Serious I hear the U.S. Supreme Court did some things... (with a twist)

[capefeather]

This thread probably would have been obligatory if not for... y'know... but I suppose people still have something to say about all the stuff that's happened with the U.S. Supreme Court. Something about Cyan's homeland... and voting rights...

Anyway, the real reason I'm making this thread is to try something. Often in this forum, people disagree fiercely and get angry at each other, yet a lot of the time, it has to do with miscommunication. I know I've been semi-intentionally cryptic a lot of times... So I'm going to try to implement a "taboo" system into this discussion. Bear with me here... Basically, if you find somebody's post unclear, you can declare certain words in the post "taboo". That is, future posts may not use a tabooed word or any synonyms of it. A poster who may have wanted to use a tabooed word must use other, simpler words and/or phrases to get his/her general idea across more clearly.

Example:

Alice: If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
Bob: No, it doesn't make a sound.
Catherine: What? Of course it makes a sound!
Bob: No! *&^$ you!
Catherine: *&^$ you!
Bob: AAAAA
Catherine: AAAAA
Dennis: I taboo the word "sound".
Bob: The event produces no vibrations in anybody's eardrums!
Catherine: The event produces vibrations in the air!

By tabooing the word "sound", the disagreement was completely vaporized, having been revealed as a misunderstanding due to an unclear word.

I don't think I can really enforce this system, though, and I don't think that the forum mods reasonably can/should, either. It has to be driven by the posters. It provides a way to distinguish people who want a real discussion from the people who just want to toot their own horns. If somebody isn't cooperating, chances are they're not actually interested in discussion. I also see a lot of abuse of connotation in forum posts, and people will certainly try to do so with this topic, so tabooing words with strong connotations should alleviate that as well.

I don't normally bother with the Serious tag, but I'm using it here in the hopes that people might take this seriously!

 

[mattj]

I don't understand what you mean by "I". I taboo the word "I". Continue.

Also, a bit confused here about the hubbub about the DOMA ruling. Maybe y'all could elaborate on how it's a huge win for gay marriage. Pretty sure they basically said, "If your state says it's legal, we'll recognize it. But if your state says it's illegal, we're not going to tell your state otherwise." Is that accurate?

 

[Nastyjungle]

what stops somebody from calling taboo arbitrarily?

also looking at a single word in an argument as a core issue is like looking at a single tree in a forest a lot of the time, much too fine a point and you lose the meaning of what you are talking about because your focus became on a word (though I guess that is the point of this system, to alleviate that? i could see it both making an issue worse and helping get over impasses in debates)

also mattj i think people mean less of a physical victory and more a psychological one, it's a win for gay marriage rights in that the supreme court ruled in a way favorable to the gay rights movement, indicating the beginnings of a shift in the social ideology of the government and the american citizens as a whole

but yeah from what i understand states still have the right to define marriage as they choose but the feds no longer have that right

 

[Shiruba]

so much for the "united" states of america, though.

 

[EspyOwner]

I don't understand what you mean by "I". I taboo the word "I". Continue.

Also, a bit confused here about the hubbub about the DOMA ruling. Maybe y'all could elaborate on how it's a huge win for gay marriage. Pretty sure they basically said, "If your state says it's legal, we'll recognize it. But if your state says it's illegal, we're not going to tell your state otherwise." Is that accurate?

DOMA was meant to define marriage as between one man and one woman, meaning it would have (at least how I have seen it interpreted, I haven't looked at the actual document) pretty much made it impossible for a same-sex marriage to be recognized by any state.

Not so much a leap forward, just not a giant leap backwards essentially.

 

[Jimbo]

Eh I think it's a pretty big step. Now states that already allow same-sex marriage actually can give real same-sex marriages (i.e. ones with federal benefits). Killing DOMA basically legalized gay marriage (again) in the 10 or so states that allow it. I also think that calling it unconstitutional will give leverage to those around the country lobbying for same-sex marriage in their own states.

 

[cim]

DOMA ruling is nice but if it is the only ruling you know anything about from the past few weeks then you are not very informed. I'm kinda sad that I'm the first person to post about any other lawsuits.

I'll keep it to one, the VRA ruling was just plainly ridiculous. The legal reasoning is pretty suspect, and it drives election policy totally backwards. This has the potential to be quite a big problem for people in the South disenfranchised by ridiculous voter registration laws.

