Public neutrality

[marshwiggle]

All 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.

Who 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.)

[Wahoo Redux]

All 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?

Who 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.

[marshwiggle]

@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.

[Wahoo Redux]

@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.

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.

Ummmm...okay.

[marshwiggle]

@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.

[Wahoo Redux]

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.

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.

[marshwiggle]

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.

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.

[Wahoo Redux]

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.

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.

[marshwiggle]

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.

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.
 

[Wahoo Redux]

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.

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.

The 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?

[marshwiggle]

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.

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.

The 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.

[Wahoo Redux]

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.

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.