|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: SSM by postal vote
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif) ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I'll probably offend everyone on this post by stating that I support traditional marriage although I am happy for the same sex group to have civil unions but I don't consider that to be marriage.
Which brings us to the obvious question "so what?" A lot of people don't approve of other folk's marriages. Some don't consider whole classes of people to be "really" married, like the Catholic attitude towards the previously divorced or certain Americans towards inter-racial couples. What makes you so special that the law should cater to your whims?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Results are in. A vote for both sanity and compassion. Every single state over 50% yes. Overall score is 61% yes. On a nearly 80% turnout.
Backtracking in 3, 2, 1 ...
A good majority, but a pity it's not higher. The sort of silliness Michael Kirby engaged in at the start, and some others later on, would not have helped. Good to see that there was a higher than average Yes vote in Abbott's own electorate.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
Part of me s
Part of me wonders on the fact 2 in every 5 people I meet are not supportive of marriage equality. I suppose it could be worse.
I'll celebrate this YES!!!
Let's see how our weasel of a PM conducts himself in the coming days. I hope this helps him grow a backbone for the sake of all concerned.
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Results are in. A vote for both sanity and compassion. Every single state over 50% yes. Overall score is 61% yes. On a nearly 80% turnout.
Backtracking in 3, 2, 1 ...
A good majority, but a pity it's not higher.
Who gives a shit? A simple majority is all that was needed, and that is what has been delivered.
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Results are in. A vote for both sanity and compassion. Every single state over 50% yes. Overall score is 61% yes. On a nearly 80% turnout.
Backtracking in 3, 2, 1 ...
A good majority, but a pity it's not higher.
Who gives a shit? A simple majority is all that was needed, and that is what has been delivered.
No majority at all was needed to have legislation passed. A large majority was needed to drive home the equality message.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
No, it wasn't. I know you live in your own little world, but here in the real one, all that was needed was a simple majority. And this was not close.
'No' took their best shot, and lost. Mal has rejected the Patterson bill, which is good news.
This is a start, not an ending. But it certainly is a start. Well overdue.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
As I'd read some speculation about a victory for "No" I was with the news. I hope the legislation is a loud and clear support for equal marriage.
Well done Australia.
Huia
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
No majority at all was needed - nor was the survey. Simply an act of Parliament. But the larger the majority the better to make the equality point and to drive off the attempts to hedge around with exemptions.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Yes, at the end of the day the only purpose here is to take the wind out of the sails of the people still attempting to stand in the way.
And goodness me does that wind need removing. It took no more than 10 minutes for the usual suspects to continue to be arseholes.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
You cannot force people to agree by legislating that they are to do so.
And you can't force people to agree that the speed limit ought to be what it is. But that's the thing about laws, they're enforceable anyway. "I was driving 20km/h over the speed limit because I think the speed limit should be 20km/h higher" doesn't cut it.
You, like it seems an awful lot of people, don't seem to actually understand what laws are for or how they work. One wonders how you've got this far into your life without noticing that the world doesn't revolve around your personal opinions.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
The venom directed by the left against the no voters has to have been seen to be believed and they have done their cause no service.
Yeah, treat people like shit forever and they are not happy with you. Crazy, isn't it?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Could anyone comment on the vote breakdown? I guessed NSW would have the highest number of electorates where "no" won, but not for the right reasons: it seems these were concentrated in Sydney suburbs with high immigrant populations.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
No majority at all was needed - nor was the survey. Simply an act of Parliament.
No fucking shit, Captain Obvious.
The point of this nonsense has been to give Mal a mandate to do this thing. He has proven completely unable to bring the hard right of his own party to heel, but now even they cannot deny this is what most people want. Even if they continue to be dicks about it.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
keibat
Shipmate
# 5287
|
Posted
A curious question from the northern hemisphere: looking at some of the results by electoral district, one sees that some rural areas (but far from all!) had high No votes - SW Qld, for instance. For some electorates, but not all, the website news.com.au offers a breakdown by sex (defined as a binary polarity! ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) ) and, separately, by age. In Lingari constituency, NT, one of the highest No votes is shown as being among the 20-24 year-olds - older folk were voting more Yesly; and there is a fairly clear gradient from younger=Noer ... older=Yesser. Is this a ’typo’? It goes very strongly against usual patterns in other jurisdictions!
