you don't.

You will accept no moral ambiguity- or if you will, you will allow yourself to show no understanding of moral ambiguity. I don't know why you do this. I am concerned that there are people like you in the world (possibly a lot of you), but I really don't know what to do about it. And anyway, I'm not entirely convinced that I don't share your tendencies myself, and just don't express them in the same ways, or because I don't hold the same opinions. (That's moral ambiguity, by the way, coming from the part of your brain that tells you that you actually have things to learn from others).

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jhai
Member
Member # 5633

 - posted      Profile for Jhai   Email Jhai         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
What about map of all the places where people who got married in the window when it was legal live? Would you feel the same way about that map, Jhai? What would think of someon who would want such a map so they avoid all non-forced contact with the people on the list?

Do you really not get the distinction between political actions and other actions? If I get married under a specific law that allows me to, I'm just going about my business. If I donate to a religious organization that supports sexism in the home, I'm still just going about my business. The moment I donate to a group that is trying to influence what laws our society follows, I've stepped out of "just going about my business" and into a public sphere where others have a right to know about my actions.

Edit: If the addresses of the married folk were part of open government information (i.e. this is data which is collected by the government, and made open to the public), then I wouldn't have any problem with it. I doubt it'd be easy to figure out which couples were homosexual and which weren't during the time period under question, unless the list of gov't information included genders. However, even if I were stridently against gay marriage, I would care far less about the people who got married while it was legal and far more about the people who donated to "No on Prop 8" groups. Again, because political action is different - and often more objectionable in my "live & let live" moral framework - than just having your own personal views about things.

[ January 28, 2009, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: Jhai ]

Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
So Kat, it's okay for people to make political speech through public donations, but do you think it's not okay (as in SHOULD BE ILLEGAL) for people to make that information publicly accessible in new ways?
I have said nothing about being illegal or that it should be illegal. I don't know where you got that.

You are also wrong in summarizing my argument. I don't know who or what you are arguing against, but it isn't me or anything I said. Perhaps it was a different conversation you were in?

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
What about map of all the places where people who got married in the window when it was legal live? Would you feel the same way about that map, Jhai? What would think of someon who would want such a map so they avoid all non-forced contact with the people on the list?

If the addresses of the people who got married were part of public record, then I would feel that the map is legal. I wouldn't make it, I wouldn't look at it, and I would do nothing about it if I saw it. I know you're not asking me, but there's an answer anyway.

Each time you bring up some other possibility, someone's personal feelings about the effect of that possibility *will* be different. There's no shame in that. We are complex people. And people will always be doing bad things. Your solution, to be honest, is the attitude that allows authoritarianism to seep into the politics of any given nation. From the position of "how would you FEEL" soon evolves, "what are we going to DO ABOUT IT!"

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
Orincoro, I think you are in the wrong conversation. You are not talking about anything I said or am talking about.

If you are predicting my next comment, then shake the 8-ball again: it's wrong.

---

Jhai: Anything that gets public funding is part of the state. Getting legally married involves the state. All of those things involve the state just as much as politics does, just at different points in the process. Also, all are publically available records. They are all candidates for a map like that to be created. What would you think of people creating maps like that of groups of people they don't like in order to guide who they will and will not be nice if they run into them in the neighborhood?

Does your answer mean that you would think poorly of someone who used a map of people who got married in that window in order to guide their choices of who and who not to be polite to?

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jhai
Member
Member # 5633

 - posted      Profile for Jhai   Email Jhai         Edit/Delete Post 
Sorry - I addressed that bit in an edit to my comment above, kat - we must have crossposted.

It is pretty hilarious that your next post is pretty much spot on as to what Orincoro's model of you would suggest.

Edit: you'll also note that I never said anything about being impolite to the people who donated to "Yes on Prop 8". In fact, I specifically mentioned I'd have polite impersonal or business interactions with people who donated. I don't think there's anything to be gained by being impolite to anyone who is behaving in a civil manner.

Edit the second: I also don't get why you're bringing up actions that involve "the state". Pretty much anything we do involves the state in some way or other - every item we own, every person we meet, etc, unless we're somehow living "off the grid." Political action is not the same thing as the state.

Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
?? Are there missing posts? Is someone passing around a halucinogen?

