4 ms·

This is exactly the moral of the story. If you want to blame somebody for Trump, blame yourselves. Democracy, especially in the US is ruled by consensus. If 30%

by blahi 10y ago

This is exactly the moral of the story. If you want to blame somebody for Trump, blame yourselves. Democracy, especially in the US is ruled by consensus. If 30% of the people are extremely opposed to something, like gay marriage, you cannot shove it down their throats. You cannot disregard their feelings and opinions. You just have to swallow it and move on. Because if you don't, somebody will take advantage of your foolishness.

QUFB 10y ago
40% of Alabama was opposed to interracial marriage: https://ballotpedia.org/Alabama_Interracial_Marriage,_Amendment_2_(2000) https://ballotpedia.org/Alabama_Interracial_Marriage,_Amendm... Should that be outlawed too?
- cobalt 10y ago
  also about half the country was opposed to letting "all men be equal"
  - xienze 10y ago
    And you know what? Eventually that changed. It takes time. The approach the left has been taking lately is to make sweeping changes that a lot of people aren't comfortable with RIGHT NOW OR ELSE YOU'RE A BIGOT AND YOU DESERVE TO HAVE YOUR LIFE RUINED. For a large portion of the population it was just too much, too fast and they had enough. Well, that's the social side of it. The rest of the election was about economic factors.
    - vilmosi 10y ago
      I'm sorry I don't want to sacrifice my life and dreams because some people are slow learners. But it's OK, because the next generation will not suffer. /s Give me a break.
    - csallen 10y ago
      You do realize we fought a civil war, right? And it's universally agreed that the people who were pro-slavery, against the female vote, etc were total bigots who deserved to lose as soon as possible. The fact that the bad guys can hold out for a while before losing doesn't cease to make them the bad guys.
      - umanwizard 10y ago
        We didn't fight a civil war to ban slavery, we fought a civil war because a bunch of states seceded from the Union. They were seceding proactively to protect slavery which was in their mind threatened; we weren't fighting the war to ban slavery but to prevent them from leaving.
    - tajen 10y ago
      Perfect example: Brendan Eich, former CEO of Mozilla, who was perfectly competent but fired for having donated to a gay or non-gay cause (I don't remember which one). This kind of opinion dictatorship has to end.
      - rjbwork 10y ago
        > This kind of opinion dictatorship has to end. I agree. I am refraining from commenting elsewhere in this thread because I really just don't know WHO I would piss off, and this alias is tangentially tied to my IRL identity. Self-censorship is a sneaky, evil, corrupting beast.
      - pluma 10y ago
        I was actually supportive (in the "I upvoted and retweeted stuff" sense, because god forbid anyone gets out of their chair over politics) of the calls for his promotion to CEO being reversed at the time because it was my understanding that the decision was made against the will of many Mozilla employees and that they felt he could not accurately reflect the standards Mozilla tried to stand for due to his personal beliefs. But the more I learned about it, the more I realized how the narrative was shaped by people outside of Mozilla being offended on behalf of others (although there were apparently one or two displeased employees). That was also the last time I took online moral outrage serious. It doesn't matter whether it's SJWs shaming supposed racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia or the religious right shaming supposed anti-Christians/Satanists. The outrage is almost always overblown and rarely justified. Sometimes there's some truth to a particular story but if the leading narrative paints someone as unambiguously evil, it's almost always a complete fabrication.
    - NhanH 10y ago
      > And you know what? Eventually that changed. It takes time. The approach the left has been taking lately is to make sweeping changes that a lot of people aren't comfortable with RIGHT NOW OR ELSE YOU'RE A BIGOT AND YOU DESERVE TO HAVE YOUR LIFE RUINED. For a large portion of the population it was just too much, too fast and they had enough. Originally ,that was what the conservatives side supposed to be about: consistent small changes to society that can be rolled back, to make sure that the result works. Viewing in that lense, things like constitutional originalist makes sense since the justices are essentially just saying "if you to change things, go through the whole amendment process", which is slow and stable. I'm not sure if the changes can be attributed to either the left or right, but the result is that the left is now trying to make sweeping changes, the right turned into a rose-tinted extreme that goes "past is better".
    - ant6n 10y ago
      The US is about 10-50 years behind modern democracies when it comes to many social issues and policies, as well as governance. It's time for some change. I guess that's what a lot of Trump voters actually voted for (also Obama 8 years go), but different people have different change in mind.
    - wtetzner 10y ago
      I can see what you're getting at, but I'm having a hard time seeing how allowing gay marriage would cause someone's life to be ruined.
- bby 10y ago
  I don't see why not?
- lactau 10y ago
  No, because 40% is smaller than 60%? Well, without jokes, tyranny of the majority is the topic, which is studied in political science, a complicated one actually.
Scea91 10y ago
The problem is that in your example there are 70 % who are pro gay marriage and you cannot ignore their voice either.
- yoz-y 10y ago
  In my opinion the main issue here is that only 4% (roughly) of population is LGBT and the 96% have no right to tell them who to sleep with or marry. It is none of their business.
  - Scea91 10y ago
    Great. You probably belong to the 70 % mentioned by OP.
wool_gather 10y ago
What is being "shove[d] down their throats" because my sister fell in love with a woman and wants to make a family with that person? Stopping her from doing that is throat-shoving. Her freedom to make her life with a particular someone doesn't harm anybody. _You_ cannot disregard _her_ feelings.
- blahi 10y ago
  I'm sorry about the situation. I really am. But this not being normal has been the norm for thousands of years. Thinking you can change it now, in a decade, is naïve, and worse, it is arrogant. Calling people who don't want gay marriages biggots will just deepen the divide, and this is exactly what has been happening for a lot of time now - shaming, lecturing and ironically, complete disregard for the differing opinions. It is what it is and it's unfortunate but they are more and they are fanatics. Humans are animals. If you challenge them, prepare for the duel.

