"I would like to say Ann's arguments had no effect on me, but I cannot state this, realistically, as True. I have to acknowledge what I wish I could ignore or elide."
Quite aside from ssm, I'm very interested in the mental processes — the emotional metabolism — in forming opinions and making decisions. It's hard even to observe your own. You try or bumble into affecting the mental processes of others, but you don't really know how to do that. Imagine what would happen to us — politically and economically and personally — if others knew how to persuade us. Ah! It's impossible! There are so many politicians and salespersons and stalkers making their pitches. Even if the pitches were perfect, there'd be cacophony, ruining everything.
Persuasion is a mystery. But I will say that I have a superpower here — a strange superpower (which makes me a better lawprof than lawyer) — and that is that I don't feel any need to win. To me, the expression is complete in the writing. I blog for the intrinsic reward of writing and having readers. Thinking out loud — it's so thrilling and intimate and human! You give up the best part if you rework the expression in the hope of manipulating another human mind.
There's a place for writing as a means to an end, but it's not this place.
२७ मार्च, २०१३
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
८४ टिप्पण्या:
Oh, so you are just mentally masturbating in front of everyone. I feel kinda funny now being here. I thought it was for my pleasure.
"You give up the best part if you rework the expression in the hope of manipulating another human mind."
Yeah, isn't that what gaslighters always say?
"I thought it was for my pleasure."
If you are a voyeur, that's your business. I'm not a voyeur of voyeurs.
Ann - refreshing
@SSR Thanks!
@Meade I've responded to everyone but you.
I'm putting the "slight" in "gaslighting."
Ga!
I feel icky now.
When you read Althouse, you don't get the feeling that what you're reading is preaching to the choir unlike my other favorite blogs.
On the SSM issue, I really do get the feeling that for many on both sides, it's mostly emotional, and lets face it, the gays are superheros on that battlefield.
The anti-SSM stand is just tired of the fight they never wanted in the first place. The pro-SSM will win by attrition, as the anti-SSM fighters go home to tend their fields.
Ing!
@bagoh20 As well you should after trying to make me feel icky.
Karma's a bitch.
"When you read Althouse, you don't get the feeling that what you're reading is preaching to the choir unlike my other favorite blogs."
This isn't like other blogs. That's why I don't fit in over there guestblogging at Instapundit. I'm not doing what they're doing.
Your post reminded me that I once, purposefully, with full intent and knowlegdge of what I was doing, used every dirty trick in the book to persuade someone to do something - and it worked. Yikes! I want to be where you are--the Galapagos Island of ideas.
Why did SSM suddenly become the Holy Grail? One minute ago, historically speaking, the same crew that is screaming about the glory of marriage was deriding it as institutionalized rape. So what happened? What change occurred? And more to the point, what are the enlightened ones on The Left really after?
"Karma's a bitch."
But I still love her, because she's always there for me.
"Ing!"
Shh... keep your mantra to yourself.
"Why did SSM suddenly become the Holy Grail? One minute ago, historically speaking, the same crew that is screaming about the glory of marriage was deriding it as institutionalized rape. So what happened? What change occurred? And more to the point, what are the enlightened ones on The Left really after?"
Well, try to see how it happened. You could click on my ssm tag, because I have blogged almost everything that's gone on since February 2004. I've watched the issue on a daily basis.
How did the gay rights movement go from nothing to some kind of joke to damned near what all decent people think? That has happened before your eyes.
"So what happened? What change occurred? And more to the point, what are the enlightened ones on The Left really after?"
They ran out of other things to want. They came out openly, went mainstream, dominated the culture. They got everything they wanted, and that's pretty dissatisfying compared to victim-hood. As I say: It's all in the wanting. The root of all energy - good and bad.
Althouse, many people find it off putting that someone may present an argument without the need to win. That academic detachment, which you list as a superpower and I agree, is both a powerful instruction tool and extremely disturbing to those may not understand what's happening. And it's the primary reason I read your blog and have started to comment here. Because you challenge my thinking in ways that have little to do with a "right" or "wrong" answer. Most blogger I read have a point and very much want to win on that point. Their initial premise is always obvious. I enjoy that I have to question your premise before I can analyze the argument. And I appreciate that you make the argument not to win the argument, but to advance the thinking. It's rare and I think labeled correctly as a superpower.
