Marriage equality

[Tairy Greene]

It's an issue that is incredibly deeply personal to people on both sides.

At least those experiences with your grandmother and mother could tangibly demonstrate to you that many people who voted no did so without malice and with the genuine conviction they were doing so for the right reasons.

It can be enormously difficult not to put people with fundamentally different beliefs than your own into a box. Especially when the worst excesses of each side are on such vivid public display.

It's hard to understand sometimes that the exact same words that say equality and fairness to us say isolation and division to them.

There is still a long way to do on so many fronts. But in a time when our social media bubbles are causing the poles to accelerate away from each other at breakneck speed, a little empathy for those on the other side is not a bad thing.

Jeez give it a rest already.

 

[weevil]

****in both sides ism strikes again. ugh.

Is the side you support incapable of doing anything wrong?

 

[James North]

The way I'm seeing it is that there are two sides to the argument, then there's the fence sitter/observer, and those who hate the fence sitter/observer.

So 4 sides to every story.

Life is so complicated these days.

 

[weevil]

The way I'm seeing it is that there are two sides to the argument, then there's the fence sitter/observer, and those who hate the fence sitter/observer.

So 4 sides to every story.

Life is so complicated these days.

Not even a fence sitter, 100% pro yes.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Is the side you support incapable of doing anything wrong?

That's a bit of a trite fallback.

Conciliation has its place in a lot of situations but you seem to be using this amazing discovery that people are divided on issues as a default position to take shots at anyone who takes a firm stance on anything, albeit focussing on the left because it provides a stronger contrast against the current prevailing narrative.

We get it weevs, you are bothered by the current direction of political discourse. It's a valid point, but maybe only one worth making another 15 or 20 times.

Most people here ultimately want to discuss the actual issues though, and not every single instance of someone expressing their opinion with an edge of emotion or contempt for the opposing view is necessarily a harbinger of the end times of political civility.

People care about things. Always have, always will.

 

[Viceregal]

The way I'm seeing it is that there are two sides to the argument, then there's the fence sitter/observer, and those who hate the fence sitter/observer.

So 4 sides to every story.

Life is so complicated these days.

And the sociopathic types that will use what ever argument available to further their interests sublimely disinterested in any aspect except how to maximize the benefit to them...

In reality most issues have way more than two diametrically opposed options. In our current world of feelings/subjectivity/every opinion is equally valid trumping over logic/objectivity/real research/actual science/long term planning, trying to be nuanced either gets you instantly blasted from both sides (used for straw men from one side, derided as a traitor from the other) or else you are in the position of the two people bargaining where one side goes from 20 to 30 to 40 while the other side just keeps on saying 100 100 100. Sometimes you just have to walk away from a bad bargaining position but on others that is not an option or leaving the other side (or sometimes both) in possession of the field is just not worth the damage it would do to the core of your life's essence and you get to choose which hill you are going to die on.

 

[carnthemlions]

Is the side you support incapable of doing anything wrong?

Oh **** off with this inane rubbish. This wasn't a 'debate', it was a sustained hate campaign against a group of people who've always been deemed to be 'lesser' by society. Things can and do change, but let's not pretend the entire thing was designed to do anything other than legitimate this demonisation. That is to say, to allow rich white christians to run a hate campaign.
Fortunately, however, these ghouls are increasingly irrelevant.

 

[weevil]

That's a bit of a trite fallback.

Conciliation has its place in a lot of situations but you seem to be using this amazing discovery that people are divided on issues as a default position to take shots at anyone who takes a firm stance on anything, albeit focussing on the left because it provides a stronger contrast against the current prevailing narrative.

We get it weevs, you are bothered by the current direction of political discourse. It's a valid point, but maybe only one worth making another 15 or 20 times.

Most people here ultimately want to discuss the actual issues though, and not every single instance of someone expressing their opinion with an edge of emotion or contempt for the opposing view is necessarily a harbinger of the end times of political civility.

People care about things. Always have, always will.

I was not replying to a trite fallback? Or if it's trite and aligns with your world view it's okay?

You love very generally, very nebulously disagreeing with me. But appear intensely keen on not ever being drawn down on any specific issue.

Perhaps if you cut all the grandiose the meta criticism and specifically discussed an issue then...you know...the discussion could move forward. Not the first time I've said this.

If your only response it to continually flap your arms around about 'the vibe of the thing' then I'm pretty much going to come back every time and make very general points about the lack of empathy on my side op politics and what a negative divisive thing I think it is.

Sure I might think notliondown's grandmother was misguided, ignorant even. Do I think that is her fault, maybe/maybe not.

There are absolutely lots of times when strongly calling out bigots is entirely appropriate. Do I think calling notliondown's grandmother deplorable or a bigot would have made things better? Would that have magically made her open to thinking about things in a different way?

You may or may not agree. But I see huge amounts of one behaviour from you and very little of the other.

You win 0% of people over to your side if your opening argument is that they are scum.
But obviously there is a line to be drawn somewhere, where do you actually draw the line? Where do you draw the line on this issue?

A meta, meta, meta answer will guarantee we go around the roundabout yet again in a few days/weeks time.

 

[weevil]

Oh **** off with this inane rubbish. This wasn't a 'debate', it was a sustained hate campaign against a group of people who've always been deemed to be 'lesser' by society. Things can and do change, but let's not pretend the entire thing was designed to do anything other than legitimate this demonisation. That is to say, to allow rich white christians to run a hate campaign.
Fortunately, however, these ghouls are increasingly irrelevant.

I'm not talking about talking about the obvious bigots. I'm talking about people who for example are deeply religious people sincerely believe with their church tells them.

Do you have any room for nuance or do you treat them all the same?

 

[Hollow Knight]

I was not replying to a trite fallback? Or if it's trite and aligns with your world view it's okay?

You love very generally, very nebulously disagreeing with me. But appear intensely keen on not ever being drawn down on any specific issue.

I don't know how to argue unnebulously to the nebulous.

Like I said last time, welcome to the thread. Issues get discussed constantly here, they're just at present taken a back seat to "Weevil educates the savages on how to be statesmen". You've shown up late and tried to dictate how this place runs and how it should, and have misjudged the nature of things profoundly.

You also seem to prefer to believe i am just taking issue with you personally rather than considering the response. That's a fair strategy but it's seemingly losing its effectiveness with a whole bunch of others seemingly starting to take a similar issue.

Perhaps if you cut all the grandiose the meta criticism and specifically discussed an issue then...you know...the discussion could move forward. Not the first time I've said this.

Yep, definitely not the first time. The irony remains, in fact another poster here messaged me to point it out the last time. You were the one exclusively doing the meta-criticism dude (and very little of anything else). It's really weird to see you try to present the situation otherwise.

The rest of your post is straight from the "how to win an Internet argument without actually argueing" playbook... a combination of suppositions about what I supposedly think and how I express those thoughts (yet I strangely can't actually remember ever having a political debate with you), strawmen (like suggesting I was defending calling someones grandmother a bigot) and trying to portray people as being upset or "flapping their arms". You've really lumped everyone in together too for some serious generalisations. You're better than that I think.

Ultimately you're just being really weird and condescending while repeatedly driving home a simple and obvious point about the nature of political debate yet remarkably accusing others of being the ones obsessed with meta arguments as opposed to issues. It's bizarre.

But hopefully the thread can eventually rise to a level of political sophistication worthy of you, so that we can all benefit from what I can only assume is some serious next level political analysis.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Oh **** off with this inane rubbish. This wasn't a 'debate', it was a sustained hate campaign against a group of people who've always been deemed to be 'lesser' by society. Things can and do change, but let's not pretend the entire thing was designed to do anything other than legitimate this demonisation. That is to say, to allow rich white christians to run a hate campaign.

The "one side is asking for rights that the rest already enjoy/if you don't like gay marriage don't get one" analysis might be seen as overly reductionist but from a basic cost/benefit analysis that should have been the long and the short of it.

The fact that the debate was even be able to be widely framed as a "two sides" 50:50 issue by so many and not get scoffed or laughed at shows the inherent power structures and inequalities that exist.

Foucault would have had a field day dissecting this campaign.

Yes we can look at it obsessively look at it from a micro perspective of individuals and discuss day and night whether they are bigoted, brainwashed, misguided, maligned etc but from the macro perspective of competing power structures the debate was bizarre and I sleep comfortably at night firm in the belief that (despite the understandable emotion on both sides) the Yes camp's underlying argument was ultimately rationally sound and that the No Camp's was deeply flawed and was carried as far as it got by the power wielded by those behind it rather than its own merit.

That they even managed to half-successfully paint themselves as the minority throughout the campaign is testament to their influence. Losing the fight doesn't necessarily mean you are the minority or the victim, sometimes you just lose on your own accord.

 

[notliondown]

To be 100% clear the conversations my grandmother and I shared helped teach me respect and understanding for those who differ in opinion from me. I in no way saw her as bigoted or ignorant... At 101 she was as sharp as many 1/3 her age. She was an ex teacher who was politically astute, socially aware and had a wicked sense of humour once you got to know her.

Her beliefs were hers, just as mine are mine. I don't know who was right... And to be honest I don't really care.

What I do care about is that we do no harm to others. That's not some namby pamby notion because those who know me know that I'm far from that.

What it is a an overarching idea is that we all come to things from our own perspective and experience. If you can't empathise, listen and try to understand you have no place in public debate.

No one is ever 100% right nor are they ever completely wrong.

If you can't learn from those around you no matter what side you support that's what makes you a bigot.

 

[weevil]

I don't know how to argue unnebulously to the nebulous.

Like I said last time, welcome to the thread. Issues get discussed constantly here, they're just at present taken a back seat to "Weevil educates the savages on how to be statesmen". You've shown up late and tried to dictate how this place runs and how it should, and have misjudged the nature of things profoundly.

You also seem to prefer to believe i am just taking issue with you personally rather than considering the response. That's a fair strategy but it's seemingly losing its effectiveness with a whole bunch of others seemingly starting to take a similar issue.



Yep, definitely not the first time. The irony remains, in fact another poster here messaged me to point it out the last time. You were the one exclusively doing the meta-criticism dude (and very little of anything else). It's really weird to see you try to present the situation otherwise.

The rest of your post is straight from the "how to win an Internet argument without actually argueing" playbook... a combination of suppositions about what I supposedly think and how I express those thoughts (yet I strangely can't actually remember ever having a political debate with you), strawmen (like suggesting I was defending calling someones grandmother a bigot) and trying to portray people as being upset or "flapping their arms". You've really lumped everyone in together too for some serious generalisations. You're better than that I think.

Ultimately you're just being really weird and condescending while repeatedly driving home a simple and obvious point about the nature of political debate yet remarkably accusing others of being the ones obsessed with meta arguments as opposed to issues. It's bizarre.

But hopefully the thread can eventually rise to a level of political sophistication worthy of you, so that we can all benefit from what I can only assume is some serious next level political analysis.

Yep and there are people just like me here who have known and liked you for a long time. Who have followed this discussion the entire time. Who think my position is completely reasonable and straightforward. And who think the reason you can't even begin to understand what I am saying is because you are too combative and that you fundamentally lack empathy when it comes to issues like this.

You have stridently articulated this very nebulous opposition you have to what I think I'm saying. But you are very unhappy when I ask you to describe your opposition in context of the actual issue.

To me that looks like you are more than happy to bait me it looks like you can only tolerate discussing issues in the context you want to.

You could try making the argument the other way. But like I say, I'm actually trying to talk about it in terms of the issue.

I am more than happy for you to prove me comprehensively wrong. I am more than happy to accept my part in any miscommunication that has occurred.

All I can say is that from my perspective you are making these increasingly complex set of gymnastic manoeuvres to avoid simply talking about the issues. It's like you are a politician desperately doing everything they can to give non-answers to Leigh Sales.

I mean if my opinion is indeed incredibly passé and trite you should be able to wrap it up incredibly simply in context of the issue.

But rather than do that, you labour paragraph after paragraph with this stuff but you absolutely, point blank refuse to write a couple of sentences about the actual issue.

Sure, accuse me of being an ignorant simpleton, and claim the discussion is beneath you. Do that a bunch of times. Perhaps you are right?

But after a while it starts to look a bit bizarre.

It's gone well beyond 'Your argument is too trivial for me' stage. It's not just once or twice, it's time after time. I just does not ring true after a while. You are such a pugilist here, but for reasons I completely do not understand you point blank refuse to step into the ring.

I'm sorry if some of that offends you, that is absolutely not my intention. I'm simply trying to point out how I (and others) see it. I am genuinely baffled by your behaviour.

 

[weevil]

To be 100% clear the conversations my grandmother and I shared helped teach me respect and understanding for those who differ in opinion from me. I in no way saw her as bigoted or ignorant... At 101 she was as sharp as many 1/3 her age. She was an ex teacher who was politically astute, socially aware and had a wicked sense of humour once you got to know her.

Her beliefs were hers, just as mine are mine. I don't know who was right... And to be honest I don't really care.

What I do care about is that we do no harm to others. That's not some namby pamby notion because those who know me know that I'm far from that.

What it is a an overarching idea is that we all come to things from our own perspective and experience. If you can't empathise, listen and try to understand you have no place in public debate.

No one is ever 100% right nor are they ever completely wrong.

If you can't learn from those around you no matter what side you support that's what makes you a bigot.

Yep, precisely. You would not know it from the fog of war going on here. But that is the kernel of what I'm arguing.

 

[Hollow Knight]

All I can say is that from my perspective you are making these increasingly complex set of gymnastic manoeuvres to avoid simply talking about the issues. It's like you are a politician desperately doing everything they can to give non-answers to Leigh Sales.

I mean if my opinion is indeed incredibly passé and trite you should be able to wrap it up incredibly simply in context of the issue.

But rather than do that, you labour paragraph after paragraph with this stuff but you absolutely, point blank refuse to write a couple of sentences about the actual issue.

You've really painted quite a picture of convenience there. A quick 3 minute skim of this thread alone shows that to be just rubbish though. I have no doubt that it's too combative for your tastes but to suggest that I am the one who hasn't waded into the issue is rubbish.

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/marriage-equality.1177716/#post-52558084

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/marriage-equality.1177716/#post-52559352

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/marriage-equality.1177716/page-2#post-52559540

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/marriage-equality.1177716/page-3#post-52566337

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/marriage-equality.1177716/page-5#post-52571432

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/marriage-equality.1177716/page-9#post-52583759

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/marriage-equality.1177716/page-9#post-52583855

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/marriage-equality.1177716/page-9#post-52585792

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/marriage-equality.1177716/page-11#post-52686501

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/marriage-equality.1177716/page-11#post-52687251

I could easily do this in the politics thread as well where you have thrown the same allegation at me in a more general context.

On the other hand, I can't think of any substantive wading into the issue you've made at all. You keep posting as though you've laid it all out on the line but all I can see is the very nibbling at the edges meta-criticism that you seem to insist is my obsession. On the contrary I couldn't find it more tedious.

Something is getting seriously lost here in translation, as you hypothesised yourself. It would seem we are stuck in a feedback loop of feeling condescended as **** by the other while both sincerely thinking we are making a sincere defence of ourselves.

 

[weevil]

Something is getting seriously lost here in translation, as you hypothesised yourself. It would seem we are stuck in a feedback loop of feeling condescended as **** by the other while both sincerely thinking we are making a sincere defence of ourselves.

Yeah, I'm convinced this is about us not understanding each other far more than anything else.

I see all those zillions of issue based posts from you, but then the instant I bring anything up it's complete radio silence on issues and it's all meta. That has confused me out for some time now. I've tried asking, but you won't tell me.

Like I say I'm more than happy to take any share of the blame for the miscommunication.

I'm not going to initiate a topic by bashing my fist on a desk and saying all of X needs to be Y.

I felt notliondown's posts were a fantastic, personal insight into the complexity of the issues and how people have to deal with them. It touched on a lot of the sorts of thoughts I have about it and I posted saying so. That's where my head is at.

I'm not saying all combative debate is bad. I honestly do not know where I stand on lots of the nuance and am trying to figure things out. I genuinely respect your thoughts on lots of these issues and am genuinely interested in your opinion.

You bloody love nothing more than telling everyone else in the universe exactly what you think about things. In great, huge, flashing, freaking neon letters. I don't know why you don't do that with me.

 

[Hollow Knight]

You bloody love nothing more than telling everyone else in the universe exactly what you think about things. In great, huge, flashing, freaking neon letters. I don't know why you don't do that with me.

I just don't see how you have reached this conclusion. You've got a really weird solipsism going on here and imagining a personal angle that isn't there.

don't need a personal invitation. Quote a post I've made and start talking. Isn't that what we've been doping? Isn't that how this shit works?

 

[weevil]

I just don't see how you have reached this conclusion. You've got a really weird solipsism going on here and imagining a personal angle that isn't there.

don't need a personal invitation. Quote a post I've made and start talking. Isn't that what we've been doping? Isn't that how this shit works?

You quote posts that I make, but instantly make them all about what you reckon I believe...Which is always about a billion miles away from what I believe...

 

[Caiphus]

I understand where you're coming from Weevil, but for me I feel like I'm being a bad ally for calling out people who I think are on the right side for the tone of their argument when they are emotionally invested in their actual rights. I will call out specific bad behaviour but a poor tone doesn't invalidate an argument and I attach that tone policing to a sort of classism/imperialism that I am also ideologically against. As I've said before my support is on a purely theoretical basis because as a secular, cis hetero, white, middle-class man I only have empathy to guide me rather than WIIFM. I'm happy to try to argue in the "right way" for them but I'm not going to tell them that they are doing it the wrong way or validate their opposition by discrediting them based on their tone/passion/anger when their argument is solid.

Both sides put their faith in something that underpins their ideology. And that faith leads both sides to attach baggage to the other side's argument whether an individual perceives it as part of their intent or not. The religious right has sin and an idea of natural order and the secular-humanist left has structural prejudice/social structures. If you are agnostic about either of those things then you sit somewhere in the middle and are left to weigh up actual consequences for either side losing out.

 

[irel]

Abbott squibbed it.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Abbott squibbed it.

Really petty and egotistical display.

He was the architect of the plebiscite and the champion of “letting the people have their say” but then failed in his duty as an elected member to pass on their message. Proved once and for all the suspicions that his tactics were purely about obstructionism.

Far too self-centred to be a leader. Not a molecule of statesmanship in his body.

 

[Dalions]

Really petty and egotistical display.

He was the architect of the plebiscite and the champion of “letting the people have their say” but then failed in his duty as an elected member to pass on their message. Proved once and for all the suspicions that his tactics were purely about obstructionism.

Far too self-centred to be a leader. Not a molecule of statesmanship in his body.

Allowing the people to have their say was the right thing to do in my mind.
But Tony Abbott is a w....r! Always has been, always will be.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Allowing the people to have their say was the right thing to do in my mind.

Yeah, but arguably he ignored it.

 

[Dalions]

Yeah, but arguably he ignored it.

Maybe he felt he was fighting a losing battle anyway. Which he should be used to.

 

[spotthedog1]

I don't know what the new thing with Abbott was, but I'd imagine that most people would have to agree that parliament rushed this through.

Now, regardless of my feelings about same sex marriage, I want to preface this that:
- I absolutely do not think that religion and government should overlap. Historically, that has resulted in terrible abuses of power, and generally isn't good for anyone.
- The plebiscite was voted yes (I've seen some right wingers try to argue that less than 50% of adults voted yes, so no outcome, which is a ridiculous argument given that turnout was easily large enough to represent the populace's view).
- Therefore, in a democratic nation like Australia, same sex marriage should become legal.

Both parties came out during the plebiscite and stated that any eventual bill would contain protections for freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Turnbull has got Ruddock running a review of this in the new year. But it's such a hot button topic at the moment that before they know what protections the bill should contain, they've gone ahead and legislated the bill. I understand that once the plebiscite was passed, it's their job to legislate, but surely it's a bit silly to legislate something before you know what should be in the bill...

It was interesting seeing what happened in the chamber yesterday. Members moved amendments, but rather than consider them, there was a huge time-crunch where Turnbull, Labor and the Greens didn't want it to go back to the senate, and so smacked them all down without consideration. Labor even refused to allow its members a conscience vote, which I found interesting.

It was a bit hilarious actually. The house usually antagonise the senate a bit, and view their role as the primary, and the senate's as the secondary... But yesterday, we heard so many times that there shouldn't be any amendments, because they didn't want to inconvenience the senate. It was rather backwards actually. Kinda funny.