[News] Current NBA player Jason Collins comes out!
- Thread starter Dave
- Start date
- Status
Come on, what's wrong with a poster weighing in with an opinion. In my experience, Bubble's points tend to be thought out and clearly presented, and he usually sticks around to discuss the issue with anyone voicing a different view. I think discussion about topics is good, and something this place could do with more of.
He adds a certain energy to discussions, and he makes discussions lively. And, as you said, and adds some diversity to the views usually expressed on a topic (but in a way that doesn't make we want to reach through my monitor and choke him). It's definitely a good thing.
You, on the other hand, are a fucking storm cloud roughly 90% of the time.
You, on the other hand, are a fucking storm cloud roughly 90% of the time.
Very good, I'm glad you appreciate Bubble's contribution to these boards.
And you are welcome to your opinion regarding mine.
I predict a 90% chance for rain with heavy winds in this thread.
...everyone agrees my points are ludicrous but my posting style's a good thing? Well, okay than :-P
I think a better English writer could do my points more jsutice though - I tend to veer off topic and often make sweeping statements that wouldn't hold up under my own scrutiny either, if I actually took the time to re-read and edit my posts. It's what you get when I want to make a deeper point but get distracted by shiny objects and/or get rushed or busy at work.
I want to expand on my point and clarify, but my boss is back so it'll be later
*edit*
There we go, he's getting a coffee
Anyway, KO, you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say it was useless - I did mean to say it's essential that both go hand in hand.
"Freedom", for a lot of people, seems to equal "it's not prohibited by law" and nothing more; whereas my view of "Freedom" is actually being able to do it. If you feel you can't openly come out for your political views, religion, sexuality, or whatever, because you're afraid of reprisals - be it the KKK for black people back when, be it loss of income/opportunity due to bigotry, be it fear of being lynched/picketed outside/whatever, society is preventing you from being truly free.
The French Revolution's "Liberté" didn't mean "don't let the State bother you", it meant "be free to do what you want" - French liberalism was closer to what JS Mill and similar had to say on the subject - anyone limiting another person's freedom is overstepping his own.
Mind that this goes in several ways, and legislation forcing people to do things to try to "rectify" social mores/habits feels wrong to me too - I'm firmly against quota-based anti-discrimination laws, for example.
Yes, I know, that's liberal in a meaning not often used these days, and leans close to libertarianism in some ways - and it's unrealistic to expect everyone to follow my standards.
I just find it funny/odd/weird that in the USA, there really seems to be a general consensus that "freedom" is only "the State doesn't tell you you can't do it". The State's not all-powerful, nor is it something that exists or can exist outside of the People it serves. The law is not Justice or some other ideal - the law is what people make of it, and is only a construct of people to reflect opinions and the way you want to govern society.
I think a better English writer could do my points more jsutice though - I tend to veer off topic and often make sweeping statements that wouldn't hold up under my own scrutiny either, if I actually took the time to re-read and edit my posts. It's what you get when I want to make a deeper point but get distracted by shiny objects and/or get rushed or busy at work.
I want to expand on my point and clarify, but my boss is back so it'll be later
*edit*
There we go, he's getting a coffee
Anyway, KO, you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say it was useless - I did mean to say it's essential that both go hand in hand.
"Freedom", for a lot of people, seems to equal "it's not prohibited by law" and nothing more; whereas my view of "Freedom" is actually being able to do it. If you feel you can't openly come out for your political views, religion, sexuality, or whatever, because you're afraid of reprisals - be it the KKK for black people back when, be it loss of income/opportunity due to bigotry, be it fear of being lynched/picketed outside/whatever, society is preventing you from being truly free.
The French Revolution's "Liberté" didn't mean "don't let the State bother you", it meant "be free to do what you want" - French liberalism was closer to what JS Mill and similar had to say on the subject - anyone limiting another person's freedom is overstepping his own.
Mind that this goes in several ways, and legislation forcing people to do things to try to "rectify" social mores/habits feels wrong to me too - I'm firmly against quota-based anti-discrimination laws, for example.
Yes, I know, that's liberal in a meaning not often used these days, and leans close to libertarianism in some ways - and it's unrealistic to expect everyone to follow my standards.
I just find it funny/odd/weird that in the USA, there really seems to be a general consensus that "freedom" is only "the State doesn't tell you you can't do it". The State's not all-powerful, nor is it something that exists or can exist outside of the People it serves. The law is not Justice or some other ideal - the law is what people make of it, and is only a construct of people to reflect opinions and the way you want to govern society.
You said social pressure is just as much oppression as a law, which is a ludicrous statement.
Yes, social pressure plays a large part, but social change against oppression will almost never come without laws guarding against oppression first.
It's thank to law that the KKK was reduced to a *relatively* toothless racist men's club from rampaging heavily-armed gangs after the original Civil Rights Act and multiple state legislatures explicitly criminalized their activities and then brought in federal troops and investigators to prosecute them. Yes, obviously there was still tons of work to do (and remains to do), but the existence of those laws that provide explicit protections is a massively important first step.
Yes, social pressure plays a large part, but social change against oppression will almost never come without laws guarding against oppression first.
It's thank to law that the KKK was reduced to a *relatively* toothless racist men's club from rampaging heavily-armed gangs after the original Civil Rights Act and multiple state legislatures explicitly criminalized their activities and then brought in federal troops and investigators to prosecute them. Yes, obviously there was still tons of work to do (and remains to do), but the existence of those laws that provide explicit protections is a massively important first step.
A post of mine seems to have disappeared - I'm certain I posted that I took back the "just as much".
it's fun that you like to concentrate on one hyperbolic statement instead of actually trying to read comprehensively and understand what I said though.
it's not thanks to the law that the KKK got opposition and resistance - it was because people's minds changed and the people changed the law; those same people opposed the KKK with the law on their side. People's interpretations of what is fair and what is not, what is equal and what is not, matter far more than what a law states. If the law in and of itself was absolutely holy, wel,, first of all that would be ridiculous idolatry, and secondly, blacks and women would still be of less worth than a white man.
it's fun that you like to concentrate on one hyperbolic statement instead of actually trying to read comprehensively and understand what I said though.
it's not thanks to the law that the KKK got opposition and resistance - it was because people's minds changed and the people changed the law; those same people opposed the KKK with the law on their side. People's interpretations of what is fair and what is not, what is equal and what is not, matter far more than what a law states. If the law in and of itself was absolutely holy, wel,, first of all that would be ridiculous idolatry, and secondly, blacks and women would still be of less worth than a white man.
So we agree then, it took the law to actually make the difference.
The social pressure the day before MLK's dream speech the day before the second Civil Rights Act was signed was the same as it was the day after. What had changed, and what he was celebrating, was the affirmative confirmation and protection of the human rights that had previously been denied to black Americans. Neither the social pressure of the era or the law magically made people against the act change their minds, but the law made it supremely harder to take those rights away.
Now who's putting words in someone's mouth?
- Status