Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The March of Dimes Syndrome

city-journal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 125 posts

Re: The March of Dimes Syndrome

#111

Post by TulliusCicero »

Georgelemental wrote: post #100
TulliusCicero wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's like the difference between refusing to sell cakes to white people, and refusing to bake a cake for a white nationalist event. This comparison is beyond ridiculous. Being gay isn't an ideological choice, it's an inherent property of the people involved. If someone's a dwarf, you gonna say "well it's not that they were unwilling to bake cakes for little people, they just refused to provide a service for somethi…

> Being gay isn't an ideological choice But marrying someone of the same sex is . It's perfectly possible for someone who is homosexual to marry a partner of the opposite sex, and vice-versa. (And of course, many people are bisexual!)

Gentleman, the reasoning of the social conservatives:

> Marrying someone of the same sex is an ideological choice, you see, completely divorced from being, y'know, gay

This is how stupid they think everyone listening to them is.

Re: The March of Dimes Syndrome

#112

Post by Thoreandan »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #23

The publication seems to be Pink Slime. It's a facade for a conservative think-tank, started by William Casey, CIA director under Ronald Reagan. The name and format are designed to mimic local journalism. John Marion Tierney is an American journalist and a contributing editor to City Journal, the Manhattan Institute's quarterly publication. City Journal is a public policy magazine and website, published by the conser…

Related, found after I saw him opining on 'activists moving goalposts':

(2004) https://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/the_problem_with_john_ti...

(2011) https://slate.com/human-interest/2011/02/what-the-new-york-t...

Re: The March of Dimes Syndrome

#113

Post by _carbyau_ »

aprilthird2021 wrote: post #45
_carbyau_ wrote: post #24

"So activists have moved the goalposts once again. It is no longer enough for conservative Christians to tolerate same-sex marriage—now they must be legally required to bake cakes and design web pages for the weddings." The article lost me here. I mean, I'd love to say I took the above quote out of a surrounding context that explains it more fully and sheds more light but I can't. Instead I find more exasperation tha…

> They are "legally required" to treat some people like all the other people their business supports in public - to do otherwise is the definition of segregation. But of course, segregation is allowed in some circumstances. Like a women only gym is common sense even if it's segregation, so too is tackle football being only for men. Racial segregation is more universally decried in almost all forms (except acting a pa…

> We're still figuring it out.

Not really. Some people are just still catching up.

Re: The March of Dimes Syndrome

#114

Post by cogman10 »

tivert wrote: post #94
cogman10 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The explanation is simple, conservative outrage over non-issues. To the first example, it's the same as whining about restaurants being forced to serve black patrons. If you are business open to the public you should serve the public. The slippery slope is beyond obvious. Can a doctor refuse to treat gay patients? A lawyer refuse to represent gay clients? A professor refuse to teach gay students? Regardless, conserva…

> The explanation is simple, conservative outrage over non-issues. IMHO, that's not an explanation, that's gaslighting. One of the simplest things to do if you do not want to listen to or address someone else's concerns is to simply deny they exist. That's often very easy to do, because those concerns genuinely do not exist from perspective of the person doing the denying , especially in today's polarized and politic…

No, it isn't.

Remember a few years back when CRT was all the conservative outrage? What about a few years before that when political correctness was the big boogieman? How about the terrorism fearmongering?

The conservative movement is one that is CONSTANTLY creating and forgetting outrages. If you've paid it any attention over the years you recognize the constant cycles it goes through freaking out over non-issues.

My state, Idaho, spent a million dollars doing a witch hunt trying to root out the CRT from classrooms. When they couldn't find anything, they tried desperately hard to hide the fact that they just wasted a bunch of state funds. This year, to help combat "migrant caravans" (A nice recurring theme of conservative outrage), my state sent the police down to the boarder to do... nothing, they can't do anything because state police from Idaho can't enforce boarder laws in Texas.

I was conservative long enough to know that that "empathy" is entirely one sided. No conservative is trying to "empathize" with any sort of notion deemed "woke". They are there to demonize. That's because the very nature of conservativism is to shut down anything that falls out of your current world view and resist change. It's a closed mindset. And it's one that conservative commentators exploit readily.

