Prop 8 battle turns violent

[Lord Poe]

Are you saying you'd be able to be level headed if someone was actively seeking to deprive you of the same rights as the rest of the nation?

Well hell, I hope those nasty obese people don't start punching or sitting on proponents who want to bar them from fast-food restaurants!

What?

Seriously, what does this have to do with anything at all in this thread?

If you can't see it, it won't matter if I explain it to you.

[Ender]

Gotta say, I expected this in the reverse - someone pushing yes assaulting those pushing no.

[General Zod]

If you can't see it, it won't matter if I explain it to you.

So we're allowed to spout off inane non sequitors here with no explanation and pretend they're valid points now?

[Mr. Coffee]

No, Zod, what Poe and Kodiak are trying to tell you is you whole outrageous jag is retarded. Arguing with someone that disagrees is one thing, yelling and screaming at them as long as threats of bodily harm aren't involved is kosher too, but throwing punches crosses the line into "it's against the fucking law" outrageous. It's uncalled for and if you seriously think that punching people because you disagree with them isn't outrageous behavior then you're an asshole.

[Lord Poe]

If you can't see it, it won't matter if I explain it to you.

So we're allowed to spout off inane non sequitors here with no explanation and pretend they're valid points now?

Did you read what you wrote, asswipe? ]"Are you saying you'd be able to be level headed if someone was actively seeking to deprive you of the same rights as the rest of the nation?"

Are you seriously so fucking dense that you don't see the comparison? Or are you ignorant of the proposal I'm using to lampoon what you said?

[Rogue 9]

No on Prop 8 officials quickly issued a statement saying violence during the campaign is disgraceful and cannot be tollerated.

Anyone have thoughts on this?[/quote]
Well, I must confess that my initial thought is that your local news outlet needs a better copy editor.

Anyhow, it's unfortunate, but occasional incidents like this are to be expected over such an emotionally charged issue. It's not acceptable, but it's not exactly a huge shock.

[General Zod]

Did you read what you wrote, asswipe? ]"Are you saying you'd be able to be level headed if someone was actively seeking to deprive you of the same rights as the rest of the nation?"

Are you seriously so fucking dense that you don't see the comparison? Or are you ignorant of the proposal I'm using to lampoon what you said?

I'll ask you the same thing I did Kodiak. Since when does not being level headed automatically translate into being violent? Or are you suggesting someone can get angry and incensed but as long as they stop short of violence they're still level headed?

No, Zod, what Poe and Kodiak are trying to tell you is you whole outrageous jag is retarded. Arguing with someone that disagrees is one thing, yelling and screaming at them as long as threats of bodily harm aren't involved is kosher too, but throwing punches crosses the line into "it's against the fucking law" outrageous. It's uncalled for and if you seriously think that punching people because you disagree with them isn't outrageous behavior then you're an asshole.

Learn to read and see my response above.

[Mr. Coffee]

Zod, punching someone because you disagree with them is NOT levelheaded.

[General Zod]

Zod, punching someone because you disagree with them is NOT levelheaded.

It's a good thing I wasn't calling it level headed anywhere in my posts then.

[Kodiak]

I'll ask you the same thing I did Kodiak. Since when does not being level headed automatically translate into being violent? Or are you suggesting someone can get angry and incensed but as long as they stop short of violence they're still level headed?

I'm saying that being level-headed precludes violence, not that being not level headed automatically leads to violence. That's what we're trying to get across. You cannot be level-headed and violent at the same time, you CAN be non-violent and not level-headed.

[General Zod]

I'll ask you the same thing I did Kodiak. Since when does not being level headed automatically translate into being violent? Or are you suggesting someone can get angry and incensed but as long as they stop short of violence they're still level headed?

I'm saying that being level-headed precludes violence, not that being not level headed automatically leads to violence. That's what we're trying to get across. You cannot be level-headed and violent at the same time, you CAN be non-violent and not level-headed.

You do realize this is the entire point I was trying to make in my original freaking post, yes?

[Kodiak]

You do realize this is the entire point I was trying to make in my original freaking post, yes?

I do now that you said so. Perhaps since Poe, Coffee, and myself didn't understand you it's because you weren't clear?

[General Zod]

You do realize this is the entire point I was trying to make in my original freaking post, yes?

I do now that you said so. Perhaps since Poe, Coffee, and myself didn't understand you it's because you weren't clear?

How the fuck was this post not clear enough?

"Level-headed" means "don't punch them in the face" now? Is expressing yourself in other forms of outrage being perfectly level headed as long as nobody's getting punched?

[Ryan Thunder]

[...]Gays wanting to be able to marry their partners aren't hurting anyone by being allowed to do so; no real harm is being done to anyone by allowing gays to marry.

I realize I'm probably going to get my face ripped off for asking this, but since you put it that way, what real harm is being done by not allowing them to marry?

Just to be clear and hopefully minimize the face-ripping: I do not in any way, shape, or form, support this bill, or any other legislation that would limit a person's right based on their sexuality, race, or <insert harmless characteristic or behavior here>.

I think riots in the street are a lot more likely if Proposition 8 is shot down than if it passes.

Dunno. Were there riots when gay marriages were legalized the first time around? If not, then I wouldn't expect them this time, either.

[General Zod]

[...]Gays wanting to be able to marry their partners aren't hurting anyone by being allowed to do so; no real harm is being done to anyone by allowing gays to marry.

I realize I'm probably going to get my face ripped off for asking this, but since you put it that way, what real harm is being done by not allowing them to marry?

The fact that they're effectively made second class citizens by not having the same rights as everyone else? The fact that they don't get tax breaks like everyone else? Or hospital visitation privileges? Shared health care? Executor of estates in the case of their partner being terminally ill? Recognition across state lines? Just for starters.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

In California, it's more or less a case of segregation. But again, this is more than just a state fight because it will affect the rest of the nation. Where California goes, the nation goes.

[Darth Wong]

Are you saying you'd be able to be level headed if someone was actively seeking to deprive you of the same rights as the rest of the nation?

Well hell, I hope those nasty obese people don't start punching or sitting on proponents who want to bar them from fast-food restaurants!

I haven't heard of this idea being seriously made into a proposition, but you have to admit that when something is being done for your own good, it's not exactly the same thing as doing it because they just plain hate you. It's like the laws which impose all sorts of restrictions on cigarette smoking; the smokers whine about "discrimination", but these laws are actually intended to save lives.

[apocolypse]

I got my absentee ballot today, of which I'll be checking no on prop 8. Here's to hoping a majority of others follow suit.

[Durandal]

Boo hoo. A hate monger got punched in the face.

Cry me a river.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Boo hoo. A hate monger got punched in the face.

Cry me a river.

that is pretty much my response. fucker deserves it

[Elfdart]

"Fag bashes fag-basher"...

...kinda like "man bites dog", isn't it?

[DrMckay]

It's always easy to laud the nonviolent struggle/protest/suffering of a marginalized minority you are not a part of. They're not physically fighting back, and they're not scary. in a primitive, physical way, they've already been beaten.

It's when the oppressed loose their patience, and decide they're not gonna take the crap anymore, and begin to fight back that people outside of the minority group, whatever it is, get scared. You hear a lot about the how and why Ghandi, King, or the Dali Llama changed history, but many people are unwilling to admit that their ideals are in the minority of societal change and protest.

The sheer bloodiness of the French revolution, when the Wealthy and titled were executed by the mob, The Warsaw Ghetto uprising in 1942, where not all the Jews in poland went quietly, the Rodney King Riots demonstrating a continued frustration with the status quo.

Sorry if I rambled a bit. The topic made me consider it from both angles, however, it appears to me that people in power, or at least not members of visible minorities will always be fearful of 'the oppressed' actually taking to the streets and fighting back, many of whom will translate this fear into an unwillingness to accept that minorities may have a breaking point, and incredulous when the point is reached.

[The Romulan Republic]

It's always easy to laud the nonviolent struggle/protest/suffering of a marginalized minority you are not a part of. They're not physically fighting back, and they're not scary. in a primitive, physical way, they've already been beaten.

Its unfortunate that you consider non-violent resistance to amount to being beaten. And fortunate that the rest of the world does not all share that view.

It's when the oppressed loose their patience, and decide they're not gonna take the crap anymore, and begin to fight back that people outside of the minority group, whatever it is, get scared. You hear a lot about the how and why Ghandi, King, or the Dali Llama changed history, but many people are unwilling to admit that their ideals are in the minority of societal change and protest.

But they did bring change, none the less. Well, the Dali Llama hasn't gotten far with China yet, but the others achieved a great deal of positive change. And yet you equated non-violent resistance to being "beaten".

[Alyrium Denryle]

It's always easy to laud the nonviolent struggle/protest/suffering of a marginalized minority you are not a part of. They're not physically fighting back, and they're not scary. in a primitive, physical way, they've already been beaten.

Its unfortunate that you consider non-violent resistance to amount to being beaten. And fortunate that the rest of the world does not all share that view.

It's when the oppressed loose their patience, and decide they're not gonna take the crap anymore, and begin to fight back that people outside of the minority group, whatever it is, get scared. You hear a lot about the how and why Ghandi, King, or the Dali Llama changed history, but many people are unwilling to admit that their ideals are in the minority of societal change and protest.

But they did bring change, none the less. Well, the Dali Llama hasn't gotten far with China yet, but the others achieved a great deal of positive change. And yet you equated non-violent resistance to being "beaten".

The only way to get non-violent change in this country is, frankly, when you are A) A visible Minority. B) A Minority where sufficient numbers of those in your group are not ashamed or afraid to "exist" socially.

We are hardly black people who form a huge portion of the population in the Jim Crow south, or Indians, who ARE the population of india. We are less than three percent of the population, 4-5 if you are being generous and assuming a LOT of closet cases. What are we going to do? Hold a sit in at people's weddings? Oh yeah, that'll gain sympathy

Take a look at the fucking numbers. Every time an anti-gay marriage ballot initiative comes to a vote, it passes (with the exception of AZ, but that will soon be remedied). We have been introducing the same legislation in congress, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, for thirty fucking years. Originally it covered housing discrimination too, but that was found to be over-reaching, so we decided to settle for protection from discrimination in employment. It has never passed both houses of congress, and usually it is a legislative miracle to get it out of fucking committee.

Same with hate crime legislation.

Hell, the hate is so bad, that 10% of gay teenagers come out of HS, if they make it at all (teen suicide rates are IIRC 7 times higher than the rest of the population, to to the point that it pulls down life expectancy) with PTSD. The school systems, often intentionally, leave these kids crying in the dark with no one to turn to but drugs or the barrel of a gun.

Now you tell me? Isnt AT LEAST punching someone in the face more than understandable? Dont you think that it is just a little bit actually justified. There is a person sitting there, basically calling you sub-human, and actively working to keep you cowed underneath their boot. Dont you think the least they deserve is a right hook?

[DrMckay]

It's always easy to laud the nonviolent struggle/protest/suffering of a marginalized minority you are not a part of. They're not physically fighting back, and they're not scary. in a primitive, physical way, they've already been beaten.

Its unfortunate that you consider non-violent resistance to amount to being beaten. And fortunate that the rest of the world does not all share that view.

It's when the oppressed loose their patience, and decide they're not gonna take the crap anymore, and begin to fight back that people outside of the minority group, whatever it is, get scared. You hear a lot about the how and why Ghandi, King, or the Dali Llama changed history, but many people are unwilling to admit that their ideals are in the minority of societal change and protest.

But they did bring change, none the less. Well, the Dali Llama hasn't gotten far with China yet, but the others achieved a great deal of positive change. And yet you equated non-violent resistance to being "beaten".

Actually, if you read what I wrote, I am talking about the perceptions of non-violent civil disobedience by people who are not part of the protesting minority, on a basic, instinctual level. I am also attempting to point out that nonviolent protest methods are a fairly modern, (and relatively unused) form of protest or method for social or political change. I am not attempting to disparage practitioners of this philosophy, but am instead pointing out its perceptions by the "masses" and overall usage and effectiveness throughout history.

Despite the courage and conviction shown by King, Gandhi, and their followers, Civil Rights and racism in America is still a very sensitive topic, (Watch some election coverage,) and India isn't exactly a happy wonderful place either.

Let me put it this way:

You are an 'average' (read: white, christian, middle class-those Heartland people the Repubs like to wax eloquent about and screw over when elected.) you have a loving family, a secure job, a nice house and car. you just want things to keep going as they have been going.

What would be more likely to 'encourage' you to accept other minorities you may either despise or simply not have daily contact with? (Or at least tolerate them)

1) A group of people you have never met, or have been told are inferior/unnatural protesting peacefully in designated areas, marching, holding up signs,

Or:

2) That same group of people rioting

Which will be the most immediate problem? Which causes the most fear/awareness.

Think about it.