Please don't take offence
No Hard Feelings...to the democrats:
"The election day is over,
The talking is done.
My party lost, your party won.
So let us be friends,
Let arguments pass.
I'll hug my elephant,
You kiss your ass."
As the election gets near...
Moderator: Available
-
Rising Star
- Posts: 280
- Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 12:31 pm
- Location: Townsend, MA
- Contact:
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Not to change the subject, but... Where the hell is the "change" that Obama spoke of? This is beginning to look more and more like Clinton's 3rd term. Oh boy, oh boy.
And someone please tell Keith Oberman to stop with the Obama gushing. Oh my God... he's embarassing himself. It's beginning to look more and more like an SNL skit. Is there anything we can get you, Mr. Obama?
Almost makes me want to listen to a little Rush to cleanse the palate. And that's getting desperate!
- Bill
And someone please tell Keith Oberman to stop with the Obama gushing. Oh my God... he's embarassing himself. It's beginning to look more and more like an SNL skit. Is there anything we can get you, Mr. Obama?
Almost makes me want to listen to a little Rush to cleanse the palate. And that's getting desperate!
- Bill
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
My bad...TSDguy wrote:
What are you doing watching Olbermann?
First, I don't watch Olberman.
Second... It was the host of MSNBC's Harball - Chris Matthews.
Third, I don't watch Hardball either. But every once in a while, The Today Show will interview Chris Matthews. And as for Chris, well I think he must be sleeping with Obama or something.
That's what you get now with the unfortunate and untimely death of Tim Russert.
Tim could be annoying at times asking and re-asking stupid and irrelevant questions. But at least he had his head on straight, and tended not to show his personal biases. Plus Tim had a contagious enthusiasm about life and politics. He was fun to listen to when he got excited about a topic. I always looked forward to The Today Show interviewing him whenever an interesting political topic came up.
RIP, Tim!
- Bill
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Apparently my feelings about Chris Matthews are spot on. Oh my god... This from Wikipedia.
- Bill
- Bill
He commented favorably toward Democratic Senator Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election. On February 12, 2008, on MSNBC, he said: "The feeling most people get when they hear an Obama speech...I felt this thrill running up my leg." He also said, "Obama comes around, and this is the new testament." [4] On November 6, 2008, after the election, he stated on the MSNBC television program "Morning Joe," that "I want to do everything I can to make this thing work...this new Presidency work." When asked whether that was his job as a journalist, he stated "Yeah, that's my job." In response to his description of journalists' duties, Time Magazine managing editor Richard Stengel stated that the United States Constitution required journalists to "hold [the President of the United State's] feet to the fire."[5]. Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann served as anchors during the MSNBC 2008 presidential nominating conventions. After controversy following on-air comments during the 2008 Republican National Convention, they were replaced by NBC News correspondent David Gregory. Matthews and Olbermann continue as analysts.[6] On November 4-5, he teamed with Rachel Maddow, Eugene Robinson, David Gregory and Keith Olbermann to cover the presidential election.
Re: time to march: we find the time to march the same way people find time to organize the eliminate of others' rights when their efforts don't affect their own marriages, rights, or churches in the slightest.
Re: the Slate article: yes, there is no doubt there are differences between the racial civil rights and same sex civil rights efforts. The analogy is useful to describe some aspects of the issue and not useful for others. Certainly it is true that people broadly support CU/DP equality in California and didn't support marriage equality by a 4% margin. Why? They are thinking a bit, and they're pro-justice, but they view the institution as special, and theirs, and are worried about sharing.... a name. This battle, for me, was more about acceptance than tolerance, and we lost by a hair. Whether we won or lost by a hair, the struggle to normalize goes on.
CXT: You are welcome to continue believe that Piss Christ and similar remote events shaped this vote, but you appear to be the only person who thinks so. No one else brought this up on any forum or coverage or news that I saw. Perhaps you can fill us in on news articles where it was featured? Moving on...
