• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The horrible horrible world of sports

T.G.G. Moogly

Formerly Joedad
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
8,358
Location
PA USA
Basic Beliefs
egalitarian
It's also a question of context. Your kid is playing sports with friends that he's going to have around for a while. He's insulting people in his own tribe. For kids anybody they play sports with will always be people in the same tribe. For adults in national competitions, it's another environment, with a hell of a lot more riding on succeeding. When more is riding on winning, people might say more unfortunate things.

Eh ? That's not the way youth sports work. There are cross town rivalries, high school rivalries, out of state tournaments. You actually seldom compete within your "tribe". You compete almost always against another tribe. Jeezus, high school basketball, softball AYSO soccer gets real chippy and that's just the girls !! Parents are ejected from gym/field all the time too.

Eh is right. Best I can determine is Zoid isn't athletically versed.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
12,706
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
I am not defending racism or am trying to protect them. I just think that sometimes, in the heat of the moment, people might use colourful language without thinking how it lands.

I have many times said horrendous things, but in contexts where its been appreciated as obvious jokes. My sense of humour is highly inappropriate.

I don't think that makes me a racist

I am trying to determine from your arguments what you think is wrong with racism, anyway. I was surprised to read this. Isn’t it okay to call you a racist both because 1) I can call you anything I want and you’d be good with it and 2) also because racism isn’t really bad and people’s feelings shouldn’t be hurt by it?

I’m surprised you care whether anyone calls you racist. We’re all good here, right?
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,009
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
It's also a question of context. Your kid is playing sports with friends that he's going to have around for a while. He's insulting people in his own tribe. For kids anybody they play sports with will always be people in the same tribe. For adults in national competitions, it's another environment, with a hell of a lot more riding on succeeding. When more is riding on winning, people might say more unfortunate things.

Eh ? That's not the way youth sports work. There are cross town rivalries, high school rivalries, out of state tournaments. You actually seldom compete within your "tribe". You compete almost always against another tribe. Jeezus, high school basketball, softball AYSO soccer gets real chippy and that's just the girls !! Parents are ejected from gym/field all the time too.

I was thinking pre-teens.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,009
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I am not defending racism or am trying to protect them. I just think that sometimes, in the heat of the moment, people might use colourful language without thinking how it lands.

I have many times said horrendous things, but in contexts where its been appreciated as obvious jokes. My sense of humour is highly inappropriate.

I don't think that makes me a racist

I am trying to determine from your arguments what you think is wrong with racism, anyway. I was surprised to read this. Isn’t it okay to call you a racist both because 1) I can call you anything I want and you’d be good with it and 2) also because racism isn’t really bad and people’s feelings shouldn’t be hurt by it?

I’m surprised you care whether anyone calls you racist. We’re all good here, right?

My point is that context matters. We're living in the age of taking things out of context and passing judgement based on the new context. It's dumb.

What I care about is whether or not I think I am a racist. I'm cool with other people having whatever opinion about me they like. I do care about what people I respect think about me. But those I don't... meh.

Here's an example from my childhood. I have a black childhood friend. When we were teenagers I made a racist joke that made him very upset. Six months later we had a serious talk and he said he was grateful that I'd done it. Coming from me of all people was disarming and it had made him realize that he took himself way too seriously, and I'd made him stop and think. Which he needed at that time. But he might as well not have needed that. I didn't know. And that's ok. It's ok to fuck up now and again. What makes you a good or bad person is how you deal with your mess. Somebody who never fucks up, who always says the right thing, IMHO they aren't really participating in the world. They're self censoring themselves out of existence. This incident brought me and my black childhood friend closer. We both learned something from that incident. It both made us better people. As adults we ended up working together, with absolute trust in each other. Trust we still have for one another.

There's an old Buddhist/Hippie saying that comes in handy. "Knowing the name of something doesn't mean you understand it". I think this is something that a lot of people on this forum (including me) needs to be reminded of on a regular basis. Just because you have labelled a certain word as racist that doesn't mean everybody who uses it is racist. The stand up comedian Lisa Lampanelli famously has a stand up routine that is nothing but a 90 minute long racist rant where she relentlessly attacks members of the audience. Everybody is laughing. It's hilarious. I don't think anybody thinks she's a racist.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
7,439
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
any
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Here's an example from my childhood. I have a black childhood friend. When we were teenagers I made a racist joke that made him very upset. Six months later we had a serious talk and he said he was grateful that I'd done it. Coming from me of all people was disarming and it had made him realize that he took himself way too seriously, and I'd made him stop and think. Which he needed at that time. But he might as well not have needed that. I didn't know. And that's ok. It's ok to fuck up now and again. What makes you a good or bad person is how you deal with your mess. Somebody who never fucks up, who always says the right thing, IMHO they aren't really participating in the world. They're self censoring themselves out of existence. This incident brought me and my black childhood friend closer. We both learned something from that incident. It both made us better people. As adults we ended up working together, with absolute trust in each other. Trust we still have for one another.
Aw shucks, thank goodness we still have folks like you around to make racist jokes and then whine about being seen as racist. You truly inspire us all to find the best in ourselves.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,009
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Here's an example from my childhood. I have a black childhood friend. When we were teenagers I made a racist joke that made him very upset. Six months later we had a serious talk and he said he was grateful that I'd done it. Coming from me of all people was disarming and it had made him realize that he took himself way too seriously, and I'd made him stop and think. Which he needed at that time. But he might as well not have needed that. I didn't know. And that's ok. It's ok to fuck up now and again. What makes you a good or bad person is how you deal with your mess. Somebody who never fucks up, who always says the right thing, IMHO they aren't really participating in the world. They're self censoring themselves out of existence. This incident brought me and my black childhood friend closer. We both learned something from that incident. It both made us better people. As adults we ended up working together, with absolute trust in each other. Trust we still have for one another.
Aw shucks, thank goodness we still have folks like you around to make racist jokes and then whine about being seen as racist. You truly inspire us all to find the best in ourselves.

What a surprise you didn't understand. The person on this forum, who more than anyone, takes everything literally.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
13,426
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Here's an example from my childhood. I have a black childhood friend. When we were teenagers I made a racist joke that made him very upset. Six months later we had a serious talk and he said he was grateful that I'd done it. Coming from me of all people was disarming and it had made him realize that he took himself way too seriously, and I'd made him stop and think. Which he needed at that time. But he might as well not have needed that. I didn't know. And that's ok. It's ok to fuck up now and again. What makes you a good or bad person is how you deal with your mess. Somebody who never fucks up, who always says the right thing, IMHO they aren't really participating in the world. They're self censoring themselves out of existence. This incident brought me and my black childhood friend closer. We both learned something from that incident. It both made us better people. As adults we ended up working together, with absolute trust in each other. Trust we still have for one another.
Aw shucks, thank goodness we still have folks like you around to make racist jokes and then whine about being seen as racist. You truly inspire us all to find the best in ourselves.

