Yes, Pres Man, I'm afraid this now means you must marry Eastwood in Expendables 3: The Strawmanninging.
I'd watch that. Where can I buy my tickets?
Now that OSC has repented and we can all go happily see Ender's Game without crossing picket lines manned by violent
I'm surprised. I would have thought you'd find yelling at people who cross picket lines you don't care about more entertaining than watching a movie you didn't really care about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now that OSC has repented and we can all go happily see Ender's Game without crossing picket lines manned by violentI'm surprised. I would have thought you'd find yelling at people who cross picket lines you don't care about more entertaining than watching a movie you didn't really care about.
Woah, woah, woah. There's no such thing as a picket line I don't care about.
NSFW, potentially offensive, related, and presenting another possibility to those torn on the issue.
Technically two.
Just started reading the thread, watched the video and am kinda confused here. The woman was just being an utter troll with her same breath insults and the 'lol you bought it you gay-hater' stunt should have gotten her thrown out. Is she supposed to be a particular social commentary or soemthign that needs to be smacked?
|
Just started reading the thread, watched the video and am kinda confused here. The woman was just being an utter troll with her same breath insults and the 'lol you bought it you gay-hater' stunt should have gotten her thrown out. Is she supposed to be a particular social commentary or soemthign that needs to be smacked?NSFW, potentially offensive, related, and presenting another possibility to those torn on the issue.
Technically two.
Anthony's the one that was actually laying out the non-crazy options(offset or just don't buy it). The general formula of HAWP is Anthony=reasonable/sane while Ashly=nuts/questionable/outright-psychotic. :)
Though every now and then she'll say something wise. But it's usually buried between the inappropriate...
Dirty Harry is a Republican. Republicans usually do stuff to infringe on same-sex couple's rights. Thus let's boycott any movie with Dirty Harry or any other person in the movie business that is a Republican.No, its not that absurdly simple. Clint Eastwood and many other Republicans support LGBT equality, like same sex marriage.
Yes, Pres Man, I'm afraid this now means you must marry Eastwood in Expendables 3: The Strawmanninging.
I kinda want to see this happen now.
It would have to out-Atlas Shrug Atlas Shrugged quite a bit to really earn that subtitle though.
Just started reading the thread, watched the video and am kinda confused here. The woman was just being an utter troll with her same breath insults and the 'lol you bought it you gay-hater' stunt should have gotten her thrown out. Is she supposed to be a particular social commentary or soemthign that needs to be smacked?NSFW, potentially offensive, related, and presenting another possibility to those torn on the issue.
Technically two.
Hey Ash Whatcha Playin is a long-running short comedy sketch series starring Ashly Burch and her brother (Anthony Burch). Ashly's character is typically portrayed as over-the-top and unpredictable (not to mention foul-mouthed and offensive), as a foil to Anthony's straight-man character.
In real life, Anthony writes for Gearbox (he was one of the main writers for Borderlands 2, and is responsible for much of that game's well-received tone), and Ashly does voice-acting work (including voicing Tiny Tina in the aforementioned BL2).
In other words - they're professionals, this is their comedy side project, and the tone is intentional.
|
|
They do consider the Geometry Wars episode and the aftermath an early misstep though. (srsly, skip those)
It is odd how bent people get about boycotting. Snarkely scoffing at others choices to abstain from supporting a product.
We all boycott every single day, we just don't refer to it as "boycotting".
Sometimes it does take a bit of research and work though.
It's harder to avoid giving Nestle money than one might think. :(
and Ashly does voice-acting work (including voicing Tiny Tina in the aforementioned BL2).
That and the @#$%ING BANE. D:<
Tying all this back to the thread: Borderlands 2 features numerous casual references to homosexuality and bisexuality, along with two gay marriages, not being treated or seen as unusual at all in its setting. Which means that a FPS is further ahead of the curve than OSC.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dirty Harry is a Republican. Republicans usually do stuff to infringe on same-sex couple's rights. Thus let's boycott any movie with Dirty Harry or any other person in the movie business that is a Republican.No, its not that absurdly simple. Clint Eastwood and many other Republicans support LGBT equality, like same sex marriage.
Yes, Pres Man, I'm afraid this now means you must marry Eastwood in Expendables 3: The Strawmanninging.