A larger logical failure is your claim that the No on 8 groups didn't understand the Yes side's feelings and that's why we lost. Um, as I've said a dozen times, we DO know they feel attacked by marriage equality, and most of them are dead set against marriage equality for that reason. No amount of understanding will help us defeat their legislation when they are dead set against marriage equality. There is no creative solution for compromise here that I know of other than the one I always suggest (state out of marriage, church out of DP/CU)--you want to suggest another? As for people on the fence, the margin for prop 22 shrank considerably by the time of prop 8 which we lost by a hair. Evidently we ARE reaching people. As you are well aware, these things don't happen overnight.
As for the fact that people "feel" upset about people mistreating their religious icons from you, I don't know what it is you want from me. I know it upset them. I know it's not the government's job to intervene. What else is there to say?
And a tiny fraction of gay people misbehaved and insulted christians... ok? I heard about the misbehavior. It comes from anger and fear about being attacked (not just perceived, but real). It's extremely rare. It doesn't define the population. It's widely reported on news and makes for very bad press. That bothers the christians more. I oppose it. I always have. What else is there to say?
Your point about "ideological" driven arguments is not clear to me. As always, you're good at finding (usually absent) fault with my points and reluctant to lay out your alternative, improved plan.
Re: the Slate article: yes, there is no doubt there are differences between the racial civil rights and same sex civil rights efforts. The analogy is useful to describe some aspects of the issue and not useful for others. Certainly it is true that people broadly support CU/DP equality in California and didn't support marriage equality by a 4% margin. Why? They are thinking a bit, and they're pro-justice, but they view the institution as special, and theirs, and are worried about sharing.... a name. This battle, for me, was more about acceptance than tolerance, and we lost by a hair. Whether we won or lost by a hair, the struggle to normalize goes on.
CXT: You are welcome to continue believe that Piss Christ and similar remote events shaped this vote, but you appear to be the only person who thinks so. No one else brought this up on any forum or coverage or news that I saw. Perhaps you can fill us in on news articles where it was featured? Moving on...
A larger logical failure is your claim that the No on 8 groups didn't understand the Yes side's feelings and that's why we lost. Um, as I've said a dozen times, we DO know they feel attacked by marriage equality, and most of them are dead set against marriage equality for that reason. No amount of understanding will help us defeat their legislation when they are dead set against marriage equality. There is no creative solution for compromise here that I know of other than the one I always suggest (state out of marriage, church out of DP/CU)--you want to suggest another? As for people on the fence, the margin for prop 22 shrank considerably by the time of prop 8 which we lost by a hair. Evidently we ARE reaching people. As you are well aware, these things don't happen overnight.
As for the fact that people "feel" upset about people mistreating their religious icons from you, I don't know what it is you want from me. I know it upset them. I know it's not the government's job to intervene. What else is there to say?
And a tiny fraction of gay people misbehaved and insulted christians... ok? I heard about the misbehavior. It comes from anger and fear about being attacked (not just perceived, but real). It's extremely rare. It doesn't define the population. It's widely reported on news and makes for very bad press. That bothers the christians more. I oppose it. I always have. What else is there to say?
Your point about "ideological" driven arguments is not clear to me. As always, you're good at finding (usually absent) fault with my points and reluctant to lay out your alternative, improved plan.
--Ian
As for Maher and Islam and other religions, he treats them with similar disrespect in his film. He specifically attacks people who protested against the cartoons and who opposed the filmmaker who was murdered over his depiction of Islam. If the issuing of death threats prevents him from being quite as nasty to Islam as he has to other religions on other occasions, well, I think that says more about Islamists than Maher. Oh well. Beyond that, part of his job is to stir things up and make controversy, like Coulter. They gotta pay the bills.
The thing that stands out as a key difference between a film attacking gays and Maher's film is that he treats many religious figures with respect, not just being polite but respecting their views--for example, when Catholics point out how more Catholics pray to certain saints than to Jesus, or that the bible was written well before science took off and we shouldn't expect it to be scientific. That was a guy from the Vatican observatory. Maher's film doesn't promote taking anything from the religious. It just calls for atheists to speak up and for a greater role of dispassionate, fact based, thinking in society, and does warn that pseudocertainty about one's beliefs and how to pursue them--unshakable faith, that is--poses a serious threat to world safety in the era of nuclear weapons. It is about belief, the quality of the data and thinking that underlie it, and the way those beliefs impact others.
