quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: MightyCow: You are right there are certainly positive ways to coerce. I've found shame to be one of last resort and only useful in influencing those who know better but chose to ignore what they know to be true.
I would suggest that shame works most effectively to change behavior, but probably not well to change thoughts or attitudes.
If people are ashamed to donate money to anti-gay movements, they probably won't actually stop believing that it's wrong for gay people to get married, but if they keep those thoughts to themselves, and let the gay people live their lives as they choose, the shame has worked.
The reason shame doesn't work to "make a gay kid straight" is that all the shame can do is make the person stop performing public actions where the shaming can take place. The shame doesn't stop the thoughts or the desires, which is actually what the parents are trying to change.
Shame doesn't change the person, it just makes certain public actions undesirable. If you simply want to change the public actions, it's an effective tool. If you want to change the person's motivations, thoughts, or feelings, it's not effective at all.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Jhai: I'd ask you how an opponent of homosexuality could positively shame a stranger into changing, (assuming same-sex marriages are in fact incorrect) but it seems to me that you have already sanctioned courses of action that I think are not correct.
Could I ask what that is, exactly, that you think is not correct? As I (thought I) made clear near the start of this thread, my interest in knowing who around me donates has little to nothing to do with shaming (as I define it). I just have limited resources - and no desire to spend money in businesses which donate to Prop 8, and no desire to go out of my way to spend time with individuals who donate to Prop 8. It's not about making them change their minds or their ways. Others in this thread have called this action "shaming" - *shrug*. I don't care much about names.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If people are ashamed to donate money to anti-gay movements, they probably won't actually stop believing that it's wrong for gay people to get married, but if they keep those thoughts to themselves, and let the gay people live their lives as they choose, the shame has worked.
In that sense perhaps it has worked. When they leave town and start condensing into separate areas that start to adopt a persecuted minority sentiment real problems can occur.
quote:Shame doesn't change the person, it just makes certain public actions undesirable. If you simply want to change the public actions, it's an effective tool. If you want to change the person's motivations, thoughts, or feelings, it's not effective at all.
I doubt that if you successfully made it really embarrassing to vote a certain way that you would in any meaningful way solve the core problem, even if I grant you that those voting against for Proposition 8 have a problem.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I doubt that if you successfully made it really embarrassing to vote a certain way that you would in any meaningful way solve the core problem, even if I grant you that those voting against for Proposition 8 have a problem.
Not voting, donating - attempting to amplify one's influence beyond an individual vote. The vote in California was swayed from a status quo support for SSM by a well-funded public campaign.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
I'm not sure who you are proposing will become a persecuted minority, the same-sex married couples, or those who paid to make sure they couldn't get married. Either way, it's a slippery slope. I don't see either happening any time soon.
You can't make people think anything. You can prevent them from taking harmful actions. I don't expect anyone who thinks same-sex marriage is a sin to change any time soon, but if I can ignore them, I'm happy enough.
I'm sure that gay couples would love it if everyone realized that they're individuals, who should be appreciated or not on their individual merits, and that their love for their partner isn't wrong or evil.
At the same time, if they are simply left alone to live their lives, most of them don't give a rat's behind what a handful of people somewhere else feel about them.
A lot of people in America think all black people are ignorant and violent and lazy, but we've still got a black president. If gay people can get married to their partners, the people who think that's wrong can go on thinking it's wrong in their homes and churches all they want.
Live and let live.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Not voting, donating - attempting to amplify one's influence beyond an individual vote. The vote in California was swayed from a status quo support for SSM by a well-funded public campaign."
That "swaying" went both ways my friend...
Posts: 571 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
No it didn't. Prior to campaigning by either side the status quo was support for SSM. It swayed in one direction - to the other side. That doesn't mean both sides didn't spend money, but it does mean that campaigning (money!) is what changed things.
Less money to the pro-8 side would have weakened their campaign, regardless of how (in)effectively the anti-8 campaign was run.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh please. If the status quo was support for SSm, then why has EVERY vote by the people gone against it?
Polling soon after the Supreme Court ruling showed double-digit support for SSM. Over the course of the campaign the margin declined in polling to a near dead heat by the time of the election.
quote:By the way, the against money was quite a bit more than the for money.
