=[ i'm just glad all i have to do is call my dad and he'll take care of whatever happens to me.
too bad everyone doesn't have a dad like mine.
too bad everyone doesn't have a dad like mine.
i'm glad i'm not a whore
- Thread starter minxnim
- Start date
i think an abortion parallel is much more appropriate than a race one alex. and i don't think that the laws had anything to do with people changing their mind. i think it was the social climate (like the BPP and SNIC and the formation of the NAACP and the whole civil rights movement BEFORE the law changed) that changed the laws, and how people felt/cared about them, afterward.
xfer
I JERK OFF TO ARCTOPUS
i would rather not bring abortion into this because the entire cultural and legal shenanigans surrounding it are too fucked up to properly use it as an analogy. and it causes much heartache in online debate.
i dont want to debate abortion (i mean are racial issues easier to debate? please) anyway, what i am saying is, changing a law really doesn't change a social outlook on a topic. you may think it will, but historically speaking you have no proof that works.
xfer
I JERK OFF TO ARCTOPUS
racial issues are 1000x easier to debate. you're quite clearly a retard if you think that black people are inferior, or something. but you can't say either side is retarded for arguing about the intersection of when a fetus becomes a person and the legal ramifications thereof. nobody knows the real answer so both sides are conjecturing.
making gay people illegal across this country would, if it doesn't provoke a revolution/backlash, definitely increase homophobia in the more right-wing, backwards, law-trusting areas of the nation (that is, a lot of it
).
making gay people illegal across this country would, if it doesn't provoke a revolution/backlash, definitely increase homophobia in the more right-wing, backwards, law-trusting areas of the nation (that is, a lot of it
).
how many people say they don't think black people are lesser people... but treat them that way anyway alex? seriously. that's my point, the underlying culture and its acts versus what is said/written.
xfer
I JERK OFF TO ARCTOPUS
what is said/written is a HUGE step, though.
if two nations both torture their prisoners, but one nation has laws against torture on the books and enforces them with some regularity, and the other has as part of its constitution TORTURE IS DELICIOUSLY GOOD AND MORAL, then even though both torture, the one with laws against it is far better.
because when you say something's okay--like back in the day when they said racism was okay openly--you cause a much broader and deeper attitude shift in people, and they actually start believing it.
of course there's some ways to go in some racial areas, but the fact that you're acknowledged to be a total retard if you believe in racial supremacy is a HUGE step.
if two nations both torture their prisoners, but one nation has laws against torture on the books and enforces them with some regularity, and the other has as part of its constitution TORTURE IS DELICIOUSLY GOOD AND MORAL, then even though both torture, the one with laws against it is far better.
because when you say something's okay--like back in the day when they said racism was okay openly--you cause a much broader and deeper attitude shift in people, and they actually start believing it.
of course there's some ways to go in some racial areas, but the fact that you're acknowledged to be a total retard if you believe in racial supremacy is a HUGE step.
lizard
Member
FuSoYa
Lunarian
lizard
Member
xfer
I JERK OFF TO ARCTOPUS
i just disagree. i think laws that change are only really truly understood or rationalized by a populace once their mind is changed for another reason. not the laws changing themselves that trigger/cause anything at all.
i'd need proof of this happening otherwise. like, timelined proof. meaning, things were, for the most part ONE WAY and then the law changed w/much opposition and THEN things changedb/c of agreement with that law. i dont see a lot of people saying 'i think interracial marriages are okay because they made it legal' etc.
i'd need proof of this happening otherwise. like, timelined proof. meaning, things were, for the most part ONE WAY and then the law changed w/much opposition and THEN things changedb/c of agreement with that law. i dont see a lot of people saying 'i think interracial marriages are okay because they made it legal' etc.
xfer
I JERK OFF TO ARCTOPUS
well, you can't concretely pinpoint when a culture decided that something like gay or interracial marriages were okay. it's a huge, long grey area pinpointed by thousands of events, like "sidney poitier portrayed engaged to a white woman in successful movie" and stuff.
but the way social change tends to happen is this:
a sufficient number of educated, active, or important people come to understand that a certain thing is wrong or right that wasn't considered wrong or right (or, not to such a degree) before.
those people lobby lawmakers for change. they also prevail upon the generally static and non-progressive populace to accept the new way.
soon, pressure from the activists combines with falling political pressure from the lawmakers' constituents if they (the lawmakers) accept the new way. new laws are passed. (crucially: without the pressure from the activists, MUCH more societal acceptance would be necessary. one enlightened activist counts for one hundred or one thousand enlightened people)
the laws are on the books, and the large majority of the populace goes about slowly converting to accept the "new" way.
but the way social change tends to happen is this:
a sufficient number of educated, active, or important people come to understand that a certain thing is wrong or right that wasn't considered wrong or right (or, not to such a degree) before.
those people lobby lawmakers for change. they also prevail upon the generally static and non-progressive populace to accept the new way.
soon, pressure from the activists combines with falling political pressure from the lawmakers' constituents if they (the lawmakers) accept the new way. new laws are passed. (crucially: without the pressure from the activists, MUCH more societal acceptance would be necessary. one enlightened activist counts for one hundred or one thousand enlightened people)
the laws are on the books, and the large majority of the populace goes about slowly converting to accept the "new" way.
xfer
I JERK OFF TO ARCTOPUS
in other words, yeah, a lot of people DID come to think interracial marriage was okay because it was legal, even if they didn't realise that's why. people are sheep.
and i guess i just disagree. in my study of womens studies and afro am studies, and the law... i've just realized that cultural changes affected the law. not the other way around. i doubt this law will affect how people view a girl 'asking for it' or not.
FuSoYa
Lunarian
What about like, the term of Roman Emperor Constantine making Christianity the official Roman religion? just a thought.
lizard
Member
ha the wife and I just finished watching a documentary on the Roman Empire. Constantine was making Christian laws but he hedged his bets and personally also worshipped Saturn. He didn't formally get baptised until he was on his deathbed.FuSoYa said:
i mean in the US in this particular type of culture in a democratic state. i thought that was sort of obvious.
0sm0se
Mr. Negativity
In an effort to perhaps lighten this conversation, I would like to commend Alex for referencing the classic film "Clerks" by using the number 37 when refering to the amount of dicks being sucked. Huzzah, good man.
FuSoYa
Lunarian
lizard, whoa that's weird. why was he making the christian laws then? i mean how did it benefit him?
Similar threads
