In our upside-down world, the eighth-grade teacher understands that one wrong word, an ill-timed joke, a casual pat on the shoulder can end a career, pronto — while his punk student with the gang-banging parent who shouts profanity at him are mostly exempt from worry. The boss at the DMV accepts the fact that the whiff of a sexual-harassment suit, the rumor of an impending racial-discrimination allegation, the suggestion of inhospitality to the handicapped are more terrifying than the rowdy 16-year-old who pulls in to take his driving test in a monster truck. In our dreams it is better to be an ax man, where it’s Mother Nature, not the local diversity czar, who is after you.The agents of political correctness do try to reach into the production of these reality shows (ineffectually, as we saw in the recent "Duck Dynasty" flap), but the point is that these shows depict (or at least purport to depict) a way of life that is (or seems to be) beyond the repressive forces.
The crabmen and lumberjacks don’t seem to worry about what they say or whom they offend — to the degree that such screw-it attitudes can be hinted about on politically correct camera.
१ जानेवारी, २०१४
Why is TV "currently inundated with working-class, white-guy reality shows"?
Victor Davis Hanson has 3 theories: 1. "The zoo hypothesis suggests that American suburbanites are amused by exotic creatures," 2. People are "smugly satisfied that they are not like these uncouth white boys," and 3. It's "therapeutic" to experience, vicariously, the "glimpses, premodern though they may be, of unrestrained freedom."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
५७ टिप्पण्या:
Hey, women can feel this urge, too. When I was going through a very disciplined, workaholic, stressful period, I got into "The Wonderful Whites of West Virginia." (That is a documentary about excessively colorful WV fuckups - male and female.)
First I saw "Winter's Bone" with Jennifer Lawrence, which is like the Robert Redford Sundance Catalog version of Appalachian methheads - all hardscrabble, romanticized pioneer poverty (IOW, an award-winning, properly-PC version). Netflix algorithm then recommended the WWWV, which is closer to the real thing IMO - with all the inherent cheesiness involved.
I think WWWV, produced and directed by MTV, spawned a lot of the current "white trash chic." The director, Julien Nitzberg, called the Whites more dark and punk than anything he had ever seen in NYC, which is likely true.
I call bullshit on this white working class is immune to PC. My worksite has blacks, hispanic and whites (and sometimes Indians). Gay, lesbian and straight. Fundamentalists and atheist. Ex military. Socialist (one commie) libertarians and conservatives.
What you see is real discussions about race, politics, religion etc because we have to live and work together. Sure you hear "nigger" "cracker" "dyke" "fag" etc but almost never in anger.
If I called a black guy "nigger" as a true insult. I would be corrected with a wrench up side my head.
This "elite" live with people who look like them, think like them, vote like them and then lecture us about diversity.
"This "elite" live with people who look like them, think like them, vote like them and then lecture us about diversity"
This.
Free Speech is now a Zoo animal on display like a near extinct species.
That means human's most creative power to rule over nature with speech controlled physical actions is near extinct too.
We have been robbed.
All of this misses the obvious reason. TV is a working class form of entertainment in 2013.
The top two quintiles of the income distribution are increasingly full of cord cutters, book readers, and internet game junkies.
They aren't big TV watchers. Working class people actually watch TV though, so TV show producers make shows they want to watch.
Actually, I think it is the "elites" who are just laughing at us. Of course, "us" is those who have to work and try to make a living. Every time I see a Honey Boo Boo commercial, I become steamed and feel that it is very wrong for our betters to be laughing at those that have less in some manner (IQ, money, education, etc.). I just keep remembering that soon we will be in a civil war and what will happen to these "elites" then?
The zoo hypothesis suggests that American suburbanites are amused by exotic creatures that they rarely see at the mall or biking about the trails in Spandex
Buy USA/Building A Nation Forever postal stamps.
It is a nice reminder of the vigor, sinew and power of exotic creatures who helped build this country.
I am so glad that I was in college in the 50s and practiced medicine in the 60s to 90s. I teach medical students now and carefully avoid talking about the future. In many ways I feel close to Sir Edward Grey in 1914. Monday, August 3, to be exact.
The elites of today are not fit to polish the shoes of the 1914 elites and even they got into a lot of trouble.
It's time to change the channel.