If a film about faulty gay thinking hit the theatres and included comments from gays who were treated respectfully and condemned the same faulty gay thinking, SOME might call it hate speech and whine, but they would be wrong, and I hope, in the minority. Part of this is because gays currently are more at the mercy of others w.r.t the law; Christians don't really fear having their rights limited by the majority, hence there is more resistance to attacks the threatened group. CXT: I understand fully that some christians would view this as a double standard and view it as promotion of the "gay agenda" over their own--any thing else I can say or do about it for you?
The thing that stands out as a key difference between a film attacking gays and Maher's film is that he treats many religious figures with respect, not just being polite but respecting their views--for example, when Catholics point out how more Catholics pray to certain saints than to Jesus, or that the bible was written well before science took off and we shouldn't expect it to be scientific. That was a guy from the Vatican observatory. Maher's film doesn't promote taking anything from the religious. It just calls for atheists to speak up and for a greater role of dispassionate, fact based, thinking in society, and does warn that pseudocertainty about one's beliefs and how to pursue them--unshakable faith, that is--poses a serious threat to world safety in the era of nuclear weapons. It is about belief, the quality of the data and thinking that underlie it, and the way those beliefs impact others.
If a film about faulty gay thinking hit the theatres and included comments from gays who were treated respectfully and condemned the same faulty gay thinking, SOME might call it hate speech and whine, but they would be wrong, and I hope, in the minority. Part of this is because gays currently are more at the mercy of others w.r.t the law; Christians don't really fear having their rights limited by the majority, hence there is more resistance to attacks the threatened group. CXT: I understand fully that some christians would view this as a double standard and view it as promotion of the "gay agenda" over their own--any thing else I can say or do about it for you?
--Ian
IJ
"You are welcome to belive that Piss Christ and similer events shaped this vote"
I "believe" it because it happens to be true........your refusal to recognize the easily seen cultural context is part of the problem.......if you can't even admit that such a problem exists then you have ZERO chance of overcoming it.
"there is no creative solution for compromise"
Of course there is........I'd suggest some methods, but you don't listen to me.
Besides, all you would want to do is argue with me about them instead of working on them.
"I know it upsets them......what do you want from me?"
Well, you finally deciding to admit you "know it upsets them" is a real plus....the more so since you tried very hard to spin this point into a highly nuanced posit about the very real, but for the purpose of this discussion, irrlevent, distinction between the "goverernment" and a private citizen exercising their right to free expression......please recall my point was about "feelings" not legal fine points.
On this part I would suggest that some outreach might pay off handsomely in the longer run.
2 groups that quite rightly feel that they are being persecuted have much in common.
"and just a tiny fraction misbehaved and insulted christians."
A-I think what happend to that old lady probably qualifes as assault so frameing it as "misbehaved" is likely kinda of an understatment.
B-Never said otherwise---what I did is point a serious PR problem that is going to wreak havoc with your cause in days to come.
C-Its not a matter of "what else is there to say" its a question of what are you doing to prevent said things from happing and are you reaching out to prevent it from happing again?
I don't mean to make it seem as if you are personally responsible for such events---your just one man---you represent no group so its clearly not your responsibilty here.
"marriage equality"
Again, your framing is suspect........you already have "equal" mechanisms for "equality" in pretty much everything substative-----essentially your looking for control of name a word.
"As always, your good at finding (usual absent) fault with my points and relcutant to lay out your alternative, improved plan."
A-And "as always" from my POV you seem to want argue things that have no real rational defense.
B-You do understand that our online interactions are not a formal setting where I am required to essentially"fix" the problems of your stated worldview yes?
Besides.......pointing out the flaws....thus allowing you the chance to fix them should be help enough.
