Gay People And Their Right To Militarize

[Seil]

Aparently there's a "Don't ask, don't tell" policy (http://gaylife.about.com/b/2009/03/12/11-gay-soldiers-dismissed-from-army-in-january.htm) when it comes to gay people in the military? What's going on? I didn't know we had one of those.

The don't ask, don't tell policy, signed in 1993 by former president Bill Clinton, was implemented as a compromise with legislature which opposed a complete repeal of the prior ban on gays in the military. The death of Seaman Allen Schindler in 1992 brought the issue of gay servicemembers to the forefront. Established under the premise of privacy, discretion and protection, the policy bans gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender people from serving in the military and prevents military officials from asking probing questions or pursuing investigations of soldiers suspected of being homosexuals. Any servicemember that openly reveals their homosexuality through words or actions are discharged from service. More reading. (http://gaylife.about.com/cs/politicsactivism/i/gaymilitary_2.htm)

Anyways, Obama's battling this, (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/01/us/politics/01military.html) and I hope he wins. I mean, I don't really go for the military, I'm a more peaceful guy than what I envision the military would allow me, but at the same time I can see that this is discrimination.

dis⋅crim⋅i⋅na⋅tion
  /dɪˌskrɪməˈneɪʃən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [di-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn]
–noun
1. an act or instance of discriminating.
2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.
4. Archaic. something that serves to differentiate.And I always heard that discrimination was mostly a bad thing.

[Kim]

He's fighting it as much as you can when one of the people you put in a position to get rid of it has actively defended it.

By which I mean not at fucking all.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

He's fighting it as much as you can when one of the people you put in a position to get rid of it has actively defended it.

By which I mean not at fucking all.

Really?


As a participant recounted one of the sessions, Mr. Obama told Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, that the law was “just wrong.” Mr. Obama told them, the participant said, that he had delayed acting on repeal because the military was stretched in two wars and he did not want another polarizing debate in 2009 to distract from his health care fight.

But in 2010, he told them, this would be a priority. He got no objections.

On Tuesday, in the first Congressional hearing on the issue in 17 years, Mr. Gates and Admiral Mullen will unveil the Pentagon’s initial plans for carrying out a repeal, which requires an act of Congress. Gay rights leaders say they expect Mr. Gates to announce in the interim that the Defense Department will not take action to discharge service members whose sexual orientation is revealed by third parties or jilted partners, one of the most onerous aspects of the law. Pentagon officials had no comment.

Cause it sounds a whole fucking lot like he's trying.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I'm down for not letting gay people join the military because I'm down with not letting anybody join the military. We'll just do it one group of people at the time.

[Seil]

I'd be interested to hear something from Flare - where is that lady?

[Funka Genocide]

I never understood the way that was supposed to work, it was entirely too vague.

When you join the military, they do in fact ask you if you are a homosexual. It's one of the first things they get out of the way, so isn't that like "asking"?

Although I will say that it's not like there's an ongoing witch hunt or anything once you get past the initial process. I knew a few people in the navy that were homosexual but its not like they went around telling everyone about their sex life. I mean everyone pretty much knows, but in my experience no one cared. I find it strange, like a lot of the younger generation of the military really doesn't give a shit, the bigots usually get quieted by the general atmosphere of "we're all in this shit together."

I don't think sexual preference should have anything to do with being in the military though. They should just update their damn showers in some of their buildings if they're so worried about it. I mean there's a few places where everyone takes communal showers, other than that it's not like people are running around naked, and if you're so insecure that you walk in terror of being eyed by the "gay menace" well I mean... they're all ready in the military. You've been eyed, get over it.

[Hanuman]

If women are allowed in why not homosexuals?
It makes less of a difference.

[bluestarultor]

I have no idea how a person could get this far without knowing about DADT, but the idea was that it at least LET gays into the military. Technically, it's still illegal to be gay and in the armed forces. DADT basically said that nobody could screen for them. If someone is gay and makes an issue of it, they can be booted.

Frankly, it's a bad policy that we shouldn't need anymore, but with eleventy-billion percent of the armed forces being from the South and the Bible Belt, it's hard enough to deal with racism much less homophobia.

Of course, if the military can't re-educate their troops, they are a failure as a total institution.

[Bells]

Well, in the basis of the argument what you have is that people still think of this subject as if there were groups... y'know?

There is the white people, and there is the black people, and there is the straight people and the gay people... if you pay attention to the political (and the midia) when they talk about this, you can actually see they constructing their narrative as if these groups were actually another species within the human race.

Thus the Bullshit.

[bluestarultor]

Well, in the basis of the argument what you have is that people still think of this subject as if there were groups... y'know?

There is the white people, and there is the black people, and there is the straight people and the gay people... if you pay attention to the political (and the midia) when they talk about this, you can actually see they constructing their narrative as if these groups were actually another species within the human race.

Thus the Bullshit.

No doubt about that, but it's sadly basic psychology. Humans are social creatures and therefore gravitate into groups of other humans with which they identify. The problem in this case is that they're failing to identify the people around them as being in the same group (the military) and are segmenting them based on their previous biases (race, sex, orientation).

[Funka Genocide]

That's kind of bullshit Blues. I've known a lot of people from the "South" in the military who weren't bigots or racists. Some of my best friends are from Texas. That's just another form of discrimination.

The truth of the matter is that the don't ask don't tell policy is mainly in effect because of the voting public. (old people.)

The military doesn't create it's own top-level policy, and honestly any general with troops in Iraq or Afghanistan right now would be happy for any personnel, he doesn't really care what gets them off so long as they can shoot a rifle.

Also, it's not technically illegal to be homosexual in the armed forces, you just can't talk about it or have homosexual sex. Sodomy is still against the law in the UCMJ. But that's really the whole basis of don't ask don't tell.

It has really nothing to do with how military personnel feel about it, it's dictated by the people put into office by the voting public of America. You have to shift public opinion of homosexuality before you can repeal don't ask don't tell, that's basic politics.

[Bells]

So, in the heart of business, DADT makes as much sense as "No homos in the boy scouts" over there in the US?

Actually, to broaden up a bit... i know it's a USA issue, but do other countries follow suit to this?

[Wigmund]

According to this (http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/in_print/gays_in_military_succeeds_abroad), 23 countries allow gays to serve in their militaries - including most every member of NATO excluding Turkey and the US, Israel, and Australia.

As for the Boy Scouts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_membership_controversies), they're technically a private organization - so they're allowed to be small-minded bigots when it comes to their recruiting policies. As to whether or not they can continue doing this and receive support from the government is being litigated in various places.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Yeah but I mean if I made a No blackies association or a We love the Nazis association we'd be shut down pretty much immediatly. You're inculcating prejudice either way.

[CABAL49]

That's kind of bullshit Blues. I've known a lot of people from the "South" in the military who weren't bigots or racists. Some of my best friends are from Texas. That's just another form of discrimination.


I can personally confirm that. Two brothers in the military, homegrown North Carolinians. Both progressives.

But we obviously can't let the gays into the military. They'll start a coup and make us all be communist Nazi gay fascists. You guys do remember this Right? (http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:_Homosexual_bait_and_switch)

[Funka Genocide]

I think the inclusion of an interior decorating specialization throughout the military would greatly increase morale. Have you ever been on a naval vessel? Everythis is so DRAB!

Also, covert homosexuals obviously have the potential to be great intelligence personnel.

[bluestarultor]

Okay, am I going to be buried in a landslide of anecdotal evidence?

Put simply, I'm not saying every person below a line on a map is racist or homophobic. What I am saying is that people of religion (the Bible Belt) and from impoverished areas (characteristic of some regions of the South) have a lower level of tolerance than people with fewer hard-line views and more security.

[Loyal]

I always thought the DADT/gays in the military in general thing was a little silly. If I'm abroad with a gun, out to fight, kill, or die at a moments notice, the last thing I'm gonna worry about is a guy checking out my ass.

[Bob The Mercenary]

I'm down for not letting gay people join the military because I'm down with not letting anybody join the military. We'll just do it one group of people at the time.

What?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

What?

I thought it was pretty straight forward. The less people eligible for the military the better.

[bluestarultor]

What?

He means his view of the military is that it should be slowly dissolved, starting with the exclusion of gays, then working backwards until only white male citizens who own land are allowed, then disallowing them, too, leaving no one, fostering the inevitable collapse of the armed forces.

Edit: Either that, or leaving it to robots. We're headed in that direction, anyway.

[Premmy]

Yeah but I mean if I made a No blackies association or a We love the Nazis association we'd be shut down pretty much immediatly. You're inculcating prejudice either way.

They have those, they've always had those, they just cut the strings(on paper) between them and the government a good while ago.

[Bob The Mercenary]

I mean, I figured what he was trying to convey was his disapproval of people killing each other to trumpets. As long as he didn't mean unilateral demilitarization, which IMO would be insane.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I mean, I figured what he was trying to convey was his disapproval of people killing each other to trumpets. As long as he didn't mean unilateral demilitarization, which IMO would be insane.