I am in awe of people like Dr.Z who are courageous and generous enough to help their one black friend grow beyond feeling offended at the casual racism of ignorant white people who think their casual disregard for others makes them cool.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
7,439
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
any
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Here's an example from my childhood. I have a black childhood friend. When we were teenagers I made a racist joke that made him very upset. Six months later we had a serious talk and he said he was grateful that I'd done it. Coming from me of all people was disarming and it had made him realize that he took himself way too seriously, and I'd made him stop and think. Which he needed at that time. But he might as well not have needed that. I didn't know. And that's ok. It's ok to fuck up now and again. What makes you a good or bad person is how you deal with your mess. Somebody who never fucks up, who always says the right thing, IMHO they aren't really participating in the world. They're self censoring themselves out of existence. This incident brought me and my black childhood friend closer. We both learned something from that incident. It both made us better people. As adults we ended up working together, with absolute trust in each other. Trust we still have for one another.
Aw shucks, thank goodness we still have folks like you around to make racist jokes and then whine about being seen as racist. You truly inspire us all to find the best in ourselves.

I am in awe of people like Dr.Z who are courageous and generous enough to help their one black friend grow beyond feeling offended at the casual racism of ignorant white people who think their casual disregard for others makes them cool.

I love how his friend apparently told him, and he apparently believed, that being the butt of a racist joke was somehow unusual for him! It's interesting also that he got the right message - "It's ok to fuck up now and again... What makes you a good or bad person is how you deal with your mess" is genuinely excellent advice, even necessary in the case of racial issues where it is easy to fall accidentally into offense- but is utterly failing to put that principle into practice, as the way to deal with the mess you create by using racial slurs as a teeenager is to stop using them and encourage others to do likewise, not to write impassioned justifications for racism on the internet.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
13,426
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
I am in awe of people like Dr.Z who are courageous and generous enough to help their one black friend grow beyond feeling offended at the casual racism of ignorant white people who think their casual disregard for others makes them cool.

I love how his friend apparently told him, and he apparently believed, that being the butt of a racist joke was somehow unusual for him! It's interesting also that he got the right message - "It's ok to fuck up now and again... What makes you a good or bad person is how you deal with your mess" is genuinely excellent advice, even necessary in the case of racial issues where it is easy to fall accidentally into offense- but is utterly failing to put that principle into practice, as the way to deal with the mess you create by using racial slurs as a teeenager is to stop using them and encourage others to do likewise, not to write impassioned justifications for racism on the internet.

Staying true to himself is one of Dr. Z’s biggest strengths.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
12,706
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Somebody who never fucks up, who always says the right thing, IMHO they aren't really participating in the world. They're self censoring themselves out of existence.

I can see your point when applied to getting out of your comfort zone, trying new things, meeting new people, going new places, observing new things.

But saying racist shit as a requirement to be your authentic self? That doesn’t compute.
 

Shadowy Man

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2002
Messages
3,273
Location
West Coast
Basic Beliefs
Rational Pragmatism
Somebody who never fucks up, who always says the right thing, IMHO they aren't really participating in the world. They're self censoring themselves out of existence.

I can see your point when applied to getting out of your comfort zone, trying new things, meeting new people, going new places, observing new things.

But saying racist shit as a requirement to be your authentic self? That doesn’t compute.
Well, it does make it easier on the rest of us when the racists don’t try to hide their racist rhetoric.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
21,847
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
Somebody who never fucks up, who always says the right thing, IMHO they aren't really participating in the world. They're self censoring themselves out of existence.

I can see your point when applied to getting out of your comfort zone, trying new things, meeting new people, going new places, observing new things.

But saying racist shit as a requirement to be your authentic self? That doesn’t compute.

It does, you just go in the wrong direction. Ideas to results. You gotta stsrt with the results.

People see Dr. Z as a racist, or at least possessing racist tendencies.
Dr. Z does not wish to be called a racist.
Dr. Z says racist things from time to time.
Dr. Z need a reason this is laudable, not lamentable.
People who use racist terms are therefore the more honest people.
People who manage to self-censor are self-limiting.


I was raised Mormon in a small town. You said, "Damn!" Or "Shit!" and Mom knew before you got home. Two weeks into bootcamp, i used "fuck" as punctuation. I don't swear THAT badly anymore, but i have spent a lot of time considering words i use to convey intensity, anger, disappointment, pain, and on and on. I use every swear i know of.
Except certain words that are derogatory against a race or gender.
It's a choice. I really cannot see that i live life any less for not using words on the left side of my vocab. So, you know, fuck that idea.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,009
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Somebody who never fucks up, who always says the right thing, IMHO they aren't really participating in the world. They're self censoring themselves out of existence.

I can see your point when applied to getting out of your comfort zone, trying new things, meeting new people, going new places, observing new things.

But saying racist shit as a requirement to be your authentic self? That doesn’t compute.

The racism isn't required to be your authentic self.

I have a friend today who is a fancy academic who gives talks on feminism and is a hero among progressives. He used to be a neo-Nazi. Lucky for him he was a Nazi before social media.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,009
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Somebody who never fucks up, who always says the right thing, IMHO they aren't really participating in the world. They're self censoring themselves out of existence.

I can see your point when applied to getting out of your comfort zone, trying new things, meeting new people, going new places, observing new things.

But saying racist shit as a requirement to be your authentic self? That doesn’t compute.

It does, you just go in the wrong direction. Ideas to results. You gotta stsrt with the results.

People see Dr. Z as a racist, or at least possessing racist tendencies.
Dr. Z does not wish to be called a racist.
Dr. Z says racist things from time to time.
Dr. Z need a reason this is laudable, not lamentable.
People who use racist terms are therefore the more honest people.
People who manage to self-censor are self-limiting.


I was raised Mormon in a small town. You said, "Damn!" Or "Shit!" and Mom knew before you got home. Two weeks into bootcamp, i used "fuck" as punctuation. I don't swear THAT badly anymore, but i have spent a lot of time considering words i use to convey intensity, anger, disappointment, pain, and on and on. I use every swear i know of.
Except certain words that are derogatory against a race or gender.
It's a choice. I really cannot see that i live life any less for not using words on the left side of my vocab. So, you know, fuck that idea.

Exactly. Excellent point. We all need to find our way in the world, and experiment. And be given a chance to learn from our mistakes.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
13,426
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Somebody who never fucks up, who always says the right thing, IMHO they aren't really participating in the world. They're self censoring themselves out of existence.

I can see your point when applied to getting out of your comfort zone, trying new things, meeting new people, going new places, observing new things.

But saying racist shit as a requirement to be your authentic self? That doesn’t compute.

The racism isn't required to be your authentic self.

I have a friend today who is a fancy academic who gives talks on feminism and is a hero among progressives. He used to be a neo-Nazi. Lucky for him he was a Nazi before social media.