 

[kd24]

i don't understand anything in capefeather's OP, so i'm declaring all of it taboo. capefeather, by your own rules, please don't use words used in the OP or synonyms for those words in future threads so we can avoid these disagreements. thank you.

 

[Nastyjungle]

DOMA ruling is nice but if it is the only ruling you know anything about from the past few weeks then you are not very informed. I'm kinda sad that I'm the first person to post about any other lawsuits.

I'll keep it to one, the VRA ruling was just plainly ridiculous. The legal reasoning is pretty suspect, and it drives election policy totally backwards. This has the potential to be quite a big problem for people in the South disenfranchised by ridiculous voter registration laws.

surely you cant be that shocked that people are latching on to the first big political news they hear to push whatever political agenda they have in order to feel and appear informed..

i think "potential to" is sugarcoating it even, before this ruling the gop was going through every hole they could to fuck over minorities, this is going to seriously hurt come big elections imo

 

[Jimbo]

DOMA ruling is nice but if it is the only ruling you know anything about from the past few weeks then you are not very informed. I'm kinda sad that I'm the first person to post about any other lawsuits.

I'll keep it to one, the VRA ruling was just plainly ridiculous. The legal reasoning is pretty suspect, and it drives election policy totally backwards. This has the potential to be quite a big problem for people in the South disenfranchised by ridiculous voter registration laws.

I mean... only like 4 people actually responded all on one thing because we were responding to each other, but I see your point.

The VRA ruling was really interesting. It's like society is taking steps in some aspects but ignoring others. I guess the newer social voice is influencing the older supreme court foagies on some things (gay marriage), but they're holding steep to some older stuff (racism??)

 

[viol and bass]

The VRA ruling kind of scares the shit out of me, with elections coming up and congress being the shithole that it is.

 

[mattj]

I'm kinda sad that I'm the first person to post about any other lawsuits.

post # 7

chill

 

[kalphite]

What was the VRA ruling?

 

[Stratos]

When one in five ohio voters is probably a fraud i find it hard to give a crap about the vra or even elections as a whole anymore.

On the other hand, as a conservative Christian, i am pleased by the ruling on DOMA. It signals what i believe is a step in the right direction, which would be the separation of the concept of state-sponsored civil union from the Christian tradition of marriage, so they are treated as two entirely different things and control of the latter can return entirely to the Church. (If government would just get out of the business of our living arrangements entirely, now THAT would be ideal, but asking government to get smaller is like asking a fish to walk).

E @ Jimbo: i didn't follow the actual doma case, just saw the result. Was it argued from the tenth or fourteenth amendment? I would wish they used the tenth, but presumably they went with the 14th? If the latter, i could see a court case arguing from this ruling to force other states to recognize gay marriage. (I personally think that's silly, since marriage isn't an essential human right at all. Case law smh)

 

[Nastyjungle]

What was the VRA ruling?

section 4 of the voting rights act declared unconstitutional, it basically said "yeah these places in the US have been historically racist, we should probably put them under a little more scrutiny when they try to change voting laws because it could be an attack on minorities, so here is a formula to identify those places", and section 5 was the actual section that outlined how those certain places had to submit voting law changes to the feds- that section wasnt declared unconstitutional, but the entire thing was neutered because section 4 no longer applies

 

[Shiruba]

On the other hand, as a conservative Christian, i am pleased by the ruling on DOMA. It signals what i believe is a step in the right direction, which would be the separation of the concept of state-sponsored civil union from the Christian tradition of marriage, so they are treated as two entirely different things and control of the latter can return entirely to the Church.

i don't mean to be rude, but [if it's what you were trying to say], marriage is hardly a christian-only tradition. variations of it have appeared across the globe in varying forms, with or without christian contact: case and point, first nations/native american [god i hate that term] tribes such as the comanche, which lived in north america long before christianity was brought to it, had their form of marriage. marriage also predates christianity - it was present in ancient greece and rome. as such, marriage can't really be considered a christian thing. sure, a lot of americans are christians and are married in churches, but a lot of americans are not christians or are not married in churches as well - thus, it makes no sense for christian doctrine to apply to non-christian sanctioned marriages. just my two cents.

