because race and religion are essential demographic qualifiers, and democracy is demographics
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Joining all Republicans voting no were four Democrats...
Your politics are weird. In the UK any party member voting against their party's own budget would be... well he'd probably be an 'Independant' the next day.
It's race. If something looks weird about American politics, there is a 95% chance it has to do with slavery.
Joining all Republicans voting no were four Democrats...
Your politics are weird. In the UK any party member voting against their party's own budget would be... well he'd probably be an 'Independant' the next day.
The U.S. has way less party discipline than basically any other consolidated industrial democracy. It's a historical feature of American democracy.
Also, the budget is basically the most important bill in any Westminster-style government, it must pass. Not passing a budget basically means there is no government. The US works... differently
Yea, in the US the budget is basically each groups wish list for the appropriation bills to follow. It's not binding or anything.
There a reason why you'd do things in this manner, or is it just an unfortunate case of the word budget not meaning what it historically did?
Some of it is the government is fucking big. It's easier to figure out all the Transportation related stuff and pass a bill rather than to work on something that would be like 30 times the size if you did it all at once.
So according to 538, Obama has broke even on public opinion on his handling of the economy. 50% of people polled think the republicans would handle the economy better. Apparently they polled complete fucking idiots....
But with more budget battles approaching, over raising the nation’s borrowing limit and perhaps reaching a grand bargain, Mr. Obama’s advantage over Congressional Republicans has all but vanished. Public approval of his handling of the economy has slipped, according to polls, and surveys now show that a roughly equal number of Americans favor Mr. Obama as favor Congressional Republicans on economic matters.
Yea, in the US the budget is basically each groups wish list for the appropriation bills to follow. It's not binding or anything.
There a reason why you'd do things in this manner, or is it just an unfortunate case of the word budget not meaning what it historically did?
Some of it is the government is fucking big. It's easier to figure out all the Transportation related stuff and pass a bill rather than to work on something that would be like 30 times the size if you did it all at once.
Fair enough, though is there actually anything stopping you doing it backwards - especially since the Executive has control of the departments doesn't it? Do appropriations bills require a budget other than to provide guidelines as to what a sort of a budget they're working with?
Presumably it's not possible to give the departments a draft budget (what you did last time +/- X) and then deal with appropriations on a first come first serve, since this sounds to be the same as it is anyway if the budget itself isn't binding? Terrible precedent, but it seems a way to get some departments/services that everyone can agree on as being necessary funded. Change things from being 'more spending on the military!' to 'we still need Firetrucks, yes?"
Yea, in the US the budget is basically each groups wish list for the appropriation bills to follow. It's not binding or anything.
There a reason why you'd do things in this manner, or is it just an unfortunate case of the word budget not meaning what it historically did?
Some of it is the government is fucking big. It's easier to figure out all the Transportation related stuff and pass a bill rather than to work on something that would be like 30 times the size if you did it all at once.
Fair enough, though is there actually anything stopping you doing it backwards - especially since the Executive has control of the departments doesn't it? Do appropriations bills require a budget other than to provide guidelines as to what a sort of a budget they're working with?
Presumably it's not possible to give the departments a draft budget (what you did last time +/- X) and then deal with appropriations on a first come first serve, since this sounds to be the same as it is anyway if the budget itself isn't binding? Terrible precedent, but it seems a way to get some departments/services that everyone can agree on as being necessary funded. Change things from being 'more spending on the military!' to 'we still need Firetrucks, yes?"
Wouldnt this just result in basically only the military getting funded?
Yea, in the US the budget is basically each groups wish list for the appropriation bills to follow. It's not binding or anything.
There a reason why you'd do things in this manner, or is it just an unfortunate case of the word budget not meaning what it historically did?
Some of it is the government is fucking big. It's easier to figure out all the Transportation related stuff and pass a bill rather than to work on something that would be like 30 times the size if you did it all at once.
Fair enough, though is there actually anything stopping you doing it backwards - especially since the Executive has control of the departments doesn't it? Do appropriations bills require a budget other than to provide guidelines as to what a sort of a budget they're working with?
Presumably it's not possible to give the departments a draft budget (what you did last time +/- X) and then deal with appropriations on a first come first serve, since this sounds to be the same as it is anyway if the budget itself isn't binding? Terrible precedent, but it seems a way to get some departments/services that everyone can agree on as being necessary funded. Change things from being 'more spending on the military!' to 'we still need Firetrucks, yes?"
