andrewducker (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2012-02-15 11:00 am
andrewducker) wrote2012-02-15 11:00 am
Entry tags:
- 2012,
- antarctic,
- apple,
- awesome,
- bbc,
- cats,
- censorship,
- census,
- children,
- chocolate,
- computer_games,
- copyright,
- culture,
- development,
- english,
- experience,
- firefox,
- fun,
- funny,
- gameofthrones,
- german,
- government,
- handedness,
- horror,
- ipad,
- israel,
- language,
- law,
- life,
- links,
- mmorpg,
- movies,
- museums,
- netherlands,
- nsfw,
- oil,
- palestine,
- politics,
- poll,
- psychology,
- relationships,
- religion,
- scotland,
- uk,
- valentines_day,
- video,
- web
Interesting Links for 15-02-2012
- When will experiences replace movie theaters?
I think people enjoy passive entertainment a lot, so I don't expect movies to go anywhere. It would be nice to see more "experiences", but I suspect that their cost is going to remain a chunk higher than a movie ticket.
- Some detail on what people who identify as "Christian" in the census actually believe
- Dutch government calls for loosening of copyright law. Could the tide be turning?
- Online RPGs WILL DESTROY YOUR RELATIONSHIP. Unless you play together, of course.
- Some common sense on prayer and councils.
What occurred to me, when reading someone else's journal, was that atheists are merely going to be irked by compulsory Christian prayers - but think about the effect it has on a Muslim, Sikh, etc. that in order to represent their constituents they have to sit through the prayers of a different religion.
- Game of Thrones Valentine's Day cards
- The UK devolved rights to Antarctica to Scotland - by mistake. Now they want them back.
- The BBC replaces the word "Palestine" with the sound of breaking glass. No, really.
- Firefox Roadmap for 2012
- This video is genius. Horrific, hilarious, genius. I can't say more than that without spoiling it.
- What If All the Cats in the World Suddenly Died?
- Chocolate + Apple = best valentine's present evar.
- Shitstorm 'best English gift to German language'
- Being left/right-handed affects your preferences
- Game Developer Gives 7-Year-Old Best Birthday Present Ever
- 9 Essential Skills Kids Should Learn
no subject
a) the government in the UK is not legally obligated to not endorse or participate in any religion. We _have_ a state religion, and some its highest members have reserved seats in the House Of Lords.
b) He clearly says that "It is clear to me that the latter is the preferable state of affairs." - which is the option where there are no prayers during the meeting.
I'm not sure where you're getting your bit from.
no subject
To wit, he says it was harmless and meaningless. Y'know, like telling the new woman in the office that she's hot and wolf-whistling her as she goes by - sure, there's LAWS saying that you can't do that, and you're violating her rights, but you're not HURTING her or preventing her from doing her JOB, so it's all OKAY and the woman who complains is just a whiny bitch.
Paragraph 7: "It is clear to me that the latter is the preferable state of affairs."
Oh, it would be NICER if he didn't harass the women around, but...
Paragraph 8 (assuming his quotation is included in paragraph 7): "There are lots of things in life I don’t agree with. But I am a liberal and am not going to state portentously that the reading of the Daily Mail, believing that Margaret Thatcher was a good thing or supporting a football club (any football club, since you ask) have no place in the council chamber."
... but he damn well has a right to harass them and their right to not be harassed doesn't matter.
At which point I gave up on him, again.
no subject
Equating this to harrassing women seems to me to be ridiculous. I'm not sure where you're getting that from either.
no subject
It is so weird to occasionally be confronted with the fact that other countries have no guarantees of religious freedom.
Equating this to harrassing women seems to me to be ridiculous. I'm not sure where you're getting that from either.
Do you accept, in general, that objectivication and nullification and expectations of gender roles and dismissal of all objections as "irrational" and "shrill" is offensive to women? And that much of the time, this behaviour is threatening? And that, despite this, there are still people who say "sheesh, those broads should stop whining and learn to take a joke! I'm not offended so they aren't allowed to be!"?
Do you accept, in general, that constant expectations of heteronormativity and outraged expressions of disgust at homosexuals, is offensive to homosexuals? And that much of the time, this behaviour is threatening? And that, despite this, there are still people who say "well, if you'd just made different choices, you wouldn't be at such a high risk of suicide!"?
What that dude said was the equivalent, aimed at the nonreligious. And it's common, and it's everywhere, and it carries a lot of the same weight.
no subject
Harrassment is something I consider to require intent - the state of religion entitlement strikes me as being more like the general existence of patriarchy, where people make assumptions about what is reasonably behaviour. But _mostly_ in the UK it's not there to deliberately keep people down. Obviously, sometimes it is, and I object to that a lot more strongly.
no subject
Interesting. Do you know the phrase "hostile work environment", in the context of harassment cases?
the state of religion entitlement strikes me as being more like the general existence of patriarchy, where people make assumptions about what is reasonably behaviour.
Except the existence of unconscious and unintended bigoted behaviour can *and should* be correctly recognised as harassment. "It's just the patriarchy" is a reason to not have recognised it before, it is NOT a valid reason to keep doing it.
But _mostly_ in the UK it's not there to deliberately keep people down. Obviously, sometimes it is, and I object to that a lot more strongly.
And you don't think the council prayers, voluntary or not, officially part of the proceedings or simply something that the majority group does, are anything *except* a way of creating an us-vs-them in-group out-group mentality? And that there isn't going to be pressure to attend and pay lip service, or punishment for nonattendance?
Because, fundamentally, that's what ceremonial prayer in nonreligious groups *is*, every time - a way of defining the in and the out. It's why Jehovah's Witness children are required by their religion to leave school classrooms when the national anthem is played - because their church works hard to ensure that they are different and "other" to the other children, so they form fewer out-group bonds. It's why Mormons and Scientologists and Amish and JWs "shun" people who leave the church - the threat of losing all your social contacts (see also: why they make you an outsider in the first place) is the threat they hold not only over you, but over everyone else who thinks they might be like you.
And that's why prayers are required at a legislative session: To ensure that everyone present knows who the in and the out are. And now that it's formally illegal to COMPEL group participation, it's gone to "voluntary but we will KNOW and we will JUDGE" participation.