Irrelevant to my point. As I said:
quote:Less money to the pro-8 side would have weakened their campaign, regardless of how (in)effectively the anti-8 campaign was run.
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: If the person you're arguing with doesn't accept that the set of core features of the items being compared are similar enough for an argument dealing with that set of core features to succeed, then reasoning by analogy doesn't get you very far in a discussion. That's why it's not a very fruitful method, by and large.
That's assuming I'm only presenting the argument to you, who does not accept the analogy, and not to others who may accept the analogy as a) a case for my argument and/or b) a refutation of your own.
quote:I think there are enough differences between private citizens and government organizations with a mission to maintain the peace (or whatever justification they used for the actions you describe) that it's pretty silly to argue that they'll do the same sort of thing when presented with information in the same manner (and this second claim is rather dubious, given that the information each group is getting is almost certainly different in both delivery and content).
According to Wikipedia, the COINTELPRO activities were performed with a stated mission of "protecting national security, preventing violence, and maintaining the existing social and political order". Despite that seemingly benign motivation, an agency created for and supposedly accountable to the public went on to engage in a number of activities that many would agree were outside of their purview and downright despicable.
I suggest that with similar means at their disposal, it is unlikely that there will not be a similar result in groups and individuals with less accountability and oversight.
quote:What political cause - specifically - would you account this person's work to? I'm confused why you think someone will make this claim, anyway...
Presumably, if the donors can be accounted to a "Yes on 8" campaign of some sort, the progammer's could be similarly accounted to a "No on 8" campaign.
I'm not saying I would make such a claim. But if it came under legal scrutiny, others might, and I'm not sure such a claim would be readily dismissed.
posted
I don't think that's a comparable example, as there's perfect clarity as to which side a radio talk show guy is taking when he says he's for or against something. The creator of this map could say he simply did it to make information more accessible to the public, or as a test of his programming abilities, or even to let the donors to the pro-Prop 8 groups band together and know each other more. There's really no clear indication into the motives of the programmer - and I also fail to see how he could be donating his time to a cause that has already ended before he made the map. Proposition 8 has been decided.
I realize you aren't making that claim, but it'd be silly one for anyone to make.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure who you are proposing will become a persecuted minority, the same-sex married couples, or those who paid to make sure they couldn't get married. Either way, it's a slippery slope. I don't see either happening any time soon.
I think that neither should be put in a place of shame.
quote:Live and let live.
I completely agree, though perhaps our definition of "living" may disagree.
It just seems that sometimes you rejoice at the prospect of your opposition being harangued. Perhaps you don't mean to, if so, so much the better.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:When they leave town and start condensing into separate areas that start to adopt a persecuted minority sentiment real problems can occur.
Like, um, the situation that ultimately produced the state of Utah?
I believe that certain aspects of Utah are definitely draw backs. Personally I think Utah was a place Mormons were forced to go, not a place that was the best possible outcome for the people.
edit: Have you ever been to Utah Tom?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
No it didn't. Prior to campaigning by either side the status quo was support for SSM. It swayed in one direction - to the other side. That doesn't mean both sides didn't spend money, but it does mean that campaigning (money!) is what changed things.
Less money to the pro-8 side would have weakened their campaign, regardless of how (in)effectively the anti-8 campaign was run.
You are making a logical leap you haven't justified. The fact that polling before the Prop 8 campaign began was pro SSM, does not prove that money spent on the pro Prop 8 campaign is what made the difference. It does suggest that something happened during the campaign to shift the balance, but it does not indicate what that something was.
For example, its possible that the anti-prop 8 campaign backfired causing more people to oppose SSM (Sort of like the Sarah Palin campaign). Or its possible that an outside factor not directly related to the prop 8 campaign is what made the difference. For example, the Obama campaign inspired record numbers of black voters to come to the polls and those black voters voted overwhelmingly against prop 8.
It's entirely possible that the difference between the post court decision polls on SSM and the election night results did not actually reflect any swaying of popular opinion but reflected only difference in voter turnout that were not directly related to prop 8.
And its also possible that the money donated to the pro Prop 8 campaign is what made the difference.
My point is, that it is that evidence that a shift occurred is not proof of what caused the shift.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another possible explanation- people lie to pollsters. Initial polling, people didn't want to express the non-PC answer, but as the campaign went on, they felt less ashamed to tell the truth about how they were voting.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I don't think that's a comparable example, as there's perfect clarity as to which side a radio talk show guy is taking when he says he's for or against something. The creator of this map could say he simply did it to make information more accessible to the public, or as a test of his programming abilities, or even to let the donors to the pro-Prop 8 groups band together and know each other more. There's really no clear indication into the motives of the programmer - and I also fail to see how he could be donating his time to a cause that has already ended before he made the map. Proposition 8 has been decided.
I realize you aren't making that claim, but it'd be silly one for anyone to make.
I realized that, post-posting; I probably should have said something like "Repeal Proposition 8", if such a thing exists.
I think if it were intended for organizational purposes, a list of phone numbers or e-mail addresses would be more helpful. Most causes only need addresses if they're sending out physical mailings or planning a gathering or party.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Since California voters passed a ban on gay marriage, some supporters of the measure have found themselves squarely in the bull's-eye of angry gay rights activists.
It's no secret who gave money for and against the controversial amendment to the state's constitution, known as Proposition 8. California's secretary of state publicized the lists of contributors, which were picked up by local media and Web sites.
quote: Richard Raddon, director of the Los Angeles Film Festival, and Scott Eckern, director of the California Musical Theater in Sacramento, are devout Mormons. Both made contributions to Yes on 8, and both got demands for their resignations from gay rights protestors. They quit so their organizations wouldn't face further controversy. Ironically, the film festival has been instrumental in introducing works by gay and lesbian filmmakers to a broader audience — and the musical theater included works by gay playwrights and composers.
As expected, the people who gave money are being targeted and I do believe that some of the harsher protesters are going to turn more people against SSM.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you're saying that your pre-existing biases have been confirmed by your interpretation of some data?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
He didn't say anything about biases. He's saying that his previous belief that the people who gave money will be targeted has been confirmed by the data. And given the data includes people who were made to resign over their donations, that interpretation of the data is correct for at least some cases.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will admit to being a bit puzzled that DarkKnight even brought this up. That people who gave money to pro-Prop 8 groups have had negative reactions from others because of their donations is not a fact under question - before the map had ever been created this was happening.
I'm a bit surprised that this is even unexpected - when you position yourself firmly on one side of a hotly contested issue, you shouldn't be surprised if there are consequences for your actions. We can discuss whether the consequences are just or acceptable, but that's not what DarkKnight is doing.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's nothing new in this report at all. All of the events reported occured soon after the election. It was broadcast on NPR yesterday, presumably to beef up coverage around the hearings, but it's not really news.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
TD, you always have to try so hard at attempting to sound so clever. I am saying what I believed would happen did in fact actually happen. I had hoped that instead of lashing out against people who supported Prop 8, gay activists could have used the data to present themselves as normal people who want the same things their opponents want. Many times getting to know the other side on a personal side can sway opinion. Not all the time or in every situation but this is one instance where I believe talk is much more productive than hate or protests. Jhai, I brought this up because of the unintended consequences the backlash has. Specifically the one about the devout Mormon couple who were forced to resign. I thought it would be a point of interest here at Hatrack. I could be mistaken.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am saying what I believed would happen did in fact actually happen.
Well, for one thing, the incidents you specifically mentioned predate this thread, and in fact were mentioned elsewhere on this board. You've managed to successfully predict the past. (Congratulations.) For another, you've cherry-picked your incidents: for all you know, many gay activists did use the data to present themselves as normal people who want the same things their opponents want, but weren't reported in the news sources you read. I believe that this is a symptom of a phenomenon that's been extensively discussed of late, and featured in a book (called True Enough) which I strongly recommend to you: basically, people are predisposed to find facts that do nothing but confirm what they already believe, making the value of those facts in isolation useless as proof except to themselves.
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: As expected, the people who gave money are being targeted and I do believe that some of the harsher protesters are going to turn more people against SSM.