“The agents of political correctness do try to reach into the production of these reality shows (ineffectually, as we saw in the recent "Duck Dynasty" flap), but the point is that these shows depict (or at least purport to depict) a way of life that is (or seems to be) beyond the repressive forces.”
The one political issue Althouse gets right (that I know of) – gay rights – and she buckled under to the conservative side re the Duck Dynasty flap I see. Disappointing, but not surprising. Perhaps the following, a comment I left on National Review Online a couple days ago, will be like smelling salts to bring her back around:
Phil Robertson threw the first punch (in the GQ interview). Of course he was only giving his opinion and he's entitled to that opinion. But Phil Robertson was demeaning toward others and deserved to get demeaned in return.
Here's what else conservatives don't understand (among a great many others things): the claim homosexuality is immoral is as much an ugly untruth as the claim interracial marriage is immoral.
Decades ago it was acceptable in America to say interracial marriage is immoral because most people agreed with it. Nowadays, hopefully, I suspect even most conservatives disagree with that claim.
Question for the conservatives reading this: Do you think the claim interracial marriage is immoral is the truth or an ugly falsehood?
If you think it's the truth, then you're a deluded racist and you might as well stop reading this now because you're too stupid to get any of the rest of it.
If, however, you agree that that claim is an ugly falsehood, then what you as a conservative have yet to grasp that we liberals/progressives already understand and that America with each new generation is increasingly understanding is that the claim homosexuality is immoral, which is what Phil Robertson said, is also an ugly falsehood, but you don't understand it yet because you're still stuck in that mindset. But just like society has progressed past its ugly old attitude toward interracial marriage, so it will progress past its ugly old attitude on homosexuality. You conservatives are the holdouts bringing up the rear, as always (so to speak).
Getting back to the start, so Phil Robertson threw the first punch using free speech and A&E punched back using free speech too which is another thing you conservatives always colossally fail to grasp. Again, there's not an oppressor and an oppressed here. A&E and Phil Robertson are equally powerful contractual partners—they make each other money. A&E did nothing wrong by expressing their opinion too by distancing themselves from their business partner Phil Robertson.
And finally, now some conservatives are saying they demanded nothing from A&E. That's also a lie. You conservatives have been on a nationwide feet-stamping hissy fit going on and on about freedom of speech. Why would you all do that unless your demand of A&E were that they not violate Phil Robertson's freedom of speech? Oy.
"Here's what else conservatives don't understand (among a great many others things): the claim homosexuality is immoral is as much an ugly untruth as the claim interracial marriage is immoral.
"
Mikio, would you mind telling me where in the Bible it says anything about interracial marriage ?
Mikio sez: "the claim homosexuality is immoral is as much an ugly untruth as the claim interracial marriage is immoral."
Here is what YOU do not understand:
The former is explicitly stated in the Bible; the latter is not.
Your problem isn't with Robertson. He paraphrased the position of the Christian Church for two thousand years: **Homosexuality is sinful**. That's stated in Leviticus, Romans, Corinthians, etc. In fact, it's considered a moral abomination deserving of severe punishment.
Ergo, your problem is with the entire Christian Church.
So why don't you just condemn the entire Christian Church as immoral, and we won't have to argue each case (like Robertson's) individually anymore.
Furthermore, why don't you ask the few remaining Christians among your left-wing friends how they reconcile the Bible with their pro-gay attitudes?
@Mikio,
The claim homosexuality is immoral is as much an ugly untruth as the claim interracial marriage is immoral.
Thanks for flying by & trying to enlighten us, Mikio, because without you how could we ever have a rehearsal for the Nth time of the various rationales for this & other progressive nostrums? Because, I for one, after having had a subscription to The New Republic for 23 years, have just never heard them....
The claim that gay people are like black people in some important moral sense is an analogy, Mikio. It's not an analogy that many of us here think is a valid one. But you do. So, how many hundreds of thousands of gays died in the Middle Passage from wherever they were dragged from to the US? Look up the comparison numbers for blacks vs whites for income & educational disparities. Now, what are the disparity figures for gays vs straights?
It's your analogy. Explain it to us.
Reality shows featuring all these hard-working blue-collar construction workers are a paean to the masculine virtues:
Upper body strength, stoicism, bravery, a contempt for what we used to call "European delicacy."