Has equality, and even having a Black President, satisfied Blacks - no. At least they still have problems to bitch about. I don't know what Gays will do after they get this. It's gonna be devastating. Crickets chirping all damned night.
"How did the gay rights movement go from nothing to some kind of joke to damned near what all decent people think? That has happened before your eyes."
Oh, great. I'm a voyeur and indecent. Well, I'm still not leaving.
What do you mean when you say "I don't feel any need to win?"
Convince others, or demonstrate that one's own opinion stands up to criticism?
Does Prof. Althouse write merely to opine, and could care less if what she has written holds up to critical analysis?
Althouse wrote: I don't feel any need to win
This is a very useful power to have as a parent also.
I would normally say, "I feel so used..." But in reality I know this blog is merely a large extension of the mind stream of thought you put on display, whether sarcastic, Socratic, manipulative, or cathartic.
"So what happened? What change occurred? And more to the point, what are the enlightened ones on The Left really after?"
Really? Really? Precious bodily fluids. That's what they're really after.
"How did the gay rights movement go from nothing to some kind of joke to damned near what all decent people think?
Um, it didn't.
That's how.
I do find it funny that as of 2 years ago, Barack Obama and Elena Kagan were not decent people.
I don't think this is helpful at all. I can think up crazy shit on my own. I need someone to tell me right from wrong, and be correct about it. Any links?
Althaus,
the moby heterosexual.
More like, "The heck with all this legal mumbo-jumbo! This is about my son!"
How did the gay rights movement go from nothing to some kind of joke to damned near what all decent people think? That has happened before your eyes.
So, are you saying that anyone who disagrees with your position on SSM is NOT decent. They are indecent, immoral or some other derogatory term?
This denigrating, shaming and dismissing of any other opinion than the one held by them, is a trend that we see in the progressive liberal wing which counters every argument with...."Because....shut up". It is a closed mind at its worst. No attempt to try to understand the opposite opinion's point of view. No acknowledgement that the issue isn't black and white, but rather a graduated shading between two opposite points.
Is there only ONE right way to think? Really?
Yes.. Yes. I get that the posts are a person thinking outloud with, as you suggest, no attempt to persuade.
However, the casting of those who don't agree with you into the category of indecent people or dismissal outright of their 'right' to hold a different view on a topic doesn't seem to be the product of a logical mind.
Ann explains very well, as she proved when the ObamaTax thing was before us, but, if she thinks she has no need to win, she needs to go back and read some of the things she says when challenged.
PS If some commenters think she is mentally masturbating on the electric Internet, she ought to charge them for it.
How did the gay rights movement go from nothing to some kind of joke to damned near what all decent people think?
This sounds like Althouse's "Welch moment": You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir?
"Ing!"
3/27/13, 11:12 AM
Yes?
How did the gay rights movement go from nothing to some kind of joke to damned near what all decent people think?
They call it "epistemic closure" when WE do it.
My Norwegian teacher in high school advised us to carefully consider the arguments on all sides of a question before coming to a conclusion, and to be moderate in all things - except, of course, causes that we really care about.
[italics] "How did the gay rights movement go from nothing to some kind of joke to damned near what all decent people think?" [italics]
I think it was a very sophsticated effort made through a series of entertaining, emotional arguements. The first may have been Billy Chrystal as the first openingly gay charactor on Soap. But I think the biggest thing for most people was Will and Grace. Will was normal in everyway, except he was gay. And I've always though that was intentional.
A second part of the equation is the courage those who have come out of the closet have displayed in recent years. When was in college (1993-1997), one of my roommates, who was also my fraternity's president, came out. Watching how difficult that was for him and the courage he displayed did it for me. Without him, I may have never connected this issue to civil rights.
I don't think I've ever voted for a democrat. I'm a big supporter of smaller government with less taxes. I believe that individuals have the right to bear arms and the government doesn't need to know what guns I own or don't own. I cannot stand the concept of affirmative action. And I also profoundly believe in equality before the law. Same Sex Marriage is an equality before the law issue and one that ought be defended.
"she ought to charge them for it."
Have you tried our Amazon portal? Very nice people, lovely customs.