An incidence of something happening that was already happening verifies your conclusions about the whole?
Sure thing, mr. pre-emptive bias. But don't go kidding yourself and think that support for same sex marriage is going to go down in the upcoming years. No amount of cherrypicking is gonna help you on that one.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Y'all here about the ruling in Montana that will affect this issue? I think the Ninth Circuit Court ruled that it was unlawful to publicize the names of church members who had contributed to a certain cause because the inidivual amounts were to small to have swayed the election and doing so has a chilling effect on civil activism.
Which prompted another lawsuit about this issue.
Yay for them! Sorry no link - I'm lazy. But it happened within the last two weeks.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's been the case in the past (I believe - don't know where I read it, so take it with a grain of salt), that on specific issues, the Courts have ruled that the chance of extreme violence is too high to allow for the names of donators to a cause to be made public.
Depending on the circumstances surrounding how these rulings are made, I'm okay with the idea of a case-by-case ruling on this.
However, kat, do you think it should be a general rule for all donations to not be public? For donations below a certain amount? Or for donations by private individuals?
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Donations below a certain amount, on all issues.
This does NOT apply to candidates. Donations to individual condidates and parties should be public. But to issues, like this? The chilling and undemocratic effect of being held up as targets for the opposition is much greater than the danger. Absolutely, no question.
It did not rest on whether or not violence was threatened. Just the exposure had a chilling effect on participating in public activism, and that was bad. Go goole for the article - it's out there.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I believe that this is a symptom of a phenomenon that's been extensively discussed of late, and featured in a book (called True Enough) which I strongly recommend to you: basically, people are predisposed to find facts that do nothing but confirm what they already believe, making the value of those facts in isolation useless as proof except to themselves.
But then you could say your post was a symptom of the same phenomenon. Are you predisposed to interpret DarkKnight's posts in such a way as to confirm your preexisting belief that people just cherry pick facts to back up their own preexisting beliefs?
I'd say a more accurate interpretation of his post is that he previously asserted that people who gave money would be targeted, then he discovered this news story (which he may not have known about before), and concluded correctly that it demonstrates that at least some people have been targeted. Yes, it did match his earlier prediction, but it's not cherry picking unless there are a bunch of other news stories out there that he's knowingly ignoring which contradict this data point.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Sure thing, mr. pre-emptive bias. But don't go kidding yourself and think that support for same sex marriage is going to go down in the upcoming years. No amount of cherrypicking is gonna help you on that one.
This sounds like you think I am against SSM which I am not, mr. jump to conclusions
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Weird that you would think that, because my quote does not suppose that you are individually for or against SSM!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I too would be interested in the article or any other sort of citation, but have not had luck googling. I'm particularly interested in what the court meant by "chilling effect", which isn't clear. It might mean that the courts felt that there would be a "chilling effect" because of the potential of violence, whether or not threats had actually been issued.
I've seen enough of the media's ability to botch the explanations of social science studies to be doubtful of their reporting on a nuanced issue.
Edit: thanks for the link, ladyday. I still want to read the actual court's ruling before coming to any conclusion, but initially I think that the case sounds very, very different from what's happening in California.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, for one thing, the incidents you specifically mentioned predate this thread, and in fact were mentioned elsewhere on this board.
My insincere apologies for not reading every post on every thread on this board. I heard the story, thought it was interesting, remembered this thread and made a post. I will be sure to check in with you to make we only post one subject one time.
quote: You've managed to successfully predict the past. (Congratulations.) For another, you've cherry-picked your incidents: for all you know, many gay activists did use the data to present themselves as normal people who want the same things their opponents want, but weren't reported in the news sources you read.
So I made a post and a comment on the article and the information in the article. The source I read and listened to is NPR. Last time I checked NPR is hardly a right wing conspiracy outlet. Oh, wait, I forgot to add that where I obtain my sources was in fact mentioned elsewhere on this board so you probably shouldn't have mentioned that because we covered it elsewhere.
quote: I believe that this is a symptom of a phenomenon that's been extensively discussed of late, and featured in a book (called True Enough) which I strongly recommend to you: basically, people are predisposed to find facts that do nothing but confirm what they already believe, making the value of those facts in isolation useless as proof except to themselves.
