Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, March 31, 2013

OTP: April 2013: Daily Caller: Baseball and the GOP: To rebrand the party, think like a sports fan

This week’s GOP autopsy report, commissioned by RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, is a great start in the much-needed task of rebranding the Republican Party. As the chairman acknowledged, “the way we communicate our principles isn’t resonating widely enough” and “we have to be more inclusive.” The report contains 219 recommendations to “connect people to our principles.” To achieve that goal, the party will need a strategic vision of how voters think about politics, which is something that the report lacks. For that, the GOP can learn a lot from another American passion: baseball.

This year, about 75 million Americans will go to the baseball stadium to watch a ballgame, about the same number as those who will vote in next year’s election. We rarely think about why someone becomes a baseball fan, or why they root for a certain team. Nor do we usually think about why someone chooses to vote for a certain political party. But it’s actually a very useful exercise.

When it comes to baseball, fan loyalty has almost nothing to do with the brain, and almost everything to do with the heart. In all of history, there’s never been a baseball fan who rooted for his team because it had the lowest ticket prices, or because it had the most taxpayer-friendly stadium deal, or because its players did the most community service. For the vast majority of Americans, rooting for a baseball team — not to mention, voting for a political party — isn’t really a rational choice; it’s more of a statement of personal identity — a statement telling the world, “This is who I am.” And for most people, defining “who I am” starts with family and community, before branching out into areas like race, age, gender, and class.

Family is pretty straightforward. If your mom and dad are Yankee fans, you’re almost certainly a Yankee fan. The same is true in politics. If your mom and dad are Republicans, you’re almost certainly a Republican.

Community is also pretty straightforward. If you grew up in, say, Philadelphia, chances are pretty great you’re a Phillies fan. Likewise, someone who grew up in Republican territory like, say, suburban Dallas or rural Indiana is much more likely to become a Republican than a nearly identical person from Seattle or Santa Fe.

Cities with more than one baseball team, like New York or Chicago, show revealing breakdowns by race and gender. The racial split in Chicago between Cubs fans on the North Side and White Sox fans on the South Side is well-documented. In New York, there’s an intriguing gender gap between Mets and Yankee fans, with women gravitating a lot more to the Yanks. While there’s a few theories out there trying to explain that, one obvious answer leaps out: Yankees heartthrob Derek Jeter.

In sports, as in politics, people’s convictions can’t be conveniently reduced to who their parents are or what they look like. But those things are an important foundation, upon which more rational sentiments come into being. Once you’re attached to your team on an emotional level — seeing them as a personal reflection of who you are and what you care about most — a rational exterior comes into being through phrases like “the Red Sox are the best team because they have the most heart” or “the Republicans are the best party because they know how to create jobs.”

Tripon Posted: March 31, 2013 at 10:52 AM | 6544 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 5 of 66 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >  Last ›
   401. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: April 02, 2013 at 05:33 PM (#4402386)
Ruben "Tom the Dancing Bug" Bolling, acutally.
   402. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: April 02, 2013 at 05:38 PM (#4402391)
The black family survived slavery, Jim Crow, and mass discrimination, but it crumbled in the 1960's because....?
I nearly spewed all over my monitor. Is this really what you honestly believe?

This does remind me of the the guys at CPAC. Slave owners fed and housed their slaves, so hunger was down for blacks back then. To Snapper, that's just another point in favor of pre-60s society.
   403. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 02, 2013 at 05:41 PM (#4402395)
I nearly spewed all over my monitor.


Don't worry; people often have that type of reaction upon finally realizing that the worldview they've held for decades is incorrect.
   404. zenbitz Posted: April 02, 2013 at 05:45 PM (#4402399)
The word "chance" in this thread re upwardly mobile opportunities is doing some heavy lifting; as in "so you are saying there's a chance"


As for college what a freaking joke. You do not need a college education to perform 99.99% of american jobs. I know several computer programmers with no college degree. The only thing you need an undergraduate education for is to weed out the lazy and medicre minds from graduate school - and non trade grad school is mostly useless as well. The other exception are serious trade degrees like engineering, architecture, or design. Those you can tell because the students are working their asses off, not going to keggers and date raping each other.

And this is from someone who went to school through the 22nd grade
   405. The District Attorney Posted: April 02, 2013 at 05:51 PM (#4402408)
I suppose this is the ultimate example of "there's no difference between the parties" reasoning: 13% of Obama voters either think he is the Antichrist or aren't sure, but voted for him anyway. (p. 6)
   406. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 02, 2013 at 06:10 PM (#4402435)
I grew up around factory workers and middle-management types, with a few state and local political types sprinkled in, and that was their lives. Factory workers in mid-and Southeast Michigan spent their summer weekends driving "up north" with their boats hitched to the back of their cars. The highways were clogged with them. Those weren't rich people and people who'd worked to build their "human capital" and their "personal brand" -- they were people who went to work, got paid, and got on with life.

I remember that scenario well, since I spent several Summer vacations visiting my cousin in Dearborn. His father was a a curator at the Ford Museum, and they lived in a good but hardly fancy middle class neighborhood.

Dearborn itself was about as close to a National Socialist paradise as anyone could possibly exist within the United States. It had a first rate public school system and great playgrounds with swimming pools we could only dream of back in Washington, DC. There was also a Camp Dearborn upstate, owned by the town, where any Dearborn resident could go for a heavily subsidized vacation. Not to mention that any Dearborn resident could buy a retirement home Florida virtually at cost, also owned and operated by the city.

Of course this was also a time of good blue collar union jobs with generous pensions. Lots of luck finding those today. And Dearborn itself was a lily white town run as a virtual dictatorship by a Mayor who openly sympathized with the Ku Klux Klan. The town had everything except an official slogan of Strength Through Joy.
   407. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 02, 2013 at 06:24 PM (#4402446)
(402) You are feigning your shock to score a cheap rhetorical point.

There is no fair way to read my comment except as condemnation of slavery and Jim Crow.

We don't say you survive good things. You survive wars and shark attacks and famine. You don't survive a happy childhood or a good marriage.

It would be nice if liberals could argue occasionally without trying to imply their opponents are bigots.
   408. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 02, 2013 at 06:25 PM (#4402447)
The last page reads like a parody of liberal thought:

- The same liberals who were clamoring for amnesty and more low-skilled immigration last week are now loudly complaining about stagnant wages, as if labor supply and wages are unrelated;

- Liberals who often mock the benefits of stable family units are both mystified and shocked to discover that kids from dysfunctional single- or no-parent homes have it tougher when it comes to discipline, educational achievement, and upward social mobility;

- Lefties are outraged by the concurrent existence of a higher incarceration rate and a dropping crime rate, as if those two are unrelated; and

- In a highly predictable yet sad conclusion, racism is cited as the cause of just about all of America's ills, absolving liberals and their failed social policies from any blame and bringing another round of lefty high-fiving and self-righteous preening.
   409. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: April 02, 2013 at 06:45 PM (#4402454)
(402) You are feigning your shock to score a cheap rhetorical point.
No, I'm not. There are no points to be scored here. You're a grown man, you've decided that your position is the truth, and no internet argument from me is going to change your mind. No amount of "rhetorical points" will change either of our positions, so no, I'm not going for rhetorical points. I'm very honestly shocked that you would think black families were some sort stable, safe, solid nucleus through slavery and Jim Crow. It's as if you purposely ignored any factors other than those liberal policies you hate when placing blame for issues that are extremely complex. It's like with Ray, nuance is for pussies. It's enough for you to blame the left.