I guess those shows are popular with viewers who believe that those virtues are still very valuable--but are finding that point of view increasingly muzzled by so-called Second Wave Feminism and political correctness.
It's the same reason why Schwarzenegger's movies were so popular.
It's a lot simpler that all that psychobabble folks. Everybody needs somebody to look down on and you just can't do reality shows about the disfunction in "certain cultures" But po white folks is fair game.
Strawman argument Mikio: most conservatives weren't saying A&E didn't have the right to exercise their free speech, we were saying that they were hypocritical and, from a business perspective, stupid. All other issues aside, just after they "fired" Phil, they ran a "Duck Dynasty" marathon.
Mikio said:
"Here's what else conservatives don't understand (among a great many others things): the claim homosexuality is immoral is as much an ugly untruth as the claim interracial marriage is immoral."
I wonder what objective standard Mikio uses to judge morality? Who validates Mikio's standard of morality?
4. It would be racist to laugh at non-white exotic creatures, would be sexist to be amused by the gal.
Mikio saysThe one political issue Althouse gets right (that I know of) – gay rights – and she buckled under to the conservative side re the Duck Dynasty flap I see. Disappointing, but not surprising. Perhaps the following, a comment I left on National Review Online a couple days ago, will be like smelling salts to bring her back around:
Hey sweetie, Althouse don't buckle. Oh, wait you posted a comment to NRO. You must be smart.
"Question for the conservatives reading this: Do you think the claim interracial marriage is immoral is the truth or an ugly falsehood?"
Actually, neither. Claims of morality lie outside the realm of truth and falsehood. You cannot make your way to "should be" from "is" by means of logic.
Cubicles are boring.
There is a reality show LOLwork on the people who create the cheezeburger site.
http://www.bravotv.com/lolwork
"..."in perhaps the same way as Petronius wrote for his literate audience about smelly soldiers and crafty innkeepers." Ah,VDH does not fail to throw in the classical allusion. Good for him. But the lack of references to Pericles, the Peloponnesian War or Thucydides show that he's slipping.
If a historical analogy is wanted, why overlook the Hollywood blacklist-- another dispute between private parties which nonetheless raised questions of free speech? Is it because it involved an issue where it was liberals rather than conservatives who were slow to catch on?
We need a rerun of All in the Family with Archie Bunker!
Somefeller: " But the lack of references to Pericles, the Peloponnesian War or Thucydides show that he's slipping."
Perhaps you'd care to point out specifically what examples involving Pericles, the Peloponnesian War or Thucydides VDH might have mentioned that would have been on topic.
Don't be afraid to show your work.
"the claim homosexuality is immoral is - "
PSA: sticking your penis up someone's asshole is immoral. Bisexuals caught AIDS though anal sex and vectored it into the general populace by passing their disease to women.
See, there are actual *reasons* Society marks things as immoral - usually because those thing are dangerous to society. The anus does not have the same protections against transmitted disease as the vagina. Its bad enough that your kind gave us AIDs, you'd think you've have enough shame to shut up about normalizing something immoral.
Ah hell, my bad, I forgot we're all supposed to pretend the sodomites didn't bring us AIDs.
Sodomy includes oral and anal sex, regardless of the sex of the participants, so we must assume Fen turns down blow jobs.
The subscription-required online Oxford English Dictionary says: "Originally: any form of sexual intercourse considered to be unnatural. Now chiefly: anal intercourse."
The free online Oxford says simply "anal intercourse."
Fen's comments remind me of a recent discussion of a gay practicing Catholic, calling out on all the straight Catholics.
"If a straight unmarried 40 year-old man has had a few dalliances with women over the years, then he gets a pass. Why? Because “he’s a red-blooded male with a powerful sex drive which cannot always be expected to submit to his will — and besides, the sex he’s had was at least *normal* (sex with a woman).”
The man in the above scenario gets to walk through life with his head held high because — even though he’s sinned in the eyes of the Church — he’s at least considered “normal”. If a SSA man were substituted in that same scenario, he’s automatically shameful, disgusting, and should be tortured by guilt.
Why are SSA men and women held to a higher standard, I wonder?