If racism isn't required to be your authentic self, why be racist? Why say racist things?

Also: you know a fancy academic????? I know lots of academics but not one who is fancy.
 

TSwizzle

Let's go Brandon!
Joined
Jan 8, 2015
Messages
6,029
Location
West Hollywood
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The offense archeologists have been hard at work again;

Peterborough striker Jonson Clarke-Harris has been banned for four games over historic social media posts featuring homophobic comments. The posts date from late 2012 and early 2013, when Clarke-Harris was 18 and establishing himself with loan moves from Posh to Southend and Bury. Clarke-Harris, now 27, has also been fined more than £5,000 and is required to complete a face-to-face education program the Football Association has announced.

DailyMail

Jonson was 18 years old when he made the posts, whatever they were. What kind of sick fuck goes trawling social media looking for this type of thing?

And the FA want to look so woke. They look like idiots.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,009
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The offense archeologists have been hard at work again;

Peterborough striker Jonson Clarke-Harris has been banned for four games over historic social media posts featuring homophobic comments. The posts date from late 2012 and early 2013, when Clarke-Harris was 18 and establishing himself with loan moves from Posh to Southend and Bury. Clarke-Harris, now 27, has also been fined more than £5,000 and is required to complete a face-to-face education program the Football Association has announced.

DailyMail

Jonson was 18 years old when he made the posts, whatever they were. What kind of sick fuck goes trawling social media looking for this type of thing?

And the FA want to look so woke. They look like idiots.

This is pretty fucked.

But one question, I looked up this guy elsewhere. Other news agencies aren't as liberal with the sprinkling of added juicy details. I assume the Daily Mail made it up. As they are prone to do.

When you link to an unreliable source, you do understand that it casts doubt on the alleged crime?

In this case the Daily Mail was correct (minus the details added for effect). But my first instinct is... probably bullshit. I had to look it up in more reputable sources to find enough details to accept that I should be outraged.

Me personally, I think athletes should be allowed to be racists, homophobes, flat Earthers or Muslims. Or whatever their little hearts desire. And they should be allowed to express it wherever. They're not hired for their ability to think. It shouldn't matter.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
25,790
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
The offense archeologists have been hard at work again;

Peterborough striker Jonson Clarke-Harris has been banned for four games over historic social media posts featuring homophobic comments. The posts date from late 2012 and early 2013, when Clarke-Harris was 18 and establishing himself with loan moves from Posh to Southend and Bury. Clarke-Harris, now 27, has also been fined more than £5,000 and is required to complete a face-to-face education program the Football Association has announced.

DailyMail

Jonson was 18 years old when he made the posts, whatever they were. What kind of sick fuck goes trawling social media looking for this type of thing?

And the FA want to look so woke. They look like idiots.

This is pretty fucked.

But one question, I looked up this guy elsewhere. Other news agencies aren't as liberal with the sprinkling of added juicy details. I assume the Daily Mail made it up. As they are prone to do.

When you link to an unreliable source, you do understand that it casts doubt on the alleged crime?

In this case the Daily Mail was correct (minus the details added for effect). But my first instinct is... probably bullshit. I had to look it up in more reputable sources to find enough details to accept that I should be outraged.

Me personally, I think athletes should be allowed to be racists, homophobes, flat Earthers or Muslims. Or whatever their little hearts desire. And they should be allowed to express it wherever. They're not hired for their ability to think. It shouldn't matter.

Why should you be outraged?

Outrage is a handle by which propagandists manipulate people. It engenders zero value to the individual who is outraged; Indeed, it provides a mechanism by which the outraged individual can be influenced to act against their own self interest.

Outrage against the actions of a close family member or friend might be appropriate if that person acts in a grossly inappropriate way. But outrage against a stranger is an act of self harm.

Much of today's "news" media consists not of information, but of invitations to outrage. These invitations should be declined by anyone who is not directly and intimately involved with the events being described. To accept them is to hand control of your emotions to people who do not have your best interests at heart.

I for one am not granting the Daily Mail any access to my emotional state, if I can possibly avoid so doing. And the same goes for ANY other player in the media space. Invitations to outrage should be seen as attempts to manipulate and control you, and the wise person would respond not with outrage against the proposed target, but against the medium presenting the invitation. Who do these cunts think they are to tell you what to think and feel? Where do these fuckers get off presenting their emotional hooks as though they were impartial information?

This vile manipulative behaviour certainly ranks near the top of the list of existential threats to our civilisation. Let's not be complicit in adding to the issue.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,009
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
This is pretty fucked.

But one question, I looked up this guy elsewhere. Other news agencies aren't as liberal with the sprinkling of added juicy details. I assume the Daily Mail made it up. As they are prone to do.

When you link to an unreliable source, you do understand that it casts doubt on the alleged crime?

In this case the Daily Mail was correct (minus the details added for effect). But my first instinct is... probably bullshit. I had to look it up in more reputable sources to find enough details to accept that I should be outraged.

Me personally, I think athletes should be allowed to be racists, homophobes, flat Earthers or Muslims. Or whatever their little hearts desire. And they should be allowed to express it wherever. They're not hired for their ability to think. It shouldn't matter.

Why should you be outraged?

Outrage is a handle by which propagandists manipulate people. It engenders zero value to the individual who is outraged; Indeed, it provides a mechanism by which the outraged individual can be influenced to act against their own self interest.

Outrage against the actions of a close family member or friend might be appropriate if that person acts in a grossly inappropriate way. But outrage against a stranger is an act of self harm.

Much of today's "news" media consists not of information, but of invitations to outrage. These invitations should be declined by anyone who is not directly and intimately involved with the events being described. To accept them is to hand control of your emotions to people who do not have your best interests at heart.

I for one am not granting the Daily Mail any access to my emotional state, if I can possibly avoid so doing. And the same goes for ANY other player in the media space. Invitations to outrage should be seen as attempts to manipulate and control you, and the wise person would respond not with outrage against the proposed target, but against the medium presenting the invitation. Who do these cunts think they are to tell you what to think and feel? Where do these fuckers get off presenting their emotional hooks as though they were impartial information?

This vile manipulative behaviour certainly ranks near the top of the list of existential threats to our civilisation. Let's not be complicit in adding to the issue.

I think we should get outraged. I think it's important to. If we give a free pass to bullies to do their thing we are basically legitimizing censorship. It's naive to think that normal people don't read this and react with fear, if they feel a threat if they would speak freely about something on social media.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
25,790
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
This is pretty fucked.

But one question, I looked up this guy elsewhere. Other news agencies aren't as liberal with the sprinkling of added juicy details. I assume the Daily Mail made it up. As they are prone to do.

When you link to an unreliable source, you do understand that it casts doubt on the alleged crime?

In this case the Daily Mail was correct (minus the details added for effect). But my first instinct is... probably bullshit. I had to look it up in more reputable sources to find enough details to accept that I should be outraged.