"if the issuing of death threats prevents his from being as nasty to Islam"
Actually I would be worried that the unintended consequence of such a act is to essentially tell relgious people that if they all they have to do to get proper respect for their views is get violent....if it "works" for the Muslims---then I would really worry that other equally fundematalist groups would learn a really bad lesson from that.
I BTW think that is a pretty postive framing of the film.....I'm not relgious at all in the Christain sense and I was put out about some of it.
"unshakable faith"
You mean like Mahr's "unshakable faith" in his own worldview?
Another the Left's less-than-rational doctrines---they have largely have done away with flawed relgious concepets----then replaced them with equally flawed ideolgical concepts.........which they hold and belive in with, if you'll excuse the pun, "religious" intensity.
"anything else I can say or do about for you?"
Nope, AGAIN, there is nothing I expect you to do.....we are just talking.
"You are welcome to belive that Piss Christ and similer events shaped this vote"
I "believe" it because it happens to be true........your refusal to recognize the easily seen cultural context is part of the problem.......if you can't even admit that such a problem exists then you have ZERO chance of overcoming it.
"there is no creative solution for compromise"
Of course there is........I'd suggest some methods, but you don't listen to me.
Besides, all you would want to do is argue with me about them instead of working on them.
"I know it upsets them......what do you want from me?"
Well, you finally deciding to admit you "know it upsets them" is a real plus....the more so since you tried very hard to spin this point into a highly nuanced posit about the very real, but for the purpose of this discussion, irrlevent, distinction between the "goverernment" and a private citizen exercising their right to free expression......please recall my point was about "feelings" not legal fine points.
On this part I would suggest that some outreach might pay off handsomely in the longer run.
2 groups that quite rightly feel that they are being persecuted have much in common.
"and just a tiny fraction misbehaved and insulted christians."
A-I think what happend to that old lady probably qualifes as assault so frameing it as "misbehaved" is likely kinda of an understatment.
B-Never said otherwise---what I did is point a serious PR problem that is going to wreak havoc with your cause in days to come.
C-Its not a matter of "what else is there to say" its a question of what are you doing to prevent said things from happing and are you reaching out to prevent it from happing again?
I don't mean to make it seem as if you are personally responsible for such events---your just one man---you represent no group so its clearly not your responsibilty here.
"marriage equality"
Again, your framing is suspect........you already have "equal" mechanisms for "equality" in pretty much everything substative-----essentially your looking for control of name a word.
"As always, your good at finding (usual absent) fault with my points and relcutant to lay out your alternative, improved plan."
A-And "as always"
from my POV you seem to want argue things that have no real rational defense.B-You do understand that our online interactions are not a formal setting where I am required to essentially"fix" the problems of your stated worldview yes?
Besides.......pointing out the flaws....thus allowing you the chance to fix them should be help enough.
"if the issuing of death threats prevents his from being as nasty to Islam"
Actually I would be worried that the unintended consequence of such a act is to essentially tell relgious people that if they all they have to do to get proper respect for their views is get violent....if it "works" for the Muslims---then I would really worry that other equally fundematalist groups would learn a really bad lesson from that.
I BTW think that is a pretty postive framing of the film.....I'm not relgious at all in the Christain sense and I was put out about some of it.
"unshakable faith"
You mean like Mahr's "unshakable faith" in his own worldview?
Another the Left's less-than-rational doctrines---they have largely have done away with flawed relgious concepets----then replaced them with equally flawed ideolgical concepts.........which they hold and belive in with, if you'll excuse the pun, "religious" intensity.
"anything else I can say or do about for you?"
Nope, AGAIN, there is nothing I expect you to do.....we are just talking.
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.
HH
HH
1) There is plenty of cultural context which I am aware of and have acknowledged to explain all of the results of the vote and events in the news WITHOUT the remote art events. I don't see any value to declaring them key to the events in the absence of any data. You are free to continue to believe Piss Christ shaped the Prop 8 vote. All evidence to the contrary.
