dimejinky99 wrote:Be good if people who have lost out could realise that unless we're all equal, none of us are. Nobody wins unless everybody wins etc
This is nonsense.
Was about to debate that then remembered how backward Australia is on marriage equality
that's because people like spenno keep voting for the old crusty white men and even crustier, older, whiter men coalition.
I wager most people are (sensibly) more concerned about issues such as the economy, national security, health and education than trendy causes like same sex marriage and so on.
For all the talk of people in NC supporting or not supporting the law, only 40% of eligible voters showed up in 2014 and the turnout was much higher among demographics likely to support it.
dimejinky99 wrote:Be good if people who have lost out could realise that unless we're all equal, none of us are. Nobody wins unless everybody wins etc
This is nonsense.
Was about to debate that then remembered how backward Australia is on marriage equality
that's because people like spenno keep voting for the old crusty white men and even crustier, older, whiter men coalition.
I wager most people are (sensibly) more concerned about issues such as the economy, national security, health and education than trendy causes like same sex marriage and so on.
I don't think gay people think that's merely a trendy cause.
dimejinky99 wrote:Be good if people who have lost out could realise that unless we're all equal, none of us are. Nobody wins unless everybody wins etc
This is nonsense.
Was about to debate that then remembered how backward Australia is on marriage equality
that's because people like spenno keep voting for the old crusty white men and even crustier, older, whiter men coalition.
I wager most people are (sensibly) more concerned about issues such as the economy, national security, health and education than trendy causes like same sex marriage and so on.
I don't think gay people think that's merely a trendy cause.
I have no doubt that's true and I would expect them to vote accordingly.
dimejinky99 wrote:Be good if people who have lost out could realise that unless we're all equal, none of us are. Nobody wins unless everybody wins etc
This is nonsense.
Was about to debate that then remembered how backward Australia is on marriage equality
that's because people like spenno keep voting for the old crusty white men and even crustier, older, whiter men coalition.
I wager most people are (sensibly) more concerned about issues such as the economy, national security, health and education than trendy causes like same sex marriage and so on.
Trendy? Poor choice of word Spenno. I would hope equality and fairness will always be trendy.
stip wrote:For all the talk of people in NC supporting or not supporting the law, only 40% of eligible voters showed up in 2014 and the turnout was much higher among demographics likely to support it.
Always the way. Everywhere. The old(and usually right wing and extremely religious) have fuck all else to do but be active on shit like this and vote. Getting the youth vote out is a mammoth task. Faced exactly this last year for our marriage equality referendum.
dimejinky99 wrote:Be good if people who have lost out could realise that unless we're all equal, none of us are. Nobody wins unless everybody wins etc
This is nonsense.
Was about to debate that then remembered how backward Australia is on marriage equality
that's because people like spenno keep voting for the old crusty white men and even crustier, older, whiter men coalition.
I wager most people are (sensibly) more concerned about issues such as the economy, national security, health and education than trendy causes like same sex marriage and so on.
I don't think gay people think that's merely a trendy cause.
I have no doubt that's true and I would expect them to vote accordingly.
I really have trouble wrapping my brain around these kinds of insular politics. Having read and agreed with a lot of your posts, I know you are an empathetic and thoughtful person, so I don't get why you think voting/advocating for only interests that directly affect the individual in question is respectable.
Voting is an exercise in ranking, we rank what is most important. Voting for a government opposed to same sex marriage (this is a general statement, this isn't necessarily reflective of the Australian Liberal Party where I expect there is quite significant support for it) but who you have confidence will better manage the economy, national security etc does not mean that you are necessarily positioning yourself "against" same sex marriage, only that you feel that those other issues are more broadly important.
(LV, this isn't a direct reply to you, I started writing it earlier - but it works as a response here too, I suppose.)
LoathedVermin72 wrote:As I've said before, I can see both sides of this issue, but at the risk of being unpopular, I just feel the urge to say that the straight white dude outrage over this decision seems...excessive. And a bit privileged.
Could/should they have announced this earlier to alleviate financial and logistical strain on fans? Yeah, probably. That's a shitty situation and I'd be mad if it happened to me. But this does make a statement of solidarity that I'm sure does genuinely mean something to a lot of LGBT people who feel persecuted by this law. At the end of the day, I think that's more important than some money and time I may or may not have lost.
Having read your post above again, I hope you don't take my posts to indicate that I think it's morally responsible to vote with an eye only your own interests as nothing could be further from the truth. If anything, that is my main criticism of anyone who engages in political activism to the extent of inflexible zealotry.
WtOB? wrote:spenno how is the liberal party better with education and health? by privatising everything so no one can afford it? by cutting funding from them?
This sounds like something more suitably discussed in the Australian Politics thread.
My wife just booked plane tickets to NC to visit her dying grandmother. I am trying to get her to cancel the trip in solidarity with pearl jam, and also gay people.
Birds in Hell wrote:Having read your post above again, I hope you don't take my posts to indicate that I think it's morally responsible to vote with an eye only your own interests as nothing could be further from the truth. If anything, that is my main criticism of anyone who engages in political activism to the extent of inflexible zealotry.
I see your point now. I think your word choice on this one just seemed insensitive, and that's what threw me for a loop. I also think we just disagree on how we'd rank the importance of this issue. But that's okay; nothing wrong with disagreement.