Once you see the pattern of conservative outrage, you can't unsee it. It's literally been a part of our modern political scene for decades (even centuries). It's nothing more than warmed over John Birtch society tripe.

Re: The March of Dimes Syndrome

#115

Post by Tao3300 »

paulmd wrote: post #107
Tao3300 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You must be replying in the wrong place. I didn't say it was okay. I said knowingly forcing someone to do this is a good way to get a shitty cake.

At the end of the day the person coming to a public accommodation for a service or good doesn’t and shouldn’t need to know anything about the religion of the owner. Why should they? What does that have to do with me buying a muffler from their store or a bouquet of flowers? Living in a world where we have to follow all the weird -isms of each individual proprietor (including, yes, racism) would be a social nightmare…

You must be replying in the wrong place. I didn't say anything about buying mufflers or flowers, or "all the weird -isms of each individual proprietor".

I'm not talking about broad principles and generalities here. The cake thing was weird. I wouldn't expect to get a very good cake by pressing the issue. I should think it much more likely I'd get some haphazardly-assembled, bare-minimum, passive-aggressive excuse for a cake.

Re: The March of Dimes Syndrome

#116

Post by beej71 »

anal_reactor wrote: post #76
Martinussen wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That entire paragraph is mostly a strawman, or, if you're feeling charitable, coming from an extremely surface-level awareness of the actual issues they're talking about.

Not necessarily. I can recall that a few years back I was browsing some right-wing forum and someone wrote "they will force you to have sex with them" which seemed absolutely ridiculous. Then I was browsing a left-wing forum and the concensus was "refusing to date black people is racism and therefore the worst thing you can possibly do, refusing to date transsexuals is kinda allowed but we'd rather see you do". I had…

Who is forcing you to date trans people? No one. They were not right. C'mon.

Re: The March of Dimes Syndrome

#117

Post by beej71 »

Georgelemental wrote: post #110
wtfwhateven wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The critical distinction here is that your sexual orientation does force you to marry someone of a particular sex. >It is perfectly possible for a homosexual (or bisexual) individual to marry someone of the opposite sex, and it is perfectly possible for a heterosexual to marry someone of the same sex. These seem contradictory? I guess you meant to say "doesn't force" >In contrast, if a black person gets married, tha…

> I guess you meant to say "doesn't force" Yes, sorry. > It would be perfectly fine for someone to refuse to bake a cake for a mixed race couple. It would be legal to refuse to bake a cake celebrating an interracial marriage. Not "fine"—it would be morally wrong, and if an establishment did this I would boycott them for it—but it would be constitutionally protected speech.

> It would be legal to refuse to bake a cake celebrating an interracial marriage.

Is this true? It seems like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would apply. (That law protects against racial discrimination, but doesn't protect the LGBTQ folks.)

Re: The March of Dimes Syndrome

#118

Post by beej71 »

lovidico wrote: post #29

The author of this article evidently is ignorant to the current state of the world. Simply having the existence of a group become no longer illegal doesn't mean that rights are guaranteed at all. Groups advocating for women's and LGBTQI rights have continued to exist despite advances because groups working to undo everything they have achieved also continue to exist. There is obvious evidence of this - women's and LG…

Seemed pretty obvious reading it. I don't understand why this isn't flagged on Hacker News for multiple reasons, and I'm disappointed it isn't.

Re: The March of Dimes Syndrome

#119

Post by beej71 »

> I later learned that a term exists for this phenomenon—the March of Dimes syndrome—

I'm having trouble determining where this term was actually coined. In my search so far, it seems to certainly be popularized entirely by this author quite recently. I'd like a counterexample if anyone has one, because this smells.

Re: The March of Dimes Syndrome

#120

Post by gampat »

beej71 wrote: post #116
anal_reactor wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not necessarily. I can recall that a few years back I was browsing some right-wing forum and someone wrote "they will force you to have sex with them" which seemed absolutely ridiculous. Then I was browsing a left-wing forum and the concensus was "refusing to date black people is racism and therefore the worst thing you can possibly do, refusing to date transsexuals is kinda allowed but we'd rather see you do". I had…

Who is forcing you to date trans people? No one. They were not right. C'mon.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN