Register - Login
Views: 99804922
 Main - Memberlist - Active users - Calendar - Wiki - IRC Chat - Online users
Ranks - Rules/FAQ - Stats - Latest Posts - Color Chart - Smilies 		05-03-22 07:44:02 AM
Jul - News - Virginia attourney general to colleges: End gay protection New poll - New thread - New reply
Pages: 1 2Next newer thread | Next older thread
Sine
2310
Level: 94


Posts: 1914/2316
EXP: 8200638
For next: 156019

Since: 07-07-07


Since last post: 3.7 years
Last activity: 289 days
Posted on 03-07-10 04:55:53 PM Link | Quote
It's an enigma
----------------------------------------------------
Really, I have no words for this.

Other than possbly disgust. How did he get elected again?

Yes, I do go to a Virginia College btw.

____________________
00:00 2/7/10
Taryn

Passed away.

Thanks for being a part of us, even if it wasn't always on the best of terms.

1987-2014


Level: 204


Posts: 6064/14742
EXP: 121746233
For next: 1603585

Since: 09-01-09

From: Seattle

Since last post: 10.1 years
Last activity: 9.8 years
Posted on 03-07-10 05:09:25 PM Link | Quote
Argh

Why must conservatives continue to roll back progress and turn this country more and more into a Christian theocracy? I really don't understand why so many people think that the gender of people you like to have relationships and/or sex with determines whether you're a bad person or not.

____________________
TKB Super Mario Bros.
Ctenophorae


Level: 85


Posts: 774/1921
EXP: 5772482
For next: 126058

Since: 06-19-09

From: Oregon

Since last post: 8.1 years
Last activity: 27 days
Posted on 03-07-10 05:10:57 PM Link | Quote
Protip: If you don't like gay sex, don't have it!

____________________

ゆっくりしていってね!!!
Photobucket
Tanks

360? Yessum.
Level: 121


Posts: 3929/4170
EXP: 19808678
For next: 248018

Since: 07-10-07

From: VA

Since last post: 9.5 years
Last activity: 9.5 years
Posted on 03-07-10 05:26:54 PM (last edited by Tanks at 03-07-10 02:32 PM) Link | Quote
This is out of context. The state assembly never mandated such a policy to be placed upon Virginia institutions therefore they may not advertise as such. It doesn't mean gays will be expelled. It just means a university or college cannot say 'We don't discriminate against gays.' I actually find it more discriminatory that they're using a distasteful climate against gays for their own gains when really, it ought not matter to begin with. Way to go Washington Post spin...

____________________
Sine
2310
Level: 94


Posts: 1915/2316
EXP: 8200638
For next: 156019

Since: 07-07-07


Since last post: 3.7 years
Last activity: 289 days
Posted on 03-07-10 08:26:44 PM Link | Quote
It's an enigma
----------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tanks
It doesn't mean gays will be expelled. It just means a university or college cannot say 'We don't discriminate against gays.'@
Never read anything about being expelled in the article. Where did you pull this from?

But really, getting rid of that kind of clause is just a catalyst for creating an environment in which bad things probably will happen. =/

____________________
00:00 2/7/10
Skreeny
Member
I have a custom title.
Level: 54


Posts: 502/636
EXP: 1172543
For next: 61327

Since: 09-15-07


Since last post: 9.3 years
Last activity: 1.2 years
Posted on 03-08-10 08:27:04 AM Link | Quote
Originally posted by Tanks
I actually find it more discriminatory that they're using a distasteful climate against gays for their own gains when really, it ought not matter to begin with.
"You're not allowed to discriminate against us purely on the basis of irrelevant fact (x)" is discriminatory in their favor? Seriously?
Lyskar
12210
-The Chaos within trumps the Chaos without-
Level: 192


Posts: 4708/12211
EXP: 99321384
For next: 552187

Since: 07-03-07

From: 52-2-88-7

Since last post: 7.4 years
Last activity: 7.3 years
Posted on 03-08-10 08:45:03 AM Link | Quote
Stats
Time/Date
03-08-10 02:45:03 AM
Posts
4708
Days Here
978
Level
100
Metal_Man88's Post
It's all a cloud of sound-bytes meant to get votes.

Whether or not anything actually changes is up to the legislature/colleges involved.