Here’s a story:
I was close to a Catholic, testosterone-rich family (a husband and wife with 4 straight sons — all of whom were of dating age and had girlfriends). One particular Thanksgiving I spent with them, I had to hear at least 3 or 4 derogatory references to “fags” during my visit. Meanwhile, all 4 of these young men were sexually active with their girlfriends — outside of wedlock, just to be clear — but not for a moment did any of them feel shame or guilt for their actions, or realize that they were, by church standards, in a state of mortal sin. No, it was only about casting stones at the “fags” from this upstanding (by outward appearances) family.
Meanwhile, THIS “fag” was sitting among them still holding onto his virginity at 40(!), but still thoroughly contemptible in their eyes due to, well, his being a “fag” — something which he cannot even help."
When a straight person sins, it isn't any different then when a gay person sins.
First I saw "Winter's Bone" with Jennifer Lawrence, which is like the Robert Redford Sundance Catalog version of Appalachian methheads
Ozark, not Appalachian.
Peter
Not very good Catholics, that family in Renee's post. Not only were they not practicing chastity as all unmarried must, but they were not following the Catechism's teaching with regard to homosexual persons, namely that "they must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity."
@Lydia
Who uses the term 'f*g' or have a discussion where it comes up family gatherings?
Althouse: Sodomy includes oral and anal sex, regardless of the sex of the participants, so we must assume Fen turns down blow jobs.
Your protectiveness of gays has blinded you. Did I ever say I was a moral person? Did I ever say I didn't engage in sodomy?
Nope. What I said is that its immoral. Idiot.
I loathe reality TV. It's moronic regardless of the subject. Anyway, today I took the AK to the range, practiced the banjo, and read some Garage Mahal comments, so why would I need to watch working-class, white-guy reality TV shows?
Bullshit, Mikio. Robertson did not deserve to be demeaned, and he was not demeaning towards others.
But thanks for sharing the 9th-graders' version of the argument for gay marriage.
Idiot.
"Mikio, would you mind telling me where in the Bible it says anything about interracial marriage ?"
“He paraphrased the position of the Christian Church for two thousand years…”
“I wonder what objective standard Mikio uses to judge morality? Who validates Mikio's standard of morality?
The Bible is a red herring for the Duck dude defender argument. It’s trotted out by gay bashers to end the argument so they don’t have to think. The claim homosexuality is inherently wrong/immoral doesn’t have an intellectual argument to present, just the lame excuse, I don’t know why it’s wrong; it just is because my god said so!
Challenge for theists: Try to get inside the mind of God for a moment. Can you present what his reasoning is/would be for saying homosexuality is immoral or are you just obeying it unthinkingly?
Here’s the thing. Either there is a purely intellectual argument to be made for a universal standard and God knows it (but may or may not be conveying it fully), in which case the intellectual argument for a universal standard can stand on its own merits and God is a middle man who isn't necessary or all you have is “because God said so,” and it's purely arbitrary dictatorialness on his part with no good reasoning, and you're okay with that. Which is it? (credit: Socrates/Plato)
“The claim that gay people are like black people in some important moral sense is an analogy, Mikio. It's not an analogy that many of us here think is a valid one. But you do. So, how many hundreds of thousands of gays died in the Middle Passage from wherever they were dragged from to the US? ”
Another red herring. I didn’t even mention slavery. I said interracial marriage. Again, the fact is, decades ago the same reasons were given to deny interracial marriage as are being given now to deny same-sex marriage: it’s unnatural, it’s against nature, it hurts the children, it’ll destroy society, blah blah blah. It’s the same argument.
And the next worn-out line you guys always trot out is the one where you say the difference is race is immutable while homosexuality is a choice. That's such utter crap it’s wronger than wrong. First of all, homosexuality is not a choice for many people (except bisexuals, and how lucky are they?) because sexual preference is on a continuum. So for many people it’s not a choice—and as if choice matters to you homophobes! Like if you ever became convinced homosexuality isn’t a choice for many people, you’d suddenly go, “Oh, okay. God was wrong; it’s not a sin. Our bad.” Yeah, no. That’s not going to happen. We can see right through this fake distinction of yours, but you don’t even know it or care.
But getting back to the interracial marriage thing. You might have some old relatives who still oppose it. Think you can change their minds with reason and logic? Fat chance.
Well, that’s how we liberals have it with you conservatives. Same frustratingly impenetrable skulls.
Incidentally, the conservatives today who are glad that opposition to interracial marriage is a thing of the past? Good luck finding one honest enough to admit it’s been taken in a liberal direction. Ha! Goooood luck!
