Westlock, Alta., residents vote to get rid of town's rainbow crosswalk in plebiscite (https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/westlock-alta-residents-vote-to-get-rid-of-town-s-rainbow-crosswalk-in-plebiscite-1.7120498)
QuoteResidents of Westlock, Alta., voted in favour of a bylaw Thursday evening that bans certain flags and crosswalks from being displayed on public property, including the town's only rainbow crosswalk.
A plebiscite over a neutrality bylaw, spurred by a door-to-door petition signed by more than 700 residents, was announced in November. The bylaw, which will be implemented after Thursday's vote, bans crosswalks and flags supporting "political, social, or religious movements or commercial entities," in an effort to keep public spaces politically neutral.
.
.
.
Thursday's vote means the municipal government can only raise federal, provincial and municipal government flags on public property.
Crosswalks in the town — located about 90 kilometres northwest of Edmonton — can also only be painted the standard white-striped pattern.
.
.
.
Town staff received a petition on Sept. 15 from the Westlock Neutrality Team, led by Westlock resident Stephanie Bakker, asking council to make a bylaw "ensuring that crosswalks and flags on public property remain neutral."
I'd vote for something like this in a heartbeat. I'm curious to see if other municipalities follow suit.
Imagine being so neutral about queer people that you start a legally-binding petition to specifically outlaw a single multi-coloured crosswalk.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 23, 2024, 08:59:00 AMImagine being so neutral about queer people that you start a legally-binding petition to specifically outlaw a single multi-coloured crosswalk.
It outlaws
any crosswalk other than the standard one. So it's not being neutral "about" any group or ideology. Everyone is as free to use any crosswalk as they always were.
Mmhmm.
Just like Quebec's religious neutrality law definitely wasn't specifically directed at Muslims. It's just about making public services neutral! No veils (or kippahs, for that matter) allowed here, only the super-neutral historical symbol of the crucifix. It's a Very Principled Stand, and how dare I suggest otherwise?
I would have more respect for the new bylaw if it also outlawed any non-neutral displays on public property (i.e., religious, secular, ethnic, etc.). There has been so much controversy the past few years with Christmas displays and Satanic Temple displays, for example, why not just get rid of them all? Does this law also get rid of POW flags and BLM banners as well? If EVERYTHING in the town on public grounds needed to be neutral, not just a select few issues and places, I could get behind that. If the law is really just to hide certain viewpoints, well that is unfortunate.
The litmus test for these sort of things is if crosses are banned. If they're not, then it's just directed at a specific minority under the guise of neutrality. If it's truly neutral, then crosses would be included in the ban. Since a cross is neither a flag nor a crosswalk, this initiative is clearly written to target pride flags and its claim of neutrality is a sham.
Quote from: Stockmann on February 23, 2024, 10:52:16 AMThe litmus test for these sort of things is if crosses are banned. If they're not, then it's just directed at a specific minority under the guise of neutrality. If it's truly neutral, then crosses would be included in the ban. Since a cross is neither a flag nor a crosswalk, this initiative is clearly written to target pride flags and its claim of neutrality is a sham.
I don't know if there are any religious symbols on public property there, so it's not clear whether that is relevant. The bylaw would certainly make it easy for people to challenge any religious symbolism in the future, and that would be reasonable in my opinion. Flags certainly have a history of being used for causes, with governments asked to "declare" National Dog-Walker's Day or whatever. The crosswalk is a recent thing, but there could be all kinds of symbols that governments are asked to display which this bylaw is trying to prevent.
Virtue-signalling by governments is a bad idea because it is not in their mandate, and takes away attention and resources from things that actually
are within their mandate,and would make life
materially better for their constituents. For instance, if people of some marginalized group are disproportionately homeless, or in need of medical or mental health services, then the government would be
doing its job to try and improve those services, which would
materially help those people.
I'm reminded of the time Barbara Kingsolver said that she was told she couldn't distribute any anti-war information because it was deemed "political" and therefore not neutral, but was told that the people handing out yellow ribbons were doing a "public service" and was therefore allowed.