Althouse,
How did the gay rights movement go from nothing to some kind of joke to damned near what all decent people think? That has happened before your eyes.
Bullshit.
Most Americans are NOT in favor of "gay rights".
What has happened is that those in favor have decided that anyone who disagrees is not decent, so by definition "all decent people agree [with me]".
"Ing!"
------------------
"Shhh... keep your mantra to yourself."
3/27/13, 11:16 AM
Wow, I'm honored.
Yours is the face of what's wrong with this country, Ann - we are satisfied with being losers and our judiciary is intent on making sure that nobody wins and that we are all taken down to the lowest common denominator.
You can pimp for the gays all you want - I have seen the gay parades, heard about the doings in the gay bars and bath houses - and you can't defend that. Then there's their leaders, politicos and spokespeople: liberal scum of the earth that see moral and ethical value judgements as anathema. I won't give any of those cretins the time of day.
Our judiciary has gone nuts, as have our universities and colleges.
As people's ethics and morals go, so go their finances. Is it any wonder America is going off a financial cliff too?
This isn't like other blogs. That's why I don't fit in over there guestblogging at Instapundit. I'm not doing what they're doing.
That's a pity--I rather enjoy his other guestbloggers.
IMO, when the teachable moment came, Althouse was ready with her Blog forum and a mind that never surrendered an inch. That is what we sometimes call a "purpose driven life."
Good job Professor, and Meade too.
"IMO, when the teachable moment came, Althouse was ready with her Blog forum and a mind that never surrendered an inch. That is what we sometimes call a "purpose driven life.""
---------------------------
"Good job Professor, and Meade too."
3/27/13, 12:03 PM
YES.
For better at worse, this is where I feel at home. Yes even with garage & Ritmo infesting it.
The problem with Instapundit is you are required to write something about politics every day. No dog blogging, no Great Gatsby quotes.
People tend to read as they write. Does Prof. Althouse regard other people's writings as experssions of their selves, rather than as efforts to explain why a given position is reasonable?
Sometimes it seems that way.
I believe you don't feel a need to win, but Instead you have a need to believe you are right.
My superpower is the ability to piss off women. Not a great superpower, but it's mine.
Once got a pacifist so mad she threw a stapler at my head.
"What do you mean when you say "I don't feel any need to win?" Convince others, or demonstrate that one's own opinion stands up to criticism?"
I'll respond to criticisms that interest me. I'm not going to write a brief for everything I might want to say. I don't assert things that I don't think are true, though. I put things in the form of a question or as speculation with words like "perhaps" and "maybe."
Generally, opinions are boring. That's a specific opinion.
"That's a pity--I rather enjoy his other guestbloggers."
What does that even mean? What's the relationship between your liking them and my belief that what I do is so different that I don't really belong in that group? What's a pity?
"Hey, you suck!"
or
"Hey, perhaps you suck, maybe?"
I see what you mean. That is better.
"People tend to read as they write. Does Prof. Althouse regard other people's writings as experssions of their selves, rather than as efforts to explain why a given position is reasonable? Sometimes it seems that way."
Interesting question that relates to a lot of what I think about the judicial opinions I read. I tend to speculate about why they think like this. Unfortunately, they have to cover up so much of what they are, and they are relatively conventional too and forced to do group work and write in a conventional way, sticking to the usual, recognizably judicial approach. It's bad reading I'm forced to do so much of the time. It's interesting to talk about that writing in class, but I'm sure many or most students would prefer a more "straightforward" presentation (that is, more lying).
"That is better."
No, try it like this, bags:
Perhaps that is better.
or
Is that better?
or
What if that is better?
See how those are better?
Ameliorative Meade
What does that even mean? What's the relationship between your liking them and my belief that what I do is so different that I don't really belong in that group? What's a pity?
You’re a species in that group. To say that you don’t “belong” seems pitiable because it sounds like you’re unhappy. Others may enjoy your being there.
what all decent people think
I think you underestimate your power to persuade. Still, the emotional appeal does not favor everyone. It may not even be a majority. Perhaps the remainder can be persuaded through indoctrination, democratic leverage, or fiat.