2) I have long agreed that many of the Yes voters have felt attacked and threatened. As for your charge that you pointed out a serious PR problem when gay people interrupt services or stomp on crosses, yeah, I agreed every single time. As for your call that "'it's a question of what am doing to prevent said things from happing," I very clearly explained what I've done to limit those problems and solicited your advice (see below). As for your comment that I am looking for control of names/words, yeah, I said that very clearly on several occasions as well. I am moving on by not discussing these agreed upon matters again--please join me by keeping this simple and saying nothing more about them as well.
3) You have written a lot about what you think are failings in my thinking and suggested actions in the marriage debate, but you are STILL not providing any alternatives. If there is a creative solution for compromise that you are aware of, you should list it. I've asked for it, I've demonstrated that I FAVOR such solutions over the standard marriage equality one, and so your refusal to offer a better approach sounds more like confirmation that you don't really have one. After all, what kind of person has the key to ending a contentious, costly, cultural dispute and refuses to share it, anyway? If you view your only purpose as critiquing my ideas without aspiring to offer anything better, I do not find that helpful beyond the introspection I do on my own, and we can just agree to disagree on your critiques.
4) In the separate matter of "Religulous," I doubt that other fundamentalist groups are going to learn from Bill Maher's failure to insult Mohammed adequately that violence gets attention and can promote their aims. That lesson is widely available in more impressive fashion from the news on suicide bombings, clinic bombings, and riots after cartoons, etc. Further, as for his own "unshakable worldview," he insists that the right approach is self doubt, self study, and an understanding that our knowledge and beliefs are profoundly fallible--in other words, substituting introspection for blind faith. To suggest that such an approach is just as "unshakable" or faith based misses the point--that it's the opposite philosophy.
2) I have long agreed that many of the Yes voters have felt attacked and threatened. As for your charge that you pointed out a serious PR problem when gay people interrupt services or stomp on crosses, yeah, I agreed every single time. As for your call that "'it's a question of what am doing to prevent said things from happing," I very clearly explained what I've done to limit those problems and solicited your advice (see below). As for your comment that I am looking for control of names/words, yeah, I said that very clearly on several occasions as well. I am moving on by not discussing these agreed upon matters again--please join me by keeping this simple and saying nothing more about them as well.
3) You have written a lot about what you think are failings in my thinking and suggested actions in the marriage debate, but you are STILL not providing any alternatives. If there is a creative solution for compromise that you are aware of, you should list it. I've asked for it, I've demonstrated that I FAVOR such solutions over the standard marriage equality one, and so your refusal to offer a better approach sounds more like confirmation that you don't really have one. After all, what kind of person has the key to ending a contentious, costly, cultural dispute and refuses to share it, anyway? If you view your only purpose as critiquing my ideas without aspiring to offer anything better, I do not find that helpful beyond the introspection I do on my own, and we can just agree to disagree on your critiques.
4) In the separate matter of "Religulous," I doubt that other fundamentalist groups are going to learn from Bill Maher's failure to insult Mohammed adequately that violence gets attention and can promote their aims. That lesson is widely available in more impressive fashion from the news on suicide bombings, clinic bombings, and riots after cartoons, etc. Further, as for his own "unshakable worldview," he insists that the right approach is self doubt, self study, and an understanding that our knowledge and beliefs are profoundly fallible--in other words, substituting introspection for blind faith. To suggest that such an approach is just as "unshakable" or faith based misses the point--that it's the opposite philosophy.
--Ian
-
Gene DeMambro
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Weymouth, MA US of A
-
Rising Star
- Posts: 280
- Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 12:31 pm
- Location: Townsend, MA
- Contact:
IJ
I seldom provide "alternatives" in the sense you mean for several reasons.
1-You simply don't listen.....I've been trying to explain the cultural context of the events in question from the perspective of the many Christians invloved and rather than listen to what I'm trying to tell you....you instead wish to argue if things/events like Piss Christ are playing into it....which they most certainly are BTW.
2-As an extention of the above your more concerned with nit-picking and fault finding with my advice than about moving forward.......I don't object to the argument/discussions---kinda fun........but I also do not confuse "good advice" with "arguementation" either.
