|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Forum:The future is bleak.
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
I did an article on Day of Silence and part of it was on a future headache named Chase Harper. I first learned of him on an HBO documentary awhile back. Here is him talking about what he did and the closed mindedness is astonishing. I'd also like to note that in the documentary, his lawyer said that no student had a problem with his t-shirt while in this speech he says "I had a ton of other students coming up to me and asking what the hell I was doing wearing a shirt like that". He also said he preached during lunch. Wonder how long till he is important enough to have his own article?--Thanatos (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- What's more androgynous: his name or his looks? Dude would make a hot chick...might help explain some problems... — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 21:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- He is also studying at an evangelical college. I also remember from the documentary him being enraged when the VP of his high school told him "If your faith is offensive, leave it in the car"--Thanatos (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- The future is bright, actually. Acceptance of homosexuality and gay rights (including gay marriage) is almost entirely a generational thing - some exceptions like this boy excluded, of course. I pity such people more than anything else... it must be terrifying to know that a belief you hold so strongly is certainly doomed. Alas for the bigots.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 22:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's even more terrifying to think what the tail end of the believers will do once they finally realise they have chance to win. It's bad enough dealing with the freak show the tail of creationism has thrown up, and they're opposing a scientific theory, not a mode of behaviour. The tail end of intolerant bigots may end up lynching people. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- (EC) @Tom: It's not entirely a generational thing, but there is some good news Tetronian you're clueless 22:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree, Tet. Your second link even bears me out. For those 18-34, acceptance is 75%. For 55+, it's 45%. Generational, almost entirely.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 22:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but only because the media is acting as an equalizer. People are still raising their kids to be intolerant (and it is working, same way it always has) but the media helps open some people's minds. But my point is that in 100 years there will still be a relatively large group of people who doesn't accept homosexuality, just as there are still racists in the US even though the civil rights movement was years ago. Tetronian you're clueless 23:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- The statistics don't bear you out. The reason the overall approval changes for the better, and each individual group changes for the better, is because the people who don't support an alternative lifestyle are dying as a group (literally). Eventually, once the last couple of generations die off (twenty years or so?) then all that will be left is that indoctrinated group that you mention. But that group is very small - 25% or so it seems, and getting less with every new crop of kids.
- Racism is not the same. It is not a generational problem because it's such a broad issue, so it's apples and oranges. I will say that interracial marriage was a generational problem, though. And how many people do you see opposing Loving v Virginia? Almost no one but that tiny indoctrinated group.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 23:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I see your point, and looking at the polls again you're probably right - but I don't think the two things are apples and oranges. There is a great deal of latent racism in the US that a poll wouldn't pick up on - sort of a "Bradley effect". Even if the number of people who openly and loudly oppose gay marriage drops to a small, fretful minority, I suspect there will be anti-gay undercurrents in the culture that will stick around for a long time. People may not oppose Loving v Virginia, but give someone a few beers and then ask them what they think of interracial marriage. (Believe me, I've done it, you'll get an earful.) That's why I don't see the two things as apples and oranges. Tetronian you're clueless 23:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing that racism doesn't exist, though. I'm just saying it's not like acceptance of homosexuality. There may be anti-gay undercurrents that continue to exist, and certainly there are still some people who secretly think interracial marriage is wrong. But that's not what we have been talking about. Almost no one opposes interracial marriage, and almost no one votes to restrict or ban it. Opposition has almost vanished. The same thing will happen with those who won't accept alternative lifestyles. Every year the stats get better.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 23:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with your point about racism - but aren't you arguing that the same thing is going to happen to homosexuality? If so, then the two aren't apples and oranges, unless I am misinterpreting your point. Tetronian you're clueless 23:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- No. Racism is not generational. The specific aspect of interracial marriage was generational, though. In this same way, while general anti-gay sentiment may not be generational, public acceptance of alternative lifestyles will be generational. In other words, functional opposition will disappear. And in truth, I think that even the general anti-gay sentiment will subsume quickly; you can't usually tell just by looking at someone if they're gay, and as "gay" traits are disseminated among public at large ("metrosexuality" and so on) then it's going to be harder and harder to stereotype.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 00:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- 1) But the two things (for lack of a better word) you mention, "public acceptance of alternative lifestyles" and "general anti-gay sentiment" are related, as with racism. Functional opposition is dependent upon the national mood (at least to a certain extent). Take the civil rights movement as an example: in, say, the 1900's, it didn't exist because there was basically no public acceptance of civil rights. It wasn't even on the agenda - there was no "functional opposition" because there were virtually no proponents of civl rights. But as the national mood shifted, the issue moved into the spotlight and it could be discussed. Then, after the "functional opposition" was defeated, the "public acceptance" increased but has still not made it to 100%. As I see it, the national debate over homosexuality has progressed in a similar way: until the 1980's, it was so taboo that it wasn't even on the agenda. Now it is being debated and discussed, and then afterwards some people will remain anti-gay but the issue will no longer be as important.
- 2) Homosexuality may be harder to stereotype than "blackness," but because of the relative intensity of religious sentiment in the US I doubt it will disappear entirely. Tetronian you're clueless 00:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- 1) I agree that those two things are related, just as racism and interracial relationships are related. And while racism and anti-gay sentiment are probably not generational (at least in large part), both interracial relationships and acceptance of an alternative lifestyle are generational. I don't know why the difference; maybe it's because interracial relationships and acceptance of an alternative lifestyle manifest themselves in very practical ways (in the form of marriage) whereas their larger issues are more nebulous. But you seem to be agreeing and arguing my point for me...
- 2) Maybe not "entirely." I was just saying it will probably be faster than racism.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 02:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- 1) I'll concede the point that it is a generational thing, but that acceptance of homosexuality will progress in a way that is similar to racism and civil rights in the US. We seem to be mostly in agreement on that point as well.
- 2) I agree. Tetronian you're clueless 22:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- No. Racism is not generational. The specific aspect of interracial marriage was generational, though. In this same way, while general anti-gay sentiment may not be generational, public acceptance of alternative lifestyles will be generational. In other words, functional opposition will disappear. And in truth, I think that even the general anti-gay sentiment will subsume quickly; you can't usually tell just by looking at someone if they're gay, and as "gay" traits are disseminated among public at large ("metrosexuality" and so on) then it's going to be harder and harder to stereotype.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 00:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with your point about racism - but aren't you arguing that the same thing is going to happen to homosexuality? If so, then the two aren't apples and oranges, unless I am misinterpreting your point. Tetronian you're clueless 23:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing that racism doesn't exist, though. I'm just saying it's not like acceptance of homosexuality. There may be anti-gay undercurrents that continue to exist, and certainly there are still some people who secretly think interracial marriage is wrong. But that's not what we have been talking about. Almost no one opposes interracial marriage, and almost no one votes to restrict or ban it. Opposition has almost vanished. The same thing will happen with those who won't accept alternative lifestyles. Every year the stats get better.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 23:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I see your point, and looking at the polls again you're probably right - but I don't think the two things are apples and oranges. There is a great deal of latent racism in the US that a poll wouldn't pick up on - sort of a "Bradley effect". Even if the number of people who openly and loudly oppose gay marriage drops to a small, fretful minority, I suspect there will be anti-gay undercurrents in the culture that will stick around for a long time. People may not oppose Loving v Virginia, but give someone a few beers and then ask them what they think of interracial marriage. (Believe me, I've done it, you'll get an earful.) That's why I don't see the two things as apples and oranges. Tetronian you're clueless 23:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but only because the media is acting as an equalizer. People are still raising their kids to be intolerant (and it is working, same way it always has) but the media helps open some people's minds. But my point is that in 100 years there will still be a relatively large group of people who doesn't accept homosexuality, just as there are still racists in the US even though the civil rights movement was years ago. Tetronian you're clueless 23:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree, Tet. Your second link even bears me out. For those 18-34, acceptance is 75%. For 55+, it's 45%. Generational, almost entirely.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 22:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- The future is bright, actually. Acceptance of homosexuality and gay rights (including gay marriage) is almost entirely a generational thing - some exceptions like this boy excluded, of course. I pity such people more than anything else... it must be terrifying to know that a belief you hold so strongly is certainly doomed. Alas for the bigots.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 22:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
- He is also studying at an evangelical college. I also remember from the documentary him being enraged when the VP of his high school told him "If your faith is offensive, leave it in the car"--Thanatos (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
We should introduce Chase to Kendoll. Could be love at first sight... ħuman
23:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)