Me personally, I think athletes should be allowed to be racists, homophobes, flat Earthers or Muslims. Or whatever their little hearts desire. And they should be allowed to express it wherever. They're not hired for their ability to think. It shouldn't matter.

Why should you be outraged?

Outrage is a handle by which propagandists manipulate people. It engenders zero value to the individual who is outraged; Indeed, it provides a mechanism by which the outraged individual can be influenced to act against their own self interest.

Outrage against the actions of a close family member or friend might be appropriate if that person acts in a grossly inappropriate way. But outrage against a stranger is an act of self harm.

Much of today's "news" media consists not of information, but of invitations to outrage. These invitations should be declined by anyone who is not directly and intimately involved with the events being described. To accept them is to hand control of your emotions to people who do not have your best interests at heart.

I for one am not granting the Daily Mail any access to my emotional state, if I can possibly avoid so doing. And the same goes for ANY other player in the media space. Invitations to outrage should be seen as attempts to manipulate and control you, and the wise person would respond not with outrage against the proposed target, but against the medium presenting the invitation. Who do these cunts think they are to tell you what to think and feel? Where do these fuckers get off presenting their emotional hooks as though they were impartial information?

This vile manipulative behaviour certainly ranks near the top of the list of existential threats to our civilisation. Let's not be complicit in adding to the issue.

I think we should get outraged.
I think you are wrong.
I think it's important to.
I think you are very badly wrong.
If we give a free pass to bullies to do their thing we are basically legitimizing censorship.
How does not getting outraged "give a free pass to bullies"?
It's naive to think that normal people don't read this and react with fear, if they feel a threat if they would speak freely about something on social media.
Perhaps.

But it's far more naive to think that your outrage achieves anything other than to hand your emotional response to the manipulative media that stimulated that response in the first place.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,009
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Perhaps.

But it's far more naive to think that your outrage achieves anything other than to hand your emotional response to the manipulative media that stimulated that response in the first place.

He did get fined a non-trivial sum and temporarily banned for having strong opinions as a teenager. That's preposterous.

I don't know about you, but I certainly had some questionable beliefs as a teenager. I wasn't a racist or a homophobe. But when I was in my teens I did ignorantly treat girlfriends in ways which I only later understood is a form of emotional abuse. That makes me a hell of a lot more compassionate with other's who have some warped ideas when they're young.

I see no compassion here. It's just full on slamming him down for a very minor social crime.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
25,790
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Perhaps.

But it's far more naive to think that your outrage achieves anything other than to hand your emotional response to the manipulative media that stimulated that response in the first place.

He did get fined a non-trivial sum and temporarily banned for having strong opinions as a teenager.
I don't really care. And nor should you, unless he's at the very least an acquaintance.
That's preposterous.
But not a cause for outrage.
I don't know about you, but I certainly had some questionable beliefs as a teenager.
Who didn't?
I wasn't a racist or a homophobe.
Me either.
But when I was in my teens I did ignorantly treat girlfriends in ways which I only later understood is a form of emotional abuse. That makes me a hell of a lot more compassionate with other's who have some warped ideas when they're young.
OK.
I see no compassion here. It's just full on slamming him down for a very minor social crime.

Perhaps.

But WHY DO YOU CARE?

You only care about this injustice to a complete stranger, because the Mail asked you to.

They don't mention every injustice that people you don't know have experienced. Yet you consent to their demand that you be outraged at this particular injustice.

Don't you wonder why?

It's not because the Mail reporter is a caring friend of the person who has been wronged.

It's because they want you to be outraged in order to promote a political agenda that the Mail is pushing.

Why should you submit to such manipulation?

The case itself is (like most such invitations to outrage from the media) utterly irrelevant to them and to you. It's only importance lies in its ability to evoke outrage in you (and those like you), such that you act to further the political objectives of the media owners who are pushing this story.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,009
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Perhaps.

But WHY DO YOU CARE?

Nobody should be punished just for expressing an opinion in public, no matter of offensive it is.

The fact that the football federation is a private association doesn't matter. It's not a legal thing. It's a cultural thing. It has to do with the degree of tolerance of our society.

We've already suffered under 2000 years of church oppression and brainwashing. Our western culture is arguably still emerging from it. The last thing we need is to slide mindlessly into the next intolerant totalitarian Maoist paradigm and lose all these freedoms we fought, and are still fighting hard to achieve.

I see the wokes as very much the same kind of fascistoid mentality that underpinned the Christian church in the bad old days. Their project on slamming anyone for expressing reasonable opinions should be horrifying to anyone.

I'm super duper gay friendly. I couldn't be more of a supporter for the gay cause. I fully support their right to wear assless chaps in public (or whatever else they feel like). But I'm also super cool with anybody thinking that gays are gross and gay sex being unnatural. I think it's a shame people have that opinion. But I do think people shouldn't be afraid of expressing themselves.

You only care about this injustice to a complete stranger, because the Mail asked you to.

I fucking hate that tabloid trash of a right wing magazine. But I did use the name in the Mail article and googled it and found more reasonable articles elsewhere. And they didn't lie (for once). Not about everything.

They don't mention every injustice that people you don't know have experienced. Yet you consent to their demand that you be outraged at this particular injustice.

Don't you wonder why?

It's not because the Mail reporter is a caring friend of the person who has been wronged.

It's because they want you to be outraged in order to promote a political agenda that the Mail is pushing.

Why should you submit to such manipulation?

The case itself is (like most such invitations to outrage from the media) utterly irrelevant to them and to you. It's only importance lies in its ability to evoke outrage in you (and those like you), such that you act to further the political objectives of the media owners who are pushing this story.

I am fully aware of what you are saying. And I also agree. But also... when my enemies... for once... say something that I agree with, I'll join my enemy. If only for a short while.

Yes, I'm aware that the Mail are the defenders of racists and bigots everywhere.

I get just as upset when the shoe is on the other foot.

But I am militantly for tolerance and free expression. Defending people's right to being able to express themselves freely and live the life they want to live without fear, is a hill I'm willing to die on. Even if it leads to me fighting for the right of homophobes to say their nonsense.
 

TSwizzle

Let's go Brandon!
Joined
Jan 8, 2015
Messages
6,029
Location
West Hollywood
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
The offense archeologists have been hard at work again;

Peterborough striker Jonson Clarke-Harris has been banned for four games over historic social media posts featuring homophobic comments. The posts date from late 2012 and early 2013, when Clarke-Harris was 18 and establishing himself with loan moves from Posh to Southend and Bury. Clarke-Harris, now 27, has also been fined more than £5,000 and is required to complete a face-to-face education program the Football Association has announced.

DailyMail

Jonson was 18 years old when he made the posts, whatever they were. What kind of sick fuck goes trawling social media looking for this type of thing?

And the FA want to look so woke. They look like idiots.

This is pretty fucked.

Yes it is.