There is no fair way to read my comment except as condemnation of slavery and Jim Crow.
If it helps you, I didn't read your comment as condoning racism, slavery, or Jim Crow. My reference to CPAC is simply this: that people like that — and you — want to blame everything on the left to the point where you ignore actual evil, or even conflate being liberal with being evil.
   410. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 02, 2013 at 06:58 PM (#4402459)
I'm very honestly shocked that you would think black families were some sort stable, safe, solid nucleus through slavery and Jim Crow. It's as if you purposely ignored any factors other than those liberal policies you hate when placing blame for issues that are extremely complex. It's like with Ray. Nuance is for pussies. It's enough for you to blame the left.

Are you claiming the illegitimacy and/or crime rates in the black community in the 1930s, '40s, and '50s were even remotely comparable to those rates in the black community in 2013? If not, in what way are you refuting anything Snapper has said?

If one was to graph racism and discrimination in America over the last 100 years and then superimpose a graph of the various social pathologies of the black community (crime, illegitimacy, etc.) on top of it, one would find an almost inverse relationship between the former and the latter. It's odd how liberals, for whom facts and logic are allegedly their religion of choice, can not only be so blind to obvious realities but argue so strenuously against them.
   411. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: April 02, 2013 at 07:00 PM (#4402461)
You do not need a college education to perform 99.99% of american jobs.

This seems a shade on the high side.

The other exception are serious trade degrees like engineering, architecture, or design. Those you can tell because the students are working their asses off, not going to keggers and date raping each other.

You are lumping me in with architects and whatever the #### a 'design' major does? This is easily the most offensive thing I've read on this thread and that's a tall mountain to climb. I mean we've had it implied that gun control advocates are aiding in woman being raped and blacks were better off under slavery and Jim Crow, but f'ing architects? That's were I draw the line.
   412. Lassus Posted: April 02, 2013 at 07:05 PM (#4402462)
Those against interracial marriage were actually bigots. How that applies to gay marriage you'll have to explain to me.

Because the exact same thing is being denied. I don't want to assume, so I'll ask- those against gay marriage, are they just labeled bigots or are they actually bigots?
   413. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: April 02, 2013 at 07:09 PM (#4402464)

I suppose this is the ultimate example of "there's no difference between the parties" reasoning: 13% of Obama voters either think he is the Antichrist or aren't sure, but voted for him anyway.


I think it's an example of the proposition that no matter how you word a polling question, each option (assuming a two-answer question) has a floor of about 15% 'support'.
   414. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 02, 2013 at 07:13 PM (#4402466)
Because the exact same thing is being denied.

It's only the "exact same thing" according to gay-marriage proponents who want to change the definition of marriage without admitting they're changing the definition of marriage (and that's coming from someone who supported gay marriage long before liberals like Obama and the Clintons).
   415. The District Attorney Posted: April 02, 2013 at 07:16 PM (#4402467)
Isn't an architect just an art school dropout with a tilty desk and a big ruler?
   416. Steve Treder Posted: April 02, 2013 at 07:23 PM (#4402472)
An accountant is someone who doesn't have enough charisma to be an economist.
   417. Greg K Posted: April 02, 2013 at 07:24 PM (#4402474)
An accountant is someone who doesn't have enough charisma to be an economist.

Or enough ambition to be an urban planner.
   418. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: April 02, 2013 at 07:38 PM (#4402484)
Are you claiming the illegitimacy and/or crime rates in the black community in the 1930s, '40s, and '50s were even remotely comparable to those rates in the black community in 2013?
Here's what Snapper claimed:
Through the worst of Jim Crow and state-sanctioned discrimination Black remained a family stability rate no worse than other poor groups. Black men were employed at higher rates than whites. Black neighborhoods were cohesive and safe.
Absent here are obvious issues. Black men may or may not have been employed at higher rates, but nobody can claim they were being paid anything approaching a fair wage. Black people remained in black neighborhoods because individuals couldn't stretch into white ones. Backbreaking poverty among rural blacks was the norm.

When people are trapped in cages, sure, they stay together and they're peaceful because they were huddled together in fear. That still doesn't make the cage a good thing. Snapper and others are turning a blind eye towards the cage, and saying, "Look, they used to be so peaceful right there."
   419. Lassus Posted: April 02, 2013 at 07:51 PM (#4402498)
Ah, Joe, what fabulously passive-aggressive half-assed support you've been so proud of all year, I now see.
   420. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 02, 2013 at 08:08 PM (#4402523)
Absent here are obvious issues. Black men may or may not have been employed at higher rates, but nobody can claim they were being paid anything approaching a fair wage. Black people remained in black neighborhoods because individuals couldn't stretch into white ones. Backbreaking poverty among rural blacks was the norm.

When people are trapped in cages, sure, they stay together and they're peaceful because they were huddled together in fear. That still doesn't make the cage a good thing. Snapper and others are turning a blind eye towards the cage, and saying, "Look, they used to be so peaceful right there."

So black people celebrated the decline of racism and the advent of greater civil liberties and greater opportunities in education and business by dropping out of high school at growing rates, having more kids out of wedlock, and committing more crimes (mostly against other black people) rather than availing themselves of the huge new opportunities resulting from a more tolerant and more non-discriminatory society? That makes no sense, unless we draw some very non-P.C. conclusions.

***
Ah, Joe, what fabulously passive-aggressive half-assed support you've been so proud of all year, I now see.

Ironically, it appears you don't know the meaning of "passive-aggressive" or "half-assed."
   421. Lassus Posted: April 02, 2013 at 08:22 PM (#4402541)
Ironically, it appears you don't know the meaning of "passive-aggressive" or "half-assed."

Oh? It's passive-aggressive because your support quotes one of the main arguments against gay marriage, the "changing the definition of marriage" thing, and it's half-assed because you deride any supporter other than you, mostly everyone, as dishonest.

However, go ahead, educate me, Allen Bloom.
   422. Publius Publicola Posted: April 02, 2013 at 08:24 PM (#4402543)
If one was to graph racism and discrimination in America over the last 100 years and then superimpose a graph of the various social pathologies of the black community (crime, illegitimacy, etc.) on top of it, one would find an almost inverse relationship between the former and the latter. It's odd how liberals, for whom facts and logic are allegedly their religion of choice, can not only be so blind to obvious realities but argue so strenuously against them.


Umm. There's dumb. Then there's really dumb. Then there's off-the-wall retarded.

This is worse than the latter.
   423. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 02, 2013 at 08:28 PM (#4402546)
Here's what Snapper claimed:

Through the worst of Jim Crow and state-sanctioned discrimination Black remained a family stability rate no worse than other poor groups. Black men were employed at higher rates than whites. Black neighborhoods were cohesive and safe.

Absent here are obvious issues. Black men may or may not have been employed at higher rates, but nobody can claim they were being paid anything approaching a fair wage. Black people remained in black neighborhoods because individuals couldn't stretch into white ones. Backbreaking poverty among rural blacks was the norm.

When people are trapped in cages, sure, they stay together and they're peaceful because they were huddled together in fear. That still doesn't make the cage a good thing. Snapper and others are turning a blind eye towards the cage, and saying, "Look, they used to be so peaceful right there."


What's your point? White immigrants were crushingly poor too. Irish immigrants in the 19th century were treated as bad or worse than slaves. They were hired to do dangerous jobs where slave owners were afraid to risk the lives of their property.

