Holy crap, now that is a failure.
As you very likely have heard by now, the National Organization for Marriage--a national organization opposed to civil marriage rights for gay people (I've mentioned groups like this using misleading language before; it's kinda their thing)--is rather upset with everybody's favorite coffee chain, Starbucks. Actually, I hate coffee and probably live in one of the few places in the United States where there aren't any Starbucks locations that I can get to easily, but everybody else's favorite coffee place.
Why? Oh, well they seem to have just noticed that Starbucks has an official stance in support of gay marriage rights, in addition to making a point of treating gay employees equally. Very nice.
At the recent Starbucks shareholders meeting, a few people associated with NoM asked some pretty stupid-sounding questions.
"By not intentionally offending certain customers, don't you think you're offending other customers? I mean, I'm just worried about the effect on the company... I mean, somebody could boycott! I'm talking about myself."
It was something like that, but I'm quoting from memory here. The video is hilarious; they answer that the decision was "not something that was difficult for us," and the applause is pretty dramatic in response. Oddly, NoM posted the video to YouTube themselves. I have no idea why they thought that would be a good idea.
In any case, NoM is of the opinion that businesses that disagree with them should remain neutral and shut up and therefore must be boycotted, while businesses that do agree with them are proud and strong and how dare you boycott them you're just bigoted against Christians. No seriously.
Like Chik-fil-a (I just wanted to post that link, really).
Anyway, the really awesome thing here?
They created a petition, a Twitter account called @DumpStarbucks, and a facebook page for people to scold Starbucks and to promise to boycott.
Over the next few days, a petition, a Twitter account called @PumpStarbucks, and a facebook thing of some kind (when facebook started getting more complicated, I never really bothered figuring all that stuff out) for the sole purpose of letting people tell Starbucks that they support them and don't think they should buckle under the pressure (which probably was never a concern, but it's still nice to voice that support, y'know?).
So, take a guess as to which side is more popular? If you guessed "The petition to pressure Starbucks!" than you would be incredibly wrong.
The "Dump Starbucks" petition has, at this time, 20,707 pledges according to their site.
The "Thank You" card petition has, at this time, 264,353 signatures according to their site and has to keep resetting their goal (currently set at 300,000--it was 250,000 when I started writing this [less significant than it sounds because I've been working on several other things during that time and it's been more than a few hours, but still really amazing]).
Oh, and I've seen several gay rights supporters who've talked about all the fake names they've put on the Dump Starbucks petition and how hilarious that is. Seems to me like that just makes them look better and is dumb, but it is noteworthy that at least a few of those signatures aren't real. I mean, I get why Jeremy Hooper at Good As You posted about a fake entry--he was pointing out how easy it was to inflate the numbers and that the supporters didn't even have to give a valid e-mail address (or anything resembling one, as he demonstrated).
It's the "Ha ha I added 20 more signatures to their petition! That'll help us comment on how pathetic it is!" that I don't get.
But I digress... More interesting here is an apparent sudden jump in the numbers on the Dump Starbucks petition. Now I wasn't paying close enough attention to notice it personally, but I've seen it on a few other blogs. I wouldn't exactly testify to this in court, but it looks pretty reliable--and it's not like these people never lie (I don't think I've ever read anything from them that wasn't both obviously and almost incredibly dishonest).
What seems to have happened is they got signatures at a slowly increasing rate for a while, as normal, suddenly nearly doubled their signatures all at one, and then went back to the previous normal-sounding rate. Basically, sounds entirely fraudulent.
And really, when you start a boycott that's 10% as popular as people saying "lolno" and the company's stock goes up, y'gotta be pretty desperate to get some sigs.
A while ago, I had a singing audition in which I had trouble following the piano, missed my starting note, got nervous, and never found the rhythm of the song. It was the worst singing I've ever performed, and worse than any I'd ever heard. I had waited hours and hours--and driven an hour--for this audition that I had utterly, utterly blown.
I left there saying "Well, at least I know I will never again fail at anything as badly as I did here tonight."
I have now discovered that it actually is possible for a worst failure than that audition--but I'm pretty sure we've actually hit the limit this time!
Monday, March 26, 2012
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
I Don't Understand
I don't understand this gay marriage debate.
In most civil rights debates, both sides have a stake. The people who are seeking some right or equality have an obvious stake, but so do their foes.
In the American Revolution, the enemy had power and wanted to keep that power.
Slavery? The slaves wanted to not be slaves, the slave owners wanted to continue to have slaves. The conflict between them is obvious.
Expansion of voting rights? Well, if there's only one vote we call that "Being in charge." For every additional vote, the power of each voter is reduced. In our current system, a much much greater percentage of people have the right to vote than did originally in our nation--and every person who would have been able to anyway has a weaker vote than he would have had if voting rights had never been extended to more people.
In all of these cases, there's an obvious right side, but I can at least understand the bad guys. They have a motivation that makes sense, usually power (desiring to keep power you already have is a lot more understandable than the desire to acquire new power over others, too).
In the gay marriage debate, though? On the one hand we have gay people who want to get married, and on the other side we have... er, people who don't want us to? They have no stake at all! When we win, they lose nothing except the argument.. which is why they've lost the argument.
It's one side versus... nothing at all.
Obviously some of these people make good money working to hurt me and others like me. That's their motivation, I guess. And fame, of a sort. Infamy, and maybe even becoming historical figures (although, I certainly wouldn't want to go down in history as a villain... but maybe for some people that's better than being forgotten).
But see, they only get money and fame because their movement exists. Why does it exist? It's irrelevant to them. What was the motivation for getting that started?
I can understand letting your own interests override your empathy for others. I can understand ignoring your empathy for others because you don't want to care.
I just can't understand working against people for no reason other than to harm them.
And even more, I can't understand why they're taken as serious opponents. Giving them credibility is bad enough, but why did anybody even notice they exist to listen?
In most civil rights debates, both sides have a stake. The people who are seeking some right or equality have an obvious stake, but so do their foes.
In the American Revolution, the enemy had power and wanted to keep that power.
Slavery? The slaves wanted to not be slaves, the slave owners wanted to continue to have slaves. The conflict between them is obvious.
Expansion of voting rights? Well, if there's only one vote we call that "Being in charge." For every additional vote, the power of each voter is reduced. In our current system, a much much greater percentage of people have the right to vote than did originally in our nation--and every person who would have been able to anyway has a weaker vote than he would have had if voting rights had never been extended to more people.
In all of these cases, there's an obvious right side, but I can at least understand the bad guys. They have a motivation that makes sense, usually power (desiring to keep power you already have is a lot more understandable than the desire to acquire new power over others, too).
In the gay marriage debate, though? On the one hand we have gay people who want to get married, and on the other side we have... er, people who don't want us to? They have no stake at all! When we win, they lose nothing except the argument.. which is why they've lost the argument.
It's one side versus... nothing at all.
Obviously some of these people make good money working to hurt me and others like me. That's their motivation, I guess. And fame, of a sort. Infamy, and maybe even becoming historical figures (although, I certainly wouldn't want to go down in history as a villain... but maybe for some people that's better than being forgotten).
But see, they only get money and fame because their movement exists. Why does it exist? It's irrelevant to them. What was the motivation for getting that started?
I can understand letting your own interests override your empathy for others. I can understand ignoring your empathy for others because you don't want to care.
I just can't understand working against people for no reason other than to harm them.
And even more, I can't understand why they're taken as serious opponents. Giving them credibility is bad enough, but why did anybody even notice they exist to listen?
Friday, November 18, 2011
On "It's Just Politics"--Straight to the Point
Some of us don't have the luxury to "agree to disagree" on "political issues" like the rights of a minority group.
Guess why?
Guess why?
Only Light Drives Out Darkness
Those who defended Proposition 8's Constitutionality in court are now arguing against the release of videos of the trial, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.
They're afraid that the videos could be spread in a one-sided manner, showing only snippets that make one side look bad. And by "one side" they apparently mean their own, since despite the neutral-sounding argument their opponents are arguing for the release of the videos.
But wait, which side is known for releasing one-sided videos, images, statements, and other modes of propaganda? Oh, I see... They don't need video of the actual trial to do it, since they use actors and lie a lot (like, not twisted stories or spin, but actual objective lying; a lot).
So, I guess it's true that releasing the videos makes one side look bad. Them. Because that's what happens when you see what they actually did. They look bad because, waitforitwaitforit, they are.
In the words of one of history's greatest men (King): Darkness can not drive out darkness, only light can do that.
Let's shed some light on those who would prefer to act unseen in the darkness.
Take a look at these videos of potential pro-Prop 8 witnesses being asked questions under oath (by those mean ol' bullies who ask them things! The noive!). The fact that these guys lie a lot, objectively, and that they know it was incredibly obvious. Why? Because to lie here would've been perjury. So upon being asked a simple, direct yes or no question that she couldn't spin, one witness looked extremely pissed. "Yes" (the answer she didn't like, but which was, y'know, true), she hissed most venomously after a pause.
She was there to hurt queers. Not to argue the truth. And realizing that she was under oath and had to do the latter, she knew she couldn't do the former.
That's bad.
They're afraid that the videos could be spread in a one-sided manner, showing only snippets that make one side look bad. And by "one side" they apparently mean their own, since despite the neutral-sounding argument their opponents are arguing for the release of the videos.
But wait, which side is known for releasing one-sided videos, images, statements, and other modes of propaganda? Oh, I see... They don't need video of the actual trial to do it, since they use actors and lie a lot (like, not twisted stories or spin, but actual objective lying; a lot).
So, I guess it's true that releasing the videos makes one side look bad. Them. Because that's what happens when you see what they actually did. They look bad because, waitforitwaitforit, they are.
In the words of one of history's greatest men (King): Darkness can not drive out darkness, only light can do that.
Let's shed some light on those who would prefer to act unseen in the darkness.
Take a look at these videos of potential pro-Prop 8 witnesses being asked questions under oath (by those mean ol' bullies who ask them things! The noive!). The fact that these guys lie a lot, objectively, and that they know it was incredibly obvious. Why? Because to lie here would've been perjury. So upon being asked a simple, direct yes or no question that she couldn't spin, one witness looked extremely pissed. "Yes" (the answer she didn't like, but which was, y'know, true), she hissed most venomously after a pause.
She was there to hurt queers. Not to argue the truth. And realizing that she was under oath and had to do the latter, she knew she couldn't do the former.
That's bad.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
I Wouldn't Want Them to Look Foolish, Now...
I took this quiz.
Given that they're very pro-family (or is that "Pro-Family"?), I trust that the obvious errors are a foolish oversight, and not an example of gross moral bankruptcy. I sent them an e-mail to let them know where they've made mistakes, so that the issue may be corrected.
I can't help but notice that most of the answers on your quiz are incorrect. The information included in the descriptions below contradicts the given "correct" answer for most cases, in case you need evidence of the error.
The only questions posted which has the correct answer (number 3) seems to have been given such entirely by accident, too! "Homosexual activists" do not claim that 10% of the population is gay, that is merely a popular--but widely known to be incorrect by actual experts such as gay-rights activists.
Furthermore, the given answer to the question suggests the baffling illogic that because the population is small the Constitution should not apply to these tax-paying American citizens! Obviously ludicrous.
I trust that an organization dedicated to real values such as faith, family, and freedom will correct these gross errors post-haste. After all, bearing false witness against your neighbor would be in stark violation of those values; I am sure this misinformation was posted erroneously.
Yours in Christ's Love
Given that they're very pro-family (or is that "Pro-Family"?), I trust that the obvious errors are a foolish oversight, and not an example of gross moral bankruptcy. I sent them an e-mail to let them know where they've made mistakes, so that the issue may be corrected.
I can't help but notice that most of the answers on your quiz are incorrect. The information included in the descriptions below contradicts the given "correct" answer for most cases, in case you need evidence of the error.
The only questions posted which has the correct answer (number 3) seems to have been given such entirely by accident, too! "Homosexual activists" do not claim that 10% of the population is gay, that is merely a popular--but widely known to be incorrect by actual experts such as gay-rights activists.
Furthermore, the given answer to the question suggests the baffling illogic that because the population is small the Constitution should not apply to these tax-paying American citizens! Obviously ludicrous.
I trust that an organization dedicated to real values such as faith, family, and freedom will correct these gross errors post-haste. After all, bearing false witness against your neighbor would be in stark violation of those values; I am sure this misinformation was posted erroneously.
Yours in Christ's Love
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Augh! Not Freedom of Religion!
Okay, I tweeted about this twice (@ReedP938), but I just have to talk about it some more. Twitter is just not suited to my overly wordy, rambling, highly-verbose, somewhat redundant attempts at prose.
The National Organization for Marriage (a national organization dedicated to preventing marriages) has a recent post on their blog which really caught my eye: "UK Introduces Plan to Conduct Same-Sex Partnerships in Church". I'd consider commenting on a NOMBlog moderated comment thread (no seriously, I've heard them called that by their own supporters), but other than the fact that rational comments are deleted at random (so they miss the subtler ones that don't say what NOM thinks they say, I get that, but sometimes they don't get around to deleting perfectly rational posts that ask questions none of their people have attempted to answer; it's weird), comments on that particular article are now closed (since they so heavily chop at them, I assume they only keep them open briefly so that they can keep up with them; that or that particular article got a lot of reasonable people commenting).
Now, anti-gay organizations have made claims--or at least implications--that civil recognition of same-sex marriages would have an impact on the marriages performed by religious institutions. This is, of course, a lie. Religious institutions always have restrictions on the marriages that they will perform that the state does not. A Catholic church will never perform a marriage between a Muslim and a Hindu even if they're good and straight, and nobody is remotely surprised by this restriction. Some churches require both parties to be members of their religion, others only require one. Some have other rules, regarding previous divorces or other things.
This is not new. This will not change. This is known by everybody, but it's such a basic piece of information that a lot of people don't consider it if it's not pointed out to them. And NOM depends on that fact.
Now, this article? It's about how the civil partnerships that already exist in the UK will soon be able to performed in churches like their (heterosexual-only) civil marriage* counterpart. Supposedly, anyway.
Now, obviously, this is one of the normal rights of marriage. Spelling out that gays should get it too is something that shouldn't have to be done, but does because these couples were given a distinct legal relationship which resembles, but is unfairly different from, the existing set of rules that they could easily have been given access to. The fact that this even needs to be said is evidence that different classes for legally-recognized (and hopefully permanent) straight relationships and legally-recognized (and hopefully permanent) gay relationships is not only unnecessary but actually bad (ooh, I'm breaking out the bold italic text; shit just got real).
But this is a totally innocuous occurrence. It's fixing an oversight. Churches who already perform religious marriages for same-sex couples will be able to sign the documentation to make it legal that already exists, just like they always have been able to do for straight couples. It's barely newsworthy, although you can see how they might want to get the information out there for the religious gays and gay-friendly religious institutions.
Oh, and the article they link to claims this threatens the freedom of religion. They have the religious freedom to agree with us; that's what that means, right? I guess NOM has international counterparts...
*Say, aren't "partnership" and "marriage" words with pretty much identical meanings? Why does sticking "civil" in front of both terms make people think they should be distinct?
The National Organization for Marriage (a national organization dedicated to preventing marriages) has a recent post on their blog which really caught my eye: "UK Introduces Plan to Conduct Same-Sex Partnerships in Church". I'd consider commenting on a NOMBlog moderated comment thread (no seriously, I've heard them called that by their own supporters), but other than the fact that rational comments are deleted at random (so they miss the subtler ones that don't say what NOM thinks they say, I get that, but sometimes they don't get around to deleting perfectly rational posts that ask questions none of their people have attempted to answer; it's weird), comments on that particular article are now closed (since they so heavily chop at them, I assume they only keep them open briefly so that they can keep up with them; that or that particular article got a lot of reasonable people commenting).
Now, anti-gay organizations have made claims--or at least implications--that civil recognition of same-sex marriages would have an impact on the marriages performed by religious institutions. This is, of course, a lie. Religious institutions always have restrictions on the marriages that they will perform that the state does not. A Catholic church will never perform a marriage between a Muslim and a Hindu even if they're good and straight, and nobody is remotely surprised by this restriction. Some churches require both parties to be members of their religion, others only require one. Some have other rules, regarding previous divorces or other things.
This is not new. This will not change. This is known by everybody, but it's such a basic piece of information that a lot of people don't consider it if it's not pointed out to them. And NOM depends on that fact.
Now, this article? It's about how the civil partnerships that already exist in the UK will soon be able to performed in churches like their (heterosexual-only) civil marriage* counterpart. Supposedly, anyway.
Now, obviously, this is one of the normal rights of marriage. Spelling out that gays should get it too is something that shouldn't have to be done, but does because these couples were given a distinct legal relationship which resembles, but is unfairly different from, the existing set of rules that they could easily have been given access to. The fact that this even needs to be said is evidence that different classes for legally-recognized (and hopefully permanent) straight relationships and legally-recognized (and hopefully permanent) gay relationships is not only unnecessary but actually bad (ooh, I'm breaking out the bold italic text; shit just got real).
But this is a totally innocuous occurrence. It's fixing an oversight. Churches who already perform religious marriages for same-sex couples will be able to sign the documentation to make it legal that already exists, just like they always have been able to do for straight couples. It's barely newsworthy, although you can see how they might want to get the information out there for the religious gays and gay-friendly religious institutions.
Oh, and the article they link to claims this threatens the freedom of religion. They have the religious freedom to agree with us; that's what that means, right? I guess NOM has international counterparts...
*Say, aren't "partnership" and "marriage" words with pretty much identical meanings? Why does sticking "civil" in front of both terms make people think they should be distinct?
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
On "Protecting Marriage"--Straight to the Point
So ye're really gonna "protect" your right to marriage by taking away mine? Hmmm...
Could you turn around for just a sec'? I have to "protect" my wallet.
Could you turn around for just a sec'? I have to "protect" my wallet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)