You can bet the fuck that's what I mean. Blues got the plan on the head. My alternative plan is to have a completely open military but murder anybody who joins for showing suspicious amounts of nationalism.

[Funka Genocide]

You can bet the fuck that's what I mean. Blues got the plan on the head. My alternative plan is to have a completely open military but murder anybody who joins for showing suspicious amounts of nationalism.


I don't know if anyone's ever told you this... but you're not a very realistic person.

[DFM]

You can bet the fuck that's what I mean. Blues got the plan on the head. My alternative plan is to have a completely open military but murder anybody who joins for showing suspicious amounts of nationalism.

What if they join for the COLLEGE MONEY, HUH?

HUH?

Redirect them to the mob.

[Funka Genocide]

One of my best friends kind of went from the mob to the military incidentally.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I don't know if anyone's ever told you this... but you're not a very realistic person.

Well you dudes can hang with your evil institutions all you like, I'm going to call you out though. Cause I've got this theory that everyone knows ohw bad this shit is but are afraid to be the first person to say stuff. Cause otherwise the human race is incredibly, incredibly stupid.

What if they join for the COLLEGE MONEY, HUH?

HUH?

Redirect them to the mob.

No man shall starve after the revolution! Or get a second job like most people do. A second job running drugs.

[Funka Genocide]

that's not really a theory, I don't think, so much as an over generalized statement of wankery.

When you figure out how to get 6 billion people to play nice though, let me know.

[Bob The Mercenary]

Because we know how afraid people here at NPF are of saying what's on their minds.

[Funka Genocide]

Although I will say that from a personal perspective joining the military is pretty much the dumbest shit you can do (legally) and still walk away from.

I'm just not on Mr. Happypants McSmartyface's happy boat of wonder and amazement, heading for everything is peachy-keen land.

Have you ever been to Thailand dude? India? Compton?

[Loyal]

that's not really a theory, I don't think, so much as an over generalized statement of wankery.It's also incredibly vague for the scale it supposedly encompasses.

Seriously, we as a species are like the Global Infighting Collective. We kill for fun, profit, ego, and any variety of other reasons you can come up with. Always have, always will.

[Bard The 5th LW]

"No homos in the boy scouts"

This is actively bullshit. Gays are allowed in the Boy Scouts. I've had a gay scoutmaster to. And in a southern state nonetheless.

[Funka Genocide]

did he like, introduce himself as the gay scoutmaster at meeting (or whatever the hell it is boyscouts do.)?

Because that would be hilarious.

[Bard The 5th LW]

No, but everyone knows it. He has a life partner/husband/whatever the fuck you want to call it, and has adopted two kids, one of which is a scout in the troop.

[DFM]

It's also incredibly vague for the scale it supposedly encompasses.

Seriously, we as a species are like the Global Infighting Collective. We kill for fun, profit, ego, and any variety of other reasons you can come up with. Always have, always will.



Until I plug in the Overlord, here.

And I shall do so soon.

Edit: Bard, Official policy is no homos, obviously that's going to change when you filter down to smaller dens/etc.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

that's not really a theory, I don't think, so much as an over generalized statement of wankery.

When you figure out how to get 6 billion people to play nice though, let me know.

What else were you expected (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_kapital)

It's also incredibly vague for the scale it supposedly encompasses.

Seriously, we as a species are like the Global Infighting Collective. We kill for fun, profit, ego, and any variety of other reasons you can come up with. Always have, always will.

This is not true. Read some anthropology/psychology sometime. This particular lie of "greed is an essential part of humanity" annoys me greatly because it's been spread as an argument for capitalism constantly and has worked despite completely ignoring any of the actual research on this subject.
It reinforces humanity=stupid (or possibly evil)



Have you ever been to Thailand dude? India?
Hey guess what cause these places to be the shit holes that they are?? Rampant nationalism as enshrined by our very own armed services. Thanks for playing, please come again.

Until I plug in the Overlord, here.

And I shall do so soon.



The Overlord runs on mains?

[Funka Genocide]

Seeing as you were never in the military I'll give you a hint: there's very little nationalism involved, and a lot more "holy shit I'm 18 and my parents are poor."

Nobody joins the fucking military because they're just so hocked up on Jesus juice that they need to heft a rifle in his holy name. That's just a ridiculous assumption.

[Premmy]

Seeing as you were never in the military I'll give you a hint: there's very little nationalism involved, and a lot more "holy shit I'm 18 and my parents are poor."

Nobody joins the fucking military because they're just so hocked up on Jesus juice that they need to heft a rifle in his holy name. That's just a ridiculous assumption.
I believe he was more or less referring to the fucked up governmental practices that stem from cultural issues hat lead to poverty.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Seeing as you weren't in the Nazis I'll give you a hint: most of the nazis didn't have much against the jews.
Does it matter? Hoshit no it doesn't.

The army is the very spirit of nationalism, it is the arm that enforces it, it the symbol that evokes it- it doesn't really matter what the dudes in it thinking as long as they carry out their grossly ridiculously nationalistic duties. They can ideologise all they want but what they are actually doing is the most important in this equation.

Also No_More, there are forum rules about discussing that sort of thing so can't address your point really.

[Premmy]

Religious Insults and Godwin invoked all to hell?
mmmmm that's good thread derailement!

[Professor Smarmiarty]

My argument wouldn't have been as craaaaaaaazzzzzzzzzyyyyyy if I didn't play the Hitler card.

[Ecks]

Also No_More, there are forum rules about discussing that sort of thing so can't address your point really.

Just remembered that, and will be deleting my post, erm, posthaste.

[Premmy]

My argument wouldn't have been as craaaaaaaazzzzzzzzzyyyyyy if I didn't play the Hitler card.

Nyugha, you know I agree with you, just addressing those two posts in a row that lead to the foolishness that will surely folow.

[Funka Genocide]

Well ok, that's pretty true, but also self evident. A person in the military is just a pawn of the government, which in turn operates on the (implied) behalf of society.

Practically speaking, unless you can apply some form of condemnation to an entire society that actually makes it change, your criticisms are useless and seemingly pointed in the wrong direction. You can call all military personnel nationalist pig dogs, but you're not going to accomplish anything.

I'm sure you can draw comparisons between Nazis and the American military, but any that imply something meaningful (rather than the fact that they both killed lots of people) is going to most likely be completely farcical. To my knowledge the American military of the 20th and 21st century hasn't participated in any pro-active genocidal efforts. I mean sure we've killed a lot of people with perhaps flimsy justification, but again that's what America wanted, and so functionally speaking that is "good".

[Premmy]

Well ok, that's pretty true, but also self evident. A person in the military is just a pawn of the government, which in turn operates on the (implied) behalf of society.
-----------------------------------------
I'm sure you can draw comparisons between Nazis and the American military, but any that imply something meaningful (rather than the fact that they both killed lots of people) is going to most likely be completely farcical. To my knowledge the American military of the 20th and 21st century hasn't participated in any pro-active genocidal efforts. I mean sure we've killed a lot of people with perhaps flimsy justification, but again that's what America wanted, and so functionally speaking that is "good".

See, No, the Military acts on behalf of the government, which claims to act on behalf of America and what it wants, and we all know that's hardly the case in the majority of circumstances.

And even if our military acted directly on behalf of the people, just because we want it, does'nt mean it's good. Our culture makes us want lots of things that suck all kinds of balls.

[Yrcrazypa]

I always thought the DADT/gays in the military in general thing was a little silly. If I'm abroad with a gun, out to fight, kill, or die at a moments notice, the last thing I'm gonna worry about is a guy checking out my ass.

Well, for one, not everyone in the military is in combat. There are a large number of people in the military that could go over twenty years of only ever firing a weapon for training. And you'd be surprised anyway, some people would care, the bigots that they are. Remember, bigots don't have to use logical thinking, because bigotry is illogical in the first place.

[Premmy]

Well, for one, not everyone in the military is in combat. There are a large number of people in the military that could go over twenty years of only ever firing a weapon for training. And you'd be surprised anyway, some people would care, the bigots that they are. Remember, bigots don't have to use logical thinking, because bigotry is illogical in the first place.
It really does bug me when people equate racism/sexism/homophobia to hate and bigotry. It really is'nt like that. And thinking that way does'nt do anything to solve the problem.

[Ecks]

See, No, the Military acts on behalf of the government, which claims to act on behalf of America and what it wants, and we all know that's hardly the case in the majority of circumstances.

And even if our military acted directly on behalf of the people, just because we want it, does'nt mean it's good. Our culture makes us want lots of things that suck all kinds of balls.

Oh I do love me some governmental conspiracy theory!

Put something in there about how the corporations are "the people" that the government acts on the behalf of, and we have ourselves a winning strategy!