Throughout the period of horrible treatment and discrimination, the black family and communities held together. Just like poor whites. They had pathologies, sure, but basically at the same rate as poor whites.

I'm not ignoring the cage. I'm saying in spite of the cage, black families did a tremendous job of perservering. Black men heroicly worked horrible jobs for poor wages to support their wives and children.

Then, the great society came along, and the black family, and black male employment collapsed.

Today, the white family, except among the upper and upper classes is following suit. It took longer, but the same incentives are destroying marriage and work among working class whites.
   424. zenbitz Posted: April 02, 2013 at 08:29 PM (#4402548)
Architects and design students, particualarly fashion design students work their asses off doing actual productive work that is relevant to their field. Like engineers.

Scientists, teachers, lawyers, doctors, nurses and other professionals i guess they are all called need skill training that they (partially) receive in post graduate programs. Computer programmers are either engineers in their own right or java/web/python hackers like myself that just need a few years of experience actually writing and debugging code. Accountants are similar -- its maybe a year or two of specialty training and then start filing other peoples tax returns.

What college experience does a HR drone need? A sales rep? A marketer? A middle manager? An entrepreneur? None. They need about a year of MS office training so they dont 'reply all' to their emails. The rest is creativity and social skills. Which i guess college is good for, but its hardly the only way to get it. You could tend bar for a year instead.

Any ad execs want to claim they needed that "communications study 102" class?

Is there some huge class of employees that i am leaving out?
   425. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 02, 2013 at 08:30 PM (#4402549)
Umm. There's dumb. Then there's really dumb. Then there's off-the-wall retarded.

This is worse than the latter.


You can call it what you will, but it's actually true.
   426. Tilden Katz Posted: April 02, 2013 at 08:35 PM (#4402552)
Throughout the period of horrible treatment and discrimination, the black family and communities held together.


Unless the owner decided it would be more profitable to sell one or more of the members away.
   427. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 02, 2013 at 08:41 PM (#4402560)
Oh? It's passive-aggressive because your support quotes one of the main arguments against gay marriage, the "changing the definition of marriage" thing, and it's half-assed because you deride any supporter other than you, mostly everyone, as dishonest.

Supporters of gay marriage who claim they aren't changing the definition of the word "marriage" are, in fact, dishonest, and it's neither "passive-aggressive" nor "half-assed" to point that out — whether one is for gay marriage or against it.

***
Umm. There's dumb. Then there's really dumb. Then there's off-the-wall retarded.

This is worse than the latter.

Who could argue with a fact-based rebuttal like that?
   428. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: April 02, 2013 at 08:52 PM (#4402573)
Is there some huge class of employees that i am leaving out?


College is not and should not be seen as solely a vocational training institution.
   429. Publius Publicola Posted: April 02, 2013 at 08:58 PM (#4402580)
You can call it what you will, but it's actually true.


So, we should go back to Jim Crow then. Is that your point? That seems to be Kehoskie's.

Only a moron or a racist would argue that blacks aren't better off now than they were under Jim Crow.
   430. Lassus Posted: April 02, 2013 at 09:01 PM (#4402583)
Supporters of gay marriage who claim they aren't changing the definition of the word "marriage" are, in fact, dishonest, and it's neither "passive-aggressive" nor "half-assed" to point that out — whether one is for gay marriage or against it.

It makes your support nothing but half-assed, but nice try there changing what I said.

As well as hilariously adding passive-aggressive to something I didn't use those words to describe, instead of addressing the point I DID use those words to describe. Because you simply couldn't.
   431. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 02, 2013 at 09:14 PM (#4402600)
So, Andy, a direct question: do you think American society offers everyone (who is able-bodied and of sound mind) a sense that their lives can improve with honest effort?


Wouldn't it be actually, you know, meaningful if it offered the fact of and not merely the sense of that?

Give people welfare and a minimum standard of living that is quite comfortable, all things considered, and it's not a shock that they'll decide to be content with their lot in life rather than trying to move up.

As SdeB has already noted, the US ranks worse than nations which have much more generous social welfare.


Huh--so, you're saying a gigantic experiment across a number of nations tells us that more generous social insurance programs are consistent with increased upward mobility?

How will Ray wriggle out of this, I wonder?
   432. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 02, 2013 at 09:15 PM (#4402603)
So, we should go back to Jim Crow then. Is that your point? That seems to be Kehoskie's.

Only a moron or a racist would argue that blacks aren't better off now than they were under Jim Crow.

Do you actually read the comments to which you post your breathless, self-righteous replies?

***
It makes your support nothing but half-assed, but nice try there changing what I said. As well as adding passive-aggressive to something I didn't say, instead of addressing what I did refer to those words with. Because you couldn't.

My support of gay marriage is "half-assed" because I refuse to parrot a spurious talking point? Sorry, no sale. (Also, "passive-aggressive" was the first half of your descriptor in #419, so I'm not sure why you're complaining about that.)
   433. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 02, 2013 at 09:21 PM (#4402609)
So, we should go back to Jim Crow then. Is that your point? That seems to be Kehoskie's.

Only a moron or a racist would argue that blacks aren't better off now than they were under Jim Crow.


I didn't argue they weren't better off, of course they are on most dimensions.

My sole point is that in the era of segregation and Jim Crow the vast majority of black families were intact, and the vast majority of black children lived with both parents, and suffered from far lower rates of social pathologies (crime, drug use, teen pregnancy, etc.) than they do today.

Those are facts.
   434. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 02, 2013 at 09:26 PM (#4402621)
Unless the owner decided it would be more profitable to sell one or more of the members away.

Yet after 300 years of that, and another 100 years of segregation and discrimination, in 1960 something like 75% of black children were born in two parent, married, households. Which is higher than the rate among whites today. Black men had a higher labor force participation rate than white men.

A tremendous achievement by black families and communities, through 400 years of terrible treatment, was pissed away by an ill-thought out welfare system, and an ideology that the gov't should take care of you and your family.
   435. zonk Posted: April 02, 2013 at 09:34 PM (#4402628)
I didn't argue they weren't better off, of course they are on most dimensions.

My sole point is that in the era of segregation and Jim Crow the vast majority of black families were intact, and the vast majority of black children lived with both parents, and suffered from far lower rates of social pathologies (crime, drug use, teen pregnancy, etc.) than they do today.

Those are facts.


I'm quite capable of having this discussion rationally... but I do think that we need two things before simple stating this as a fact --

1) reliable citation/statistics indicating such
2) relative comparisons to white families, preferrably, normalized for socio-economic status...

I don't claim to be a sociologist of any sort... but it seems to me that even if the numbers bear this out extraordinarily and anomalously within the AA community, we still haven't quite gotten past the issue of correlation not necessarily meaning causality (i.e., not necessarily that Jim Crow/segregation KEPT black families together but that 'welfare' destroyed them).

   436. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: April 02, 2013 at 09:38 PM (#4402631)
Wait ... what?

The Moynihan Report came out in 1965. Were its conclusions about slavery's & Jim Crow's devastating impact on the black family, & particularly the resulting lack of black two-parent households, all lies?

It was deducing problems that simply didn't exist?

And since Moynihan's findings & suggestions stirred all sorts of anger from the left, I gather that snapper is declaring his position on the far left end of the political spectrum?

Head hurts. Must go lie down.
   437. Lassus Posted: April 02, 2013 at 09:42 PM (#4402639)
(Also, "passive-aggressive" was the first half of your descriptor in #419, so I'm not sure why you're complaining about that.)

I specifically referred to the fact that your "support" of gay marriage references front-and-center one of the most popular arguments AGAINST gay marriage, the "they are changing the whole definition of marriage!" argument. That is the absolute definition of passive-aggressive, whatever the hell you think it means.

And this should not be confused with the separate issue of you calling all supporters who don't hold your view dishonest. Which isn't half-assed support. Because saying that the main thrust of the movement is full of liars isn't half-assed support. Okey dokey.
   438. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 02, 2013 at 09:42 PM (#4402640)
@435: yes, that seems like the correct starting point. Teens of all colors are becoming pregnant more often, for example. Some controls are needed.

@436: gef--is there a summary handy of the Moynihan Report?

And since Moynihan's findings & suggestions stirred all sorts of anger from the left,...


Why was that? Because it portrayed blacks in a bad light?
   439. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 02, 2013 at 09:42 PM (#4402641)
I don't claim to be a sociologist of any sort... but it seems to me that even if the numbers bear this out extraordinarily and anomalously within the AA community, we still haven't quite gotten past the issue of correlation not necessarily meaning causality (i.e., not necessarily that Jim Crow/segregation KEPT black families together but that 'welfare' destroyed them).

If not the perverse incentives created by the ever-growing welfare state, do you have any alternate theories that might explain the rising rates of various pathologies in the black community despite decreasing amounts of racism and discrimination in American society? (Or, on a closely related topic, any theories for the rising rates of some of the same pathologies among whites, for whom racism was never an issue in the first place?)
   440. zonk Posted: April 02, 2013 at 09:46 PM (#4402646)
Just as a corollary with 435 --

The 'Great Society' is a close chronological sibling to the start of the "war on drugs" -- increased criminalization (and incarceration) for drug use... There's been a significant increase in rates of incarceration across the racial spectrum because of this -- black males were incarcerated at a much higher rates before the WoD began, but both black and white incarceration rates have basically doubled since then. Incarceration and entry into the criminal justice system for such crimes would seem to be a logical, additional cause for the instability of families.

I'm perfectly willing to hear out the evidence regarding the unintended consequences or deleterious impact of welfare programs... but everything I've ever read pushing this point tends to come from places that seem to have a preconceived axe to grind against such programs and wholly fails to even acknowledge the possible existence of other factors or examine other changes in policy or society.
   441. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: April 02, 2013 at 09:51 PM (#4402651)
Why was that? Because it portrayed blacks in a bad light?


Pretty much. The phrase "blaming the victim" got used more than once by critics, IIRC.

Which of course in retrospect is confusing, since snapper & his pals have assured us that the only thing blacks were "victims" of were solid family lives & healthy employment numbers.

gef--is there a summary handy of the Moynihan Report?


I'm going purely by memory (as I've mentioned before, when I was a history grad student my focus was on the '60s), but this one's so basic I'm pretty sure I'm correct on the fundamentals. Wikipedia has what strikes me as a decent write-up.

In any event, while the argument can certainly be made (whether one accepts it or not) that the Moynihan-inspired approaches to the problem were a case of the cure proving worse than the disease, to argue that the disease didn't exist in the first place strikes me as either blatantly dishonest (which I doubt in this case; for one thing, there's nothing to be gained from lying so transparently) or strikingly uninformed.
   442. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 02, 2013 at 09:54 PM (#4402657)
I specifically referred to the fact that your "support" of gay marriage uses one of the most popular arguments AGAINST gay marriage, the "they are changing the whole definition of marriage!" argument. That is the absolute definition of passive-aggressive, whatever the hell you think it means.

And this should not be confused with the separate issue of you calling all supporters who don't hold your view dishonest. Which isn't half-assed support. Because saying that the main thrust of the movement is full of liars isn't half-assed support. Okey dokey.

Lassus, this sort of pedantic silliness is boring when it's accurate, and it's even worse when the logic is, to borrow your phrase, "half-assed."

Acknowledging that the opponents of gay marriage are correct when they say that gay-marriage proponents are trying to change the definition of the word "marriage" does not constitute "'support' of gay marriage" by "[using] one of the most popular arguments AGAINST gay marriage." That makes no sense.
   443. Tilden Katz Posted: April 02, 2013 at 09:59 PM (#4402667)
do you have any alternate theories that might explain the rising rates of various pathologies in the black community despite decreasing amounts of racism and discrimination in American society?


The drug war plays a very large role in it.
   444. Lassus Posted: April 02, 2013 at 10:00 PM (#4402672)
Equally hilarious, Joe, is that no supporter of gay marriage is going around using "We aren't changing the definition of marriage" as a talking point. It's a response to the talking point you're parroting of nearly everyone against gay marriage.


Acknowledging that the opponents of gay marriage are correct when they say that gay-marriage proponents are trying to change the definition of the word "marriage" does not constitute "'support' of gay marriage" by "[using] one of the most popular arguments AGAINST gay marriage." That makes no sense.

Well, this is awesome, something else I didn't say. You're really knocking it out of the park.

I didn't deny your support. I called it passive-aggressive. Which it is. It's still support. And half-assed, which it also is and is also support, of a sort. You just sound really pathetic.
   445. zonk Posted: April 02, 2013 at 10:00 PM (#4402673)
FWIW - The DOL still has the complete (text, but the tables and charts aren't digitized) Moynihan Report available online...

Setting aside the specific Moynihan conclusions, though -- it tends to just end up shifting the goalposts in such discussions (i.e., just replace "Great Society" with "New Deal").
   446. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 02, 2013 at 10:01 PM (#4402676)
The 'Great Society' is a close chronological sibling to the start of the "war on drugs" -- increased criminalization (and incarceration) for drug use... There's been a significant increase in rates of incarceration across the racial spectrum because of this -- black males were incarcerated at a much higher rates before the WoD began, but both black and white incarceration rates have basically doubled since then. Incarceration and entry into the criminal justice system for such crimes would seem to be a logical, additional cause for the instability of families.

This suggests that there are hundreds of thousands of black people in prison simply for having a joint in their pocket, which isn't true. It also ignores that black politicians have been among the most ardent supporters of the so-called "war on drugs," up to and including proposing and pushing for the harsher crack-cocaine laws in the 1980s — which, via shameless revisionist history, now often get blamed on racist white conservatives (pardon the redundancy).

***
Equally hilarious, Joe, is that no supporter of gay marriage is going around using "We aren't changing the definition of marriage" as a talking point. It's a response to the talking point you're parroting of nearly everyone against gay marriage.

Now you're compounding dishonesty with more dishonesty. Here's the people at Freedom to Marry on this issue.
   447. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 02, 2013 at 10:03 PM (#4402680)
The Moynihan Report came out in 1965. Were its conclusions about slavery's & Jim Crow's devastating impact on the black family, & particularly the resulting lack of black two-parent households, all lies?

It was deducing problems that simply didn't exist?

And since Moynihan's findings & suggestions stirred all sorts of anger from the left, I gather that snapper is declaring his position on the far left end of the political spectrum?


Yeah, and the illegitimacy rate Moynihan decried was approx. 25%. Today it is over 75%.

What Moynihan thought was disasterous would now be half the national average.
   448. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: April 02, 2013 at 10:05 PM (#4402683)
In other words, he was describing problems that didn't exist, since, in your words, what he was wringing his hands over was actually

A tremendous achievement by black families and communities, through 400 years of terrible treatment,


That rascal!
   449. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 02, 2013 at 10:10 PM (#4402688)
In other words, he was describing problems that didn't exist.