As I have gotten older and the world has gotten dumber, I find myself watching less and less of TV. I watch my sports, some Dr. Who, and Archer, and that's pretty much it anymore.
I used to be an inveterate news junkie. Watching CNN 24 hours a day when it first came on. Then migrated to the Fox primetime lineup. Now, I recognize that ALL news broadcast are entertainment with the newscasters performing the schtick expected by their audience.
“Strawman argument Mikio: most conservatives weren't saying A&E didn't have the right to exercise their free speech, we were saying that they were hypocritical and, from a business perspective, stupid.”
Nonsense. First of all, there’s right in the legal sense and right in the moral sense. Right? Right. So let’s plug each one into your nonsensical accusation:
“Strawman argument Mikio: most conservatives weren't saying A&E didn't have the [legal] right to exercise their free speech…”
And where did I say conservatives were saying that? I didn’t. So if that’s the sense you meant, you’re the one making the straw man, not me.
“Strawman argument Mikio: most conservatives weren't saying A&E didn't have the [moral] right to exercise their free speech…”
And that’s a load of crap, too. The entire, nationwide temper tantrum by conservatives was due to anger, the kind of anger that erupts from feeling persecuted and morally wronged, not over some comparitively dry business decision or some supposed hypocrisy which I don’t even know what the hell you’re talking about there, but it sounds like you just pulled it out of your ass and is thus bunk. Conservatives felt angry at A&E for supporting homosexuality and “bashing” Christianity (even though some Christians say there’s no documentation showing Jesus saying anything one way or another on it).
So whichever sense you meant you meant it, you were wrong.
“Claims of morality lie outside the realm of truth and falsehood. You cannot make your way to "should be" from "is" by means of logic.”
Rather than my taking on Hume, whose intellect I greatly admire and who could outargue me even though he’s dead, why don’t you enlighten me? At times I’ve thought I had a handle on that famous is/ought problem he presented, but then I’d think of an extreme case and get confused again. Take for example the moral claim the Newtown shooting was immoral. Make the argument that that claim is outside the realm of truth and falsehood. In your own words, of course. And don’t be generic. Thanks.
Maybe I'm missing something, but do many gay people actually watch "Duck Dynasty?" Why do some choose to be offended by the utterly predictable worldview of a 60-something Deep South redneck?
God they just cannot stop whining can they?
It isn't the gayness, its the whining when you don't get your way about the firing and shaming Phil.
I'm as big a sinner as any gay guy. Phil mentioned my sins in his interview. Somehow, I didn't feel the need to go after him socially and try to get him fired.
I wasn't even offended at all.
Mikio's argument is well crafted whining, designed to make us feel guilty for not denouncing Phil according to Mikios morality.
See, that's the problem when you try to make a moral argument for supporting gay rights; there are equally valid moral arguments that can be made against it.
It is a Liberty issue, not a morality one.
I, myself, could care less about either side and their moral scolds.
Oh. It is also about gays demanding social freedoms that they would deny others in return. Which is just like how the hets used to treat gays.
Its the hypocrisy AND the whining. They aren't pretty when combined.
Mikio,
Your anachronistic original analogy is internally inconsistent.
"Interracial marriage is immoral" is not analogous to "homosexuality is immoral."
You confuse the particular with the general.
If at all, the analogy is interracial marriage/same sex marriage.
Likewise, the proper other pairing is presumably homosexuality/being black.
I submit that the percentage of Americans of any time who believed that simply being black is immoral is vanishingly small.
If you're going to continue to use up large swaths of Althouse's comment space, please tighten up your logic. I'm assuming good faith posting on your part.
Mikio bases his arguments about "choice" re homosexuality on bad science. There is general agreement that, yes, for the majority of men genetics plays a role, but for significant numbers it does not--it is a lifestyle choice. And women? Don't make me laugh. The best science shows that for the vast majority of women it is NOTHING BUT a "social construction/lifestyle choice. Ever heard of the term LUG, Mikio? It means Lesbians Until Graduation, lesbianism being the in chic-chic thing for co-eds to experiment in for the past 20 some plus years now (I first came across it's use in Rolling Stone circa 1990) Where do you think that acronym came from? Reality or beamed down from the planet Mongo by Ming the Merciless via his thought ray?