 

[Stratos]

i don't mean to be rude, but [if it's what you were trying to say], marriage is hardly a christian-only tradition. variations of it have appeared across the globe in varying forms, with or without christian contact: case and point, first nations/native american [god i hate that term] tribes such as the comanche, which lived in north america long before christianity was brought to it, had their form of marriage. marriage also predates christianity - it was present in ancient greece and rome. as such, marriage can't really be considered a christian thing. sure, a lot of americans are christians and are married in churches, but a lot of americans are not christians or are not married in churches as well - thus, it makes no sense for christian doctrine to apply to non-christian sanctioned marriages. just my two cents.

yeah, i'm aware that marriage isn't solely a christian concept; however, it is christians who have been trying to mold government marriage to their view. also, i personally am a christian, so forgive me if i'm more concerned with christian marriage than comanche marriage :p

edit: holy crap that tongue smiley it burns

 

[Shiruba]

yeah, i'm aware that marriage isn't solely a christian concept; however, it is christians who have been trying to mold government marriage to their view. also, i personally am a christian, so forgive me if i'm more concerned with christian marriage than comanche marriage :p

edit: holy crap that tongue smiley it burns

...isn't that a bad thing? forgive me, i'm not too familiar with american politics, but isn't one of the most important things about the constitution that church and state are being kept separate? if it's all christian marriage, then even non-christians will have christian marriage forced on them, which doesn't make me think 'land of the free'.
:rolleyes: <- that smiley is the best one btw. purple 4 lyfe.

 

[Deck Knight]

yeah, i'm aware that marriage isn't solely a christian concept; however, it is christians who have been trying to mold government marriage to their view. also, i personally am a christian, so forgive me if i'm more concerned with christian marriage than comanche marriage :p

edit: holy crap that tongue smiley it burns

This is inaccurate. The "Christian" (it's really more biological reality than strictly religious) definition of marriage has been the operating definition for basically all of Western Civilization, including Rome even during its decline into decadence and hedonism. Redefining marriage as an institution based on adult love rather than child rights and protections is a new movement - but not a new idea. It's basically a pagan throwback to the time before Christ, when marriage was more about property and adults settling their affairs with the state.

Shorter version: It's the pro-SSM folks who want to mold marriage to their understanding away from its current one. In an actual logical discussion, the onus is on the pro-SSM folks to first explain their definition, then why it is superior, and how they intend to mitigate demonstrated social and legal fallout from where their definition has been tried.

DOMA ruling is fairly neutral in that it defers the definition of marriage back to the states, and then applies federal benefits that occur with state-recognized marriages. The only thing suspect about it is justice Kennedy's intensely judgmental ruling that the only reason DOMA was ever passed was because President Clinton and an overwhelming majority of Democrats hate gay people and wanted that hatred enshrined in law. I think wearing black robes instead of black dockers to work every day got to Justice Kennedy's head.

The VRA ruling was long overdue. The only thing the court really said was that if they wanted to keep the VRA in effect, they had to modernize the formula so they weren't deciding 2013 redistricting plans based on 1964, 1968, and 1972 election registrations / turnout. The south is also far and away more racially diverse than the north, and registrations are at or better than parity in the original areas subject to the VRA.

As to what happened in the south itself, it's a real example of actual social progress, once again brought to you by the party founded on civil rights. Jefferson Davis through George Wallace and Bull Connor and beyond were Democrats. Lincoln and the abolitionists through Eisenhower and beyond were Republican. The south now votes that way not in a continuance of their racist history, but in direct defiance of it

People who claim real social progress is possible should be cheering this decision. The usual suspects aren't because the VRA was a great way to keep racial animosity and tensions going, and self-proclaimed "civil rights" groups now get their checks cut based on how much hate they can gin up rather than how much they can soothe (See: Sharpton, Rev. Al - Jackson, Rev. Jesse, La Raza, MEChA, etc.).

Prop 8 ruling on standing basically means that if the governor of your state doesn't want to defend a referendum duly passed by your state in court from legal challenge, you're screwed. Victory for lawlessness and dereliction of duty.

 

[Shiruba]

i beg your pardon if i have been misinformed, but it seems that while republicans were at one point the party for social progression and change [including very notable persons such as abraham lincoln], it is hardly comparable to the party of today, which is more conservative in its dealings than in the past. i looked up lincoln's platform [http://cprr.org/Museum/Ephemera/Republican_Platform_1860.html] from 1860, and i found that it shows several points which are quite similar to the democrats of today, such as a fixed/government-run economy [as opposed to free market], using government funding to build the railroad [as opposed to a rich, private investor], as well as protecting the rights of minorities, something with which current-day republicans do not seem to be very focused on in my observation.

the republicans of today often cite religion in their platforms [http://whitehouse16.com/republican-party-platform/ - the word 'god' is mentioned 10 times in this], and they are quite clear that they are against social progression in the way of gay marriage and the like [open slavery is not an issue in the united states at this point in time]. i wouldn't say that it's the same party; 150 years can and does change many things.

again, i am hardly an avid reader into politics, so if i am misinformed or reading this the wrong way, please correct me.