Sorry Marshbuddy, but this will not stop the encroaching flow of "progressive" ideas from impinging on your sensitivities.
But you and yours will be fine as long as you learn to live peacefully and coexist with people who are different from you, even if history has taught you some terrible ideas.
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 23, 2024, 11:07:16 AMVirtue-signalling by
You know, Marshysan, a great many people do actually care about things when they speak up.
"virtue signaling" is politico-jargon by wingnuts in an attempt to invalidate certain ideas. The term is propaganda.
You are virtue signaling when you use the term "virtue signaling."
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 23, 2024, 08:52:29 AMThursday's vote means the municipal government can only raise federal, provincial and municipal government flags on public property.
Flags are non-neutral. Whose land was it before the current flag was raised? Was it completely void, or did invaders come, bringing smallpox and rifles to run the previous people off the land?
Bans "certain flags" huh?
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 23, 2024, 02:43:22 PMSorry Marshbuddy, but this will not stop the encroaching flow of "progressive" ideas from impinging on your sensitivities.
But you and yours will be fine as long as you learn to live peacefully and coexist with people who are different from you, even if history has taught you some terrible ideas.
One of the ways people live peacefully and coexist with people who are different is by not trying to pretend that everyone
thinks the same.
Suppose a municipality wants to do a good thing regarding the war in Gaza by expressing support for a ceasefire and the return of all remaining hostages. That should be something most people are in favour of, right? Except that, as soon as they decide what "statement" they want to make, some people will start saying that a ceasefire has to happen
before the hostages are released, while others will say that the hostages have to be released
before a ceasefire. A big battle will ensue, and many people will be upset.
The real irony of this is that the municipality has
absolutely no ability to make either a ceasefire or return of hostages happen, and all of the time and energy expended is time and energy that
isn't being spent on what the municipality
actually is responsible for.
Every day on the calendar is claimed by some group as "Basketweaver's Day" or "Love your Penguin Day" or whatever. And everyone wants to make sure that
their day is "declared". What happens when one group wants "Beef Farmers' Day" and another wants "Vegan Day"? Declaring both will anger both groups, as will declaring neither,
unless there is a policy against
any such declarations.
It's a hole with no bottom, and since none of these
materially improve the lives of
any constituents, it's a waste of time, resources, and goodwill.
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 24, 2024, 01:22:30 PMEvery day on the calendar is claimed by some group as "Basketweaver's Day" or "Love your Penguin Day" or whatever. And everyone wants to make sure that their day is "declared". What happens when one group wants "Beef Farmers' Day" and another wants "Vegan Day"? Declaring both will anger both groups, as will declaring neither, unless there is a policy against any such declarations.
It's a hole with no bottom, and since none of these materially improve the lives of any constituents, it's a waste of time, resources, and goodwill.
Part of free speech is being offended. It comes with the territory.
Freedom is a dangerous thing.
You just have to learn to live with people who disagree with you.
What you cannot do is ban them to the backroom when they are a dude wearing a dress and doing a book reading because your psyche cannot handle it and therefore make your problem their problem.
Have the Beef Farmers Day and have the Vegan Day. No one needs to be offended unless they want to be offended----and some things really are offensive (even if they are not these).
Let everyone express their ideas and let everyone get mad and let everyone make up their own minds.
*GASP!* Yes, let citizen's think for themselves!!!
Your theory has everyone huddling in little petrified, outraged, heads-in herds of sheep.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 24, 2024, 02:51:05 PMHave the Beef Farmers Day and have the Vegan Day. No one needs to be offended unless they want to be offended----and some things really are offensive (even if they are not these).
Let everyone express their ideas and let everyone get mad and let everyone make up their own minds. *GASP!* Yes, let citizen's think for themselves!!!
They're all welcome to
have all those days and more. What
doesn't make sense is for the
government to formally "recognize" or "declare" those days. Same thing with flags; private citizens or organizations can fly whatever flags they want. The government doesn't have to approve of
any of them (or disapprove, for that matter). The government has other priorities.