It's always amusing to hear leftists play the genetic game when the entire 70s was spent by their side declaring that it was ONLY "nurture" NOT nature that determined things like sexual preference, personality attributes, lifestyle elections, etc. (e.g., witness the wave of feministas giving dolls to their male babies and Tonka Trucks to their girls while painting boy's rooms pink and girls rooms blue.) As Daffy Duck would say: "HAHA. It is to laugh."
And more to the point, why should society listen to and/or contort its entire social structure inside-out for a crowd that comprises at BEST between 1,7-3,5% of the population anyway? Does not your crowd insist that "Man is the measure of All things" since at least the advent of the great Agustus Compte and his theory of logical positivism replacing "Natural Law" and now ascendent at almost all major universities save Catholic ones? According to Compte and your intellectual crowd the will of the living majority is the only valid way to make social policy, so by those guiding intellectual lights it would seem tough luck for the 1.7% right?
ADDENDUM: Thinking more on the concept of logical positivism , Mikio, under its logic where does the prophylactic that protects minorities conceptually (and in real life in societies based entirely on logical positivism) from attack by the majority? I find it amusing and savagely ironic that, although every academic in the land save Catholic ones denies the existence of "Natural Law" and worships upon the alter of logical positivism, when one leaves the shores of America "Natural Law" (disguised under the rubric of "human rights") is the VERY FIRST thing these "Godless" leftists glom onto to use as a defense of individuals against despotic regimes.
Mikio, I'd like to thank you for your spirited defense of the Hollywood Blacklist in your first comment. After that, however, it went downhill as you've completely evaded the question put to you regarding the biblical basis of the inquiry of interracial marriage.
No one may beyond the reach.
Ha! If we can't reach them, we'll just shut down their whole industry.
Can you say "spotted owl" ...
(Rather than acknowledge that spotted owls are being out-competed by other owls, now they're trying to kill off the owls that are moving in ... the logging industry kulaks must be liquidated!)
no one may BE beyond the reach, I should say ...
It's still run-of-the-mill escapism. Most people will never be Ice Road Truckers or Ax Men or partake in the Deadliest Catch. Even Pawn brokers are interesting because they deal in the remnants of peoples' lives (a.k.a. weird old shit)
@Mikio,
Challenge for theists: Try to get inside the mind of God for a moment. Can you present what his reasoning is/would be for saying homosexuality is immoral or are you just obeying it unthinkingly?
Catholic and Protestant theologians have developed a set of arguments about God's design for sexuality.
That design includes a spiritual and physical bond between two people who engage in sexual intercourse. (This bonding is a process, it likely begins long before the process of intercourse arrives at its climax.)
The arguments depend mostly on an explication of Natural Law as argued by men like Aquinas.
Those arguments arrive at the point that the natural design of the human body gives us strong reason to believe that non-heterosexual behavior is harmful to the spirit.*
Likewise, heterosexual behavior outside of a lifetime-bonded couple is claimed to be dangerous to the spiritual life of a believer.**
In the realm of inspired Scripture, the Apostle Paul said such directly in one of his letters to the church in Corinth.
If you don't think such men have the right understanding of the body or of Natural Law, then you probably won't accept their arguments.
If you don't accept the thesis that a God exists and has communicated His thoughts to humanity***, then you probably don't agree with the statements of those who follow God.
----footnotes----------------------
* There are also potential dangers to the body from homosexual intercourse. They are not limited to AIDS. There are others diseases correlated with anal intercourse between men.
But these are statistical risks, not certainties...
**Heterosexual adultery may also involve dangers to the health of the participants.
Adultery or fornication can also create situations in which poor women are stuck with a child and no guarantee of support from the child's father. Which usually means a hard life.
Even in the bad old days of the American Colonies, unmarried mothers had legal means to get child-support from the father of their child. This appears to be rooted in English Common Law.
Which shows us how long the culture of the English-speaking world has tried to find ways to alleviate the problems of unmarried mothers...
*** God is claimed to have communicated through prophets, the inspired writings which have been gathered in Scripture, and His Incarnation as the man Jesus.
However, men like Aquinas also claimed that God speaks through nature, and that the mind of the believer or unbeliever can learn portions of His message to humanity by studying nature.
@Renee,
Who uses the term 'f*g' or have a discussion where it comes up family gatherings?