In a nutshell....you clearly don't want the advice.......the "alternatives"....you want the fight.
3-From my perspective pointing out the flaws is considerable help.......if you know where stuff is weak then you can fix it.......if you never find out you can never address it.
4-My "job" as it were, is not to provide "alternatives"---burden of proof is on the person making the orignal statement.....not upon me to suggest (and then argue about ) "alternatives."
"I doubt that other fundamentalist groups are going to learn from Bill Mahrs failure to insult Mohammed"
A-"Doubt" all you like......its still good advice.
B-That Mahrs....and all sorts of other peoples reluctance to "insult" Islam while bashing Christains etc is being noticed---by both those Islamists that look for such things as "proof" they are succeeding in their goals and by those that notice Islam is getting respect by demanding it....by force if needed.
(You don't have to believe me of course----but that is the news.)
I'll say it again.....that is probably a bad...if largely unintended lesson to be teaching religious fanatics.
Mahr has no "self doubt" he is sure that Christains in specific and the religious in general are deluded wack jobs---at best harmless fools to be pitied and at worst real problems for the culture as a whole.
At the end of the day he is as dogmatic and narrow minded as the relgious people he mocks---guilty of the same kind of assumption of unquestioned and unexamined opinions he accuses others of holding.
Speaking personally I find all such absolute, unblinking, there-is-no-way I'm wrong here......to be kinda unsettleing regardless of it coming from a secular rather than a religious POV........that the anti-religious perspective is more in vouge currently is of no real comfort to me.
IJ--I mean no disrespect.......but even I'm getting tired of rehashing this particular thread.
So I'm going to sign off on this one...catch you on the next one.
BTW if you really are interested in some alternative approachs PM me and I'll send you some----many of which you likely won't like....but they will work.
I seldom provide "alternatives" in the sense you mean for several reasons.
1-You simply don't listen.....I've been trying to explain the cultural context of the events in question from the perspective of the many Christians invloved and rather than listen to what I'm trying to tell you....you instead wish to argue if things/events like Piss Christ are playing into it....which they most certainly are BTW.
2-As an extention of the above your more concerned with nit-picking and fault finding with my advice than about moving forward.......I don't object to the argument/discussions---kinda fun........but I also do not confuse "good advice" with "arguementation" either.
In a nutshell....you clearly don't want the advice.......the "alternatives"....you want the fight.
3-From my perspective pointing out the flaws is considerable help.......if you know where stuff is weak then you can fix it.......if you never find out you can never address it.
4-My "job" as it were, is not to provide "alternatives"---burden of proof is on the person making the orignal statement.....not upon me to suggest (and then argue about ) "alternatives."
"I doubt that other fundamentalist groups are going to learn from Bill Mahrs failure to insult Mohammed"
A-"Doubt" all you like......its still good advice.
B-That Mahrs....and all sorts of other peoples reluctance to "insult" Islam while bashing Christains etc is being noticed---by both those Islamists that look for such things as "proof" they are succeeding in their goals and by those that notice Islam is getting respect by demanding it....by force if needed.
(You don't have to believe me of course----but that is the news.)
I'll say it again.....that is probably a bad...if largely unintended lesson to be teaching religious fanatics.
Mahr has no "self doubt" he is sure that Christains in specific and the religious in general are deluded wack jobs---at best harmless fools to be pitied and at worst real problems for the culture as a whole.
At the end of the day he is as dogmatic and narrow minded as the relgious people he mocks---guilty of the same kind of assumption of unquestioned and unexamined opinions he accuses others of holding.
Speaking personally I find all such absolute, unblinking, there-is-no-way I'm wrong here......to be kinda unsettleing regardless of it coming from a secular rather than a religious POV........that the anti-religious perspective is more in vouge currently is of no real comfort to me.
IJ--I mean no disrespect.......but even I'm getting tired of rehashing this particular thread.
So I'm going to sign off on this one...catch you on the next one.
BTW if you really are interested in some alternative approachs PM me and I'll send you some----many of which you likely won't like....but they will work.
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.
HH
HH