--

I disagree that it is okay to single out political views as okay to shun someone about while all other choices are personal and therefore not okay to shun someone about.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jhai
Member
Member # 5633

 - posted      Profile for Jhai   Email Jhai         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
I disagree that it is okay to single out political views as okay to shun someone about while all other choices are personal and therefore not okay to shun someone about.

Political views are different from political action. My husband has a political view about Prop 8, but has taken absolutely no action, other than discussing his view with people he interacts with daily. I have taken political action on Prop 8 by phoning California voters & through donation - and my action was brought about because of my strong political views.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
So you are saying that if someon takes a political action stemming from a political view that you disagree with, then it is okay to shun that person.

That taking political action carries with it the automatic agreement that your political actions will be provided to those who will hate for it to do as they want to.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
Orincoro, I think you are in the wrong conversation. You are not talking about anything I said or am talking about.

If you are predicting my next comment, then shake the 8-ball again: it's wrong.

At the extreme risk of hoisting myself on my own petard, you've done this so many times, it's easy to predict what you'll say.

There's absolutely no way for me to prove my point (Schrodinger's cat and all that) but every time someone anticipates or interprets any portion of your position, you tell them you haven't said that, and they're wrong, and here's why. The only reason I think this, is because you have never once acknowledge something someone else has said, and seemed to actually think about it.

When I'm making an argument, I try to think a few steps ahead, and acknowledge the likely responses I'll get depending on the person I'm talking to. Now, if this is done right (and it is only sometimes done right) the person will engage with my point by shading their position based on what I've said (and which they have acknowledged) so that I get a better picture of what they really think. They understand what it is in my argument that is suppositional, and they respond when I am wrong. Now with you, the approach is totally different.

I find myself sitting here thinking: "gosh, if I say this about her position, she'll deny it fiercely, but if I don't say it, she'll reveal what I'm going to say about her anyway, and then I will have not said it." So short of writing down my predictions and mailing them to myself, there is no way to prove I actually know what you're going to say, and how what I say affects that.

Like right now, you're going to say something about how I have no right to play armchair psychology, and anyway I must think so highly of myself for being so damn smart, and predicting everything you are going to say, when really I don't know you, and I couldn't possibly understand anything about you to begin with. That's when I double back and answer that argument by saying that your positions are revealed in everything you've said up to this point, and you'll come back and say that THEY HAVE NOT! And I just don't understand your position. And I'll respond that you obviously haven't made your position clear, and then the thread will go into its 7th page, and you'll declare nuclear war on Hatrack, and Blayne will be sacrificed as a martyr to Communist China.

Now you won't say that. You'll say something else.

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
I can't believe that technique actually works for you. Do you get good results from it? How do you define good results?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Political speech is protected by the constitutuion in a very big way. Performing medical procedures is not.

The purpose of such maps are clearly to draw unfavorable attention on people for their political speech.

But this doesn't matter, because it's perfectly constitutional to focus unfavorable attention on people for their political speech.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
Sure. Lots of things that are tacky and gauche are constitutional.

Depends on the nature of the unfavorable attention, of course. Sometimes it does (and has, for this issue) crossed the line from unfavorable attention to crimincal acts.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jhai
Member
Member # 5633

 - posted      Profile for Jhai   Email Jhai         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
So you are saying that if someon takes a political action stemming from a political view that you disagree with, then it is okay to shun that person.

That taking political action carries with it the automatic agreement that your political actions will be provided to those who will hate for it to do as they want to.

I suppose the first part depends on your definition of "shun." If I regularly take part in political protest aimed at denying rights to black people, will I still get invited to your BBQ?

As far as the second part, I think that if you take a political action that will be recorded by the government and made open to the public, you shouldn't be surprised if the information is open to the public.

Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't see where this is difficult. Public information is public. Criminal action based on public information is criminal. Enforce the law and have done.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
I am not saying I am surprised. I just wonder if we really want to make political action such a risky activity that only people with nothing to lose take part in it, because it has become acceptable to actively shun people for it.

I only invite people I like very much and know well enough to know that I do to do things, so I seriously suspect that someone who engaged in that kind of political activity would bring it up before I invited them to a barbeque.