I will only do it if they get The Chair to perform the ceremony.
Gobbo: I read The Unwritten some time ago. Not having read Kipling, I still wonder if there might not be something to that evil british conspirashiznoids. The British empire was well aware that they needed to make propaganda for the concept of empire, and did so through the channels of the time. The Hornblower books, for example, followed by Master and Commander et al. It was their version of 24, Homeland, and all the other military fiction/movies/video games. Kipling getting his break for going along with that, especially if he did not write the same stuff when he no longer needed support to publish? At least not impossible.
Kirth: I don't know that indoctrinating their kids into their sect and then letting them starve to death rather than getting them psychiatric help if they grow mentally ill is something anyone should respect the Scientologists for. Even if, by some token, yes, it only happened to members...
Tying all this back to the thread: Borderlands 2 features numerous casual references to homosexuality and bisexuality, along with two gay marriages, not being treated or seen as unusual at all in its setting. Which means that a FPS is further ahead of the curve than OSC.
To put it a different way: a tongue-in-cheek FPS featuring a character named Butt Stallion is more socially mature than Card.
* Sigh.
C.S. Forester published the first Hornblower novel, The Happy Return, in 1937.
Patrick O'Brian published the first Aubery-Maturin novel, Master and Commander, in 1969.
And for good measure...
Bernard Cornwell published the first Richard Sharpe novel, Sharpe's Eagle, in 1981.
All well after the period you're talking about.
You mean the British Empire didn't need propaganda in 1937??? Really?
Point taken on Master and Commander, though.
* Sigh.
C.S. Forester published the first Hornblower novel, The Happy Return, in 1937.
Patrick O'Brian published the first Aubery-Maturin novel, Master and Commander, in 1969.
And for good measure...
Bernard Cornwell published the first Richard Sharpe novel, Sharpe's Eagle, in 1981.
All well after the period you're talking about.
What's your opinion on W.E Johns.... I have a soft spot for Biggles, I read a few of the Gimlet and Worrals stories, they weren't bad.
Johns served both as an infantryman in the Dardenelles and Macedonia and as a flight instructor and bomber pilot so he knew what he was talking about.
His stories are of their time though and carry an air of colonialism and racism that were a part of the time and obviously a lot of demonisation of the beastly Hun for his WW1 stories and the Nazis and Japanese of his WW2 stories.
I never suggested there was only one, nor that they only propagandized during a certain time period. And if the heroic protagonist gets problems from the empire being the empire, the message sent is "heroic people make it work despite a certain incompetence in other areas, won't you help them?" Not a bad message for recruiting. Note that I consider Forrester's Poo-Poo and the Dragons to be an absolutely beautiful book (if sadly difficult to track down today).
Sum total, the big wars are not isolated concepts. Most of the people alive then were affected by them. Nobody's politics were untouched. Most writers of the time wrote stories that related to them in some way. There are many voices for and against each war. Still, the question is pretty clear: Could someone have helped Kipling get published in return for him writing his early works with a certain message? I don't see why not. Wars are won in the hearts and minds of the people. Or at least, enough people believe they are.
You mean the British Empire didn't need propaganda in 1937??? Really?
Point taken on Master and Commander, though.
Have you read the Hornblower books? If they were supposed to be pro-British Imperial propaganda they're horrible at it. Half or more of the problems in Hornblower's life and career are caused by the nature of the Empire. Of course, they're set in the Napoleonic era so they aren't really part what's usually considered the Imperial period anyway.
The thing about GOOD military novels, whether they're thrillers, action,adventure or whatever is that they're honest about what being a soldier, sailor or whatever is like. Some put a positive spin on the totality of it and gloss over the slog and blood and mud. Some put a negative spin on it, focusing almost exclusively on those things. Some try to avoid any bias one way or the other. Only the cheap and children's books ignore the bad stuff.
What's your opinion on W.E Johns.... I have a soft spot for Biggles, I read a few of the Gimlet and Worrals stories, they weren't bad.
Johns served both as an infantryman in the Dardenelles and Macedonia and as a flight instructor and bomber pilot so he knew what he was talking about.
His stories are of their time though and carry an air of colonialism and racism that were a part of the time and obviously a lot of demonisation of the beastly Hun for his WW1 stories and the Nazis and Japanese of his WW2 stories.