Whether the government is "for" or "against" any cause doesn't require any citizen to be "for" or "against" it; that's what a
free society is all about! So a government doesn't need to express any opinion whatsoever on any topic; all it has to do is make and enforce rules and regulations and provide services to its citizens
on areas where it has jurisdiction.
Ideology not required, (beyond commitment to the democratic principles and laws that govern their operation.)
It is kind of bun fighting with you, Marshbunny, because you so often change tack and go off on some new strawman.
These are the Canadian public holidays found on Canada.ca (https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/public-holidays.html)
New Year - Monday, January 1, 2024
Good Friday - Friday, March 29, 2024
Easter Monday - Monday, April 1, 2024
Victoria Day - Monday, May 20, 2024
Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day - Monday, June 24, 2024
Canada Day - Monday, July 1, 2024
Civic Holiday - Monday, August 5, 2024 (excluding Quebec)
Labour Day - Monday, September 2, 2024
National Day for Truth and Reconciliation - Monday, September 30, 2024
Thanksgiving Day - Monday, October 14, 2024
Remembrance Day - Monday, November 11, 2024
Christmas Day - Wednesday, December 25, 2024
Boxing Day - Thursday, December 26, 2024
Some of these are religious and some are commemorative. Seems pretty standard Western protocols for holidays and nothing too partisan.
I see various Canadian government websites designating the placement and lowering protocols for the Canadian flag and for the positioning of the Canadian flag in regard to provinces and local governments, but nothing about any particularly partisan flags or emblems.
So, if Canadians wish to pay tribute to some sentiment or ideal, and the majority of Canadians find it worthy, so what?
Specifically, what are you so worried about?
This smacks of just casting around desperately for something, anything, to disapprove of. Disapproving does give a certain satisfaction, doesn't it? Gives one a nice sense of superiority and provides a pretext for a free-floating sense of wrongness and discontent. What's not to like? The world gives one so many opportunities for disapproving, one can amuse oneself forever.
I suspect that the Marshbeast wants "neutrality" as a pretext for banning drag queens from the library. I suspect that's the backbone of the new law banning the rainbow crosswalk.
If government space is "neutral," and we consider a book reading as "political" in some sense, then we can ban whom we like from upsetting the easily outraged.
Actually, this is a good sign. No longer can the wingnuts simply ban the bad people to the shadows. Now they must seek out anodyne sounding workarounds. So too bad for the wingnuts.
And, OMG, I had a great aunt who loved the free floating disapproval...we could go into therapy there...
Quote from: Hegemony on February 24, 2024, 11:46:13 PMThis smacks of just casting around desperately for something, anything, to disapprove of. Disapproving does give a certain satisfaction, doesn't it? Gives one a nice sense of superiority and provides a pretext for a free-floating sense of wrongness and discontent. What's not to like? The world gives one so many opportunities for disapproving, one can amuse oneself forever.
Back in the 70's and 80's, common advice was that people shouldn't talk about "sex, religion, and politics". Andy Rooney, on 60 minutes, used to say "Don't talk about politics with your doctor". These reflected the idea that these topics are things people often disagree about, but that don't need to get in the way of respectful day-to-day interactions between people.
Since the advent of social media, in the last decade or two, it has become common for people to wear all of these things on their sleeves.
My simple question is this: Has all of this excessive
publishing of things that would have fallen under "sex, religion, and politics" made for a more harmonious society?
Whether someone
"approves" or
"disapproves" of someone else's ides or choices depends on
knowing what those ideas and choices
are. The vast majority of the time there is no
implicit need for that to be the case. That's what neutrality reflects.
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 25, 2024, 09:58:19 AMQuote from: Hegemony on February 24, 2024, 11:46:13 PMThis smacks of just casting around desperately for something, anything, to disapprove of. Disapproving does give a certain satisfaction, doesn't it? Gives one a nice sense of superiority and provides a pretext for a free-floating sense of wrongness and discontent. What's not to like? The world gives one so many opportunities for disapproving, one can amuse oneself forever.
Back in the 70's and 80's, common advice was that people shouldn't talk about "sex, religion, and politics". Andy Rooney, on 60 minutes, used to say "Don't talk about politics with your doctor". These reflected the idea that these topics are things people often disagree about, but that don't need to get in the way of respectful day-to-day interactions between people.