That rascal!


No, Moynihan was describing a real problem that became 3 times worse as blacks achieved political and economic rights, an has now extended to Hispanics and Whites.

Why? The welfare state. The Scandinavian countries with the most generous welfare states also have the highest rates of illegitimacy.

This is not hard. If working class men have trouble earning a living, and welfare provides a better economic livelihood than marriage, women will choose welfare.
   450. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: April 02, 2013 at 10:19 PM (#4402696)
If working class men have trouble earning a living, and welfare provides a better economic livelihood than marriage, women will choose welfare.


Comrade!
   451. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 02, 2013 at 10:22 PM (#4402699)
Well, this is awesome, something else I didn't say. You're really knocking it out of the park.

I didn't deny your support. I called it passive-aggressive. Which it is. It's still support. And half-assed, which it also is and is also support, of a sort. You just sound really pathetic.

I guess you don't understand your own writing then, or you need to write more clearly.

Supporting gay marriage on 14th Amendment grounds isn't remotely "passive-aggressive" or "half-assed." Frankly, it's a lot more principled than trying to dupe people into believing the word "marriage" isn't being changed and/or threatening to label people as "bigots."
   452. Tilden Katz Posted: April 02, 2013 at 10:23 PM (#4402703)
Why is illegitimacy a bigger concern than poverty rate, which is lower today then it was before the Great Society? The poverty rate for blacks was over 50% in the 50's and is about half that now (still way too high, but better than it was)
   453. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: April 02, 2013 at 10:23 PM (#4402704)
Can't edit, but I should note that, joking aside, if indeed "working-class men have trouble earning a living," I for one don't have a huge problem with providing a safety net for the mothers of their children. I don't believe in a higher power or anything, but it strikes me as, you should pardon the expression, the Christian thing to do.

In the bargain, I suppose, all sorts of wonderfully character-building aspects of living in severe poverty are lost. Don't you just hate it when that happens? I know I do.
   454. zonk Posted: April 02, 2013 at 10:26 PM (#4402707)

No, Moynihan was describing a real problem that became 3 times worse as blacks achieved political and economic rights, an has now extended to Hispanics and Whites.

Why? The welfare state. The Scandinavian countries with the most generous welfare states also have the highest rates of illegitimacy.

This is not hard. If working class men have trouble earning a living, and welfare provides a better economic livelihood than marriage, women will choose welfare.


But then you're switching arguments... those Scandinavian countries with 'highest rates of illegitimacy' also have lower rates of poverty and crime...

If you want to make a moral argument against illegitimacy or a moral argument in favor traditional nuclear families, that's fine... but that wasn't the point of the last page: It was that the destruction/lower rates of traditional nuclear families led to poverty/crime.

You can't pick and choose which leg of the stool to defend -- they all need to stand if you're going to make the argument that welfare has by proxy created poverty/crime via its destruction of the nuclear family.
   455. Publius Publicola Posted: April 02, 2013 at 10:35 PM (#4402714)
One might consider changes in how corporate America views their work force as another critical factor the rise of illegitimacy and divorce. It's awfully difficult to maintain a marriage if you have just been given the choice by your employer of a transfer to Little Rock without a pay raise or a pink slip while you have 3 grade schoolers to take care of.
   456. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 02, 2013 at 10:37 PM (#4402716)
Thanks, gef.

@440: I know something of the war on drugs, and it wouldn't surprise me if the bulk of the problem follows from the massive criminalization of black men that occurred starting in the 1960s. Combine increased 'illegitimacy' rates with massive increases in incarceration and you've explained the bulk of the issue. Welfare hardly enters into it.

If working class men have trouble earning a living, and welfare provides a better economic livelihood than marriage, women will choose welfare.


If we're going to be honest about this, though, the problem wasn't welfare, it was welfare rules, that brutally punished getting married and even cohabiting. (Iirc the welfare man was allowed to come into your apartment without notice and look for evidence a woman was sharing her apartment with a man, and also look for gifts or other signs of a relationship.) It's no different than if you made a huge change in the tax code, to the effect of increasing the rate for marrieds to 50% while keeping the rate for singles to 30%. People would stop getting married.

It was the case that a woman marrying a man would lose all or just about all her benefits. I commend snapper to a serious study of the issue.


edit: acc to a couple of friends, we pull similarly stupid #### wrt SSI recipients, where they can't split an apartment with someone who isn't equally poor, since the other person's entire income is counted into the equation, even though most people sharing apartments don't pool incomes.
   457. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 02, 2013 at 10:39 PM (#4402720)
In the bargain, I suppose, all sorts of wonderfully character-building aspects of living in severe poverty are lost. Don't you just hate it when that happens? I know I do.

This is oddly flippant, given that inner cities are increasingly looking like war zones.

***
But then you're switching arguments... those Scandinavian countries with 'highest rates of illegitimacy' also have lower rates of poverty and crime...

All illegitimacy isn't the same. There are unmarried but involved parents and then there are absentee parents. I think you'll find the latter are far more common in the black community than in the Scandinavian countries you mentioned, where marriage rates have declined but cohabitation has increased.

***
One might consider changes in how corporate America views their work force as another critical factor the rise of illegitimacy and divorce. It's awfully difficult to maintain a marriage if you have just been given the choice by your employer of a transfer to Little Rock without a pay raise or a pink slip while you have 3 grade schoolers to take care of.

Unless black people have disproportionately faced the above scenario, I don't see how it would explain the differences in the illegitimacy rates.
   458. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: April 02, 2013 at 10:45 PM (#4402729)
This is oddly flippant, given that inner cities are increasingly looking like war zones.


Even so, you can have their guns when you pry them out of their cold, dead hands.

   459. Tilden Katz Posted: April 02, 2013 at 10:46 PM (#4402730)
This is oddly flippant, given that inner cities are increasingly looking like war zones.


The violent crime rate has been decreasing for quite some time now.
   460. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: April 02, 2013 at 10:46 PM (#4402731)
Stupid double-posting crap.
   461. Publius Publicola Posted: April 02, 2013 at 10:47 PM (#4402734)
All illegitimacy isn't the same. There are unmarried but involved parents and then there are absentee parents. I think you'll find the latter are far more common in the black community than in the Scandinavian countries you mentioned.


Supportive documentation please.

Unless black people have disproportionately faced the above scenario, I don't see how it would explain the differences in the illegitimacy rates.


All racial groups have seen a rise in their divorce/illegitimacy rates. They don't have to be equal across the board for the argument to stand.
   462. Tilden Katz Posted: April 02, 2013 at 10:48 PM (#4402736)
Mark Sanford won the SC-1 runoff. I'm sure all the "family values" groups will be filling his coffers shortly.
   463. Lassus Posted: April 02, 2013 at 10:53 PM (#4402746)
Now you're compounding dishonesty with more dishonesty. Here's the people at Freedom to Marry on this issue.

Dumb. Dumb, dumb, dumb. It is exactly as I said, a response to the anti-gay-marriage talking point. And yours, of course.
   464. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: April 02, 2013 at 10:55 PM (#4402748)
I nearly spewed all over my monitor.

Don't worry; people often have that type of reaction upon finally realizing that the worldview they've held for decades is incorrect.


