|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On December 10 2014 07:00 WhiteDog wrote:
But I reiterate : I believe the core reason as to why people are against pro mariage is either because they fear the industrial usage of assisted reproductive technology (and thus the marchandisation of the body, which is something I completly understand) or they are just homophobe plain and simple.
You skip the context a bit too fast in my opinion. You know how french politic works : for most of people, if you're from the right, you're anti left, and when you're from the left you're anti right. It's depressing, but it's true
A crisis + a leftwing government is enough for many people in France to protest. If you add the support of homophobes (neo nazi, religious extremists like Civitas, etc...) and, like you said, the fears (understandable indeed, but I'd question their objectivity) of a part of the population about assisted reproduction, you get an impressive demonstration.
I doubt many of them have any fear or homophobia. I have the feeling that a large part of them have a problem with the government and don't care much about gays and their wedding. It was a good opportunity to piss off the government and they used it.
|
On December 10 2014 07:40 nunez wrote:
@whitedog
imagine the injustice if only half of france could legally wed whitedog. then consider:
the fight for equal treatment for this entire unfortunate half.
the fight for equal treatment for a subset of this entire unfortunate half.
both are in the special interest of their respective subsets of france.
am i understanding correctly that this is makes both the struggles communitarian or just the second one?
Again, IF I understand,
You are correct. Your wording implies that these definitions are nonsensical, but I don't think this is the case. Think about the result if successful. In the first case success means everyone, the whole set, is free to marry Whitedog. In the second success means a portion of the population will still suffer the injustice of being unable to marry Whitedog.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
im sorry but this communitarian stuff is nonsense. they are basically a traditionalist, homophobic movement. plain and simple. rhetorics like 'imposition of gay marriage on all' would not look out of place in the U.S. context at all.
fear the industrial usage of assisted reproductive technology
literally wat. do cripples who receive manufactured limbs merchandise the body?
|
And honestly I think it's an argument I understand and would lean toward supporting. I happen to be thinking about it lately in respect of feminism.
At the moment I'm in a situation where I am the primary carer for my offspring, so I often find myself in a tiny minority in rooms filled with women who are the primary carers for their offspring and, as a consequence, have to deal with some mild prejudice as a result. I've also recently witnessed a school friend of mine who has gone through a separation lose access to his children. Because this is my life and my day to day experience I can't help but be irritated that the feminist discussion rarely encounters this prejudice despite fighting, very real, gender discrimination that women encounter in (very many) other areas.
I know, I know, it's not very generous of me. Male privilege outweighs female privilege in my society, perhaps in all societies, by a vast amount ... but... I mean if you only condemn the gender based discrimination that effects you, aren't you a. Undermining the moral underpinning of you entire position b. Weakening you struggle for justice by excluding people from your cause.
I really, REALLY don't want this to end up in some kind of fucked up fraternal weep-fest about "feminazis", these boards have more than enough of that crap, I'm just trying to point out why this communitarian argument, as I understand it, resonates with me.
|
On December 10 2014 09:09 oneofthem wrote:
im sorry but this communitarian stuff is nonsense. they are basically a traditionalist, homophobic movement. plain and simple. rhetorics like 'imposition of gay marriage on all' would not look out of place in the U.S. context at all.
Yes, absolutely, that's exactly what they sound like from the little I have read here. They sound completely mental or at least, if Agathon is correct, terribly confused in their message. ""marriage for all" is the end of the genealogy for all !" I mean... what the fuck? I'm just trying to find a word for something I've been thinking about lately, it's, at best, parallel to the discussion.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
there are two sources of such "group limited" focus, or lack of universality. one is some active sense of specialness for us only, the other is simply the physical fact of immediacy of concern. events of desire/caring are related to a particular context(for instance, a tornado strikes my neighborhood, i'd frame the complaint in terms of oh fuck we need help because tornado, not oh fuck, tornado suffers worldwide need help), usually one that is familiar to a person's experience. so taking homosexuals to task for not demanding absolute equality and justice for everyone is just very silly. the analogy is akin to denying a legit case of grievance because the one who brought the law suit was not a class action, defined in increasingly expansionary terms. there's no end to it really, homosexuals even use universal terms in their arguments, such as "marriage should be a right for all, and we are part of this too."
mistaking an act of negligence/lack of perfect knowledge about other injustices for some active "community bias" is just nonsense.
in your example of feminists not taking up the fight for caregivers in general, it's a problem of feminist activists who define the situation in gender identity terms, but with respect to the issue of caregiver prejudice/fair treatment, political philosophy can deal with it in non-gender terms. However, such efforts, for example capabilities approach, was highly informed by feminist thinking, which first identified this caregiver issue as important.
|
On November 22 2014 09:26 WhiteDog wrote:
That's just a completly uninformed comment from you : do you know how many libraries, how many school were burned in the last twenty years in France ? Synanogues (just like mosquee) are more a problem than anything, when a religious institution take side in foreign politics, push its youth to a brutal and rather unhuman war in palestine, it is a problem.
(Statistics for 2013)
281 900 fires in 2013 in France.
82000 houses
54000 cars
...
4421 in public buildings where you don't sleep
(well.. categories are sometimes weird, but that includes schools, libraries and religious places)
About 4% of all fires are classified as criminal (source), which would make 177 of them in such public buildings.
9 published criminal fires in schools in 2013(dodgy source, but refers to reliable ones)
2 Churches burned in 2012 (Epiais,Marseille)
2 Mosquees burned in 2013 (Thiers/Ajaccio)
3 antisemitic burnings in 2013 (source)
70 libraries burned between 1996 and 2013 (source)
Conclusion : err ... none ?
|
Lots of libraries were burned. France rejects libraries.
|
@dapper
i didn't mean to imply that either case was nonsensical, both make sense.
just confused (less and less) about the term is all; it's new to me.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the way the french are using the term it's not how communitarianism is understood in english world at all. jacobin is some sort of 'high brow' leftist mag so they may just be being pretentious with directly porting over the term and not bothering to explain.
|
which is unacceptable, tout fou, and why i turned to liquid.
|
On December 08 2014 09:38 Nyxisto wrote:
There's nothing complicated about racism, no matter if you write an essay on it or not. People see their economic situation deteriorating on the one hand and are unable to cope with the idea of living in a tolerant open society on the other. So as usual the blame gets shifted to some minority group because that's easier than blaming yourself. There's no reason to argue with or to appease these people.
Good for you on living in a dream society. Where I live there are actually different kinds of people. Some have absolutely no problem with basically any minority, yet are completely racist towards gypsies. That kind of racism is partially based on personal experience as Gypsies account for high percentage of crime and social safety net usage and thus some of the attitudes are not racist per-se, but experience-based statistical profiling. But hand in hand with it comes actual racism. And even very smart people who are otherwise extremely tolerant towards any other minority and race are racist, mostly because the experience skews their view and it requires a lot of conscious effort not to discriminate and ignore the darker emotions and override them with reason. It has nothing to do with economic situation as the attitudes do not change with economic situation and many of them also have no problem with tolerant society in any other area. And that is just one specific situation in my personal sphere of experience. I assume there will be more in other countries. Your black/white view of the issue is just simplistic.
Also not arguing and not trying to change their view means leaving majority of population in basically any country being more or less racist.
|
On December 09 2014 02:43 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2014 02:09 WhiteDog wrote:On December 09 2014 01:19 Nyxisto wrote:On December 08 2014 20:08 WhiteDog wrote:On December 08 2014 09:38 Nyxisto wrote:
There's nothing complicated about racism, no matter if you write an essay on it or not. People see their economic situation deteriorating on the one hand and are unable to cope with the idea of living in a tolerant open society on the other. So as usual the blame gets shifted to some minority group because that's easier than blaming yourself. There's no reason to argue with or to appease these people. You make it seems like Greeks are responsible for the crisis. Partly, yes. Although I gladly admit that Germany's relationship to debt and inflation can be a little irrational it times, surely Greece itself is responsible for the blatant corruption, inequality and inability to create a modern economy which has been plaguing them for decades, long before the Euro. How is a guy living at 500 euro (the minimum wage in greece before the crisis) responsible for a debt crisis ? Inability to create a modern economy ? He kept voting wrong people
There are no good people to vote for anyway. That is often the issue with current democracy. None of the alternatives actually can change major things.
|
On December 10 2014 15:08 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2014 02:43 Sent. wrote:On December 09 2014 02:09 WhiteDog wrote:On December 09 2014 01:19 Nyxisto wrote:On December 08 2014 20:08 WhiteDog wrote:On December 08 2014 09:38 Nyxisto wrote:
There's nothing complicated about racism, no matter if you write an essay on it or not. People see their economic situation deteriorating on the one hand and are unable to cope with the idea of living in a tolerant open society on the other. So as usual the blame gets shifted to some minority group because that's easier than blaming yourself. There's no reason to argue with or to appease these people. You make it seems like Greeks are responsible for the crisis. Partly, yes. Although I gladly admit that Germany's relationship to debt and inflation can be a little irrational it times, surely Greece itself is responsible for the blatant corruption, inequality and inability to create a modern economy which has been plaguing them for decades, long before the Euro. How is a guy living at 500 euro (the minimum wage in greece before the crisis) responsible for a debt crisis ? Inability to create a modern economy ? He kept voting wrong people There are no good people to vote for anyway. That is often the issue with current democracy. None of the alternatives actually can change major things.
