The New Yorker: Prop. 8 a last stand

[SeattleUte]

You are trying to make this about me but it isn't working. You have conceded that you are a racist and that bothers you -- that has nothing to do with religion or apostasy.

You apparently don't know the meaning of racism, like a poster here who once called racism an opinion that the symphony is a more important asset to a community than than the NBA (talk about irony; what could be more racist than to assume that all blacks are more suited to watch NBA games than the symphony).

Your ignorance of the meaning of racism cheapens the word. What it means is "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race." Webster's. Nobody here has taken such a position. But what I have said, and what is indubitably true, is that the blacks who voted 70% for Prop. 8 in the aggregate have had less educational opportunities than whites the majority of whom voted for it. That is an empirical fact. It is not racism. It is the very predicate for affirmative action.

You are simply perpetuating the lies that defeated Prop. 8. I will say this, and others who are devout Mormons here have agreed with me on this point--Mormons do not value truth for the sake of truth as a paramount value. The campaign agaisnt Prop. 8 is a further demonstration of that, and as is your name calling here, and failure to address the merits of this discussion such as the Prop. 8 campaign and why people supported it.

[tooblue]

Facts:

1. Minorities are disproportionately likely to have lower levels of education.

2. Lower levels of education are correlated with lower levels of tolerance towards homosexuality.

3. Lower levels of education are correlated with making political decisions after spending less time reading fewer materials on the political topic at hand.

So is it bigoted to say minorities are more likely to make less informed political decisions based to a greater extent on general anti-gay sentiments?

Yes, it is -- especially if you are white. Why, because your entire premise is based upon standards of knowledge and understanding established by one cultural and finacially dominant race.

Visible minorities did not have a voice in establishing those standards.

[The Rambam]

Yes, it is -- especially if you are white. Why, because your entire premise is based upon standards of knowledge and understanding established by one cultural and finacially dominant race.

Visible minorities did not have a voice in establishing those standards.

I honestly don't understand this. What do you mean by "standards of knowledge and understanding established by one cultural and financially dominate race".

And I don't understand why the race or shoe size or ice cream flavor preference of the speaker is relevant to the factual questions.

Aren't my three factual assertions independently verifiable as facts? And if so, the last statement would be simply descriptive of the factual situation.

I don't get it.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You know, there's a wonderfulness to those of your posts I have read, and that's what leaves me torn over how to respond. On the one hand, they make me glad this board, unlike CougarGuard, actually has an "ignore" list, so I can just turn off the noise when I want to. On the other hand, it is fascinating to read your stuff, in kind of a sick way. It's like the way we all want to look at an accident when we pass one on the freeway.

I'll let you know which "hand" prevails.

There was a fully-functioning ignore feature on CG. I hope you don't use it here because I have enjoyed your viewpoints. Your reaction here is quite surprising to me.

[tooblue]

You apparently don't know the meaning of racism, like a poster here who once called racism an opinion that the symphony is a more important asset to a community than than the NBA (talk about irony; what could be more racist than to assume that all blacks are more suited to watch NBA games than the symphony).

Your ignorance of the meaning of racism cheapens the word. What it means is "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race." Webster's. Nobody here has taken such a position. But what I have said, and what is indubitably true, is that the blacks who voted 70% for Prop. 8 in the aggregate have had less educational opportunities than whites the majority of whom voted for it. That is an empirical fact. It is not racism. It is the very predicate for affirmative action.

You are simply perpetuating the lies that defeated Prop. 8. I will say this, and others who are devout Mormons here have agreed with me on this point--Mormons do not value truth for the sake of truth as a paramount value. The campaign agaisnt Prop. 8 is a further demonstration of that, and as is your name calling here, and failure to address the merits of this discussion.

So, now I'm not smart enough to understand the meaning of racism? I haven't perpetuated any lies, nor have I spoken of religion. The very fact that you and the author of the article insinuate or flat out state that visible minorities are not intelligent enough to make informed decisions presumes superiority ... councilor, you have been soundly beaten. Apologize for your racism and bigotry and move on!

[tooblue]

I honestly don't understand this. What do you mean by "standards of knowledge and understanding established by one cultural and financially dominate race".

And I don't understand why the race or shoe size or ice cream flavor preference of the speaker is relevant to the factual questions.

Aren't my three factual assertions independently verifiable as facts? And if so, the last statement would be simply descriptive of the factual situation.

I don't get it.

Are you foolish enough to suggest that one must be university educated in order to be considered intelligent?

What you consider factual is only factual in that you are white and that whites established the standards of knowledge and understanding that might determine whether or not someone is intelligent enough to make an informed decision.

[tooblue]

Are you foolish enough to suggest that one must be university educated in order to be considered intelligent?

What you consider factual is only factual in that you are white and that whites established the standards of knowledge and understanding that might determine whether or not someone is intelligent enough to make an informed decision.

What is so hard to understand ... you are forcing your standards of knowledge and understanding upon specific persons. That presumes superiority -- a key component of racism.

[SeattleUte]

Facts:

1. Minorities are disproportionately likely to have lower levels of education.

2. Lower levels of education are correlated with lower levels of tolerance towards homosexuality.

3. Lower levels of education are correlated with making political decisions after spending less time reading fewer materials on the political topic at hand.

So is it bigoted to say minorities are more likely to make less informed political decisions based to a greater extent on general anti-gay sentiments?

Demonstrably, no.

[tooblue]

Demonstrably, no.

Demonstrably, yes. The above facts as rambam states them are tenets of individuals who presume superiority.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I agree with you completely. But it's one thing to type this stuff on an anonymous message board and another thing entirely to say any of this stuff to local or general Church leaders in person.

You talk tough, but I'm sure you tone it down in a major way when you're on the record. I know a few Bishops who would let you get away with saying everything you type on this board, but I think I know more who would want to kick you out of the fold despite your underlying loyalty to the Church.

I fail to see what your point is here. Of course we talk more open and more freely when we are on an internet message board. That's exactly what makes it interesting.

Being careful about one's comments in a public church setting is simply discretion and good judgment. Personally, I have been very careful in what I say regarding prop 8 during gospel doctrine and priesthood. But if anyone asks me how I feel in private I give them a complete and honest answer.

[SeattleUte]

Yes, it is -- especially if you are white. Why, because your entire premise is based upon standards of knowledge and understanding established by one cultural and finacially dominant race.

Visible minorities did not have a voice in establishing those standards.

Tooblue, you lost with this nonsense. Nobody here believes this. Nobody with a life except apparently you believes it.

[The Rambam]

What is so hard to understand ... you are forcing your standards of knowledge and understanding upon specific persons. That presumes superiority -- a key component of racism.

I talked about levels of education and correlations with negative feelings towards gays and a tendency to make decisions with less information gathering.

I also mentioned the fact that minorities are less likely to persue higher levels of education. I did not attempt to say why such was the case.

I did not talk about "standards of knowledge and understanding upon specific persons."

10th grade dropout is more likely to be intolerant of gays than Stanford PhD.
10th grade dropout is less likely to watch Meet The Press and 60 Minutes than Stanford PhD.
Black man is more likely to be an 10th grad dropout than a white man.

Therefore, Black man is more likely than white man to be intolerant of gays and have less relevant information when voting than white man.

My factual premises might be totally wrong and I am open to be educated on those points. But I really don't think it is racist to say the "therefore" statement given the facts.

[CardiacCoug]

I fail to see what your point is here. Of course we talk more open and more freely when we are on an internet message board. That's exactly what makes it interesting.

Being careful about one's comments in a public church setting is simply discretion and good judgment. Personally, I have been very careful in what I say regarding prop 8 during gospel doctrine and priesthood. But if anyone asks me how I feel in private I give them a complete and honest answer.

I didn't really have a point other than my curiosity about how freely he shares his opinions in person and while teaching his Sunday School class, etc.

Isn't it kind of a shame that we have to exercise "discretion and good judgment" while we're at Church, though? The attitude that all Church members have to (at least publicly) agree on everything really sucks.

[creekster]

Isn't it kind of a shame that we have to exercise "discretion and good judgment" while we're at Church, though? The attitude that all Church members have to (at least publicly) agree on everything really sucks.

No, it is not a shame. I think we should also exercise discretion and good judgment on this board. I don't agree with everything I hear in church, and I make those disagreements know when necessary or useful, but I try to use appropriate language and appropriate tone and I do go out of my way to avoid offense, as opposed to using offense as my stock in trade, for fun, or for anonymous jollies. I wish we would do that here as well.

That is just my personal view.

[CardiacCoug]

No, it is not a shame. I think we should also exercise discretion and good judgment on this board. I don't agree with everything I hear in church, and I make those disagreements know when necessary or useful, but I try to use appropriate language and appropriate tone and I do go out of my way to avoid offense, as opposed to using offense as my stock in trade, for fun, or for anonymous jollies. I wish we would do that here as well.

That is just my personal view.

I think once you offend and attack somebody, it becomes much more difficult to persuade him to your point of view as well, so it's not a very effective form of communication either.

You can make basically the same points in either a respectful or offensive manner. I think it's a shame that people in the Church don't feel more free to respectfully share their divergent opinions. I don't advocate calling leaders of the Church "idiots" in Sunday School, but I wouldn't do it on a message board either. And I find it interesting (and mildly hypocritical) for a person's message board language and tone to differ too much from the way he would speak to others in person. We probably agree on that.