I'd like to select a worldview immune to such harsh contradiction, preferably by virtue of it being entirely untested and largely confined to the airy thought experiments and philosophical musings of insulated fancy lads. Can you by chance recommend one?
   465. zonk Posted: April 02, 2013 at 10:56 PM (#4402749)
Mark Sanford won the SC-1 runoff. I'm sure all the "family values" groups will be filling his coffers shortly.


Heh... That'll be an interesting one.

It's an R+11 district that (through a couple redistricts) has been held by the GOP for something like 30 years... but every poll has it in toss-up territory (Stephen Colbert's sister is the D nominee).

   466. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 02, 2013 at 10:58 PM (#4402762)
The violent crime rate has been decreasing for quite some time now.

That had been the long-term trend since the late 1980s or early '90s, but violent crime has ticked upward over the past year or two (and it's way up in some inner cities).

***
Supportive documentation please.

Sorry, I don't post links for things that are barely more disputed than "2+2=4."

Among other things, unless you believe Scandinavian men have the same incarceration rate as black men in the U.S., it's tough to envision a scenario in which Scandinavian men could be absentee parents at the same rate as black men.

All racial groups have seen a rise in their divorce/illegitimacy rates. They don't have to be equal across the board for the argument to stand.

The only way your scenario would even partly explain the disparate illegitimacy rates would be if blacks disproportionately faced that scenario. If they didn't, then any effect it had on blacks is likely to be similar to the effect it had on whites and Latinos and, thus, a wash statistically.
   467. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: April 02, 2013 at 11:00 PM (#4402767)

Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert started to answer a question about a ban on high-capacity magazines during a Tea Party conference call this week, but ended up talking about — wait for it — bestiality.

Here’s what Gohmert had to say about his opposition to gun control (emphasis mine, mental acrobatics Gohmert’s):

In fact, I had this discussion with some wonderful, caring Democrats earlier this week on the issue of, well, they said “surely you could agree to limit the number of rounds in a magazine, couldn’t you? How would that be problematic?”

And I pointed out, well, once you make it ten, then why would you draw the line at ten? What’s wrong with nine? Or eleven? And the problem is once you draw that limit ; it’s kind of like marriage when you say it’s not a man and a woman any more, then why not have three men and one woman, or four women and one man, or why not somebody has a love for an animal?

There is no clear place to draw the line once you eliminate the traditional marriage and it’s the same once you start putting limits on what guns can be used, then it’s just really easy to have laws that make them all illegal.



Link
   468. Tilden Katz Posted: April 02, 2013 at 11:01 PM (#4402770)
That had been the long-term trend since the late 1980s or early '90s, but violent crime has ticked upward over the past year or two.


So an increase that's little more than a rounding error equates to cities "looking increasingly like war zones"?
   469. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: April 02, 2013 at 11:03 PM (#4402772)
Can't edit, but I should note that, joking aside, if indeed "working-class men have trouble earning a living," I for one don't have a huge problem with providing a safety net for the mothers of their children. I don't believe in a higher power or anything, but it strikes me as, you should pardon the expression, the Christian thing to do.


But the Christian thing is to tie that safety net to the pledge of their eternal souls, presumably to be used in bargaining with the devil.
   470. zonk Posted: April 02, 2013 at 11:04 PM (#4402775)
if Louie Gohmert didn't exist, we'd need to invent him...
   471. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 02, 2013 at 11:05 PM (#4402779)
Dumb. Dumb, dumb, dumb. It is exactly as I said, a response to the anti-gay-marriage talking point. And yours, of course.

Lassus, as much as I hate to say it, your comments on this page have me close to agreeing with Jack Carter's recent assessment of you.

You claimed that (1) gay marriage wouldn't change the definition of the word "marriage," which is plainly false, and (2) proponents of gay marriage weren't even making such a claim, which I refuted with a 5-second visit to the Freedom to Marry site [see #446]. If you don't want to admit you were wrong, that's fine, but I see no reason to continue with this silliness.
   472. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: April 02, 2013 at 11:08 PM (#4402781)
There are unmarried but involved parents and then there are absentee parents. I think you'll find the latter are far more common in the black community than in the Scandinavian countries you mentioned, where marriage rates have declined but cohabitation has increased.
Maybe the Scandinavian countries have exactly the right amount of entitlements.
   473. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 02, 2013 at 11:09 PM (#4402783)
He even looks like a Gohmert.
   474. Lassus Posted: April 02, 2013 at 11:09 PM (#4402784)
(1) gay marriage wouldn't change the definition of the word "marriage," which is plainly false

Society and culture define words, not the other way around. This is why you aren't talking like Shakespeare.


(2) that proponents of gay marriage weren't even making such a claim, which I refuted with a 5-second visit to the Freedom to Marry site [see #446]

It is plainly a response to the most common argument against gay marriage - one that has been repeated so often that it has to be answered. No matter how many times you say otherwise does not make it true.

EDIT: Too many negatives!

   475. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 02, 2013 at 11:17 PM (#4402788)
So an increase that's little more than a rounding error equates to cities "looking increasingly like war zones"?

How would you like me to describe the crime-ridden areas of Chicago, Los Angeles, New Orleans, etc.?

Chicago has roughly the same homicide rate as Rwanda and Sierra Leone, while New Orleans' homicide rate is worse than the murder rate in those two places.
   476. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 02, 2013 at 11:18 PM (#4402791)
Even though I favor it completely I'm pretty sure there is a slippery slope with gay marriage, in that it does make it a little easier to push for marriages involving more than two people.

It's hardly a persuasive argument against gay marriage, though. We're always drawing lines, and we routinely move those lines. If we move the line to allow gay marriage, and prohibit polygamy, that seems reasonable on its face. If we legalize polygamy, it will be because we've become an incredibly mellow society, or because a big chunk of the population favors it. In either case, I somehow doubt society will crumble.

I still wouldn't allow Louis Gohmert to marry his dog, though.

Contagion gives Tokyo's population as 36.3 million people. Is that possible??
   477. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: April 02, 2013 at 11:21 PM (#4402797)
If a gun owner wants the general public to know such information, he or she is — and has always been — free to post a sign at the edge of their property or outside their door.


Like this one?
   478. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 02, 2013 at 11:24 PM (#4402801)
Society and culture define words, not the other way around. This is why you aren't talking like Shakespeare.

Yes, and "society and culture" have had a fairly specific and consistent definition of the word "marriage" for at least the past two millennia.

It is plainly a response to the most common argument against anti-gay-marriage - one that has been repeated so often that it has to be answered. No matter how many times you say otherwise does not make it true.

So responses aren't talking points, even when posted on the internet in the form of an FAQ? How silly.
   479. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 02, 2013 at 11:42 PM (#4402808)
Those against interracial marriage were actually bigots. How that applies to gay marriage you'll have to explain to me.

Because the exact same thing is being denied. I don't want to assume, so I'll ask- those against gay marriage, are they just labeled bigots or are they actually bigots?


Some against gay marriage are actually bigots, some are not bigots. No surprise there.

But what do you mean "the exact same thing is being denied"? In one case, heterosexuals were being denied marriage. In the other case, homosexuals were being denied marriage. Not the same thing at all, let alone the "exact same" thing.
   480. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 02, 2013 at 11:45 PM (#4402809)
But what do you mean "the exact same thing is being denied"? In one case, heterosexuals were being denied marriage. In the other case, homosexuals were being denied marriage. Not the same thing at all, let alone the "exact same" thing.


The problem is where you're making the distinction. What's important is the commonality: in both cases, people were being denied marriage.
   481. Howie Menckel Posted: April 02, 2013 at 11:46 PM (#4402810)
"Even though I favor it completely, I'm pretty sure there is a slippery slope with gay marriage, in that it does make it a little easier to push for marriages involving more than two people.

It's hardly a persuasive argument against gay marriage, though. We're always drawing lines, and we routinely move those lines."

not sure I've ever read both of these points in the same message.
I thought everyone had to pick only one!

#binary

   482. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 02, 2013 at 11:51 PM (#4402813)
Yet after 300 years of that, and another 100 years of segregation and discrimination, in 1960 something like 75% of black children were born in two parent, married, households. Which is higher than the rate among whites today. Black men had a higher labor force participation rate than white men.

A tremendous achievement by black families and communities, through 400 years of terrible treatment, was pissed away by an ill-thought out welfare system, and an ideology that the gov't should take care of you and your family.


Yes, but it wasn't "pissed away." Democrats got their votes.
   483. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 02, 2013 at 11:56 PM (#4402816)
Lassus, this sort of pedantic silliness is boring when it's accurate, and it's even worse when the logic is, to borrow your phrase, "half-assed."

Acknowledging that the opponents of gay marriage are correct when they say that gay-marriage proponents are trying to change the definition of the word "marriage" does not constitute "'support' of gay marriage" by "[using] one of the most popular arguments AGAINST gay marriage." That makes no sense.


It's the honest argument. "Yes, I support gay marriage and thus I support changing the definition of marriage."

The dishonest argument is to claim that the definition isn't being changed.

Why one would do the latter is left as an exercise for the reader.
   484. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 02, 2013 at 11:59 PM (#4402818)
The problem is where you're making the distinction. What's important is the commonality: in both cases, people were being denied marriage.

Which, of course, has us hurtling down the slippery slope you just mentioned in #476.
   485. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 03, 2013 at 12:04 AM (#4402824)
(1) gay marriage wouldn't change the definition of the word "marriage," which is plainly false

Society and culture define words, not the other way around. This is why you aren't talking like Shakespeare.


Sure. They define them. And re-define them. This is one of those "re-defining" times. Please try to follow along.
   486. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 03, 2013 at 12:10 AM (#4402827)
not sure I've ever read both of these points in the same message.

I thought everyone had to pick only one!


Right?

Still and all, I'm willing to deal with the issue of people marrying lots of other people, and all the havoc that will no doubt cause, if it means gays can marry.

It's hard for me to imagine that the argument against doing the right thing is, "But we might have to deal with something else, down the road!"

And, after all, didn't marriage between a man and a woman create the original slippery slope towards gay marriage?

Yet after 300 years of that, and another 100 years of segregation and discrimination, in 1960 something like 75% of black children were born in two parent, married, households. Which is higher than the rate among whites today. Black men had a higher labor force participation rate than white men.


No doubt this makes me an awful person, but, Drugs.

I haven't been black since my teens, but if I was (and even if I was white) and the choice was between fifty years at Wal-Mart, and dealing weed, I wouldn't hesitate. Would anyone here, really? Even snapper? (And no weaseling. You're poor and not overly bright. You don't get to say, "I'd pull myself up by my [non-existent] bootstraps".
   487. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 03, 2013 at 12:11 AM (#4402828)
The problem is where you're making the distinction. What's important is the commonality: in both cases, people were being denied marriage.


I don't think you want that to be your argument. It's certainly not anything that separates gay marriage from other types of marriage that are currently impermissible.
   488. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 03, 2013 at 12:19 AM (#4402830)
I'm not against polygamy, if that's what you mean. Consulting adults, and all that.

I also don't find it completely unreasonable to assert that marriage is something that exists between two people. It's not the argument I personally would make, but it broadens the institution without harming it.
   489. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 03, 2013 at 12:23 AM (#4402832)
Ray, a while back you wrote,

To recap my position: While I would rather government be out of the marriage business entirely, I support same-sex marriage (instead of merely domestic partnerships) because (a) people should be free to do what they want to do as long as it's not harming anymone, (b) this doesn't harm anyone, and (c) it makes people happy and (d) provides them equal benefits under the law, although (e) I do think it harms the institution of marriage as traditionally defined, but (f) I don't care, so basically, in conclusion, I support same-sex marriage but (g) don't pretend, as others do, that it's not simply a redefinition of marriage.

People get upset with (e)-(g).


I imagine they do, but the nuance interests me. If you feel like explaining (e) in more detail, feel free (I don't recall seeing it if you did). How so? (I'm not immune to the possibility that it might; it's just I've never heard anyone go a step beyond, 'it hurts traditional marriage!')
   490. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: April 03, 2013 at 12:24 AM (#4402834)
Honestly, who cares if we are redefining a word or not? Can the folks get together or not? That's the whole issue.

Do you think folks in Lincoln's day spent time worrying if they were redefining the word 'men', as in 'all men are created equal'. Were there hours of debate about how 'men' never really was meant to include coloreds? Were people worried that 'property' was now up for grabs? The dialogue about issues like this is just so stupid.

Can't we just skip ahead to where gays can marry, society continues to hum along unaffected, and we all feel stupid for debating it for so long? We all know this is inevitable, how about getting ahead of the curve for once? Do we always have to give the future movie directors and documentary makers the easy clips of the aging white guys in front of the camera making incredibly ignorant comments?

Architects and design students, particualarly fashion design students work their asses off doing actual productive work that is relevant to their field. Like engineers.

Yeah, they are awesome. 'I'm putting a window here, so you'll get lots of natural light' is pretty much what engineers do. I took digital signal processing for fun.
   491. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 03, 2013 at 12:29 AM (#4402836)
Do you think folks in Lincoln's day spent time worrying if they were redefining the word 'men', as in 'all men are created equal'. Were there hours of debate about how 'men' never really was meant to include coloreds?

Yes.
   492. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 03, 2013 at 12:37 AM (#4402840)
I'm not against polygamy, if that's what you mean. Consulting adults, and all that.


That's fine; it's also a point on the slippery slope that some gay marriage proponents promise people won't go down.

I also don't find it completely unreasonable to assert that marriage is something that exists between two people. It's not the argument I personally would make, but it broadens the institution without harming it.


It harms the institution because a broadening redefinition harms the institution.

But "between two people" includes brothers/sisters, fathers/daughters, adults/children... do you support all of that?
   493. Ray (RDP) Posted: April 03, 2013 at 12:40 AM (#4402843)
Honestly, who cares if we are redefining a word or not?


Lassus and his friends do, since they keep denying that's what's happening.

Do we always have to give the future movie directors and documentary makers the easy clips of the aging white guys in front of the camera making incredibly ignorant comments?


Wow, you guys are incredibly hung up on race.

But here it's kind of humorous, since the attempt to frame gay marriage as a civil rights issue has been rejected by blacks, who (a) know all too well from experience what a civil rights issue is, and yet (b) don't see gay marriage as such.
   494. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 03, 2013 at 12:41 AM (#4402844)
Do you think folks in Lincoln's day spent time worrying if they were redefining the word 'men', as in 'all men are created equal'. Were there hours of debate about how 'men' never really was meant to include coloreds? Were people worried that 'property' was now up for grabs?


Er, yes? Actually, yes they did.

Can't we just skip ahead to where gays can marry, society continues to hum along unaffected, and we all feel stupid for debating it for so long?


So, you want this to be like no other issue in human history?

Architects and design students, particualarly fashion design students work their asses off doing actual productive work that is relevant to their field. Like engineers.