____________________
Don't let an old saying get in the way of a good idea.
Eisnaught - SSQ² - Mobius Roleplay - SSS
Tanks

360? Yessum.
Level: 121


Posts: 3931/4170
EXP: 19808678
For next: 248018

Since: 07-10-07

From: VA

Since last post: 9.5 years
Last activity: 9.5 years
Posted on 03-08-10 09:42:22 AM Link | Quote
Yea, that's basically it. He revoked something that never existed to begin with. What will come of it is basically what the people you elected will do with it. if they even do anything at all.

____________________
Xkeeper

Level: 263


Posts: 15257/25353
EXP: 297141810
For next: 1818643

Since: 07-03-07

Pronouns: they/them/????????

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 43 min.
Posted on 03-08-10 05:29:17 PM Link | Quote
Originally posted by Tanks
This is out of context. The state assembly never mandated such a policy to be placed upon Virginia institutions therefore they may not advertise as such.

IANAL but I'm fairly sure that adding more nondiscriminatory policies would be, you know, something they could do voluntarily.

It doesn't mean gays will be expelled. It just means a university or college cannot say 'We don't discriminate against gays.'

You do realize that removing these terms really does open the door for discrimination, right? That's why the "equal housing lender" shit cropped up.

I actually find it more discriminatory that they're using a distasteful climate against gays for their own gains when really, it ought not matter to begin with.

So wait, creating an equal field is discriminatory? What. What.

Way to go Washington Post spin...

"This doesn't agree with my personal views, therefore it is clearly lies and slander"



____________________
Tanks

360? Yessum.
Level: 121


Posts: 3932/4170
EXP: 19808678
For next: 248018

Since: 07-10-07

From: VA

Since last post: 9.5 years
Last activity: 9.5 years
Posted on 03-08-10 06:03:06 PM Link | Quote
Just to make it clear ONCE AGAIN. Institutions cannot add non-discriminatory, or any clause used to clauses themselves in Virginia. I dunno how it is where you come from, but it requires it go through the general assembly. Same thing happened with civil rights laws. Also, the Washington Post has had a history bias and bigotry since its inception so I think it's safe to stick to my statement there.

____________________
Xkeeper

Level: 263


Posts: 15259/25353
EXP: 297141810
For next: 1818643

Since: 07-03-07

Pronouns: they/them/????????

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 43 min.
Posted on 03-09-10 01:19:11 AM Link | Quote
Originally posted by Tanks
Just to make it clear ONCE AGAIN. Institutions cannot add non-discriminatory, or any clause used to clauses themselves in Virginia. I dunno how it is where you come from, but it requires it go through the general assembly. Same thing happened with civil rights laws.

That's fine and all, but your statement of it being discriminatory to everybody else because of that is... well.


Also, the Washington Post has had a history bias and bigotry since its inception so I think it's safe to stick to my statement there.

Rasmussen also has a really nasty right-wing lean, but that doesn't stop you from singing its praises.

____________________
Tanks

360? Yessum.
Level: 121


Posts: 3933/4170
EXP: 19808678
For next: 248018

Since: 07-10-07

From: VA

Since last post: 9.5 years
Last activity: 9.5 years
Posted on 03-09-10 01:35:42 AM Link | Quote
Originally posted by Xkeeper
Also, the Washington Post has had a history bias and bigotry since its inception so I think it's safe to stick to my statement there.

Rasmussen also has a really nasty right-wing lean, but that doesn't stop you from singing its praises.


Love how you post Dailykos to refute right-wing lean. Anyway, having a lean isn't as a bad as having a horrid history such as this:

Originally posted by Informationman
But a crucial event had already occurred that morning that would overwhelm Brownlow's good intention. The Washington Post published a front-page article that would be singled out by the NAACP, and later by historians, as a contributing cause of the riot's escalation. Under the words "Mobilization for Tonight," The Post erroneously reported that all available servicemen had been ordered to report to Pennsylvania Avenue and Seventh Street at 9 p.m. for a "clean-up" operation.


tl;dr - The Washington Post incited race riots in DC, clearly detailing time and location of where the events would take place.

Here's the link if you're interested. I also know of a few cases in the 1950s and 60s since I wrote a paper on this back in high school, however, I'm still trying to track down the articles in their archives. Maybe it's just being buggy or they just don't have them up at all.