Since the advent of social media, in the last decade or two, it has become common for people to wear all of these things on their sleeves.
My simple question is this: Has all of this excessive publishing of things that would have fallen under "sex, religion, and politics" made for a more harmonious society?
Whether someone "approves" or "disapproves" of someone else's ides or choices depends on knowing what those ideas and choices are. The vast majority of the time there is no implicit need for that to be the case. That's what neutrality reflects.
Darn that printing press. Guttenberg should be ashamed of himself for bringing all this division on society.
Back in the days of papyrus, charcoal, clay tablets, pictograms, and even cave paintings, all was peaceful and harmonious.
This thread reminded me of an itch I had to scratch. During the late '60s to mid '70s I had occasion to visit East Berlin several times. Signs and billboards staring at you from the walls of buildings, all over the place! Advertising, for a single product -- the religion of the state. Pressure to conform wherever you looked.
That is no different from interest groups, like the LGBQTers, or anybody else, from trying to use the state to paint the symbols at present.
Away with the propaganda!
So we are no longer on flags and crosswalks but publishing stuff. Okay.
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 25, 2024, 09:58:19 AMBack in the 70's and 80's, common advice was that people shouldn't talk about "sex, religion, and politics".
You had a much, much different '70s and '80s than I did.
QuoteAndy Rooney, on 60 minutes, used to say "Don't talk about politics with your doctor".
Rooney was an absolute idiot and a terrible journalist.
QuoteThese reflected the idea that these topics are things people often disagree about, but that don't need to get in the way of respectful day-to-day interactions between people.
So? Don't let them get in the way.
Most problems exist because people decide that they are problems.
There is absolutely no problem with a drag-queen reading to children in a public library unless you decide it is a problem.
QuoteSince the advent of social media, in the last decade or two, it has become common for people to wear all of these things on their sleeves.
Again, where the hell were you in the '70s, '80s, and '90s!?
QuoteMy simple question is this: Has all of this excessive publishing of things that would have fallen under "sex, religion, and politics" made for a more harmonious society?
If by "harmonious" you mean that formally marginalized, menaced, and derided minority groups now have a voice (whether you like it or not), then yes, we are a more harmonious society.
Again, my friend, your problem seems to be that you have a problem and you want all the rest of us to tippytoe around your (and by "your" I mean conservatives) hypersensitivities.
Not gonna happen.
And sure, "progressives" can be just as bad.
Quote from: dismalist on February 25, 2024, 03:28:27 PMThis thread reminded me of an itch I had to scratch. During the late '60s to mid '70s I had occasion to visit East Berlin several times. Signs and billboards staring at you from the walls of buildings, all over the place! Advertising, for a single product -- the religion of the state. Pressure to conform wherever you looked.
That is no different from interest groups, like the LGBQTers, or anybody else, from trying to use the state to paint the symbols at present.
Away with the propaganda!
A very mature and stable analogy.
Not bigoted at all.
Who wants all this equality, anyway? Much better in East Berlin.
Quote from: dismalist on February 25, 2024, 03:28:27 PMThis thread reminded me of an itch I had to scratch. During the late '60s to mid '70s I had occasion to visit East Berlin several times. Signs and billboards staring at you from the walls of buildings, all over the place! Advertising, for a single product -- the religion of the state. Pressure to conform wherever you looked.
That is no different from interest groups, like the LGBQTers, or anybody else, from trying to use the state to paint the symbols at present.
Away with the propaganda!
I think you and I are among those who believe that to the extent the state is given the
freedom to propagandize, the more assuredly they will
eventually use it for self-serving and immoral purposes, whereas there are others who believe that somehow the state can be limited to only using that freedom for "*socially beneficial" purposes.
(*Of course, the state will declare
all of their actions as "socially beneficial"...)
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 26, 2024, 06:07:18 AMQuote from: dismalist on February 25, 2024, 03:28:27 PMThis thread reminded me of an itch I had to scratch. During the late '60s to mid '70s I had occasion to visit East Berlin several times. Signs and billboards staring at you from the walls of buildings, all over the place! Advertising, for a single product -- the religion of the state. Pressure to conform wherever you looked.