by blahi 10y ago

QUFB 10y ago

40% of Alabama was opposed to interracial marriage: https://ballotpedia.org/Alabama_Interracial_Marriage,_Amendment_2_(2000) https://ballotpedia.org/Alabama_Interracial_Marriage,_Amendm... Should that be outlawed too?

cobalt 10y ago
also about half the country was opposed to letting "all men be equal"
- xienze 10y ago
  And you know what? Eventually that changed. It takes time. The approach the left has been taking lately is to make sweeping changes that a lot of people aren't comfortable with RIGHT NOW OR ELSE YOU'RE A BIGOT AND YOU DESERVE TO HAVE YOUR LIFE RUINED. For a large portion of the population it was just too much, too fast and they had enough. Well, that's the social side of it. The rest of the election was about economic factors.
  - vilmosi 10y ago
    I'm sorry I don't want to sacrifice my life and dreams because some people are slow learners. But it's OK, because the next generation will not suffer. /s Give me a break.
  - csallen 10y ago
    You do realize we fought a civil war, right? And it's universally agreed that the people who were pro-slavery, against the female vote, etc were total bigots who deserved to lose as soon as possible. The fact that the bad guys can hold out for a while before losing doesn't cease to make them the bad guys.
    - umanwizard 10y ago
      We didn't fight a civil war to ban slavery, we fought a civil war because a bunch of states seceded from the Union. They were seceding proactively to protect slavery which was in their mind threatened; we weren't fighting the war to ban slavery but to prevent them from leaving.
  - tajen 10y ago
    Perfect example: Brendan Eich, former CEO of Mozilla, who was perfectly competent but fired for having donated to a gay or non-gay cause (I don't remember which one). This kind of opinion dictatorship has to end.
    - rjbwork 10y ago
      > This kind of opinion dictatorship has to end. I agree. I am refraining from commenting elsewhere in this thread because I really just don't know WHO I would piss off, and this alias is tangentially tied to my IRL identity. Self-censorship is a sneaky, evil, corrupting beast.
    - pluma 10y ago
      I was actually supportive (in the "I upvoted and retweeted stuff" sense, because god forbid anyone gets out of their chair over politics) of the calls for his promotion to CEO being reversed at the time because it was my understanding that the decision was made against the will of many Mozilla employees and that they felt he could not accurately reflect the standards Mozilla tried to stand for due to his personal beliefs. But the more I learned about it, the more I realized how the narrative was shaped by people outside of Mozilla being offended on behalf of others (although there were apparently one or two displeased employees). That was also the last time I took online moral outrage serious. It doesn't matter whether it's SJWs shaming supposed racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia or the religious right shaming supposed anti-Christians/Satanists. The outrage is almost always overblown and rarely justified. Sometimes there's some truth to a particular story but if the leading narrative paints someone as unambiguously evil, it's almost always a complete fabrication.
  - NhanH 10y ago
    > And you know what? Eventually that changed. It takes time. The approach the left has been taking lately is to make sweeping changes that a lot of people aren't comfortable with RIGHT NOW OR ELSE YOU'RE A BIGOT AND YOU DESERVE TO HAVE YOUR LIFE RUINED. For a large portion of the population it was just too much, too fast and they had enough. Originally ,that was what the conservatives side supposed to be about: consistent small changes to society that can be rolled back, to make sure that the result works. Viewing in that lense, things like constitutional originalist makes sense since the justices are essentially just saying "if you to change things, go through the whole amendment process", which is slow and stable. I'm not sure if the changes can be attributed to either the left or right, but the result is that the left is now trying to make sweeping changes, the right turned into a rose-tinted extreme that goes "past is better".
  - ant6n 10y ago
    The US is about 10-50 years behind modern democracies when it comes to many social issues and policies, as well as governance. It's time for some change. I guess that's what a lot of Trump voters actually voted for (also Obama 8 years go), but different people have different change in mind.
  - wtetzner 10y ago
    I can see what you're getting at, but I'm having a hard time seeing how allowing gay marriage would cause someone's life to be ruined.
bby 10y ago
I don't see why not?
lactau 10y ago
No, because 40% is smaller than 60%? Well, without jokes, tyranny of the majority is the topic, which is studied in political science, a complicated one actually.

Scea91 10y ago

The problem is that in your example there are 70 % who are pro gay marriage and you cannot ignore their voice either.

yoz-y 10y ago
In my opinion the main issue here is that only 4% (roughly) of population is LGBT and the 96% have no right to tell them who to sleep with or marry. It is none of their business.
- Scea91 10y ago
  Great. You probably belong to the 70 % mentioned by OP.

wool_gather 10y ago

What is being "shove[d] down their throats" because my sister fell in love with a woman and wants to make a family with that person? Stopping her from doing that is throat-shoving. Her freedom to make her life with a particular someone doesn't harm anybody. _You_ cannot disregard _her_ feelings.

blahi 10y ago
I'm sorry about the situation. I really am. But this not being normal has been the norm for thousands of years. Thinking you can change it now, in a decade, is naïve, and worse, it is arrogant. Calling people who don't want gay marriages biggots will just deepen the divide, and this is exactly what has been happening for a lot of time now - shaming, lecturing and ironically, complete disregard for the differing opinions. It is what it is and it's unfortunate but they are more and they are fanatics. Humans are animals. If you challenge them, prepare for the duel.