Yeah, they are awesome. 'I'm putting a window here, so you'll get lots of natural light' is pretty much what engineers do. I took digital signal processing for fun.


Man is there a lot of woe goin' on here, especially from someone who wants to move the needle on the human experience. If you think good architects are limited to window placement, start with Rasmussen's terrific text, "Experiencing Architecture'. It's a terrific primer.

The "particularly" wrt only fashion design students needs some 'splaining, though if someone wanted to argue that architects don't get enough practical training in school, and the focus there is too much on the theoretical, I'd agree.
   495. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 03, 2013 at 12:55 AM (#4402847)
I'm not against polygamy, if that's what you mean. Consulting adults, and all that.

That's fine; it's also a point on the slippery slope that some gay marriage proponents promise people won't go down.


Understood. Whether that's principled or not, it would be political suicide not for them not to be against polygamy, though it does throw those folks under the bus. I wouldn't make that argument, but were talking people, broadly, so small steps for little feet.

I also don't find it completely unreasonable to assert that marriage is something that exists between two people. It's not the argument I personally would make, but it broadens the institution without harming it.

It harms the institution because a broadening redefinition harms the institution.


I'm missing the 'how', here, and I'm not trying to be obtuse. I can even see an argument that broadening the definition strengthens the institution, the same way broadening rights to included all people strengthens the cause of rights everywhere. (In the sense that, it's harder to assert poor whites should have access to good schools if you're arguing that blacks shouldn't have access to good schools.)

But "between two people" includes brothers/sisters, fathers/daughters, adults/children... do you support all of that?

Casual of me. I'd have to state "between two adults, unrelated by [definition that rules out parents and adult children, and brothers and sisters] and, yes, there will probably always be at least a slightly arbitrary cut off.

The argument against siblings past the age where they will naturally reproduce*** marrying isn't entirely clear to me. Prohibiting such a marriage does have an arbitrary element I'm mildly uncomfortable with, though I do think our prohibition against children below a certain age marrying is acceptable on the grounds that consent cannot be intelligently, full given is an entirely reasonable one.

***This is also somewhat arbitrary. If the issue is the birth of damaged children, well, we don't prohibit 45 year old women from getting pregnant. As far as I know, we don't even discourage them. I don't know that we should, but there will be cases where siblings, after genetic screening, can be shown to be less likely than 45 year old women to give birth to damaged children.
   496. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 03, 2013 at 01:06 AM (#4402849)
Do we always have to give the future movie directors and documentary makers the easy clips of the aging white guys in front of the camera making incredibly ignorant comments?

Wow, you guys are incredibly hung up on race.


It's not clear to me why he's picking on 'aging white guys' when there's more than enough ignorance to go around, and the issue of gay rights is no exception.

But here it's kind of humorous, since the attempt to frame gay marriage as a civil rights issue has been rejected by blacks, who (a) know all too well from experience what a civil rights issue is, and yet (b) don't see gay marriage as such.


Too easy for you. "Blacks", as a group, are hardly monolithic or close to it on the issue of whether gay rights is a civil rights issue. I believe the evidence suggests there is plenty of acceptance of that; where the distinction gets made is on whether the gay experience is particularly similar to the black experience.

Do you have an numbers that support your assertions here?
   497. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: April 03, 2013 at 01:16 AM (#4402855)
Yes, and "society and culture" have had a fairly specific and consistent definition of the word "marriage" for at least the past two millennia.

The definition of marriage has already changed to the extent it needed to. When I tell you that two female friends of mine just got married, you know what I mean, and you would have understood that sentence 10 or 20 years ago, too. The only thing you would not know was whether the government legally recognized their marriage, which just shows that it is the law that is behind here, and not the other way around. I mean, Elaine Benes went to a "lesbian wedding" in 1992 (well, technically she got stuck on the subway on her way there).

And you could find ministers, rabbis, and presumably officiants from other denominations who would perform marriages between members of the same sex before any government said it was ok. If nothing else it amounts to religious discrimation for the government to recognize one faith's marriages but not another's.
   498. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 03, 2013 at 01:35 AM (#4402865)
If nothing else it amounts to religious discrimation for the government to recognize one faith's marriages but not another's.

If true, then Mormons and Muslims, et al., would have a clear legal right to practice polygamy in the U.S., wouldn't they?
   499. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: April 03, 2013 at 03:44 AM (#4402873)
Yes, and "society and culture" have had a fairly specific and consistent definition of the word "marriage" for at least the past two millennia.


And slavery had a fairly specific and consistent, culturally approved definition well into the 18th century in nearly every culture.

I thought we were beyond "we've always done things that way", no?
   500. BrianBrianson Posted: April 03, 2013 at 04:26 AM (#4402875)

Yes, and "society and culture" have had a fairly specific and consistent definition of the word "marriage" for at least the past two millennia.


Ridiculous. We redefined marriage in the 80s when we stopped requiring women to take their husband's last name, we redefined marriage in the 70s when we stopped requiring women to get their husband's permission to do stuff, and we redefined marriage in the 60s when we allowed whites to get married to colored, and we redefined marriage in the 50s when we said women shouldn't get jobs, and we redefined marriage in the 40s when women stopped taking their husband's first names*, and we redefined marriage around 1900 when we stopped paying doweries, and we redefined marriage in the 1880s when we barred people from marrying their cousins, and so on, and so forth.
Page 5 of 66 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Rough Carrigan
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - November 2014
(1008 - 2:52am, Nov 24)
Last: Maxwn

NewsblogRed Sox trying for mega-free agent double play: Panda and Hanley - CBSSports.com
(78 - 2:48am, Nov 24)
Last: Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(4240 - 2:36am, Nov 24)
Last: Gonfalon Bubble

NewsblogKemp drawing interest, raising chance he's the Dodgers OF dealt - CBSSports.com
(30 - 1:16am, Nov 24)
Last: akrasian

NewsblogOT: Wrestling Thread November 2014
(57 - 12:31am, Nov 24)
Last: Rowland Office Supplies

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8650 - 11:54pm, Nov 23)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

NewsblogAstros interested in Robertson: source | New York Post
(18 - 11:31pm, Nov 23)
Last: RMc is a fine piece of cheese

NewsblogBraves shopping Justin Upton at a steep price | New York Post
(36 - 11:16pm, Nov 23)
Last: spike

NewsblogMatthews: Cashman sleeps on the street, says all is quiet on the free-agent front
(24 - 10:50pm, Nov 23)
Last: JE (Jason)

NewsblogPirates DFA Ike Davis, clear path for Pedro Alvarez - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
(21 - 10:13pm, Nov 23)
Last: zonk

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 2014 Ballot
(10 - 9:09pm, Nov 23)
Last: MrC

NewsblogPablo Sandoval leaning toward Red Sox, to decide next week — Padres have highest offer, all offers on table (including SF Giants’) - John Shea
(32 - 9:04pm, Nov 23)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

NewsblogMike Schmidt: Marlins' Stanton too rich too early? | www.palmbeachpost.com
(31 - 6:53pm, Nov 23)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogOT:  Soccer (the Round, True Football), November 2014
(451 - 6:43pm, Nov 23)
Last: JuanGone..except1game

NewsblogCashman in wait-and-see mode on retooling Yanks | yankees.com
(22 - 6:14pm, Nov 23)
Last: ReggieThomasLives

Page rendered in 1.2563 seconds
52 querie(s) executed