In any case, you have a narrow interest. If homosexual unions are normalized, then there is no longer a credible argument to distinguish between any union, whether sexual or platonic, in any numbers or combinations. In order to honor the letter and spirit of equal protection, all unions must enjoy equal rights and benefits.
We also cannot arbitrarily and capriciously discriminate by an individual's age, from conception to grave. The issue under consideration is far more expansive and general than merely offering formal recognition of homosexual relationships.
The issue is equal protection. It includes all associations between individuals, irrespective of sexual or platonic relationships. It includes an unalienable Right to Life, among other things, from "creation." This debate is about equal rights and elective abortions.
Pure self-expression - does such a thing exist? And if so, would anyone want to read it? Perhaps maybe I'm cynical (totally), perhaps I'm projecting (as usual) but I think there might be some persuasive writing, even if not express advocacy, going on in the posts as well as the comments. Especially this one.
Bagoh is right. The left will be on to the next emotional crisis after today. This is not about rights it's about tears and recrimination and grievance.
That there are those that still can't see this as a rights issue is amazing, not in a good way.
That there are those that still can't see this as a rites issue is amazing, also not in a good way. Marriage seeks divorce from civil union.
That there are those who want this to be declared a right, and all that entails, is amazing. And not in a good way.
Saint Croix said...
My superpower is the ability to piss off women. Not a great superpower, but it's mine.
Mine runs to both sexes equally.
Once got a pacifist so mad she threw a stapler at my head.
I once had a feminist put her cigarette out on my face. I broke her nose.
It seems pretty clear that there are enough radical egalitarians now in our society that homosexual "marriage" will legitimized. That is an experiment in social engineering that we are going to be forced to undergo. So be it.
But I think I can predict some of the consequences of it.
Homosexual activists assure us that they only want the same legal rights that normal, true married couples enjoy. But that's not actually true. They could get virtually all of those things in other ways right now, by conferring power of attorney to their boyfriend/girlfriend, etc. What they REALLY want is to not feel like they are abnormal. Which means what they REALLY want is for those who think homosexual behavior is abnormal and repugnant to be socially forced, through norms and, where necessary, laws ("hate speech" and such) to shut up and pretend to accept their sexual perversion as if it is normal.
The same thing happened when activists got rid of laws against miscegenation. They assured everyone that all they wanted was for mixed-race pairs to have the same right to marry as same-race pairs. Those who opposed such pairings were assured that they could continue to live just as they did before. But the reality is that now it is socially unacceptable to express opposition to miscegenation. In fact there are anecdotes of black males intimidating white females who refuse to date them by accusing the females of racism. Anyone who expresses the preference for lovers of their own race is accused of racism, contrary to what was promised when the laws against miscegenation were repealed.
The same thing will happen here: it will become socially unacceptable to say or act in a way that indicates that you find homosexuality repulsive or different or less than normal sexuality. This has already happened to a married couple I know, who took a Salsa dancing class that had one homosexual male couple in it. When the class began learning dances where partners are exchanged, the homosexuals did not excuse themselves from that part of the lesson, and all of the other (heterosexual) men in the class were forced to make a choice between dancing sexy Salsa with a homosexual man (as the partners were changed during the dance) or removing themselves from that part of the lessons altogether. That kind of aggression towards heterosexuals will become common because the goal of many of these homosexual activists is to force acceptance of their perversion on heterosexuals, and they will use opportunities like that group dance lesson to dare heterosexuals to reveal themselves as "homophobes" if they are unwilling to dance with a homosexual.
In addition, there will be increasing anecdotal evidence that the children of homosexual couples do much worse than children of normal couples. At the same time, no one will dare do research about this, any more than anyone would dare to do research about whether the children of interracial couples do worse than children of same-race couples. The social stigma for daring to examine whether homosexuality actually is dysfunctional for families and for society will prevent any real examination of the evidence.
And thus society devolves a little bit more because of this social mania of radical egalitarianism, which seeks to impose on all of us the idea that there are no meaningful differences between human beings except those they are free to choose. Because this is not true - because there are real differences between genders, races, religions, and sexual orientations - our society will get weaker and more dysfunctional as we are forced to live a lie in the same sort of way that citizens of the USSR were forced to pretend that communism and the forced equality it advocated was as good as or better than capitalism.
CHOOSE ONE
Changing one's views by 180 degrees in a two year span is NOT:
a) Decency
b) Fashion, fad
c) Flibbertigibbet
d) Submissive, malleable
e) A gullibull, a nincowpoop
f) Politically expedient, which is indecent.
" He covets. That is his nature. And how do we begin to covet, Clarice? Do we seek out things to covet? ...
No. We begin by coveting what we see every day. Don't you feel eyes moving over your body, Clarice? And don't your eyes seek out the things you want?"
"I have seen the gay parades, heard about the doings in the gay bars and bath houses - and you can't defend that. Then there's their leaders, politicos and spokespeople: liberal scum of the earth that see moral and ethical value judgements as anathema."
Isn't this an argument in favor of gay marriage? Discourage the outsider fringe hedonism. Encourage insider community square-osity.
Inga, I don't see ssm as a rights issue, but I'm still in favor of it. (In fact, I think enacting it as a rights issue is dangerous.)
Gay marriage is making it hip to be square. Huey Lewis unavailable for comment.
This is just more Althouse "cruel neutrality" boasting.
I read you as arrogant, patronizing and not all that aware of your own motivations -- typical of liberals and academics.
Yes, of course, there you are, hovering above us all -- rather like Obama in the notorious Evan Thomas quote* -- with no need to persuade, just explaining the facts to the rest of us poor mortals lacking your superpower.
*I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God.
Gay marriage is making it hip to be square. Huey Lewis unavailable for comment.
And the flip side: Maybe gay marriage will make the idea of marriage anathema in the minds of young heterosexual black men. Who are already dodging the institution in very large numbers.
Sounds like you might favor affirmative action, Lydia: Use class discrimination as a tool for working on problems caused by class discrimination.
"You’re a species in that group. To say that you don’t “belong” seems pitiable because it sounds like you’re unhappy. Others may enjoy your being there."
I'm mostly here, not there. I drop in when I have something I think belongs there, so I don't experience any alienation. I just can't do my thing there.
Ms Althouse,
Your triumphal and value-loaded statements in relation to SSM belie your claim of not needing to persuade and "cruel neutrality."
We all have our blind spots and vanities. Few have such a high visibility forum to reveal them.
@MnMark: I am married [to a woman, and I am a man]. I regularly dance with men at dance classes. What's the problem? (I even dance with men socially because it's quite a challenge, both to lead men and to follow them, plus following gives me an inkling to what it is that women like in a leader.)
Also, I really don't see any connection whatsoever between ssm and interracial marriages. I mean really really don't see it. You sound as though you're concerned about more than being unable to express a preference for mates of your own racial group (gawd how much I hate even saying "racial group"). I'd say you dislike any interracial marriages and wish it be safe to say as much. Why should your dislike of interracial marriages mean it should be illegal? WTF? (And yes, mine is an interracial marriage, but I'd hold for miscegenation even if it weren't.)
And, of course, @MnMark, it *is* safe for you to advocate against interracial marriage. It's stupid too, since it does result in your being labeled a racist. It is, I suppose, possible to be against interracial marriage without being a racist, but it's really, *really* difficult to believe any other motivation for it. Also, really, who gives a fuck what you think about a matter that was settled 50 years ago and fails to cause strife daily?
One more note @MnMark: ssm is not just about all the things that heterosexuals get that homosexuals can also get via powers of attorney. There's also: divorce and family law and court, and preferential treatment for married (or single!) people in tax law -- none of these can be obtained with powers of attorney or any other device besides ssm. This is no small thing. I think one can be against ssm rationally, although I haven't seen any particularly good rational arguments against it that trump the arguments for it; maybe you could try to make some?
Really, what sort of person keeps advertising to the world how neutral she is, how disinterested in persuasion she is?
And now she has come up with a new word, after her own name, for her particular neutrality. Nothing un-neutral about that.
I would be skeptical of anyone who kept exclaiming how virtuous he or she was, no matter what the virtue.
Furthermore, what legal or academic authority is not interested in persuasion? Both fields require their professionals to be persuasive. If not, they fail.
Meanwhile, this past week Althouse informed her readers that she had laid a trap with her phrase about the Supreme Court "blessing us" with gay marriage rights. With pleasure she explained her trap and enumerating all the commenters who had fallen into it.