But one question, I looked up this guy elsewhere. Other news agencies aren't as liberal with the sprinkling of added juicy details. I assume the Daily Mail made it up. As they are prone to do.

So you keep saying but you (nor anyone else on here) have never, ever provided an example of a DM article I have linked to that has been "made up".

When you link to an unreliable source, you do understand that it casts doubt on the alleged crime?

So far, DM is batting 100 in any article I have linked to.

In this case the Daily Mail was correct (minus the details added for effect). But my first instinct is... probably bullshit.

Surprise ! 100% accurate.


I had to look it up in more reputable sources to find enough details to accept that I should be outraged.

Journalism today cannot be relied upon to be accurate so I don't fault you for looking elsewhere. That is what I do no matter who it is.

Me personally, I think athletes should be allowed to be racists, homophobes, flat Earthers or Muslims. Or whatever their little hearts desire. And they should be allowed to express it wherever. They're not hired for their ability to think. It shouldn't matter.

I don't know if I would go so far as that in regards to being racist or "homophobes". I really don't think overt racism or "homophobia" is acceptable. I don't know exactly what Jonson Clarke-Harris said in his tweets, I'd be interested to see. But I suspect it was something like "So and so is a poof (faggot)" and for that he is banned and sent to a reeducation camp? Yeah, I'd be outraged too.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
13,426
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
This is pretty fucked.

But one question, I looked up this guy elsewhere. Other news agencies aren't as liberal with the sprinkling of added juicy details. I assume the Daily Mail made it up. As they are prone to do.

When you link to an unreliable source, you do understand that it casts doubt on the alleged crime?

In this case the Daily Mail was correct (minus the details added for effect). But my first instinct is... probably bullshit. I had to look it up in more reputable sources to find enough details to accept that I should be outraged.

Me personally, I think athletes should be allowed to be racists, homophobes, flat Earthers or Muslims. Or whatever their little hearts desire. And they should be allowed to express it wherever. They're not hired for their ability to think. It shouldn't matter.

Why should you be outraged?

Outrage is a handle by which propagandists manipulate people. It engenders zero value to the individual who is outraged; Indeed, it provides a mechanism by which the outraged individual can be influenced to act against their own self interest.

Outrage against the actions of a close family member or friend might be appropriate if that person acts in a grossly inappropriate way. But outrage against a stranger is an act of self harm.

Much of today's "news" media consists not of information, but of invitations to outrage. These invitations should be declined by anyone who is not directly and intimately involved with the events being described. To accept them is to hand control of your emotions to people who do not have your best interests at heart.

I for one am not granting the Daily Mail any access to my emotional state, if I can possibly avoid so doing. And the same goes for ANY other player in the media space. Invitations to outrage should be seen as attempts to manipulate and control you, and the wise person would respond not with outrage against the proposed target, but against the medium presenting the invitation. Who do these cunts think they are to tell you what to think and feel? Where do these fuckers get off presenting their emotional hooks as though they were impartial information?

This vile manipulative behaviour certainly ranks near the top of the list of existential threats to our civilisation. Let's not be complicit in adding to the issue.

I think we should get outraged. I think it's important to. If we give a free pass to bullies to do their thing we are basically legitimizing censorship. It's naive to think that normal people don't read this and react with fear, if they feel a threat if they would speak freely about something on social media.

Apparently you are upset with the wrong people being outraged at the wrong stuff.

To you, a male being called out for poor behavior is the outrage, not the poor behavior. Although you don't seem to have a problem with people making racial or homophobic slurs so perhaps that's where the confusion lies.

Whether remarks made on social media at the ripe old age of 18 or so are pertinent to anything 8 or 10 years later is a different matter.
 

TSwizzle

Let's go Brandon!
Joined
Jan 8, 2015
Messages
6,029
Location
West Hollywood
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Raiders head coach falls on his sword after some iffy emails are uncovered;

Jon Gruden has resigned as coach of the Las Vegas Raiders after his emails leak revealing his sexist comments about women referees, his homophobic comments about the drafting of a gay player and racist comments. He stepped down after The New York Times reported that Gruden frequently used misogynistic and homophobic language directed at Commissioner Roger Goodell and others in the NFL.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...er-Smith-appreciates-Gruden-reaching-out.html
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,009
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
So you keep saying but you (nor anyone else on here) have never, ever provided an example of a DM article I have linked to that has been "made up".

We've been over this. They wrote a bunch of articles on the situation in Malmö at a time when I lived there. They were all bullshit. I didn't need to verify it anywhere else. At no point has there been no-go zones in Malmö. While Sweden is a hell of a lot dodgier now than it was before 2015. Malmö in 2000 was an absolute disaster zone of violence and dysfunction. The people who live there now, have no fucking clue what the Daily Mail was on about in 2015.

And lastly, while Sweden is more violent now than it was just a decade ago, it's still more peaceful and safe than most of Europe. Any larger city around the Mediterranean is unsafe for women out alone at night. No woman in Sweden has to worry about being out alone at night.

The Daily Mail jumped on a trend bandwagon of slamming Sweden back then. But there was no deeper analysis than that.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
33,981
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Nobody should be punished just for expressing an opinion in public, no matter of offensive it is.

The fact that the football federation is a private association doesn't matter. It's not a legal thing. It's a cultural thing. It has to do with the degree of tolerance of our society.

We've already suffered under 2000 years of church oppression and brainwashing. Our western culture is arguably still emerging from it. The last thing we need is to slide mindlessly into the next intolerant totalitarian Maoist paradigm and lose all these freedoms we fought, and are still fighting hard to achieve.

I see the wokes as very much the same kind of fascistoid mentality that underpinned the Christian church in the bad old days. Their project on slamming anyone for expressing reasonable opinions should be horrifying to anyone.
"Reasonable" opinions. Shifting goalposts inside your own post?

I'm super duper gay friendly. I couldn't be more of a supporter for the gay cause. I fully support their right to wear assless chaps in public (or whatever else they feel like). But I'm also super cool with anybody thinking that gays are gross and gay sex being unnatural. I think it's a shame people have that opinion. But I do think people shouldn't be afraid of expressing themselves.
So, you are pro-gay and pro-normalization of anti-gay propaganda that helps lead to criminalization of homosexuality in say Africa?.
 

thebeave

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2001
Messages
3,252
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Raiders head coach falls on his sword after some iffy emails are uncovered;

Jon Gruden has resigned as coach of the Las Vegas Raiders after his emails leak revealing his sexist comments about women referees, his homophobic comments about the drafting of a gay player and racist comments. He stepped down after The New York Times reported that Gruden frequently used misogynistic and homophobic language directed at Commissioner Roger Goodell and others in the NFL.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...er-Smith-appreciates-Gruden-reaching-out.html

I find it rather amusing that Dr. Dre, Eminem, Snoop Dogg and others with their plethora of sexist, misogynistic, racist, homophobic and violence-inspiring song lyrics will be performing at the 2022 NFL Super Bowl. Has anyone suggested that these performers be fired for their lyrics' content? What Gruden said (in private emails) seems pretty sparse and tame compared to what these performers have said quite openly for decades now. Go figure.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,009
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Nobody should be punished just for expressing an opinion in public, no matter of offensive it is.