[however even as a casual observer i don't think it takes much to confirm that mitt romney is indeed an idiot, but i might not have seen the entire picture]

 

[cim]

When one in five ohio voters is probably a fraud i find it hard to give a crap about the vra or even elections as a whole anymore.

that is not what the article is talking about at all in the slightest! the article is talking about how ohio election officials have to leave inactive registered voters on the roster making it harder to verify if they have become ineligible to vote for some reason. if you interpreted that as "20% of ohio registered voters are frauds that don't exist" then you don't have the best reading comprehension

right here, from the article:

Under current federal law, elections officials cannot remove an inactive voter unless they can present prima facie evidence that he or she is no longer eligible, Chapin explained.

they are complaining that they can't remove inactive voters unless they know they are fraudulent. they are just trying to disenfranchise people who don't vote that often

 

[Stratos]

they are complaining that they can't remove inactive voters unless they know they are fraudulent. they are just trying to disenfranchise people who don't vote that often

ok im sorry if this post is a little borderline but why do liberals have such a raging hard-on for the word 'disenfranchisement?' don't get me wrong, racially-biased laws are one thing, (though if the obama admin wanted to help with racially-biased voting rigs, they probably shouldn't have dropped the case against the new black panther party! (but white people are more likely to vote Republican so what did you really expect)), but i'm a lot more concerned about a potential 2 million illegitimate votes in a battleground state than i am about the opinions of people too lazy to reregister so!

 

[Myzozoa]

ok im sorry if this post is a little borderline but why do liberals have such a raging hard-on for the word 'disenfranchisement?' don't get me wrong, racially-biased laws are one thing, (though if the obama admin wanted to help with racially-biased voting rigs, they probably shouldn't have dropped the case against the new black panther party! (but white people are more likely to vote Republican so what did you really expect)), but i'm a lot more concerned about a potential 2 million illegitimate votes in a battleground state than i am about the opinions of people too lazy to reregister so!

Classic! After cim tells you the article you posted showed nothing like what you think it proved your response is to have a little rant about the word 'disenfranchisement' and then make the wild claim that there are two million illegitimate votes in a battleground state. To top it off you even managed to throw in that you think the reason minorities don't vote is because they're too lazy to register (" Racially-baised laws are one thing, but I'm more concerned about a potential 2 million... in a battle ground state than about the opinions of people too lazy to register so").
The republican party has taught you well.

 

[Stratos]

sorry let me fix this for you:

"Oops, yeah cim i should have used the word 'potentially' instead of 'probably.' however i did read the article.

Now, i'm sorry if this comes off as a little borderline, but..."

also yeah the 2 million people who the ohio registry wanted to clear were obviously all racial minorities. because literally the only reason someone has to not vote is because they are a racial minority who is barred from polling places. that was obviously the correct interpretation of my post, instead of "i support enfranchising voters who have been disenfranchised because of racially-biased laws, but voters who are cleared from the rolls because of their own apathy i have much less sympathy for"

edit: also i don't even identify as republican, but as libertarian, so shove your preconceived notions up your far too tight ass

 

[Myzozoa]

sorry let me fix this for your shitheaded self:

"Oops, i should have used the word 'potentially' instead of 'probably.' however i did read the article.

Now, i'm sorry if this comes off as a little borderline, but..."

also yeah the 2 million people who the ohio registry wanted to clear were obviously all racial minorities. because literally the only reason someone has to not vote is because they are a racial minority who is barred from polling places.

I never said anything about them being racial minorities, I never made any argument at all, my post was entirely a commentary on your post. I never made any implications about the electorate of Ohio. I don't think you understand: Voter fraud does not exist to any significant degree. I repeat: Voter fraud does not exist to any significant degree. It is simply a hyped up agenda set by the republican party to prevent people from voting by requiring them to have access to certain things that the republican party simultaneously passes laws that make those things harder to get. YOUR OWN POLITICIANS ADMIT THIS.