Please note, for all future references that my father is ex-Army, and my brother is a US Marine, and that I hold no grudge against servicemen/women. It's the service they serve that I find questionable.

[Funka Genocide]

yes but goodness is not an objective state of being. it's definition is culturally based.

Just because you or I might agree or disagree does not change the cultural outcome.

[Loyal]

Well, for one, not everyone in the military is in combat. There are a large number of people in the military that could go over twenty years of only ever firing a weapon for training. And you'd be surprised anyway, some people would care, the bigots that they are. Remember, bigots don't have to use logical thinking, because bigotry is illogical in the first place.I said I find it silly.

[Ecks]

yes but goodness is not an objective state of being. it's definition is culturally based.

Just because you or I might agree or disagree does not change the cultural outcome.

My only problem with this is that we don't have a way of factoring in political and governmental corruption. What is good in the eyes of our culture can be perverted by special interest groups and money-grubbing government employees to play on the fears of the uneducated masses.

Hence, one day "Iraq is not a factor in this, Afghanistan is where bin Laden is hiding!" is the government's official statement and the next day it's "We really want Iraq's oil, so let's light THEM up!"

[Premmy]

yes but goodness is not an objective state of being. it's definition is culturally based.

Just because you or I might agree or disagree does not change the cultural outcome.

If we decide as a culture that something that happens or has happened is bad, Hopefully we will move to not do it again in the future.

The "Why say anything anyway, it does'nt have any effect" disregards that drawing attention to the issue and it's flaws makes people aware of it, which is important in cultural/psychological/ sociological issues. Less so in economical/medical/governmental issues, in those cases action is more important than awareness.

[Funka Genocide]

I'm more trying to make the point that idealistic rabble rousing on internet forums only serves to either:

A: Endear yourself to people who share your ideals.

or

B: Aggravate people who aren't as idealistic.

It's nice and good and great to try and think globally or whatever it is the academia are up to, but functionally speaking without a broad enough audience and a sturdy enough platform you're just pissing in the breeeze.

In order to attain that sort of audience, you pretty much need to be in politics, but then you'd lose the autonomy necessary to be idealistic.

Karl Marx had some great ideas, but look where that got us.

Also, there's no need to factor in "corruption" since idiocy is just another facet of a population. If people are ignorant enough to fall for a bullshit ploy like that, then they just are. It'd be nice if everything were black and white and all the good choices had a neat little sticky note next to them with a "sign here" written on it, but that's not the case.

Fuck, you might be able to make the case that making a global resource grab in the face of impending scarcity is the best decision for America. Pulling one over on the populace to get the green light might be the best decision. It's not as though you could just come out and say "Well, you know petroleum? The material basis for our entire society? Yeah... we're a bit low. So how about we go steal some?"

So long as people cling to their cultural identities and associate themselves with nations, you will always have these sorts of outcomes. And while from an idealistic viewpoint it might be best to just abolish all boundaries and work together in some big hippy commune, how precisely to you hope to accomplish that?

[Premmy]

You're confusing trying to save the world with having a discussion on a forum, and that's sad.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Well ok, that's pretty true, but also self evident. A person in the military is just a pawn of the government, which in turn operates on the (implied) behalf of society.

Practically speaking, unless you can apply some form of condemnation to an entire society that actually makes it change, your criticisms are useless and seemingly pointed in the wrong direction. You can call all military personnel nationalist pig dogs, but you're not going to accomplish anything. [/QUPTE]
I'm not insulting people in the army but the army itself. That's why I want it abolished.
And all those poor people who needed the job in the army? They can have some of the trillions of dollars they just saved.

[QUOTE]
I'm sure you can draw comparisons between Nazis and the American military, but any that imply something meaningful (rather than the fact that they both killed lots of people) is going to most likely be completely farcical. To my knowledge the American military of the 20th and 21st century hasn't participated in any pro-active genocidal efforts. I mean sure we've killed a lot of people with perhaps flimsy justification, but again that's what America wanted, and so functionally speaking that is "good".

Well America is effectively genociding large parts of the world, just because they not shooting them with guns doesn't mean they are not. Rest of the major powers have been doing it for longer.
I've been over the whole Nazis aren't really villains things quite recentely on this forum though so it's a bit of a rehash.

In summary: army=bad, people int he army= not bad (necessarily).

[Funka Genocide]

You're confusing trying to save the world with having a discussion on a forum, and that's sad.

Moreso, I'd just prefer a little accountability for the words people choose to express their ideals.

[Premmy]

Moreso, I'd just prefer a little accountability for the words people choose to express their ideals.

Are you an activist of some kind?

[Ecks]

Well America is effectively genociding large parts of the world, just because they not shooting them with guns doesn't mean they are not.

Yeah, just like Liam Neeson said in Batman Begins a year or two back, Economics is the sophisticated weapon of the future.

[Funka Genocide]

well this thread got all kinds of derailed, so it's probably best if someone start a more pertinent thread on the subject.

Personally, I fucking hate the military. Hated every god damn day I spent in it, every shit eating grin I ever saw on the faces of the god damn monkeys that drank the fucking cool-aid and every self righteous tirade I ever had to endure because someone had shiny shit on their shoulder.

but ultimately, as the world exists now, it is a necessary implement. The poor sops that spend their days getting shot at are necessary sacrifices to the status quo.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

It's nice and good and great to try and think globally or whatever it is the academia are up to, but functionally speaking without a broad enough audience and a sturdy enough platform you're just pissing in the breeeze.
So the best solution is just to embrace evil and be more evil than everyone else? Good plan.

In order to attain that sort of audience, you pretty much need to be in politics, but then you'd lose the autonomy necessary to be idealistic.
That and capitalist democracy is so inherentely rigged that anyone who wanted change couldn't actually get into power.

Karl Marx had some great ideas, but look where that got us.

Well they have been misused and perverted by people for their own gain- but not really his fault.



So long as people cling to their cultural identities and associate themselves with nations, you will always have these sorts of outcomes. And while from an idealistic viewpoint it might be best to just abolish all boundaries and work together in some big hippy commune, how precisely to you hope to accomplish that?

Step 1: Round up the rich people/assholes/dudes who look funny
Step 2: Murder them
Step 3: Sieze means of production
Step 4: Utopia!

[Funka Genocide]

I mean that's a pretty sweet plan, just need to work out the particulars.

(also, might want to leave out the bit about assholes, because both of us would probably be done for.)

[Loyal]

And all those poor people who needed the job in the army? They can have some of the trillions of dollars they just saved.Wow that is so not how economy works.

In summary: army=bad, people int he army= not bad (necessarily).Naive horseshit. Even if you're a peaceloving people with no need for anything that anybody else has, someone else is going to want something you have, and someone is going to be willing to take it by force. The army is there to protect a country's interests, and yes, sometimes that involves literally protecting oneself from external threats.

[bluestarultor]

It really does bug me when people equate racism/sexism/homophobia to hate and bigotry. It really is'nt like that. And thinking that way does'nt do anything to solve the problem.

I think you need to look up the terms. If nothing else, they're at the very least closely related.

Like, if someone is openly racist, I think it's safe to call them bigoted. You don't go spewing bile about "those damn niggers" if you, y'know, like black people.

To break it down,

ism
  /ˈɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [iz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
a distinctive doctrine, theory, system, or practice: This is the age of isms.
Origin:
extracted from words with the suffix -ism

combined with race means a doctrine or system of race, which is a nice way of saying that you either believe in or actually ENFORCE racial boundaries. Homophobia on its own means, in the literal sense, as improperly-expressed as it is, an irrational fear of homosexuals. A better word might be orientationism. Homosexuals are feared, hated, and discriminated against. Where's the love and acceptance in that?



Seriously, we have the words for a reason, and we shouldn't be trying to water down the meanings. Everyone knows what they mean and what they mean isn't exactly going out and buying them flowers.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I mean that's a pretty sweet plan, just need to work out the particulars.

(also, might want to leave out the bit about assholes, because both of us would probably be done for.)

I reckon I can disguise it just long enough. I'll just keep myself quiet and down the back and I'll be fine.

Wow that is so not how economy works.
Hey no shit. I'm not like directly give it to them.
The vast amount of productive capacity wasted on the military could be directed to improving the standard of life for everyone. Instead it ends up being wasted (through ammunition and fuel and all the vast expendables) as well as being concentrated in the hands of people like arms manufacturers. So you effectively are giving them money, just out of the pocket of the big companies who finance/profit of the army.


Naive horseshit. Even if you're a peaceloving people with no need for anything that anybody else has, someone else is going to want something you have, and someone is going to be willing to take it by force. The army is there to protect a country's interests, and yes, sometimes that involves literally protecting oneself from external threats.