He's a much better choice for the Imperialist propagandist. Of course, I understand the original versions of the early books are better than the Bowdlerized versions I had access to. Even as a kid I found it broke believability that pilots would go on a borderline suicide mission for a crate of lemonade.
As far as being of their time, yeah. Probably fair, but still lots of casual racism and what not. They don't age well.
Loved the movie as a kid though.
Yep it was a crate of whiskey if I remember correctly.. All the drinking and smoking was removed, that and the cracking up under the strain of air combat. Biggles looses it a few times.
I have Michael Palins Biggles Goes to See Bruce Springsteen and Armstrong and Millers Pilots stuck in my head and that doesn't help.
You are a better man than I am, Umpoba.
Dirty Harry is a Republican. Republicans usually do stuff to infringe on same-sex couple's rights. Thus let's boycott any movie with Dirty Harry or any other person in the movie business that is a Republican.No, its not that absurdly simple. Clint Eastwood and many other Republicans support LGBT equality, like same sex marriage.
Yes, Pres Man, I'm afraid this now means you must marry Eastwood in Expendables 3: The Strawmanninging.
Callahan: I'm Callahan.
Young Man: My friends call me Alice, but I'll take a dare.Callahan: Well, Alice, when was the last time you were busted?
Young Man: If you're vice, I'll kill myself.
Callahan: Well, do it at home!
I can't determine whether this is a result of post-Stonewall gay sensitivity training or continuing homophobia in the SFPD.
Lemon curry.Yep it was a crate of whiskey if I remember correctly.. All the drinking and smoking was removed, that and the cracking up under the strain of air combat. Biggles looses it a few times.
I have Michael Palins Biggles Goes to See Bruce Springsteen and Armstrong and Millers Pilots stuck in my head and that doesn't help.
I hadnt seen that one before. I need to go back and rewatch all the Flying Circus episodes now.
LOL @ Butt Stallion.
That's Jack's horse, right?
Lemon curry.Yep it was a crate of whiskey if I remember correctly.. All the drinking and smoking was removed, that and the cracking up under the strain of air combat. Biggles looses it a few times.
I have Michael Palins Biggles Goes to See Bruce Springsteen and Armstrong and Millers Pilots stuck in my head and that doesn't help.
I never understood that sketch before.
Well, to be honest, I still don't...
LOL @ Butt Stallion.
That's Jack's horse, right?
Pony made out of diamonds.
Pony made out of diamonds.
And named in honour of Scott! ;)
(and the rest of us)
Civility is important most of the time. But, in this case, it is no longer called for. The only people who are left on the opposing side of the gay marriage debate are those who didn't respond to civility.I understand your feelings, but can't agree with your call for "uncivil" treatment of those you disagree with.Because I don't believe hating or mistreatingI don't view it as mistreating at all. In fact, I think it's utterly appropriate treatment. It's how people who treat others as less of a person than they are ought to be treated.
I find that difficult to believe when 36-43% (depending on the poll) Americans are opposed to gay marriage and that number continues to decrease. What that tells me, when combined with the fact that 57% of Americans support civil unions (at least according to the 2009 poll that was the last I could find on civil unions) is that there are still plenty of folks that can be led to the right decision based on reasoned rhetoric and continued strides forward as opposed to noncivil means.
Is it uncivil to tell someone who is expressing a bigoted viewpoint that their viewpoint is bigoted?
Is it uncivil to decline to purchase something from someone, for whatever reason?
Yes.
And as a civilized gentleman you are required to purchase my belly button lint collection for $60,000. Cash.
You are a better man than I am, Umpoba.
Woops. It's Umbopa.
Is it uncivil to tell someone who is expressing a bigoted viewpoint that their viewpoint is bigoted?
IMHO, it depends on how it is said and the relevant circumstances. One thing I do know is that, if you point your finger at someone (who, in their mind, is just being true to their own belief system) and accuse them of being a bigot (which is a very emotion-laden label), the opportunity for open dialogue, persuasion, and influence is gone. Their defenses go up. There are probably some appropriate times to do this and people who will never listen, but I believe it should be done carefully and rarely--especially if a valued relationship is involved.
Is it uncivil to decline to purchase something from someone, for whatever reason?
No. Boycotting (even though it may not always be effective) is a civil thing to do IMHO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find that difficult to believe when 36-43% (depending on the poll) Americans are opposed to gay marriage and that number continues to decrease. What that tells me, when combined with the fact that 57% of Americans support civil unions (at least according to the 2009 poll that was the last I could find on civil unions) is that there are still plenty of folks that can be led to the right decision based on reasoned rhetoric and continued strides forward as opposed to noncivil means.
I don't see evidence of that. All that says is that somewhere around 40% of Americans have clung to the view that gay people do not deserve the same rights that they enjoy, despite near-constant news media saturation with every new development in the debate for the last decade. I think the fact that it continues to shrink is, at this point, more due to the fact that the tide has turned, and the social acceptability of opposing gay marriage has dropped low enough that people who previously expressed opposition to gay marriage have stopped expressing that opposition out of fear of that opinion reflecting negatively on them.
The alternative is, of course, that large chunks of America are regularly hearing new arguments in favor of gay marriage that they'd never heard before, and are suddenly finding them persuasive ("You mean gay people being allowed to marry each other doesn't make my marriage meaningless? I guess I do support gay marriage after all!") I can't see this as anything other than over-the-top idealism and wishful thinking. The reality is that social pressure is a much stronger force than rational argumentation when the entrenched beliefs of hundreds of millions of people are involved.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMHO, it depends on how it is said and the relevant circumstances. One thing I do know is that, if you point your finger at someone (who, in their mind, is just being true to their own belief system) and accuse them of being a bigot (which is a very emotion-laden label), the opportunity for open dialogue, persuasion, and influence is gone. Their defenses go up.
Sometimes it's useful to make them raise those defenses. It makes them put their cards on the table. It makes them trot out the flimsy reasoning they've been using internally all this time to justify their beliefs, and instead start expressing that reasoning externally, which exposes it to criticism (both others', and, hopefully, their own).
So even in the absence of the social pressure I've been discussing, purposefully provoking a defensive response can lead to progress. As you note, however, personal relationships can make this trickier. You have to think carefully about whether persuading the other person of your viewpoint is worth risking that relationship.
The SC hasn't ruled on Full Faith and Credit. The Ohio case was a lower court ruling. Not saying it won't go there eventually, but it's still a long way off.Alternatively, he may still be opposed to gay rights (either specifically marriage or more generally) but realize that the fight's over and there's better things for him to spend his time and money on than an ultimately lost cause.This seems to be the most likely reason for his resignation, given some of his other comments on the matter lately. The war is over, there's just some mopping up to do now, the beginning of which has already started.
To be clear, there are some nuances to Ohio law in play here, but as OSC notes the Supreme Court ruling on full faith and credit pretty much seals the deal for gay marriage opponents at some point in the not too distant future. Honestly, that was the direction we were headed even before the ruling - it simply sped things along.
You are wrong. The Supreme Court functionally ruled in this very issue some time ago. Please do not attempt to correct other people without taking the time to do at least the absolute minimum in terms of background reading.
IMHO, it depends on how it is said and the relevant circumstances. One thing I do know is that, if you point your finger at someone (who, in their mind, is just being true to their own belief system) and accuse them of being a bigot (which is a very emotion-laden label), the opportunity for open dialogue, persuasion, and influence is gone. Their defenses go up.Sometimes it's useful to make them raise those defenses. It makes them put their cards on the table. It makes them trot out the flimsy reasoning they've been using internally all this time to justify their beliefs, and instead start expressing that reasoning externally, which exposes it to criticism (both others', and, hopefully, their own).
So even in the absence of the social pressure I've been discussing, purposefully provoking a defensive response can lead to progress. As you note, however, personal relationships can make this trickier. You have to think carefully about whether persuading the other person of your viewpoint is worth risking that relationship.
I see your point but this is delicate work probably best not attempted by those with either Wisdom or Charisma as a dump stat (if you care about who you are talking to). :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see your point but this is delicate work probably best not attempted by those with either Wisdom or Charisma as a dump stat (if you care about who you are talking to). :-)IMHO, it depends on how it is said and the relevant circumstances. One thing I do know is that, if you point your finger at someone (who, in their mind, is just being true to their own belief system) and accuse them of being a bigot (which is a very emotion-laden label), the opportunity for open dialogue, persuasion, and influence is gone. Their defenses go up.Sometimes it's useful to make them raise those defenses. It makes them put their cards on the table. It makes them trot out the flimsy reasoning they've been using internally all this time to justify their beliefs, and instead start expressing that reasoning externally, which exposes it to criticism (both others', and, hopefully, their own).
So even in the absence of the social pressure I've been discussing, purposefully provoking a defensive response can lead to progress. As you note, however, personal relationships can make this trickier. You have to think carefully about whether persuading the other person of your viewpoint is worth risking that relationship.
Speaking as someone who used both Wisdom and Charisma as dump stats, I can report mixed success.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are wrong. The Supreme Court functionally ruled in this very issue some time ago. Please do not attempt to correct other people without taking the time to do at least the absolute minimum in terms of background reading.
No lawyer here, but I don't think it did. The SC ruled that the federal gov't couldn't refuse to recognize same-sex marraiges recognized by individual states, not that other states had to recognize them.
Dirty Harry is a Republican. Republicans usually do stuff to infringe on same-sex couple's rights. Thus let's boycott any movie with Dirty Harry or any other person in the movie business that is a Republican.No, its not that absurdly simple. Clint Eastwood and many other Republicans support LGBT equality, like same sex marriage.
Yes, Pres Man, I'm afraid this now means you must marry Eastwood in Expendables 3: The Strawmanninging.
Be careful. You'll blow Mr. Bett's worldview of all conservatives as a monolithic homogenous group of cackling inept super villains.
Comrade Barrister and fellow OHWFA! member, pressing legal question above.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, in yo' face!!
(Goblins don't do civility.)
Is it uncivil to tell someone who is expressing a bigoted viewpoint that their viewpoint is bigoted?
Is it uncivil to decline to purchase something from someone, for whatever reason?
Depends on how you do the first I'd suppose.
Absolutely not as to the second. Everyone should purchase only what they want, for whatever reason they want. OSC isn't owed a purchase of anything by anyone. I say boycott away if it is what you want to do.
Comrade Barrister and fellow OHWFA! member, pressing legal question above.
Thejeff is right. It wasn't a full faith and credit clause case. I called this back in the thread about this decision, but I think that's the next logical challenge. Even a conservative strict constructionist like Scalia would have a hard time arguing out of full interstate recognition of same sex marriages. There are cases making their way through the courts now in several jurisdictions, including here in Missouri, a conservative bastion, with a law that denies recognition of same sex marriages performed elsewhere.
The striking down of such laws for all intents and purposes would be the end of the debate for sure. Don't live in a state allowing it? A quick trip to another state and you have a valid marriage.
Yeah, in yo' face!!
(Goblins don't do civility.)
I do, but only because I'm so darn grateful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Be careful. You'll blow Mr. Bett's worldview of all conservatives as a monolithic homogenous group of cackling inept super villains.Dirty Harry is a Republican. Republicans usually do stuff to infringe on same-sex couple's rights. Thus let's boycott any movie with Dirty Harry or any other person in the movie business that is a Republican.No, its not that absurdly simple. Clint Eastwood and many other Republicans support LGBT equality, like same sex marriage.
Yes, Pres Man, I'm afraid this now means you must marry Eastwood in Expendables 3: The Strawmanninging.
I hardly view them as homogenous. Some of them are just regular villains.
I feel the same way about Democrats.
The case you linked is the case that struck down DOMA. I'm well aware of it. It did not directly touch Full Faith and Credit. Near as I could tell on a quick skim, the decision didn't mention it. Nor did it involve any state having to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.
As far as I can tell, no such challenge has been raised. There are a couple of cases involving same-sex parents adopting, but they were decided differently and haven't reached the district level....
Quick skim = Wikipedia?
The primary thing that restrained Federal Courts in the past with moving forward here (especially in states without constitutional amendments) was DOMA. With it gone a combination of Full Faith and Credit and the broader point of the Winsor ruling will transform this issue legally within five years. That it was done in a nuanced way that will take a dozen lawsuits instead of all at once is largely immaterial (though it does speak to the political astuteness of Kennedy).