BF2S Forums Gay Marriage in California

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

yes, liberal democracy allows pluralism. have you ever been locked up or censored because you disagree with someone's drug use? why are you so afraid of having an unpopular opinion that you'll cry about fascism? you sound like a whinging crybaby. democracy perfectly allows your dissent and distaste. the beauty of it is that it also allows people to continue exercising their own freedom without giving a shit about said distaste. this is what enrages you and causes you to constantly call everyone a hipster – you're lashing out because you stand in the vocal minority on some issues. and then you accuse pekoe of fascism? lol.

He's not afraid of his government locking him up for disagreeing with orthodoxy, he's pointing out the very real issue of internet mobs completely destroying peoples lives over very minor points of disagreement. There are quite a few people who take pleasure in unearthing every possible detail about people that become targets in order to utterly ruin them. The internet mob is sadistic. It's not rational. It doesn't give a shit about juris-prudence. It only cares about instant gratification.

this is so irrelevant and boring a way to argue. what are you even talking about? witch hunting social media activists? this woman abused a position of power and contravened the law. she abused a legal office. very minor points of disagreement? it's pretty cut and dry. she was in the wrong. why are you crying about people having their lives trashed? sadism? lol wtf. official justice is state mandated punishment.

It's not one time, it's happening over and over and over and over.

Remember this? http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magaz … .html?_r=0

Or how about the outrage last month about the dentist hunter who killed the stupid lion and had to close his practice?

Or the pizza place in Ohio that answered a completely hypothetical question about whether they would cater to a gay wedding? As if gay weddings would ever be catered pizza...

Every fucking week uzi it's something different to get upset about and to call out the pitchforks over.

Jay wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

This is a poor example, and also its not.

'Clerk gets short jail sentence for being stupid' - This isn't really national news, and yet I bet there are 20 newsvans parked in front of her house right now.

The mob has found a dissenter from the orthodoxy and so the howl goes up and the mob descends.

contempt of court is a bit different than a 'jail sentence'.

the only reason it blew up is as zique said, she's the embodiment of the prejudice against gays at a social and 'political' level if you will since shes a civil servant. the judge asked her to multiple times to do her job, she refused and shes crying that shes held in contempt.

She's the embodiment of ideas you disagree with. You're enjoying watching her be destroyed for her wrong beliefs.

You don't understand that you are making our argument for us, do you?

she's welcome to have whatever beliefs she wants within the liberal framework of Liberty and justice. don't put them on other people. nobody would have bothered her in her seedy ignorance if she didn't do palpable harm to others' (legal) freedoms. you're acting like there's a witch-hunt or open persecution of the religious right. puh-leeeeze.

Jay wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

This is a poor example, and also its not.

'Clerk gets short jail sentence for being stupid' - This isn't really national news, and yet I bet there are 20 newsvans parked in front of her house right now.

The mob has found a dissenter from the orthodoxy and so the howl goes up and the mob descends.

contempt of court is a bit different than a 'jail sentence'.

the only reason it blew up is as zique said, she's the embodiment of the prejudice against gays at a social and 'political' level if you will since shes a civil servant. the judge asked her to multiple times to do her job, she refused and shes crying that shes held in contempt.

She's the embodiment of ideas you disagree with. You're enjoying watching her be destroyed for her wrong beliefs.

You don't understand that you are making our argument for us, do you?

Embodiment of ideas that society collectively decided are wrong because they harm innocent people. This isn't a battle of ideas and views like the tax code or military defense. This is like someone deciding to continue to carry the banner of segregation with government power and funds. She does need to be torn down.

Last edited by SuperJail Warden (2015-09-04 07:10:10)

jay I'm not denying that the size and influence of the U.S. mainstream media is anything other than a giant foghorn howling down a molehill. any story in a nation of your size and diversity that gains national traction is obviously going to be so inflated beyond its immediate size. anything that gets the whole nation talking is obviously, practically going to be overblown. BUT you are arguing this point as if the various forms of denouncement are wrong. are they? is it wrong to disagree with a legal clerk abusing her powers to discriminate illegally? is it wrong to boycott a dentist's practice because he uses the proceeds from his business to fund illegal hunting trips? um, no. the backlash may inevitably be overblown in degree because of the disproportionate size and volume of the media. but the principles being extolled are all pretty sound, liberal ideals. universal rights, equal treatment, fairness etc. It's not exactly mob rule. the Roman turba was mob rule. the Salem witch trials were mob rule.

as I've said before, I know liberalism is its own orthodoxy. trust me, no one here has read more books on this subject than me. critiques of liberalism are top billing on humanities reading lists. I can guarantee I know more about the analysis and form of ideology than you do. but as I said before, that standard backlash stuff is easy. what is wise is conceding that, with all its imperfections, it's the best system we have thus far. the people parroting stock outrage on Facebook with ideas of liberal equality in their head are better than the people mimicking the laughter and cruelty of their peers under a fascist system. in terms of wholly original thought, thorough inspection, and free-thinking, you're not exactly a soaring Icarus yourself. give it a break.

