The Virginia Society for the Preservation and Appreciation of High-Quality Posts

[Atlas Force]

My rating of Atlas Avatar Colours

1) orange - mark of an exciting user with Good Opinions
2) dark green - very strong loyalty to something that was killed off by Jill Stein and the birth of the maroon Avatar
3) maroon - tryhard SocDem, I disagree with this avatar being created
4) red/blue - snooooooze
5) light green - boring version of orange
6) yellow - good number of yellow avatars make very intriguing posts, in the same vein as surreal artists who only paint what they claim to see in alternate universes
7) grey - handy way to find out quickly whether you should ignore a poster before reading
63738) no avatar - very suspicious, potentially dangerous individual; should be banned asap (some I assume are good people)

[Atlas Force]

Even if we ignore the minor little fact that he's basically outright admitted to being a troll, determining the difference between a pessimist and a concern troll isn't hard. The thing with LimoLiberal, hofoid, etc. is they are intellectually dishonest in how they make their cases.

Pessimistic: "Oh wow this poll shows D candidate only up by two points. This could be tightening, if things improve a bit it wouldn't shock me if R candidate could actually pull this off."
Concern troll: "Only up by two points! And then consider the enthusiasm gap, and *cherry picked detail from ridiculously MoEed crosstabs* and *discredited pseudoscientific theory about polling*, you can see this poll really shows R candidate up by 4."

LimoLiberal famously once tried to argue that a poll showing the Democratic advantage on the generic ballot INCREASING by two points was a "collapse" and just look at how him and hofoid interact in every thread on Wisconsin. It's the same type of J. J.-style nonsense that brainless blue avatars pull, poll unskewing, cherry picked data, citing junk polls and crosstabs, etc. It's also the type of insane theories they bring up, I remember hofoid once arguing that the Michigan marijuana legalization referendum would actually hurt the Democrats because "something something neckbeards" just to give an example.

But anyway, I present to you some recent posts which might throw the theory that LimoLiberal is just a normal guy with a pessimistic streak who wants to contribute into doubt:

For the record, I am annoyed that I have to start maintaining this quarantine again.

Well, if you guys want to do yourselves (and the rest of us) a favor, there's always plan B(an).

Yeah, it’s gotten ridiculous. Where are the mods?

Ive been patient. Krazen is the only other poster I’ve ever suggested we ban, but enough is enough. My patience with LL is at an end. Its time for mods not named Virginia or Torie to have some backbone and bring the hammer down on this little spamming sh!t who has spent the last *year* stinking the joint up.

x KingSweden

this.

x LimoLiberal

[Atlas Force]

This is pretty much exactly the type of response you can expect when formal avenues of resolution have been shut off by a higher authority. The people and institution hosting the statue and shouldering its costs haven’t wanted it for a long time but can’t relocate it due to laws preventing it from being moved or otherwise altered. Civil disobedience became the only means of reaching their preferred outcome.

This whole situation is exemplary of how important narrative crafting is in how we morally frame the world around us. That doesn’t just refer to the Lost Casue myth either, but also how we view acts of civil disobedience. The civil rights movement of the 60s required wholesale disobedience towards a regime of oppressive racial laws, and reactionary Whites in the South as well as nationwide looked on in disgust at these supposed lawless thugs. Now we enshrine their civil disobedience in our national mythos, much as we have the Boston Tea Party, or the colonists who tore down the statue of King George III in New York the day the Declaration of Independence was first announced publicly within the city.

Is what the students did with this statue vandalism? Yes. Is it illegal? Yes. It’s also true though that those most outraged are outsiders. Not the students who had to deal with it every day, they decided to tear it down, nor the institution who was hosting it, most of the faculty are likely quietly relieved it’s gone. As the issue of Confederate monuments has becone an increasingly polarizing subject, this increasingly describes the dynamic at play nationwide. People outside the jurisdictions hosting and paying for the monuments in question are demanding reactionary legislatures to take an increasingly hard tack on the matter. Notice the calls by some already in this thread to rebuild the statue on the same grounds and post armed guards.

If there is any truth to the idea of there being significant overlap between those who support Confederate monuments and those who claim to support local control, recognize that the vast majority of these monuments would be relocated off public grounds, placed in indefinite storage, or scrapped if the actual local bodies responsible for the management of these statues were legally allowed to have their say. If such a reality bothers you that much, the proper response would be to offer to buy it off the hands of the municipalities. Start a non-profit, contribute to an existing one or whatever suits your needs to pool the necessary resources. The worst response is contiung to expect others who would wish otherwise to promote your preferred narrative at their own expense.

The latter has been the response of the state legislatures with the exception of Maryland who decided they didn’t care. The rest became even more restrictive in the ability of the localities to dictate what happens to Confederate monuments. Those most supportive of the statues, mostly located outside the municipalities in question, have reacted with such heated fury even to the times that cities have managed to legally remove the statues that the reaction it generated from them was virtually identical to the reactions to actual vandalism and defacement.

If these are the types of reactions we can continue to expect from draconian state legislatures and the pro-Confederate monuments crowd, expect a lot more vandalism, defacement, and outright destruction of the monuments from those being forced to host them. Civil disobedience will be their only tool left.

[IceSpear]

No, it is not.

By the 2020 Census, if it's recorded and reported accurately, the results will show an American demographic landscape wherein Non-Hispanic Whites will constitute 60% of the population (give or take). That share is declining every year and will continue to do so. That also does not take into consideration the percentage of Americans who are North African, Middle Eastern, or Central Asian who're compelled to identify as White for the Census. 40% of Americans will be of some identity other than Non-Hispanic White. Yet, over 70% of the vote is still cast by Non-Hispanic White Americans, well over 60% of Senators and Congresspersons are Non-Hispanic Whites, and the rest of America's elected officials are overwhelmingly Non-Hispanic White (and we cannot forget to mention that they're disproportionately male as well).

Because of America's complex history, particularly regarding racial issues, the issue of race will be unavoidable. There are numerous socioeconomic problems facing American minority groups - primarily due to structural problems in American society that have been constructed over time to deliberately establish White dominance and minority subordination. Although we have made tremendous strides, there are still countless problems that need to be addressed in order to help raise minorities to similar living standards of Whites (and, ideally, raise the living standards of all races). The narrow focus of this OP, which downplays the "working class" identity of African Americans, Hispanic/Latinos, Asian Americans, and others, in favor of the image of working class Whites, is not applicable in a fair, just, and equitable society. The focus of the Democratic Party, despite its flaws, is on ensuring as many Americans as possible, from all backgrounds, can enjoy a middle class life.

To attain that, America must wrestle with its demons. That means confronting structural racism, the lingering effects of slavery, the consequences of imperialistic ambitions, and the bigotry and racism that permeates much of White American culture (it's important to note that bigotry, stereotypes, and discrimination are also prevalent in minority communities as well, aimed at both other minorities and at Whites). Most White Americans simply are not ready or not willing to recognize or confront these issues; mentions of it often provoke negative reactions, hostility, tribalism, xenophobia, and racism. Rarely has any privileged group ever willingly relinquished or sought to share its power (wealth, influence, status) with other groups - and most White Americans are no different. However, that is a cornerstone of the Democratic Party's project: to deconstruct America's system of White privilege, transfer power and wealth more equitably and, as a consequence, help to build a multicultural American middle class.

There is simply no way to confront economic matters in America without taking into consideration the historical and racial components. African American families do not have far lower wealth than White families due to coincidence or their willingness to work; it is due to a multitude of factors, such as slavery, segregation, mass incarceration due to the "War on Drugs," underfunded public schools, bias in hiring, being denied access to benefits from WWII and the Korean War (which helped launch White relocation to the suburbs, acquire home ownership, and access to colleges/universities), and countless other systemic and structural injustices. In order to help African Americans rise from their disproportionate rates of poverty, those issues must be resolved - and those are inherently racial issues. Hispanic/Latinos face numerous similar challenges, but other unique ones as well, such as living in an English language dominant society, negative interactions with immigration agencies, xenophobia, and so on. Again, those are inherently racial issues that must be confronted in order for Hispanic/Latinos to achieve similar wealth and status in American society.

Try as you will, but you cannot separate class from race or race from class. Economics and racial identity are intertwined; they must be confronted simultaneously to help all Americans achieve a respectable standard of living. And, the amazing thing about it is that, this does not have to come at the expense of White Americans achieving or retaining a middle class life either. White Americans who want to wage a war against other struggling Americans over the crumbs thrown to us by those living off our backs (pillaging our pockets with high rents, shorting our paychecks so they can retain their astronomical profits, placing our financial security in jeopardy to ensure they can have 7 yachts) are doing nothing but playing themselves. Everyone wins when everyone wins. The Mexican immigrant isn't your enemy, he isn't taking anything from you, he didn't force your boss to hire him at a lower wage; if wages drop because of immigration, it's simply because employers chose to terminate, demote, or underpay Americans (and the immigrant) so that they can maximize their profits at your expense. That is one thing that all Americans, regardless of race, need to realize and focus on: the enemies aren't your neighbors, they're your landlord, your CEO, and your corrupt politicians.

[Dr. MB]

LGBT person here.

Marriage has been a civil, rather than a strictly religious, construct for a long time now. Nowadays, you can get married in an entirely non-religious ceremony at your local courthouse. Religious people do not and should not have a monopoly on marriage. If they don't want to get involved in same-sex marriages, then fine. However, that doesn't mean that their objections should have any effect on whether or not the state, a secular entity, chooses to perform same-sex marriages or not.

Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. If you support a racist or homophobic view, then yes, you deserve to be called racist or homophobic. And yes, opposing gay marriage is homophobic. Restricting the civil rights of one group (in this case, gay individuals) while not restricting the civil rights of a comparable group is absolutely discriminatory.

We should call those who beat up gay people violently and dangerously homophobic, but that doesn't excuse other homophobic behavior, such as crusading against gay marriage. Disagreement is absolutely the same as discrimination when that disagreement is over people's basic civil rights. Obviously there are degrees of severity involved here, but it's 2018. We need to stop beating around the bush and take a hardline stance against any discriminatory beliefs. If that means Trump wins because bigots get their feelings hurt, so be it. Progress will win in the end.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

This Sunday, August 26, the consulta popular anticorrupción (anti-corruption popular consultation/referendum) will be held in Colombia. It consists of seven separate questions.

Boring but important legal background: A 'consulta popular' (popular consultation) is one of the mechanisms of civic participation established by law (Law 1757 of 2015 and Law 130 of 1994T), legally distinct from a referendum or plebiscite. A 'consulta popular' may be held at any level of government (national, departmental, municipal etc.), and it is defined as "a general question on a matter of national, departmental, municipal, district or local importance", which may require legal changes if adopted. A national 'consulta popular' may be held at the initiative of either the president or at least 5% of registered voters (currently equivalent to over 1.8 million voters), subject to approval by the Senate. In contrast, a plebiscite may only be called by the president on a given public policy decision of the executive branch, subject to approval by both houses of Congress. A referendum may be held at any level, at the initiative of the government, local authorities or a given number of citizens to approve or reject any bill or to repeal an existing law or constitutional reform, again subject to approval by Congress (in the form of a law).

Once a 'consulta popular' of popular initiative has gone through all the steps -- verification of signatures submitted by the Registraduría, approval of the promoting committee's financial statements by the CNE, certification issued by the Registraduría and a go-ahead from the Senate -- the President sets the date for the consulta popular by decree. To be adopted, besides an absolute majority of valid votes answering in the affirmative, there is a turnout quorum of at least one-third of voters. The turnout quorums for plebiscites and referendums are different (higher and lower, respectively). The adoption of a decision in a consulta popular is legally binding, and Congress is obligated to adopt the necessary laws needed to make it effective. Congress has one year to do so, if it fails to act within that period, the President adopts the required legal changes by decree.