Wouldnt this just result in basically only the military getting funded?
Can only hope that parts of the population with the most harmful stupid views die out really (I've given up hope that some of them will learn better, partly because our media is so fucking fail). It just shows people aren't bothering to pay attention because the whole sequestration mess is a result conservative stupidity (let's be honest current world events seem to show the austerity hardon during recession is a conservative thing and not just GOP bullshit). I'm pretty sure if more people were paying attention, the GOP would have less than 30% approval for their handling of the economy.
Can only hope that parts of the population with the most harmful stupid views die out really (I've given up hope that some of them will learn better, partly because our media is so fucking fail). It just shows people aren't bothering to pay attention because the whole sequestration mess is a result conservative stupidity (let's be honest current world events seem to show the austerity hardon during recession is a conservative thing and not just GOP bullshit). I'm pretty sure if more people were paying attention, the GOP would have less than 30% approval for their handling of the economy.
I think anti-gay people and racists will die, but not all at once. There will be a big die-off with the boomers, but those ideas have at least a little traction with other generations. I'm not sure about other problematic views. Latino Americans will put pressure on opening up the barriers to immigration, but I'm not sure how extensive it will be, or if the emphasis of open-er borders will be on Middle and South American countries.
With respect to economic policy views more generally, I'm not sure why any particular group should be particularly hopeful to see policy start to favor them.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
The enemy shifts with the battle. Yeah, the people who think women shouldn't have the vote are gone, but the anti-gay marriage crowd is still here. When they're gone, the scum of the earth will be those bastard Gen Xers who won't abide Raccoon-Americans or whatever. Robot sex. Marrying fictional characters. Whatever the new thing is destroying traditional American life. In a few generations, Mexican-Americans will be complaining about the illegals immigrating from Russia or wherever.
Less jokingly, even the younger generation is not terribly tolerant of the T and the B in LGBT, not to mention polyamory, furries, bronies...
Basically there will always be that bottom third or whatever of assholes, but their gripes will get less and less important to most people (and therefore more and more pernicious to actually get rid of).
Less jokingly, even the younger generation is not terribly tolerant of the T and the B in LGBT, not to mention polyamory, furries, bronies...
Some people deserve shame.
Case in point. You're on the wrong side of history, my friend. Who are you to say a man can't be, love, or marry a pony? But someday you'll die off and the next generation will think differently.
To put it a little more seriously, prejudice is wrong, no matter who the target, no matter whether that target is considered fair game (bronies) or not (gays). And who is or is not fair game is going to change, I guarantee it.
The enemy shifts with the battle. Yeah, the people who think women shouldn't have the vote are gone, but the anti-gay marriage crowd is still here. When they're gone, the scum of the earth will be those bastard Gen Xers who won't abide Raccoon-Americans or whatever. Robot sex. Marrying fictional characters. Whatever the new thing is destroying traditional American life. In a few generations, Mexican-Americans will be complaining about the illegals immigrating from Russia or wherever.
Less jokingly, even the younger generation is not terribly tolerant of the T and the B in LGBT, not to mention polyamory, furries, bronies...
Basically there will always be that bottom third or whatever of assholes, but their gripes will get less and less important to most people (and therefore more and more pernicious to actually get rid of).
The thing I truly wonder about the kind of bigotry we see toward the LGBT community and if it's it only really gets so much play because the really strong racists who fought against minority rights are just old or dead now.
What I'm trying to say is that I think a certain segment of the population, for whatever reason, are just horrible and broken people, and they will hate whatever they're legally allowed to hate to the extent the law allows it. If we were still fighting the struggle for equal protection based on race or gender, these people would probably still oppose it even now. Because hate is so much of their personal identity, and they don't really know much else.
+4
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Less jokingly, even the younger generation is not terribly tolerant of the T and the B in LGBT, not to mention polyamory, furries, bronies...
Some people deserve shame.
Case in point. You're on the wrong side of history, my friend. Who are you to say a man can't be, love, or marry a pony? But someday you'll die off and the next generation will think differently.
To put it a little more seriously, prejudice is wrong, no matter who the target, no matter whether that target is considered fair game (bronies) or not (gays). And who is or is not fair game is going to change, I guarantee it.