That is no different from interest groups, like the LGBQTers, or anybody else, from trying to use the state to paint the symbols at present.
Away with the propaganda!
I think you and I are among those who believe that to the extent the state is given the freedom to propagandize, the more assuredly they will eventually use it for self-serving and immoral purposes, whereas there are others who believe that somehow the state can be limited to only using that freedom for "*socially beneficial" purposes.
(*Of course, the state will declare all of their actions as "socially beneficial"...)
One way to keep the state out of our daily lives is to use the US constitution. However, that's never going to happen again. Too many very narrow interest groups get ameliorated by too many governments for that to be given up by political parties.
Years ago, Jay Leno, whose TV program I maybe saw twice, said in connection with the discussion of a constitution for Iraq, extant at the time, we should let Iraq use our constitution, because while it is good, we don't use it anymore! From then on, I knew he was one of the righteous.
Given all this, political competition between sub-national governments is the only possible path to improvement I see.
I read somewhere that the Canadian constitution was not designed with strong Provincial prerogatives, but it has become that way, and that the US constitution was designed that way, but it has become unreal.
Oh, and it's not just you and me that thinks states behave this way. There is a third person, whose name I don't know, but I have his fax number. :-)
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 26, 2024, 06:07:18 AMQuote from: dismalist on February 25, 2024, 03:28:27 PMThis thread reminded me of an itch I had to scratch. During the late '60s to mid '70s I had occasion to visit East Berlin several times. Signs and billboards staring at you from the walls of buildings, all over the place! Advertising, for a single product -- the religion of the state. Pressure to conform wherever you looked.
That is no different from interest groups, like the LGBQTers, or anybody else, from trying to use the state to paint the symbols at present.
Away with the propaganda!
I think you and I are among those who believe that to the extent the state is given the freedom to propagandize, the more assuredly they will eventually use it for self-serving and immoral purposes, whereas there are others who believe that somehow the state can be limited to only using that freedom for "*socially beneficial" purposes.
(*Of course, the state will declare all of their actions as "socially beneficial"...)
Exactly!!!
All that Civil Rights legislation and desegregation of the military!!!! How dare the government take a side!!!
And all those hate laws!!!! Violent racists and homophobes really hate the hate laws!!!!
Who wants a government which caters to all the people and not just those traditionally in power!!!!
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 23, 2024, 11:07:16 AMQuote from: Stockmann on February 23, 2024, 10:52:16 AMThe litmus test for these sort of things is if crosses are banned. If they're not, then it's just directed at a specific minority under the guise of neutrality. If it's truly neutral, then crosses would be included in the ban. Since a cross is neither a flag nor a crosswalk, this initiative is clearly written to target pride flags and its claim of neutrality is a sham.
I don't know if there are any religious symbols on public property there, so it's not clear whether that is relevant. The bylaw would certainly make it easy for people to challenge any religious symbolism in the future, and that would be reasonable in my opinion. Flags certainly have a history of being used for causes, with governments asked to "declare" National Dog-Walker's Day or whatever. The crosswalk is a recent thing, but there could be all kinds of symbols that governments are asked to display which this bylaw is trying to prevent.
Virtue-signalling by governments is a bad idea because it is not in their mandate, and takes away attention and resources from things that actually are within their mandate,and would make life materially better for their constituents. For instance, if people of some marginalized group are disproportionately homeless, or in need of medical or mental health services, then the government would be doing its job to try and improve those services, which would materially help those people.
Regardless of whether there are any on display already, if it doesn't ban crosses (and other religious symbols) then it's clearly not neutral. Pride crosswalks are pretty much the only non-standard crosswalks so the law's bias is obvious. It's a lot like the French law banning hijabs and skullcaps in schools, but not crosses - it was in the name of defending the secular state, but was an obvious islamophobic and anti-semitic move. Again, in Western countries the obvious litmus test is whether crosses and other Christian symbols are banned or restricted to the same extent. It says it all that this law clearly bans obvious Pride symbols while avoiding restricting any Christian symbols - and I say that as someone somewhat sympathetic to the professed idea of neutrality. But I'm sympathetic to actual neutrality.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 23, 2024, 02:48:52 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on February 23, 2024, 11:07:16 AMVirtue-signalling by
You know, Marshysan, a great many people do actually care about things when they speak up.
