Nov. 7th, 2008
(no subject)
Nov. 7th, 2008 10:39 amBad: having a stroke.
Worse: It blinds you.
Worse still: You're 4.5km up in the air at the time. Oh, and you're the pilot. Of a one-person aircraft.
(The RAF scrambled a fighter to bring him down. And they did! But still!)
Worse: It blinds you.
Worse still: You're 4.5km up in the air at the time. Oh, and you're the pilot. Of a one-person aircraft.
(The RAF scrambled a fighter to bring him down. And they did! But still!)
This is really quite pissing me off.
Nov. 7th, 2008 02:19 pmNot to pick on ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
kittikattie because I quite like her, but this came from her journal post of this morning:
Now, I've cut the rest of the links and discussion, because they aren't important to my point. I'm not addressing the problems inherent in blaming black people for disproportionately voting Yes, when that disproportionality comes only from a single poll with only arguable statistical value and when, even if the poll is true, it means that black voters accounted for 7% of the 51% it passed by, versus 3% against. If black voters had gone even 50/50 yes/no, would it have failed? Yes, but it also would have failed if *white* voters hadn't also been about 50% bigots, and when blacks are 10% of the total vote, it's awfully hard to make "that 50%+1 is your fault" stick.
My point is about the two that got quoted first, the two I've quoted above.
Yes on 8 did massive organizing in POC communities. No on 8? barely a blip on the radar screen
SAY WHAT?
The No on 8 campaign lost this issue with their assumptions and prejudice
OH NO YOU DID NOT.
But yes. Yes they did.
They both just argued that Prop 8 passed with large minority support because *their advertising had more minorities in it*.
They both just argued that People Of Colour were *right* to vote to strip civil rights from a minority group *because the No campaign didn't target them specifically*. Because the No campaign, which was necessarily an ad-hoc thing starting *after* the measure got added to the ballot, didn't "reach out" enough to non-white groups.
Fuck the advertising money and quality. This was a vote to REMOVE CIVIL RIGHTS FROM A MINORITY. Saying that "outreach" and "advertising" influenced votes is to say that those voters are happy to *remove civil rights from minorities* if they're just asked to nicely enough.
It's disgusting, and so are the people who make the "oh, the bigot's outreach was better, you have only yourselves to blame" argument as a justification for homophobia.
kittikattie because I quite like her, but this came from her journal post of this morning:Not even two days later, and people are blaming Prop 8's passing on PoC.
Other people are saying it, and since I can't say it well, have their links.
http://ladyjax.livejournal.com/603663.html?style=mine
"Apparently, Black people are to blame for Proposition 8 passing. You heard it right: it's our fault. We went out and voted for Obama but gave a shaft to gay people.
If anyone saw the commercials for the No on 8 campaign here in California, then you know that the few times when they did show people in them, they were overwhelmingly white. The Yes on 8 campaign? Busted out with a clever commercial (and I'm gonna call it clever because it sure as hell was), that showed a Black preacher, a Latino gentleman (you couldn't tell what he was doing but he was positioned Joe Regular) and then a white woman with a child. They hit the high notes: church, San Francisco judges (boo, bad!) , and 'what do we tell the kids?'
Yes on 8 did massive organizing in POC communities. No on 8? barely a blip on the radar screen."
*~*~*
http://black-pearl-10.livejournal.com/660201.html?style=mine
"The No on 8 campaign lost this issue with their assumptions and prejudice. I got sick of not seeing any commercials at first, then of seeing commercials that made no mention LGBT people, then seeing commercials that equated it with other civil rights issues far too late in the campaign to be effective. I wonder if anything was even actively done to reach out to show folks in the rural areas of this state how this effects real people, or if they just thought that "those people" were far too ignorant to bother with."
Now, I've cut the rest of the links and discussion, because they aren't important to my point. I'm not addressing the problems inherent in blaming black people for disproportionately voting Yes, when that disproportionality comes only from a single poll with only arguable statistical value and when, even if the poll is true, it means that black voters accounted for 7% of the 51% it passed by, versus 3% against. If black voters had gone even 50/50 yes/no, would it have failed? Yes, but it also would have failed if *white* voters hadn't also been about 50% bigots, and when blacks are 10% of the total vote, it's awfully hard to make "that 50%+1 is your fault" stick.
My point is about the two that got quoted first, the two I've quoted above.
Yes on 8 did massive organizing in POC communities. No on 8? barely a blip on the radar screen
SAY WHAT?
The No on 8 campaign lost this issue with their assumptions and prejudice
OH NO YOU DID NOT.
But yes. Yes they did.
They both just argued that Prop 8 passed with large minority support because *their advertising had more minorities in it*.
They both just argued that People Of Colour were *right* to vote to strip civil rights from a minority group *because the No campaign didn't target them specifically*. Because the No campaign, which was necessarily an ad-hoc thing starting *after* the measure got added to the ballot, didn't "reach out" enough to non-white groups.
Fuck the advertising money and quality. This was a vote to REMOVE CIVIL RIGHTS FROM A MINORITY. Saying that "outreach" and "advertising" influenced votes is to say that those voters are happy to *remove civil rights from minorities* if they're just asked to nicely enough.
It's disgusting, and so are the people who make the "oh, the bigot's outreach was better, you have only yourselves to blame" argument as a justification for homophobia.
netdef has the details, but the short version is this:It's now possible to search for a journal by the registering email address. Your journal is searchable by default. This means that, even if your email address is private, someone entering that email address into a search will find your journal.
This does nobody any good as far as finding your email address from your journal. Finding your journal from your email address, on the other hand, just became trivial, until you change your settings to turn this feature off.
If you are using a crappy browser, do not click on http://bringvictory.com no matter who sends you the link and no matter what they say it contains.