We were actually just talking about this in chat, and I know you're mostly joking to make a point, but equating bronies and shit to legitimate discrimination cheapens the whole enterprise.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
I agree with you in general on that AR, but I think there are plenty of strong racists left around--they've just been shamed into silence, or into speaking in codewords, or in some cases, into Congress. (*rimshot*) It's no longer socially acceptable to be racist; it is becoming socially unacceptable to be homophobic; it will eventually be socially unacceptable to be transphobic. Some people need to hate all the time, and most people need to hate a little bit of the time, and they'll end up hating whoever they can get away with hating in public. (To be fair a lot of people find ways to sublimate this--sports rivalries, for instance.)
So in short I think LGBT bigotry comes from people who got used to that being the best game in town; when it isn't, they'll find something else.
Less jokingly, even the younger generation is not terribly tolerant of the T and the B in LGBT, not to mention polyamory, furries, bronies...
Some people deserve shame.
Case in point. You're on the wrong side of history, my friend. Who are you to say a man can't be, love, or marry a pony? But someday you'll die off and the next generation will think differently.
To put it a little more seriously, prejudice is wrong, no matter who the target, no matter whether that target is considered fair game (bronies) or not (gays). And who is or is not fair game is going to change, I guarantee it.
We were actually just talking about this in chat, and I know you're mostly joking to make a point, but equating bronies and shit to legitimate discrimination cheapens the whole enterprise.
[1960]Equating sodomy to the fight for the rights of the colored man cheapens the whole struggle.[/1960]
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Less jokingly, even the younger generation is not terribly tolerant of the T and the B in LGBT, not to mention polyamory, furries, bronies...
Some people deserve shame.
Case in point. You're on the wrong side of history, my friend. Who are you to say a man can't be, love, or marry a pony? But someday you'll die off and the next generation will think differently.
To put it a little more seriously, prejudice is wrong, no matter who the target, no matter whether that target is considered fair game (bronies) or not (gays). And who is or is not fair game is going to change, I guarantee it.
We were actually just talking about this in chat, and I know you're mostly joking to make a point, but equating bronies and shit to legitimate discrimination cheapens the whole enterprise.
[1960]Equating sodomy to the fight for the rights of the colored man cheapens the whole struggle.[/1960]
I mean, there is legitimate discrimination in this world.
And then there are weirdos who think that they're a cartoon horse.
But this is getting off topic, so I'll just quote myself from that chat discussion:
Both of those are signs that people need to get help. Either because they honestly believe these things or they need to seriously learn how to deal with not being the center of attention.
Well, even though outright racism/sexism/homophobia has become socially unacceptable, the problem hasn't become easier to solve. We just end up with people of privilege thinking that racism/sexism/homophobia is over, that everyone is equal, and not recognizing the fact that there are still problems within the culture itself.
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Less jokingly, even the younger generation is not terribly tolerant of the T and the B in LGBT, not to mention polyamory, furries, bronies...
Some people deserve shame.
Case in point. You're on the wrong side of history, my friend. Who are you to say a man can't be, love, or marry a pony? But someday you'll die off and the next generation will think differently.
To put it a little more seriously, prejudice is wrong, no matter who the target, no matter whether that target is considered fair game (bronies) or not (gays). And who is or is not fair game is going to change, I guarantee it.
We were actually just talking about this in chat, and I know you're mostly joking to make a point, but equating bronies and shit to legitimate discrimination cheapens the whole enterprise.
[1960]Equating sodomy to the fight for the rights of the colored man cheapens the whole struggle.[/1960]
Don't know if you are joking but it's not ever going to be the same thing as that. Brony love is weird because the object of the love does not exist. Somewhere back in the logic department these people should be at least moderately aware that a cartoon animal does not actually exist.
And if it did, they would be in the wrong for romantically engaging with an animal, which is generally considered wrong.
I am well aware that what is fair game to discriminate against has changed significantly, and most sane people correctly see that suppressing women, non-whites, LGBT etc rights is heinous. But there is literally no point to ever have a civil rights struggle for the part of bronies. But I am not fine ridiculing or laughing at them either.
PSN: Honkalot
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I was under the impression that "bronies" was just a subculture of people who like My Little Pony.
Kind of like people who like shit like, say, One Piece.
I was not aware of there being a, uh, psychosis or whatever associated with it.
I'm not sure if that affects my feelings or not, and I'm not sure if my feelings can be trusted, because, hey, maybe I'm just tomorrow's bigot.
I think you're actually right regarding the word brony, I think most of us were talking about something that came up the other day though where someone had a committed relationship with one of the pony's. Viewing it as if they had married.
I think by trivializing the gains by using "just" as you do, you do a disservice to all the people who have fought and bled and died and made phone calls and written letters in the service of the very real gains that, while not enough, are real.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I agree with you in general on that AR, but I think there are plenty of strong racists left around--they've just been shamed into silence, or into speaking in codewords, or in some cases, into Congress. (*rimshot*) It's no longer socially acceptable to be racist; it is becoming socially unacceptable to be homophobic; it will eventually be socially unacceptable to be transphobic. Some people need to hate all the time, and most people need to hate a little bit of the time, and they'll end up hating whoever they can get away with hating in public. (To be fair a lot of people find ways to sublimate this--sports rivalries, for instance.)
So in short I think LGBT bigotry comes from people who got used to that being the best game in town; when it isn't, they'll find something else.
Well that's basically it: a lot of people just need to hate. They need to wake up every day feeling superior to "others," and they need to express those unfounded notions of dominance whenever possible.
It's the reason that a common point of conversation within the conservative distortion bubble is "Gah, liberals are SO stupid, and conservatives are SO smart." First of all, no rational (or intelligent) person has conversations that use words like that, and liberals certainly don't sitting around talking like that. Yes, liberals frequently accuse conservatives of being ignorant, but that's usually in the context of something specific, a la, "Why would anyone decrease access to community health resources without a contingency for the economic havok that will wreak on the infrastructure? That's just ignorant."
It pains me to no end that this is way the civilized world still works.
Unless Obama is a brony it seems as though this discussion has wandered off topic.
+2
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
Crazy people are crazy. Let's please not color a quality and successful childrens' show with the delusions of the crazies. It doesn't do a service to anything.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
and liberals certainly don't sitting around talking like that...
*stifled laughter*
And actually, yeah, good point. This forum is itself a kind of ivory tower, not just from, say, the denizens of the numerous far right communities, but from the more base people on the left and various subcultures in between.
I tend to assume that this community is itself a community of mouthbreathers in some sense, but being somewhat of a fellow mouthbreather in whatever that sense is, I don't know what it would be.
Unless Obama is a brony it seems as though this discussion has wandered off topic.
Sounds like we need to start a petition.
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
and liberals certainly don't sitting around talking like that...
*stifled laughter*
And actually, yeah, good point. This forum is itself a kind of ivory tower, not just from, say, the denizens of the numerous far right communities, but from the more base people on the left and various subcultures in between.
I tend to assume that this community is itself a community of mouthbreathers in some sense, but being somewhat of a fellow mouthbreather in whatever that sense is, I don't know what it would be.
I would dare say that 25% of "liberals" are as ridiculous as the 25% of conservatives that still think Obama is a secret Muslim from Kenya. Or the 80% that think that poor women shouldn't have access to health resources. Or any number of the horrible shit that conservatives believe in huge numbers. There's no left-leaning analogue for Glenn Beck getting on TV and calling the president a Nazi. There's no analogue for Sarah Palin using the term "lamestream media" over and over while she proudly supports the right to be a horrible bigot or to get as much diabetes as you want.
Yes, every group large enough is going to have its token dumbass collective. The trick is that the Left doesn't vote them into office and let them dictate policy at the forefront of the party.
+4
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Less jokingly, even the younger generation is not terribly tolerant of the T and the B in LGBT, not to mention polyamory, furries, bronies...
Some people deserve shame.
Case in point. You're on the wrong side of history, my friend. Who are you to say a man can't be, love, or marry a pony? But someday you'll die off and the next generation will think differently.
To put it a little more seriously, prejudice is wrong, no matter who the target, no matter whether that target is considered fair game (bronies) or not (gays). And who is or is not fair game is going to change, I guarantee it.
We were actually just talking about this in chat, and I know you're mostly joking to make a point, but equating bronies and shit to legitimate discrimination cheapens the whole enterprise.
If the goal of the "enterprise" is strictly towards legal protections for minorities, maybe. But most minority organizations are also trying to change the culture, as well; and whether or not bronies are the right hill to die on, I think it's a useful thing overall to step back and look at whether we (the universal we) are practicing behavior in one context that we're trying to fight in another.
I don't know enough the subculture to say whether bronies are a case of obsessive fandom, mental illness, or lonely people embracing a harmless fantasy (I suspect you could find all three in that group), but I know enough about how human beings should treat each other that it doesn't matter. To go back to the original comment that I replied to, nobody deserves shame for what they are or who they love.
and liberals certainly don't sitting around talking like that...
*stifled laughter*
And actually, yeah, good point. This forum is itself a kind of ivory tower, not just from, say, the denizens of the numerous far right communities, but from the more base people on the left and various subcultures in between.
I tend to assume that this community is itself a community of mouthbreathers in some sense, but being somewhat of a fellow mouthbreather in whatever that sense is, I don't know what it would be.
I would dare say that 25% of "liberals" are as ridiculous as the 25% of conservatives that still think Obama is a secret Muslim from Kenya. Or the 80% that think that poor women shouldn't have access to health resources. Or any number of the horrible shit that conservatives believe in huge numbers. There's no left-leaning analogue for Glenn Beck getting on TV and calling the president a Nazi. There's no analogue for Sarah Palin using the term "lamestream media" over and over while she proudly supports the right to be a horrible bigot or to get as much diabetes as you want.
Yes, every group large enough is going to have its token dumbass collective. The trick is that the Left doesn't vote them into office and let them dictate policy at the forefront of the party.
True, but it's still an evasion--you were talking about the culture at large, not the elected officials and pundits. The left has its share of hippies, Communists, OWSers, ecoterrorists, and people way too for the ethical treatment of animals; they just don't get a lot of play in this country, arguably because the extreme of the left is further from the center than the extreme of the right is (that's nothing new though).
Posts
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Like I said: weird
Also, the budget is basically the most important bill in any Westminster-style government, it must pass. Not passing a budget basically means there is no government. The US works... differently
Some of it is the government is fucking big. It's easier to figure out all the Transportation related stuff and pass a bill rather than to work on something that would be like 30 times the size if you did it all at once.
But with more budget battles approaching, over raising the nation’s borrowing limit and perhaps reaching a grand bargain, Mr. Obama’s advantage over Congressional Republicans has all but vanished. Public approval of his handling of the economy has slipped, according to polls, and surveys now show that a roughly equal number of Americans favor Mr. Obama as favor Congressional Republicans on economic matters.
Fair enough, though is there actually anything stopping you doing it backwards - especially since the Executive has control of the departments doesn't it? Do appropriations bills require a budget other than to provide guidelines as to what a sort of a budget they're working with?
Presumably it's not possible to give the departments a draft budget (what you did last time +/- X) and then deal with appropriations on a first come first serve, since this sounds to be the same as it is anyway if the budget itself isn't binding? Terrible precedent, but it seems a way to get some departments/services that everyone can agree on as being necessary funded. Change things from being 'more spending on the military!' to 'we still need Firetrucks, yes?"
Wouldnt this just result in basically only the military getting funded?
Yeah, we're trying to change things, Tastyfish.
Can only hope that parts of the population with the most harmful stupid views die out really (I've given up hope that some of them will learn better, partly because our media is so fucking fail). It just shows people aren't bothering to pay attention because the whole sequestration mess is a result conservative stupidity (let's be honest current world events seem to show the austerity hardon during recession is a conservative thing and not just GOP bullshit). I'm pretty sure if more people were paying attention, the GOP would have less than 30% approval for their handling of the economy.
I think anti-gay people and racists will die, but not all at once. There will be a big die-off with the boomers, but those ideas have at least a little traction with other generations. I'm not sure about other problematic views. Latino Americans will put pressure on opening up the barriers to immigration, but I'm not sure how extensive it will be, or if the emphasis of open-er borders will be on Middle and South American countries.
With respect to economic policy views more generally, I'm not sure why any particular group should be particularly hopeful to see policy start to favor them.
Less jokingly, even the younger generation is not terribly tolerant of the T and the B in LGBT, not to mention polyamory, furries, bronies...
Basically there will always be that bottom third or whatever of assholes, but their gripes will get less and less important to most people (and therefore more and more pernicious to actually get rid of).
Some people deserve shame.
Case in point. You're on the wrong side of history, my friend. Who are you to say a man can't be, love, or marry a pony? But someday you'll die off and the next generation will think differently.
To put it a little more seriously, prejudice is wrong, no matter who the target, no matter whether that target is considered fair game (bronies) or not (gays). And who is or is not fair game is going to change, I guarantee it.
That's just fucking math, man. Checkmate!
The thing I truly wonder about the kind of bigotry we see toward the LGBT community and if it's it only really gets so much play because the really strong racists who fought against minority rights are just old or dead now.
What I'm trying to say is that I think a certain segment of the population, for whatever reason, are just horrible and broken people, and they will hate whatever they're legally allowed to hate to the extent the law allows it. If we were still fighting the struggle for equal protection based on race or gender, these people would probably still oppose it even now. Because hate is so much of their personal identity, and they don't really know much else.