"virtue signaling" is politico-jargon by wingnuts in an attempt to invalidate certain ideas. The term is propaganda.
You are virtue signaling when you use the term "virtue signaling."
Virtue-signaling is done by both sides. For example, the "family values" crowd loves clutching their pearls, but mostly they've thrown their weight behind a rapist and philanderer who had young children seized by force from their parents and put in cages, so talk about family values, Christian values is also (empty) virtue-signalling (to their base). I'm very cynical about politicians and activists actually caring about things other than self-interest and political, social and economic power for their in-group.
QuoteVirtue-signaling is done by both sides.
Granted. I simply hear the term more frequently on the proverbial lips of conservative commentators. The term will lose all significance if it hasn't already.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 26, 2024, 05:15:06 PMAll that Civil Rights legislation and desegregation of the military!!!! How dare the government take a side!!!
Are you referring to "the government" that
originated racial segregation?
Oh, right, from now on all governments will be enlightened and could never do something like that that future generations would see as horrific.
QuoteWho wants a government which caters to all the people and not just those traditionally in power!!!!
Because it's the norm for governments to do this, rather than cater to people who are
currently in power, i.e. themselves.
You have an amazingly optimistic view of government and its total impossibility of using its power for bad ends. When the party you don't like gets elected, remind me of how good it is that they exercise all of those powers.
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 27, 2024, 04:55:40 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on February 26, 2024, 05:15:06 PMAll that Civil Rights legislation and desegregation of the military!!!! How dare the government take a side!!!
Are you referring to "the government" that originated racial segregation?
Oh, right, from now on all governments will be enlightened and could never do something like that that future generations would see as horrific.
QuoteWho wants a government which caters to all the people and not just those traditionally in power!!!!
Because it's the norm for governments to do this, rather than cater to people who are currently in power, i.e. themselves.
You have an amazingly optimistic view of government and its total impossibility of using its power for bad ends. When the party you don't like gets elected, remind me of how good it is that they exercise all of those powers.
Wouldn't it be crazy if a country had a written document in which it made the point to protect the rights of all people, equally? Has that ever happened?
Quote from: ciao_yall on February 27, 2024, 06:36:25 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on February 27, 2024, 04:55:40 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on February 26, 2024, 05:15:06 PMAll that Civil Rights legislation and desegregation of the military!!!! How dare the government take a side!!!
Are you referring to "the government" that originated racial segregation?
Oh, right, from now on all governments will be enlightened and could never do something like that that future generations would see as horrific.
QuoteWho wants a government which caters to all the people and not just those traditionally in power!!!!
Because it's the norm for governments to do this, rather than cater to people who are currently in power, i.e. themselves.
You have an amazingly optimistic view of government and its total impossibility of using its power for bad ends. When the party you don't like gets elected, remind me of how good it is that they exercise all of those powers.
Wouldn't it be crazy if a country had a written document in which it made the point to protect the rights of all people, equally? Has that ever happened?
Like the one that was in place during slavery and racial segregation?
Governments are made up of
people, and frequently make decisions which fall short of the ideals of their founding documents. (And, as in the case for slavery,
interpret those documents in ways which allow all kinds of things that later generations are appalled at.)
Quote from: ciao_yall on February 27, 2024, 06:36:25 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on February 27, 2024, 04:55:40 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on February 26, 2024, 05:15:06 PMAll that Civil Rights legislation and desegregation of the military!!!! How dare the government take a side!!!
Are you referring to "the government" that originated racial segregation?
Oh, right, from now on all governments will be enlightened and could never do something like that that future generations would see as horrific.
I AM referring to that very government.
And yeah, this legislation most definitely had an effect on future generations.
What sarcastic point did you think you were making?
QuoteQuoteWho wants a government which caters to all the people and not just those traditionally in power!!!!