____________________
Arisu
Member
game over.
Level: 22


Posts: 1/85
EXP: 52206
For next: 6144

Since: 03-09-10


Since last post: 11.7 years
Last activity: 12.0 years
Posted on 03-09-10 06:23:52 AM Link | Quote
I'm part of the queer alliance at my school and even though this newsflash seems ominous, I'm sure that if people are as welcoming as in this thread and willing to uphold equality then we'll be able to progress against the tide of discrimination. I daresay tanks isn't trying to say it's okay to discriminate against gays, but that there's a due process that needs to be followed in order to do things properly. I think it's important to remember that people just like you and me make up these bizarre and sometimes absurd institutions and we have the power to change things, but these changes should be carried out in a responsible and legal way. Sorry if I've misinterpreted you, tanks.

Even talking about it and ironing out our differences has value and can reduce discrimination, so we should try to get along with one another and see if we can resolve our differences.
Lyskar
12210
-The Chaos within trumps the Chaos without-
Level: 192


Posts: 4715/12211
EXP: 99321384
For next: 552187

Since: 07-03-07

From: 52-2-88-7

Since last post: 7.4 years
Last activity: 7.3 years
Posted on 03-09-10 08:23:40 AM Link | Quote
Stats
Time/Date
03-09-10 02:23:40 AM
Posts
4715
Days Here
979
Level
100
Metal_Man88's Post
My thought is that it's more effective to go after anyone who acts on these words rather than try to destroy an idea. One can replace the guy who said the words when his time is up, but ultimately, it's the people who follow those words who will have to be dealt with--as there's always the chance they woulda done it anyway.

Politics is a generally messed up thing anywhere, where both sides are lying about something and spinning everything to their advantage. Whether it be through lies or a selective perspective where some facts are mentioned and others just aren't brought up, the issue I always dislike is when a candidate or group tries to play some sort of primitive story where they say (Statement which ticks off party Y) followed by (Party Y explodes into fury at Party X) and then (Useless statements).

Should better be replaced with the following: (Statement which ticks off Party Y) (Party Y ignores statement, takes into action legislation to prevent anything like the statement if possible and moves on with their lives).

Because in the end, words are words. Actions... trump words.

____________________
Don't let an old saying get in the way of a good idea.
Eisnaught - SSQ² - Mobius Roleplay - SSS
Skreeny
Member
I have a custom title.
Level: 54


Posts: 503/636
EXP: 1172543
For next: 61327

Since: 09-15-07


Since last post: 9.3 years
Last activity: 1.2 years
Posted on 03-09-10 08:32:06 AM Link | Quote
Originally posted by Tanks
tl;dr - The Washington Post incited race riots in DC, clearly detailing time and location of where the events would take place.
Honestly? You're going to argue that a company is irredeemable because of something they did 91 years ago? Go 90 years into anyone's past, see if you don't find something as or nearly as awful.

(I would somewhat argue that cases 50-60 years ago are nearing, if not past, their limit in terms of relevance as well, but I'd really need to see what you're referring to there.)
Xkeeper

Level: 263


Posts: 15260/25353
EXP: 297141810
For next: 1818643

Since: 07-03-07

Pronouns: they/them/????????

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 43 min.
Posted on 03-09-10 08:34:32 AM Link | Quote
Originally posted by Tanks
Originally posted by Xkeeper
Also, the Washington Post has had a history bias and bigotry since its inception so I think it's safe to stick to my statement there.

Rasmussen also has a really nasty right-wing lean, but that doesn't stop you from singing its praises.


Love how you post Dailykos to refute right-wing lean.

Going to have to stop you there, bro, but facts are facts. Anybody can quite clearly run those exact same comparisons and get the exact same results. (Also, the difference is that Daily Kos's opinion is more or less obvious and explained, as opposed to this "magic Republican favor" for Rasmussen)

Not only that, but you can also run the dKos Poll against other polls and find that it's not an outlier (in fact, it's actually fairly close to the actual result most times)

____________________
Arisu
Member
game over.
Level: 22


Posts: 6/85
EXP: 52206
For next: 6144

Since: 03-09-10


Since last post: 11.7 years
Last activity: 12.0 years
Posted on 03-09-10 12:54:59 PM Link | Quote
Originally posted by Metal_Man88
My thought is that it's more effective to go after anyone who acts on these words rather than try to destroy an idea. One can replace the guy who said the words when his time is up, but ultimately, it's the people who follow those words who will have to be dealt with--as there's always the chance they woulda done it anyway.