Last edited by uziq (2015-09-04 07:24:46)

uziq wrote:

jay I'm not denying that the size and influence of the U.S. mainstream media is anything other than a giant foghorn howling down a molehill. any story in a nation of your size and diversity that gains national traction is obviously going to be so inflated beyond its immediate size. anything that gets the whole nation talking is obviously, practically going to be overblown. BUT you are arguing this point as if the various forms of denouncement are wrong. are they? is it wrong to disagree with a legal clerk abusing her powers to discriminate illegally? is it wrong to boycott a dentist's practice because he uses the proceeds from his business to fund illegal hunting trips? um, no. the backlash may inevitably be overblown in degree because of the disproportionate size and volume of the media. but the principles being extolled are all pretty sound, liberal ideals. universal rights, equal treatment, fairness etc. It's not exactly mob rule. the Roman turba was mob rule. the Salem witch trials were mob rule.

as I've said before, I know liberalism is its own orthodoxy. trust me, no one here has read more books on this subject than me. critiques of liberalism are top billing on humanities reading lists. I can guarantee I know more about the analysis and form of ideology than you do. but as I said before, that standard backlash stuff is easy. what is wise is conceding that, with all its imperfections, it's the best system we have thus far. the people parroting stock outrage on Facebook with ideas of liberal equality in their head are better than the people mimicking the laughter and cruelty of their peers under a fascist system. in terms of wholly original thought, thorough inspection, and free-thinking, you're not exactly a soaring Icarus yourself. give it a break.

Long windedness and uzi-style condescension aside, you agree with me. Great.

Frankly, I'm surprised you're not offended by the ease with which moral condemnation breeds a sense of superiority among the plebs. You've worked so very hard to cultivate your own grandiose persona that one would assume that you would be leading the charge against the mediocres daring to rise above their prostrate positions for even one instant.

it's very easy to rue mass opinion. it's not exactly nuanced or subtle critique. as I said, you just sound like the rebel-misfit teenager who reads Nietzsche and thinks he sees through the sham. "many too many are born!" as his Zarathustra said. it's not a particularly helpful or constructive attitude. wisdom doesn't consist in raging impotently against the facts of existence. it's probably no coincidence you used the word "phoney" to describe it. that's Holden caulfield. any adult reader of that book is meant to take pity on him, not 'right on' his teenage strop. by his criteria, the whole world is phoney. it's phoney the whole way down. in which case, what is the antonymic real?

yes it's very easy to roll your eyes at social media activism. it's frivolous and short-sighted, and at times even outright harmful. but in this case I think it's pretty cut and dry. whining about the 'liberal orthodoxy' of expecting everyone to be treated equally by the law, regardless of sex or race or orientation, seems like a particularly spurious type of whine to me. in the age of mass democracy where the media is the main instrument of popular opinion, the way we communicate across vast bodies of people, obviously certain people are going to be disproportionately hung out to dry, just like our celebrities and sorts are disproportionately celebrated and lauded and over-exposed. it's a consequence of the technology that shapes our lives. it doesn't mean the tenets of liberalism are a sham.

Last edited by uziq (2015-09-04 07:44:54)

While I'm quite happy that my gay friends can marry and adopt kids etc. the idea of two sweaty dudes fucking each other up the ass will always be absolutely disgusting to me.

uziq wrote:

great and you advertise yourself as intelligent.

this is why liberalism is a better system than fascism. that disgust in fascism would become state power interfering in people's private lives. liberalism says live and let live. mind your own business. you're taking that sublimated disgust and ranting about liberal orthodoxy. it's because a part of you sympathises with the revulsion that Christians feel about gays. you think she's being unfairly treated because you share an emotional appeal with her. that's not a good way to organise and run a society. I'm afraid liberalism, with its sheeple followers on Facebook, really wins out here. feel free to move to Russia if you want a more authoritarian brand of groupthink. they're disgusted by male on male action too.

Hardly. I think she's a complete idiot. I just happen to have zero attraction to men. Lesbians, I'm cool, I get it. Gay men? Nope. It's got nothing to do with my intelligence and everything to do with my hardwired sexuality.

I'm not anti-liberalism. I'm anti-orthodoxy. I'm not in any way advocating fascism. I'm not saying gay sex should be banned, I'm just saying that they will always face resistance. But hey, feel free to suck all the dick you want uzi, I won't stop you.

Last edited by Jay (2015-09-04 07:54:21)

It's got nothing to do with fear uzi, I don't fancy piss sex or shit sex or period sex either. People get off on all sorts of things. Some people get off on child pornography. I'm just not into it, sorry.

Jay is one messiah away from being on the religious right.

uziq wrote:

I'm not going down that rabbit hole with you but all I'll say is that it's fairly obvious the culture war isn't over so long as people like you, who think they are the reasonable voice of common sense (with zero psycho-sexual or anthropological knowledge, natch), think it's perfectly okay to equivalate gay couples as 'abnormal', or to place them in a category with scat or child porn as 'deviant' behaviour. the whole idea of equal rights is so that they are considered as normal as any other lifestyle choice under a pluralist democracy.

They're as normal as people with Downs Syndrome.

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

I'm not going down that rabbit hole with you but all I'll say is that it's fairly obvious the culture war isn't over so long as people like you, who think they are the reasonable voice of common sense (with zero psycho-sexual or anthropological knowledge, natch), think it's perfectly okay to equivalate gay couples as 'abnormal', or to place them in a category with scat or child porn as 'deviant' behaviour. the whole idea of equal rights is so that they are considered as normal as any other lifestyle choice under a pluralist democracy.

They're as normal as people with Downs Syndrome.

I hope you know all this repressed disgust about fat couples is going to express itself in your son when he comes out at age 14. that's textbook psychology. he's going to kickback against his father figure and superego.

Sure, and then he'll become me in his 20s

No one studies Austrian economics at university except maybe on the side. It's considered fringe.