Because it's the norm for governments to do this, rather than cater to people who are currently in power, i.e. themselves.
You have an amazingly optimistic view of government and its total impossibility of using its power for bad ends. When the party you don't like gets elected, remind me of how good it is that they exercise all of those powers.
Wouldn't it be crazy if a country had a written document in which it made the point to protect the rights of all people, equally? Has that ever happened?
[/quote]
Hey, sometimes government works.
Civil Rights changed the face of North America for the much, much better. The U.S. and Canada have benign governments that work for their citizens----a wonderful evolution in the history of the world. Because they are human endeavors, they do not always work exactly as they should, but they still work. You and I would be plowing fields and giving a chicken a week to the castle, or fearing the gulag, with a different scenario.
I have hope for the future too as we become an even more liberalized culture free from the petty laws of the fearful and oppressive hypocrites.
@ciao: Marshy is mad because Civil Rights, the Constitution, et al. hadn't occurred to him. He's a very good guy who sometimes posts with a bit of indignant fury.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 27, 2024, 08:34:49 AM@ciao: Marshy is mad because Civil Rights, the Constitution, et al. hadn't occurred to him. He's a very good guy who sometimes posts with a bit of indignant fury.
If you think anyone who disagrees does so with "indignant fury", then you're missing the point.
When I have students who don't show up and don't hand things in, I may disagree with their approach and think they're wasting their time and money, but I'm neither "indignant" or "furious". I don't lose any sleep over it, but I imagine they might one day be disappointed with the consequences of their choices.
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 28, 2024, 05:15:21 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on February 27, 2024, 08:34:49 AM@ciao: Marshy is mad because Civil Rights, the Constitution, et al. hadn't occurred to him. He's a very good guy who sometimes posts with a bit of indignant fury.
If you think anyone who disagrees does so with "indignant fury", then you're missing the point.
Oh Marsh, Marsh, Marsh...
I never said "anyone." I said you.
QuoteWhen I have students who don't show up and don't hand things in, I may disagree with their approach and think they're wasting their time and money, but I'm neither "indignant" or "furious". I don't lose any sleep over it, but I imagine they might one day be disappointed with the consequences of their choices.
Ummmm...okay.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 28, 2024, 05:42:47 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on February 28, 2024, 05:15:21 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on February 27, 2024, 08:34:49 AM@ciao: Marshy is mad because Civil Rights, the Constitution, et al. hadn't occurred to him. He's a very good guy who sometimes posts with a bit of indignant fury.
If you think anyone who disagrees does so with "indignant fury", then you're missing the point.
Oh Marsh, Marsh, Marsh...
I never said "anyone." I said you.
I know, and you are completely wrong in
imagining that I get that worked up about these things. These
discussions are an enjoyable pastime; I don't lose sleep over any of the issues behind them. For example, I feel about rainbow crosswalks about the way I feel about "Kony 2012"; created by well-meaning people, but without the likelihood of producing any
material improvement in the lives of people it's supposed to help.
But people get to feel all warm and fuzzy by doing it.
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 28, 2024, 07:41:57 AMwithout the likelihood of producing any material improvement in the lives of people it's supposed to help.
But people get to feel all warm and fuzzy by doing it.
Isn't "warm and fuzzy" a material improvement?
Feeling good about oneself and having a secure place in society are pretty important aspects of life.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 28, 2024, 08:40:41 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on February 28, 2024, 07:41:57 AMwithout the likelihood of producing any material improvement in the lives of people it's supposed to help.
But people get to feel all warm and fuzzy by doing it.
Isn't "warm and fuzzy" a material improvement?
Feeling good about oneself and having a secure place in society are pretty important aspects of life.
Do you really think a rainbow crosswalk makes anyone's place in society any more secure? I don't imagine the bullies are going to change based on the presence or absence of a crosswalk.
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 28, 2024, 09:40:20 AMDo you really think a rainbow crosswalk makes anyone's place in society any more secure? I don't imagine the bullies are going to change based on the presence or absence of a crosswalk.
Yes. I do.
We have seen "the bullies" changing.
No one thinks that walking over a rainbow crosswalk cures homophobia.
But yeah, bringing people out of the shadows has a very beneficial effect on their lives.
Rainbow crosswalks are one more small way that we can do that. That's why the hatemongers don't want them.
If the rainbow crosswalk has no effect, no one would be trying to ban it.
It is the same thing as acknowledging Christians' rights to wear crosses on necklaces.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 28, 2024, 09:49:46 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on February 28, 2024, 09:40:20 AMDo you really think a rainbow crosswalk makes anyone's place in society any more secure? I don't imagine the bullies are going to change based on the presence or absence of a crosswalk.
Yes. I do.
We have seen "the bullies" changing.
No one thinks that walking over a rainbow crosswalk cures homophobia.
But yeah, bringing people out of the shadows has a very beneficial effect on their lives.
Rainbow crosswalks are one more small way that we can do that. That's why the hatemongers don't want them.
If the rainbow crosswalk has no effect, no one would be trying to ban it.
It is the same thing as acknowledging Christians' rights to wear crosses on necklaces.
That's an odd comparison. Wearing a cross on a necklace would be more similar to wearing a rainbow pin or other rainbow jewellery, and I haven't heard anyone suggest banning those.
The rainbow crosswalk on public property would be more like having a cross or nativity display on public property, which many places forbid.
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 28, 2024, 12:26:18 PMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on February 28, 2024, 09:49:46 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on February 28, 2024, 09:40:20 AMDo you really think a rainbow crosswalk makes anyone's place in society any more secure? I don't imagine the bullies are going to change based on the presence or absence of a crosswalk.
Yes. I do.
We have seen "the bullies" changing.
No one thinks that walking over a rainbow crosswalk cures homophobia.
But yeah, bringing people out of the shadows has a very beneficial effect on their lives.
Rainbow crosswalks are one more small way that we can do that. That's why the hatemongers don't want them.
If the rainbow crosswalk has no effect, no one would be trying to ban it.
It is the same thing as acknowledging Christians' rights to wear crosses on necklaces.
That's an odd comparison. Wearing a cross on a necklace would be more similar to wearing a rainbow pin or other rainbow jewellery, and I haven't heard anyone suggest banning those.
Either you are missing the point or you are playing obtuse.
QuoteThe rainbow crosswalk on public property would be more like having a cross or nativity display on public property, which many places forbid.
Is that really an accurate and fair analogy?
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on February 28, 2024, 03:02:30 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on February 28, 2024, 12:26:18 PMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on February 28, 2024, 09:49:46 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on February 28, 2024, 09:40:20 AMDo you really think a rainbow crosswalk makes anyone's place in society any more secure? I don't imagine the bullies are going to change based on the presence or absence of a crosswalk.
Yes. I do.
We have seen "the bullies" changing.
No one thinks that walking over a rainbow crosswalk cures homophobia.
But yeah, bringing people out of the shadows has a very beneficial effect on their lives.
Rainbow crosswalks are one more small way that we can do that. That's why the hatemongers don't want them.
If the rainbow crosswalk has no effect, no one would be trying to ban it.
It is the same thing as acknowledging Christians' rights to wear crosses on necklaces.
That's an odd comparison. Wearing a cross on a necklace would be more similar to wearing a rainbow pin or other rainbow jewellery, and I haven't heard anyone suggest banning those.
Either you are missing the point or you are playing obtuse.
QuoteThe rainbow crosswalk on public property would be more like having a cross or nativity display on public property, which many places forbid.
Is that really an accurate and fair analogy?
Of course. A piece of jewellery is worn by an
individual, reflecting that
person's values, etc. A
public display reflects a
community rather than any specific individual.
Quote from: marshwiggle on February 28, 2024, 03:57:05 PMOf course. A piece of jewellery is worn by an individual, reflecting that person's values, etc. A public display reflects a community rather than any specific individual.
No. Not necessarily. There are lots of public displays that do not necessarily reflect any particular community. Displays may even counteract community values because of the First Amendment.
You know where you can't make a public display that counteracts community values? North Korea. Russia.
You are making up things you wish were true.