Yo do you live in the 17th century? This is not how the world/the economy works anymore.
And I'm arguing that even if it did, it shouldn't- nations are arbitrary and unnessary and armies are one of the key forces keeping them seperate- both ideology and in physical terms. Nations are devised to keep the poor distracted, fractured and downtrodden. It's totally 1984.

[Funka Genocide]

well all those ism's might not necessarily equate to hatred, but they do most definitely equate to bigotry. It's kind of the base definition.

You can obviously be a racist that doesn't hate other races, only sees them as inferior. You could be a sexist that doesn't hate the opposite gender, etc. etc.

[Ecks]

Yo do you live in the 17th century? This is not how the world/the economy works anymore.
And I'm arguing that even if it did, it shouldn't- nations are arbitrary and unnessary and armies are one of the key forces keeping them seperate- both ideology and in physical terms.

Sadly Smarty, you're right. The primary reason armies still exist is the same reason nuclear weapons still exist. Deterrence.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

It's more because nationalism serves the interests of the rich by both fragmenting the world's poor and turning them against one another through such things as "Oh noes! Those dirty Arabs want to steal all our resources! We better stop them!"
War is a great way to distract people from real issues.

If someone wants to steal your resources, it is much cheaper to do it with economics. Military invasion doesn't make sense anymore. There are plenty of countries around the world with small/basically non-existant armies and plenty of resources- nobody invades them because that doesn't make sense. I'll use my home country as an example- New Zealand couldn't defend itself from an invasion- our army is simply tiny. We have plenty of resources that people could "steal". But nobody invades us. Why? Because they can acquire these resources much more cheaply through business.

[Funka Genocide]

I'm sad when he's right too.

But really, it's not really all that great. Nobody fucks with America directly because, I mean well shit... if some dudes from your country fly a plane into a couple of our buildings we DESTROY YOUR ENTIRE CIVILIZATION.

There are still border skirmishes, tribal warfare and "occupations" and while we really are kind of the big fat kid poking beehives with a stick, at least we're wearing one of thoe beekeepr suits.

[The Argent Lord]

yes but goodness is not an objective state of being. it's definition is culturally based.

Just because you or I might agree or disagree does not change the cultural outcome.

I know this was a ways back, but I just wanna point out that, according to all of western philosophy, this is wrong. Ethics is founded on the very principle that there is an objective standard of morality that isn't culturally based.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I'm sad when he's right too.

But really, it's not really all that great. Nobody fucks with America directly because, I mean well shit... if some dudes from your country fly a plane into a couple of our buildings we DESTROY YOUR ENTIRE CIVILIZATION.


I mean I'm critical of America but I have to say- this was pretty badass. Psychotic and deranged but crazy badass.

[bluestarultor]

well all those ism's might not necessarily equate to hatred, but they do most definitely equate to bigotry. It's kind of the base definition.

You can obviously be a racist that doesn't hate other races, only sees them as inferior. You could be a sexist that doesn't hate the opposite gender, etc. etc.

I think there's a certain amount of hatred in seeing a group of people as inferior. You'd LOVE to hear what some of my grandparents' friends had to say about Obama getting elected.

My grandparents, of course, voted for him. :cool:

The point being that if you see a group as inferior, you MIGHT be able to just pity them, but that doesn't hold up well when they start showing just how not-inferior they are, which can result in fear, hatred, or both.



Edit:

I know this was a ways back, but I just wanna point out that, according to all of western philosophy, this is wrong. Ethics is founded on the very principle that there is an objective standard of morality that isn't culturally based.

Not really, actually. Ethics is founded on the common factors to the society or societies in participation. Like, if a guy screws something up in the business world in America, he might get canned, but in China, he might get executed. We'd consider that kind of treatment unethical, but ethics are NOT culturally universal.

[Ecks]

I'll use my home country as an example- New Zealand couldn't defend itself from an invasion- our army is simply tiny. We have plenty of resources that people could "steal". But nobody invades us. Why? Because they can acquire these resources much more cheaply through business.

Which is okay, in the sense that it's a legitimate business transaction. But I have to assume there's something NOT okay about it, hidden in the shadows. Something you'll hopefully expand upon.

EDIT:
I mean I'm critical of America but I have to say- this was pretty badass. Psychotic and deranged but crazy badass.

Certainly. As an American, though, I have to ask. Why on earth was that necessary? Granted, there's a great deal of misinformation going around, but from what I can tell, both bin Laden AND Saddam were either trained or supplied by the American government sometime in the early to mid eighties. Why? Because we were backing them when they were making their own bids for power? Why was THAT necessary, I wonder?

Yeah, it's great that we dropped a fuckton of lead on some innocent civilians in an effort to nab some real bad guys - who are bad from a moral perspective, but not from a cultural one - all I'm asking is, why the hell did all this shit happen in the first place?

[Premmy]

I think you need to look up the terms. If nothing else, they're at the very least closely related.
No, not really. Closely related? only in that they're frequently connected. If everyone looked alike, bigots would be bigoted to someone
Like, if someone is openly racist, I think it's safe to call them bigoted. You don't go spewing bile about "those damn niggers" if you, y'know, like black people.
Yeah, if someone is openly bigoted, it's safe to call them bigoted. Bigotry is neither the most important aspect of racism, nor even a central aspect. And constantly equating the two muddies the issue.
To break it down,
ism
  /ˈɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [iz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
a distinctive doctrine, theory, system, or practice:( Emphasis, Prem's) This is the age of isms.
Origin:
extracted from words with the suffix -ism
combined with race means a doctrine or system of race, which is a nice way of saying that you either believe in or actually ENFORCE racial boundaries.
It's a direct way of saying you have policies and systemic approaches to race, a fictional construct in and of itself.

It has nothing to do with how that is expressed or what fuels it. The common thread of "Racism=Dick" is ignorant to all the very nice people who do and say racist things that don't seem hatefilled in the least bit.

It also is used by dicks who are racist, but not hate-fueld, to diffuse accusations of racism with "I don't hate anybody" and other foolishness.

Homophobia on its own means, in the literal sense, as improperly-expressed as it is, an irrational fear of homosexuals. A better word might be orientationism. Homosexuals are feared, hated, and discriminated against. Where's the love and acceptance in that?
Homosexuals are also treated all kinds of weird by people that generally like them, people who are "okay" with it, but still act weird, and all kinds of other things that have nothing to do with interpersonal relationships or hatred.



Seriously, we have the words for a reason, and we shouldn't be trying to water down the meanings. Everyone knows what they mean and what they mean isn't exactly going out and buying them flowers.

Everybody does'nt know exactly what they mean, as evidenced by people who think Neo-nazis and such are at all important to the issue of racism.

If you ask them, they will eagerly and angrily tell you how they hate pretty much anything. Their racism is not an issue of race so much as it's an issue of being crazy as all hell and expressing that through racism.

There are plenty of people who have no knowledge, concern, or issues concerning racism who still do and say racist things for a wide variety of reasons.

[Loyal]

Yo do you live in the 17th century? This is not how the world/the economy works anymore.I guess we're just going to have to disagree on this one.

The vast amount of productive capacity wasted on the military could be directed to improving the standard of life for everyone. Instead it ends up being wasted (through ammunition and fuel and all the vast expendables) as well as being concentrated in the hands of people like arms manufacturers. So you effectively are giving them money, just out of the pocket of the big companies who finance/profit of the army.Ideally, sure. I'm not so sure we could find jobs for all those people who suddenly aren't in the military, though.

[Seil]

Just want to correct something, here:

Edit: Either that, or leaving it to robots. We're headed in that direction, anyway.

Gay Robots.

Carry on.

[Funka Genocide]

Actually us ex military folk usually have a pretty easy time finding decent jobs, unless we're batshit crazy and like, carve the names of our dead platoon members into our forearms with a 12 inch blade.

dudes like that often times find it difficult to find employment.

The total percentage of the American population that is active duty in the armed forces isn't very high either.

also, at Argent Lord: the assumption that morality is objective and the entirity of "western philosophy" are cultural constructs.

[Premmy]

Ideally, sure. I'm not so sure we could find jobs for all those people who suddenly aren't in the military, though.
With half of that money we could fund things the country really needs, Like greener practices in mass transit(Also, better mass transit) new land development, and all the other things the governments should be doing instead of bombing muthafuckas.

[Ecks]

Actually us ex military folk usually have a pretty easy time finding decent jobs, unless we're batshit crazy and like, carve the names of our dead platoon members into our forearms with a 12 inch blade.

dudes like that often times find it difficult to find employment.

The total percentage of the American population that is active duty in the armed forces isn't very high either.

Yeah. Two million plus versus THREE HUNDRED MILLION PLUS.

The Chinese have one seventh the world's total population (rounding up of course) and they have just double our active duty numbers.

[Funka Genocide]

I don't really understand what you're getting at 13. The chinese have what, 3 or 4 times our population?

I mean the difference in percentage could be for any number of reasons, I'm not talking comparatively, I'm talking in general.