Call this "neutrality bullshit."
But I will say that I have a superpower here — a strange superpower (which makes me a better lawprof than lawyer) — and that is that I don't feel any need to win.
Maybe your superpower is just a reflection of how certain you are of your correctness?
If one's ego tells them they are always right, as with intellectuals, liberals and narcissists (am I being redundant?) , then in their mind they have already won the debate. No need to bother to explain their "correct" positions in great detail-- the "decent" people already get it.
I'm gay and I think that it is obvious that this will redefine marriage away from an assumption that it leads to a procreative union.
Asking kids if they are goin to marry a man or a woman? That is going to have no effect on society?
A whole generation growing up with that new assumption?
If a significant percentage of women do not procreate, the culture shrinks and begins to die. This is fact. Marriage is about procreation, not "two people who love each other very much".
My gay partner and I have plenty of money. Guess why? We don't have a kid.
In my mind there's only one compromise choice: give the marriage benefits ONLY TO COUPLES RAISING A CHILD.
End benefits for childless couples of all types. Bring marriage back to its real purpose, children.
I'm just sick to death of all the moral crusaders on this website whining about equal rights for gays without a word said about society, demographics, and children
I don't need you stumping for me. I'd appreciate it if you would look at the biggrr picture instead of turning this into some harmless civil rights issue that has no consequences.
People are trying to preserve the sanctity of the child bearing family unit. Calling those people bigots merely shows your own intellectual immaturity and unwillingness to consider other points of view.
I don't feel oppressed with my partner. I need no state sanction to make a vow. I agree visitation rights etc should be available by contract to anybody. But I've had it up to here with the intentional tunnel vision being practiced by pro-SSM zealots. You are intentionally turning your minds off so you can preach moral outrage and condemn out opponents as demons.
Get some intellectual honesty. I know it works well these days to play the "my opponent is morally bankrupt so I get to be intellectually bankrupt" debate tactic, but you're doing civilized debate great harm. Those against SSM are mostly for civil unions,. They're willing to compromise.
Are any of you?
I'm gay and I think that it is obvious that this will redefine marriage away from an assumption that it leads to a procreative union.
Asking kids if they are goin to marry a man or a woman? That is going to have no effect on society?
A whole generation growing up with that new assumption?
If a significant percentage of women do not procreate, the culture shrinks and begins to die. This is fact. Marriage is about procreation, not "two people who love each other very much".
My gay partner and I have plenty of money. Guess why? We don't have a kid.
In my mind there's only one compromise choice: give the marriage benefits ONLY TO COUPLES RAISING A CHILD.
End benefits for childless couples of all types. Bring marriage back to its real purpose, children.
I'm just sick to death of all the moral crusaders on this website whining about equal rights for gays without a word said about society, demographics, and children
I don't need you stumping for me. I'd appreciate it if you would look at the biggrr picture instead of turning this into some harmless civil rights issue that has no consequences.
People are trying to preserve the sanctity of the child bearing family unit. Calling those people bigots merely shows your own intellectual immaturity and unwillingness to consider other points of view.
I don't feel oppressed with my partner. I need no state sanction to make a vow. I agree visitation rights etc should be available by contract to anybody. But I've had it up to here with the intentional tunnel vision being practiced by pro-SSM zealots. You are intentionally turning your minds off so you can preach moral outrage and condemn out opponents as demons.
Get some intellectual honesty. I know it works well these days to play the "my opponent is morally bankrupt so I get to be intellectually bankrupt" debate tactic, but you're doing civilized debate great harm. Those against SSM are mostly for civil unions,. They're willing to compromise.
Are any of you?
The real question is this:
Do any of the pro-SSM people here give one whit about a compromise that would ensure that the stable, procreative family unit is still promoted in a unique way that other unions are not, because children are a vital interest of society in a way that a childless relationship, particularly a gay one, is not?
Are any of you interested at all in protecting that as a unique interest of society, which it obviously is?
Why is this aspect of the issue ignored? It seems to me that you types take society for granted, as if you just assume everything is going to continue unharmed. Almost like you assume your decisions can't possibly cause any harm...
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा