Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Does SNL even have a side? They pretty much attack everybody.

Seriously?

Yes seriously. They do anarchistic comedy, nobody is safe.

I don't go to bars, I buy it in big bottles already made in supermarkets!

Sorry to get so on topic, but I just wanted to agree with this analysis of the situation.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:
So that means we can finally put this to rest?

2) If any of the remaining districts rule that a ban is legal, then it will become a SCOTUS case later.

The Supreme Court has the ability to rule on issues when a plaintiff disagrees with a lower court ruling, but the matter isn't really forced until two lower courts disagree on very similar situations. I think it was actually quite wise for SCOTUS to not rule in this case, when all the cases before them had been ruled the same way by lower courts. That's the making of a precedent and there's no reason SCOTUS has to intervene. If a momentum is building in one direction, then it's far better to let that percolate at a lower level than to step in and arbitrate before things are hashed out. A good example of judicial restraint, IMHO.

However if we start getting multiple rulings that disagree with the current rulings then the SCOTUS will have to step in to mediate. What we don't know is whether this was a true example of judicial restraint, or if a conservative movement in the court is waiting for conflicting rulings in order to have cover to rule in a more conservative direction. I suspect it's the former, but either is possible.


As for the NPR/media bias thing, remember that one the core tenets of most public media is to "present multiple viewpoints and expressions" this and many other professional journalism statements indicate an openness that is embraced by those on the left. I don't think that's a bad thing, I just think that organizations holding to that fundamental principle will always be seen as further to the left by conservatives who by their very nature (and the definition of "conservative") are less prone to place high value in -and more likely to be suspicious of- new and different points of view.

I'm center and somewhat left, but also slightly to the right of some of the folks on NPR (all a matter of degrees) however, I know that on WBEZ (Chicago public radio) I'm going to get a wider variety of less-filtered viewpoints than I'd get on networks like Fox or it's weak liberal competition MSNBC, which is why I turn to WBEZ. If "liberal" means that a news source gives voice to viewpoints that you don't agree with then that should be a good thing.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
So, this is going to make a lot of people happy (those that are homosexual and want to marry, those that have friends in the first category, those that make wedding cakes and wedding costumes and all that), while annoying like hell the religious sentiments of a some Christians and Muslims. That is awesome news!

Corrected your typo.

The problem with wedding cakes is that you have to go to weddings to have them. Why can't I skip the middle man? OH my I just realized I can if I order one myself. Oh dude I think I just gained 20 lbs.

I think the elephant in the room here is that someone actually likes wedding cake. Every time i look at one i get the shivers thinking about 1 inch icing and dodgy fruitcake. If there is something SCOTUS needs to rule on it's taste legal wedding cakes.

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Its like your posts are getting less coherent as the day wears on. You're not deep into a bottle are you? If so, what kind? Sauza tequila is great for margaritas.

You're my mentor.

On the subject of alcohol, I hate the taste so I typically drink things not considered "manly", like strawberry daiquiris.

Son if you put some Appleton rum in that, NOW you have a drink!


Note the "avoiding the villain" argument is knocked back when you say they actually didn't do anything, thus negatively impacting the issue as well (my bold).

Same-sex couples are marrying in at least six more states today, after the Supreme Court left in place lower courts' rulings against bans on gay marriage. But couples have been turned away in Kansas, one of several states that share federal jurisdiction with states where bans were lifted.Legal experts say that federal appeals courts' rulings against same-sex marriage bans in Utah, Virginia, Indiana, Oklahoma and Wisconsin now extend to all 11 states in their circuits. But officials in Kansas and Wyoming say no court has ruled specifically against their ban. And in several states, legal challenges to the bans that had been put on hold are being renewed.
Those 11 states are now home to jubilant couples and activists, as well as to people who are sorely disappointed — either because the bans were struck down, or because their legal path to marriage remains blocked.Here's a roundup of the states in question:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

I think the elephant in the room here is that someone actually likes wedding cake. Every time i look at one i get the shivers thinking about 1 inch icing and dodgy fruitcake. If there is something SCOTUS needs to rule on it's taste legal wedding cakes.

Our wedding cakes were murderously awesome. I tried to steal mine and run off with it, but I forgot I still had the shock collar on and down I went.

I'd be all for government leaving marriage a purely private affair as long as the parties involved are of age and are willing.
Having your partner or partners entered into a civil union of some sort would be a reasonable equivalent if you wanted some kind of protection under the law for things such as visiting rights to sick family etc

Yep. Barring that its not Government's business so the same standards should apply to government that you put in. That way everyone can have their cake and eat it too.


*translation, no one tell me, so screw them too buahahaha!

 Bullockist wrote:


I think the elephant in the room here is that someone actually likes wedding cake. Every time i look at one i get the shivers thinking about 1 inch icing and dodgy fruitcake. If there is something SCOTUS needs to rule on it's taste legal wedding cakes.

Yeah, ours was pretty amazing as well. So much so that we get a small version of it remade every year for our anniversary.

 cincydooley wrote:
We seem to be at the point where if you disagree with the Popular Media, SNL, Liberalized zeitgeist you're a bigot, racist, and villain.

No, I think it's more when you are sworn to uphold the law, and you rule that a class of people don't have equal protection under the law in spite of the clear words of the constitution, because you have decided they are less than you.

Also I think your opinion of the cultural and societal impact of SNL - a comedy show that would have been cancelled 25 years ago if it was in any timeslot other than the least desirable one on TV - might be a bit outsized.

 Ouze wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
We seem to be at the point where if you disagree with the Popular Media, SNL, Liberalized zeitgeist you're a bigot, racist, and villain.

No, I think it's more when you are sworn to uphold the law, and you rule that a class of people don't have equal protection under the law in spite of the clear words of the constitution, because you have decided they are less than you.

But thats not what they did....they just ducked the issue entirely, so states that have ruled against you remain against you.

 Ouze wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
We seem to be at the point where if you disagree with the Popular Media, SNL, Liberalized zeitgeist you're a bigot, racist, and villain.

No, I think it's more when you are sworn to uphold the law, and you rule that a class of people don't have equal protection under the law in spite of the clear words of the constitution, because you have decided they are less than you.

I don't disagree with that portion, but that's not what I was referring to. I was talking about the rest of us.

Yeah, well, they're in a weird ideological place. They can't sack up and admit what they privately disagree with, but it's clear that they can't codify it into law anymore.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
We seem to be at the point where if you disagree with the Popular Media, SNL, Liberalized zeitgeist you're a bigot, racist, and villain.

No, I think it's more when you are sworn to uphold the law, and you rule that a class of people don't have equal protection under the law in spite of the clear words of the constitution, because you have decided they are less than you.

I don't disagree with that portion, but that's not what I was referring to. I was talking about the rest of us.

But the only people referred to as villains in this thread were the court?

 Ouze wrote:

But the only people referred to as villains in this thread were the court?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
We seem to be at the point where if you disagree with the Popular Media, SNL, Liberalized zeitgeist you're a bigot, racist, and villain.

No, I think it's more when you are sworn to uphold the law, and you rule that a class of people don't have equal protection under the law in spite of the clear words of the constitution, because you have decided they are less than you.

But thats not what they did....they just ducked the issue entirely, so states that have ruled against you remain against you.

So long as they duck it, they don't have to own anything. The writing is on the wall anyway. Even if the conservatives did take a hard stand they'd only delay things by a few years. It's not a winnable fight and they know it. In 40 years the hardliners on the wrong side of this issue won't be viewed any differently than Bull Connor.

 cincydooley wrote:

Were that still true, Frazz. Sadly, it isn't. We seem to be at the point where if you disagree with the Popular Media, SNL, Liberalized zeitgeist you're a bigot, racist, and villain.

I knew it wouldn't take long for someone to trot this one out. No offense, I'm not surprised you were the one to do it.

What you and others fail to realize that you can disagree with people in a calm, rational manner. Unfortunately, that doesn't always happen, so when the disagreement turns hateful and bigoted, it gets labeled as such. For instance, you can criticize something like Islam without resorting to "All Muslims are evil so we should just bomb them all... feth those [insert expletive here]! You can also criticize Israel for things they do wrong without being derogatory. The biggest issue is that the people with the rational, calm, and collected opinions don't get air time (both sides of the political spectrum are guilty of this).

Now I know you probably won't agree with that and it's cool... It doesn't make it any less accurate.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

Were that still true, Frazz. Sadly, it isn't. We seem to be at the point where if you disagree with the Popular Media, SNL, Liberalized zeitgeist you're a bigot, racist, and villain.

I knew it wouldn't take long for someone to trot this one out. No offense, I'm not surprised you were the one to do it.

What you and others fail to realize that you can disagree with people in a calm, rational manner. Unfortunately, that doesn't always happen, so when the disagreement turns hateful and bigoted, it gets labeled as such. For instance, you can criticize something like Islam without resorting to "All Muslims are evil so we should just bomb them all... feth those [insert expletive here]! You can also criticize Israel for things they do wrong without being derogatory. The biggest issue is that the people with the rational, calm, and collected opinions don't get air time (both sides of the political spectrum are guilty of this).

Now I know you won't agree with that and it's cool... It doesn't make it any less accurate.

There's plenty of calm and rational going on.

In fact, many times people being apathetic toward a cause are treated as "villains."

I'm staunchly for more equitable male parental rights, and for that I'm often called a misogynist.

I couldn't care less if gays marry, yet because I don't actively support the cause and said I believe people like Phil Robertson are entitled to their opinions, I've been called a homophobe.

Despite knowing (anecdotally) that many of them work harder than many of their poor white and black American counterparts, I think there's far too much illegal immigration in the country and I don't think we should simply grant them all amnesty. For that I've been called a bigot.

You see, it becomes harder and harder and harder to not get defensive when you've got people coming back to your reasonable responses with words like bigot, homophobe, and misogynist.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

Were that still true, Frazz. Sadly, it isn't. We seem to be at the point where if you disagree with the Popular Media, SNL, Liberalized zeitgeist you're a bigot, racist, and villain.

I knew it wouldn't take long for someone to trot this one out. No offense, I'm not surprised you were the one to do it.

What you and others fail to realize that you can disagree with people in a calm, rational manner. Unfortunately, that doesn't always happen, so when the disagreement turns hateful and bigoted, it gets labeled as such. For instance, you can criticize something like Islam without resorting to "All Muslims are evil so we should just bomb them all... feth those [insert expletive here]! You can also criticize Israel for things they do wrong without being derogatory. The biggest issue is that the people with the rational, calm, and collected opinions don't get air time (both sides of the political spectrum are guilty of this).

Now I know you probably won't agree with that and it's cool... It doesn't make it any less accurate.

Yet SCOTUS were immediately pegged as being villains if they had taken it up...

 cincydooley wrote:
There's plenty of calm and rational going on.

True, but it depends on where you look.

In fact, many times people being apathetic toward a cause are treated as "villains."

I'm staunchly for more equitable male parental rights, and for that I'm often called a misogynist.

I couldn't care less if gays marry, yet because I don't actively support the cause and said I believe people like Phil Robertson are entitled to their opinions, I've been called a homophobe.

Despite knowing (anecdotally) that many of them work harder than many of their poor white and black American counterparts, I think there's far too much illegal immigration in the country and I don't think we should simply grant them all amnesty. For that I've been called a bigot.

You see, it becomes harder and harder and harder to not get defensive when you've got people coming back to your reasonable responses with words like bigot, homophobe, and misogynist.

Your final line is where I definitely agree with you. But the pendulum swings both ways, you know.

It's hard to not accuse someone of being a bigot when they do and say bigoted things.

 Frazzled wrote:
Yet SCOTUS were immediately pegged as being villains if they had taken it up...

But they are being pegged as villains by Ted Cruz.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Your final line is where I definitely agree with you. But the pendulum swings both ways, you know.

It's hard to not accuse someone of being a bigot when they do and say bigoted things.
.

And I think that's where we don't quite agree. I think in the past five years the word bigot has been tossed out in tons of abhorrent ways, so much so that we've gotten to a place where you almost be a "bigot by association" or a "bigot by apathy."

I'm not a huge fan of that.

I'll admit to being bigoted against lazy people, though. I'm not ashamed of that at all.

It's why I'm so proud of myself for not getting suspended for commenting in the "I'm a lazy waste of space that just wants to play video games and mooch off my parents" thread.

Trust me, there is plenty of tried and true bigotry out there.

I hear it every day at work and see it every day on my Facebook feed.

And you know what, Scooty, I'll just admit this:

It's getting really exhausting to be a middle class white male in the media, lately.

I'm tired of being told to 'check my privilege.' I'm tired of being told I have nearly zero reproductive rights when it comes to my kids. (this is more a male thing than a white male thing). I'm tired of being goaded into 'white guilt.' I'm tired of being blamed for people that can't hold themselves accountable for their mistakes (and I feel this doubly, as I work in a bank).

It's really tiring.

And to clarify: yes, I understand that there are areas of my life that have been made easier because I'm white, but those areas have also been made easier because both of my raised in the poverty class with single incomes parents were able to raise themselves into the middle class.

 cincydooley wrote:
It's getting really exhausting to be a middle class white male in the media, lately.

Can of worms there, cincy, but I agree with you.

Bashing on men, and especially white men, is far too acceptable in our culture. I consider myself extremely liberal, and I am constantly irritated with the attacks that other liberals throw at white males as if generalizing and stereotyping is acceptable only if you are doing at the expense of a (white)guy. Not to make this a left/right thing, as certainly the abuses occur on the other side of the fence as well, but liberals should know better on the basis that they claim to believe in liberty and equality and yet want to marginalize one group while propping up others.

But I am getting flame-bait anxiety even typing this out, so I'll end my post before saying something that will inevitably make me look like an donkey-cave. Perhaps that is too late.

 cincydooley wrote:
And you know what, Scooty, I'll just admit this:

It's getting really exhausting to be a middle class white male in the media, lately.

I'm tired of being told to 'check my privilege.' I'm tired of being told I have nearly zero reproductive rights when it comes to my kids. (this is more a male thing than a white male thing). I'm tired of being goaded into 'white guilt.' I'm tired of being blamed for people that can't hold themselves accountable for their mistakes (and I feel this doubly, as I work in a bank).

It's really tiring.

I'm a white middle class male and I don't find anything exhausting about my life (other than when I work night shift). I guess you and I view the world through a much different lens.

I have so many damn benefits of being a white middle class male that sometimes I feel guilty and need to, y'know, justify it in anyway I can.

 Frazzled wrote:
Yet SCOTUS were immediately pegged as being villains if they had taken it up...

But they are being pegged as villains by Ted Cruz.

Well those Canadians can be a bit bellicose.

 cincydooley wrote:

It's getting really exhausting to be a middle class white male in the media, lately.

I see

 Chongara wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

It's getting really exhausting to be a middle class white male in the media, lately.

I see

I see that and raise you by another...
I have checked my privilege. And I apologize for nothing.

 whembly wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

It's getting really exhausting to be a middle class white male in the media, lately.

I see

I see that and raise you by another...
I have checked my privilege. And I apologize for nothing.

Can you please put that in the form a serious of of hastily edited clips from a cartoon for 13-year old japanese boys?

 Ouze wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
We seem to be at the point where if you disagree with the Popular Media, SNL, Liberalized zeitgeist you're a bigot, racist, and villain.

No, I think it's more when you are sworn to uphold the law, and you rule that a class of people don't have equal protection under the law in spite of the clear words of the constitution, because you have decided they are less than you.

So it's kind of like how Feinstein and Co. tried to put together a new assault weapons ban that government officials didn't have to comply with. I get it.


Also, on the subject of wedding cake, my wife and I's cake was actually one of the best cakes I've ever had (completely irrespective of the fact it was our wedding cake - had I eaten it in any other context it would have been just as good). It was an amaretto cake. fething legendary.

 cincydooley wrote:
And you know what, Scooty, I'll just admit this:

It's getting really exhausting to be a middle class white male in the media, lately.

I'm tired of being told to 'check my privilege.' I'm tired of being told I have nearly zero reproductive rights when it comes to my kids. (this is more a male thing than a white male thing). I'm tired of being goaded into 'white guilt.' I'm tired of being blamed for people that can't hold themselves accountable for their mistakes (and I feel this doubly, as I work in a bank).

It's really tiring.

And to clarify: yes, I understand that there are areas of my life that have been made easier because I'm white, but those areas have also been made easier because both of my raised in the poverty class with single incomes parents were able to raise themselves into the middle class.

Poor, poor white male it's so tough for you in the media….
…except you get to turn off the radio/TV/Internet and walk outside where you're a white man where...

-You aren't assumed to be a criminal because of your race.
-You're going to do the same work and make 10-25% more than those with a different chromosome combo.
-If you do get in trouble with the law you'll get a lighter sentence
-You're dramatically less likely to get pulled over for a traffic stop.
-You're name alone is going to make it more likely that you get a job interview and a lease on an apartment.

Get over it. So the media is a little unfair to you sometimes, and some of the things you say are true, but when it comes to the actual living of real life, we white males have got it made.

Not trying to guilt you (not in this thread anyway…), just telling you to quit whining and look on the bright side.

If a decade of living and working almost exclusively in the black community has taught me anything, it's that whatever flack I might take for being a privileged white man (I really haven't felt much flack lately), it s nothing compared to the flak my african american counter part faces in his daily life. There's just No Comparison.