--------------------
keibat from the finnish north and the lincs east rim
Posts: 93 | From: Alford, Lincs + Turku, Finland | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Could anyone comment on the vote breakdown? I guessed NSW would have the highest number of electorates where "no" won, but not for the right reasons: it seems these were concentrated in Sydney suburbs with high immigrant populations.
Yeah, OK, so what are the “right” reasons for bigotry?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by keibat:
For some electorates, but not all, the website news.com.au offers a breakdown by sex (defined as a binary polarity! )
Yes, even the ABC made this particular blunder. I think it is because demographers are creepily obsessed with gender.
That is an interesting result you have noted in Lingiari. I can't find the breakdown you are referring to - the aforementioned ABC breakdown only seems to show who returned their surveys, rather than how they voted. Can you give us a link?
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yeah, OK, so what are the “right” reasons for bigotry?
I don't know, but reacting like that to an honest request for clarification from people closer to the situation strikes me as hidebound bigotry of the worst kind.
By "right reasons" I meant that I guessed the "no" vote would be higher for reasons other than those suggested in the link.
[ 15. November 2017, 08:08: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Could anyone comment on the vote breakdown? I guessed NSW would have the highest number of electorates where "no" won, but not for the right reasons: it seems these were concentrated in Sydney suburbs with high immigrant populations.
Yeah, OK, so what are the “right” reasons for bigotry?
Not what Eutychus was saying or asked, at all. I see you haven't lost your ability to choose (un)righteous indignation over reading comprehension.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by keibat:
A curious question from the northern hemisphere: looking at some of the results by electoral district, one sees that some rural areas (but far from all!) had high No votes - SW Qld, for instance. For some electorates, but not all, the website news.com.au offers a breakdown by sex (defined as a binary polarity! ) and, separately, by age. In Lingari constituency, NT, one of the highest No votes is shown as being among the 20-24 year-olds - older folk were voting more Yesly; and there is a fairly clear gradient from younger=Noer ... older=Yesser. Is this a ’typo’? It goes very strongly against usual patterns in other jurisdictions!
The vote is broken down by gender because that's the data that the Australian Bureau of Statistics provided.
This being a survey, you see, not an actual vote. Let's not go over THAT again...
To go to your specific question, Lingiari is the electorate that covers most of the Northern Territory and one of its characteristics is that it has a much higher Indigenous population than the rest of the country.
Sadly, one of the characteristics of the Indigenous populations is that they are young, on account of Indigenous people having a much lower life expectancy.
I wouldn't be surprised if the No vote was high in the small Indigenous communities. For one thing, those communities are inherently somewhat conservative. For another, English is not their first language and the rest of the country often does a God-awful job of communicating with or caring about them. There was actually a story about one community that burned the first round of survey papers because they believed the proposal was to make same-sex marriage compulsory, i.e. to ban existing marriages.
[ 15. November 2017, 08:35: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Could anyone comment on the vote breakdown? I guessed NSW would have the highest number of electorates where "no" won, but not for the right reasons: it seems these were concentrated in Sydney suburbs with high immigrant populations.
What were your reasons, may I ask?
Not sure if I am reading your post incorrectly, but are you saying electorates with a large immigrant population voting No surprised you?
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Could anyone comment on the vote breakdown? I guessed NSW would have the highest number of electorates where "no" won, but not for the right reasons: it seems these were concentrated in Sydney suburbs with high immigrant populations.
This is pretty much the take on it here as well, that the migrants were a significant factor. There was certainly some specific "no" campaigning targeting Muslim and Chinese communities.
It's also interesting because most of these electorates are also held by Labor, i.e. they are left-leaning within our political spectrum. But they are left-wing in the sense of working class, in favour of unions. The marriage debate has not fallen very neatly in line with the issues that tend to define our party politics.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
What were your reasons, may I ask?
On the basis of my immense expertise, which consists of a little over a week in Sydney*, reading Bill Bryson's Down Under, and the Australians I meet on here, I was expecting a strong "no" vote from religious conservatives, of whom I would have expected to find more among wealthier Sydneysiders than in remoter spots.
I was confused by the showing being in Labor-held electorates but orfeo's post immediately above explains that.
I hadn't thought at all about the consequences of voting by other culturally or religiously conservative groups, in particular immigrants.
For me, this finding highlighted the fact that however enlightened our thinking may have become on SSM in "western" countries, working out the implications for interacting with other nations and cultures in ways that don't reproduce cultural imperialism is non-trivial.
==
*Biggest shock: casual racism.
[ 15. November 2017, 08:57: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
Ah, interesting, thanks. And good last point.
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
The Yes vote in our electorate was almost spot on the national vote; that in the neighbouring electorate was rather lower. A couple of possible reasons. Several of the suburbs there have a very high proportion of voters born outside Australia; in one of those, only a couple of stops further down (ie away from the city) somewhere about 2/3 of the population was born outside Australia, mostly in east Asia. They tend to be socially conservative young couples. I have no figures, but imagine that there's a high correlation of population and voting make-up. The religious make-up would also be more conservative with a higher proportion of those attending ethnic evangelical or Presbyterian churches with very few in the Anglican or Uniting churches.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
keibat
Shipmate
# 5287
|
Posted
Dark Knight requested the link for voter breakdown: it’s
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/how-australia-voted-on-samesex-marriage/news-story/856052cb744b25f734d04c1714e2 02e7
Scroll down to the bottom of the column for the interactive map.
The potential explanation in terms of an indigenous population with a young demographic profile and predominantly conservative values was already in my own mind - It parallels the situation in Canada. It seems to me that ’indigeneity’ as a status-of-life is perhaps inherently weighted to favour of conservativism in social values - not only because of cultural continuity, but because in most contexts, being ’indigenous’ means by definition belonging to a population significantly outnumbered and overwhelmingly out-empowered by population(s) who have arrived later and taken control. Change is therefore defined as the opposite of the traditional cultural integrity, and it becomes much more difficult to accept changes which only very indirectly depend on ethnicity, such as the current massive shifts in ’Western’ cultures over gender and sexuality.
--------------------
keibat from the finnish north and the lincs east rim
Posts: 93 | From: Alford, Lincs + Turku, Finland | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's also interesting because most of these electorates are also held by Labor, i.e. they are left-leaning within our political spectrum. But they are left-wing in the sense of working class, in favour of unions. The marriage debate has not fallen very neatly in line with the issues that tend to define our party politics.
This is something we see over and over again - people (especially on the left) assume that people who agree with them on one issue will perforce agree with them on all issues.
It happened with Brexit, where there was an assumption that Labour-voting areas would support the EU because that's what left-wingers were supposed to do. It's happened in the last couple of general elections, where the left weren't overly bothered about the rise in UKIP support because it was assumed to be taking votes away from the Tories, but it turned out that an awful lot of the new UKIP voters were formerly Labour voters.
People assume that if someone's an immigrant they will support further immigration. They assume that if someone's in a minority they will support those in other minorities. They assume that if someone is economically liberal then they must also be socially liberal (or vice versa). None of those assumptions is actually valid. People aren't liberal or conservative as a single all-encompassing state of being that informs their stance on every issue, we are liberal on some issues and conservative on others. I wish more commentators would remember that.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yeah, OK, so what are the “right” reasons for bigotry?
I don't know, but reacting like that to an honest request for clarification from people closer to the situation strikes me as hidebound bigotry of the worst kind.
By "right reasons" I meant that I guessed the "no" vote would be higher for reasons other than those suggested in the link.
I misread what you said. But your response is straight up bizarre. Even orfeo understood what happened, so how do you not?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Explanation.
This doesn't explain shit. It is fairly obvious that my reaction to you was caused by my misreading your post.