As you've probably guessed, jumping through all the hoops and hurdles and making it to the finish line is lengthy and difficult for any form of civic participation in Colombia. Indeed, most of them never make it to the end. In fact, this anti-corruption popular consultation is the first national consulta popular to be held (the mechanism was instituted by law in 1994) -- and only the third (legally-recognized) national refernedum/plebiscite/consulta to be held since the adoption of the 1991 Constitution, after the 2003 referendum and 2016 plebiscite.

Since I'm probably the only one who has Strong Opinions on Colombian legal terminology, the terms consulta popular and referendum can probably be used interchangeably.

The story of this consulta popular: Colombia is corrupt, and its politics are particularly dirty. In 2017, it ranked 96th out of 180 in Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index -- more corrupt than Uruguay, Chile, Argentina, Costa Rica, Cuba, Guyana, Suriname (what the f?) [as well as the entire EU-28, US/Canada, India and China], tied with Brazil, Panama and Peru but less corrupt than Mexico, the rest of Central America, Ecuador, Bolivia, Paraguay and Venezuela.

Corruption has always been around in Colombian politics, but in the past few years, thanks to many major corruption scandals and growing popular discontent with the political system, corruption has become a major political issue and cause for indignation among the mass public. Although the constitution and laws now provide more and more safeguards against corruption, notably with new and improved requirements for transparency or punishments for corrupt/criminal parties and politicians, many still feel that the current laws are too weak, lax or easily abused and that there needs to be new, much tougher rules to limit corruption and the perceived causes of corruption in public life.

In January 2017, then senator Claudia López (Green) registered a committee to collect signatures to hold an anti-corruption referendum, supported by her partner and then representative Angélica Lozano (Green) and other members of the Green Alliance, including Antonio Navarro, Antonio Sanguino and Ángela María Robledo. In July, they submitted 4,236,681 signatures to the Registraduría, of which 3,092,138 were ruled valid in September -- far and above the 1,762,083 signatures it required. The '4 million signatures' were a major political success for Claudia López and her team, and the consulta popular anticorrupción has become her 'baby' and main political cause; while it wasn't enough to ensure her a presidential candidacy this year, it certainly served as a basis for the very successful senatorial candidacy of her partner (and 'successor' in the Senate), Angélica Lozano.

After that, however, the CNE, because of its usual incompetence, lethargy and political makeup, took its sweet time to revise and approve the financial statements of the committee, which is an obligatory legal step before the Registraduría may certify the signatures. The financial statements were given to the CNE in August 2017, and only in late January 2018, after López and her friends began complaining, did it finally approve the financial statements. This allowed the Registraduría to certify the signatures, allowing the matter to be sent to the Senate. In April 2018, the Senate, following an agreement between Claudia López and the uribistas (senator Paloma Valencia), agreed to postpone consideration of the issue until June so as to not coincide with the first round (in exchange, uribistas agreed to support it). On June 5, 2018, the Senate voted 84-0 to approve the consulta popular. Because it was election time and no politician wanted to be seen voting against 'anti-corruption', even if they don't like it. Even the crooks, criminals, heirs and thieves who aren't generally associated with 'anti-corruption' supported it! The list of those who voted in favour included all four Opción Ciudadana senators (lol), Conservatives like Hernán Andrade, Juan Manuel Corzo, Olga Suárez, Nadia Blel, Yamina Pestana and Samy Merheg, Liberals like Arleth Casado and Mario Fernández, CR folks like Antonio Guerra, Daira Galvis, Bernabé Celis, Arturo Char, Partido de la U people like Eduardo Pulgar, Andrés García, José Name, Mauricio Lizcano and of course the near-entirety of the CD bench (led by Álvaro "mientras no estén en la cárcel" Uribe).
On June 18, President Santos decreed that it would be held on August 26.

The questions: There are seven questions, each to be voted on separately (no option for a straight-ticket yes/no).

Q1: Reduce congressmen and senior public officials' salaries from 40x the monthly minimum wages (currently US$10,510) to 25x the monthly minimum wage (US$6,569). A maximum salary of 25x the monthly minimum wage would be set for senior public officials listed in article 197 of the Constitution -- according to the MOE, 1,803 public servants would see their salaries cut, including ministers, comptroller, inspector general, ombudsman, magistrates of the three highest courts, AG, governors etc.

Colombia is one of the most unequal countries on the planet, but its congressmen earn a fortune (and cost a lot of money). Colombian congressmen rank fourth among their Latin American counterparts in terms of their salaries: Mexican, Chilean and Brazilian congressmen earn even more.

Q2: Full jail terms for everyone convicted of corruption or crimes against the public administration (no possibility for house arrest or other special forms of incarceration), banning them from ever entering into contracts with the state and allowing the state to unilaterally terminate contracts with them without compensation.

Currently, officeholders can serve their jail sentences in special reclusion centres. In addition, even if a contractor is convicted of corruption, he may cede his contract to another contractor and, if the contract is liquidated, the state has to pay a compensation.

Q3:Standardized, uniform bid/tender specifications for all contracts with public entities.

This would impose the use of standardized, uniform bid/tender specifications for all contracts with any public entities, at any level of government. The idea is to reduce the manipulation of contracts, rigged tenders, tailor-made tenders, 'handpicked' bids (bids with only one/abnormally low number of offers).

Q4: Mandatory public consultations in budgetary processes (participatory budgeting), deciding the breakdown and prioritization of investment funds at the national, departmental and municipal level, as well as accountability in their actual use.

Currently, the breakdown and prioritization of public investment budgets are unknown, which allows for the funds to be negotiated and split up in secret meetings and backroom deals with the executive, congressmen and their local allies -- which gave rise to the infamous 'marmalade' under Santos.

Q5: Mandatory, public annual accountability for congressmen and all other members of elected collegial bodies (assemblies, councils etc) on their attendance records, votes, lobbying, private interests managed, public investments managed and public offices for which they have nominated candidates.

Currently, congressmen are under no obligations to publicly report on their work and activities. Only their attendance and votes are made public, although that information is difficult to find online on official websites.

Q6: Tax returns, income, assets, conflicts of interest for all elected officials to be made public, as a condition to assume and hold the office. Possibility to begin criminal proceedings and seizure of assets for elected officials and their potential network of strawmen.

Currently, congressmen must declare their assets and income, but this information is not published.

Q7. Three term limit for Senate, House, assemblies, municipal councils and neighbourhood boards (JALs).

There are no term limits for congressmen or elected members of other collegial bodies. Senator Roberto Gerlein (Conservative), who retired in 2018, served 44 years in the Senate (and 5 years in the House before that).

The campaign: This is the fourth time in six months (since March) that Colombians are being called to the polls, so there is bound to be voter fatigue, particularly in a low-turnout country like Colombia. This means that the real challenge will not be getting yes votes on all questions, but rather to get a third of voters to show up -- that is to say, at least 12,075,756 votes. As things stand, I don't think that it will reach that turnout quorum. The referendum's proponent have set an ambitious target of 15 million votes.

Turnout was high in the 2018 presidential election, 19.6 million voters in the first round, but it was the highest turnout in a national-level election since 1998, so it isn't a turnout level which, for now, we can expect to see replicated in any vote. For comparison, in the 2016 plebiscite, turnout was only 13.06 million (37%); in the 2003 referendum, despite Uribe's active support and promotion, turnout was just below 25% for all but one of the questions (less than 6.3 million).

In the Senate, every party voted in favour of holding the consulta popular, although some did so claiming that they disagreed with its contents but that it should be put to a vote, while others said that they had their doubts but that doing something was better than doing nothing. Since then, several columnists and politicians have come forward to criticize the consulta popular on several grounds: claiming that several questions are unconstitutional, that it is useless in the fight against corruption, that most measures already exist, the high costs of organizing it etc. But these columnists or politicians are mostly speaking to the small circles of the país político, since the average voter doesn't care about constitutionality issues or even about costs.

Although the anti-corruption referendum has been in the news for months, by the time the campaign began - right after the presidential runoff - everybody, including the journalists, were tired and relatively little attention has been given to it or the campaign in the media. Even if every party voted in favour of holding it, and the CD indicated that it would actively campaign in favour, none of the traditional parties have actively campaigned for it, although some of their members and individual politicians have been campaigning in favour. Obviously, none of the traditional corrupt/clientelist machines will be mobilizing their networks on Sunday, although the recent presidential election showed that these machines don't necessarily drive turnout as much as they one did. Without many politicians actively campaigning, little enthusiasm from the parties and with little money or other resources for the yes campaign, the campaign for the referendum is primarily a grassroots one driven by individual citizens (primarily young people, students), small networks, unions, volunteers, social media and civil society. Without much attention from the media or politicians, they're betting on grassroots campaigning in the streets, on social media and in public forums being held. While this sort of grassroots campaign worked for Petro in the presidential election, it won't necessarily work this time -- and even if it did, Petro's grassroots 'multicolour campaign' only got 8 million votes in June 2018, so it wouldn't even be enough if they all showed up.

The most visible and active grassroots campaigns in favour have been led by the Greens (Claudia López, Angélica Lozano, Antanas Mockus, Antonio Navarro), the Polo (Jorge Robledo) and Petro's Colombia Humana/Decents -- that is to say, the alternative (opposition) parties, largely on the left of the political spectrum. Some mayors have been actively campaigning in favour of the referendum, like the atypical maverick Rodolfo Hernández in Bucaramanga or Rodrigo Lara Sánchez in Neiva (Huila). In comparison, the 2016 plebiscite was publicly supported by all parties in the governing coalition, the government/presidency, most of the mainstream media and many civil society organizations, and it was on an historic and transcendental topic which had dominated the news for years -- and even then, it only got 13 million voters out, and only 6.3 million in favour.

The CD kind of committed itself to campaigning in favour of the referendum when it was approved in the Senate, and doing so would show that their incessant complaining about Santos' 'corruption' for four years was genuine and not political bullsh**t... but since President Iván Duque was inaugurated, most uribistas have changed their mind and began criticizing the referendum. Iván Duque's new government has presented a package of anti-corruption and political reforms to Congress, three of which correspond to questions in the referendum (Q3, Q6, Q7). While Duque and his new administration have reiterated that they support the referendum and insist that their proposed reforms only complement the referendum, the active proponents of the referendum have said that presenting proposals which take up three of the referendum's question risks dampening public enthusiasm and cutting the ground from under their feet. On the other hand, the leader of the CD, Álvaro Uribe, publicly said that he would not vote in the referendum, arguing that he felt it was more appropriate to support Duque's proposed reforms through Congress than with the referendum. Given the quasi divine worship of Eternal President Uribe in the CD, he likely speaks for the vast majority of the party. Ernesto Macías, the CD President of Congress and high school graduate, has said that he would vote 'no' to the first question (i.e. he doesn't want a pay cut).

It is said that the uribista bases are unenthusiastic if not opposed to the referendum. In the typical nihilism and cynicism of the Colombian right, the referendum is bad because it is supported by people who dislike them (ing babies) or that the referendum is bad because it is only being used to boost the political ambitions of its leaders (Claudia López's likely candidacy for mayor of Bogotá in 2019) or is all part of the castrochavista plot to impose communism because the mamertos (leftists) are behind it.

I also suspect that the uribista idiots on social media and their fake news machines are behind the lies and fake news being spread about the referendum: that it would lower the salaries for every single civil servant, that it would lower policemen's pensions and salaries, that it will lower the minimum wage etc. etc.

