Idiot of the Day

[Excal]

Which is why it likely should have been in politics.  The debate looks like it could at least be interesting.

[metroid composite]

This is exactly the sort of idiocy that gets that movement set back by decades.

Bwahaha, no, see, the problem with "sets the movement back by decades" when referring to the gay rights movement, is that three decades ago it was considered a mental illness that should have people locked up.  Two decades ago, there really wasn't an understanding of "you can't teach someone to not be gay"--there was research at the time that this wasn't a choice people could make, and that no known drug treatment flipped orientation, but this wasn't mainstream knowledge yet.

You might be able to get away with "sets the movement back by years", but it's too young a movement for "back by decades" to actually make sense.

[Grefter]

Weeeelllll, that depends entirely on the kind of stupid.  WBC for example would be setting the movement back a little more than a couple of decades.

Edit - Being relevant and having any pull whatsoever I mean.

[NotMiki]

You might be able to get away with "sets the movement back by years", but it's too young a movement for "back by decades" to actually make sense.

speaking of such problems...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/13/foxs-cavuto-claims-networ_n_186156.html

as for setting the movement back, rights movements come in two phases.  the vanguard is insular, and concerned with bettering the condition of the group.  The second is inclusive and works toward equality and normalization.  There's always an overlap, and the two can end up working at cross purposes.  This is something we're now seeing with gay rights issues.  Idiocy is idiotic, but with huge recent gains in equality, marriage and nondiscrimination, it's not going to be the consensus of the movement going forward.

[metroid composite]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3qFdbUEq5s&feature=channel

Fantastic.

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

* Jo'ou Ranbu facepalms.

[NotMiki]

no, seriously guys, what's in it?

[Cotigo]

...

[NotMiki]

Now I'm gonna have nightmares about oozing rainbows for sure.  I don't think it's any coincidence that this comes in the wake of the "gay rights" movement.

[Cotigo]

as for setting the movement back, rights movements come in two phases.  the vanguard is insular, and concerned with bettering the condition of the group.  The second is inclusive and works toward equality and normalization. 

That's a bit of an overgeneralization, and not true at all for some civil rights pushes.  For instance, the first wave of feminism (pre-1950) was about getting women equal rights, but the second wave (1960-early 1980s or so) was about anything but being all inclusive; most feminist academics of the time wrote emphasizing gender differences and lambasted anything they could even tangently relate to the "phallocentric patriarchy (among other terms they used that described anything other than female)".

You could argue that they argued for equal standing because they argued for the abolition of the social structures that created the inequality in the first place, but their ideas were largely off base and attacked phantoms they created themselves (differences in woman's language as opposed to man's, for instance.  Agh so stupid) instead of actually addressing the problem, so it can hardly be called arguing for equality. 

Anyway, my point is I don't think that the generalization made about civil rights movements necessarily holds true upon examination.  But I could just being nitpicky so whatever. 

[Lady Door]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3qFdbUEq5s&feature=channel

Fantastic.

OH SHI- Dihydrogen monoxide strikes again!

[NotMiki]

Oh god, that stuff?  I can't believe it's so heavily regulated by the government and still causes so much devastation.  I hear Hurricane Katrina wouldn't have been anywhere near as bad if the clouds hadn't been filled with it.

[Grefter]

as for setting the movement back, rights movements come in two phases.  the vanguard is insular, and concerned with bettering the condition of the group.  The second is inclusive and works toward equality and normalization. 

That's a bit of an overgeneralization, and not true at all for some civil rights pushes.  For instance, the first wave of feminism (pre-1950) was about getting women equal rights, but the second wave (1960-early 1980s or so) was about anything but being all inclusive; most feminist academics of the time wrote emphasizing gender differences and lambasted anything they could even tangently relate to the "phallocentric patriarchy (among other terms they used that described anything other than female)".

You could argue that they argued for equal standing because they argued for the abolition of the social structures that created the inequality in the first place, but their ideas were largely off base and attacked phantoms they created themselves (differences in woman's language as opposed to man's, for instance.  Agh so stupid) instead of actually addressing the problem, so it can hardly be called arguing for equality. 

Anyway, my point is I don't think that the generalization made about civil rights movements necessarily holds true upon examination.  But I could just being nitpicky so whatever. 

It does tend to apply to a lot of movements though.  See the IRA, the movement to make India a sovereign nation again, Slavery and Racism just for a few examples.  I wouldn't be too adverse to pondering the Feminist movements odd formation being due to the fact that it is fairly strongly placed either side of the Modernity/Post Modernity line, like split straight in half by it.

I find it weird that of all people it is Zenny and I that both have University education backgrounds that touched on Feminism though (I know a few others do but you don't chatter about it as much as I and damn, Zenny has a good showing of knowing the history and theory there).

[metroid composite]

Feminisim didn't start in the 50s, though.  I mean, Women Sufferage was like...1920.  The idea of women venturing into non-typical feminine jobs was cemented during the world wars in a lot of cases (my grandmother built ammunition shells).

For that matter, I'm not sure I buy extremist insular movements always being the starting point.  For instance, Black Panthers didn't exist until 1966, about a decade after the civil rights movement and long after the abolition of slavery.

The LGBT movement...never seen a violent "we're superior to straight people movement" from there.  I've seen internal discrimination in there, sure (LG citing superiority over B; LGB citing superiority over T; T citing superiority over other T; L and G didn't get along that well 30 years ago before forming the alliance).

[Cotigo]

At least one class I've taken every semester for the past two years has exposed me to this kind of stuff.  First one was a Gender in Japan class that exposed me to Judith Butler.  Second one was a Critical Theory class that got me to read all of Gender Trouble, and exposed me to more feminist critiques.  Now I'm taking a class on women in Medieval literature, and that's where I'm really seeing the crazies.  Holy shit Dworkin and that other person I can't recall right now who said all heterosexual intercourse is rape.  

The 70s wasn't a very strong decade for the feminist movement.

Also, MC.  Read.  "pre-1950."  As in, before 1950.  As in, where 1920 lies chronologically.

And I've entirely forgotten why I started writing this post in the first place.  Explaining why I know the little I do on the subject?  Whatever, something like that.

[metroid composite]

http://videogames.yahoo.com/events/plugged-in/publisher-please-give-us-back-our-illegal-weapons/1304911

EA decides it would be a good idea to include some promotional items in the reviewer copy of Godfather II.  Cigar, Brass Knuckles, hankerchief, etc.  Problem is, posession of brass knuckles is a crime in several states, instantly turning several reviewers into criminals.  Awesome.

[NotMiki]

Anyway, my point is I don't think that the generalization made about civil rights movements necessarily holds true upon examination.  But I could just being nitpicky so whatever.

No, you're right.  Generalizations are almost always wrong, especially when you want to take something like a bunch of concurrent events concerning a single subject and claim it as a movement.  I think what I laid out is a good model for what happens over the course of a few decades, starting with a radical impetus, but isn't useful for looking at a longer period.  If it applies to feminism and women's rights, you could take the '70s as the vanguard, and present-day feminism, self-conscious, pragmatic, and wary of early feminists, as that second wave.

On women's suffrage, it's worth noting, however, that the League of Women Voters didn't allow men as members until...the 1970s.

[Grefter]

Is always interesting to see where people get exposed to the theory Zenny.  Mine were in Gender studies classes and a couple of out and out Feminism classes, so meh.

[metroid composite]

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/detail.php?board=8&topic=49102760&message=538017678

Conversly Doom set the standard for the FPS genre until Halo came along which was a good 15 years.

I count at least four issues with this sentence:

#1: 2001 - 1993 =/= 15 years.
#2: Quake, Goldeneye, Half-Life, Counter-Strike, etc....
#3: Since when did Halo set the industry standard for the FPS genre?
#4: Needs more commas.

[Grefter]

Halo set the standards by lowering the bar.

[Cotigo]

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/04/023349.php

"This is the sort of citizen activism the Left would like to inspire, but hasn’t for a very long time."

He... hee hee hee... hehhheheheh... Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

Oooooh, yes.  The left has had trouble rallying numbers for protests for so long.  Tremble at the might of the 100000 people nationwide Tea Bag protest.

Wait.  What's that?

http://www.hanlonsrazor.org/2009/04/17/powerline-and-a-hilarious-lack-of-historical-perspective/

Oh.  Yeah.  Reality.

[Luther Lansfeld]

With the "Ann Coulter - Free!" thing at the bottom I would think it was a joke website if I didn't know better.

[metroid composite]

That's an advertisement for her weekly web column.  Unless you're implying that nobody takes Ann Coulter seriously?  (If only...).

[Jo'ou Ranbu]

No, she's implying she wishes nobody did.

[Cotigo]

http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090419/NEWS02/304199926

...............................
...............................
...............................
...............................
Jesus Christ are you fucking kidding me.

tl;dr: Off duty cop at a bar mocks homicide victim and his grieving mother.  Someone at the bar videotapes it, puts it on YouTube.  Police department begins an investigation.

One of the people assigned to the investigation... is the cop in question.  He proceeds to search the city for the person who uploaded the video and bring him up on charges of illegal wiretapping.

... Fuck the Police Fuck the Police Fuck the Police...