Stating that I got it wrong, accusing me of jumping to conclusions; anything like that would be a reasonable response.
Hidebound bigotry? Weird and inaccurate.
Of the worst kind? When we are taking about people voting to deny the rights of others, jumping to an inaccurate conclusion about what you said is the "worst"? Wow.
[ 15. November 2017, 17:30: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
It seemed pretty obvious to me that your response implied bigotry on my part, because you thought I thought there might be some "right" reasons to vote no.
And throwing accusations of bigotry around before you've read for comprehension does indeed constitute bigotry in my view.
And I see that apologising for misreading is a bridge too far for you too, apparently.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
Thanks keibat.
While I agree with orfeo's observations about the relative age of Indigenous people, I would be much more cautious in assuming the reasons for the seemingly conservative position taken by young Indigenous respondents (or anyone else in the electorate), sans more research. We non-Indigenous Australians already make waaaay too many assumptions about Indigenous people.
ETF Spelling
[ 15. November 2017, 23:50: Message edited by: Dark Knight ]
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It seemed pretty obvious to me that your response implied bigotry on my part, because you thought I thought there might be some "right" reasons to vote no.
And throwing accusations of bigotry around before you've read for comprehension does indeed constitute bigotry in my view.
And I see that apologising for misreading is a bridge too far for you too, apparently.
Yes, my response indicated I inferred bigotry on your part. In my defence, given your history here this isn't an unreasonable reading, especially given what I thought you said.
I had thought about an apology, but given that you think that it constituted the worst kind of bigotry nixed that thought.
Personally, I think the worst kinds of bigotry causes real harm to people and isn’t a comment that hurts their widdle feewings.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Relying on caricatures of what a person thinks other people believe and throwing out aggressive responses to that caricature, instead of taking the time to ensure one has actually understood what those other people's viewpoint is, I would argue, the very definition of bigotry.
Bigotry expressed as physical harm doesn't come from nowhere, you know, and neither is it the monopoly (as we so often think) of "the other side".
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Relying on caricatures of what a person thinks other people believe and throwing out aggressive responses to that caricature, instead of taking the time to ensure one has actually understood what those other people's viewpoint is, I would argue, the very definition of bigotry.
Bigotry expressed as physical harm doesn't come from nowhere, you know, and neither is it the monopoly (as we so often think) of "the other side".
quote:
big·ot·ry
[ˈbiɡətrē]
NOUN
intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself
Bold mine. That is a plural. Meaning group.
You do know that a caricature of a person exaggerates real things don’t you?
And you are trying to equate my opinion of you with oppression, enslavement, genocide and all the other real harms that have befallen because of actual bigotry?
Jesus Christ, what a self-important prick you are.
[ 16. November 2017, 14:03: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
My advice: stop digging.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
My advice: stop digging.
You are doubling down, then? Still think you are the victim?
If you were half the person you [b]think[/i] you are, you'd be too ashamed too leave the house after that victim bullshit.
ETA: Even Jesus thinks you are a tool.
[ 16. November 2017, 16:10: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I've no idea what's getting you.
By your own admission, you accused me of bigotry due to a sheer misunderstanding on your part.
That was an insult, and in this context it was an entirely gratuitous one based on nothing but your own prejudice against me.
I'm not the only one to have noticed you preferring invective over comprehension.
When I point out to you that lashing out on the basis of one's own misconceptions is the very essence of bigotry, you seek to dodge the charge by the bizarre claim that one can only be bigoted towards a group.
The fact is, you were gratuitously rude, as attested to by at least one witness, and I called you on it. That is all.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I'm too bigoted to take one.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Isn't that one of the functions of Hell,to slug out animosities that have developed over several months and threads?
lilBuddha, I am usually arguing the same things you are, but when your arguments become this aggressive and personal it is difficult to continue supporting those points, particularly if/when they are against people I know and like, even if I don't agree with what they are saying at that moment.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
lilBuddha, I am usually arguing the same things you are, but when your arguments become this aggressive and personal it is difficult to continue supporting those points, particularly if/when they are against people I know and like, even if I don't agree with what they are saying at that moment.
In my time on the Ship, I've vehemently disagreed with people I like and completely agreed with people I do not much care for. I try to keep my ideals consistent, with hopefully room for growth.
Dislike me because of my posting style and it is understandable. I would be saddened, but not surprised.
Changing your support of any ideal because you do not care for my posting is a disappointment. quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I've no idea what's getting you.
By your own admission, you accused me of bigotry due to a sheer misunderstanding on your part.
That was an insult, and in this context it was an entirely gratuitous one based on nothing but your own prejudice against me.
It was not prejudice, but based on your posting history. Not applicable in this instance, but one based on actual experience.
quote:
prej·u·dice
ˈprejədəs/
noun
preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
Another definition pulled from the same "bizarre" source: The dictionary.
quote:
The fact is, you were gratuitously rude, as attested to by at least one witness, and I called you on it.
Wasn't gratuitous. Jesus, you really need a dictionary. The first post was mistaken.
quote:
That is all.
You claim insulting you is worse than, or at least as grievous as, racism and homophobia and sexism, etc. Which is ridiculous.
If you want to run rather than address that, go ahead.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You claim insulting you is worse than, or at least as grievous as, racism and homophobia and sexism, etc. Which is ridiculous.
If you want to run rather than address that, go ahead.
You are simply making yourself look ridiculous with your other points, but let me address this one, because once again you are completely misunderstanding.
Nowhere have I suggested that a personal insult to me was worse than physical expressions of various -isms.
What I have suggested, and what you are singularly failing to grasp, is that the kind of bigotry you justly condemn is fuelled by people not listening to those on the other side properly, assuming they know what those on the other side think, and instead of engaging at any substantial level, lashing out against their own caricature of those on the other side.
That is exactly what you did when you lashed out at me, and your inability to see it is highlighting your own bigotry with every additional post you make.
You're not posting to seek clarification or resolve matters. You're posting to attack in line with your convictions, regardless of what anyone else might say.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I'd have thought that neither attempting to understand voting patterns of "no" nor seeking to stand up for rights is really bigotry.
Throwing the term around here seems to devalue it.
But then misreading posts, seeking to see the worst possible interpretation of words, dragging up things said elsewhere, typing stridently in bold and seeking to show one is right by appealing to authority and/or having the last word is par pretty common.
I've done it myself of course. And just realised how bad it looks.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
lilBuddha, I am usually arguing the same things you are, but when your arguments become this aggressive and personal it is difficult to continue supporting those points, particularly if/when they are against people I know and like, even if I don't agree with what they are saying at that moment.
<snip> Changing your support of any ideal because you do not care for my posting is a disappointment.
Sorry, I wasn't clear there, I so should not post from a phone travelling. I did not mean to imply that I change my views, because I don't, but that I choose not to post in support.
I was thinking in particular about the David Walliams thread when it started discussing blackface. I had started developing ideas around different ways of doing this, with the example of Boggart's Breakfast, now we realise how offensive blackface is to many. But I chose not to continue pursuing that train of thought and stopped posting on the thread.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
CK it was abundantly clear to me at least that you were not changing your views.
To my mind it's entirely characteristic of LB's posting that aside from any substantive disagreement, her responses misconstrue, in a negative light, what that person's said.
If you address that, as I stupidly did, you get dragged down a kind of black hole of cultivated misunderstanding from which it's hard to climb out.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
In my WIP, I have one character remark (forcibly):
quote:
"You're right, but you're being a dick about it."
Let the reader understand.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I think pointing this out is well worth being called a dick, frankly.
As you can see, I'm not the only target of this behaviour. And I wouldn't be surprised if other people are intimidated by it and thus put off posting, which is detrimental to diversity on the boards.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
I wouldn’t dream of trying to engage with her. Disingenuous and deeply, deeply tiresome.
I think she views herself as a fighter of privilege wherever she finds it. Trouble is, she assumes that not herself being privileged (by which she means white and male) makes her right by default at all times and in all situations.
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