And, actually, if I did and it turned out that they did, it wouldn't be the end of the world. Opposing political views are not cooties, and I would hope I would never regret being friendly to someone because of something that held no danger to me.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
Shunning people because they donate money to a given political cause should generally be considered as unacceptable as shunning someone just because they are gay. I don't, for instance, consider it reasonable to refuse to do business with people who had "Vote for McCain" signs in their yards. I don't see supporting or opposing Prop 8 as any different than that.

That's because knowing that somebody gave money toward Prop 8 tells you very very little about who they actually are as a person. It doesn't tell you WHY they donated the money. It doesn't prove they are bigot. And it certainly doesn't give you much insight into their personality.

I'd say get to know people instead of shunning them; people are more complicated than a set of votes or a set of political opinions, and shouldn't be treated as such. You might find your favorite person in the world disagrees with you on some important issue. It'd be foolish to shun them just for that.

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paul Goldner
Member
Member # 1910

 - posted      Profile for Paul Goldner   Email Paul Goldner         Edit/Delete Post 
"That's because knowing that somebody gave money toward Prop 8 tells you very very little about who they actually are as a person. "

Actually, it tells you quite a lot. It tells you they actively support making a bigoted measure part of the constitution.

Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
That you think so says more about your views of the issue than the views of other people on the issue.

The issue is not cut and dried nor black and white.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jhai
Member
Member # 5633

 - posted      Profile for Jhai   Email Jhai         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't get this (edit: whole "shunning" concept); it's perfectly okay to boycott organizations or groups that engage in things that you don't approve of, but when you don't want to chill in your home with people who engage in things you don't approve of, somehow it's "shunning" & wrong?

I disagree with lots of opinions my husband holds. However, if he donated money to a cause that was, say promoting racist legislation (obviously racist, like "put blacks back in slavery"), I would seriously reconsider spending the rest of my life with him. Is that "shunning"?

Is it wrong if I refuse to associate with people or organizations who disapprove of racially-mixed marriages - given that I am in one? Should I welcome people into my home who are politically active in pushing to disallow racially-mixed marriages? Should I spend money in their stores? If I deliberately don't do that, is it shunning?

Edit: kat, there is no reason you can present to me that would make me think it is morally acceptable to willingly donate to "Yes on Prop 8". None. If you disagree on this particular issue, then choose another one - I don't particularly care about this specific issue, but the broader principles behind the discussion of this case.

Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
Opposing political views are not cooties, and I would hope I would never regret being friendly to someone because of something that held no danger to me.

Ah, yes, quite so. How about danger to other people? There is a poem, little known outside Norway, but quite apt; the most famous lines in it are "You shall not endure so remarkably well / the injustice that has no sting for yourself". (My translation, and it loses a lot. But I trust the point is clear.) Are you actually reading your own words here?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
natural_mystic
Member
Member # 11760

 - posted      Profile for natural_mystic           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Tresopax:
Shunning people because they donate money to a given political cause should generally be considered as unacceptable as shunning someone just because they are gay. I don't, for instance, consider it reasonable to refuse to do business with people who had "Vote for McCain" signs in their yards. I don't see supporting or opposing Prop 8 as any different than that.


Political causes don't occur in a vacuum. And something like Prop. 8 was tangible and immediate to a group of people in a way that most laws are not. It is very obvious why the homosexual population would take this very personally.

To the more general question of shunning based on political donations: if you found out someone donated to, say, the Aryan Nation, would you look askance of them?

Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
natural_mystic
Member
Member # 11760

 - posted      Profile for natural_mystic           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
That you think so says more about your views of the issue than the views of other people on the issue.

The issue is not cut and dried nor black and white.

The only reason this appears to be an issue of which reasonable people can disagree is that there are a lot of pro-prop 8ers. I bet in 50 years conventional wisdom will have moved on and people who are anti-gay marriage will be a viewed in the same light as segregationists.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
King of Men: Indeed.
There's a famous poem that ends "And then ... they came for me ... And by that time there was no one left to speak up." Which is essentially what I was getting at with the disappointing number of Chinese donors.

Given that we're still only one lifetime away from measures such as the Chinese Exclusion Act, the head tax, and the internment of Japanese citizens during WWII, I would have hoped that we would at least be specially sensitive to disturbing idea of having people vote on who should have rights given that that particular sword is one that could so easily be wielded against us in the future.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Sadly, it often seems that the people who were most recently discriminated against are the ones most likely to discriminate against others. It is a way to establish your "in-ness". And when your own status is shaky, it is riskier to take a stand on someone else's status.

