The Chat Thread

[CaughtintheGaze]

Like I said, when whatever state you live in follows suit.

Likely won't be in the United States. All of the jobs I'll be posting for aren't here.

[Octave]

No hist PhD?  Also, did you ditch the nat'l-socialist black metal thesis topic?  The blog was talking nontech nanotech and video game culture.

[CaughtintheGaze]

No hist PhD?  Also, did you ditch the nat'l-socialist black metal thesis topic?  The blog was talking nontech and video game culture.

No, I can still get a Ph.D. It just likely won't be in the USA. I've been chatting with my professors about some universities in Canada and the United Kingdom. I had to move away from the issue, because I was unable to make the methodology sound enough, so my thesis will be covering the rhetoric of silence.

[Octave]

so my thesis will be covering the rhetoric of silence.

It might be interesting to hear more about that in the future, via yr blog or whatnot. 
I'm reminded of a book I once found moving even though philosophically technical (that is, even though I was unprepared for it): Gemma Corradi Fiumara's THE OTHER SIDE OF LANGUAGE: A PHILOSOPHY OF LISTENING (1995).  Actually, I remember that book being especially merciful with exposition...it led me to an awful lot of other (basic) reading, Heidegger etc etc.  Not that that book would be relevant to what you are doing; I wouldn't know that.

[CaughtintheGaze]

It might be interesting to hear more about that in the future, via yr blog or whatnot. 

Currently I'm in the literature review stage, but I should definitely have something by August.

[CaughtintheGaze]

FUCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS! Democracy -1 Fascism - 0

[CaughtintheGaze]

This is America!

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/christopherdido?utm_campaign=t.co&utm_source=10021075&utm_medium=social

[mc ukrneal]

This is America!

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/christopherdido?utm_campaign=t.co&utm_source=10021075&utm_medium=social

Amazing how this played out. Truth really is stranger than fiction.

[Octave]

This is America!

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/christopherdido?utm_campaign=t.co&utm_source=10021075&utm_medium=social

Amazing how this played out. Truth really is stranger than fiction.

My computer is refusing to cooperate with that stream.  What happened? 

[Karl Henning]

Likely won't be in the United States. All of the jobs I'll be posting for aren't here.

Ah, going into Customer Service, perhaps? . . .

[Karl Henning]

. . . my thesis will be covering the rhetoric of silence.

John Cage could cover that in two pages, one-sided 

[mc ukrneal]

My computer is refusing to cooperate with that stream.  What happened? 

It's the abortion bill thing in Texas...http://news.yahoo.com/texas-abortion-bill-falls-challenge-080130212.html

[CaughtintheGaze]

It's the abortion bill thing in Texas...http://news.yahoo.com/texas-abortion-bill-falls-challenge-080130212.html

Well that's only part of the story. It wasv really about democracy.

Karl, the comedian. :-P

[Brian]

I was up until 1am watching that, went to bed angry, and the bill will still pass soon, but god - that was thrilling. "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" is, in comparison, an exceptionally drab, uninspired movie.

[CaughtintheGaze]

I was up until 1am watching that, went to bed angry, and the bill will still pass soon, but god - that was thrilling. "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" is, in comparison, an exceptionally drab, uninspired movie.

There's no guarantee it will pass. There were still hundreds of protesters there.

[Karl Henning]

And the presence of protesters has what effect, exactly, on the matter of passage?

[Brian]

There's no guarantee it will pass. There were still hundreds of protesters there.

Rick Perry's gonna call all the legislators back in again to pass it. It would require another filibuster, and if he says that the special session lasts 7 days, or something like that, a filibuster's not really an option anymore.

[CaughtintheGaze]

And the presence of protesters has what effect, exactly, on the matter of passage?

They played a key role, if not for them the measure would have passed.

True, Brian. We can only hope for a groundswell.

[Geo Dude]

Rush is reading from Scalia's dissent, which argues that the claim that the origin of DOMA was bigotry is unfounded. (It also claims that this was the primary argument for overturning it, which I have some doubts about, though I haven't read the majority decision yet.)  Meanwhile, during the news reports that play during the commercials, I hear this: "But not everyone is happy with the decision:  'This is a dangerous precedent.  What happens if ten years from now people want to marry their brother or some other aberration?  GOD does not get on board with social change when it violates his laws.'"

[Todd]

Rush is reading from Scalia's dissent, which argues that the claim that the origin of DOMA was bigotry is unfounded. (It also claims that this was the primary argument for overturning it, which I have some doubts about, though I haven't read the majority decision yet.)  Meanwhile, during the news reports that play during the commercials, I hear this: "But not everyone is happy with the decision:  'This is a dangerous precedent.  What happens if ten years from now people want to marry their brother or some other aberration?  GOD does not get on board with social change when it violates his laws.'"

Arguments have already been published in favor of legalizing polygamy.  Really, once the previously special status assigned heterosexual marriage is removed, there really are no arguments against polygamy, provided everyone involved is a consenting adult*, and, presumably, not blood related.  It could even be argued that same gender blood relatives should be allowed to marry.  Aside from the rather high "ick" factor in such an arrangement, what would the rationale be for discriminating against such individuals, again assuming only consenting adults are involved?  One could argue against marriage of blood related opposite sex couples on public health grounds, in addition to the very high "ick" factor.

One of my favorite experiences in the gay marriage debate was watching a political talk show where a gay marriage supporter was put in the position of trying to explain why gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry, but not polygamists.  He ended up basically using an Us vs. Them type argument; gays and lesbians who want to get married in a traditional (??) two person arrangement are not like those people, you see.


* The "equality" arguments I've read – not all parties are equal in such an arrangement – are bosh.  As the author for Slate points out, parties to a marriage are party to a contract, and if a party is able to sign a contract, they have the same protections under law as other parties to the contract.  Think of marriage as an LLC.  Perhaps a good compromise arrangement comes from the unlikely source of Moammar Gadhafi, who apparently allowed polygamy, but only if the first wife approved of additional wives.  Polygamy rates dropped after the "law" was put in place.  Of course, a less sexist law would be needed in the US.