Create a new party then. That is very hard to do, if successful it changes the major parties. Prior to the Pirate Party making waves in Sweden there was no party with the same opinions. Now there are several and thus the Pirate Party will crash and burn but served its purpose.
|
On December 10 2014 15:06 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2014 09:38 Nyxisto wrote:
There's nothing complicated about racism, no matter if you write an essay on it or not. People see their economic situation deteriorating on the one hand and are unable to cope with the idea of living in a tolerant open society on the other. So as usual the blame gets shifted to some minority group because that's easier than blaming yourself. There's no reason to argue with or to appease these people. Good for you on living in a dream society. Where I live there are actually different kinds of people. Some have absolutely no problem with basically any minority, yet are completely racist towards gypsies. That kind of racism is partially based on personal experience as Gypsies account for high percentage of crime and social safety net usage and thus some of the attitudes are not racist per-se, but experience-based statistical profiling. But hand in hand with it comes actual racism. And even very smart people who are otherwise extremely tolerant towards any other minority and race are racist, mostly because the experience skews their view and it requires a lot of conscious effort not to discriminate and ignore the darker emotions and override them with reason. It has nothing to do with economic situation as the attitudes do not change with economic situation and many of them also have no problem with tolerant society in any other area. And that is just one specific situation in my personal sphere of experience. I assume there will be more in other countries. Your black/white view of the issue is just simplistic. Also not arguing and not trying to change their view means leaving majority of population in basically any country being more or less racist.
My Brothers Girlfriend is Slowakian. She is well educated and not the slighest bit racist at all until... Gipsies/Romas.
Matter of fact is:
Many Gipsies/Romas don't want to fit into our society AND many actually don't. That this leads to trouble is not exactly rocket science.
|
On December 10 2014 17:36 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2014 15:06 mcc wrote:On December 08 2014 09:38 Nyxisto wrote:
There's nothing complicated about racism, no matter if you write an essay on it or not. People see their economic situation deteriorating on the one hand and are unable to cope with the idea of living in a tolerant open society on the other. So as usual the blame gets shifted to some minority group because that's easier than blaming yourself. There's no reason to argue with or to appease these people. Good for you on living in a dream society. Where I live there are actually different kinds of people. Some have absolutely no problem with basically any minority, yet are completely racist towards gypsies. That kind of racism is partially based on personal experience as Gypsies account for high percentage of crime and social safety net usage and thus some of the attitudes are not racist per-se, but experience-based statistical profiling. But hand in hand with it comes actual racism. And even very smart people who are otherwise extremely tolerant towards any other minority and race are racist, mostly because the experience skews their view and it requires a lot of conscious effort not to discriminate and ignore the darker emotions and override them with reason. It has nothing to do with economic situation as the attitudes do not change with economic situation and many of them also have no problem with tolerant society in any other area. And that is just one specific situation in my personal sphere of experience. I assume there will be more in other countries. Your black/white view of the issue is just simplistic. Also not arguing and not trying to change their view means leaving majority of population in basically any country being more or less racist. My Brothers Girlfriend is Slowakian. She is well educated and not the slighest bit racist at all until... Gipsies/Romas. Matter of fact is: Many Gipsies/Romas don't want to fit into our society AND many actually don't. That this leads to trouble is not exactly rocket science.
Absolutely. The problem with gypsies is not racism at all.
|
On December 10 2014 09:09 oneofthem wrote:im sorry but this communitarian stuff is nonsense. they are basically a traditionalist, homophobic movement. plain and simple. rhetorics like 'imposition of gay marriage on all' would not look out of place in the U.S. context at all. literally wat. do cripples who receive manufactured limbs merchandise the body?
Yeah but applied to homosexual, assisted reproductive technology could lead to surrogacy (used, and paid by the social security, in France, for some case of infertility).
On December 10 2014 07:40 nunez wrote:
@whitedog
imagine the injustice if only half of france could legally wed whitedog. then consider:
the fight for equal treatment for this entire unfortunate half.
the fight for equal treatment for a subset of this entire unfortunate half.
both are in the special interest of their respective subsets of france.
am i understanding correctly that this is makes both the struggles communitarian or just the second one?
If you stretch the idea to its purest form yeah the only good answer would be : the fight for equal treatment for everyone. The simple idea that the public sphere accept some differencies or distinctions could, arguably, goes against our distinction between public and private sphere. At least that's the idea behind some interpretations of laicité in schools for exemple.
|
i'd say it's a natural reaction/resistance to change, to the (perceived) biological extinction of some original traits/identities. people are afraid so they react.
an irrational (most likely) fear of extinction that can't be regulated by governments with laws/rules.
this should be sorted by evolutionists versed in neural and behavioral sciences not by politicians and media outlets.