The rung on the social ladder that is fought over the hardest is not the top; it is the rung second from the bottom.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post 
I am not sure how I would have voted on prop 8. Long term, I think there is a good chance prop 8 will be the case that grants federal, nationwide marriage rights to any 2 adults. Prop 8 is absurd. A state can not say, ok, you are married right now, but we took it to a vote and we decided you are not now. You still want to be married- oh well. There is no way 9 rational human being will support that. And someone surely will take this to the supreme court. Winning marriage rights in one swoop through a supreme court case seems a lot easier then fighting state by state. Of course, I am making the huge assumption that the supreme court is full of rational people. But I have high hopes that in the future, people will look back and say prop 8 was the reason for national SSM.

As far as shunning, if I never knew from interactions, I would not change the relationships. Mostly because I would never go looking up a map to check up on my friends and neighbors. The closest real life example is that I have friends who I invite over to my house on a regular basis who have very negative views of my religion. I know they think anyone with my religion is stupid, but, our friendship was based on playing games and religion is not part of that.

Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Of course, I am making the huge assumption that the supreme court is full of rational people.
I think we have ample evidence that it is not.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Juxtapose
Member
Member # 8837

 - posted      Profile for Juxtapose   Email Juxtapose         Edit/Delete Post 
One interesting thing I noticed about the map was how many of the donors were retired. It reinforces how I feel about the SSM marriage debate. It's only a matter of time. And by the margins involved in the passing of Prop 8, not a lot of time at all. At least in California.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
If I use Google Maps to create a page that shows the addresses of all the people who voted for leash laws, and called it "Leash Law Supporters;" if the leash laws were a hot button topic; if I let the opposition to the Leash Law know that there was a map showing all the people who supported it; and if one of those folks uses my map to systematically vandalize homes, what is my liability?

Should I have liability at all?

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jhai
Member
Member # 5633

 - posted      Profile for Jhai   Email Jhai         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't think that you can get that information, given that voting records are not open to the public.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattB
Member
Member # 1116

 - posted      Profile for MattB   Email MattB         Edit/Delete Post 
I've gone back and forth on jumping in here, but here goes.

1) Comparing the civil rights movement to the gay marriage movement strikes me as somewhat facile. The country is a different place, and one of the things that has made it different is the legacy of the civil rights movement itself. The biggest difference, I think, is that while the civil rights movement was rooted in the churches, the gay rights movement is in many ways defining itself in opposition to the churches. And that, as I argue below, is a deep mistake.

2) And therein lies the problem. Homophobia is real, certainly, and undoubtedly accounts for some percentage of the vote on Prop 8. However, it is unfair and politically unwise to cast all opposition to gay marriage as the result of simple homophobia or ignorance, or to castigate religious opponents of gay marriage as such. Part of Martin Luther King's genius was that he knew this: you do not treat your political opponents as enemies to be jeered at or as bigots or destroyed. That way lies only more conflict, not peace. Instead you make common cause with them; you demonstrate how your ideals and theirs converge.

About the map, the question is not whether it is legal, but whether it is a good idea. And it undeniably, despite Andrew Sullivan's protests, has the look of a list of targets. Look - ever since Stonewall, protests and public actions have been key to the strategy of the gay rights movement. They have accomplished a great deal through such tactics. Visibility is foundational; for those who see homosexuality as something alien and to be feared, realizing the simple humanity of homosexuals can be profoundly important.

But the problem has changed.

3) The great fear of most Christian churches who supported Prop 8 was of a slippery slope, at the bottom of which they are forced to solemnize gay marriages. Legally speaking, this fear is probably nebulous, but that does not change its sincerity. Therefore, the task of the gay rights movement now is to convince the churches that this is not the case; that civil same-sex marriage will not infringe upon religious liberty.

The way to do that is not to hold public protests, to picket Mormon temples and Catholic churches, or toyell at believers. All that does is further reinforce the perception that gay people hate religion. And that only hurts, rather than furthers, the cause of same-sex marriage; it increases, rather than decreases the image of homosexuals as a alien and hostile group that the past thirty years have begun to remove.

Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Jhai:
I don't think that you can get that information, given that voting records are not open to the public.

Who said vote? I said 'support.'

And anyway, don't dodge the question.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jhai
Member
Member # 5633

 - posted      Profile for Jhai   Email Jhai         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
If I use Google Maps to create a page that shows the addresses of all the people who voted for leash laws, and called it "Leash Law Supporters;" if the leash laws were a hot button topic; if I let the opposition to the Leash Law know that there was a map showing all the people who supported it; and if one of those folks uses my map to systematically vandalize homes, what is my liability?

Should I have liability at all?

I'm not a lawyer, so I can't answer what your liability might or might not be.

I don't think you should have any liability, if this information was available publicly. That's like blaming regular ol' google maps if criminals use it to easily find all of the jewelry stores in a given location so that they can plan the best route to hit them up.

Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Sadly, it often seems that the people who were most recently discriminated against are the ones most likely to discriminate against others. It is a way to establish your "in-ness". And when your own status is shaky, it is riskier to take a stand on someone else's status.
...

That would be a reasonable guess, but I wouldn't make any real conclusions based on me randomly clicking around the mashup.

In reality, further investigation shows that Chinese voters were most opposed to the measure among Asians at 60% against and it appears that the strongest factor that explains voting among that demographic is religion (more than 75% of Chinese who never attend religious ceremonies opposed the measure while only about 25% of those who regularly attend religious ceremonies oppose it).

http://demographics.apalc.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/prop8_unweighted_laoc_rev_pc.pdf

Or in other words:
quote:
“Consistent with the recently released analysis from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, which found that religiosity was one of the most determinative factors in supporting Prop 8, today’s data also shows that more than ethnicity or even age, religion is key to influencing how Asian Americans voted on marriage equality,” said Jonipher Kwong, Interfaith Organizer for California Faith for Equality.
And thats putting it diplomatically from an interfaith organizer. I would have been substantially less diplomatic.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
If I use Google Maps to create a page that shows the addresses of all the people who voted for leash laws, and called it "Leash Law Supporters;" if the leash laws were a hot button topic; if I let the opposition to the Leash Law know that there was a map showing all the people who supported it; and if one of those folks uses my map to systematically vandalize homes, what is my liability?

Should I have liability at all?

I don't see how you can be or should be liable for making publicly accessible information available in a different format.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Mucus,

My statement wasn't a conclusion based on the mashup. It was based on history and general rather than specifically about Prop 8.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
Ok, but in this case, your general statement doesn't seem to apply to my comments when we look at the statistics.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:
I don't see how you can be or should be liable for making publicly accessible information available in a different format.

yup.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chris Bridges
Member
Member # 1138

 - posted      Profile for Chris Bridges   Email Chris Bridges         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't think the creators of the map should be held liable for the actions of anyone using the map, not at all. What they have done is perfectly legal and well within public records rights and the easy use of the technology.

Still don't like it, and would not do it or recommend it myself. I can't see it as anything other than needlessly provocative, a way of saying "You know all those people who pissed you off? Here's where they live, man!"

Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
I can't believe that technique actually works for you. Do you get good results from it? How do you define good results?

I have no idea whether it works or not. My brain just does it. Really, there would be no way of telling if it *did* work.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
By work, I mean does it advance your conversation goals? Do you have better discussions? Reach greater understanding? "Win" more arguments? How do you define winning?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
maui babe
Member
Member # 1894

 - posted      Profile for maui babe   Email maui babe         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
I don't think the creators of the map should be held liable for the actions of anyone using the map, not at all. What they have done is perfectly legal and well within public records rights and the easy use of the technology.

Still don't like it, and would not do it or recommend it myself. I can't see it as anything other than needlessly provocative, a way of saying "You know all those people who pissed you off? Here's where they live, man!"

I agree. It strikes me as very high schoolish.
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
By work, I mean does it advance your conversation goals? Do you have better discussions? Reach greater understanding? "Win" more arguments? How do you define winning?

I don't. It's Schrodinger's cat. How do you know you've ever won an argument if you're never sure if you've actually changed the other person's mind? Maybe it was going to change anyway, or maybe it hasn't changed, or maybe they always agreed with you. So winning an argument is kind of a non-existent goal, because the aim is to actually agree with the other person in the end, not just outlast them in your reiterations of your own beliefs with compelling evidence for their prescience. So, winning remains forever undefined.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 15 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  13  14  15   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2