Which accurately describes your attempts, and Samprimary, to paint me as something I am not. I am well aware of the book and of the predispostion. I would have hoped NPR presented a different side to the arguement but they did not. You and Samprimary lash out quickly with your predispostion as to what you believe I have said. Tresopax had a much better response and seems to have understood my post. I am getting the feeling that you think I am against SSM? I believe in marriage, or at least in marriage as I define it which is a legal and emotional contract between two loving adults. The legal part is easier because you can define many aspects of the 'bond' between two adults. The emotional part is much more difficult because love is very hard to define. I love my wife, she loves me, and we love being married to each other. If two people of any sex, race, religon, whatever, love each like we do then they should be able to share that love in marriage with all the happiness and hardships that may come. If someone else expressed that sentiment elsewhere I apologize for posting it again.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: It could be that DarkKnight didn't know that he was reading old news.
The news may be old but it is recent on NPR. From the start of the article...
quote: Morning Edition, March 5, 2009 · Since California voters passed a ban on gay marriage, some supporters of the measure have found themselves squarely in the bull's-eye of angry gay rights activists.
March 5, 2009 was the date so to me is recent news
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, DarkKnight. What I should have said is that you might not know that NPR was reporting old news. Not that you weren't paying attention or that you were getting your news from an old source.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Several high profile California businessmen donated money to fight against Proposition 8. Their names are published, and activist groups who disagree with them throw a fit and shame them into resigning. How would the public perceive that? Hate mongering? Discrimination? You can bet the courts would be hearing about the rights of people who donated to campaigns to remain anonymous.
Personally, I'm a little bummed out - I donated 100 dollars to the Yes on 8 campaign and my name didn't show up on any of the lists I saw published. Dang - I wanted to stand up and be counted with what I supported.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unsurprisingly, many of the people who support SSM are accustomed to discrimination and hate mongering. A little extra would likely go unnoticed.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Unsurprisingly, many of the people who support SSM are accustomed to discrimination and hate mongering. A little extra would likely go unnoticed.
Really? I know that practitioners of same-sex marriage are often victims of discrimination. But supporters, from what I've seen, are much more frequently lauded for their tolerance and forward-thinking. The criticisms they endure in political debates aren't particularly more vitriolic than what they administer themselves to the other side.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many (you will note that I wrote "many" not "all") of the supporters of SSM are gay. Most of them suffer discrimination and hate-mongering as a matter of course. Often (again not always) from some (again not all) of the people who are now whining about being the target of discrimination and hate-mongering.
Discrimination and hate-mongering are never good. That people are upset at being discriminated against because they are discriminating against others, however, inspires very little sympathy.
"Oh, those mean gay people! They are being nasty about being kept second-class citizens."
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then what you're saying is the gay people suffer from discrimination — which I doubt anyone will dispute — not that supporters of same-sex marriage suffer from discrimination. All right. Nothing new there.
I don't have a huge problem with people getting upset at one another in a debate like this. It's kind of to be expected when such dearly-held beliefs and desires are at issue, and both sides need to have a thicker skin than they often do.
In this particular case, though, I think it would do everyone a lot of good if people could cool down a little bit. Not everyone among your political opponents is a moral cretin who justly deserves any punishment you can dole out. Treating them as such only makes them angrier, and makes them feel more justified in opposing you, because you are "obviously" (to them) a moral cretin yourself.
A little more understanding, and a little less "Their opinion is so terrible that nothing could ever redeem them!" would go a long way.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So perhaps you could squeeze out a little understanding as to why people might be fed up enough to discriminate against the people who are discriminating against them?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Many (you will note that I wrote "many" not "all") of the supporters of SSM are gay. Most of them suffer discrimination and hate-mongering as a matter of course. Often (again not always) from some (again not all) of the people who are now whining about being the target of discrimination and hate-mongering.
Actually, it seems to me that gays must be a minority even within the subset supporters of gay marriage. The percentage of people who support SSM is somewhere in the region of forty or fifty percent; the percentage that's gay is somewhere around 5%. So if all gays support SSM, a reasonable assumption, then they account for about 10-12% of such supporters.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