|
On December 10 2014 06:02 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2014 05:43 kwizach wrote:On December 10 2014 05:23 WhiteDog wrote:On December 10 2014 03:43 kwizach wrote:On December 10 2014 03:36 WhiteDog wrote:On December 09 2014 21:14 kwizach wrote:On December 09 2014 08:38 WhiteDog wrote:On December 09 2014 07:52 oneofthem wrote:
at a loss on thsi one. communitarianism is usually thought of as associated with catholic philosophers like macintyre. communitarians do not favor identity, racial or sexual, as the defining boundary of community. it's more like a traditional, organic local ties sort of thing.
communitarians are certainly critics of liberal universalism, but idk about using it to standin for identity politics, whcih seems to be the target of the article.
your haikus are difficult to understand btw In France, when we talk about communautarism, we usually describe any form of ethnocentrism or sociocentrism, any self valorisation associated with tendancies to withdrawal in the public sphere. Part of our constitutions refuse any public recognition to group and minorities (the republic is undivided, does not make any distinction between its citizens, one unique language, etc.). That the group is based around religious, organic ties, or identity revendications, does not change the fact that it is a group that define itself as different from the rest of the population and that desire a recognition of that difference in the public sphere. ...except it's almost the exact opposite when it comes to the revendications of homosexuals in the context we're talking about (namely access to marriage, adoption, etc.) - society and government are the ones making a distinction between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples, and homosexuals just want to have the same rights as everyone else with regards to their relationships. Again that is because you are only talking about mariage, when I'm talking about political revendication coming from specific groups. It's not necessarily what they wish for, but how they phrase it. But that's just a justification, deep down there's many people that are just homophobic. Well, in the case of the specific group composed of gay rights activists, their message, revendications and discourse are, to me, universalistic rather than communitarian. I'll give you an exemple : lately a guy called Jean-Loup Amselle (an anthropologue) wrote a book on the supposed ethnicisation of france. To him, any group fighting against a specific discrimination (against discrimination against jews, against discrimination against homosexuals, etc.) is communautarist : an universalist action against discrimination would fight against all discrimination without distinction. So the simple existence of a group called "Gay for gay rights", or even the idea that "Two men should have the right to marry each others" is communautarist (to him) : a non communautarist view of the subject would be "Everybody should have the right to marry anybody, whatever his sex or religion". My point is precisely that "everybody should have the marry" was the position and message of the activists and political leaders who supported the law. The very name of the project was "marriage pour tous" (marriage for all). That's why I'm saying I consider their fight universalistic and not communitarian. Yeah but that's not how they saw it. The guys against it called themselves the "Manif pour tous" (Manifestation for all). I'm not saying the gay mariage was not universalist, I'm saying their arguments was that it was specifically for (and by) homosexuals (and also that it would necessarily lead assisted reproductive technology). Some quick quote from the Manif for all website : Le « Mariage pour tous », c’est le « mariage » homo imposé à tous ! (The "mariage for all" is the gay mariage imposed to all !) Le « Mariage pour tous », c’est la fin de la généalogie pour tous ! (The "mariage for all" is the end of the genealogy for all !") Le mariage civil H/F et la filiation PME, c’est l’égalité et la justice pour tous ! ("The civil mariage man/woman and the filiation father mother child is egality and justice for all !). http://www.lamanifpourtous.fr/fr/qui-sommes-nous/notre-message
We're talking past each other. I'm not talking about the Manif pour tous. I'm talking about the movement supporting the Marriage pour tous (Marriage for all) law, and explaining why I don't see it as communitarian but universalistic. I know the Manif pour tous are trying to paint them as communitarian - my point is they're wrong.
|
On December 10 2014 09:45 Oshuy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2014 09:26 WhiteDog wrote:
That's just a completly uninformed comment from you : do you know how many libraries, how many school were burned in the last twenty years in France ? Synanogues (just like mosquee) are more a problem than anything, when a religious institution take side in foreign politics, push its youth to a brutal and rather unhuman war in palestine, it is a problem. (Statistics for 2013)281 900 fires in 2013 in France. 82000 houses 54000 cars ... 4421 in public buildings where you don't sleep (well.. categories are sometimes weird, but that includes schools, libraries and religious places) About 4% of all fires are classified as criminal (source), which would make 177 of them in such public buildings. 9 published criminal fires in schools in 2013 (dodgy source, but refers to reliable ones)2 Churches burned in 2012 (Epiais,Marseille) 2 Mosquees burned in 2013 (Thiers/Ajaccio) 3 antisemitic burnings in 2013 (source)70 libraries burned between 1996 and 2013 (source)Conclusion : err ... none ?
Conclusion is : nobody is saying that there are huge discrimination against library workers in France, despite high numbers of library burned (3 time more than synagogues in 2013 !). Why??!?? Are we going toward an holocaust against library workers ? Shit is scarry.
My point is, the core problem in France is certainly not antisemitism.
kwizach we entirely agree, it's just that nunez asked how some people can think gay mariage is communautarist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