To mobilize (young) voters to turn out on Sunday, Semana columnist and YouTuber Daniel Samper (the nephew of former President Ernesto Samper, ironically) has released a hit viral 'reggaeton of corruption' starring (all dressed up) Claudia López (Greens), Angélica Lozano (Greens), Antonio Navarro (Greens), Jorge Robledo (Polo) and Luis Fernando Velasco (Liberal). It has over 1.5 million views in just 2 days.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nacvZmMwZuo

My bets: I would be pleasantly surprised if the referendum passed the turnout quorum of 12 million votes.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't really care what Trevor Noah says about anything, though, given what the report says it's not really seemly to complain about. (Incidentally, this from the onion does what Noah is aiming for far better than him) What happened in Pennsylvania is appalling but not shocking, that it's not shocking is itself appalling.

The sex abuse scandals have, understandably, generated an enormous number and variety of responses. Save for Bill Donahue of the grandly titled Catholic League, no one has attempted any form of denial or minimisation. This is good, I guess, though as with so many complex tragedies, there is something rather unedifying about the glee with which certain conservatives have used it to attack gay priests, atheists use it to attack religion, liberals use it to attack the bishops. There is always an agenda. This is not of necessity a bad thing, an agenda is the only way to fix this, and in fact I agree with the liberals and honestly sympathise with the atheists, but it does lend an unedifying taste to the discourse.

Why, then? It is easier to rule out reasons than to come up with convincing ones. We know the crisis peaked in australia in the 50s, before the sexual revolution. We know that gay priests are not any more likely to molest than straight ones (though boys are far more likely to be the victims, probably because priests are far more likely to have access to them). We know that since 2002 there's been almost no molestation by catholic priests, so the unnaturalness of celibacy can hardly be blamed.

We know that wherever there are children there are paedophiles, we know that the vast majority of institutions will cover it up. We've seen this sort of stuff happen in schools and hospitals, scout patrols and sports teams, care homes and choirs. But it does seem worse in the church.

Shua says that this may just be down to the church being more scrutinised, and this is possible. If you wanted to imagine the type of institutional paedophilia story that would cause a media storm then it's hard to think of a better fit than the Catholic Church. It is instantly recognisable around the world, rather than just some local school or choir. It's social influence is profound. And, where it turns out that it has been covering up for abusers, it, given how often it pontificates on morals in general and sex in particular, is flagrantly hypocritical.

But it is also true, that if you wanted to design an institution which would perpetuate and cover up for child abuse on an industrial scale, than you would have struggled to create a better fit than the Catholic Church of 40 or 50 years ago. You have the culture of clericalism that means that priests are borderline worshiped in their communities. You have a system of education for priests that takes them in seminarians at a very young age and teaches them that they are special. You have a bishop who controls the entire life of everyone who works under him, who can, if he chooses silence anyone who raises any doubts. You have an institution that is loved by millions and feared by most of the rest. You have access not just to altar boys but to schools and hospitals and clubs.

There has been a lot of justifiable anger from all sides to Bill Donahue and his take on this latest chapter in the scandal. So it's perhaps ironic that, on a factual basis, he's basically right. The vast majority of priests have no accusation against them and there is no longer an institutional problem of abuse of children (whether that's because of new guidelines or because no one trusts priests with their children is hard to say). But this of course, misses the point quite spectacularly.

The fact is the people who were in charge during the bad old days are still either in charge themselves (like Wuerl), or in a comfortable retirement. Moreover, the new blood who are not culpable for the sins of their predecessors, regarding shuffling clergy, are just as unwilling to hold investigations, to apologise from the heart and not from a PR firm, and compensate victims. Like so many other areas of public life now, there are almost no profiles in courage.

The scandal is not the same as that of 2002. It's no longer about the ongoing abuse of children, it's about the hierarchy being completely unwilling to be properly penitent, both personally and institutionally.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Absolutely not.

I honestly don't care about the legal status of same-sex marriage.  What bothers me is that it's been elevated to the level of the black civil rights movement.  As a history buff who spends much of my free time reading (and someone with a history degree) I can't fathom why anyone would make that comparison.  The treatment of African-Americans was even worse than what you hear about in history class.  This is also before taking into account the fact that the black civil rights movement (as well as its forerunner, the abolitionist movement) was highly religious.  I don't think any group of people in North America, with the possible exception of Native Americans, was as unjustly treated as African-Americans.  I'm not denying that bigotry against homosexuals exists, or that those who commit violence against LGBT people shouldn't be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.  I've called people out for hating homosexuals on right-wing forums.

Of course, comparing one's movement to the 1960s black civil rights struggle is good politics.  But what it means is that your opponents have to be the equivalent of the KKK.  This was actually a documented strategy:

http://zoompad.blogspot.com/2011/01/?m=1

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One problem with comparing gay marriage to interracial marriage is that it leaves no defense against polygamy, which is something that absolutely needs to remain illegal.  Obergefell v. Hodges was essentially an emotional decision.  It declared that the definition of marriage as one man and one woman was bigoted against people who are attracted to the same sex.  By the exact same logic the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act is discriminatory against men who are attracted to more than one woman.  Anti-miscegenation laws were struck down because they perpetuated white supremacy.  White people passed laws against interracial marriage because they hated black people and wanted to keep them away from white society.  Do men hate men?  Do women hate women?  Think about it, the comparison doesn't make sense.  If gay marriage had been legalized by the states on personal liberty rather than civil rights grounds, we wouldn't be having any of these issues.

As for the discussion of religion, Fuzzy Bear explained it well with this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Considering that this is a forum that is mostly about Democrats and Republicans, this is important.  The Republicans and Democrats have been around since 1854 and 1828 respectively.  And over the years the parties have changed positions on countless issues.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to pick and choose which parts of the party platforms you agree with, they are the results of fallible humans.  In contrast the Bible has stayed the same for nearly two thousand years.  It is divinely inspired.  This is something that Christians universally agreed upon until the modern era when it became unfashionable to continue doing so.

A plain reading of scripture suggests that homosexual relationships are wrong and that marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman.  People might argue over the meaning of the Greek, but the fact is that the early Christians (who understood Koine Greek better than we can) condemned same-sex relationships.  Some have argued that they were bringing their own cultural biases to the text, but this is complete nonsense.  Greco-Roman culture celebrated gay love and the early Christians rebelled against the dominant culture.  When Christians came to power they would ban same-sex marriages.  SSM was only able to make a comeback when the power of Christianity over society was weakened.  The Greek and Roman converts would have found Biblical support for continuing their lifestyle, if there was any support to be found.

I wish I could express myself this well.  This sums the whole issue up perfectly.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I don't know why I clicked this thread. I usually try to avoid homophobic content, considering I decided that it wasn't good for my mental state a while back. But this thread is something else. Posts like the ones that blue avatars have made in this thread always manage to strike me in a unique way. Making yourself sound nuanced and writing a bunch of paragraphs does not make you any less homophobic.

Growing up in a religious family (and still believing in God currently myself), I've been to a variety of churches in my life. In two of them I remember discussions about homosexuality. The first one was one of the "hate the sin, love the sinner" types. The sermon about homosexuality came at a time when I was old enough to have an inkling that maybe I was one of those people (or at that point more of a sinking feeling). I sat through all of it, but I zoned out because even that was troubling. Being exposed to certain mindsets can be very harmful. They are things that "grow on you like a cancer" (that is a good quote FB, but I think it's more apt here). Accepting yourself is difficult if outside influences keep telling you an unchangeable part of yourself is unnatural or an "affront to God" (I liked that statement by FB a lot less). Though, as I've said before, all this is a walk in the park compared to what friends of mine have experienced.

I really wish no LGBT youth was subjected to another hateful sermon at any point in the future, or that their parents don't repeat those talking points, whether they sound like the one I heard or worse. People who should be trusted have no business leading them to believing that they are morally bankrupt for something completely outside of their control. I can't do sh**t to stop it though, no matter how much I wish I could. I just hope that if Fuzzy and people like him have any children, then they're straight. I'd worry about them if it was any other way.

Then there's this idea of a gay agenda that exists, that we're trying to do something that scares homophobes (I didn't read the blog post celticempire linked, but it sounds like something along those lines). This is false. It's scaremongering to try to justify hate. "Look what THEY'RE trying to do and tell us we're the ones in the wrong!" Well, they aren't and you are wrong.

I'll admit that we wish everyone believed that homosexual attraction is equal to heterosexual attraction. Until that happens, there will still be countless LGBT youth who have mental health issues, cut off from their families, without any support because God wants it to be that way apparently. Please, stop acting sanctimonious that someone dared to compare one fight for equal rights to another historical fight for equal rights. Or that some gay people may harbor resentment towards people who are obviously deeply uncomfortable that they exist, no matter how they try to disguise it. It would be really helpful if some people accepted that they have certain beliefs which are just hateful and harmful and either changed it or shut up about it.

What a beautiful contrast to the hateful garbage above.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The main reason you are upset about the post above yours is that it reveals the tactics those on your side of the issue wish to employ.

[wesmoorenerd]

The main reason you are upset about the post above yours is that it reveals the tactics those on your side of the issue wish to employ.

It's almost like there are some issues where there is an ethically right side and an ethically wrong side.   Healthcare, taxes, free trade? No real ethical "right" side. Same-sex marriage and basic rights for gay people? There's an ethical right side, and brother, you're not on it.

[Sumner 1868]

Healthcare... No real ethical "right" side.

Vile.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The main reason you are upset about the post above yours is that it reveals the tactics those on your side of the issue wish to employ.

It's almost like there are some issues where there is an ethically right side and an ethically wrong side.   Healthcare, taxes, free trade? No real ethical "right" side. Same-sex marriage and basic rights for gay people? There's an ethical right side, and brother, you're not on it.

It's almost like there are some issues where there is a Biblically right side and an Biblically wrong side.   Healthcare, taxes, free trade? No real Biblical "right" side. Redefining the meaning of marriage to mean something it has never meant in not just centuries, not just decades, but MILLENIA? There's a Biblical right side, and brother, you're not on it.

[Fuzzy Bear]

It's almost like there are some issues where there is an ethically right side and an ethically wrong side.   Healthcare, taxes, free trade? No real ethical "right" side. Same-sex marriage and basic rights for gay people? There's an ethical right side, and brother, you're not on it.

It's almost like there are some issues where there is a Biblically right side and an Biblically wrong side.   Healthcare, taxes, free trade? No real Biblical "right" side. Redefining the meaning of marriage to mean something it has never meant in not just centuries, not just decades, but MILLENIA? There's a Biblical right side, and brother, you're not on it.

I understand the opposite point of view, but the above really does illustrate the nature of the divide.

[wesmoorenerd]

The main reason you are upset about the post above yours is that it reveals the tactics those on your side of the issue wish to employ.

It's almost like there are some issues where there is an ethically right side and an ethically wrong side.   Healthcare, taxes, free trade? No real ethical "right" side. Same-sex marriage and basic rights for gay people? There's an ethical right side, and brother, you're not on it.

It's almost like there are some issues where there is a Biblically right side and an Biblically wrong side.   Healthcare, taxes, free trade? No real Biblical "right" side. Redefining the meaning of marriage to mean something it has never meant in not just centuries, not just decades, but MILLENIA? There's a Biblical right side, and brother, you're not on it.

Our government has never been and should never be based on what is Biblically right and Biblically wrong.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The main reason you are upset about the post above yours is that it reveals the tactics those on your side of the issue wish to employ.

It's almost like there are some issues where there is an ethically right side and an ethically wrong side.   Healthcare, taxes, free trade? No real ethical "right" side. Same-sex marriage and basic rights for gay people? There's an ethical right side, and brother, you're not on it.

It's almost like there are some issues where there is a Biblically right side and an Biblically wrong side.   Healthcare, taxes, free trade? No real Biblical "right" side. Redefining the meaning of marriage to mean something it has never meant in not just centuries, not just decades, but MILLENIA? There's a Biblical right side, and brother, you're not on it.

Our government has never been and should never be based on what is Biblically right and Biblically wrong.

Both part of this statement are assertions.  Not facts.

When people assert this, I would ask them to ask just exactly what sort of right and wrong standards governmental policy and law should reflect, and just exactly why those particular standards should hold sway over others.

[DC Al Fine]

Some good old fashioned analysis of Swedish municipal politics from Marbury:

With the parliamentary elections not being the only elections were having in 13 days, I thought I'd post some municipal polls as well.

Starting off in my now former home, Novus has conducted a poll of the municipal election in Umeå, the largest city in northern Sweden.
Let's just say that the city didn't get the nickname "Red Umeå" for no reason. One might be tempted to see this as Jonas Sjöstedt-effect, given that Umeå is the home of the Left Party leader, but it's quite possible that it has more to do with local issues. From 2010 to 2014 the Social Democrats and Left held a majority on the council together, but in 2014 they went their separate ways and S formed a majority together with the Greens and the four Alliance parties. The Left has had a pretty benefitial position, being the biggest opposition party and was thus able to oppose unpopular policies like cuts to preschools and elderly care or the sale of 1600 municipal-owned flats (including student housing) to a Norwegian venture capitalist.

Also, given the new 3% threshold the three smallest parties would fail to get any seats according to this poll. Meaning that with the exit of the Worker's Party, Umeå won't have any trotskyists on its city council for the first time since 1998. 'Tis truly the end of an era.

Novus poll, Umeå municipal election
Social Democrats: 31.6% (-5.2)
Left: 18.8% (+5.7)
Moderate: 15.4% (-0.9)
Centre: 8.4% (+2.5)
Liberals: 7.5% (+1.4)
Sweden Democrats: 6.3% (+3.1)
Greens: 5.7% (-1.7)
Worker’s: 2.1% (-0.6)
Christian Democrats: 2.0% (-1.9)
Feminist Initiative: 1.2% (-2.7)

Meanwhile in my new home, Gothenburg, things are even weirder. Pretty much the entire political spectrum has been turned on its head by populist parties founded in opposition to the controversial railyway project Västlänken (the West Link) and the congestion charge implemented as part of an agreement in 2009 with the government to partially fund the West Link (and other parts of the West Swedish package, including new bridges and road tunnels), alongside money coming from the national budget.
The latest populist party, the Democrats, led and founded by former Moderate Martin Wannholt who was joined by a few Social Democrats and Greens who all had the common denominator of being held back from advancement in their own parties, currently looks like it's leading in the polls. However as the party didn't run in the 2014 election it has to both pay for ballots and be responsible for distributing them to the various polling places around the city, which could depress its numbers somewhat since it's likely they won't be able to get ballots to every polling station. Sure, people can write in the party if it's ballots aren't there, but there's a pretty good chance that some just wouldn't bother with that and just go for another party instead.

Sifo poll, Gothenburg municipal election
Democrats: 18.9% (new party)
Moderate: 16.7% (-5.6)
Left: 14.6% (+5.2)
Social Democrats: 14.2% (-8.2)
Sweden Democrats: 9.9% (+2.9)
Liberals: 6.8% (-1.3)
Greens: 5.6% (-5.1)
Centre: 4.2% (+2.0)
Feminist Initiative: 3.2% (-0.8 )
Vägvalet (Road Choice): 2.2% (-2.7)
Christian Democrats: 2.0% (-2.0)

Pro-West Link (Left, S+V+MP+FI): 37.6%
Pro-West Link (Right, M+L+C+KD): 29.7%
Anti-West Link (D+SD+VV): 31.0%

Also, since the last election Gothenburg has merged its four constituencies used for municipal elections into one city-wide constituency, meaning that the threshold is at 2% rather than 3, and VV and KD would therefore get in (if only barely) if these numbers were replicated on election day. A bare majority consisting of the Democrats, Moderates, Liberals, Centre, Road Choice and Christian Democrats would technically be possible under such circumstances. However considering that the Democrats raison d'etre is their opposition to the West Link, the question is how hell such a majority would solve the West Link issue when construction has already started and it's part of deal to get government funding for other important projects which are less controversial and desperately needed. So chaos it is, then.

Finally in Stockholm, things are looking somewhat more calm. The leftwing parties are going against historical trends by being stronger in Stockholm than the rest of the country (though not due to any strong performance from the Social Democrats), while if this result were to be replicated on election day the Moderates would get their worst municipal election result in 48 years in the nation's capital. Stockholm still has multiple constituencies, so the threshold is at 3%, but if the Feminist Initiative, Christian Democrats or both got slightly more on election day it could either mean a continued Red-Green-Pink majority or a slightly larger Alliance in a council with a Red-Green(-Pink) plurality.

Novus poll, Stockholm municipal election
Moderate: 22.1% (-5.1)
Social Democrats: 21.7% (-0.3)
Left: 13.1% (+4.2)
Greens: 11.1% (-3.2)
Liberals: 9.0% (+0.7)
Sweden Democrats: 8.3% (+3.1)
Centre: 7.3% (+2.6)
Feminist Initiative: 2.9% (-1.7)
Christian Democrats: 2.8% (-0.5)

I currently don't have any numbers for Malmö.

[wesmoorenerd]

The main reason you are upset about the post above yours is that it reveals the tactics those on your side of the issue wish to employ.

It's almost like there are some issues where there is an ethically right side and an ethically wrong side.   Healthcare, taxes, free trade? No real ethical "right" side. Same-sex marriage and basic rights for gay people? There's an ethical right side, and brother, you're not on it.

It's almost like there are some issues where there is a Biblically right side and an Biblically wrong side.   Healthcare, taxes, free trade? No real Biblical "right" side. Redefining the meaning of marriage to mean something it has never meant in not just centuries, not just decades, but MILLENIA? There's a Biblical right side, and brother, you're not on it.

Our government has never been and should never be based on what is Biblically right and Biblically wrong.

Both part of this statement are assertions.  Not facts.

When people assert this, I would ask them to ask just exactly what sort of right and wrong standards governmental policy and law should reflect, and just exactly why those particular standards should hold sway over others.

Well, it's a fact that our government isn't and was never intended to be based on Biblical ethical standards. That much is undeniable.

It's true that there are no consistent and concrete ethical standards our government should obey. However, there are indeed ethical standards that most people would consider reasonable. For example, virtually every American in 2018 will agree that the government should permit interracial marriage. There's no concrete, scientific ethical standard for this, but almost everyone will agree it's the ethical thing to do (and rightfully so). Protecting LGBT rights is quickly becoming one of those standards.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

My god, the amount of thoughtless praise of this overall awful person is getting so tiresome and disgusting. The man's entire life has largely been a series of him exploiting his situation and dodging the consequences, whether it's his habitual cheating on his ex-wife that he dumped for a wealthy heiress; appointing Palin, which helped launch the Tea Party and its thoughtless demagoguery; bloodthirsty warmonger who exploited his military history and media friendliness to advance causes that cost the lives of over a million innocent people; and crafting, along with the gleeful assistance of the media, this image of some maverick, while he voted nearly lockstep with the right-wing and treated the health care coverage of millions of Americans with such lack of seriousness that, preceding his vote, he ginned up media attention by telling them to "wait for the show."

I guess all that's perfectly cool because "muh maverick" and "muh war hero." Give me a break.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

My god, the amount of thoughtless praise of this overall awful person is getting so tiresome and disgusting. The man's entire life has largely been a series of him exploiting his situation and dodging the consequences, whether it's his habitual cheating on his ex-wife that he dumped for a wealthy heiress; appointing Palin, which helped launch the Tea Party and its thoughtless demagoguery; bloodthirsty warmonger who exploited his military history and media friendliness to advance causes that cost the lives of over a million innocent people; and crafting, along with the gleeful assistance of the media, this image of some maverick, while he voted nearly lockstep with the right-wing and treated the health care coverage of millions of Americans with such lack of seriousness that, preceding his vote, he ginned up media attention by telling them to "wait for the show."

I guess all that's perfectly cool because "muh maverick" and "muh war hero." Give me a break.

This isn't the hofoid house.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

My god, the amount of thoughtless praise of this overall awful person is getting so tiresome and disgusting. The man's entire life has largely been a series of him exploiting his situation and dodging the consequences, whether it's his habitual cheating on his ex-wife that he dumped for a wealthy heiress; appointing Palin, which helped launch the Tea Party and its thoughtless demagoguery; bloodthirsty warmonger who exploited his military history and media friendliness to advance causes that cost the lives of over a million innocent people; and crafting, along with the gleeful assistance of the media, this image of some maverick, while he voted nearly lockstep with the right-wing and treated the health care coverage of millions of Americans with such lack of seriousness that, preceding his vote, he ginned up media attention by telling them to "wait for the show."

I guess all that's perfectly cool because "muh maverick" and "muh war hero." Give me a break.

This isn't the hofoid house.

That's why I'm putting a good post in here.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

My god, the amount of thoughtless praise of this overall awful person is getting so tiresome and disgusting. The man's entire life has largely been a series of him exploiting his situation and dodging the consequences, whether it's his habitual cheating on his ex-wife that he dumped for a wealthy heiress; appointing Palin, which helped launch the Tea Party and its thoughtless demagoguery; bloodthirsty warmonger who exploited his military history and media friendliness to advance causes that cost the lives of over a million innocent people; and crafting, along with the gleeful assistance of the media, this image of some maverick, while he voted nearly lockstep with the right-wing and treated the health care coverage of millions of Americans with such lack of seriousness that, preceding his vote, he ginned up media attention by telling them to "wait for the show."

I guess all that's perfectly cool because "muh maverick" and "muh war hero." Give me a break.

This isn't the hofoid house.

That's why I'm putting a good post in here.

The slander of an honorable man and the fantasy that every action he did was evil and driven by malovolent intentions is a good past?

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

My god, the amount of thoughtless praise of this overall awful person is getting so tiresome and disgusting. The man's entire life has largely been a series of him exploiting his situation and dodging the consequences, whether it's his habitual cheating on his ex-wife that he dumped for a wealthy heiress; appointing Palin, which helped launch the Tea Party and its thoughtless demagoguery; bloodthirsty warmonger who exploited his military history and media friendliness to advance causes that cost the lives of over a million innocent people; and crafting, along with the gleeful assistance of the media, this image of some maverick, while he voted nearly lockstep with the right-wing and treated the health care coverage of millions of Americans with such lack of seriousness that, preceding his vote, he ginned up media attention by telling them to "wait for the show."

I guess all that's perfectly cool because "muh maverick" and "muh war hero." Give me a break.

This isn't the hofoid house.

That's why I'm putting a good post in here.

The slander of an honorable man and the fantasy that every action he did was evil and driven by malovolent intentions is a good past?

Yes, how could anyone slander a guy with such awfulness as pointing out terrible s##t he did.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

My god, the amount of thoughtless praise of this overall awful person is getting so tiresome and disgusting. The man's entire life has largely been a series of him exploiting his situation and dodging the consequences, whether it's his habitual cheating on his ex-wife that he dumped for a wealthy heiress; appointing Palin, which helped launch the Tea Party and its thoughtless demagoguery; bloodthirsty warmonger who exploited his military history and media friendliness to advance causes that cost the lives of over a million innocent people; and crafting, along with the gleeful assistance of the media, this image of some maverick, while he voted nearly lockstep with the right-wing and treated the health care coverage of millions of Americans with such lack of seriousness that, preceding his vote, he ginned up media attention by telling them to "wait for the show."

I guess all that's perfectly cool because "muh maverick" and "muh war hero." Give me a break.

This isn't the hofoid house.

That's why I'm putting a good post in here.

The slander of an honorable man and the fantasy that every action he did was evil and driven by malovolent intentions is a good past?

Yes, how could anyone slander a guy with such awfulness as pointing out terrible s##t he did.

Your insistence that every bad action he did had to be out of evil in his heart instead of the good intentions he exhibited is slander.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Can ppl not debate in this thread?  Just let people post insanely stupid posts calling them "good" and move on.