Well, if parts of the family were born or grew up in the British-English-speaking world, they might be speaking about cigarettes.
I only would observe that, typically, there are very few people to offend in the locales where crabmen and lumberjacks ply their trades. For this reason, I always find it easy to ignore their rhetorical excesses. Otherwise, a typical fact-free rant by Hansen.
As for the Duck Dynasty gang, if the white Southerners caricatured on TV by the millionaire Robertson's are happy with the thespian family's portrayal of white attitudes in the last bastion of Anglo-Saxon purity, then it's OK by me, too.
Anglo-Saxon purity? WTF? These people are Scotch-Irish.
Bitch, please!!
CWJ said…“‘Interracial marriage is immoral’ is not analogous to ‘homosexuality is immoral.’ If at all, the analogy is interracial marriage/same sex marriage. [P]lease tighten up your logic.”
No, it logically follows and should go without saying that the group of people who hold the belief that homosexuality is immoral will further hold the belief that same-sex marriage is immoral, too. I defy you to show how an exception could be coherent. The only scenario that comes to my mind are those rare individuals who believe homosexuality is immoral, but they support same-sex marriage because they think marriage will kill the sex for good, so they see it as a good cause to advocate for and can sometimes be seen outside courthouses chanting alongside GLAAD atop the unicorns they rode in on.
As for the converse group, namely those who think homosexuality is not immoral, yet they oppose same-sex marriage on the grounds it should be between a man and a woman—while this stance has more real-world adherents, they’re completely irrelevant to my argument. My argument was about the Duck Dynasty flap and against Phil Robertson’s opinion (and its supporters) which is homosexuality is immoral. So this is the core belief around which to build the argument against and so the converse group and their stance is logically excluded because they hold the opposite view of that core belief.
I can already see you repeating at least part of your quibble because I probably haven’t sufficiently bridged the gap in that enormous logical hole in your thinking for you to get all of it, but I have to move on.
virgil xenophone said…“Mikio bases his arguments about "choice" re homosexuality on bad science…” blah blah blah
Are you glad you got that out of your system? Because from what I saw, it didn’t refute anything I said whatsoever. Go ahead and juxtapose any of my lines with any of your lines to show a refutation.
Here’s a line of yours that at least is aimed in the right direction at something I said, but it still pathetically fell to the grass halfway to the target:
“According to Compte and your intellectual crowd the will of the living majority is the only valid way to make social policy, so by those guiding intellectual lights it would seem tough luck for the 1.7% right?”
First of all, I’m hardly an intellectual. I had to google this Compte guy as well as logical positivism because I didn’t know wtf you were talking about and I still don’t because when I saw how big the Wikipedia entries were I said fuck that, I’m not reading all that. But it doesn’t matter because you’re making a ridiculous claim that liberalism is supposed to align perfectly with logical positivism so you can spot a contradiction between the two and pose for your victory pics standing over the straw man whose ass you just kicked.
If, as you say, logical positivism posits majority rule as somehow always best for society, well, that’s pretty damn dumb, don’t you think? I suspect you’re exaggerating that position and ignoring its caveats anyway, based on what you’ve shown so far. And if anything, majority rule is a stance of political conservatism more than political liberalism based on observation of American politics alone. What minority groups do American conservatives advocate for other than the 1-percenters? Everything else, conservatives are the majority-rulists – whites, heterosexuals, Christians – while liberals stand for the minority groups as evidenced by Republicans getting none or next to none of them under their tent while Democrats getting essentially all of them. (But Democrats are the racists, right?) The minority group who are the focus of this very thread—homosexuals—it’s liberals who are their advocates while it’s conservatives who are their opponents. Yep, there’s that typical conservative psychological projection rearing its ugly head again.
Anthony said…“Mikio, I'd like to thank you for your spirited defense of the Hollywood Blacklist in your first comment.”
Yeah, because the Hollywood blacklisting that was an industry-wide phenomenon was just like the one cable channel A&E; and which targeted people based on mere suspicion was just like Phil Robertson’s printed GQ interview; and which denied them work for years was exactly like Phil Robertson’s 9-day suspension. Yeah, totally works as analogy. Just in case that wasn’t clear, that was heavy sarcasm. In other words, while only one those massive differences would’ve been enough to show your analogy failing, that shows it failed 3x over. Nicely done.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा