Oooh, I got that one:
YD would say: string theory tells us that their conflict is in a superposition. Not only do both and neither have the upperhand in the conflict, but they are in fact the exact same thing struggling against itself and nothing at all at the same time.
Oh, and something about wind turbines. And shipping containers being retrofitted in the Nevada desert to house all the women in the world, who are also all the men in the world, because of superposition.
I'm sure there would be a petition in there somewhere, too.
|
You know what I love most about practically every poster on this thread and every other political thread like it ...
The basic premise is ...
That it is ok for "you" to have a different belief from "them" but it is not ok for "them" to have a different belief from "you"...
because after all "you" are right but "they" are wrong ...
You know what I love most about practically every poster on this thread and every other political thread like it ...
You love us? Awww. <3
You know what I love most about practically every poster on this thread and every other political thread like it ...
The basic premise is ...
That it is ok for "you" to have a different belief from "them" but it is not ok for "them" to have a different belief from "you"...
because after all "you" are right but "they" are wrong ...
It's fine for Card to have anti-gay opinions. His right and all. Its fine for him to spend his money on them. I don't like it, and I think it makes him a fairly awful person to put so much time and effort into screwing over gay people, but it's up to him.
It's also fine I don't want any of my money going to the guy based on his views, or if I wanted to donate much more money to a pro-gay cause if I went to see his movie. That's what ticked me off about Card - he's all for tolerance, now that he think it'll benefit him, but he's incredibly intolerant of the very people he now demand be tolerant of him. And give him money.
|
Its just a movie. I don't care about the guy who wrote the novel this movie is based on. Nor do i care about his personal opinions or beliefs. If i enjoy the movie, good. If i don't, i will tell people not to waste their money.Just curious, what if the creator of a movie said they would donate their proceeds to the Obraz party (hypothetically ignoring the current ban), would you want to give them your money?
First of all, the creator couldn't because that would be illegal. Second, Obraz isn't and never was a political party, but a bunch of conservative pseudo-religious savages who got themselves shut down by,the government for their actions.
And yes, i would still pay to watch the film. Proceeds don't really go to the creator, but to the company who distributed the film.Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I am certain that if they support something as awful as Obraz, they will pay for it one day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I recently found out there's quite a serious movement to ostracize the upcoming "Ender's Game" blockbuster, as a protest to Orson Scott Card's public, vile and outspoken homophobia. More information about it can be found here.
Personally I don't think I'll skip the movie, because I think it's a tale worthy of being told, and Lionsgate (the company making the movie) have made it absolutely clear that not only do they oppose Card's views, they are also going to donate some money they make from the movie to LGBT organizations. Just imagining the kind of mood this must put Card in makes me want to smile, and I think we really should support that kind of open minded humanity from large companies. That aside, I want to watch the movie and don't generally participate in any sort of organized consumer pressure.
However, I thought some people might want to reconsider what they want to do with the issue, so I brought it here.
Card's homophobia is not in Ender's Game. He deserves money for good work. Boycott his homophobic stuff. His wallet should understand the difference. I want more media like Ender's Game. Thus Ender's Game gets money. I don't care if satan himself wrote it.
"Look at that a*!#&&% [Orson Scott Card] that wrote this new Harrison Ford movie [Ender's Game]. I think that you can have any opinion you want, but at least be willing to take the consequences of your opinion. It's like, 'Well, I hope that people will be more understanding,' or what did he say? 'More tolerant of my views.' The quotes that got me about him weren't against gay marriage -- he wanted homosexuality criminalized in the United States. That's what he called for. You want me to be tolerant of you wanting to criminalize homosexuality? F$%+ you on your grave, you piece of shit."--Harvey Fierstein
So, seeing as how OSC has stepped down from NOM, does anyone even know whether the boycott is still on?
Hee hee! This is pretty funny. You have to skip a bunch at the beginning where they talk about their weekend, but even that was amusing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know what I love most about practically every poster on this thread and every other political thread like it ...
The basic premise is ...
That it is ok for "you" to have a different belief from "them" but it is not ok for "them" to have a different belief from "you"...
because after all "you" are right but "they" are wrong ...
It's okay for them to have different beliefs. It's also okay for us to criticize those beliefs, because those beliefs are deserving of criticism.
But yes, the belief that marriage is a right that should be shared equally is the correct belief. And the belief that marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman is the wrong belief.
Its just a movie. I don't care about the guy who wrote the novel this movie is based on. Nor do i care about his personal opinions or beliefs. If i enjoy the movie, good. If i don't, i will tell people not to waste their money.Just curious, what if the creator of a movie said they would donate their proceeds to the Obraz party (hypothetically ignoring the current ban), would you want to give them your money?First of all, the creator couldn't because that would be illegal. Second, Obraz isn't and never was a political party, but a bunch of conservative pseudo-religious savages who got themselves shut down by,the government for their actions.
And yes, i would still pay to watch the film. Proceeds don't really go to the creator, but to the company who distributed the film.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I am certain that if they support something as awful as Obraz, they will pay for it one day.
Again, it's a hypothetical. I picked Obraz because I'm not exactly familiar with Serbian internal politics, but with a short search it was the closest example I could find. NOM is overall a bit less hateful than Obraz, but overall they would be neighbors in the political spectrum, though not necessarily allies.
Some people don't want to give OSC money, because he'll give some of it to NOM, a group that attempts to promote hate and disrespect for people they disagree with.
I agree, out of each ticket, only a very small portion, if any, would actually end up with NOM. Probably a fraction of a percent at most. The concept is more symbolic than anything. The prospect of giving NOM a penny, or even a fraction of one makes me a little sad though, even if I offset it with a much larger donation.
|
|
Well, if people feel bad for the fact that some money they gave to watch a good movie (if it is a good movie), they can always donate to the opposite cause of the one that the author supports.
I can separate things in my mind. I separate the author from his work. Always.
If i buy a book that a self proclaimed homophobic religious fundamentalist wrote, and the book is awesome, he's earned the money.
I don't care what he does with it. It's his money now.
He is going to suffer bad publicity if he does something that infringes on the rights of human beings.
If i chance upon him harassing members of the LGBT community, i will call him on it.
What will happen is that you will deny yourself enjoyment of a good film because it was based on the book a dude who supports homophobia wrote.
Well, if people feel bad for the fact that some money they gave to watch a good movie (if it is a good movie), they can always donate to the opposite cause of the one that the author supports.
I don't really consider that an offset. When it comes to getting political messages and running campaigns/organizations, even if I contribute to pro-gay rights causes, OSC's money is already out there doing its dirty work and will have an impact.
Well, if people feel bad for the fact that some money they gave to watch a good movie (if it is a good movie), they can always donate to the opposite cause of the one that the author supports.
I can separate things in my mind. I separate the author from his work. Always.
If i buy a book that a self proclaimed homophobic religious fundamentalist wrote, and the book is awesome, he's earned the money.
I don't care what he does with it. It's his money now.
He is going to suffer bad publicity if he does something that infringes on the rights of human beings.
If i chance upon him harassing members of the LGBT community, i will call him on it.
What will happen is that you will deny yourself enjoyment of a good film because it was based on the book a dude who supports homophobia wrote.
No one said you can't separate an author from their viewpoints.
As has been repeatedly pointed out by most sides in this debate, I'm also not required to give money to anyone I don't want to. If I'm worried about giving money to NOM, that's my issue and I'm perfectly within my rights to not do so. Even if that means avoiding transactions that might only result in absurdly small sums going to them, or going to them through multiple intermediaries.
If you don't care where your money goes, that's fine too. As I mentioned on the first page, here in America a lot of people complain about how corporations have too much power. Complaining about it while blindly handing over your hard earned money seems... not naive... short sighted I guess might be the phrase/term.
If you don't care where your money goes, that's fine too. As I mentioned on the first page, here in America a lot of people complain about how corporations have too much power. Complaining about it while blindly handing over your hard earned money seems... not naive... short sighted I guess might be the phrase/term.
Otoh, if you need to say, feed or clothe yourself or your family, or, say, go to work in a car, you probably don't really have much choice, and are probably giving your money to people as equally vile as NOM (let's just say: Monsanto, Bangladeshi factory fires, Exxon-Mobil). Never mind paying your taxes to the American government (more drones, NSA spying and imperialist war).
If you don't care where your money goes, that's fine too. As I mentioned on the first page, here in America a lot of people complain about how corporations have too much power. Complaining about it while blindly handing over your hard earned money seems... not naive... short sighted I guess might be the phrase/term.Otoh, if you need to say, feed or clothe yourself or your family, or, say, go to work in a car, you probably don't really have much choice, and are probably giving your money to people as equally vile as NOM (let's just say: Monsanto, Bangladeshi factory fires, Exxon-Mobil). Never mind paying your taxes to the American government (more drones, NSA spying and imperialist war).
I mostly agree with that. People do have choices, but they can be very difficult choices, or hard to figure out. The taxes are a fact of life as well, but even if the money goes to support something you don't agree with, it isn't quite on the same level as giving money to corporations that turn around and use that money to influence the government beyond your control.
Voting with your dollars can have a large effect, but people often neglect to do so, focusing only on their immediate desires.
Yup, that is why when WotC was still producing DDM and I thought about buying them, I said "NO! They are an evil corporation destroying D&D with the 4e evilness!" Sure I could have purchased a product that was useful to me (DDM) and not purchased products that I did not like (4e) and voted with my dollars that way. But it was more satisfying to just refuse all of the evil corporation's products.
If you don't care where your money goes, that's fine too. As I mentioned on the first page, here in America a lot of people complain about how corporations have too much power. Complaining about it while blindly handing over your hard earned money seems... not naive... short sighted I guess might be the phrase/term.Otoh, if you need to say, feed or clothe yourself or your family, or, say, go to work in a car, you probably don't really have much choice, and are probably giving your money to people as equally vile as NOM (let's just say: Monsanto, Bangladeshi factory fires, Exxon-Mobil). Never mind paying your taxes to the American government (more drones, NSA spying and imperialist war).Certainly true. OTOH, you can do what you can do. Passing up a particular movie is certainly easier than giving up on food.
And even with food you can take steps to avoid the worst of the crap: buy from local farms, buy organic, avoid processed foods where you can, etc. It's more difficult, more expensive and never going to be perfect, but that doesn't mean you can't do something.
And to Irontruth as well:
Yeah, you can do what you can do. And that's why I haven't said anything negative about your OSC boycott, although I am not participating.
Interesting observation, however: I have noticed among my friends that those who are childless and better paid purchase organic fair trade coffee, shop with their CSA's, etc., etc. My friends who are supporting 4.5 plus the family pets on three part-time jobs between them tend to be more inclined to do their shopping at the Wal-Mart. Make of that what you will.
Sidenote for Wal-Mart anecdote:
I very much enjoy camping. Mostly I like canoeing, it's a more relaxed pace, but I'll do some hiking as well. A friend came with me on a trip and he's kind of a cheapskate. I bought all of my equipment from REI, or direct from the manufacturer. I save up to buy high end gear, because I like knowing that I can trust my gear with my life (because that's exactly what you're doing sometimes). He bought his stuff from Wal-Mart.
Second day of the trip both his pack and tent had suffered from either manufacturer defects, or just hadn't been able to stand up to the demands he had placed on it. His stuff was falling apart with every step we took. We were supposed to keep going for several more days but had to turn back.
Back on topic:
I concur with your observations and have made similar ones.
Did you see the Daily Show's analysis of McDonald's budget plan for their minimum wage workers? Would you say that budgeting $0 for heat is feasible in NH?
Part of the problem with socially conscious spending is that a lot of people can't afford to do it. Isn't the solution, particularly from your point of view, obvious?
I should watch this movie 100 times.
Please do! Assuming you can actually stomach four showings a day, this particular foaming-at-the-mouth tantrum will put you out of commission for nearly a month!
Not to mention putting somewhere in the neighborhood of $1000 in the pockets of Hollywood's most wealthy, many of whom are active donors to liberal causes!
I like your plan!
EDIT: Awww, your pre-edit liberal-bashing "This is what is destroying the country!" tirade was way more fun.
Usually, the barest hint of not being fully on board with the LBGT lifestyle results in cries of bigotry, boycott, and setting the offenders house on fire.
What a level-headed, non-hyperbolic take on the issue you have, Cory!
For reference, this is what happens to people who display the barest hint of not being fully on board with the heterosexual lifestyle in Russia. This is what we, as a country, are finally managing to distance ourselves from (no thanks whatsoever to people like you).
But, y'know, obviously having your actions called bigoted is just way more harmful.
You poor thing.
Back on topic:I concur with your observations and have made similar ones.
Did you see the Daily Show's analysis of McDonald's budget plan for their minimum wage workers? Would you say that budgeting $0 for heat is feasible in NH?
Part of the problem with socially conscious spending is that a lot of people can't afford to do it. Isn't the solution, particularly from your point of view, obvious?
Well, my take on the solution is unions and higher minimum wage.
I suspect the Goblin's is "worldwide socialist revolution", but that's not hard to guess. :)
No, I don't watch The Daily Show. It airs past my bedtime.
As for my solution, Comrade Jeff: It's both, actually. Minimum/maximum program, and all that.
But now we're getting pretty far afield from Ender's Game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I am glad that people are taking a more level headed response on here than usual. Usually, the barest hint of not being fully on board with the LBGT lifestyle results in cries of bigotry, boycott, and setting the offenders house on fire.
I like how anti-gay people like to paint a picture of persecution.
Name a politician who has resigned office because it was found out they were anti-gay.
Back on topic:I concur with your observations and have made similar ones.
Did you see the Daily Show's analysis of McDonald's budget plan for their minimum wage workers? Would you say that budgeting $0 for heat is feasible in NH?
Part of the problem with socially conscious spending is that a lot of people can't afford to do it. Isn't the solution, particularly from your point of view, obvious?
Well, my take on the solution is unions and higher minimum wage.
I suspect the Goblin's is "worldwide socialist revolution", but that's not hard to guess. :)
No, I don't watch The Daily Show. It airs past my bedtime.
As for my solution, Comrade Jeff: It's both, actually. Minimum/maximum program, and all that.
But now we're getting pretty far afield from Ender's Game.
Well, when discussing economics and causes of problems, were going to stray away from movie plots and essays on jailing homosexuals.
You should check it out, I think it was Thursdays episode. They pointed out how the McD's household budget example (in an attempt to prove you can live on a McD's wages) had a second job, assumed you had a mortgage of $600 and spent $0 on heating and a combined $100 on cable/phone.
Maybe I'll watch it when I get out of work later this morning, although I am already well aware of how much it sucks to live on McWages.
And, to answer your question from above, no, it isn't feasible to budget $0 for heat in NH. I suspect you could have already guessed that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like how anti-gay people like to paint a picture of persecution.
Again, it's all about trying to drag the LGBT rights movement down to their level. By trying to convince themselves (and everyone else, of course, but never with any real degree of success) that they suffer just as much as gay people, they simultaneously a) live out a biblically-promised fantasy of suffering for their imagined righteousness, and b) remove one element of their otherwise obvious moral inferiority.
Cory is, unfortunately, a symptom. He is no more capable of redeeming himself or his views than a sore throat is capable of curing the cold that caused it. Thankfully, we're treating the underlying cause and winning handily. Cory, and those like him, are stuck like deer in headlights watching their world shrink around them.
It must be terrifying for them. And I'm not being sarcastic there.
Maybe I'll watch it when I get out of work later this morning, although I am already well aware of how much it sucks to live on McWages.
And, to answer your question from above, no, it isn't feasible to budget $0 for heat in NH. I suspect you could have already guessed that.
I definitely guessed, it wouldn't be enough here either. One town in Minnesota recorded a high of 35 this weekend. Nothing in the daily show bit was surprising, they just said it all in a fairly funny manner.
I still haven't watched it, but something I was thinking of on the way to work:
I've got a co-worker, my ex-carpool buddy actually, who lives with his wife and three children in a NH housing project. He works part-time, she works part-time, which is only two PT jobs, not three, but he also sells weed, so, that's kind of like three PT jobs.
Anyway, his rent is determined monthly depending on how much income he and his wife report (obviously not the weed money), and I wouldn't be surprised if he pays little to nothing for heat.
So...like Wal-Mart preferring to hire people who are already on state assistance, maybe McDonald's "budgets" are determined with the expectation that their employees are going to receive welfare.
Which is even more damning, if you ask me.
If you don't care where your money goes, that's fine too. As I mentioned on the first page, here in America a lot of people complain about how corporations have too much power. Complaining about it while blindly handing over your hard earned money seems... not naive... short sighted I guess might be the phrase/term.Otoh, if you need to say, feed or clothe yourself or your family, or, say, go to work in a car, you probably don't really have much choice, and are probably giving your money to people as equally vile as NOM (let's just say: Monsanto, Bangladeshi factory fires, Exxon-Mobil). Never mind paying your taxes to the American government (more drones, NSA spying and imperialist war).
Can I add one? Royal Dutch Shell. Ugh.
An article about a study on the brain and politics. Conservatives are motivated by fear.
Also, someone who asks the question: What would a simple google search turn up?
Should stop being a lazy ass and just do the search and show the results. If you have to ask the question, but can't be bothered to actually do it, you're showing me you don't actually care about the results, the question itself, or any of the underlying concepts involved.
Well, to be fair, it was an assertion by Scott--one of many, that wasn't backed up, just sort of "known," perhaps incorrectly called "common sense." But it sounded like BS (actually it sounded like "wishful thinking"), which should be red-flag, even if one is sympathetic.
I questioned it's validity, with smarminess lathered in smugitude sauce (which I hope tastes like raspberries). And sure, I did the search (after all, what if he was correct?).
But he wasn't. So, I asked him a series of questions about his assertion, allowing him to find this argument that supports his conclusion (suggesting the internet as a good place to use to find it...), suspecting that he couldn't pull it off.
Instead of answering, he avoided it, repeatedly. Which makes sense, really.
Am I to believe that you didn't realize all this?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I questioned it's validitySo-called "conservatives" always seem to be very liberal when it comes to spelling and grammar.
I questioned it's validitySo-called "conservatives" always seem to be very liberal when it comes to spelling and grammar.
Oh SNAP
Though I'm a liberal, and I make that mistake all the time. It's easy to do...
I questioned it's validitySo-called "conservatives" always seem to be very liberal when it comes to spelling and grammar.
Dang! No love, here.
Although I appreciate the high standard. I shall endeavor to do better.
...waitasecond...I didn't call myself a conservative...
Are these forums moderated? It seems that, to no one's surprise, the fanatics and haters on both sides of the discussion
I haven't really seen any "fanatics" on the pro-LGBT side, here. And the closest we've gotten to anything like a fanatic on the anti-LGBT side was a post Cory Stafford made that he quickly edited (probably because he tried to blame gays for everything wrong with the country).
I'm not sure why Paizo continues to allow political-themed threads on their forums, but I don't think they have a place in what's supposed to be a friendly environment (NOTE - this is obviously the part where someone says "Welcome to the internet.").
I'm not calling for civility - that ship sailed several pages ago. I am respectfully requesting that Paizo police their boards and maintain an environment conducive to friendly, gaming-related discussion.
If I might make a suggestion: if you don't want to read heated/controversial political discussion, maybe avoid opening heated/controversial political threads? If a thread's title has the word "homophobia" in it, chances are someone is going to mention gay people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, to be fair, it was an assertion by Scott--one of many, that wasn't backed up,
I backed it up with a website filled with links to published, peer-reviewed articles supporting that assertion (which Irontruth has, helpfully, added to). You (predictably) pulled the equivalent of, "Those damned liberal academics and their 'facts', if they were real scientists they would have agreed with my views!"
Time to move on, Rankovich. Conservative ideology is tied inextricably to fear. Make of that what you will, but don't deny it. Do you really want to find yourself in the same group as all the other conservatives who feel qualified to decide what academic studies from all disciplines are valid, and which ones aren't?
But it sounded like BS (actually it sounded like "wishful thinking"), which should be red-flag, even if one is sympathetic.
What part of it sounded like BS, and why? It can easily be inferred that conservative ideology is tied to fear (conservatism is, by definition, founded on a desire to keep things the way they are, because change could be harmful), and it just so happens that a bunch of different sub-fields of psychology have discovered that, yes, that inference is supported by the evidence!
So I think it would be helpful for you to examine why you saw this as BS. It wasn't, obviously. Was it because it said something that made you uncomfortable, rather than something that struck you as unlikely? Because, let's be honest, a link between conservatism and fear shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.
And if it made you uncomfortable, why is that? What are you concerned that it says about you and your beliefs? Does it make you question how many of your beliefs are grounded in rational thought versus how many are motivated by easily manipulated fear? I don't really want to hear your answers to these (and, besides, I can guess at what they'd be if you typed them out now); I'm more interested in just having you read the questions to yourself.
The inevitable "Chocolate in my peanutbutter" post.
Dang! No love, here.
Although I appreciate the high standard. I shall endeavor to do better.
...waitasecond...I didn't call myself a conservative...
Well, you have to be on a side .... pick a side!
I've got to say this has been a pretty civil thread all around.
I wish it would get back to books, though. Or at least movies.
In the meantime, I attended a con this weekend and played my first ever game of Call of Cthulu. It was a pretty big, shindig affair, all kinds of audio-visual equipment and mood lights, sold out 3 weeks prior and everything.
Anyway, it was set in 1928 in Maine and we were all orphaned siblings who had survived a fire and had all since grown up and gone to school and accomplished things. I was Fiona Adair, graduated from NYU with a Master's in English, and wanted to be an author.
So, I flip over the sheet and on the back, the DM has put a bunch of stuff from real life history and, I read, in 1928, some anti-colonial stuff happened in Egypt and Iran, the president of Mexico, somebody Obregon, was assassinated, and the last embers of the Chinese Revolution of 1927 were stamped out when the Kuomintang crushed soviets of worker's deputies in some cities that I had never even heard of. Guangchong? Is that a place?
Anyway, I decided that Fiona was a Marxist and had travelled the world and written a trilogy of socialist realist novels about international worker's uprisings--Man's Fate, Man's Destiny and Man's Tragedy (special little present for the Andre Malraux fans out there) and that at the upcoming family reunion, I was going to argue to turn the family's fortune over to the Communist International.
So, we went around the room and introduced our characters. I did a pretty good job, got some laughs and ended with "and I'm a member of the Communist Party."
The whole room freaked out and the DM was like, "No, no, no, you can't be a communist! Blah, blah, blah, I appreciate the creativity, but you can't."
So that pissed me off, and I kind of lapsed into a sullen funk until I realized to go the way other way entirely. It turned out that Fiona Adair was actually an ardent admirer of Benito Mussolini, and she spent much of the resulting adventure ranting against trade unionists, anarchists and Jew-Bolsheviks. Later, when our group had attracted the ire of The Order of the Sword of St. Michael, a secret splinter from the Inquisition, I yelled out "I told you! It's the f&@@ing Catholics! God damn dagos!"
Luckily, none of my fellow players recognized the incongruity of hating Italians and being a capital "F" Fascist, but it was great fun.
I'd rather have been a commie, though...
The whole room freaked out and the DM was like, "No, no, no, you can't be a communist! Blah, blah, blah, I appreciate the creativity, but you can't."
What the hell? Was a reason given?