The fact that the football federation is a private association doesn't matter. It's not a legal thing. It's a cultural thing. It has to do with the degree of tolerance of our society.

We've already suffered under 2000 years of church oppression and brainwashing. Our western culture is arguably still emerging from it. The last thing we need is to slide mindlessly into the next intolerant totalitarian Maoist paradigm and lose all these freedoms we fought, and are still fighting hard to achieve.

I see the wokes as very much the same kind of fascistoid mentality that underpinned the Christian church in the bad old days. Their project on slamming anyone for expressing reasonable opinions should be horrifying to anyone.
"Reasonable" opinions. Shifting goalposts inside your own post?

I'm super duper gay friendly. I couldn't be more of a supporter for the gay cause. I fully support their right to wear assless chaps in public (or whatever else they feel like). But I'm also super cool with anybody thinking that gays are gross and gay sex being unnatural. I think it's a shame people have that opinion. But I do think people shouldn't be afraid of expressing themselves.
So, you are pro-gay and pro-normalization of anti-gay propaganda that helps lead to criminalization of homosexuality in say Africa?.

I disagree that anti-gay propaganda alone leads to the criminalisation of homosexuality. The problem with intolerance is that its the product of fear. Fear of what freely thinking people do. So unwanted opinions are suppressed and free public debate is made impossible. The result will always be stupidity. Sure, its nice for the gays if the intolerant oppressors belong to the gay friendly side. But people won't know why they should support gay rights. There's no resilience in the society to stop other idiotic ideas. It's anti-intellectualism
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
13,426
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
"Reasonable" opinions. Shifting goalposts inside your own post?

So, you are pro-gay and pro-normalization of anti-gay propaganda that helps lead to criminalization of homosexuality in say Africa?.

I disagree that anti-gay propaganda alone leads to the criminalisation of homosexuality. The problem with intolerance is that its the product of fear. Fear of what freely thinking people do. So unwanted opinions are suppressed and free public debate is made impossible. The result will always be stupidity. Sure, its nice for the gays if the intolerant oppressors belong to the gay friendly side. But people won't know why they should support gay rights. There's no resilience in the society to stop other idiotic ideas. It's anti-intellectualism

I am once again in awe of your expertise in stupidity and anti-intellectualism.
 

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
3,803
Location
It's a desert out there
Gender
Agenderist
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Raiders head coach falls on his sword after some iffy emails are uncovered;

Jon Gruden has resigned as coach of the Las Vegas Raiders after his emails leak revealing his sexist comments about women referees, his homophobic comments about the drafting of a gay player and racist comments. He stepped down after The New York Times reported that Gruden frequently used misogynistic and homophobic language directed at Commissioner Roger Goodell and others in the NFL.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...er-Smith-appreciates-Gruden-reaching-out.html

I find it rather amusing that Dr. Dre, Eminem, Snoop Dogg and others with their plethora of sexist, misogynistic, racist, homophobic and violence-inspiring song lyrics will be performing at the 2022 NFL Super Bowl. Has anyone suggested that these performers be fired for their lyrics' content? What Gruden said (in private emails) seems pretty sparse and tame compared to what these performers have said quite openly for decades now. Go figure.

Yeah, that leaves me confused too.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
33,981
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
"Reasonable" opinions. Shifting goalposts inside your own post?

So, you are pro-gay and pro-normalization of anti-gay propaganda that helps lead to criminalization of homosexuality in say Africa?.

I disagree that anti-gay propaganda alone leads to the criminalisation of homosexuality. The problem with intolerance is that its the product of fear. Fear of what freely thinking people do. So unwanted opinions are suppressed and free public debate is made impossible. The result will always be stupidity.
Okay, so the criminalization of homosexuality was allowed through propaganda, but if we stand in the way of the propaganda, that leads to stupidity.

Sure, its nice for the gays if the intolerant oppressors belong to the gay friendly side. But people won't know why they should support gay rights.
What the heck are gay rights? That'd be equal rights.
 

WAB

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
4,050
Location
Hyperboria
Basic Beliefs
n/a
I find it rather amusing that Dr. Dre, Eminem, Snoop Dogg and others with their plethora of sexist, misogynistic, racist, homophobic and violence-inspiring song lyrics will be performing at the 2022 NFL Super Bowl. Has anyone suggested that these performers be fired for their lyrics' content? What Gruden said (in private emails) seems pretty sparse and tame compared to what these performers have said quite openly for decades now. Go figure.

Yeah, that leaves me confused too.

I once bought an Eminem album to placate a friend of mine who claimed I dislike Eminem because I did not have enough patience (or brains, methinks) to fully appreciate his music. I listened closely to the whole thing - as disgusting as it was. Musically simple and lyrically impressive at certain points, especially his brilliant timing and sense of meter, but content-wise, mostly just boring, repetitive to the point of nausea, and often revolting and just plain stupid.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
13,426
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
I find it rather amusing that Dr. Dre, Eminem, Snoop Dogg and others with their plethora of sexist, misogynistic, racist, homophobic and violence-inspiring song lyrics will be performing at the 2022 NFL Super Bowl. Has anyone suggested that these performers be fired for their lyrics' content? What Gruden said (in private emails) seems pretty sparse and tame compared to what these performers have said quite openly for decades now. Go figure.

Yeah, that leaves me confused too.

I once bought an Eminem album to placate a friend of mine who claimed I dislike Eminem because I did not have enough patience (or brains, methinks) to fully appreciate his music. I listened closely to the whole thing - as disgusting as it was. Musically simple and lyrically impressive at certain points, especially his brilliant timing and sense of meter, but content-wise, mostly just boring, repetitive to the point of nausea, and often revolting and just plain stupid.

calvin.jpg

Not exactly Eminem but close enough. Of course, totally beggars the question of why there is a market for this genre....
 

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
3,803
Location
It's a desert out there
Gender
Agenderist
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
I find it rather amusing that Dr. Dre, Eminem, Snoop Dogg and others with their plethora of sexist, misogynistic, racist, homophobic and violence-inspiring song lyrics will be performing at the 2022 NFL Super Bowl. Has anyone suggested that these performers be fired for their lyrics' content? What Gruden said (in private emails) seems pretty sparse and tame compared to what these performers have said quite openly for decades now. Go figure.

Yeah, that leaves me confused too.

I once bought an Eminem album to placate a friend of mine who claimed I dislike Eminem because I did not have enough patience (or brains, methinks) to fully appreciate his music. I listened closely to the whole thing - as disgusting as it was. Musically simple and lyrically impressive at certain points, especially his brilliant timing and sense of meter, but content-wise, mostly just boring, repetitive to the point of nausea, and often revolting and just plain stupid.

Pretty much exactly that. I admire his timing and his poetry, and there are a few songs that I liked for the message and story-telling, but the content was often really a turn off.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,009
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Okay, so the criminalization of homosexuality was allowed through propaganda, but if we stand in the way of the propaganda, that leads to stupidity.
.

I don't think that's how it works. I think it's just xenophobia Once freedom of expression is suppressed it all becomes warped and weird. Everyone lives a lie.

Sure, its nice for the gays if the intolerant oppressors belong to the gay friendly side. But people won't know why they should support gay rights.
What the heck are gay rights? That'd be equal rights.

Yes, that is gay rights. Which for some bizarre reason is something gays have had to fight for.

But we still don't have fully equal rights for all the weirdos. Polygamy is still suppressed for Biblical reasons that I have no idea why we still respect
 

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
3,803
Location
It's a desert out there
Gender
Agenderist
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
But we still don't have fully equal rights for all the weirdos. Polygamy is still suppressed for Biblical reasons that I have no idea why we still respect

Islamaphobia and anti-Mormon propoganda.

Meh. I don't think it's that so much as a pretty substantial Christian influence overall. I also think the government as a whole doesn't want to grant the tax benefits of marriage to larger groupings, purely for financial reasons. It would also really complicate divorce and inheritance law. If a wealthy women has five husbands, and she dies... who is the closest relative by default? Would a polygamandrous marriage be required to keep explicit wills defining every detail? What happens when a quadruple has four earners of varying levels of income, and one of them divorces the other - who pays p/alimony?

I don't have any problems at all about polyamory. To be quite honest, it would be lovely to have a housespouse who is a good cook and likes to clean! It's the legal and legislative repercussions that get complicated when I start thinking about it.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
7,439
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
any
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
But we still don't have fully equal rights for all the weirdos. Polygamy is still suppressed for Biblical reasons that I have no idea why we still respect

Islamaphobia and anti-Mormon propoganda.

Meh. I don't think it's that so much as a pretty substantial Christian influence overall. I also think the government as a whole doesn't want to grant the tax benefits of marriage to larger groupings, purely for financial reasons. It would also really complicate divorce and inheritance law. If a wealthy women has five husbands, and she dies... who is the closest relative by default? Would a polygamandrous marriage be required to keep explicit wills defining every detail? What happens when a quadruple has four earners of varying levels of income, and one of them divorces the other - who pays p/alimony?

I don't have any problems at all about polyamory. To be quite honest, it would be lovely to have a housespouse who is a good cook and likes to clean! It's the legal and legislative repercussions that get complicated when I start thinking about it.

That must be why countries that haven't outlawed polygamy are just completely baffled as to how to legislate it.

:pancakebunny:
 

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
3,803
Location
It's a desert out there
Gender
Agenderist
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
That must be why countries that haven't outlawed polygamy are just completely baffled as to how to legislate it.

:pancakebunny:

I'd be quite happy to look into how countries that allow polygamy do handle it. Do you know which do? Of course, you could also provide that information for discussion purposes rather than just looking down your nose at me with such condescension.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
25,790
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
But we still don't have fully equal rights for all the weirdos. Polygamy is still suppressed for Biblical reasons that I have no idea why we still respect

Islamaphobia and anti-Mormon propoganda.

Meh. I don't think it's that so much as a pretty substantial Christian influence overall. I also think the government as a whole doesn't want to grant the tax benefits of marriage to larger groupings, purely for financial reasons. It would also really complicate divorce and inheritance law. If a wealthy women has five husbands, and she dies... who is the closest relative by default? Would a polygamandrous marriage be required to keep explicit wills defining every detail? What happens when a quadruple has four earners of varying levels of income, and one of them divorces the other - who pays p/alimony?

I don't have any problems at all about polyamory. To be quite honest, it would be lovely to have a housespouse who is a good cook and likes to clean! It's the legal and legislative repercussions that get complicated when I start thinking about it.

There are no tax benefits of marriage in my jurisdiction. There's nothing stopping any US jurisdictions from making taxation entirely matrimony neutral.

Tax laws are not laws of nature.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
10,009
Location
Copenhagen
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
But we still don't have fully equal rights for all the weirdos. Polygamy is still suppressed for Biblical reasons that I have no idea why we still respect

Islamaphobia and anti-Mormon propoganda.

Meh. I don't think it's that so much as a pretty substantial Christian influence overall. I also think the government as a whole doesn't want to grant the tax benefits of marriage to larger groupings, purely for financial reasons. It would also really complicate divorce and inheritance law. If a wealthy women has five husbands, and she dies... who is the closest relative by default? Would a polygamandrous marriage be required to keep explicit wills defining every detail? What happens when a quadruple has four earners of varying levels of income, and one of them divorces the other - who pays p/alimony?

I don't have any problems at all about polyamory. To be quite honest, it would be lovely to have a housespouse who is a good cook and likes to clean! It's the legal and legislative repercussions that get complicated when I start thinking about it.

Ok. But why are married couples given tax benefits at all? Could it possibly have something to do with the Christian influence? Shouldn't we rather give tax benefits to single people? Married people already have the benefit of a partner. Single people don't. Single parents? Tax benefits to married people makes no sense. It's the least economically vulnerable group in society.

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/default/files/jrc125690.pdf
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
13,426
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Meh. I don't think it's that so much as a pretty substantial Christian influence overall. I also think the government as a whole doesn't want to grant the tax benefits of marriage to larger groupings, purely for financial reasons. It would also really complicate divorce and inheritance law. If a wealthy women has five husbands, and she dies... who is the closest relative by default? Would a polygamandrous marriage be required to keep explicit wills defining every detail? What happens when a quadruple has four earners of varying levels of income, and one of them divorces the other - who pays p/alimony?

I don't have any problems at all about polyamory. To be quite honest, it would be lovely to have a housespouse who is a good cook and likes to clean! It's the legal and legislative repercussions that get complicated when I start thinking about it.

Ok. But why are married couples given tax benefits at all? Could it possibly have something to do with the Christian influence? Shouldn't we rather give tax benefits to single people? Married people already have the benefit of a partner. Single people don't. Single parents? Tax benefits to married people makes no sense. It's the least economically vulnerable group in society.

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/default/files/jrc125690.pdf

Governments tax things they want to discourage and give tax breaks to what they want to encourage. This is not the only reason for a tax but it is one reason for some taxes/tax breaks.

The thinking is that marriage provides stability for the populace and therefore for the country. Also, the thinking is that marriage often leads to children which is a good and useful thing to encourage.

Obviously, this is an imperfect scenario, particularly these days when so many are eschewing marriage and/or children and certainly see no reason to insist that they go hand in hand.
 