Politics is a generally messed up thing anywhere, where both sides are lying about something and spinning everything to their advantage. Whether it be through lies or a selective perspective where some facts are mentioned and others just aren't brought up, the issue I always dislike is when a candidate or group tries to play some sort of primitive story where they say (Statement which ticks off party Y) followed by (Party Y explodes into fury at Party X) and then (Useless statements).

Should better be replaced with the following: (Statement which ticks off Party Y) (Party Y ignores statement, takes into action legislation to prevent anything like the statement if possible and moves on with their lives).

Because in the end, words are words. Actions... trump words.

I think your solution seems sort of passive aggressive and risks polarizing a democratic legislature into factions of people fueled by disagreement who use the political stage as a battlefield.

It's not surprising when people on both sides get heated up over politics because its massive implications on our lives. but that's why we should try our best to not get caught in skirmishes and try to better understand everyone else and where they're coming from. I don't mean just the politics of the state of Virginia or even federally, but the deliberations which shift the balance of power in whatever social relations we engage in. Everyone engages in some sort of politics, so just because you're not a proud Virginian you still can engage in politics in your state, your community or of course even this very board.

So yeah, we should also be careful to distinguish the politics of the article with the meta-politics of the discussion of the article, not to mention the politics of the original happenings (although they're often extensively publicized people seem to only read secondary or tertiary or even n-ary sources these days), as well as delineate our thinking to address each issue in an appropriate way (write to your congressman, look at different news sources, post threads/replies). Power is everywhere and it is hardly wielded centrally by a few people up top; just discussing issues like this even when people have very different values and priorities (or should I say especially when) or even just taking the effort to listen what other people have to say helps change things.
Lyskar
12210
-The Chaos within trumps the Chaos without-
Level: 192


Posts: 4728/12211
EXP: 99321384
For next: 552187

Since: 07-03-07

From: 52-2-88-7

Since last post: 7.4 years
Last activity: 7.3 years
Posted on 03-10-10 07:11:16 AM Link | Quote
Stats
Time/Date
03-10-10 01:11:16 AM
Posts
4728
Days Here
980
Level
100
Metal_Man88's Post
Originally posted by Arisu
I think your solution seems sort of passive aggressive and risks polarizing a democratic legislature into factions of people fueled by disagreement who use the political stage as a battlefield.


True, that's my intention, in fact.

All the talk are movements on the battlefield. It is those who take feints to be actual attacks who open themselves up to the attacks in the first place;

My problem is that trying to address ideas with other ideas is, no one idea can be totally taken down, while it's a lot simpler to thwart people's actions and cause real change by changing the laws.

I like your idealism, but my opinion is that in the end, being active in politics requires a sort of warlike mindset--it can't be done with the intent or being fun, or being merely patriotic, if one wishes to make change; change is fought for, and the field for it constantly given, retaken, and re-given up over and over again.

It's a nasty struggle, like much of life.

Though I wish it was something where idealism and ideas of civility would work...

..You tune into one of these nasty Republican vs. Democratic battles and then try to tell me there's a way to get a civil solution out of that.

Or, alternatively, I wonder how a small discussion about something, like the one here, can really change anything. Do those politicians listen to this? Nope. Would they listen if I did something minor (send a letter, talk to their friends, whatever)? Maybe, probably still not.

See, my Mom's fatehr was a senator for Washington, and I've been brought up full well knowing what goes on behind the scenes.

1. They may have been non-corrupt when they started, but odds are they have to corrupt out to SOMEBODY to get enough money to get re-election. Thus, the day a politician is non-corrupt and it isn't a fluke is the day pigs fly and water turns to fire.
2. Politicians are nasty creatures who spend the money everywhere, drink, smoke, womanize, and variously act foul. Not all of them do all of it, and I'm sure there's straight edges, but, from what constantly turns up in all these scandals (say, Clinton, or that other guy who was at a gay bar, or... etc) they're probably the LAST people you'd want as a moral role model.
3. Politicians don't listen to constituents. They listen to who controls their chances of re-election. This may be most of their constituents (good), corporations/factions they've sold out to (bad), their own random unrelated beliefs (horrible), or some belief that they can save us all from ourselves (absolute worst thing). A little talk here or there will influence a voter or two, but, unless you do some phone bank or something, it'll be a teensy little effort. And a lot of teensy efforts put together may have a bigger one, but in the end, it's groups like unions, companies, and rich donors who control these people.
4. Politics isn't about what is the best solution, but rather, what solution benefits the politician the most. If they have a reputation for doing pro-people things, they'll do it, that is, if that reputation leads to being elected. If not, they'll do something else. If they have big donors or have been in power a long time, they might stop caring and turn it into their personal toy to play with. Who knows? In any case, they can do whatever they want as long as they're in power, and that means anything.

That's right, they like to break the rules, if it suits them to do so. Or on the other end of the fence, they may be too afraid to use their own rules, causing a separate and also ridiculous thing.

So what's the point of this little discussion?

The political system is an illusion to tell people they have power. They do, but it's not by having an opinion--it's by their vote and how much money they donate and the time they donate to sway others. The rest... is just kudos. You might feel good about it...

...But the politician making a fool of himself and doing dirty things in the name of your state doesn't probably know or care. Or if they do...

...Odds are they can't act on it if they want to stay elected. (Unless it's something they're already doing; then they're cool with that, obviously.)

That's my cynical opinion though. I wish I could believe in it, I really could... but it's sort of like Santa Claus to me.

____________________
Don't let an old saying get in the way of a good idea.
Eisnaught - SSQ² - Mobius Roleplay - SSS
Arisu
Member
game over.
Level: 22


Posts: 12/85
EXP: 52206
For next: 6144

Since: 03-09-10


Since last post: 11.7 years
Last activity: 12.0 years
Posted on 03-10-10 09:35:50 AM Link | Quote
I don't understand how it can be your solution if it most resembles the existing system. Are you trying to say even though it has all of these problems it is ok, or that because it is so powerful there is nothing one can do about it but submit?

Yes yes, politics is not for the weak of heart, change is a continuous battle which requires vigilance and it is not all rainbows and unicorns (however your local queer chapter most likely IS). If you consider your cushy American lifestyle to be a nasty struggle, then I'm not sure what sort of kind era would suit you. I think it is important that we do struggle, because otherwise it's easy to forget that we're alive, and not just prolonging--life would be terribly boring if it were easy.

I don't know if you're a Quaker or something, but I guess all of sex, drugs and gay in politics would be enough to leave you scarred for life. I think we should leave their personal lives out of this though. (If you think politics is obscene you haven't read Joyce though) Jokes aside it's a pretty hostile place and both sides know that something needs to give if they want to change from the constant pursuit of a supermajority and then doing everything to keep it for as long as you can at whatever cost. With normal people eternally apathetic about politics, it's not surprising that lobbyists take the stage these days. The very American choice of keeping their heads out of the political arena has its numerous disadvantages which we see today.

I think you misunderstand what I mean about politics; power evinces itself through its ability to exert itself on the thoughts and actions of people and thus it is ridiculous to claim that any sovereign body--whether it's a democratic legislature or a king--exerts absolute power over the minds and bodies of their subjects. Politics, the social deliberations over power, can work through establishing discourses through various channels, for example, the ink of the law does not make people more or less tolerant, but changes in the way that we think and act towards other people and the paradigm shifts which allow us to think of blacks, gays, women--or whatever group it may be--as fellow people with thoughts, emotions, hopes and dreams just like ourselves.

Yes the front in the statehouses and the courtrooms are important, but don't be disillusioned into thinking that everything is decided there.
Drag
2640
Level: 99


Posts: 1593/2641
EXP: 9990151
For next: 9849

Since: 07-03-07


Since last post: 4.2 years
Last activity: 3.4 years
Posted on 03-10-10 05:00:58 PM Link | Quote
1593
I just received an email about this, from my college.

Honestly, I think it's not that they're removing the "we don't discriminate against gays" clause to nullify "gay protection" or anything, but rather Virginia wants them to remove it because it isolates homosexuals, acknowledging that there's something different about them, that requires special attention to not pay special attention to.

They'll still be non-discriminating (we've got a LARGE variety of different people all over campus), none the less.

____________________
Pages: 1 2Next newer thread | Next older thread
Jul - News - Virginia attourney general to colleges: End gay protection New poll - New thread - New reply


Rusted Logic

Acmlmboard - commit 47be4dc [2021-08-23]
©2000-2022 Acmlm, Xkeeper, Kaito Sinclaire, et al.

31 database queries, 6 query cache hits.
Query execution time: 0.088883 seconds
Script execution time: 0.046854 seconds
Total render time: 0.135737 seconds