We were actually just talking about this in chat, and I know you're mostly joking to make a point, but equating bronies and shit to legitimate discrimination cheapens the whole enterprise.
So in short I think LGBT bigotry comes from people who got used to that being the best game in town; when it isn't, they'll find something else.
[1960]Equating sodomy to the fight for the rights of the colored man cheapens the whole struggle.[/1960]
I mean, there is legitimate discrimination in this world.
And then there are weirdos who think that they're a cartoon horse.
But this is getting off topic, so I'll just quote myself from that chat discussion:
Kind of like people who like shit like, say, One Piece.
I was not aware of there being a, uh, psychosis or whatever associated with it.
I'm not sure if that affects my feelings or not, and I'm not sure if my feelings can be trusted, because, hey, maybe I'm just tomorrow's bigot.
Don't know if you are joking but it's not ever going to be the same thing as that. Brony love is weird because the object of the love does not exist. Somewhere back in the logic department these people should be at least moderately aware that a cartoon animal does not actually exist.
And if it did, they would be in the wrong for romantically engaging with an animal, which is generally considered wrong.
I am well aware that what is fair game to discriminate against has changed significantly, and most sane people correctly see that suppressing women, non-whites, LGBT etc rights is heinous. But there is literally no point to ever have a civil rights struggle for the part of bronies. But I am not fine ridiculing or laughing at them either.
I think you're actually right regarding the word brony, I think most of us were talking about something that came up the other day though where someone had a committed relationship with one of the pony's. Viewing it as if they had married.
Well that's basically it: a lot of people just need to hate. They need to wake up every day feeling superior to "others," and they need to express those unfounded notions of dominance whenever possible.
It's the reason that a common point of conversation within the conservative distortion bubble is "Gah, liberals are SO stupid, and conservatives are SO smart." First of all, no rational (or intelligent) person has conversations that use words like that, and liberals certainly don't sitting around talking like that. Yes, liberals frequently accuse conservatives of being ignorant, but that's usually in the context of something specific, a la, "Why would anyone decrease access to community health resources without a contingency for the economic havok that will wreak on the infrastructure? That's just ignorant."
It pains me to no end that this is way the civilized world still works.
I think that being acutely aware of it is helpful in encountering it, dealing with it, accepting it, and overcoming it.
There's a kind of real world out there that a lot of us who prune our Facebook of certain "friends" can start to lose sight of.
*stifled laughter*
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
And actually, yeah, good point. This forum is itself a kind of ivory tower, not just from, say, the denizens of the numerous far right communities, but from the more base people on the left and various subcultures in between.
I tend to assume that this community is itself a community of mouthbreathers in some sense, but being somewhat of a fellow mouthbreather in whatever that sense is, I don't know what it would be.
Sounds like we need to start a petition.
I would dare say that 25% of "liberals" are as ridiculous as the 25% of conservatives that still think Obama is a secret Muslim from Kenya. Or the 80% that think that poor women shouldn't have access to health resources. Or any number of the horrible shit that conservatives believe in huge numbers. There's no left-leaning analogue for Glenn Beck getting on TV and calling the president a Nazi. There's no analogue for Sarah Palin using the term "lamestream media" over and over while she proudly supports the right to be a horrible bigot or to get as much diabetes as you want.
Yes, every group large enough is going to have its token dumbass collective. The trick is that the Left doesn't vote them into office and let them dictate policy at the forefront of the party.
If the goal of the "enterprise" is strictly towards legal protections for minorities, maybe. But most minority organizations are also trying to change the culture, as well; and whether or not bronies are the right hill to die on, I think it's a useful thing overall to step back and look at whether we (the universal we) are practicing behavior in one context that we're trying to fight in another.
I don't know enough the subculture to say whether bronies are a case of obsessive fandom, mental illness, or lonely people embracing a harmless fantasy (I suspect you could find all three in that group), but I know enough about how human beings should treat each other that it doesn't matter. To go back to the original comment that I replied to, nobody deserves shame for what they are or who they love.
--
True, but it's still an evasion--you were talking about the culture at large, not the elected officials and pundits. The left has its share of hippies, Communists, OWSers, ecoterrorists, and people way too for the ethical treatment of animals; they just don't get a lot of play in this country, arguably because the extreme of the left is further from the center than the extreme of the right is (that's nothing new though).