If everyone in the US armed services suddenly lost their jobs, the impact would be less than our recent depression, in 2008 alone over 2.6 million American's lost their jobs, that accounts for everyone in the armed forces.

[Loyal]

There's also the civilian jobs created for wartime purposes, i.e. creating weapons, military clothing, armored vehicles, plus research. I'm not sure of the numbers there, but if our military 'budget' is any indication... yeah.

That said, "two million jobs" is only a small number when speaking statistically.

[Bob The Mercenary]

So, the consensus is our world would be a far better place with no military or national borders...but since people will never eliminate all shreds of nationalism and/or pure evil, this perfect world will never happen and this entire conversation has been to arrive at this point?

[bluestarultor]

Yeah, if someone is openly bigoted, it's safe to call them bigoted. Bigotry is neither the most important aspect of racism, nor even a central aspect. And constantly equating the two muddies the issue.

By all means, explain what defines an "ism," then. Because if you have racism, you have someone who simply doesn't like a group based on race. If you have elitism, you have someone who dislikes people based on status. Please explain how none of this is in any way related to bigotry. It's by definition singling out a group as inferior or outside your own and inferior by extension.

It has nothing to do with how that is expressed or what fuels it. The common thread of "Racism=Dick" is ignorant to all the very nice people who do and say racist things that don't seem hatefilled in the least bit.

Having an "ism" has nothing to do with motivations. It's the end result, which is that it's what a person ultimately believes. But by all means, give me an expression of racism that is not in some way harmful. Voicing racist words is disrespectful. Calling a guy a "porch monkey," "dego," "gook," or whatever epithet applies is not going to endear you to him. It would be different if you were eighty or something and you don't have better terms, but I don't think anyone on NPF is quite that old. Likewise, refusing a person service based on race is unthinkable these days to most people. Like that guy who refused to marry the black couple. That was hella racist, and while maybe he wasn't nasty about it, it still didn't show much acceptance.

In an era where there's little that you can do or say that won't offend someone, trying to pass racist behavior off as acceptable is ridiculous.

It also is used by dicks who are racist, but not hate-fueld, to diffuse accusations of racism with "I don't hate anybody" and other foolishness.

This is true, but while they don't "hate" people, they certainly aren't doing them any favors. It comes down to how you define hate. You could have the seething, enraged sort of hate, or you could have the more passive lack of empathy. It's the difference between stabbing a guy and not calling the cops when someone stabs him. In the second case, you're not actually doing anything, but you're certainly not doing anything positive like would normally be expected.

Homosexuals are also treated all kinds of weird by people that generally like them, people who are "okay" with it, but still act weird, and all kinds of other things that have nothing to do with interpersonal relationships or hatred.

And your point is? Maybe those people are just mildly uncomfortable, but not homophobic?

Everybody does'nt know exactly what they mean, as evidenced by people who think Neo-nazis and Such are at All important to the issue of racism.

If you ask them, they will eagerly and angrily tell you how they hate pretty much anything. Their racism is not an issue of race so much as it's an issue of being crazy as all hell and expressing that through racism.

Yet I have yet to see an example provided where racism expresses a great love of other races. See, that's the point. Yes, skinheads might be crazy mofos, but they're not handing out boxes of candy. They're hating, just like other racists.

There ar eplenty of people who have no knowledge, concern, or issues concerning racism who still do and say racist things for a wide variety of reasons.

Yes, and my grandfather is one of them. Ask him about black people, and he'll never use the term "black." Sometimes, he'll be polite enough to say "negroes," but often it's just "niggers." It's the time he came from. But then you have to ask whether that's truly racism on his part (hint, it's not, and he has never had anything against other races). By definition, some of the things he says are racist, but none of the things he DOES are, and he certainly isn't. And in the context he came from, the things he said weren't considered racist, but the norm. This is where you have to draw the line between the act and the belief. My grandpa does not believe in racism as a valid institution. He simply lacks the skills to function in an updated society.

[Loyal]

but since people will never eliminate all shreds of nationalism and/or pure evil, this perfect world will never happen and this entire conversation has been to arrive at this point?Isn't that pretty much all we ever do here?

[DFM]

Sometimes I add thoughtful insight to a thread, don't forget that.

[Premmy]

By all means, explain what defines an "ism," then. Because if you have racism, you have someone who simply doesn't like a group based on race. If you have elitism, you have someone who dislikes people based on status. Please explain how none of this is in any way related to bigotry. It's by definition singling out a group as inferior or outside your own and inferior by extension.

It's by definition designing a sytemic means of action and thought based on the deciding factor, whether that be race, culture, or what have you. This has nothing to do with hatred because:


It is not always(and rarely is because you as an individual have little say in how everyone else does things) YOUR system, but a system you take part in in order to live in a society.
more often than not, these systems are ingrained in a system that has nothing to do with anyone else outside the designers, I.E. you design a system for yourself(Individualism), then someone else comes into the picture.

This is BAD because:


The factors of these systems are rarely valid, and frequently inconsequential, or even nonexistant, like race.
SOMEONE's getting the short end of the stick in this equation. If I only think of myself, or If I don't think at all and just do I'm going to effect the people around me in some way, and you can't live in the world and do things without negatively affecting something


Having an "ism" has nothing to do with motivations. It's the end result, which is that it's what a person ultimately believes.

This extends to cultures of people as a whole, as a society is essentially the beliefs and ideas that dictate how groups of people behave. Since the society dictates how you as an individual act within it, if the society operates along this or that "ism" then you, through no fault of your own, will follow these rules.

But by all means, give me an expression of racism that is not in some way harmful. Voicing racist words is disrespectful. Calling a guy a "porch monkey," "dego," "gook," or whatever epithet applies is not going to endear you to him.

I don't recall arguing "Racism is totally cool, you guys, chill out" I said "Hatred is not the essential factor in racism, homophobia, sexism, imperialism, e.t.c., and acting like it does makes it harder to address these issues."

It would be different if you were eighty or something and you don't have better terms, but I don't think anyone on NPF is quite that old.

No, it just means you were doing prejudiced things with no ill intent behind them.

Likewise, refusing a person service based on race is unthinkable these days to most people. Like that guy who refused to marry the black couple. That was hella racist, and while maybe he wasn't nasty about it, it still didn't show much acceptance.
This has no bearing on what I've said.

In an era where there's little that you can do or say that won't offend someone, trying to pass racist behavior off as acceptable is ridiculous.
Never in the history of human society was there many, or even any in most circumstances, options for behavior you could take that
would'nt effect the people around you.


This is true, but while they don't "hate" people, they certainly aren't doing them any favors.

Nope, but they're probably doing SOMEONE a favor. That's how it works.
Does'nt mean it's good, just means that's how it works.

It comes down to how you define hate. You could have the seething, enraged sort of hate, or you could have the more passive lack of empathy. It's the difference between stabbing a guy and not calling the cops when someone stabs him. In the second case, you're not actually doing anything, but you're certainly not doing anything positive like would normally be expected.


Or, it's the difference between accidentally bumping into someone when walking down a small corridor and knocking them down while walking down ample space.

In the first case, you're forced to deal in certain ways, the polite thing to do is say "oops, sorry about that, small hallways, whatcha gonna do?" and the rude thing to do is say 'HEY I'm WALKIN HERE!" either way, there is no intent or maliciousness in the inital action, it's just how you're forced to interact because someone else built the hallway.

In the second intance, which is more like your view of racism, you don't have to do it, but you do cause you're a jerk.


And your point is? Maybe those people are just mildly uncomfortable, but not homophobic?
Or maybe they have homohopbic tendencies and are otherwise nice, decent people?


Yet I have yet to see an example provided where racism expresses a great love of other races. See, that's the point. Yes, skinheads might be crazy mofos, but they're not handing out boxes of candy. They're hating, just like other racists.

Once again proving how little hate or love has to do with the issues. Every neo-Nazi(skinheads are just a different kind of punk, horribly misrepresented by american media) does'nt go out and beat up the people they hate. And they hate a hell of a lot of people.

But everybody (in America and many western countries/colonies) interacts with one another in a system inherently designed for Straight, White, able-bodied, men, and has to conform to those ideas and systems which, by virtue of having jack-all to do with anybody else, and thus not taking them and their needs into consideration, will directly disadvantage anybody who's Not Straight, White,male, and preferably christian. Does'nt mean anybody's hating anybody, just means they're taking part in it.



Yes, and my grandfather is one of them. Ask him about black people, and he'll never use the term "black." Sometimes, he'll be polite enough to say "negroes," but often it's just "niggers." It's the time he came from. But then you have to ask whether that's truly racism on his part (hint, it's not, and he has never had anything against other races).
That's engaging in racist behavior, des'nt mean he's racist, that's never the point. Just means he's done something racist.

S'not that big a deal if you don't think of racism as a hate-based thing.

By definition, some of the things he says are racist, but none of the things he DOES are, and he certainly isn't. And in the context he came from, the things he said weren't considered racist, but the norm.
Just because nobody calls it such doesnt mean it is'nt.

This is where you have to draw the line between the act and the belief. My grandpa does not believe in racism as a valid institution. He simply lacks the skills to function in an updated society.
Exactly my point,it has jack-all to do with hate or love, In other words How individuals feel and It's all about what is done and constantly making the issue out to be one of hate means when you say "Hey, that was kinda racist/homophobic/sexist" it comes off as 'hey, that was kinda hateful" which is a problem, and just serves to make things worse.
So, the consensus is our world would be a far better place with no military or national borders...but since people will never eliminate all shreds of nationalism and/or pure evil, this perfect world will never happen and this entire conversation has been to arrive at this point?

I'd like to think the discussion was enjoyable, but then I'm weird like that.

[bluestarultor]

*sigh* Okay, you know what? You can argue with me all you like, but I'm going to let you try to argue with the dictionary at this point.

Racism: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism

Homophobia: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homophobia

You'll notice such words as "antipathy," "contempt," "hatred," and "intolerance" right there in the definitions.



Loyal is right, sources are an amazing tool. :J

[Premmy]

*sigh* Okay, you know what? You can argue with me all you like, but I'm going to let you try to argue with the dictionary at this point.

Racism: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism

Homophobia: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homophobia

You'll notice such words as "antipathy," "contempt," "hatred," and "intolerance" right there in the definitions.



Loyal is right, sources are an amazing tool. :J

You'll notice it is one of many definitions, in regards to racism
You'll also notice that the one you cite is all the way down at the bottom of said list
You'll notice that my argument is has and has not changed from:

"Focusing on that definition is detrimental to addressing the problem, as it limits the scope of What _ism is, and thus makes sure that none of the forms of _ism that effects us all on a daily basis are addressed because the focus is on hate, which is an extreme, and thus should'nt be a primary concern.

Homophobia is the term most people think of when they consider the issues faced by Homosexual people, it is frequently used in differing ways (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia#Criticism_of_meaning_and_purpose), a better term is Heterosexism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosexism) but most people have'nt heard of that word.

Edit:
In fact, the part about the term "Sexual Prejudice" perfectly enscapulates what I'm trying to say.

[bluestarultor]

You'll notice it is one of many definitions, in regards to racism
You'll also notice that the one you cite is all the way down at the bottom of said list
You'll notice that my argument is has and has not changed from:

"Focusing on that definition is detrimental to anti-racist activity, as it limits the scope of What _ism is, and thus makes sure that none of the forms of _ism that effects us all on a daily basis are adressed because the focus is on hate, which is an extreme, and thus should'nt be a primary concern.

Homophobia is the term most people think of when they consider the issues faced by Homosexual people, it is frequently used in differing ways (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia#Criticism_of_meaning_and_purpose), a better term is Heterosexism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosexism) but most people have'nt heard of that word.


I was at no point arguing what words mean, I was arguing their signifigance, and how that effects people.

Alright, but discrimination is second on the first list. Also, I STILL don't see how "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others" does not involve at least some form of-

You know what? I'm done here. If the belief that one race should rule over another doesn't indicate SOME kind of ill will and manifest in ill acts, I don't know what the fuck. In any "us versus them" situation, there is not going to be a good relationship, i.e. hatred toward the other group, which manifests in various ways. You can go on about how just wanting to forcibly rule someone isn't at least implicitly hateful to their position in the world until the moon comes crashing down, but the fact of the matter is that if you are racist, YOU SIMPLY DON'T LIKE SOMEONE FOR NO GOOD REASON. You don't "want to rule" people you like, nor do you discriminate against them.

I'm really NOT seeing why I should continue to argue this further. You can look at things at face value all you want, but what I'm concerned about is the application, i.e. the practical viewpoint of things, and I guess we're just going to have to fundamentally disagree.

[Premmy]

Okay, let's say, I'm living in my own country full of Half-African-american-Half-Swedish people:

We make rules, like how to wear your hair and clothes, and how to talk, what to do, what's a good job, positive ways to behave, all that. Me and My bi-racial society is built around us. Noone else. Now, suppose someone who's strictly black or strictly white comes into the picture. They are'nt bi-racial, so our standards of beauty don't apply to them, they come from a European or African background, so their culture is different. Their ways of behaving and dressing and speaking are completely different from ours.

They can either be themselves, live their culture, look the way they look. And deal with the pitfalls of not being "proper" in our society. OR try, and fail, to assimilate.
Their "race" determines what they can and cannot do in my hypothetical society.

Everyone in my society thinks my particular hairstyle, which is easier for us than others, is most attractive, since looking the way people would like you to look helps in... damn near every social situation, so people who don't look like us will be forced to live in a society that says they look "different" and "weird", even if it's not intended.

People in this society will not find them attractive, will think their language is odd, their clothes ugly. They will treat them like weirdos or worse, if you get a hateful mofo in that situation, they will start hating. Everyone else will jsut go "Eh, that's weird" or "I don't know, It's just not my thing, I guess it's cool for them, and stuff" and will also make their culturally biased decisions on that.

[bluestarultor]

Okay, let's say, I'm living in my own country full of Half-African-american-Half-Swedish people:

We make rules, like how to wear your hair and clothes, and how to talk, what to do, what's a good job, positive ways to behave, all that. Me and My bi-racial society is built around us. Noone else. Now, suppose someone who's strictly black or strictly white comes into the picture. They are'nt bi-racial, so our standards of beauty don't apply to them, they come from a European or African background, so their culture is different. Their ways of behaving and dressing and speaking are completely different from ours.

They can either be themselves, live their culture, look the way they look. And deal with the pitfalls of not being "proper" in our society. OR try, and fail, to assimilate.
Their "race" determines what they can and cannot do in my hypothetical society.

Everyone in my society thinks my particular hairstyle, which is easier for us than others, is most attractive, since looking the way people would like you to look helps in... damn near every social situation, so people who don't look like us will be forced to live in a society that says they look "different" and "weird", even if it's not intended.

People in this society will not find them attractive, will think their language is odd, their clothes ugly. They will treat them like weirdos or worse, if you get a hateful mofo in that situation, they will start hating. Everyone else will jsut go "Eh, that's weird" or "I don't know, It's just not my thing, I guess it's cool for them, and stuff" and will also make their culturally biased decisions on that.

And you know what's so wonderful about your proposed society? There's no diversity whatsoever. Welcome to several hundred years before the modern era. Now, in the real world, you tend to have a lot more people from different backgrounds around, and a lot more acceptance. With black people, excluding biracial and multiracial people, or ones who have a Hispanic ethnicity, comprising over 12% of the population, along with the 4.4% of Asians under the same conditions, the 15.4% of those of Hispanic ethnicity,
the 29.2 million Hispanic or Latino "whites," the 5% "other" population, and 7 million people reporting mixed race, that only leaves white people as being 65.4% of the population as of 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Race_and_ethnici ty).

That means that even the majority race of the US comprises less than 2/3 of the US population. Even Japan, one of the most nationalistic countries of the Western world, has black people living there.

The fact of the matter is your example simply doesn't apply to reality unless you're referring to a fascist, isolated state such as North Korea. And we're not even talking about a global scale. We're talking about just America. Projections say that by 2050, whites will no longer be the majority. In isolated areas, many times, they already are not.


Given the real conditions of the United States, you have a GREAT amount of diversity to worry about, and intolerance simply cannot be fostered on a national scale. It's not a matter of nobody having ever seen a black person before. It's a matter of them at least knowing about them and having a problem with it.


How ANY of this relates to racism or how it's not a bad thing based on the dislike of another person due to their group is STILL beyond me.

[Amake]

When you figure out how to get 6 billion people to play nice though, let me know. One at a time.

Every person who thinks it's possible to live without armed forces is a step toward that dream. The only problem is everyone who thinks it's impossible because they think everyone else thinks it's impossible. It's a self-generating, self-reflecting cycle perpetuated by the collective lack of faith in the collective's lack of faith in the collective. All you have to do is realize that all you have to do is realize that if you just think a little better of people, people will get a little better, and people will get a little better, because you're also people.

Humanity, I think, is a self-perfecting organism. We're slowly learning from our mistakes, it's just a matter of time until we learn the only thing holding us back is ourselves, so why not skip ahead to the part where we don't do that anymore?

These are just some general thoughts that go through my head every time someone says something will never happen because of other people thinking it'll never happen. Don't worry about changing their mind, just begin with changing your own. The rest will follow, given enough time.

[Premmy]

That post made my head hurt, don't do that again XD

[Geminex]

One at a time.

Every person who thinks it's possible to live without armed forces is a step toward that dream. The only problem is everyone who thinks it's impossible because they think everyone else thinks it's impossible. It's a self-generating, self-reflecting cycle perpetuated by the collective lack of faith in the collective's lack of faith in the collective. All you have to do is realize that all you have to do is realize that if you just think a little better of people, people will get a little better, and people will get a little better, because you're also people.

Humanity, I think, is a self-perfecting organism. We're slowly learning from our mistakes, it's just a matter of time until we learn the only thing holding us back is ourselves, so why not skip ahead to the part where we don't do that anymore?

These are just some general thoughts that go through my head every time someone says something will never happen because of other people thinking it'll never happen. Don't worry about changing their mind, just begin with changing your own. The rest will follow, given enough time.


Interesting thought... but is it practical? I agree with you that, in a lot of cases, the assumption that others will behave in a certain manner will also cause us to behave in this manner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory#Cooperative_or_non-cooperative
It's quite a socio-economic problem. Currency devaluing? People aren't trusting it, because they're afraid other people won't trust it, and it'll become worthless! Result? It becomes worthless!

The same applies to war... since people are afraid other people might produce huge military forces, they produce their own military forces. Problem not solved, but eh, we've both got huge armies. We'll work something out.
This was the underlying principle in the nuclear arms race.

But the thing is, even if we could create some sort of... central agency to regulate (and stop) war, or just persuade people altogether that war is unnecessary, that there's no need for armed forces and that no-one, ever will think so...

The technology, and the industry's there. War, or the threat of war, is part of modern-day politics. And it'll remain part of modern-day politics, unless Doctor Manhattan blows up New York, or Superman threatens to remove all weapons.

Drastic change would require a huge catalyst.
And gradual change? Some social stigma on war? A gradual demilitarization?
I guess the problem is that, the more demilitarized the world is, the more a group can benefit from militarization. There'd have to be an equilibrium somewhere...
And I have no idea how to lower that equilibrium. Interdependence, possibly. If you rely on another guy to feed you, you won't shoot that guy. And that's happening already, that war's become unprofitable in most cases. But in scenarios without interdependence, we have a problem...

I haven't thought much about this, but as a rule of thumb, it's very hard to let groups which can kill abandon their means to kill without becoming something that they attempt to kill.

[Amake]

I imagine that equilibrium will be reached when we evolve past matter and energy. You can't exert physical force if you don't have a physical body. Give it time. :)

[Loyal]

Your avatar made it entirely impossible to take that second-last post seriously, Queen. Just sayin'. :P

[Kim]

The one good thing about DADT is that if America ever brings back the draft I have a way out.

[Osterbaum]

So, the consensus is our world would be a far better place with no military or national borders...but since people will never eliminate all shreds of nationalism and/or pure evil, this perfect world will never happen and this entire conversation has been to arrive at this point?
History is full of idealists whose ideals are considered almost "the truth" in today's society, but weren't at the time.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

People here are claiming you can't get people to not be greedy, to not be nationalistic but we know of cultures where these things, these concepts didn't exist and people weren't greedy, weren't xenophpobic and drawing arbitrary groupings of people.
It's happened in the past, it's happened again.
Further psych studies have continued to show human beings are overwhelmingly the product of their environment with genetic contributions contributions still important but not hugely so. We were all raised in a culture that enshrines evil, that enshrines murder, that enshrines greed- obviously we are going to consider them natural parts of society, just like say the greeks thought homosexuality was a natural, indeed dominant part of society. They claimed that homosexuality was a natural part of being human- something that you couldn't change- because to them it was.
It's the classic Ayn Rand fallacy of saying Let's take these people raised to live capitalist lives, to be greedy, to be selfish, to be evil, to be wasteful because waste is profitable and put them in say a communist state- oh look your state fails. But this argument works both ways. If you take people raised to be collective, to share everything, to not compete, to maximise production and put them in a capitalist state- guess what? That state will fail too. Capitalism relies upon greed, upon waste, upon deprivation. If you remove these things it will fold. That argument is a fallacy.
In addition, in conditions of hypersupply and satiated demand, concepts like greed and nationalism will be meaningless. There will be no point to greed if have everything you need and more importantly having additional things will provide you with no benefit. Likewise there will be no point to nationalism, except some sort of vague "The guys who live near me are cool" sort of way.

[Funka Genocide]

You need the capacity of hyper-production to achieve that state.

But, assuming you did, unilateral demilitarization certainly wouldn't seem like such a pipe dream. Of course, you'd have to remove all competing political idealism as well, otherwise you'd just continue to have wars based on ideals.

So if you could produce enough "stuff" for the whole world to be happy indefinitely, and make everyone toe the line of utopian socialism... well then you'd be well on your way to unilateral demilitarization.

So uh, I guess we'd better get working on those "make food out of thin air" machines.

[Osterbaum]

You need the capacity of hyper-production to achieve that state.
---------------------------------
So uh, I guess we'd better get working on those "make food out of thin air" machines.
That's not it. It's not about giving everyone everything, it's about giving everyone enough. And that's not supposed to come simply through producing shitloads, but also through sharing, through collectivity.

Social evolution and cultural evolution aren't unknown concepts.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

So uh, I guess we'd better get working on those "make food out of thin air" machines.

Unneccesary. We have the technology to achieve hyper productivity, we just don't harness it because it's not profitable. Contrary to what was envisaged when capitalism was outlined, waste and underproduction have proven the most profitable means so they dominate. There is whole varieties of estimates that people have worked out but common figures are that we only produce about 5-10% of what we should be producing in an optimised economy.

That's not it. It's not about giving everyone everything, it's about giving everyone enough. And that's not supposed to come simply through producing shitloads, but also through sharing, through collectivity.

Social evolution and cultural evolution aren't unknown concepts.

That to, but you don't even have to settle for enough. Everyone should be able to get prett ymuch everything.

[Loyal]

Unneccesary. We have the technology to achieve hyper productivity, we just don't harness it because it's not profitable. Contrary to what was envisaged when capitalism was outlined, waste and underproduction have proven the most profitable means so they dominate. There is whole varieties of estimates that people have worked out but common figures are that we only produce about 5-10% of what we should be producing in an optimised economy.I'm... going to have to ask for sources on that one. Not that I don't believe we're producing at less-than-optimum efficiency (that's the entire point of "planned obsolescence"), but saying we could be easily making 10-20x more than what we're making now is a bit much.

[Funka Genocide]

well, if you're running on the basis of "just enough" we're going to have some words since I loves me some intarwebs, personal automobiles and delicious cheeseburgers.

[Osterbaum]

There is a difference between "just" enough and enough. I'm not talking about barely surviving, I'm talking about around modern western middle-class level enough for everyone. With some changes obviosly.

[Funka Genocide]

There is a difference between "just" enough and enough. I'm not talking about barely surviving, I'm talking about around modern western middle-class level enough for everyone. With some changes obviosly.

I'd trade in my car for excellent public transportation at a very low cost. (like Japan!)

[Osterbaum]

Or like Helsinki!

[bluestarultor]

Or, we could at the very least have cars that get 40 miles to a gallon. I know it's possible. A guy I met at a classic car show had one that did just that, and all it took was a tune-up at a garage. He still has no idea what they did, but if you can pull it off on a replica motor by effing accident, it can't possibly be that hard.

[Hanuman]

Or, we could at the very least have cars that get 40 miles to a gallon. I know it's possible. A guy I met at a classic car show had one that did just that, and all it took was a tune-up at a garage. He still has no idea what they did, but if you can pull it off on a replica motor by effing accident, it can't possibly be that hard.

40MPG is actually childsplay considering we can hit 4 digits with single seat cars, I could see a single seater city car getting over 400MPG easily, major drawback is that it would have to stay at or below the city's speed limit... =P

Hell, smartcars already can hit 100 MPG and they are basically square, imagine if you built them teardrop shaped.

[bluestarultor]

40MPG is actually childsplay considering we can hit 4 digits with single seat cars, I could see a single seater city car getting over 400MPG easily, major drawback is that it would have to stay at or below the city's speed limit... =P

Hell, smartcars already can hit 100 MPG and they are basically square, imagine if you built them teardrop shaped.

I'm sorry, did I say "clown car?" I actually meant just "car." :p

I mean, sure, when we do the ridiculous golf cart thing, the sky's pretty much the limit, but I'm thinking in terms of a family vehicle, or one that can hold groceries, or that at least doesn't come with a wind-up key.

See, motors are intentionally ridiculously inefficient. Gas companies digging their claws in and all. The same goes for hybrid motors. You start improving the motors to technology we've had for decades and specifically have never used, and you suddenly have ultra-efficient hybrids, as well. Imagine a Prius getting probably triple the gas mileage it does just based on a 50MPG gas motor. Considering one of those things powered a house, including lights, fridge, computer, and Internet, for a few days on only 5 gallons of gas (no, I'm not digging up the article), we're looking at serious damage to the oil industry.

[Eltargrim]

Look at it this way: the less oil we use, the longer that we have oil to use. Therefore, while the companies may be making reduced profits, they'll remain in business longer due to, y'know, actually having oil to sell.

[bluestarultor]

Look at it this way: the less oil we use, the longer that we have oil to use. Therefore, while the companies may be making reduced profits, they'll remain in business longer due to, y'know, actually having oil to sell.

Only they're draining it dry and simply making the transition to monopolizing alternative fuels.


To put it this way, they don't care what the hell we're buying so long as we're all forced to buy buttloads of it.

[Geminex]

We really need to compare ourselves to Alexander the Great, threaten them and then have an assassin try to shoot us. That'd fix them.

As for Smarty's stance on capitalism...

A person on the internet has uttered an absolute ideological argument that you mildly disagree with.
If you want to stay quiet about it turn to page 8
If you want to get into an extensive ideological argument which will get you nowhere turn to page 11
If you want to make a self-referencing joke expressing you slight disagreement, turn to page /0

[Osterbaum]

I just think that maybe it's time to try alternatives to capitalism.

[Geminex]

Oh, definetly. But while capitalism does hinge largely on people being greedy, it's not, I think, the incarnation of evil. There's a few benefits to capitalism, like greater innovation (since innovators are likely to get the fruits of their innovation personally, whereas innovators in socialist societies will get the knowledge that they've managed to improve society slightly along with their daily food ration) or the fact that socialist bodies of regulation or government have so much more information to manage and resources to coordinate than similar capitalist organizations. This leads to quite frightening inefficiency.

Still, I agree that the free market's failed too many times, that too many people suffer because of the way the system works...

Edit: In my previous post I was referring to Smarty. I need to start being less vague.

[bluestarultor]

Let's not be confusing socialism for outright communism, though. Speaking on what I can only assume is current definition, my classes are pretty much drilling it into my head that socialism is NOT communism and in fact only involves the government being in charge of key industries, such as health care and transportation, while less key industries are left to the private sector.

SO important is this distinction that it has been a major topic already in three out of my four classes, and I'm taking English 102, Abnormal Psych, Business 101, and Music Appreciation, which is the only one the topic hasn't come up in yet. Were it not largely focused on classical music, I'd half expect THAT professor to whip something out on the subject.

I never thought I'd have to deal with so much econ after passing my econ class, but there you go.

[Geminex]

While I didn't know the exact definition of socialism, that's pretty much the kind of ideal state I envisioned. Let the free market run its course, but stop people dying because other people are greedy. The problem would be that even in the necessary industries (electricity, water, food, housing, transport, healthcare, pensions) a lot of inefficiency will be arising and to address all problems, it'd have to be implemented globally. Feeding everyone in America would be quite a step forwards, but Africa'd still have several thousand (I think it's 40000 children alone, not to mention adults) individuals dying daily because of lacking food, lacking water, lacking medicine...

Of course, what I was meaning to adress in my post was not socialism, but a planned market economy. Yes, pathetic excuse, but really, what Smarty seemed to be proposing was just that, absolute controlled markets. So that is what I opposed. Which you would totally have known had you just READ MY POST!

SELF-IRONY

[Kim]

Actually, Smarty is against markets altogether. Just FYI.

[bluestarultor]

Actually, Smarty is against markets altogether. Just FYI.

Smarty is pretty much against practical reality as a whole. That's what you get for being an academic. :p

(We love you, Smarty, but really, only half joking, here.)

[Geminex]

Technically the planned market economy is centrally planned, meaning that everything is produced communally and the government (or some other central economy) allocates fairly (in theory). Pretty much what he proposed. Though I'm not sure what his stance is on the whole "central body of government" issue.

We totally need to found an communist-anarchist party. Motto: Anything but capitalism.

[bluestarultor]

Technically the planned market economy is centrally planned, meaning that everything is produced communally and the government (or some other central economy) allocates fairly (in theory). Pretty much what he proposed. Though I'm not sure what his stance is on the whole "central body of government" issue.

We totally need to found an communist-anarchist party. Motto: Anything but capitalism.

This has quite literally been established that he doesn't want any. Smarty's ideal world is a peaceful, anarchic, communist Utopia. Like I said, purely academic.

[Si Civa]

Maybe he's been fooling all of us. In reality Smarty wants to live in Platon's republic. It's every academic's daydream.

(Please, don't kill me)

[Hanuman]

This has quite literally been established that he doesn't want any. Smarty's ideal world is a peaceful, anarchic, communist Utopia. Like I said, purely academic.

Sounds like a tribe-based commune like we used to have, except the concept of peace assumes we have no need to fight over resources since righteous people will always exist; hell, we breed em.

[Magus]

Sen. Chambliss is a great man, he said that letting gays serve openly in the military would cause soldiers to drink alcohol, sleep with prostitutes, and get tattoos. Because as we all know, soldiers are not known for that sort of thing, nor have been. Obviously somebody having sex with with men would cause all this other behavior to become rampant throughout the ranks.

Also, did you guys know that we're currently at war? This is not the time to let gay people into the military! Did you also know that this is a post-9/11 world? Again, this is a clear reason to avoid letting gay people into the military. Finally, did you know that there are children in this country? Have you even thought of the children for one second? Have you?! I rest my case.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Oh man, I want to come in and address all you dudes ridiculous posts but it totally much better that you dudes are going to make up my arguments for me.
I shall carry on you letting you do so till I get bored but then you're allg etting fucked. A 40 post quot-athon might hit at any moment. Are you scared? You should b e!

I give it 10 posts before I'm arguing for a magical commune on the moon.

[Magus]

Under the sea would make way more sense, Barrel.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I was nearly attacked by an octopus as a child and they still scare the shit out of me.. Aint' no communist wonderland forming under the sea on my watch.

[bluestarultor]

Oh, pshaw, Smarty! We all know you know the moon is too expensive and that you'd rather just live in harmony with nature! :p

[Hanuman]

They should, I'm more scared of octopi than sharks because I know I can punch a shark to death if I have to.

[Wigmund]

Under the sea would make way more sense, Barrel.

But the Randians have claim to that and there's Nazis on the moon (http://www.ironsky.net/site/), I guess that leaves Mars.

[Bob The Mercenary]

I guess that leaves Mars.

It's certainly red enough for him.

Nyuk nyuk nyuk.

[bluestarultor]

I think that's too far.

I know we're joking around, but it just stopped being friendly.

[Mesden]

No it didn't.

[Archbio]

Yes it did, you melonhead!

There!

[Mesden]

I concede, your beard is too sexy.

[Premmy]

BUt your Head is too Melon-ey to concede!

[Funka Genocide]

If I had a 'fro, it'd be cooler than yours Premo.

Yeah, this shit just got personal.

[Kim]

If I had a 'fro, it'd be cooler than yours Premo.

Yeah, this shit just got personal.

But could you out-fro Nabeshin?

http://i47.tinypic.com/2mcgi1v.jpg

[Funka Genocide]

You do realize that the character Nabeshin is based off of the three years I spent in Japan, right?

Suuutchi!

[Premmy]

If I had a 'fro, it'd be cooler than yours Premo.

Yeah, this shit just got personal.

IF being the keyword, there, Chrome-Dome

[Bob The Mercenary]

I think that's too far.

I know we're joking around, but it just stopped being friendly.

Give me a break. You know I was kidding.

What about those communist/nazi party jokes people were making earlier?

[Mesden]

But you're a CONSERVATIVE Bob, your jokes are hurtful.

[bluestarultor]

It's not even that so much as nobody else was throwing around epithets. At least I wasn't.

But then I'm not Smarty, so I'll leave it to him to express his feelings on it.

[Bob The Mercenary]

I don't know Smarty personally, but I'd imagine it would take a lot more than that to break his insult barrier.

It's all in love anyway. <3

[Wigmund]

It's not even that so much as nobody else was throwing around epithets. At least I wasn't.

But then I'm not Smarty, so I'll leave it to him to express his feelings on it.

Was gonna make a joke about the Red Planet becoming the RED Planet in the Mars post, but that's just a horribly bad pun.

[Funka Genocide]

Smarty is a dirty pinko bastard.

If the insult is outdated, it's inherently facetious.

[DFM]

Man I leave this thread for a day and now we're making jokes about indians.

[Azisien]

It's my firm belief that all peoples should have the right to let others order them to kill people. Anything else is a clear injustice.

[Meister]

Of course you probably all know Bill Hicks' take on the issue. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np6_b-72H3E&feature=fvst)
It's my firm belief that all peoples should have the right to let others order them to kill people.
It's more or less this, actually.

[Premmy]

But you're a CONSERVATIVE Bob, your jokes are hurtful.
Dude, I WISH Conservatives were like Bob, IN that they say something conservative, and then, three dissenting statements later, go "OhhHhhh, guess that was kinda horribly wrong, huh?"