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
3,803
Location
It's a desert out there
Gender
Agenderist
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
There are no tax benefits of marriage in my jurisdiction. There's nothing stopping any US jurisdictions from making taxation entirely matrimony neutral.

Tax laws are not laws of nature.

For federal income tax, married filing jointly is almost always a better choice than filing as two singles.

Additionally, there are other entitlements that marriage confers: right to attend and make decisions in health emergencies, shared life insurance and health insurance at lower total premiums (and depending on situation tax benefits as well like for a joint Health Savings Account).
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
25,790
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
There are no tax benefits of marriage in my jurisdiction. There's nothing stopping any US jurisdictions from making taxation entirely matrimony neutral.

Tax laws are not laws of nature.

For federal income tax, married filing jointly is almost always a better choice than filing as two singles.
That's simply untrue in my jurisdiction.

This is the Internet, not the United States.

You are discussing an oddity of US law (which could be eliminated in the US by any legislature that chose to pass a suitable bill), as though it were universally true of all jurisdictions worldwide, and/or an immutable characteristic of US law. It is neither. Like all law, it is an arbitrary requirement set by lawmakers, and could be repealed by them at any time.
Additionally, there are other entitlements that marriage confers: right to attend and make decisions in health emergencies, shared life insurance and health insurance at lower total premiums (and depending on situation tax benefits as well like for a joint Health Savings Account).

Again, these are arbitrary benefits conferred by law. None of these currently apply in my jurisdiction*, but there's nothing whatsoever to prevent my government (or yours) from making marriage entirely benefit neutral, and certainly nothing to prevent them from making it entirely tax neutral.




*All costs and benefits of marriage here are, in law if not always in fact, automatically applied to 'de-facto' relationships - our government declares as 'de-facto' all people who "have a relationship and live together as a couple for two years or more but are not married". It's even possible to register a de-facto relationship with various agencies to ease the process of claiming those benefits, such as attendance and decision making in health emergencies, without getting married.
 
Last edited:

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
13,426
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
For federal income tax, married filing jointly is almost always a better choice than filing as two singles.

Additionally, there are other entitlements that marriage confers: right to attend and make decisions in health emergencies, shared life insurance and health insurance at lower total premiums (and depending on situation tax benefits as well like for a joint Health Savings Account).

Again, these are arbitrary benefits conferred by law. None of these currently apply in my jurisdiction*, but there's nothing whatsoever to prevent my government (or yours) from making marriage entirely benefit neutral, and certainly nothing to prevent them from making it entirely tax neutral.




*All costs and benefits of marriage here are, in law if not always in fact, automatically applied to 'de-facto' relationships - our government declares as 'de-facto' all people who "have a relationship and live together as a couple for two years or more but are not married". It's even possible to register a de-facto relationship with various agencies to ease the process of claiming those benefits, such as attendance and decision making in health emergencies, without getting married.

I would not say that these benefits are arbitrary: they are designed to encourage marriage (and child rearing). You may see no benefit to such benefits but apparently the US government does see such benefit. In most states I believe that common law marriage is assumed after 7 years of cohabitation as a couple. Even so, some benefits are NOT conferred unless a legal marriage takes place. For instance, my husband's retirement account is assumed to be half mine. If we were not married but merely cohabitating, his retirement account would pass to his children, even if they were also my children. His will could leave me other property but by our state law, not that account.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
21,847
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
I would not say that these benefits are arbitrary: they are designed to encourage marriage (and child rearing).
By arbitrary, he doesn't mean that someone threw darts at a board. There's a goal or design, sure, but nothing intrinsic to the state of being married. This is not the only way to set up taxes if you adopt state licensing of marriages.

If priorities or goals change, the laws can be changed to any degree, even to the opposite polarity as easily as they were set up this way in the first place.
 

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
3,803
Location
It's a desert out there
Gender
Agenderist
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
For federal income tax, married filing jointly is almost always a better choice than filing as two singles.

Additionally, there are other entitlements that marriage confers: right to attend and make decisions in health emergencies, shared life insurance and health insurance at lower total premiums (and depending on situation tax benefits as well like for a joint Health Savings Account).

Again, these are arbitrary benefits conferred by law. None of these currently apply in my jurisdiction*, but there's nothing whatsoever to prevent my government (or yours) from making marriage entirely benefit neutral, and certainly nothing to prevent them from making it entirely tax neutral.




*All costs and benefits of marriage here are, in law if not always in fact, automatically applied to 'de-facto' relationships - our government declares as 'de-facto' all people who "have a relationship and live together as a couple for two years or more but are not married". It's even possible to register a de-facto relationship with various agencies to ease the process of claiming those benefits, such as attendance and decision making in health emergencies, without getting married.

The blue and the red contradict each other. Your jurisdiction DOES grant privileges on the basis of marriage, but does not limit them to officially sanctioned registered marriages. Rather, they allow common-law marriages in specific circumstances.

And I agree, they could be made 'marriage neutral' in some sense, sure. But there are many situations that would require additional guidelines in order to accommodate polyandogamous marriages. I'm sure solutions exist, I just don't know what those would look like, and I don't know how they would avoid conflicts in some situations.

Also, I'm not entirely sure why you're arguing with me. Some benefits exist in law that are tied to marriage (even common law). Polyandrogamous marriages would need those to be revised in a way that makes sense. I don't really understand why you feel that needs to be argued with?
 

Emily Lake

Might be a replicant
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
3,803
Location
It's a desert out there
Gender
Agenderist
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
For federal income tax, married filing jointly is almost always a better choice than filing as two singles.

Additionally, there are other entitlements that marriage confers: right to attend and make decisions in health emergencies, shared life insurance and health insurance at lower total premiums (and depending on situation tax benefits as well like for a joint Health Savings Account).

Again, these are arbitrary benefits conferred by law. None of these currently apply in my jurisdiction*, but there's nothing whatsoever to prevent my government (or yours) from making marriage entirely benefit neutral, and certainly nothing to prevent them from making it entirely tax neutral.




*All costs and benefits of marriage here are, in law if not always in fact, automatically applied to 'de-facto' relationships - our government declares as 'de-facto' all people who "have a relationship and live together as a couple for two years or more but are not married". It's even possible to register a de-facto relationship with various agencies to ease the process of claiming those benefits, such as attendance and decision making in health emergencies, without getting married.

I would not say that these benefits are arbitrary: they are designed to encourage marriage (and child rearing). You may see no benefit to such benefits but apparently the US government does see such benefit. In most states I believe that common law marriage is assumed after 7 years of cohabitation as a couple. Even so, some benefits are NOT conferred unless a legal marriage takes place. For instance, my husband's retirement account is assumed to be half mine. If we were not married but merely cohabitating, his retirement account would pass to his children, even if they were also my children. His will could leave me other property but by our state law, not that account.

As common law spouses, you would also not be eligible for any employer-provided health or life benefits he might have.
 
Top Bottom